# UNITED STATES | High Speed Rail



## Prestonian

odegaard said:


> Sounds like a great idea. I wouldn't mind making the same sell if I was a politician running for office. But where's the money going to come from?


If the US can't afford it then frankly who can? I'm was pro the war and everything but is a $400bn defence budget not a bit excessive. Syphon about $10bn dollars from it (or other areas perhaps?) and you could at least begin to build a decent HSR network in the NE corridor. Build new separate lines just for passengers so that some of the trains safety restrictions can be reduced allowing 'off the shelf' european trainsets to be purchased. Hell one novel idea may be to put up taxes! Perhaps tax gasoline to a similar extent as other countries and you'd soon raise enough, you may even get a double dividend in terms of protecting the environment through a reduction in fuel consumption and a good sustainable transport system. If it worked well the cost savings to businesses of reduced traffic congestion may even offset the costs (esp in a region as prosperous as the one we're talking about).

It isn't impossible and it doesn't have to be difficult, the money can be found esp in the USA which is afterall the wealthiest nation on the planet. It's about having the will to do it, its about explaining to the public how it may be beneficial (environment for starters). The US has massive potential for HSR, finding room for an HSR route shouldn't prove too difficult. They could simply go alongside the highways.

I know this post readas as very anti US which is very unlike me. I just think that as far as transport, and esp the effects of transport on the environment goes, the US has got it very wrong. I don't see that the US has any excuses, esp financial ones!

@odegaard, this mini rant wasn't aimed at you, your quote just inspired me. It seems you are pro HSR too, so get out there and run for office!


----------



## DiggerD21

Prestonian said:


> I know this post readas as very anti US which is very unlike me.


No, it isn't anti-Us. It is just a fair criticism.


----------



## GVNY

As a short lived operator of the trainset, I must disagree with the majority of the opinions on this thread. The Acela was a breakthrough of technology on the NEC, and has really paved the way for new high speed trainsets. Sure, the sets failed sometimes, but what do you people expect when Amtrak recieves ill fated subsidies from the government? A billion dollars is not nearly enough to operate a railroad, pay the crews, renovate bridges, tunnels tracks, rebuild wrecked rails, railcars and locomotives, and every other responsibility the railroad must pay for. For as long as Acela has been in operation, her record has been great considering all she has to work with. And if she was given the monies needed to be a success, she could have been a phenomenon in North American railroading. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Acela deserves to be praised.


----------



## DonQui

TRZ said:


> I think you're out of the loop, Bombardier does all kinds of transportation, their jets are just the most expensive part of their business and so is the most well known. They started by inventing the snowmobile and branched out in everywhichway from there. Bombardier is one of the top in the world for trains. Visit their website to see what I mean. www.bombardier.com


Keep mind that in the case of the Spanish trainsets, it was also the Spanish train manufacturing firm TALGO (one of the first companies to expand the use of articulated trainsets) that made the "Duck."


----------



## DonQui

GVNY said:


> As a short lived operator of the trainset, I must disagree with the majority of the opinions on this thread. The Acela was a breakthrough of technology on the NEC, and has really paved the way for new high speed trainsets. Sure, the sets failed sometimes, but what do you people expect when Amtrak recieves ill fated subsidies from the government? A billion dollars is not nearly enough to operate a railroad, pay the crews, renovate bridges, tunnels tracks, rebuild wrecked rails, railcars and locomotives, and every other responsibility the railroad must pay for. For as long as Acela has been in operation, her record has been great considering all she has to work with. And if she was given the monies needed to be a success, she could have been a phenomenon in North American railroading. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Acela deserves to be praised.


I do not blame the ACELA at all. I blamed failed federal government transport policies for the faults.


----------



## odegaard

I'm somewhat confused...is Acela dead? Or is it simply being repaired right now?


----------



## Palal

It will be back in service by summer.


----------



## samsonyuen

Glad to see that Amtrak is committed to bringing back Acela. Will it ever be expanded elsewhere? SF-SD corridor or the Midwest or Florida (whose HST plan seems dead in the water)? I think those are the only other areas that could support it. Right now anyway.
_____________________
Acela Trains May Return by Summer 
Service Restoration To Be Gradual as Repairs Are Made
By Mike Musgrove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page E01

Amtrak said yesterday that it expects to have its high-speed Acela Express trains running again by summer but did not offer a specific timetable for restoring full service on the high-speed premium line, which was suspended last week because of a brake problem.

Under a new schedule announced yesterday, Amtrak said it plans to add 13 Metroliner trains between Washington and New York starting Monday to help make up for the Acela's lost capacity. The Acela typically made 15 trips each weekday between the two cities and 11 trips between New York and Boston. The railroad said it is gathering train cars from across the country to bulk up its Northeast corridor fleet.

Amtrak chief executive David L. Gunn said Acela trains will return to service as they are repaired. "The trains will come back gradually," he said. "They will not come back all at once."

Amtrak shut down the Acela line last Thursday night after discovering millimeter-sized cracks in brake components during routine testing.

The cause of the cracks is still unknown. William L. Crosbie, senior vice president of operations at Amtrak, said Amtrak still does not have an explanation for what caused cracks in about 300 out of the 1,440 disk-brake rotors in the 20-train Acela fleet. He said a team of engineers and metallurgists is evaluating the defect.

Both Crosbie and David Slack, a spokesman for the train's manufacturer, Bombardier Inc., said the part will probably require a redesign.

"With 300 disks with cracks in them, there's an issue and I think everybody on the face of the planet is aware of that," Slack said. "At the end of the day, we need to find a permanent fix. Just ordering more of the same part isn't the answer."

Slack said that the now-cracked disk-brake rotors were expected to last about 1 million miles before needing replacement. He figured that the Acela parts had gotten "half a million miles, maybe 600,000" miles of use.

Each Acela train has 72 brakes, but Crosbie said there are only 70 replacement disks available.

Montreal-based Bombardier is working with its suppliers, Knorr and Wabco, to get enough replacement parts to restore Acela service, Slack said, but the company does not know how long that will take.

Unlike Amtrak's other trains -- the Metroliner and regional trains -- the Acela fleet is maintained by the consortium of companies that was contracted to build it, Montreal-based Bombardier and Alstom. Amtrak is scheduled to take over maintenance of Acela trains next year, Gunn said.

Gunn said he did not expect that Amtrak will have to pay for the fix because the trains are still under warranty from Bombardier and Alstom.

When service was initially suspended, Amtrak officials said it would be down until today. On Monday, the railroad ran one Acela train between Washington and New York, but it halted the service again when mechanics discovered at the end of the trip that the wheels on one side of the cars were more worn than those on the other side.

Crosbie said the wheel wear on that train was a routine maintenance issue, unrelated to the brake problem. But it convinced him that it was too much trouble to run Acela trains again until a comprehensive solution to the brake problem was found.

Gunn said the increased schedule of Metroliner trains "should allow us to retain the lion's share" of revenue that the Acela line brings in for the railroad.

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about the loss of the trains," he said. "Ridership on the [Northeast] corridor is growing, and the Acela provides a significant amount of capacity," he said.

But Gunn also said he does not expect to lose many Amtrak customers as a result of the suspended Acela service because there had already been some migration by passengers from Acela trains to the less-expensive Metroliner trains. He noted that Metroliner trips offer "almost the same premium service" and sometimes are only 10 minutes slower than the higher-priced Acela trains.

Howard Kipen, a business traveler about to hop on a Metroliner train on his return trip to New York City yesterday afternoon, was not troubled by having to ride a different train than usual. Kipen said the only drawbacks of taking a Metroliner instead of his scheduled Acela train were that he had to call Amtrak to rebook his ticket and that it was less comfortable to work on his laptop computer in the Metroliner trains.

Still, he lamented the struggling status of the railroad, which has lost $500 million each year for the past 10 years. "I think it's sad that they're in this state," he said. "This is the only part of the country where you can travel efficiently by train -- and it's broke."


----------



## digitaljoe

Acela leaving Manhattan.
Source:AP Photo

It was a prudent move on the part of Amtrak to suspend service until the brake issue is resolved. After all, look at what happened to the ICE train in Germany. A derailment like that in the congested Northeast Corridor would be a disaster.


----------



## Palal

samsonyuen said:


> Glad to see that Amtrak is committed to bringing back Acela. Will it ever be expanded elsewhere? SF-SD corridor or the Midwest or Florida (whose HST plan seems dead in the water)? I think those are the only other areas that could support it. Right now anyway.


If we get something betwene SF (or Sac) and LA/SD, it may not exactly be Acella, because they're talking about 200+mph speeds. I don't know how fast acella was designed for.


----------



## samsonyuen

April 24, 2005

Acela, Built to Be Rail's Savior, Bedevils Amtrak at Every Turn

By JAMES DAO 
his article was reported by James Dao, Matthew L. Wald and Don Phillips and written by Mr. Dao.

WASHINGTON, April 23 - It was called the American Flyer, and its goals were ambitious: to speed train travel between Northeastern cities, steal customers from air shuttles, provide the model for a nationwide fast rail system and help its deficit-prone parent, Amtrak, earn a profit.

"These trains will enable Amtrak to carry its customers into the 21st century aboard 21st-century trains," said Thomas M. Downs, Amtrak's president, at a 1996 ceremony announcing a $611 million contract for the new trains.

Today that train is called the Acela, and instead of being Amtrak's savior, it has become a frustrating burden. On Wednesday, the company announced plans to sideline all 20 Acelas until summer to replace cracked brakes. It was the third major disruption of the high-speed service since it came on line in 2001.

The tale of the Acela is in many ways the story of Amtrak itself, where political pressures, tight budgets, contested regulations and design changes turned a high-speed train into something slower, more expensive and less reliable than what Amtrak had promised.

A reconstruction of Acela's history involving dozens of interviews and a review of court documents and other records shows that Amtrak was under intense pressure to deliver its new train as quickly as possible. And that rush to do something bigger and more complicated than the railroad had ever done led to a series of missteps that many experts believe contributed to the problems that have plagued the Acela to this day.

"There is an old saying in the acquisition world: you want it bad, you get it bad," said Tom Till, who led the Amtrak Reform Council, a group created by Congress to study the railroad's problems. "That's exactly what happened with Acela."

Before the first train was built, the Federal Railroad Administration required it to meet crash safety standards that senior Amtrak officials considered too strict. That forced the manufacturers, Bombardier Inc. of Canada and GEC Alstom of France, to make the trains twice as heavy as European models. Workers dubbed the trains "le cochon" - the pig.

Some experts have speculated that the added weight contributed to a series of problems, including the latest one, with Acela's wheels, brakes and shock-absorbing assemblies. Federal regulators are still investigating the cause of those problems.

During construction, Amtrak also discovered that the coaches were four inches too wide to use their full tilting mechanisms, which allowed the trains to speed around curves. As a result, trip times were slower.

Once the first trains were delivered, Amtrak - which had counted on the Acela to wean it off federal subsidies - pushed the trains into service without extensive testing.

"The company at that time, as it always is, was under intense pressure to produce results and revenue," said George Warrington, Amtrak's president from 1998 to 2002 and now executive director of New Jersey Transit.

All told, Amtrak ordered 9,000 engineering changes that increased costs, delayed production - just selecting draperies for the windows took two years - and added thousands of pounds of weight, the French-Canadian consortium said in a lawsuit filed in 2001. Amtrak argued that the manufacturers produced shoddy equipment and an outdated interior design, all behind schedule. The litigation was settled out of court in 2004.

The design problems, breakdowns, production delays and litigation have caused some rail experts to question why Amtrak selected a bid that involved an essentially new design.

One reason, current and former Amtrak officials say, was that the ideal off-the-shelf train did not exist. But another reason was money: the French-Canadian consortium offered the lowest bid and best financing deal, one heavily subsidized by the Canadian government. And cutting costs was paramount to Amtrak.

"They didn't have the cash," said Amtrak's president, David Gunn, who took office after the contract was negotiated and the trains had begun running. "There wouldn't be anything if they hadn't done it this way."

Despite its many problems, Acela remains Amtrak's most successful service. Until last week, it was generating about $300 million a year, enough to cover its operating costs. Ridership had been increasing, and surveys showed passengers liked its quiet coaches and plush amenities.

But even Mr. Gunn has said openly that the train was poorly conceived and badly built, and he has vowed never to buy another one.

"If you're buying equipment, you want evolutionary change, not revolutionary change," he said this week. "For us, this was revolutionary."

With Amtrak running annual deficits of over $1 billion, the Bush administration has called for ending federal subsidies and breaking the company up through bankruptcy. Some Amtrak supporters in Congress worry that their efforts to maintain federal support for the railroad has been weakened by the Acela's continuing problems.

"For those of us who care about Amtrak, the Acela mess couldn't come at a worse time," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "It makes our job harder to fight for it."

Search for a Fast Train

A high-speed rail system had long been the dream of Amtrak officials. W. Graham Claytor Jr., Amtrak's president from 1982 to 1993, envisioned a system of sleek trains that would be tested on the corridor between Boston and Washington, adapted to the Midwest and the South, and eventually run down the spine of the California coast.

Inspired by the successes of Japan's bullet train and high-speed networks across France, Germany and Spain, Congress also became involved. In 1976, and again in 1992, it authorized billions of dollars to improve the railbeds and electrical systems along the Northeast Corridor. And it set a goal that Amtrak must provide Boston-to-New York service in under three hours.

It was more than an arbitrary benchmark. Marketing experts said that travelers would consistently choose to fly, even with the added costs and inconveniences of traveling to airports and waiting for flights, over train rides lasting longer than three hours. And bankers demanded that Amtrak reduce its train times to receive financing.

"Literally," said Joseph Vranich, the author of a book about Amtrak, "minutes matter."

To reach that goal, Amtrak repaired bridges, replaced wooden ties with concrete ones and electrified the track from New Haven to Boston. But it did not have the billions of dollars required for changes that would allow trains to travel over 150 miles an hour consistently: constructing straighter tracks and replacing aging overhead electric lines.

Instead, they focused on acquiring a new train to replace Amtrak's aging fleet of Metroliners, which were built in the 1960's.

In 1992, Amtrak began testing two European trains between Washington and New York: the Intercity Express, or ICE train, from Germany and the X2000 from Sweden. Some Amtrak officials thought the X2000 was well suited for the Northeast Corridor because of a tilting mechanism that reduced centrifugal force on passengers when the train sped around curves. The line between Boston and New York is among the most winding in the country.

But the Swedish company decided not to bid on the contract because it did not want to make the changes required by federal regulators to adapt its lightweight European train to America, said a former senior Amtrak official who asked not to be identified because he has taken another job in the transportation industry.

At the same time, the new Republican majority in Congress was pressing Amtrak to become self-sufficient. The railroad's board was looking for a high-speed train that could help achieve that goal by attracting new riders without costing too much. Bombardier-Alstom's bid seemed to promise all that.

The companies proposed adapting the fast French TGV train, which Alstom had designed, with tilt technology. They pledged to assemble the cars with American workers in Plattsburgh, N.Y., and Barre, Vt. They agreed to maintain the trains for a relatively low price. And they offered, with the assistance of the Canadian government, a generous package of loans worth more than $600 million to help Amtrak buy the trains, a virtual no-money-down deal.

"We were under the gun" to cut costs, said Tommy G. Thompson, who was chairman of the Amtrak board from 1998 through 2001. "The Acela was a vehicle by which we thought we could reach self-sufficiency."

But, he added, "We had problems with Bombardier from the get-go."

When Amtrak began seeking bids for a new train, it hoped to avoid creating "some customized product that looked like a Defense Department project," Mr. Downs, the former Amtrak chairman, said in an interview. "But it didn't work that way."

Instead, in Bombardier-Alstom, Amtrak had chosen a company that had to design an almost entirely new train. In addition, Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration, which oversees the railroad, began issuing thousands of design demands. Some were trivial, ranging from wall coverings to door chimes. But others were not.

'High-Velocity Bank Vault'

Unlike European and Japanese high-speed trains, most of which run on dedicated lines, Amtrak shares the Northeast Corridor with bulky, slow freight trains. The railroad agency has long required that passenger trains be heavier than European ones to withstand crashes.

Bombardier knew its new train would have to meet those requirements, a spokeswoman said. But Mr. Downs said he asked the rail agency to ease that standard for the new high-speed trains, to no avail.

"They decided they wanted to make this the safest train in the world," he said. "All my engineers thought the rules were nuts."

He dubbed the Acela "the high-velocity bank vault."

Railroad Administration officials contend that Amtrak did not object to the safety requirements.

The result was that the new train weighed more than double the French TGV train on which it was based. The added weight did not slow the new train down, as it ran up to 170 miles an hour in tests.

But several former Amtrak officials say the suspension system on the Acela may have been designed for a lighter train. "Heavier trains are harder to get started, and they are harder to stop," said Mr. Downs, noting the brake problems.

When asked if the problems were the result of marrying a European underbody to an American car, Robert D. Jameson, the acting federal railroad administrator, said that the cause was still under investigation.

"To the extent you take something built for another purpose and associate with the car bodies on these trailers and power cars, and they're not compatible, then potentially you have problems," Mr. Jameson said.

While the trains were being assembled, Amtrak discovered an embarrassing error, one that would provide fodder for late-night talk shows. Engineers realized that the car bodies were four inches too wide for their tilt systems to work properly.

If two Acela trains were going around a curve in opposite directions, and the tilt system on one broke, the trains could brush against each other. Limiting their tilt meant the trains would have to run at slower speeds around bends, but Amtrak said it would still meet its goals for trip times.

The consortium blamed Amtrak for making a sudden change in its safety requirements. But David J. Carol, Amtrak's vice president of high-speed rail, said at the time that "Bombardier has never been particularly candid with us about how this happened."

Consortium officials also complained about excessive meddling by Amtrak on the interior design. But a former Amtrak official, who asked that his name be withheld because he did not want to be publicly involved in the dispute, said railroad officials believed that the interior was being given short shrift, even though the train was supposed to attract sophisticated customers.

"It looked like a commuter car from the 1970's," the official said of the manufacturer's original plan.

Even Amtrak's initial $16 million marketing campaign for the new train drew criticism.

In the summer of 1999, the company announced that it had dropped "American Flyer" in favor of Acela, a fusion of "acceleration" and "excellence" devised by a New York consultant. (When he became Amtrak president, Mr. Gunn ridiculed the train's name, often opening speeches with a joke: "What is Acela? It's the room under the first floor.")

Rather than emphasizing the train's speed or convenience, the first advertisements featured dreamlike images with offbeat captions. Some riders told The Philadelphia Inquirer that one advertisement, picturing a man with an overcoat around his head and the words, "Depart from your inhibitions," made them think of a flasher.

The campaign was intended to build excitement for Acela's scheduled arrival in late 1999. But it ended well before the train's inaugural run, which was delayed for a year because testing uncovered cracked bolts and a tendency of the wheels to oscillate on the rails, a dangerous condition known as "truck hunting."

When the Acela finally made its first trip from Washington's Union Station on Dec. 12, 2000, Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater said it would "transform transportation along the Northeast Corridor" and "serve as an engine for economic growth."

The train arrived in Boston 6 hours 43 minutes later, just 12 minutes late.

Today, Acela is capable of reaching 150 m.p.h., but travels that fast only on an 18-mile stretch in Rhode Island and a 10-mile stretch in Massachusetts. It has not achieved Congress's goal of a three-hour trip from Boston to New York, typically making the run in 3 hours 20 minutes. And about a quarter of the time the trains are late, recent Amtrak statistics show.

Now, with the train out of service, frustrations are at a boiling point on the Metroliners that Amtrak has deployed to replace the Acelas. On the jam-packed "Vermonter" that pulled out of Union Station on Friday afternoon, dozens of passengers were left standing in the aisles, sprawled across luggage and pushed against walls. By the time it reached New York, the bar car was out of wine, and the train was an hour behind.

"It's been horrible, horrible, horrible," said Debbie Sugiyama, 37. "But they had no problem taking our tickets and our money."

Trouble in Washington

Amtrak officials are confident that customers will flock back to the Acela once it returns to service, whenever that may be. Less certain is the railroad's future on Capitol Hill.

Created by Congress to be a for-profit private corporation, Amtrak is also required to provide a minimum level of intercity passenger service - even if that means maintaining unprofitable lines.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, underscored that conflicting mandate this past week. Defending Amtrak's money-losing long-distance trains, which serve her state, Ms. Hutchinson said, "My motto for passenger rails is 'national or nothing.' "

While Amtrak has some bipartisan support in Congress, it is also strongly disliked by a significant block of conservative lawmakers who view it as a poorly managed drain on the treasury and want it privatized.

Neither side can prevail, but they can fight to a stalemate. And the result is often that Amtrak receives enough to survive, but never quite enough to meet its needs for new equipment and better railways.

"The basic problem with Amtrak is that it has been on a starvation budget for 20 years," said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York.

The standoff in Congress makes it less likely that President Bush's proposal for radically restructuring the passenger rail system will gain traction on Capitol Hill. Representative John L. Mica, Republican of Florida, who strongly supports privatizing the railroad, said he is not optimistic about change.

"At some point, Congress and people in the Northeast Corridor are going to have to wake up and look at some serious alternatives to Amtrak," he said. "But maybe it hasn't gotten quite bad enough yet."


----------



## digitaljoe

AP Photo 

That was a good article...where was it published?
My take on Amtrak is the carrier does a pretty good job considering the low status granted to rail passenger travel versus air and automobile modes in the U.S. In spite of operating at a loss, Amtrak is able to maintain high levels of comfort and safety while offering affordable fares. I would support any legislative action to maintain a federally subsidized and nationally intact system. I believe that breaking up the system and awarding parts of it to private vendors is motivated by the politics of greed (like everything in D.C. these days) and that a such a privatization will come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers who will see safety and service decline in order to meet profits.


----------



## TRZ

digitaljoe said:


> AP Photo
> 
> That was a good article...where was it published?
> My take on Amtrak is the carrier does a pretty good job considering the low status granted to rail passenger travel versus air and automobile modes in the U.S. In spite of operating at a loss, Amtrak is able to maintain high levels of comfort and safety while offering affordable fares. I would support any legislative action to maintain a federally subsidized and nationally intact system. I believe that breaking up the system and awarding parts of it to private vendors is motivated by the politics of greed (like everything in D.C. these days) and that a such a privatization will come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers who will see safety and service decline in order to meet profits.


You may see a service decline to some extent, but I don't think you will see safety decline, because the company needs its reputation to stay high in order to attract business. There's actually more risk for safety hazards when the service is run by the government because they are mandated to service all areas equally (or something along that line), which is a hinderance to good safety standards with limited funds. Private companies are not so stupid.


----------



## digitaljoe

TRZ said:


> You may see a service decline to some extent, but I don't think you will see safety decline, because the company needs its reputation to stay high in order to attract business. There's actually more risk for safety hazards when the service is run by the government because they are mandated to service all areas equally (or something along that line), which is a hinderance to good safety standards with limited funds. Private companies are not so stupid.


I can see your point, regarding the inefficiency of federally mandated safety standards, yet I feel private companies are more motivated to cut corners when it comes to safety. Yes, they are not stupid, and even though they have a reputation to maintain, they can afford to fix the damage with, let’s say, a good public relations team. In the U.S., publicly owned transportation infrastructure is under much stricter guidelines than in the private sector. 








Metroliner traveling the Northeast Corridor, c. 1976.
Source: unknown


----------



## samsonyuen

digitaljoe, the article was from NY Times.


----------



## Frungy

Do freight trains actually use the track Acela travels on? I thought all New York-Boston traffic gets routed north through Albany then west... I've never seen a freight train between Boston and NYC. Or NYC to Washington, for that matter.


----------



## samsonyuen

Amtrak says Acela misjudged brakes

Published April 28, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS 
Amtrak President David Gunn said yesterday he thinks the makers of the Acela Express trains overestimated the life expectancy of their brake rotors, forcing Amtrak to pull the entire fleet out of service for repairs. 
"I believe they misjudged the life of the rotors," Mr. Gunn told the Associated Press during a break in a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Amtrak's fiscal 2006 budget. "Their life expectancy was less than they had planned, and they were caught without a supply." 
Helene Gagnon, a spokeswoman for Montreal-based Bombardier, Inc., said the brakes' disc face -- or front of the disc -- showed normal wear. What caused the cracks on the spokes of the brakes was under investigation and will take weeks to determine, Miss Gagnon said. 
When the train brakes are applied, the brake pads rub against the disc face, causing friction, she added. 
Bombardier and Alstom SA of France make the Acela trains and have said the brakes were supposed to last 1 million miles. The current Acela fleet had about half of that mileage, Mr. Gunn said. 
Mr. Gunn said the timetable for bringing back the Acela trains on a gradual basis was still this summer, adding that Bombardier and Alstom had yet to give Amtrak a delivery schedule for the brakes. 
Amtrak was forced to pull all of its 20 Acela trains out of service April 15 after finding millimeter-size cracks in 300 of the high-speed rail fleet's 1,440 disc brake rotors. Each Acela train has 72 brakes. 
The brake problem surfaced when a Federal Railroad Administration worker performed a routine inspection April 14 after a high-speed run to test whether Amtrak could speed up the Acela trains slightly on curves in New Jersey between Trenton and Newark. 
Amtrak's chief operating officer, Bill Crosbie, said last week that the brake part is unique to the Acela and that there was no active production line casting them. Mr. Crosbie said the companies had fewer than 70 disc brakes in stock. 
Miss Gagnon said the number of discs on hand when the Acela problem arose was "sufficient for normal maintenance purposes on the Acela fleet." 
"We understand that this is not a normal circumstance, and we are working with our suppliers to obtain more brake discs and get the fleet back in service as quickly as possible," she said. 
Amtrak has had to replace its Acela train routes with slower trains to operate its Washington-to-Boston trips. 
Acela Express began operating in December 2000 and was billed as Amtrak's answer to high-speed rail. The trains run only along the Northeast Corridor, with top speeds of 150 mph. Acela trains can get from Washington to New York City in two hours and 48 minutes, while its regular fleet takes more than three hours.


----------



## hkskyline

*Bombardier Abandons North American High Speed Rail*

*Bombardier puts the brakes on N.A. high-speed train plans
Unit's president sees little appetite for it here - no projects are under discussion *
BERTRAND MAROTTE 
3 June 2005
The Globe and Mail

MONTREAL -- Bombardier Inc. has put on ice its once-ambitious plans for high-speed train travel in North America. 

André Navarri, president of Bombardier Transportation, said in an interview yesterday that there is little appetite for high-speed rail in North America, unlike in Europe and parts of Asia. 

“For the time being, there is no project which is close to being promoted,” he said. Asked about the potential for its once highly touted JetTrain technology in North America, he replied: “As there is no high-speed corridor for the time being, there is no JetTrain.” 

Bombardier Transportation spokeswoman Hélène Gagnon said later that Bombardier is no longer in discussions with any government bodies anywhere in North America regarding the funding of high-speed train travel. 

“There is no project of any kind in Canada or the United States that is the subject of discussions,” she said. 

Bombardier Transportation is the rail unit of the global plane and train maker. 

Montreal-based Bombardier had for the past several years been running a major campaign to spark interest in its high-speed train technology in the United States and Canada. 

A high-profile attempt to win approval in Florida for its 240-kilometre-an-hour JetTrain failed last November after taxpayers voted it down. 

And Bombardier, along with French partner Alstom SA, has been plagued by technical and other problems with their Acela Express train operated by Amtrak in the Washington-New York-Boston corridor, the only existing high-speed train in North America. 

“Is there a market in North America for a very high-speed train? It's a difficult issue,” Mr. Navarri said at corporate head office. 

While high-speed trains have staked out a place in the popular, well-established rail system of Europe, “it's a little more difficult to find the right [rail] corridors in North America,” he said. 

“We are still prepared to discuss the [high-speed] potential in North America, but in North America we will mainly focus on the mass transit market,” said Mr. Navarri, a former senior executive at Alstom who was hired last year by Bombardier to lead a sweeping restructuring at Bombardier Transportation. 

It is difficult to get all the players — especially governments — to agree on how best to develop high-speed train travel in North America, he added. 

“Up to now, it has not been possible to find this agreement, with the exception of Acela.” 

In Canada, Bombardier had high hopes for its JetTrain, particularly in the Quebec City-Windsor, Ont., corridor, and had been lobbying the federal government for financial assistance to upgrade the corridor at a cost of up to $3-billion. 

“Quebec City-Windsor for the time being is on ice, for financial reasons,” Ms. Gagnon said. 

Other city-to-city links that Bombardier had identified included Calgary-Edmonton, Chicago-St. Louis, Los Angeles-San Francisco and Orlando-Miami. 

Mr. Navarri said he is not disheartened by an embarrassing series of technical glitches, delivery delays and contractual disputes related to the Acela Express. 

He said he is confident that the latest snafu — the Acela was yanked out of service in April after cracks on brake components were discovered — will be amicably settled and won't degenerate into a legal brawl, as happened four years ago over costly design changes. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Navarri said he expects strong growth from Eastern European countries as they join the European Union and become eligible for funding to upgrade their aging rail equipment. 

Bombardier Transportation — the world's largest manufacturer of rail transportation equipment — also sees growth from the planned standardization of Europe's patchwork rail signalling system, as well as from the boosting of its services unit to about 30 per cent of revenue from 17 per cent today, he said. 

Outside Europe, China represents a huge potential market for Bombardier, Mr. Navarri said. 

He also said Bombardier Transportation's restructuring plan — announced last year — is on track and even ahead of schedule, with a work force reduction of about 15 per cent, to about 30,000 from more than 35,000 and the closing of seven facilities in Europe by the end of this year. 

“All these plans are starting to show good results, especially in terms of profitability,” and the rail unit should reach its target of 6-per-cent profit margins in the medium term as expected. 

Six per cent is not the ultimate goal, he added. 

“After that, we want to go even further.”


----------



## Vertigo

Too bad. Although much of the USA is too sparsely populated for high speed rail, there are a couple of corridors where it could do very well. Unfortunately that ain't happen either. 

One of the reasons include the safety rules of the American railroad administration (FRA). These rules are made to survive crashes and lead to very heavy trains -> perfect for the heavy freight trains which are common in the USA, but not economical for high speed trains. In all other countries, high speed trains have very light trains, which is possible due to advanced safety systems which prevent crashes in the first place. 

So, if the FRA would make a second safety ruleset, meant for high speed trains, high speed rail would become much more economical. Still of course a question if there would be enough political support for it, but such a thing would make chances higher at least.


----------



## Bitxofo

Bad news...


----------



## samsonyuen

June 12, 2005
Amtrak: Stuck in Its Tracks
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — Amtrak, it turns out, may be too sick to kill.

The national passenger railroad has never managed to pay its own way, absorbing $29 billion in federal aid over its 34-year history. That has made it a perennial target for budget-cutters and fiscal conservatives, who say that what Congress cobbled together in 1971 from the fading passenger operations of the major freight railroads was not a phoenix but a Frankenstein.

Now, the Bush administration is talking about forcing Amtrak to reorganize itself in bankruptcy. It's a strategy that an ordinary transportation company might employ to address problems like Amtrak's high costs and crushing debt and pension obligations. Several major airlines have tried it in recent years, some more than once.

But for Amtrak, bankruptcy would be poison. It wasn't Amtrak's doing, but the bankruptcy law covering railroads would provide it with hardly any benefits at all. To start with, Amtrak could not renounce its labor contracts unless it liquidates itself. So there is little hope of reducing costs in bankruptcy except by shedding operations.

Doing that won't help much either: unionized workers would still be entitled to severance payments of up to five years' wages, which would probably have to be made up by the federal treasury. Last week, a House committee heard testimony on why Amtrak even loses money selling tuna sandwiches for $4.50. Amtrak may be the only restaurant chain where every busboy has a pension plan, and the railroad says it can't run trains without feeding the people who ride them.

And the most unprofitable Amtrak operations, the long-distance trains, are also the ones that, politically, the railroad cannot live without. In public, the railroad counts how many stations and distant cities those trains serve, but its internal calculus includes how many congressional districts they run through. (Its one profitable train, the Acela, has not run since April because of mechanical problems.)

Amtrak's pension problem has a twist as well. Airlines and other companies have revamped or dumped their pension plans in bankruptcy, but the system for railroad workers is a unique pay-as-you-go retirement fund that resembles Social Security in miniature.

Along with the midcareer employees who transferred to Amtrak when it was created came responsibility for payments to the railroad retirement system to provide their benefits. The freight railroads' fear of that pension burden falling back on them has given them some incentive to support Amtrak's existence.

They also prefer the Amtrak they know to Mr. Bush's concept of competing private passenger operations. "Amtrak is composed of people who know railroads," said Peggy Wilhide, a spokeswoman for the American Association of Railroads.

Amtrak's main asset is the Northeast Corridor, the tracks connecting Washington, New York and Boston. The administration has discussed putting it in the hands of an interstate compact of some kind but the corridor needs so much work that it would be hard to give it away.

Similarly, Mr. Bush wants to give the states control over the long-distance trains outside the corridor by making them pay the operating deficits. The states are not volunteering for the honor.

If Amtrak goes bankrupt anyway, Congress could always step in to rescue, but the railroad says that might fall foul of the constitutional requirement that bankruptcy laws be "uniform."

Even if bankruptcy is unattractive, insolvency remains a concern for some lenders, says Clifford Black, an Amtrak spokesman. That makes projects more difficult to finance.

Lenders and vendors would be reassured by an appropriation for Amtrak, which is included in the current House budget resolution but not in the Senate version.

In a bit of poetic justice, the fate of Amtrak, with its perennial problems keeping to a schedule, is in the hands of Congress, whose on-time record for budgets is even worse.


----------



## samsonyuen

Amtrak poised to restore Acela service on limited basis to Boston
Move comes 3 months after brake woes sidelined trains
By Keith Reed, Globe Staff | July 22, 2005

Amtrak plans to restore the beleaguered Acela Express service to Boston tomorrow, more than three months after the last high-speed train pulled out of South Station, but with a fraction of the trips it used to have.

The rail carrier will operate only one daily Acela round trip from Boston, compared with six round trips between New York and Washington since Amtrak began phasing in its flagship service two weeks ago. There were 14 daily round trips from Boston before all 20 Acela trains were sidelined April 15 after cracks were discovered in their brake discs.

The first Acela train will arrive in Boston tomorrow afternoon, with its first departure from South Station at 11 a.m. on Sunday. From Boston, Acela travels to New York and Washington.

Since fewer than half of its Acela fleet is back in operation, Amtrak needed to run the trains where most of its passengers are, said Marcie Golgoski, an Amtrak spokeswoman.

''Right now we're putting the equipment where the largest demand is and where we can best serve the most passengers," she said. ''I have been given no indication that the service we previously had won't be reinstated. We're just trying to get on our feet."

About 78,600 passengers rode Acela between Boston and New York in March, the most recent full month in which the trains ran. That's less than half the ridership than between New York and Washington, where 169,000 people rode Acela, according to Amtrak.

Yesterday some passengers waiting for trains at South Station hailed the return of the high-speed train. Taking Acela was a faster trip to New York than Amtrak's regional trains and was a more convenient option than taking a shuttle flight to LaGuardia Airport in Queens and then taking a cab to Manhattan, said Carla Portelli.

''It's three and a half hours from door to door," she said. ''That's a lot better than getting a cab, going up in the air, coming down and getting in another cab."

Other passengers, though, didn't miss Acela as much. Amtrak passenger Andrea Chace said Acela's speed advantage -- it goes from Boston to New York in about 25 fewer minutes than conventional trains -- was not enough to justify the premium fares that Amtrak charged for the service. A one-way fare to New York on Acela typically costs about $99. A one-way fare on a regional train to New York starts at $69.

''I'm not a big fan," of Acela, Chace said. ''If it was a legitimate time difference, then maybe I would care."

Of the 20 Acela trains, eight have been outfitted with new brake discs and six of those have been deployed for service. Two others are being kept aside to replace other trains in emergencies such as a breakdown or derailment, while five out of the six trains running are being used for New York to Washington runs. One train will cover the entire Boston to Washington line.

Acela had been out of commission since Amtrak found more than 300 cracks in Acela's brake discs. Knorr Brake Corp., the discs' maker, and Bombardier Transportation, which leads the consortium of Acela manufacturers, have yet to determine a cause for the cracks.

To fix the problem, the companies decided to replace the cracked discs with discs of a different design that are supposedly less prone to cracking.

That doesn't convince Julia Cox, a native New Yorker who was riding an Amtrak regional train home from Boston yesterday.

''I am skeptical about the brakes," she said. ''What's next?"


----------



## Migman

*Florida HSR Version 2.0*

Copy + Paste from SkyscraperPage Forum.

---

The oft discussed bullet train may be on the fast track to construction again.

Voters repealed an amendment last November that would have funded a rail system in the state. But Bay News 9 has learned the high speed rail could be coming to the state.

State Senator Jim Sebesta, a long-time supporter of the bullet train, said it could be built without a cent from taxpayers.

Traffic jams are nothing new to Floridians, and at a population of about 17 million and growing everyday, some state lawmakers say we need to find a better way to get around.

Sebesta said when voters repealed the high speed rail amendment they didn't say they didn't want a high speed rail in Florida, they said it was too expensive for Florida taxpayers.

So Sebesta's taken a detour. He's been negotiating with four international companies interested in building a high speed rail system in the state entirely with private investment dollars.

"If you had asked me a year ago, I'd have said we had a one in 10
Bullet Train
Link Click here for more stories about the history of trying to fund the high speed rail.
chance of doing it. Now it's more seven in 10," Sebesta said.

Sebesta said the project would be run much like privately-owned railroads. The first leg would start in the Tampa area, then travel east to Orlando and down the southeast coast to Miami. Eventually it would stretch up to Jacksonville and over to Tallahassee.

Sebesta said his long range goal would be to connect Florida to Atlanta.

"I'm not talking about some clunky 100-125 mile per hour train," he said. "I'm talking about a full-fledged bullet train, that would go 350 miles per hour."

Sebesta said he's hopeful the project is on the fast track because it doesn't involve much governmental red tape.

"They don't need the government's help, per se, because they're paying for it," he said.

Travelers, however, would have to pay to ride it.
Voters have repealed the bullet train in the past because they would have had to fund it.

Sebesta said he can't name the four companies he's talking with because negotiations are ongoing. He said there's a good chance a deal could be struck within 18 months.

It's estimated the high speed rail system will cost about $20 billion. According to a study done by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), there are some numbers which could positively affect the public.

Building the first segment from Tampa to Orlando would create about 7,000 new jobs, raise property values by $950 million and create about $8.5 million in sales among Florida businesses.

http://baynews9.com/content/36/2005/11/21/129809.html


----------



## LtBk

That's good news.


----------



## philip

Migman said:


> "I'm not talking about some clunky 100-125 mile per hour train," he said. "I'm talking about a full-fledged bullet train, that would go 350 miles per hour."


I am sure he doesn't mean 350 miles per hour (=560 kilometers per hour), not even Maglev trains can go that fast. He must have meant 350 Kilometers per hour.



Migman said:


> Travelers, however, would have to pay to ride it.


Duh !!


I hope the bullet trains get built, even though Florida doesn't need it.


----------



## Frungy

Haha, local news always cracks me up.


----------



## wanderer34

*Philadelphia to Chicago high-speed line*

A high-speed line that would take four to five hours from Philadelphia to Chicago is a possibility and should be considered. The Acela from Boston to DC was a sucess, so there should be even greater sucess with a cross-country from Phila to Chicago.


----------



## UrbanSophist

That is a fantastic idea.


----------



## nomarandlee

Why Philly-Chicago and not NYC-Chicago?


----------



## mic of Orion

great idea kay:


----------



## ZimasterX

It would really be nice to see high speed rail in the US, and hopefully this idea may come true.


----------



## XCRunner

nomarandlee said:


> Why Philly-Chicago and not NYC-Chicago?


Yeah just have part of the Acela branch off in Philly. You could get on in DC, NYC, or Boston, then go to Philly and from there go through Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, and onto Chicago. Then it would branch into the north (onto Milwaukee, Twin Cities), and south (onto St. Louis, Kansas City). But we all know that will never happen. At least not any time soon. It would be really kick-ass though.


----------



## mr_storms

that would be coo, be probably wont happen unfortunately


----------



## Taller Better

Would be AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DonQui

Not going to happen. The cost of flying and the time saved would make this uncompetitive.

I say spend the money developing Chicago as a midwestern hub and New York City as a North Eastern hub. And also to make the ACELA actually high speed!


----------



## LochNESS

It's actually one of the many plans. There are also plans for a High Speed rail from Bayarea to LA. At this moment the Acela is already as fast as a plane from NY to DC as you don't have to check in and all that stuff. It's also more comfortable and you can still use your cellphone and laptop onboard. 

The main problem is the aged US railnetwork. It's not 'straight' enough to support the full speed. The Acela can't run on maximum speed as the NE-corridor is too bendy compaired to ICE or TGV tracks. 

Here you can see the proposed sections for High Speed Rail (2001) 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png


----------



## FM 2258

The only point I see for high-speed rail in the United States is for inter-city access to the airport. If you need to go further then catch a flight.


----------



## DonQui

FM 2258 said:


> The only point I see for high-speed rail in the United States is for inter-city access to the airport. If you need to go further then catch a flight.


The 30-40 million megalopolis that is the North East would beg to differ. Especially those of us who travel frequently in between DC, NYC, and Boston. 

California I see being a viable corridor as well.


----------



## nomarandlee

FM 2258 said:


> The only point I see for high-speed rail in the United States is for inter-city access to the airport. If you need to go further then catch a flight.



Thats not a real bad point actually. For people to really use high speed rail beyond 500 miles as a reasonable alternative in the states I think high speed would have to push +200mph (at least close to half the speed of air travel for long distances). For this you might almost be better going to Maglev then high speed rail but neither is likely to happen.
Faster airport-downtown rail could be used in almost major U.S. cities though and is probably more feasable.


----------



## samsonyuen

Yeah, it'd be cool, but I think it's more realistic to make them regional rather than interregional services.


----------



## Rail Claimore

It's not like the regional services of the Northeast and Great Lakes cannot be interconnected though. A line from Chicago to Cleveland is certainly feasibile, and Pittsburgh is not much further, and Philly not much further than that. That connection is certainly doable, not everyone on that line will go between Chicago and NY.


----------



## Giorgio

I dont see the point. Airplanes are more efficient and convenient for a long trip. A Philly-Manhatten High speed would be cool!


----------



## mopc

I think Chcago-Ny would make more sense.


----------



## Frungy

Neither make any sense. The Shinkansen still competes with airlines for the Tokyo-Osaka route, and that's only around 450 km. New York to Chicago is 1500 km (if following the old New York Central route via Albany), or 1150 km as the crow flies. Philadelphia to Chicago is still 1000 km. There is NO way any kind of high speed rail can compete with airlines for that route. 5 hours from Philly to Chicago? That's an average speed of 200 kph! Also, the cities between Chicago and the east coast aren't exactly large.


----------



## PredyGr

Tokyo-Osaka is 515km away apart and the rail/air share is 81/19. The most importand factor is travel time , and real life experience shows that for trips up to 4 hours rail can capture a share of 50%. For the distance Philadelpia-Chicago a 400km/h train service could make the trip in 3 hours . A market share between 50-65% is very possible if not sure (of course depending of the quality of service ex. punctuality).


----------



## Cloudship

Well, when you figure the hour and a half to get to the airport and check in, and the hour to deplane, gather luggage, and get out of the airport, plus the flight time and time taxying around the airport, it takes several hours to fly even between two airports like Philadelphia and Chicago. Sure people absolutely crushed for time will prefer air, but those who are looking for a more comfortable trip will very likely like the train.

As far as big cities - Pittsburg, cleveland, columbus, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, South Bend... There's quite a bit of intermediate destinations, too.


----------



## samsonyuen

^How many stops vs how much time will be a deciding factor in whether it'd be successful or not. Does Tokyo-Osaka have (m)any stops?


----------



## wanderer34

nomarandlee said:


> Why Philly-Chicago and not NYC-Chicago?


There isn't really a direct link that goes from NYC to Chicago. The NYC-Chicago line goes up to Albany, through the upstate cities of Utica, Troy, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, and straight to Cleveland, Indiana, and into Chicago.

The Phila to Chicago line just goes through Pittsburgh with intermediate stops in Lancaster, Harrisburg, Altoona, and Johnstown, through Youngstown, and into Cleveland. The travel time would be cut from 3 to 4 hours rather than traveling around NYS. Actually, the plan includes NYC from Penn Station, but it also includes 30th St Station in Phila.


----------



## Liwwadden

it would be nice, if all really big cities (in the usa) were connented with such an high speed line. like NY , chicago, LA, san fran, houston...


----------



## IshikawajimaHarima

It will be enough only by plane to connect Chicago to the other big US cities.


----------



## samsonyuen

It would be nice, but the major cities aren't all that close to each other. San Diego to Seattle would make sense, as would Chicago and the Midwest and the BosWash corridor, but linking these regions doesn't really make sense.


----------



## Cloudship

The big city to big city travel isn't all that great. More travel is from a medium sized city to a big city, or the other way around. Satellite offices, headquarters, etc.

There are a ton of medium size cities in the US that people seem to forget about. And most people aren't looking to travel clear across country. That's one of Amtrak's problems - they focus purely on the longer routes. Much of air traffic is shorter flights, an the same would be held for train travel as well.


----------



## Frungy

The Nozomi Shinkansen (fastest with fewest stops) can go from Tokyo to Osaka in 2.5 hours, a distance of 550 km. It stops in Shin-Yokohama, Nagoya, and Kyoto. That's an average speed of 220 kph on one of the world's most advanced bullet train systems. There is no way the US can build a train from Philly to Chicago (1000km as the crow flies) with a travel time of 3 hours (333 kph average). I seriously doubt it'll even be possible in 5 hours (200 kph average) unless they tunnel under the entire Appalachian chain at prohibitively high cost.

San Diego to Seattle is also a bit far. San Diego to San Francisco via LA and the central valley would be more reasonable... lots of flat land, high demand, and not-very-expensive right of way for most of it.


----------



## PredyGr

Nozomi services run by series 700 & 500 shinkansen, between Tokyo-Osaka. There the trains reach a maximum speed of 270km/h but with many speed restrictions to 250km/h because of the curves with 2500m radius. With a 400km/h service it' possible to cover 1000km in 3 hours or less but this depends on many things. This high speed line between Philly-Chicago is official (there is a study) or just an idea , because noone refers to a source.


----------



## degnaw

*HSR in the US?*

I saw the article in the news this morning, but I have doubts about the possibility and other factors. In addition, the article discusses freight rail (so i'm assuming its sharing tracks) and off to the side in project facts it says the train would ultimately reach 110 mph (thats not hsr, is it?)


http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01/607140397

COLUMBUS - State officials are promoting - and already planning for - a $3.2 billion high-speed passenger rail line linking Cincinnati to Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland.

"The day the first high-speed passenger trains ... roll into town is not the time to unlock the old depot or break ground for a new train station," said the Ohio Rail Development Commission.

The rail commission, an independent branch of the state Department of Transportation, is hosting a Columbus-area conference today about the proposal for public officials and planners from five states.

It will examine such issues as where to put rail stations, what kind of retail development cities could expect, how rail passenger systems work in New England and elsewhere, and how to do it in the Midwest.

"The No. 1 operative question for the user is: 'Can I get there quicker and more cost-effectively than if I drive?' " said commission spokesman Stu Nicholson.

Nicholson insists that skyrocketing gasoline prices and shifting public attitudes about mass transit are giving his group some steam.

A 2004 study by Transportation Economics & Management Systems Inc. estimated that one-way rail fares between Cincinnati and Columbus would average $50. It would cost $95 one-way between Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Frequent rail users, students, senior citizens and weekend travelers would likely be offered lower fares.

Rail passengers' commuting time can be spent more productively than people traveling across the state by car or air, Nicholson said. They can read, safely make calls or work on laptop computers, he said.

Working against the train enthusiasts: A growing federal budget deficit, competing spending priorities and rising freight train traffic, which would have to share the rail lines.

Is their project pie-in-the-sky?

"That's exactly the question I ask," said Mark Policinski, executive director of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, the area planning agency. "The only way this happens is with a massive federal investment."

If successful, the rail network could extend into West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, even Canada.

Nicholson said Ohioans could ride passenger trains on the so-called 3-C corridor - 258 miles of track named after Ohio's three largest cities - within two years of federal funding.

To gain momentum, the state commission has joined a 28-state group working to make passenger rail service a reality. In addition to actively lobbying Congress for money, Nicholson said a federal environmental impact study is planned next year to set the project in motion.

Amtrak figures show only 12,407 people got on and off Amtrak trains in 2005 in Cincinnati - fewer people than used Amtrak in Newton, Kan., or Tukwila, Wash.

But Nicholson suggested more people would use it if it came through town more than twice a week at odd hours.

More freight is carried by rail than ever before, but on fewer miles of track.



Project facts

Capital cost for startup of the Ohio Hub high-speed rail project is estimated at $500 million.

The initial phase calls for two trains a day running in each direction between Cincinnati and Cleveland via Columbus, at 79 mph.

Ultimately the train could run up to 110 mph.

Total cost for the multi-state project is estimated at $3.2 billion, with 80 percent of it funded by the federal government and 20 percent by states.


----------



## miamicanes

Well, Florida ended up nuking its HSR plans 2 years ago. Public sentiment was already souring once the cost estimates for the Tampa-Disney segment became publicly known... and Disney's shameless attempt to make Florida's taxpayers its personal bitch (by forcing Orlando's station to be literally *at Disney*) was the final straw that broke the camel's back.

It was a good idea in general, but a really, really outrageously bad plan and execution... mostly because the original amendment's wording left absolutely no room for compromise, regardless of how insane the cost-benefit analysis might have been

For example, the amendment required a high-speed line with 120+mph capabilities to St. Petersburg. The problem is, that meant a bridge. A big bridge. A big, _expensive_ bridge. Under the law's wording, it had to be physically capable of 120mph operation every last inch of the way, so sharing an existing rail bridge and spending 6 minutes crossing the bay at 79mph instead of 4 minutes crossing it at 120mph wasn't even a legal option. 

Or, the debacle over the last hundred miles from West Palm Beach to Miami. To meet the letter of the law, it would have had to be almost entirely elevated, at a cost of more than $100 million _per mile_. Ironically, the train would have never averaged more than 100mph over the length, because the stations in West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami were all *inline*, so every train had to stop at every station. Turnouts capable of handling 120mph are very, VERY expensive. But under the stupid law, using turnouts rated for ~100mph (so trains would have to slow down, but could at least go around trains stopped at the station instead of slowing down to ZERO and waiting for them to leave) would have been illegal. Remember... 120+mph every single inch of the way...

Fortunately, the bad HSR law got repealed, and FDOT seems to have come back to its senses and is moving forward with a revised version of its original (pre-FOX) plan to roll out fast, frequent intercity rail service that's cheap enough for people to actually _use_ and likely to cover its own construction and operating expenses, if not actually turn a profit for the state. 

It's right here: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rail/Publications/2004Plan/PsgrComponentFull.pdf

The basic theme is to acquire easement rights along existing railroads and upgrade them to good, modern continuous-rail concrete-tie track suitable for 79mph sustained and 100-120mph peak speeds between major cities that are farther than people really want to drive, but not far enough to be worth the cost and infinite security grief of flying (read: travel between Miami and Tampa & Orlando). The initial goal is reliable 4-hour end-to-end times, dropping to 3 hours once the double-tracking is complete. For comparison, it takes about 4-5 hours to drive from Miami to Orlando, and 5-8 hours to drive to Tampa (depending upon which city you end up hitting rush hour traffic in... at 6pm, just getting out of Dade County can kill an hour or two... and I-75 between Naples and Venice has some of the worst gridlock in the state).

Personally, if I could get from Miami to Orlando or Tampa in 3 hours for $99 each way (first class, single seat on one side of the aisle, with table big enough to hold both a laptop AND mouse) with onboard wireless internet access and at least one train leaving sometime between 6:30pm and 8pm & arriving sometime before midnight... well, let's just say I'd be going to Tampa and Orlando a lot more often than I do now. And just about everyone I work with said the same thing... reasonably fast, reasonably cheap, schedule that allows enough time for stress-free drive to the station after work, and onboard internet access = "winner"

The only real addition I'd make to the wishlist is for there to be rental cars available at the station, and rental car agents physically onboard the trains (with laptops, wireless cards, and a briefcase full of keys) so I could book the car online, do the paperwork on the train at some point along the way, and walk off the train straight to the parking lot in Tampa or Orlando and drive away in the rental car without further ceremony


----------



## Jean Luc

Let's hope that these proposals come to fruition. It seems that train services like these will be increasingly needed in the future, due to rising traffic volumes and declining oil supplies. I assume that the trains will be diesel powered, not electric?


----------



## degnaw

Il assume that they will be diesel (unfortunately), especially with this; "and rising freight train traffic, which would have to share the rail lines." If this means what i think it would, where no new lines would be built and freight companies still owning the rails. 

With line sharing, I kind of have doubts about how 110 mph could be achieved, but if it is possible, I would definately take it. I was thinking of having dedicated rails and everything when I first saw the article, but apparently it did not


----------



## miamicanes

IMHO, at this stage, electrification would be wildly premature. There's no engineering need for it until you try to run faster than 125mph, and no economic justification for it unless there are literally trains passing by every 5-10 minutes.

In the beginning, at least, if I were in charge, I'd probably start out with DMUs from Colorado Railcar flanked by an unpowered coach on both ends (a DMU is basically an engine and coach combined). I'd make the rear coach for Tampa-bound passengers, and use the front coach + DMU for Orlando-bound. As soon as we reached the line to Orlando, I'd drop the Tampa-bound coach and continue to Orlando, then have a Tampa-bound DMU + coach from Jacksonville via Orlando pick it up and push it to Tampa. 

For the return trip, I'd have a train with Orlando-Jacksonville-bound DMU + coach with Miami-bound coach leave Tampa, and pull a similar stunt. It would drop the Miami-bound coach and continue east, and a few minutes later, a DMU + coach from Orlando would grab it and push it the rest of the way to Miami. 

The main idea is that every train from MIA-FLL-WPB would send its tail end to Tampa and continue to Orlando (envisioning MIA-FLL-WPB-ORL as the major traffic route and Tampa as a slightly lesser route). The major cross-action would be JAX-ORL-TPA, pushing and pulling the Miami-bound train between Winter Haven/Lakeland and Tampa. 

My general prediction is that most of the people taking the train between Orlando and Tampa would actually be going between Tampa and Jacksonville (Orlando is almost too close to Tampa for anyone with a car to bother with, but Tampa is almost the perfect distance from Jacksonville to be worth the ride). Since Jacksonville to Miami would be a 6+ hour trip, I don't think it would be popular enough to merit nonstop service... so a train-change in Orlando would be necessary.

Eventually, I'd add service from Tallahassee to Jacksonville, but wouldn't really expect it to get lots of riders since even at 80mph, Orlando-Tallahassee would be a long ride, and Tampa-Tallahassee would be right on the borderline between "fly" vs "train".

I wouldn't bother with Pensacola. Let's be honest... there really aren't that many people who want to go between Pensacola and Jacksonville, and everything south of that point is far enough to justify flying. I'd bribe Amtrak to have twice-daily service from Jacksonville to New Orleans (with Tallahassee and Pensacola along the way), and be satisfied  

If the trip from Tallahassee to Miami could be made in 8 hours or less, it might then be viable to buy a few sleeper cars from Amtrak, refurbish them, and launch twice-daily service between Miami and Tallahassee... with a schedule something like:
(times apply for both AM and PM)
9:00 -- passengers allowed to begin boarding. Passengers from previous trip reminded that they'll be charged $25 if they're not gone by 9:30
9:55 -- passengers from previous trip have 5 minutes to get off or they'll be charged $100 and forcibly removed from train.
10:30 -- train departs
11:15 -- train from Miami briefly pauses in WPB to pick up Tally-bound cars from their siding in WPB.
~5:30 -- tail end of southbound train gets maneuvered into special siding in WPB, unhitched (with a few staff members left behind), and train departs for Miami.
6:30-7 -- train arrives, parks at special siding. Passengers left alone.
8:30 -- conductor goes door-to-door, knocking until he/she gets verbal response from passenger after warning them that they have a half hour to leave.

Each room would have its own complete bathroom, satellite TV from Dish or DirecTV, comfy chair & desk (plus the usual onboard internet), and basically be a mobile hotel room. One variant might be an option to pay ~twice as much from Miami or WPB to get a room in a car that would stay in Tallahassee all day and return that evening with you in it (so you'd have the room to go back to whenever you finished doing whatever it was that you had to do in Tallahassee). But I don't know whether this would be profitable, because Tallahassee is DEFINITELY in the "fly" category as far as MIA & WPB are concerned, and a trip that included all-day cabin in Tally would probably have to cost $799 or more to fully cover all of its costs and turn a profit... probably $499-599 for round trip without all-day cabin. At those prices, it'd be pretty hard to justify the service, because you could fly round trip AND spend the night at the most expensive hotel in Tallahassee for that kind of money.


----------



## Jean Luc

^^Until I looked at the map on the website you mentioned in your first post I didn't realise how big Florida is. How far is it from Miami to Pensacola, and how long does it take to drive between the two?

As for electrification I agree with you. Unless speeds and service frequency are planned to be significantly increased there's no real need for it. In the U.K. their diesel-powered high speed passenger trains, the Intercity125s, have been a great success in getting travellers back on the train, and are the backbone of intercity travel on non-electricifed lines, with a top speed of 125 m.p.h., hence the name. Here in Australia (New South Wales to be exact), we have our own train, the XPT, which is based on the British one, as you can tell by looking at it. However, long-distance train travel here has generally been declining for some time, due to cars and more recently cheap air fares. Both trains are coming to the end of their working lives and will have to be replaced in the foreseeable future, although ours has had a recent refurbishment so it will probably be around for while yet.

Having said that, as oil supplies decline electrification may become necessary in the future.


----------



## Prestonian

Why such low speeds? The way many of the european systems work is that to save on cost the trains slow right down in all the complicated areas (urban, bridges etc) but speed right up to 150-186mph on the other areas and more than make up the time. With such vast distances between the cities surely this is possible. Is the Florida plan to have HSR without building ANY dedicated lines? You can'r run HSR properly if its shared with lumbering freight trains. If I were to plan it I'd use all the old infrastructure in urban areas and the bridge accross the bay then build new dedicated lines inbetween with speeds approaching 300kmh/186mph, is this ruled out due to cost? That would get your journey times right down and raise competitiveness. Surely there is enough open flat land in florida to make building a railway relatively straightforward?


----------



## degnaw

As far as I know, the florida system was using dedicated tracks that supported 120mph (i dont know why it would be 120, maybe the locomotives used or distance between stations or something). The ohio system (my first post) was the system that would use existing tracks shared with freight traffic, and it supposedly would not exceed 110mph. Although I dont see how it could achieve even that, with line sharing...

Florida- *Under the law's wording, it had to be physically capable of 120mph operation every last inch of the way*
Ohio- *"...and rising freight train traffic, which would have to share the rail lines."*


----------



## Cloudship

Our trains are usually much heavier. NOt to mention our infrastructure is less than optimal. At one point, trains regularly ran faster than this. But our infrastructure and regulations have becom heavily biased to freight running.


----------



## miamicanes

Right now, it takes 1:45 for Tri-rail to get from MIA to WPB. Being pessimistic, I suspect that's approximately how long it would take FIRE/ice ("Florida InterRail Enterprises/intercity express" -- the cute name I came up with for it) as well. Northbound trains would probably depart ~5-10 minutes after Tri-Rail, with the expectation that it would reach the Fort Lauderdale station as Tri-Rail were leaving (or just lengthen the platform and stop behind Tri Rail), spend 5-10 minutes boarding/handling luggage/etc, and depart from Fort Lauderdale a minute or so before the next Tri-Rail train (20-minute peak headways) arrived, and do the same thing at West Palm Beach... reach the station after Tri-Rail has already arrived, and spend 5-10 minutes loading/unloading & pulling out before the next Tri-Rail train arrived (or at least was ready to depart).

The real time-savings would come between West Palm Beach and Auburndale (just east of where trains heading from Miami would likely "make a right turn" towards Orlando), where they could race the trains at full speed. DMUs max out at 90mph (probably tow-able by a "real" engine at 100mph, possibly tow-able at 110mph with a little tweaking by Colorado Railcar). The potential monkey wrench driving up the cost would be the need for a few grade-separated crossings along the way... definitely one or two in Sebring, possibly one in Okeechobee, as well as another DMU whose only job in life is to run back and forth between Auburndale, Sebring, Okeechobee, and West Palm Beach (stations the "main" trains between SeFL and Tampa/Orlando would skip) to kind of throw them a cookie so their citizens won't throw a fit about having their towns becoming racetracks for big-city residents (people in "Fly-over America" get really upset about that kind of thing).

Eventually, someday, if the traffic increased enough to merit it, they could sell the DMUs to a regional transit authority somewhere (like Tri-Rail, or its upcoming Orlando & Tampa peers) and buy "real" high-speed trainsets that can hit 125mph. But remember... the initial goal is "reasonably fast, but cheap". It'll be a lot easier to "sell" the future upgrade from 80mph average/90-100mph peak to 100mph average/125mph peak (likely to cost more than the entire first-round track improvement project) if they're already running full or nearly-full trains hourly, making money hand over fist, and approaching the real limit of how much traffic they can really handle with the initial infrastructure.

Florida is a fairly rich state, but after getting burned by FOX, FDOT is going to have to tiptoe a bit and do everything it can to make sure that the first phase actually makes money and earns a net profit. I think MIA-FLL-WPB to Tampa/Orlando could do that easily since it's about as close to an ideal, cherry-picked route as you can get. Once they're earning a profit, I think the legislature will let them have just about anything they want. But if they're smart, they'll have the first phase upgraded to 125mph and extended to Jacksonville & Tallahassee before they even THINK about extending into southwest Florida. I think the SWFL route would have lots of riders, but it WILL be genuinely expensive to build because it'll be 100% new construction from start to finish... and Naples, in particular, is going to demand one hell of an expensive station with major noise-buffering and upgraded aesthetics.

In the long run, I think the most realistic goal is for the state as a whole to slightly subsidize initial track/station construction (with a payoff period of 50-100 years), but require each route to cover 100% of its expenses going forward (interest on bonds issued to cover initial construction, track maintenance, rolling stock purchase & acquisition, staffing, etc) and make enough to slowly pay down the principal on the initial track cost. The big thing, to avoid at any cost, is a situation where induced demand increases losses (ie, Amtrak... where cutting their annual passengers in half ends up making them look good by reducing their losses).

I'm a staunch Republican, but I'll admit that I disagree with Wendell Cox (from publicpurpose.org) in one specific respect... I don't view induced demand as necessarily bad, and I'm perfectly willing to count it as a benefit as long as future per-rider annual subsidies ultimately _decrease_ as ridership _increases_. In other words, if the collective benefit of allocating $10-25 per year of every Floridian's tax burden for the next 50 years means Floridians can (and, in fact, *do*) take advantage of the new rail service to make trips around the state that they wouldn't have made otherwise, that's a benefit... even if it doesn't ultimately reduce traffic or pollution at all. You can make the same argument about expressways... the existence of I-95 as a big, wide, kick-ass road to Fort Lauderdale most certainly induces me to head up there to go out a few times per month by making it fast, easy, and painless to do so. The key isn't that it's "subsidized", but rather that the benefits of its existence (and similar roads like it around Florida) are so profound and widespread that nobody except the most bitter, angry car-hating transit-freak questions its worth. If Florida builds a rail network that costs $300 per round trip, never runs on time, is inconvenient to use, and/or just doesn't become popular, people will legitimately bitch and moan about subsidies. If Florida slowly and prudently builds up a network that everyone comes to regard as indispensible and genuinely useful, nobody will care whether it technically "loses" $10, $25, or even $100 per year per taxpayer. At the end of the day, normal people don't care about subsidizing things they value and use. FOX, as it was coming together in mid-2004, went too far overboard... it was too much, for too little, too soon, and rightfully deserved to die. Hopefully, FDOT's new plan will ultimately rise from its ashes and give us the beginning of a sensible rail network that can later grow as appropriate 

I'll admit, though, that I'd love to know how the *hell* France managed to build the TGV without bankrupting itself, and how they apparently managed to avoid the kind of obscene, stratospheric, spiraling costs that always seem to accompany any comparable rail project in America (in particular, the endless "environmental mitigation" exercises ultimately end up looking like incredibly expensive governmental masturbation).


----------



## Cloudship

And yet in Europe they do a better job with Environmental concerns. The answer to that question is that they have fewer companies out there trying to get a piece of the action, making profits, and saboutaging the project. I think you also find that Europe is able to look a little more long term and doesn't need to dollar-justify every decision it makes.

As far as DMU is concerned, I am starting to wonder how important that is. Yes a Locomotive is a bit more expensive to operate, but you have fewer problems with maintenance, scheduled rebuilds, etc. They are easier to acquire, and the cost of the trailers will thus be lower. We can't get away with the light DMUs used in Europe due to FRA regulations, so why not use a modern diesel loco?

Colorado Railcar is not the only one to offer DMUs. I don't know that they have actually sold any yet, have they? Bombardier is offering models, although no one has yet put together a big enough order to get them in the US. Still, there are enough plans on the table that groups could get together to place a large enough order. And this would be an already proven design.


----------



## miamicanes

As far as I know, Colorado Railcar is the only company that sells a DMU that can be used, "as is", on normal tracks with freight traffic, without getting a waiver from the FRA and having to formally segregate the traffic (it might be segregated anyway for performance reasons, but the lack of a formal requirement that it be separated probably makes life easier for everyone involved).

From what I've read, the main benefit of DMUs over conventional trains running in the 60-90mph range is that a conventional diesel locomotive is *grossly* overpowered for the load it's actually trying to pulll. The whole reason why DMUs get better fuel efficiency is because they're just strong enough to do the specific job of pulling themselves and up to 2 additional coaches, as opposed to a mile-long train full of coal and limestone. As a long-term solution they don't quite cut it since they max out at ~90mph, but in the beginning (when most of the track is 79mph at best, anyway), they look like they'd do nicely.

Now, for a potential expansion to include Tallahassee-Jacksonville, and ultimately Jacksonville-Deland, DMUs would be inappropriate, because that's one area where the state would have absolutely ZERO excuse to not go for full-bore 110mph minimum, increasing to 120mph in areas with few enough grade crossings to justify their complete removal for the added speed (110mph is the fastest the FRA allows passenger trains to run across an at-grade crossing). That area is almost completely uninhabited, so there's not a whole lot to interfere with a fast train... and really, it's necessary in order to make the train a viable means of travel between Tallahassee and Orlando & Tampa (~4-5 hours from Tampa, ~3.5-4 hours from Orlando @ 110mph from Deland to the outskirts of Jacksonville, and the outskirts of Jacksonville to the outskirts of Tallahassee, and 80mph average in the rest of the areas).

However, I'm not convinced that Tallahassee is a worthwhile goal to worry about at the very beginning... it's far (so it would HAVE to be as fast as possible), and from what I remember, that area is actually pretty hilly, so construction costs up there would probably be a LOT higher than they are south of I-4.


----------



## miamicanes

Almost makes the fantasy seem real, doesn't it? Sigh... 










The basic route follows Amtrak's current route from Miami to Tampa and Orlando, and FEC from Miami to Jacksonville, and from Jacksonville to Tallahassee along the route Amtrak used to use before Katrina washed away half the track in Mississippi.

There aren't actually any "green" trains... green coaches get pulled to Auburndale by "orange" trains and are dropped off at the station, then get pushed to Tampa by the next southwest-bound "yellow" train. Then, green coaches get pulled to Auburndale by yellow trains and left behind, then pushed to Miami by the next southbound orange train. That way, the non-insignificant minority of passengers traveling between Tampa and MIA-WPB don't have to endure the hassles of changing trains (making them change trains would just about destroy the route's viability, IMHO).

The yellow line cuts over to FEC along a 6-10 mile new corridor out in the middle of nowhere to the northeast of Deland and has the station located at the point where I-95 crosses US-1 northwest of Daytona. Daytona was in a decent location, and seems like a city that would enthusiastically embrace its new status as Orlando's de-facto beach. :cheers:

The overall theme is that FIRE runs the intercity trains, and leaves it up to the local counties to fill in the gaps á là Tri-Rail. Though as I said, the state would probably have to eat most of the cost of a local line from Auburndale->Sebring->Okeechobee->WPB (same tracks), and possibly a few daily runs from Jacksonville to Tally that stop in Lake City and Madison (ouch... probably adding a half hour due to all the time lost slowing down from 120mph), just to pacify the locals in between who'll otherwise see nothing but a blur a few times per hour.

The line wouldn't ever be extended west of Tallahassee unless Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama ever go through with their own high-speed line, in which case it would make sense by providing a high-speed ~4 hour trip from Tally to New Orleans :scouserd:


----------



## Cloudship

Colorado Railcar is the only one that currently has been certified by the FRA. Bombardier's Flexliner can be certified, but they have not yet done so, because they lack the required comitments tosell them - apparently it is not a cheap thing to do. Personally, I think it is a sign that the DMU market is actually much smaller than is estimated. In any case, I don't like watching the excuse that we don't have DMUs available yet being used to hold up the plan.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

At the distances of a few hundred miles far more passenger traffic goes by the highway than the airway. Competing with the automobile should be the focus, rather the jetliner. The train should be more comfortable, reliable, economical and faster than the auto. In terms of speed the ability to average 75 MPH with a normal maximum of 100 MPH and allowance for 110 MPH to make up time will be superior to travel by car. The trains must be punctual, with Japan and Switzerland as the benchmark. 

For the train itself I would base it upon the Union Pacific's 1936 City of Denver. That train had 2 locomotives of 1200 hp each and 10 cars. I would like to see a train of similar size, with a locomotive at each end based on a powerplant similar to the RP20BD Three Engine Diesel (total of 2000 hp for each locomotive). The weight for the train should be no greater than the 1936 train.

I'm not sure if your proposed service along the coast to Jacksonville used the FEC tracks or merely the ROW. I think it would be cheaper to aquire the FEC, restore the second track that was taken up in the mid sixties and install cab signaling. As traffic increases the line can be improved by elimination of grade crossings and electrification. The FEC freight service would be a tenant, and the double track line will have quadruple the capacity of the present single track main.

I think a service north of Jacksonville to Atlanta would be more useful than a line to Tallahassee. What I propose would be more national in scope, which would allow us to achieve economies of scale and make it easier to gain Federal financing. The trainset should be able to serve in hourly intercity service (Miami-Orlando) and daily train service (Miami-Atlanta). We should be able to manufacture scores of trainsets per year in the US. Producing custom built equipment for each service means higher capital costs. I want long production runs to amortize nonrecurring costs over as many units as possible.

As passenger traffic increases then we can invest in higher speeds like the TGV and ICE.


----------



## miamicanes

Well, competing with jets for 150-250 mile trips is pretty easy, even if it takes twice as long via rail. The biggest problem with flying is that it involves lots of "active waiting" -- standing in line, waiting to get in line, waiting to take off, waiting to land, etc. Time when you can't really do anything but wait. For regional flights, MIA has so much time bloat that you *literally* have to be pulling into the parking garage at least 60 minutes before departure. And of those 60 minutes, maybe 10 or 20 will be free to do something besides stand in line or run. And for the return flight, if you have checked baggage... god help you. Add at least 20-30 minutes for baggage claim from the moment you set foot in the jetway.

Now, if Opa-Locka airport were allowed to have passenger flights to Tampa and Orlando, flying would still be expensive, but probably wouldn't be as painful. Unfortunately, the county banned commercial flights at that airport, so it's MIA or nothing. Fort Lauderdale isn't as bad, but it's a 45-60 minute drive from central Dade County.

Sigh. It's frustrating, because even the most pessimistic estimates show that reliable 4-hour trains between Miami and Tampa & Orlando would be shockingly cheap and easty to implement... and would probably end up actually making an outright *profit* (at least, until routes expanded beyond the admittedly cherry-picked MIA-TPA, MIA-MCO, and (maybe) JAX-TPA trains).

Tallahassee is a tough call. It's hilly terrain and far... but it's somewhere that lots of people DO have to travel regularly, just because it's the state capital. And there's LITERALLY nothing between Jacksonville and Tallahassee that couldn't be avoided entirely by a mile or two detour if necessary. A 110mph line from Tallahassee to Jacksonville, with 80mph average between Jacksonville and Tampa, would put Tallahassee within a 4 hour ride of about half the state's big city residents.

Georgia is another tough call. Augusta isn't a major city, and Atlanta's a little too far from Tampa and Orlando, even at 110mph. Jacksonville's a big city, but let's be honest... it's not Tampa or Orlando, and it's definitely not Miami-Fort Lauderdale. Unless at least one of those cities end up being close enough to benefit too, Jacksonville just isn't big enough to unilaterally justify anything (JAX-Tallahassee is mainly for the benefit of Tampa and Orlando). I think Jacksonville has potential to become a major hub, though, since it's actually listed in a few places as the likely southern terminus of another higher-speed corridor stretching up into the carolinas and Virginia.


----------



## degnaw

Sorry to interrupt the florida topic, but id like to note that while there are already many train routes in florida (not really, but relatively) there is only one that connects to cincinnati. It runs from chicago-here-virginia beach, which means if I want to go north, i.e. to colombus or cleveland, I have to go all the way to chicago and back, taking me probably a day on a trip that should take little more than a few hours. I would think that as such an important interregional route (cincinnati-dayton-colombus-cleveland), there shouldve been a normal train route there long ago. Although in my opinion, as long as the train can achieve 90% of the speed of a car, It would be a viable option to most car travelers with today's $3 gas (which is still pretty cheap, I think) With ICE, TGV and Shinkansen (sp?), which reach about 200mph, they would be options to airline travelers


----------



## Cloudship

Keep in mind that you also have delay times for train travel as well. You still have to get to the train station - in many cases with stations in the city you also have to spend time finding parking, you still have to check in, if rail does become a primary transportation mode then you will likely see security checks as well. Boarding time can be much faster becasue of multiple doors and the need not to have everyone sitting. 

On the topic of Florida, I think it silly to even worry about competing with cars or planes. It's a matter of convenience, not having to drive, not needing a rental car, etc. Instead of trying to emulate others, provide the best possible service (in terms to times and locations) and you will make a profit. Let your competition come to you - don't bring the game to them.


----------



## DonQui

Erm, 120 mph does not even meet the minimum considerations for high speed as a top speed. 

Plus, given our relative size, how can we even hope to rail to compete like it does in smaller countries in Europe and Japan as well if our trains do not even go as fast are theirs?

Why should we settle for 110 mph when in the next few years countries will have more than 200 mph top speed trains?

:crazy:


----------



## nomarandlee

degnaw said:


> Sorry to interrupt the florida topic, but id like to note that while there are already many train routes in florida (not really, but relatively) there is only one that connects to cincinnati. It runs from chicago-here-virginia beach, which means if I want to go north, i.e. to colombus or cleveland, I have to go all the way to chicago and back, taking me probably a day on a trip that should take little more than a few hours. I would think that as such an important interregional route (cincinnati-dayton-colombus-cleveland), there shouldve been a normal train route there long ago. Although in my opinion, as long as the train can achieve 90% of the speed of a car, It would be a viable option to most car travelers with today's $3 gas (which is still pretty cheap, I think) With ICE, TGV and Shinkansen (sp?), which reach about 200mph, they would be options to airline travelers



correct me if I am wrong but doesn't ICE mostley use existing track and TGV and Shinkansen have their majority on their own dedicated rail?


----------



## DonQui

nomarandlee said:


> correct me if I am wrong but doesn't ICE mostley use existing track and TGV and Shinkansen have their majority on their own dedicated rail?


Do you mean German ICE?

I think German ICE and and the TGV have large tracts of dedicated rail but when approaching city centers, use regular rail. Japan's system use entirely dedicated rail. The original network in Japan was a meter network, a track gauge which I believe would be insufficient for high speed rail. Thus, Japan essentially constructed from scratch a high speed network that is exclusively dedicated to high speed.

While you did not ask for it, I can also tell you a little bit of Spain's AVE. Like the Japanese, the rest of the network is of a different gauge. Thus, on most long tracks, the train run on their own dedicated rail. However, if let's say you want to have a train travel at a higher-than-normal speed (i.e., 200-250kmph versus the normal 300 kmph for the Spanish high speed network), they simply have gauge changers located at stations that allow the train to travel on both networks without passengers getting off. So, in a sense, it is sort of like a mix of Japanese high speed rail contsruction and TGV/ICE.


----------



## miamicanes

> Keep in mind that you also have delay times for train travel as well. You still have to get to the train station - in many cases with stations in the city you also have to spend time finding parking,


Not likely to be a problem in Florida. The Miami station would be at the new (under construction) Miami Intermodal Center, which will have abundant parking and be directly connected to the airport (which has even more). The Fort Lauderdale station would logically be at what's now the Fort Lauderdale Amtrak/Tri-Rail station, which has a bigger parking lot than some suburban shopping centers. I haven't seen the West Palm Beach station, but I suspect it has abundant parking too. Florida has never bought into the ideological idiocy of building rail stations without parking. We just take for granted that people are going to drive to the station, park, and leave in a rental car at the other end. 



> you still have to check in, if rail does become a primary transportation mode then you will likely see security checks as well.


One nice thing about trains... the opportunity cost of accidentally letting on a non-paying passenger is small. If you catch someone, you can literally kick them out the door at the next station into the welcoming arms of a police officer, and seat capacity isn't necessarily a fixed thing anyway (in theory, if it becomes obvious that a train is in danger of reaching capacity and it's at an endpoint station, they can always just add another car). So there's no urgent need for the formal check-in ritual that airlines enforce. They don't even need formal ticketing... you can just print your own ticket after making reservations online. With a realtime network connection, they can instantly verify your ticket's authenticity by scanning a barcode printed onto it and looking up its ID to make sure it's valid. Or, by using your credit card number (used to buy the ticket) as an encryption salt, they can do offline verification simply by swiping the credit card used to buy the ticket and scanning the printed ticket with a handheld scanner (I'll leave it at that unless you REALLY want me to explain asymmetric-key encryption and how digital signatures work...  )



> Boarding time can be much faster becasue of multiple doors and the need not to have everyone sitting.


Yep. Two doors per car (or more), vs one at the far end of a LONG tube with 240 other people between you and the door...



> plus, given our relative size, how can we even hope to rail to compete like it does in smaller countries in Europe and Japan as well if our trains do not even go as fast are theirs?


By limiting it to the smaller subset of cases where it IS competitive... basically, 150-300 mile trips between big cities that skip all the small towns in between. The problem is that 110mph is the fastest you can go in the US without eliminating ALL grade crossings along the route. So going even 1mph faster raises the construction cost to another level altogether, and throws any pretense of affordability out the window. Given a choice between spending $2 billion for a 120mph track that serves 3 cities by stopping at the middle one for 5-10 minutes, or $1 billion for a 110mph track and simply running a separate train to each city to eliminate the delay from that stop, the cheaper option is almost guaranteed to be the better one at this instant in time.

The French didn't build the TGV just because they thought it would be cool and bolster French patriotism. They built it because their train capacity on existing lines in existing rail corridors was literally maxed out. That's a situation that doesn't exist anywhere in the US today, not even the fabled northeast.



> Why should we settle for 110 mph when in the next few years countries will have more than 200 mph top speed trains?


Because we don't have a ready supply of low-paid workers willing to do the construction work necessary to make it happen. China's biggest competitive advantage is that as a country, it's making money hand over fist... but still has a huge, poor rural labor force that it can use to build the kind of infrastructure that would be cost-prohibitive to build in the US. The only way Florida, Texas, or California will ever be able to afford to build that kind of infrastructure is if the other 47 states let us temporarily hire a few million Mexican laborers to work at Mexican wages building it for us. It's the kind of thing that makes the difference between a TGV-like rail line costing $5-10 million per mile vs $50-100 million per mile. At American construction wages, an all-elevated or depressed high-speed rail line just isn't going to happen anywhere in America. The benefit would be massively outweighed by its outrageous cost.


----------



## Gjm130

*Montreal-New York High Speed Rail Way*

I heard a high speed rail way was about to be built that connects Montreal with New York City. Is that true??

From Wikipedia:
On October 6, 2005, the Albany Times-Union reported that New York Governor George Pataki and Quebec Premier Jean Charest "called for the creation of high-speed rail service between Montreal and New York City as a way to boost the regional economy during the third Quebec-New York Economic Summit on Wednesday," October 4th, 2005. The article claimed that New York was Quebec's main trading partner, which perhaps explains some of the interest in linking the two major cities.

According to a report by the New York State Senate High Speed Rail Task Force, such a route would serve Plattsburgh via Albany.


----------



## Cloudship

Calling for the creation of and actually designing and building are wo vastly different things. They had looked at a high-speed link between Boston and Montreal some time ago, but the idea languished due to a lack of support from the government and too many difficulties. 

Unfortunately until the US forces the FRA to actually make High Speed rail happen, we will be without in this country. That is what happens when one industry gains too much control.


----------



## Alargule

Don't the US already have their version of HSR - Acela? Okay, I know it's pathetic compared to the _real_ thing you can find in Japan and Europe, but still...


----------



## degnaw

Acela is just NE corridor, isnt really extensive and is only one line...

And on a side note, theres proposals all around the USA, and apparently none have been built so far


----------



## pflo777

just wait another 4 weeks, when the oil price hast tippelded again.........

And the car market will be completeley broken down........ you will get high speed rail all of a sudden....
With just 1/10 of the money, that the us spend for their military EVERY year, you could build a really nice HSR-System on the east coast.


----------



## samsonyuen

I think it makes more sense to develop the Windsor to Quebec corrdior first.


----------



## mrmoopt

Try having a US compliant HSR loco pulling a trainset to reach 300km/h.
Good luck. It's way too heavy and their safety compliance laws are overly ridiculous.


----------



## Taller Better

There is not even remotely enough traffic between New York City and Montreal to warrant a high speed rail. Possibly for the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Politicians
"call for" many, many things that they have no intention of doing...it is an old pattern of politicians to give hope to the proletariat and make them believe they are actually doing something concrete. It has been firmly established beyond question that Ontario is Quebecs biggest trading partner, not New York State. 
Wikpedia's articles can be written by any half-wit, so they should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Cloudship

Are Canadas rail regulations as onerous as the US? Or would they be more accomodation og a Europen-style high-speed train?


----------



## elkram

Cloudship said:


> Are Canadas rail regulations as onerous as the US? Or would they be more accomodation og a Europen-style high-speed train?


Canada => America, always

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## urbanaturalist

This is an opportunity for Maglev technology to start strutting its stuff. The Las Vegas-Los Angeles railway is going to be maglev I believe. NYC-Montreal should be the same.


----------



## matthewcs

HSR is a waste of money in NA, especally Canada. It's faster to fly, and the distances are so much larger than in Europe or Asia, making it impratical in terms of time. It would have to be hopelessly subsidized in order to work. Besides, any project built out in Quebec or Ontario would be paid for by the west, who would see no benefit from it.


----------



## Taller Better

matthewcs said:


> HSR is a waste of money in NA, especally Canada. It's faster to fly, and the distances are so much larger than in Europe or Asia, making it impratical in terms of time. It would have to be hopelessly subsidized in order to work. Besides, any project built out in Quebec or Ontario would be paid for by the west, who would see no benefit from it.


Paid for by the west???!!!!?!?! You do realize that roughly 20 million of Canada's 30 million people live in Ontario and Quebec, don't you? And that we not only pay taxes but we deserve some of them to come back to us in public works projects. This project is nothing but the pipe dream of a few jumped up officials, but not everything done in Eastern Canada is paid for by westerners. That is really quite the silliest thing I have read on SSC in ages.


----------



## De Snor

A HSL train ?
No , this is the challenge for a magnet train to be introduced in Northern America.
It could take 1 1/4 hours for the line form NYC to MTL, HSL trains are to slow for this continent + it is time for innovations , the actual train-on-wheel concept has had it best days


----------



## spsmiler

A high speed maglev, such as the transrapid system in Shanghai, would be fast enough for travel within this sort of area. Especially if you take in to account the total journey time when flying - not just the time spent in the air but also when travelling to / from the city centre plus time in security, check-in, etc etc.


----------



## degnaw

Ive been on the transrapid, and i would love to see one in NA. however if normal wheels-on-track high speed trains cant work here, I doubt getting a maglev here would be any easier... I think a normal 190kph train running on upgraded tracks (no need for new ones) would draw a lot more riders than the current train 66.


----------



## Gjm130

De Snor said:


> A HSL train ?
> No , this is the challenge for a magnet train to be introduced in Northern America.
> It could take 1 1/4 hours for the line form NYC to MTL, HSL trains are to slow for this continent + it is time for innovations , the actual train-on-wheel concept has had it best days


Right On! Europe and Asia have already stepped forward by developping magnetic trains. It's time for it to be on it's way to North America!


----------



## hkskyline

Geographically, a Montreal - NYC route makes more sense than Toronto - NYC, but how much business traffic is there between the two? Or would a line target tourists instead?


----------



## Gjm130

hkskyline said:


> Geographically, a Montreal - NYC route makes more sense than Toronto - NYC, but how much business traffic is there between the two? Or would a line target tourists instead?


I guess both. Plus, the article claimed that New York was Quebec's main trading partner, which perhaps explains some of the interest in linking the two major cities.


----------



## miamicanes

On the American side of the border, at least, the train really wouldn't have to be faster than 110mph to be a commercial success... and living with 110mph would keep the costs sufficiently under control for the project to actually _have_ some tiny chance of covering its construction and operating costs, if not actually being outright _profitable_.

Plus, the impact of time isn't as much as you'd think. Take, for instance, a 300-mile trip:

@ 60mph: 5 hours

@ 70mph: 4:15

@ 80mph: 3:45 (fastest you can go on "normal" cheap freight tracks)

@ 90mph: 3:20

@100mph: 3:00

@110mph: 2:45 (fastest you can go before things get REALLY expensive)

@125mph: 2:25 (fastest you can go and still run with mixed freight traffic)

@150mph: 2:00 (fastest train that can run on freight tracks at low speed)

@180mph: 1:40 (just give Fluor-Bombardier a blank check and kiss your budget goodbye)

Basically the "sweet spot" (maximum bang for buck) is 100-110mph. To go even 1mph faster than that, you've basically doubled or quadrupled the construction cost.

The fastest you can run under Acela conditions (tracks actively shared and intermixed with freight) is 125mph. Above 125mph, the FRA requires total separation between freight and passenger traffic by either space (ie, separate tracks) or time (freight not allowed on tracks when passenger trains running).

The fastest you can run on tracks dedicated exclusively to passenger trains, but still be legally able to use existing tracks at a lower speed (say, the last 5 miles into the station) is about 150mph. The problem is, if there's even the _possibility_ a freight train could be on the same tracks, the FRA requires an _insane_ level of weight and crash-protection. A level that would utterly kill anything resembling fuel-efficiency at 180mph, and would quickly damage tracks at 180mph. Making matters worse is the fact that the FRA requires a train that operates at 150+mph at _any_ point during its journey to be capable of surviving a full-speed head-on collision with a freight train... even if it would NEVER be operating anywhere near that speed while actually sharing tracks with a freight train.

In other words, if you build dedicated passenger tracks 95% of the way between the two cities, but want to use existing tracks for the last few miles to avoid having to spend $100 million per mile to completely elevate or tunnel them through a dense urban area, and plan to run the train on those dedicated tracks at 150mph, but run at 60mph on the shared tracks, the FRA *still* requires that the train be capable of surviving a 150mph head-on collision with a freight train. Utterly insane, but sadly true.


----------



## Mr. Fusion

^^ Just curious, how do you know all this? :?



spsmiler said:


> Especially if you take in to account the total journey time when flying - not just the time spent in the air but also when travelling to / from the city centre plus time in security, check-in, etc etc.


... But trains have check-ins, and if something like this were built, I would imagine there would be security screening too. And unless your destination is the city center, you will also have time for commuting to the train. :yes:


----------



## samsonyuen

I think there are more arguments for Toronto-Montreal, rather than Toronto-NY, which I don't think would make sense at all.


----------



## degnaw

samsonyuen said:


> I think there are more arguments for Toronto-Montreal, rather than Toronto-NY, which I don't think would make sense at all.


The thread isnt about toronto-ny, its about Montreal-ny, which i think makes even less sense... after all, it only passes one major urban area (albany-schenectady-troy), while Toronto-ny passes through numerous smaller ones (hamilton, buffalo, rochester, syracuse, maybe alb-sch-troy). Of course, QC-Windsor makes the most sense...

Oh yeah, I thought the fastest train in NA ran between Toronto and Montreal (or was it dorval?)


----------



## Cloudship

miamicanes said:


> On the American side of the border, at least, the train really wouldn't have to be faster than 110mph to be a commercial success... and living with 110mph would keep the costs sufficiently under control for the project to actually _have_ some tiny chance of covering its construction and operating costs, if not actually being outright _profitable_.
> 
> Plus, the impact of time isn't as much as you'd think. Take, for instance, a 300-mile trip:
> 
> @ 60mph: 5 hours
> 
> @ 70mph: 4:15
> 
> @ 80mph: 3:45 (fastest you can go on "normal" cheap freight tracks)
> 
> @ 90mph: 3:20
> 
> @100mph: 3:00
> 
> @110mph: 2:45 (fastest you can go before things get REALLY expensive)
> 
> @125mph: 2:25 (fastest you can go and still run with mixed freight traffic)
> 
> @150mph: 2:00 (fastest train that can run on freight tracks at low speed)
> 
> @180mph: 1:40 (just give Fluor-Bombardier a blank check and kiss your budget goodbye)
> 
> Basically the "sweet spot" (maximum bang for buck) is 100-110mph. To go even 1mph faster than that, you've basically doubled or quadrupled the construction cost.
> 
> The fastest you can run under Acela conditions (tracks actively shared and intermixed with freight) is 125mph. Above 125mph, the FRA requires total separation between freight and passenger traffic by either space (ie, separate tracks) or time (freight not allowed on tracks when passenger trains running).
> 
> The fastest you can run on tracks dedicated exclusively to passenger trains, but still be legally able to use existing tracks at a lower speed (say, the last 5 miles into the station) is about 150mph. The problem is, if there's even the _possibility_ a freight train could be on the same tracks, the FRA requires an _insane_ level of weight and crash-protection. A level that would utterly kill anything resembling fuel-efficiency at 180mph, and would quickly damage tracks at 180mph. Making matters worse is the fact that the FRA requires a train that operates at 150+mph at _any_ point during its journey to be capable of surviving a full-speed head-on collision with a freight train... even if it would NEVER be operating anywhere near that speed while actually sharing tracks with a freight train.
> 
> In other words, if you build dedicated passenger tracks 95% of the way between the two cities, but want to use existing tracks for the last few miles to avoid having to spend $100 million per mile to completely elevate or tunnel them through a dense urban area, and plan to run the train on those dedicated tracks at 150mph, but run at 60mph on the shared tracks, the FRA *still* requires that the train be capable of surviving a 150mph head-on collision with a freight train. Utterly insane, but sadly true.


That's the point - it isn't technology which is the limiting factor here. It is regulation. Absurd regulation, which promotes frieght use and directly contradicts passenger use. That HAS to be fixed. It's not just a matter of economy or anti-car talk, it's a matter of principle.

As far as the route, all three, if fast enough and priced well enough, would do great. The maximum time a person is likely to commute is about 2 hours (many are about 1 hour). A high speed train would put that level much farther out - in fact, far enough that it can hit some of these smaller cities, ans Albany. That would be a huge plus for Albany. In addition, Montreal serves as a tourist destination. It also would make doing business between the two cities much more appealing. You can't always measure the amount of potential by the amount of traffic that exists now - a good transportation system will generate traffic.


----------



## miamicanes

It would be really hard for them to make drug^h^h^h^h terrorist weapon searches more annoying and slow than they are now at Miami International Airport. If only because there wouldn't be nearly as many passengers to search for drugs^h^h^h^h^H weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Gjm130

degnaw said:


> The thread isnt about toronto-ny, its about Montreal-ny, which i think makes even less sense...


Why should it make less sense? The governer of Quebec states in that article that Montreal's main trading partner is New York.


----------



## mr.x

Gjm130 said:


> Why should it make less sense? The governer of Quebec states in that article that Montreal's main trading partner is New York.


we don't have governors in Canada, we have "Premiers" who lead our provinces.


----------



## degnaw

Gjm130 said:


> Why should it make less sense? The governer of Quebec states in that article that Montreal's main trading partner is New York.





Taller said:


> It has been firmly established beyond question that Ontario is Quebecs biggest trading partner, not New York State.


Out of the wikipedia article and Taller, better's comment, I think the second one would have more basis. 
Secondly, trade patterns usually have very little to do with passenger travel patterns. I.E. most of America's stuff comes from China. How many people regularly go back and forth to China? 
And I stated that Toronto-NY makes little sense, but makes more sense than Montreal-NY because it passes through many more urban areas.


----------



## Manila-X

*Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?*

The US being the most developed country is still lagging behind Europe or Asia when it come to high speed railways for passenger use. The Amtrak though has the Acela but it's not enough to be considered "high speed" rail.

There were plans of building a high speed train network in some areas such as California but never went to effect.

Do you think the government or private corporations should invest in improving it's commuter rail network or even building up a high speed network from the east coast to the west? Do you think American citizen would benefit from it or are they better off buying a nice car or SUV and travel around the highways?


----------



## hkskyline

Amtrak can barely get on its feet. If they can't sustain conventional rail, good luck with HSR.


----------



## earthJoker

Actually HSR is usually more profitable than conventional rail,. The problem is that the capital lockup is enormous.


----------



## Bitxofo

Of course, YES!!
:yes:


----------



## Cloudship

It certainly should improve its passenger rail network - both high speed and regular. But I don't think it can or should be done using the current Amtrak system. I believe we need to develop a national rail infrastructure - meaning tracks, signalling, control, and stations - either using the current system or building from scratch. I would start off with nationalized service to get things started, but eventually I would hope that private operators would take over the trains themselves, simillar to how our air travel system works. This would require improvements in rail traffic control, and certainly a lot of building, but in the long run I think those things would help the economy.


----------



## Maxx☢Power

Isn't this kind of like asking "should there be peace in the world"?


----------



## Alargule

No, not really. HSL's are extremely expensive to build, that's why they're only viable between large cities. In Europe, HSL's can be found between large cities like Brussels and Paris, Cologne and Frankfurt or Rome and Naples.

That's why the US should concentrate on corridors between large cities like Boston, NY, Philly, Baltimore and DC; Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland or Los Angeles and SF. That would provide an interesting and attractive alternative to flying.


----------



## Joka

The more traffic on rails, the better.


----------



## Mr. Fusion

Should it? Probably. Will it? Not a chance.

:grouphug:


----------



## jmancuso

there was plans (or talk) of a HSR linking houston, austin, san antonio and dallas but it's only a pipe dream


----------



## nomarandlee

WANCH said:


> The US being the most developed country is still lagging behind Europe or Asia when it come to high speed railways for passenger use. The Amtrak though has the Acela but it's not enough to be considered "high speed" rail.
> 
> There were plans of building a high speed train network in some areas such as California but never went to effect.
> 
> Do you think the government or private corporations should invest in improving it's commuter rail network or even building up a high speed network from the east coast to the west? Do you think American citizen would benefit from it or are they better off buying a nice car or SUV and travel around the highways?



From east coast to west? Unless it would Maglev (which would prohibitively expensive) or the fast HSR to date I would say no. The U.S. is just not densely populated enough to warrant a frequent HSR from one coast to another. Planes fit a much better role for coast to coast travel. HSR should be broken up into high density regions before trying to build a national network. Also it would have to improve rail infrastructue within the major cities that such HSR would feed into.


----------



## BoulderGrad

> \The U.S. is just not densely populated enough to warrant a frequent HSR from one coast to another. Planes fit a much better role for coast to coast travel. HSR should be broken up into high density regions before trying to build a national network. Also it would have to improve rail infrastructue within the major cities that such HSR would feed into.


Exactly, hence why the only "high speed line" in the US currently running (the accela) runs between Boston and DC, the most densly populated corridor in the country. I've also heard (not certain on this, feel free to correct me) that this is the only line in all of amtrak that operates at a profit.


----------



## nomarandlee

I am not sure it is the only one that runs at a profit but it is easily its biggest revenue maker.


----------



## Cloudship

nomarandlee said:


> The U.S. is just not densely populated enough to warrant a frequent HSR from one coast to another.


Why does everyone always assume that a HSR is going to have to run directly from the east coast to the west coast? With the exception of NYC to LA, there really isn't a really big cross-country route even for air travel. People aren't looking to go from coast to coast, they want to get to Chicago, to Phillidelphia, to St. Louis or Denver. Few people are going to be crossing the full distance. A train running at 180mph for 10 hours can cover quite a good chunk of the US.

But what is needed is a network. Not just a line, a network, which allows multiple connections to multiple cities.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

We had plans for a bullet train from Tampa to Orlando but they decided it was too expensive and canceled it.


----------



## Nefast

Like I posted in the Amtrak topic, trains are a much better solution in respect to the environment. So I think the focus should be more on rail transportation in more densely populated areas in the US. In this way the dependence on fossil fuels and air pollution can be decreased.
It would be interesting if an efficient passenger rail service could be set up and promoted in a region such as California (for instance, a Sacramento-San Francisco-San José-Fresno-Bakersfield-Los Angeles train service). Of course this would go hand in hand with the construction of a commuter rail network.
In the long run there may be even longer distance trains which connect all mayor cities on the west coast, and the same goes for the east-coast. The maximum speeds of hs-trains are already above 500 km/h! However, I do think that intercoastal transport will probably always be most efficient by air.


----------



## Reivajar

HSL's are really usefull for densly populated corridors between big cities, and not longer that 1000 km. In longer distances plane is more useful than trains, at least in daytime travels. For nightime travels you can cover a distance of 2000 or more km on HSLs.

There are some interesting corridors in USA for HSL developing:

NE Coast Corridor (Boston-New York-Philadelphia-DC), with links to Canada (Montreal), and even to Chicago (via Pittsburg and Cleveland).

California, as Nefast has commented.

In Florida, for example the cancelled project between Tampa and Orlando.

In Texas (San Antonio-Dallas-Houston triangle).

500 kph in traditional system of road-rail, even in HSL is very expensive, not due to infraestructure, but due to energetic cost. Any speed over 300-350 kph on traditional rails tracks causes an enormous energetic cost. It's no impossible, in fact French TGV reached 515,3 kph in 1990, but it isn't economically profitable in commercial services. To reach 500 kph you need a different technology based on maglev trains as German Transrapid. A Transrapid at 400 kph consumes less energy than an ICE-3 at 300 kph.


----------



## Cloudship

One of the problems with air travel, though, is that it is not that easy to build the necessary facilities for it. Airports near the city centers are getting more and more crowded, and can't take any more additional traffic. Contrary to popular conception, it's hard to find a large enough piece of land that is not affected by geography and noise issues that is close enough to the destinations people want to travel to. Plus, our weather adversely affects air travel - the spate of bad storms this year has really made a whole mess of air travel nationwide.


----------



## elfabyanos

nomarandlee said:


> From east coast to west? Unless it would Maglev (which would prohibitively expensive) or the fast HSR to date I would say no. The U.S. is just not densely populated enough to warrant a frequent HSR from one coast to another. Planes fit a much better role for coast to coast travel. HSR should be broken up into high density regions before trying to build a national network. Also it would have to improve rail infrastructue within the major cities that such HSR would feed into.


Europe will have a network from Denmark to Portugal, it will be highly used and very profitable, but the amount of services that run from Denmark to Portugal will be precisely zero, because that is a ridiculously long journey to do by rail - even hsr. Just because the network goes somewhere doesn't mean there will be a service that traverses it's entirety. You can drive from Cape Town to Beijing, but I'm sure not too many have had the need to do it.


----------



## CharlieP

elfabyanos said:


> Europe will have a network from Denmark to Portugal, it will be highly used and very profitable, but the amount of services that run from Denmark to Portugal will be precisely zero, because that is a ridiculously long journey to do by rail - even hsr. Just because the network goes somewhere doesn't mean there will be a service that traverses it's entirety. You can drive from Cape Town to Beijing, but I'm sure not too many have had the need to do it.


Yes, but between Denmark and Portugal you have a lot of major metropolitan areas to make a network between - without even considering the cities in between, you have a nice chain of these national capitals:

Copenhagen-Amsterdam-Brussels-Paris-Madrid-Lisbon

So, you're right about Europe, but you can't use the same logic with the USA. New York to Los Angeles is about 4,000km, but there just aren't enough large metro areas in between that would make it feasible to connect them with high speed rail. LA to Denver is about 1,500km, making it far quicker to fly, and there's nothing in between.

The Atlantic seaboard, Californian coast and maybe Texas are good candidates for high speed rail, but I can't ever see them being joined up with high speed lines via other places...


----------



## Yardmaster

I think I read (DTK Guide) that 20,000 passengers pass over the Copenhagen-Malmo link per day ... and 10,000 go by road.


----------



## aquablue

Ok, I live in D.C. Here is the problem with Acela. It is only for business travellers, as their is no "second/coach" class at all. Its only business or first class. Therefore the price is somwhere around 120$ one way between DC and NYC on the weekday. Too expensive for most people.

Second, the speed. It is only about 20 mins faster than the regular train, which costs much less...This is because the train, capable of 150mph top speed, is unable to achieve that speed from DC to NYC (top is 135) due to old catenary, curves and tunnels. The tilting mechanism was not built properly to allow full speed on curves, so this is another restriction. 

Third, the track restrictions between NYC and BOS -- It has to share commuter rail tracks for a good portion of the stretch in Connecticut slowing the Bos-NYC trip to 3:30 mins or so...just not fast enough to compete with the air shuttle.

The next problem is that it stops in all the cities in between DC and NYC, there is no non-stop service..so it ends up being 2:50 mins, rather than 2:15 mins. For example, its stops in wilmington, philadelphia, newark, baltimore, etc.

So, all you get for your extra 60$ on the acela is nicer accomidation and 20 mins gain in time. If they could get it down to 2:15 mins and add a more second class carriages, it would be much more useful to the majority of people.


----------



## Yardmaster

^^ That's a pity. Sharing lines with commuter rail is a problem here too. One question: given that the US has numerous competing railways previously, what happened to all those easements? can't you find an old abandoned one along the Conneticut coast suitable for redevelopment as a high-speed corridor?

A pity about the pricing, too. I tried out about 170 miles of newly upgraded "regional fast rail" here recently ... with the bus between the two cities I visited, it cost me about $US 20. No wonder the trains always seem to be almost full!


----------



## gladisimo

It's impractical. Major cities are served so extensively by flight, and flights are so cheap that it's hard to do. Also, the amount of capital required is enormous. 

There was a poll done somewhere that Americans prefer to drive for journeys under 500 miles than fly, let alone rail. 

If it happens, it'll almost certainly flop.


----------



## globill

There is a revival of conventional rail serice in many places and Amtrak has added trains from Chicago to Milwaukee, St. Lous and Quincy over the years and civic groups in places such as Rockford and the Quad cities are clamoring for rail service to REopen.

In terms of highspeed rail, I think it'll end up happening at the state/regional level before the feds really get behind it. But I do believe it is coming.


----------



## Yardmaster

gladisimo said:


> It's impractical. Major cities are served so extensively by flight, and flights are so cheap that it's hard to do. Also, the amount of capital required is enormous.
> 
> There was a poll done somewhere that Americans prefer to drive for journeys under 500 miles than fly, let alone rail.
> 
> If it happens, it'll almost certainly flop.


I wonder how such a poll was done. Americans may prefer to fly or drive everywhere and everywhere, but their habits are destroying not just their own environment, but that of the World as well.

If the people of Asia- or Europe- emulated the American lifestyle the US apparently invaded the Middle East in order to promote (Democracy at the barrel of a guided missile) the earth's climate would be spiralling vastly faster into chsos than it already is ... but Americans still insist on taking a tonne of steel with them every time they go to the supermarket.

Forget about the broadsheet press here: even the tabloids are reporting that hundreds of American scientists were threatened or silenced by the US Government regarding climate change.

So Americans would like to fly if they can't drive. Big deal. Australians don't want to drink treated sewerage, but, as it evolves, they have to. Why? sorry, but this was all on the cards forty years ago.


----------



## Yardmaster

gladisimo said:


> It's impractical. Major cities are served so extensively by flight, and flights are so cheap that it's hard to do. Also, the amount of capital required is enormous.
> 
> There was a poll done somewhere that Americans prefer to drive for journeys under 500 miles than fly, let alone rail.
> 
> If it happens, it'll almost certainly flop.


I wonder how such a poll was done. Americans may prefer to fly or drive everywhere and everywhere, but their habits are destroying not just their own environment, but that of the World as well.

If the people of Asia- or Europe- emulated the American lifestyle the US apparently invaded the Middle East in order to promote (Democracy at the barrel of a guided missile) the earth's climate would be spiralling vastly faster into chaos than it already is ... but Americans still insist on taking a tonne of steel with them every time they go to the supermarket.

Forget about the broadsheet press here: even the tabloids are reporting that hundreds of American scientists were threatened or silenced by the US Government regarding climate change.

So Americans would like to fly if they can't drive. Big deal. Australians don't want to drink treated sewerage, but, as it evolves, they have to. Why? sorry, but this was all written large and accurately forty years ago.


----------



## nyrmetros

Dee Hinnov said:


> No, not really. HSL's are extremely expensive to build, that's why they're only viable between large cities. In Europe, HSL's can be found between large cities like Brussels and Paris, Cologne and Frankfurt or Rome and Naples.
> 
> That's why the US should concentrate on corridors between large cities like Boston, NY, Philly, Baltimore and DC; Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland or Los Angeles and SF. That would provide an interesting and attractive alternative to flying.


agreed.
New York State is actually considering a plan to have an intra-state HSR system, with connections from NYC - Albany - Syracuse - Rochester - Buffalo

It's a great plan.


----------



## ajmstilt

Texas had a proposal for HSR in the '90s. Southwest Airlines essentially killed it. What makes a Texas triangle (I prefer a 'T" for HSR: http://www.thsrtc.com/ ) makes that same triangle *very* profitible for Southwest.


----------



## Jean Luc

nyrmetros said:


> agreed.
> New York State is actually considering a plan to have an intra-state HSR system, with connections from NYC - Albany - Syracuse - Rochester - Buffalo
> 
> It's a great plan.


Just wondering, does this route already have a train service? Is it or was it once served by turbo-trains?


----------



## thestip

Jean Luc said:


> Just wondering, does this route already have a train service? Is it or was it once served by turbo-trains?


Served by the Empire, Lake Shore Limited, Maple Leaf, and various others. The turbo trains I think used to run between Albany and NYC. The state actually paid Amtrak to have a bunch of turbo trains refurbished in the early '00s that would have run between Buffalo and NYC to speed up service some, but Amtrak renegged on the project after New York State gave them the money. Last I heard the state was suing them.


----------



## PDXPaul

I rode the metroliner from Boston to New York. Good pace all the way through Rhode Island. What the **** happens in Connecticut. I get out of the damn city into the trees, and they slow the train down to 30mph. Ridiculous.


----------



## empersouf

Yeah, only HSR in 'regions' would be profitable and useful.
I think if these lines will be constructed: San Diege-LA-SF-Sacramento, Salem-Portland-Olympia-Seattle, Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago, the BoshWash Corridor offcourse, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinatti-Columbus-Cleveland and a branch to Detroit and another one to Buffalo/Rochester. And maybe some other HSR lines in regions like Texas, Florida, Atlantic Coast or the Midwest.
If you combine this with aiport station, flights between US Regions and good public transport facilities from the HSR stations(Bus/Metro/Tram?Regional Train) I think that the US could get out of the car!

But i also think this is nothing more than just a dream that wont come true.


----------



## Chicagoago

Yeah, Europe has (which I'm IMPOSSIBLY jealous of by the way) many large cities that are within hundreds of miles of each other. The United States traverses 4,500 KM. Our country has an extremely developed passanger transport system via airplanes. People will drive up to 500Km or less, and fly longer distances.

People in the USA aren't AGAINST trains, we just have cars and airplanes that normally are more efficient than taking a train. It just is what it is. The northest, Chicago to Detroit, LA/San Diego, etc are a few of the regions where train travel actually makes sense.

I love train travel, and am all for it, but in our country there are rational reasons why we don't have a major network/system that people use.


----------



## Yardmaster

Cars & planes aren't more efficient than trains ... they both burn up far more fuel and create far more global warming per passenger-mile.

Yes, I'm envious of Europe, too. But whereas Europe, the contiguous 48 states of the USA and Australia have more or less similar areas, we have just over 20 million people in that area, whereas you guys have about 300 million, and so do the Europeans (OK , in round figures, and it depends where you draw the lines).

Reading one of the other threads here, I find it incredible that a train from Chicago to Washington (or wherever) can routinely turn up hours late. Certainly much slower than say, Frances's TGV's. It's not about efficiency or population distribution, it's about political and economic will & organization.

Even here, little old Bendigo, a city of about 60,000 people 100 miles away, gets a train every hour, more at peak, the fastest of which does the distance- city centre to city centre, start to stop,- in under 90 minutes, even though it has to slot into suburban (commuter) traffic. Certainly not TGV stuff, but ...

I was referring to the "Amtrak" thread ... can't imagine why you haven't got dedicated high-speed passenger lines, at least between Washington & Boston.


----------



## Songoten2554

i was thinking of a new high speed rail line and that i think Florida could do it maybe if they combined it with TGV Technology and Shinkansen can be done also around the United States it can use existing or modified Main Stations and then around the countryside it will go on its separate tracks and right of way and it can speed it doesn't have to go all the way separate it just can do that on the countryside on evelated right of way like the shinkansen and use exisiting right of way near the city that will stop but it will only be with the major terminals of the lines it will built new stations on the HSR lines so yeah i imagine it is possible since alot of people in the United states are thinking now that the rest of the world that Railways are the way to go

by the way i like Railways as well as cars and airplanes also ships as well


----------



## miamicanes

I look at it this way: the current problem with maglev is less a matter of technology than a matter of cost. If China -- a country with both the technology to make maglev work and some of the lowest labor & materials costs in the world, with a government capable of forcibly smoothing over any political problem it encounters -- can't do it cost-effectively, the chances that any state in America or country in Europe (where EVERYTHING, from land to labor and intellectual property royalties, is going to cost a LOT more) can pull it off is 'nonexistent'. 

The ONLY economically-viable use for maglev I can see in the US anytime in the next 25 years MIGHT be if a new airport were built 20-30 miles east of New York somewhere in Long Island, and a maglev line with a station in midtown Manhattan, another along the line in Queens, a station at the new airport, and one last station a mile or so from the airport one, but in a location more convenient for massive numbers of commuters using it to turn a 20-30 mile commute into a 10 minute expensive trip. And even THAT scenario is kind of a stretch.


----------



## KoolKeatz

they will build a maglev from the munich airport to the central station. u need then 10 minutes istead of 40 with the subway. 
the 38km long munich track will cost 1,7 billions €. the 900 (!) km long track from tehran to mashhad will cost only 6,7 billions. I think ure right!


----------



## Fern

Trainman Dave said:


> I have been tracking the development of high speed railways in Asia and Europe since the 1960’s and I have never seen a vision or a plan for a “European High Speed Rail Network”. The current “”EHSRN”” is a pastiche of individual national development programs which reflect local problems, peer pressure and local politics. France, for example, has a plan which is subject change with every new government and the availability of Swiss, Italian and Spanish government funds.


If the EU is not prepared to put in the money then there is no reason why governments should put the interest of their nations behind in favour of a wider european vision/plan. In Portugal's particular case only 10% of the funding for our TGV network will come from the EU so it is obvious that with each passing government the network layout changes to suit their vision for the country better.


----------



## Trainman Dave

Fern said:


> If the EU is not prepared to put in the money then there is no reason why governments should put the interest of their nations behind in favour of a wider european vision/plan. In Portugal's particular case only 10% of the funding for our TGV network will come from the EU so it is obvious that with each passing government the network layout changes to suit their vision for the country better.


I agree.


----------



## edubejar

isaidso said:


> Montreal-New York should be built, but only after the Windsor-Quebec City route is built. Eastern Canada is falling further and further behind wealthier jurisdictions like Alberta and Texas. It is vital that this line be built.
> 
> *You would think with the world's #1 rail equipment manufacturer (Bombardier) based in Montreal, that ground would have been broken already.*
> 
> *It has been proven time and time again that transportation infrastructure determines what geographical areas, and by extension cities, prosper and grow the most.*
> 
> Montreal was at one point the most important city in the New World. It won't get back there any time soon, but you have to take the first step some time.


Ya, I always wondered where new, sleak Bombardier trains ran in Canada! It must not be like Alstom in France = French TGV or Siemens in Germany = German ICE.

And ya, I would think that with HSR between NYC and Montreal, there would be an increase in travel between both cities, afterall, both cities are international, interesting to many people, etc. However, I don't know how they play out with business traverlers. I don't know what they business profile is between both cities. In any case, businesses could use this as a favorable factor.

Now I measure on Google Earth a distance of 244 straight miles between Paris and Lyon, France and 330 straight miles between Montreal and NYC...that's 86 more miles for the American counterpart...but then again, more people live in Greater NYC than Greater Paris and more people live in Greater Montreal than Greater Lyon...so I'm thinking 86 additional miles isn't too much in this case. And now remember, the Paris-Lyon TGV is direct...it doesn't stop at any intermediate city on the way...that puppy runs mainly through rural Burgandy and that didn't stop the French from building a TGV line there just because they couldn't justify service to a 3rd or 4th city along the way...if anything, I think the directness makes it feasible, as Lyon is one of the speediest TGV lines.


----------



## Trainman Dave

edubejar said:


> Ya, I always wondered where new, sleak Bombardier trains ran in Canada! It must not be like Alstom in France = French TGV or Siemens in Germany = German ICE.
> QUOTE]
> 
> They don't, the Bombardier LRC's on the Montreal <> Toronto corridor entered service in early 1980's. The sleek new trains run in Boston <> Washington corridor


----------



## Trainman Dave

edubejar said:


> Now I measure on Google Earth a distance of 244 straight miles between Paris and Lyon, France and 330 straight miles between Montreal and NYC...that's 86 more miles for the American counterpart...but then again, more people live in Greater NYC than Greater Paris and more people live in Greater Montreal than Greater Lyon...so I'm thinking 86 additional miles isn't too much in this case. And now remember, the Paris-Lyon TGV is direct...it doesn't stop at any intermediate city on the way...that puppy runs mainly through rural Burgandy and that didn't stop the French from building a TGV line there just because they couldn't justify service to a 3rd or 4th city along the way...if anything, I think the directness makes it feasible, as Lyon is one of the speediest TGV lines.


This is a fundemental mistake about the operation of the TGV trains. There is capacity for 15 trains per hour between Paris and Lyon but only 2 or occasionally 3 actually travel between Paris and Lyon the other 12 travel to 20+ destinations in eastern and southern France. I think that about 50% of the french population are in fact served by the trains which run LGV-se which runs from Paris to Lyon. A High Speed Line New York to Montreal would not have many secondary markets to serve.


----------



## kub86

^Do you mean 15 per hour per direction?


----------



## gladisimo

Yardmaster said:


> I wonder how such a poll was done. Americans may prefer to fly or drive everywhere and everywhere, but their habits are destroying not just their own environment, but that of the World as well.
> 
> If the people of Asia- or Europe- emulated the American lifestyle the US apparently invaded the Middle East in order to promote (Democracy at the barrel of a guided missile) the earth's climate would be spiralling vastly faster into chsos than it already is ... but Americans still insist on taking a tonne of steel with them every time they go to the supermarket.
> 
> Forget about the broadsheet press here: even the tabloids are reporting that hundreds of American scientists were threatened or silenced by the US Government regarding climate change.
> 
> So Americans would like to fly if they can't drive. Big deal. Australians don't want to drink treated sewerage, but, as it evolves, they have to. Why? sorry, but this was all on the cards forty years ago.


Lol, so angry. I agree with what you said, but you know, Americans haven't gotten to that stage yet, and knowing the way things work around here, they wont change their minds until it's too late. 

Being in America, it's like I said before, people in general don't have the drive to do something very out of the way, and this is everywhere around the world, not just in America. If the planners didn't have the foresight to cater to the people's needs, then the people will fill the niche by themselves. 

It's hard not to lug a ton of steel with us when we go to the supermarket. The nearest supermarket is 20 minutes away by walking, and the buses don't even come by here. The local shuttle only comes once an hour. 

Tabloids report a lot of things that aren't true (and a lot of things that are but the mainstream media don't) hard to determine the validity of tht, but it's probably true.


----------



## mariokarter

Maglev Maglev Maglev Maglev it would be sick if they built the montreal-NYC route and the toronto-montreal part of the Canadian corridor at the same time.


----------



## Trainman Dave

kub86 said:


> ^Do you mean 15 per hour per direction?


Yes.


----------



## edubejar

Trainman Dave said:


> This is a fundemental mistake about the operation of the TGV trains. There is capacity for 15 trains per hour between Paris and Lyon but only 2 or occasionally 3 actually travel between Paris and Lyon the other 12 travel to 20+ destinations in eastern and southern France. I think that about 50% of the french population are in fact served by the trains which run LGV-se which runs from Paris to Lyon. A High Speed Line New York to Montreal would not have many secondary markets to serve.


I reread your post several times but I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "mistake"...if it's the mistake of the French Railways to not service Lyon more than 2 or 3x an hour (based on the 15 trains/hr capacity you talk about) or if it's the mistake that some of us make in not realizing that the Paris-Lyon line is in fact used for more than Lyon, since it extends as the Méditerannée line onto southeastern France (Valence, Nîmes, Arles, Avignon, Aix-en-Provence, Marseille, but also Montpellier, Perpignan and Nice). I think you were more likely referring to this latter, since I can't see why anyone would suggest that more than 2 or 3 trains per hour are needed for Lyon, except for maybe one extra.

However, wasn't the Paris-Lyon line first made without servicing cities further south? The Méditérannée TGV service didn't kick in until much later, so there were only Paris-Lyon trains running along the Paris-Lyon line for a while.

Couldn't Toronto be that other Canadian city beyond Montreal?


----------



## Trainman Dave

edubejar said:


> I reread your post several times but I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "mistake"...if it's the mistake of the French Railways to not service Lyon more than 2 or 3x an hour (based on the 15 trains/hr capacity you talk about) or if it's the mistake that some of us make in not realizing that the Paris-Lyon line is in fact used for more than Lyon, since it extends as the Méditerannée line onto southeastern France (Valence, Nîmes, Arles, Avignon, Aix-en-Provence, Marseille, but also Montpellier, Perpignan and Nice). I think you were more likely referring to this latter, since I can't see why anyone would suggest that more than 2 or 3 trains per hour are needed for Lyon, except for maybe one extra.
> 
> However, wasn't the Paris-Lyon line first made without servicing cities further south? The Méditérannée TGV service didn't kick in until much later, so there were only Paris-Lyon trains running along the Paris-Lyon line for a while.
> 
> Couldn't Toronto be that other Canadian city beyond Montreal?


The mistake is just considering a single city pair!

No matter how you look at it, there are probably only three significant destinations beyond Montrteal: Quebec, Ottawa & Totonto (a very long way arround). In the case of all the LGV lines in France there many more destinations than just three. Long before the French built the LGV to Marseille, TGV trains were running from Paris to Marseille, Montpellier, Nice, Milan, Annecy, Geneve, Lausanne and to many intermediate destinations. Infact when the eastern LGV is opened. It will be possible to count the major cities in France which do not Have TGV service on the fingers of two hands.


----------



## Xelebes

On the topic, Canada is planning to have its first HSR corridor between Edmonton and Calgary. The province has just bought the land for ROWs. The plan is to actually have it built in 20-30 years.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Fern said:


> If the EU is not prepared to put in the money then there is no reason why governments should put the interest of their nations behind in favour of a wider european vision/plan. In Portugal's particular case only 10% of the funding for our TGV network will come from the EU so it is obvious that with each passing government the network layout changes to suit their vision for the country better.


You have some point, but its not as bad I think. Even though the EU funding makes up only a part of the total costs, at least in Austria, the argument "part of the EU priority plan" is a quite strong one. 

And the perhaps most important point, the European railways are thanks to EU initiatives on a good way to become far more compatible. The new railguiding system will be a European one, and replace the dozen old incompatible ones. Just to name an example. 

Furthermore EU regulations made it possible that now railways are able to run a train the entire trip long if they choose to do so, its not obligatory to let the other national service to take over the train. 


Still its true, national egoism still dominates. But I think things get better.


----------



## Trainman Dave

Slartibartfas said:


> You have some point, but its not as bad I think. Even though the EU funding makes up only a part of the total costs, at least in Austria, the argument "part of the EU priority plan" is a quite strong one.
> 
> And the perhaps most important point, the European railways are thanks to EU initiatives on a good way to become far more compatible. The new railguiding system will be a European one, and replace the dozen old incompatible ones. Just to name an example.
> 
> Furthermore EU regulations made it possible that now railways are able to run a train the entire trip long if they choose to do so, its not obligatory to let the other national service to take over the train.
> 
> 
> Still its true, national egoism still dominates. But I think things get better.


I have heard of glaciers which are moving faster!


----------



## redspork02

Americans love there cars, i dont think small towns would like it if the hst would pass thru there city without a stop!!

The same injustice they got with the Interstate in the 50's.


----------



## Cloudship

Few people really "love" their cars. What they really love is what the cars afford them - privacy, control, point to point efficiency, space, and security. So you can't really develop an effective transit system without either adddressing those needs or finding niches where those needs either arn't as important or people are willing to sacrifice.


----------



## miamicanes

> Americans love there cars, i dont think small towns would like it if the hst would pass thru there city without a stop!!


Well, if the HSR were really ISR in the 100-110mph range built within an existing rail corridor, there's nothing the small town could really do to stop it since everything involved can legally be done under FRA rules as a matter of right, without needing to get special permits from anyone. Faster trains (requiring grade separations, new ROW, etc) would give those small towns a lot more leverage.

The thing is, if it's done RIGHT (with offline stations, at least in the small towns), there's no reason why there can't be lots of trains that stop only at the big cities along the way, and maybe 2-4 trains per day that hit every single station.

In the Florida context, there might be...

* a FEW trains per day that go straight from Miami to Orlando, skipping every station in between

* 4-6 trains per day that go Miami->Fort Lauderdale->Boca Raton/Deerfield->WPB, then the stations between Auburndale (where a train coming north from Miami would turn left towards Tampa or right towards Orlando) and Tampa.

* a LOT of trains that hit Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton/Deerfield Beach, West Palm Beach, skip the small towns in central Florida along the route, then hit the stations between Auburndale and Orlando (with a few possibly continuing all the way to Daytona and Jacksonville). Passengers could also get to Tampa by getting off at Auburndale and boarding the next Orlando->Tampa train 15-30 minutes later.

* 3 or 4 trains per day in each direction (or more likely, one physical train that just keep running back and forth all day) between West Palm Beach and Auburndale (maybe Ocala or some northwestern suburb of Orlando) that stop at all of the small towns (Sebring, Winter Park, Okeechobee, etc) in between that the main trains skip. In addition, the last train of the day (if it's ultra late and has few passengers anyway) might stop at the small-town stations to drop off passengers without checked baggage (if any). From WPB, the small-town passengers could either wait and transfer to a "main" train, or (more likely) just take Tri-Rail the rest of the way. Ditto, for the Orlando-bound.

As far as people loving their cars... that's true up to a point (say, 90-150 minute drives). But there's also a point where boredom and dread start to kick in, and rail becomes increasingly appealing... especially if passengers can safely leave their cars parked overnight or longer at the station, do their rental car paperwork and get their keys (or at least a code that opens a safe at the destination) while they're still on the train, and the whole thing is as convenient and ceremony-free as possible.


----------



## Tri-ring

Why don't you guys come to Japan and see the marvel of the Japanese Rail system.
The Tokaido Shinkansen went into operation in 1964 and after 40 odd years it is still packed from the first train leaving Tokyo at 6AM till 10PM the last train to leave. A train either an express or a Kodama that stops at every station pulls in/leaves every 3~10 minutes.
The Sanyo Shinkansen which extends to Kyusu from Osaka connected to the Tokaido is also packed. The price is about $130US one way from Tokyo central to Osaka central with a distance about 500Km and the ride is about 2.5 hours.
The extra leg to Hakata from Osaka is about the same distance of 500Km taking about the same time. 
The average *daily* passanger amount is 510,000 person combined.
The Tohoku shinkansen from Tokyo to Yaheto is also about 600Km and the price is little more than a $100US which went into partial service in 1971.
The total *daily* passanger amount for the Tohoku Shinkansen is 220,000 passangers.


----------



## aquablue

BS. You need new tracks - no fix'm uppers will work, given the congestion on those tracks no matter what upgrades are done. A crash just happened yesterday btw a freight and an amtrak in Illinois - they won't remove that law. Yes, fix the NEC but don't expect it to ever really be much more than a short term, stop gap measure. Didn't you read the report by Amtrak recently? They said it would cost 7 billion to upgrade the NEC but that would only gain you 20 mins time off the NY-DC trip - not really efficient use of funds if you ask me. I think its time to try something new that isn't going to interfere with the freight operations. IMO, maglev is the ONLY solution due to lack of room for new HSR, unless you move the whole track inland and have spurs into the cities on regular lines. Maglev could hover above the Intersates, which a new LGV could not.

Also, By the time the upgrades are done, the congestion, etc..will have started to erode the economy. We will allready be far behind other nations who are planning the real thing now.


----------



## aquablue

Songoten2554 said:


> maglev is great but the price its too expansive regular HSR is cheaper but way better since it can adapt itself to regular Railway traffic in the cities and go on high speed Railway Tracks outside the cities area
> 
> Maglev you have to built everything from scratch which makes it very expansive
> 
> with HSR however the Railway cars of the HSR. the stations of the HSR, the right of way for the HSR, and the electiricty power for the HSR will have to be built but there is an advantage to this in that you don't have to built anything in the cities area it can go on the normal railway traffic without having to build a new railway station but the thing is that it will have to be electified of the tracks area that it will use
> 
> HSR is expansive but its cheaper then maglev


HSR isn't an option unless it is moved far inland from the major cities due to massive sprawl/urbanization along the route. Maglev can be elevated above highways. the Feds won't allow these light HSR trains on regular tracks due to regulations due to freight trains along the routes.


----------



## Songoten2554

the HSR Tracks will be identical to the regular Railway tracks but there could be some ways to be intergreted with them

the french approach to high speed rail is pretty good and spot on but for the NEC railway right of way will have to stay how it is but outside the NEC it can adapt better

the french approach to HSR outside the NEC will be alot easier


----------



## aquablue

*laughable attempt at american HSR*

Can you believe it, the so called HSR for the SE USA - DC-->Charlotte is going to be 110mph top speed? And that may not even happen at all!!! HAHAHAHA, is this some kind of a joke. hno: Why don't americans understand what HSR is? Are they that parochial, do they not look beyond their borders? HSR is greater than 150mph. Also, its disgusting that even this lametable 110mph speed train may not happen due to anti-rail, pro-highway idiots and scumbags who are stuck in the past and think rail is for old people or for romantic journeys only. This country needs to wake up. I can't wait for oil to rise, then these people will be singing a different tune!! haha, what creeps!!

If you dare google it, search for HSR south east USA -- prepare to be disgusted.


----------



## kkackwurst

funny threat.


----------



## iampuking

110mph? Even ours (UK) is faster than that :lol:


----------



## geoking66

aquablue said:


> BS. You need new tracks - no fix'm uppers will work, given the congestion on those tracks no matter what upgrades are done. A crash just happened yesterday btw a freight and an amtrak in Illinois - they won't remove that law. Yes, fix the NEC but don't expect it to ever really be much more than a short term, stop gap measure. Didn't you read the report by Amtrak recently? They said it would cost 7 billion to upgrade the NEC but that would only gain you 20 mins time off the NY-DC trip - not really efficient use of funds if you ask me. I think its time to try something new that isn't going to interfere with the freight operations. IMO, maglev is the ONLY solution due to lack of room for new HSR, unless you move the whole track inland and have spurs into the cities on regular lines. Maglev could hover above the Intersates, which a new LGV could not.
> 
> Also, By the time the upgrades are done, the congestion, etc..will have started to erode the economy. We will allready be far behind other nations who are planning the real thing now.


Actually, you're forgetting that Acela is capable of only 135mph on non-25kV AC and 150mph on 25kV AC. If they were to upgrade Acela, not just the tracks and electrical systems, to say, 175mph or even 200mph, the time would shorten by over 35-45 minutes at minimum. Seriously, where are you going to put MAGLEV? Remember, there are huge clearance issues especially going into New York City. Also, MAGLEV's capacity isn't amazing. It may go quickly but requires large spacing. Curves on MAGLEV are also an issue. To get the desired speed that you're talking about would need it to be flat and straight enough, but the NEC and Northeast doesn't have any areas that can fit it. You say that more tracks are necessary. Think about it this way. The West Coast Main Line in the UK operates during rush hour 6tph in both directions for high-speed Virgin, at 10tph Overground/Silverlink up to Watford Junction, and freight trains. That's a train every two to four minutes. The NEC's gaps between trains during rush hour are about ten minutes.


----------



## aquablue

What are you suggesting? There is no room to straighten the current track for true HSR in the NEC. Even if you upgrade the catenary, there are too many curves to make a difference. Didn't you hear what I said about the 7billion upgrade for 20mins reduction (official study)? If not maglev, what do you suggest to get true HSR in the NEC, new ROW, or what? The current tracks are useless, especially north of NYC in CT. At least you can put the maglev over the highways, its possible to do that on highways that have medians.


----------



## ADCS

Problem is that the rest of the country doesn't want to pay for it, and without a powerful passenger rail lobby to counteract both them and the freight companies who want that federal cash themselves, its going to be a hard battle.

Even on the state level, you have problems, such as Central PA and Upstate NY whose representatives are loath to spending money on Philly and NYC


----------



## ADCS

It's better than the 79 mph that we have now (Why is it 79 mph? Why not a round 80?)


----------



## phattonez

At least the California one is the real deal. 200 mph.


----------



## 33Hz

aquablue said:


> What are you suggesting? There is no room to straighten the current track for true HSR in the NEC. Even if you upgrade the catenary, there are too many curves to make a difference. Didn't you hear what I said about the 7billion upgrade for 20mins reduction (official study)? If not maglev, what do you suggest to get true HSR in the NEC, new ROW, or what? The current tracks are useless, especially north of NYC in CT. At least you can put the maglev over the highways, its possible to do that on highways that have medians.


I don't get it, in post #4 you say that the arguments about ROW are baloney, so yes, a new HSR ROW is needed. I think this whole "maglev can go over highways" argument from its supporters is a red herring - there is absolutely no technical reason why HSR couldn't do the same. Only problem is that it would be expensive and hard to maintain in either form.

Much more realistic is that the line should run alonside existing highways as has been done in Germany, Holland and the UK, for example. The CTRL is proof that a 300km/h railway can follow existing highway curves.


UK











Germany











Holland


----------



## elfabyanos

The funniest thing I read re. the California HSL was a pro-car lobby critic citing HSR as "a 21st century version of Victorian technology", as if cars were invented in the 20th century! Granted I see his point, cars are 'newer' by about 50 years, but I found it funny


----------



## elfabyanos

geoking66 said:


> The West Coast Main Line in the UK operates during rush hour 6tph in both directions for high-speed Virgin, at 10tph Overground/Silverlink up to Watford Junction, and freight trains.


From the 2009 timetable Virgin will operate 11tph during the peak, I believe it's already more than 6 per hour in the non-peak now.

Aquablue - I have never understood the idea that Maglev is easier to find space to build. A maglev train is about the same size as a normal train, it's trackbed is about the same size as a normal trackbed, the only reason it can 'hover' above expressways is because a bloody great long elvated section for the trackbed is built, which could just as easily be a conventional trackbed. I don't get it. All the proponents of Maglev seem to make this same mistake - that Maglev will be cheaper and easier to build, cheaper to maintain, easier and more convenient to use and have a higher potential capacity. The only proven thing with Maglev is that it's fast. France are upping their LGVs up to 224 mph within the next 5 years. That would bring DC and Boston within 2 hours of each other on a dedicated high speed line with no timetabled stops. Why choose maglev?


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> From the 2009 timetable Virgin will operate 11tph during the peak, I believe it's already more than 6 per hour in the non-peak now.
> 
> Aquablue - I have never understood the idea that Maglev is easier to find space to build. A maglev train is about the same size as a normal train, it's trackbed is about the same size as a normal trackbed, the only reason it can 'hover' above expressways is because a bloody great long elvated section for the trackbed is built, which could just as easily be a conventional trackbed. I don't get it. All the proponents of Maglev seem to make this same mistake - that Maglev will be cheaper and easier to build, cheaper to maintain, easier and more convenient to use and have a higher potential capacity. The only proven thing with Maglev is that it's fast. France are upping their LGVs up to 224 mph within the next 5 years. That would bring DC and Boston within 2 hours of each other on a dedicated high speed line with no timetabled stops. Why choose maglev?



Can I shed some light to that subject, first of all, maglev can turn tighter curves due to magnetic induced propulsion positioning the cart within the guideway. 
In term of price since it is still in development stage(for Japan anyways) this can not be thoroughly compared but in theory there is no alignement of rail nor sleepers needed and the Japanese system only needs coils for magnetic inducement, I think the price can be reduced significantly once technology is established.
Price for construction of experimental track can be found here.


----------



## pflo777

1. Germany developed a new generation of Maglev Trains in the years 2002-2007, based upon the Transrapid System that they sold to China (in 2001), and which is in reliable operation there for 4 years now.

This new Generation of Vehicle and Guidway is 25% cheaper than the one sold to China, which makes costs per mile for constructing it about as expensive as a modern state of the art Wheel/Rail Highspeed system











http://www.max-boegl.de/boegldip/web/ifsbinary.jsp?fsId=34667629&disposition=inline


2. This system needs a corridor of 13 meter width (+1 meter noise protection walls where necessary) and can operate there with 500 kmh speed and a 10 minutes intervall.

Based upon tested todays technology.

3. As the Transrapid system wraps around the guidway it can go aroung thigher curves.
Even with 400 kmh it could easily follow a US-Highway. 
With 500 kmh it might need to cut some corners, but generally would also be able to follow it.

4. I highly recommend to take a look at the Shanghai maglev route on google earth, there you can see, how a system looks, that carries 20 000 Passengers/day (which makes 7,3mio a year) with 430 kmh in a 15 minutes interval.( with passenger numbers rising)

To sum it up:

Dinner is served! 
The US would just have to stop talking, discussing and babbling (what they actually do for 25 years now) and just go for it.


----------



## 33Hz

pflo777 said:


> 1. Germany developed a new generation of Maglev Trains in the years 2002-2007, based upon the Transrapid System that they sold to China (in 2001), and which is in reliable operation there for 4 years now.
> 
> This new Generation of Vehicle and Guidway is 25% cheaper than the one sold to China, which makes costs per mile for constructing it about as expensive as a modern state of the art Wheel/Rail Highspeed system


I suspect, as with the UK case, that the actual cost of the track hardware will be insignificant compared to the cost of land, project planning and other legal fees on a US project in the NEC. If Transrapid can show that their track is cheaper (is it in use at Emsland yet?), they still have the above to overcome.




> 2. This system needs a corridor of 13 meter width (+1 meter noise protection walls where necessary) and can operate there with 500 kmh speed and a 10 minutes intervall.
> 
> Based upon tested todays technology.


As can be seen in the pictures above, HSR typically needs 8 to 10 metres for a twin track.

Whilst no train is yet running at 500kmh regularly, neither is any Transrapid. AFAIK they top out at 430kmh (for 2 minutes) in Shaghai and 450 on the test track. Granted this is faster than a normal train in regular use.

The 10 minute interval is IMHO the achiles heel of the technology. Intervals on TGV are 3 minutes, allowing over 20,000 passengers each way per hour. On Transrapid it is 6,000 per hour.




> 3. As the Transrapid system wraps around the guidway it can go aroung thigher curves.
> Even with 400 kmh it could easily follow a US-Highway.
> With 500 kmh it might need to cut some corners, but generally would also be able to follow it.


This is a myth. The TGV records show that a normal train is perfectly able to ride corners at high speed, they do not need to be wrapped around it to travel over them safely.

Instead it is all to do with cant deficiency (super-elevation) of the tracks and passenger comfort. Dedicated passenger railways can use high cant just like the maglev tracks have to be leaned into corners.



> 4. I highly recommend to take a look at the Shanghai maglev route on google earth, there you can see, how a system looks, that carries 20 000 Passengers/day (which makes 7,3mio a year) with 430 kmh in a 15 minutes interval.( with passenger numbers rising)


If you look at the line on Google Earth, or indeed below, you can see that the track - elevated or not - requires long sweeping curves and realistically a lot of land underneath. If you want the line to really enter the city centre, as was done at Lille, Antwerp and London, then tunnelling is the only acceptable answer and Transrapid does not lend itself well to this. That is why Shanghai avoided it.






















elfabyanos said:


> France are upping their LGVs up to 224 mph within the next 5 years. That would bring DC and Boston within 2 hours of each other on a dedicated high speed line with no timetabled stops. Why choose maglev?


To be fair, DC to Boston is 450 miles, so even using the sort of average speed the AGV could give (~170mph), they are at best 2h40m apart. But the difference in timing would not be sufficient to go to the expense of constructing maglev infrastructure through or under all the intermediate cities.


----------



## 33Hz

elfabyanos said:


> The funniest thing I read re. the California HSL was a pro-car lobby critic citing HSR as "a 21st century version of Victorian technology", as if cars were invented in the 20th century! Granted I see his point, cars are 'newer' by about 50 years, but I found it funny



This dates from 1771, so in reality it is the train which is the newer technology :lol:


----------



## pflo777

aquablue said:


> Can you believe it, the so called HSR for the SE USA - DC-->Charlotte is going to be 110mph top speed? And that may not even happen at all!!! HAHAHAHA, is this some kind of a joke. hno: Why don't americans understand what HSR is? Are they that parochial, do they not look beyond their borders? HSR is greater than 150mph. Also, its disgusting that even this lametable 110mph speed train may not happen due to anti-rail, pro-highway idiots and scumbags who are stuck in the past and think rail is for old people or for romantic journeys only. This country needs to wake up. I can't wait for oil to rise, then these people will be singing a different tune!! haha, what creeps!!
> 
> If you dare google it, search for HSR south east USA -- prepare to be disgusted.



:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:


----------



## pflo777

33Hz said:


> I suspect, as with the UK case, that the actual cost of the track hardware will be insignificant compared to the cost of land, project planning and other legal fees on a US project in the NEC. If Transrapid can show that their track is cheaper (is it in use at Emsland yet?), they still have the above to overcome.


Yes, they have installed prototypes of the new, cost reduced girders on the Test Track in emsland.
The line in Munich will be built completely using them.
When it comes to bureaucratic costs I dont think, that it will make any difference, if the train rolls or levitates on its tracks.


> As can be seen in the pictures above, HSR typically needs 8 to 10 metres for a twin track.


I have to correct mysefl: double track maglev for 300kmh needs 10,4 meters, for 500 kmh 11,4 meters.


> Whilst no train is yet running at 500kmh regularly, neither is any Transrapid. AFAIK they top out at 430kmh (for 2 minutes) in Shaghai and 450 on the test track. Granted this is faster than a normal train in regular use.


From a technological aspect, the system is ready for 500 kmh in Shanghai already. And they also reached that speed in 2005 with a manned, NOT modified vehicle.


> The 10 minute interval is IMHO the achiles heel of the technology. Intervals on TGV are 3 minutes, allowing over 20,000 passengers each way per hour. On Transrapid it is 6,000 per hour


Thats not correct:
Right now, the minimum interval given by the technology for the Transrapid Maglev is 5 Minutes.
One train can carry a maximum of 1200 Passengers using 10 segments.
That makes 14400 Passengers per hour in one direction or 28800 per double track. Ten segments are the maximum for the Transrapid right now. If needed, you could easily modify the system, so that it can accomodate 15-20segments per train.


> This is a myth. The TGV records show that a normal train is perfectly able to ride corners at high speed, they do not need to be wrapped around it to travel over them safely.
> Instead it is all to do with cant deficiency (super-elevation) of the tracks and passenger comfort. Dedicated passenger railways can use high cant just like the maglev tracks have to be leaned into corners.


A train can super-elevate its tracks at a maximum of 6,5° (11,3 %) .
A transrapid maglev with 16° (28,7 %)
At cruising speed, the passenger doestn take notice of how much the train leans into the curve. But the effect is, that the maglev can make either tighter curves at the same speed than HSR or can drive through the same radii at higher speeds, with the same comfort for the passenger.
The problem with HSR is, that you cannot increase the cant angle, because in case of an emergency stop, the train would fall out of its rails.


> If you look at the line on Google Earth, or indeed below, you can see that the track - elevated or not - requires long sweeping curves and realistically a lot of land underneath. If you want the line to really enter the city centre, as was done at Lille, Antwerp and London, then tunnelling is the only acceptable answer and Transrapid does not lend itself well to this. That is why Shanghai avoided it.


if you want to enter and leave the city at high speed with a rail system, you also have to build new tracks. 
Lots of cities do that, because using the old tracks, you will loose a lot of time. Paris also thinks about builidng one new central HSR statin with new tracks, so that the TGV`s can enter and leave the city as fast as they can.
Germany builds a new HSR Train Station tunnel though the whole city in Stuttgart ( google Stuttgart21) and plans to do that in varios other citys too, on the long term


> To be fair, DC to Boston is 450 miles, so even using the sort of average speed the AGV could give (~170mph), they are at best 2h40m apart. But the difference in timing would not be sufficient to go to the expense of constructing maglev infrastructure through or under all the intermediate cities


As I mentioned, the prices for maglev vs. HSR are falling right now, and I assume that in the not to distant future, it will cost exactly that amount of money more, that it offers more in speed and comfort.

Using the average speed of the latest AGV is a bit tricky, because they have hardly any intermediat stops and travel through almost empty spanish countryside. Thats hardly comparable to dense populated Boswash with several intermediate stops.

But using the acceleration/decelartion of the Transrapid-maglev used in Shanghai, that corridor could be served with several intermediate stops in alltogether 2 h.

But never mind, i assume that the US wont see neither HSR nor Maglev in the too near future.
Even a 20 year old TGV would be a big step forward for them.....


----------



## Facial

I support the increases to 110 mph.

It is not so much out of the fear that a more ambitious jump to 180+mph trains would backfire, but more so along the lines of gradual improvement.

If 180+ mph is approved, then that would be magical - I would support that too. Anything is better than the speed of 79 mph, which is about as fast as passenger trains went in the 1930s... under steam.

It's time to break the 70-year hiatus. Even the most marginal of speed increments would be a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Tri-ring

phattonez said:


> The system is expected to pay for itself. How is it in other countries. Does it operate at a loss? If so, how much per year?


Japan is doing quite fine thank you, Tokaido Shinkansen been in black for the more than 35 years paying back all construction cost within 10 years from inauguration. Other lines are also making profit.

Some people needs to learn that trains when operated properly makes profit. :banana:


----------



## 33Hz

Other systems operate in profit, but one lesson is that systems should be built incrementally - the interest on the capital can otherwise be too large.

However I would warn you against taking a small step to 110mph. It will be another generation at least before you get the opportunity to improve that, and it just isn't fast enough to get people out of their cars, yet alone planes.


----------



## Grygry

phattonez said:


> ^^That all depends on whether or not California does it. Remember, the state is $10 billion in debt. It will be a very tough sell unless the state stops resting on its laurels and gets the budget fixed. The system is expected to pay for itself. How is it in other countries. Does it operate at a loss? If so, how much per year?


Not in France, but it depends if you take in account the company, the company+state, the company+state+taxpayer you get different results! SNCF operate profit on all high speed lines. 
BTW TGV traffic in France is smaller, eg for Eurostar it is 7 million per year. For all France there are:
~1500 km of high speed sections
~700 TGVs a day (-> 350,000 passengers a small day)
~average distance must be 500 km

The interest in regard with the car/plane is the time you win, but in the USA due to the extended cities and lengthy "security" procedures in railway and very slow and unreliable trains stations you lose a lot of time. Comfort is also better than plane or car, and can also be improved to drain passengers - Amtrack doesn't seem to be aware of it!

The main interest of train is for commuting daily in big urban areas and intercity between two close big cities. This requires a comprehensive med speed network (100-150 mph) that can be improved for long distances (400-800 miles) using high speed (150-200mph). So far this seems a small step but it is necessary to move on for further high speed developments.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:rofl:

ZOMFGLOLZ!! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!!! You're a comic genius!! LMFAO!!

:hahano:


----------



## bmfarley

miamicanes said:


> "...The opposition comes from "true HSR's" unholy up-front capital costs relative to relatively few users. $15 billion buried Boston's main freeway, doubled its capacity, and directly benefits about a million people every day. That same $15 billion would have been enough to build roughly 300 miles of "True HSR" track at ~$50 million/mile. I don't think even the *TGV* has that many passengers per day. And this is a comparison of the most expensive road improvement project in America with the busiest HSR network in the world. A more "normal" road project (like rebuilding and widening 10-20 miles of a major urban freeway somewhere in America) would normally be about $500 million to $2 billion... enough for a whopping 10-40 miles of "True HSR" track. The freeway will typically have at least 200,000 users every day. How many daily riders will 10-40 miles of "True HSR" track generate above and beyond the number who would have used the train anyway if it were 110mph? ..."



Your figures are suspect. The Big Dig may benefit a million people each day, but your figures have to include others than those actually using the freeway and network to add up to one million. Maybe the coffeeshop barrista at the next offramp able to sell one more cup of coffee per hour??? Anyway, the busiest freeways in the world are probably in California... and none have average daily traffic over 350k or so. Nothing in the Boston region comes close to LA or SF Bay Area.

A check of online info indicates that the Central Artery average daily traffic is 158k vehicles. That's actually down from the elevated structure that was there before.... having an ADT of 163k. 

Secondly, TGV does have numbers that are comparable. No, they are not at one million a day. But at 45 million a years (2003), average daily trips... probably weekdays... is in the vicinity of 150k per day. If it was not in 2003, then I am certain it would be today.


----------



## Tri-ring

bmfarley said:


> Your figures are suspect. The Big Dig may benefit a million people each day, but your figures have to include others than those actually using the freeway and network to add up to one million. Maybe the coffeeshop barrista at the next offramp able to sell one more cup of coffee per hour??? Anyway, the busiest freeways in the world are probably in California... and none have average daily traffic over 350k or so. Nothing in the Boston region comes close to LA or SF Bay Area.
> 
> A check of online info indicates that the Central Artery average daily traffic is 158k vehicles. That's actually down from the elevated structure that was there before.... having an ADT of 163k.
> 
> Secondly, TGV does have numbers that are comparable. No, they are not at one million a day. But at 45 million a years (2003), average daily trips... probably weekdays... is in the vicinity of 150k per day. If it was not in 2003, then I am certain it would be today.


As supplemental info., Tokaido Shinkansen's average daily ridership is 355K(F02) and yearly adds up to 130MM(F02) announced by JR Central.

http://jr-central.co.jp/eng.nsf/english/n-04-0408


----------



## elfabyanos

Bottom line is: HSR is profitable.

Investment on a sensible route is paid back and in the black within 10-20 years, taking the examples of France and Japan. Incremental construction is probably required for this outcome.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tri-ring said:


> Can I shed some light to that subject, first of all, maglev can turn tighter curves due to magnetic induced propulsion positioning the cart within the guideway.



Thanks for the info. As I've mentioned before on other threads, much of the reason why conventional trains do not run tighter curves is not because of the physics involved in keeping the stresses on the track down to tolerable levels, but health and safety imposing maximum lateral acceleration that will be experienced by the passengers. Basically we don't want the passengers' coffee splatting against the window when the train hits a corner.

Even if there are slight gain to be made by maglev technology there is absolutely no chance a maglev line designed for 250mph wont need to be as straight or straighter than a conventional line designed for current hsr speeds of 200mph. The argument that maglev cornering abilities will reduce engineering and land requisition costs I believe is false.


----------



## elfabyanos

pflo777 said:


> A train can super-elevate its tracks at a maximum of 6,5° (11,3 %) .
> A transrapid maglev with 16° (28,7 %)
> At cruising speed, the passenger doestn take notice of how much the train leans into the curve. But the effect is, that the maglev can make either tighter curves at the same speed than HSR or can drive through the same radii at higher speeds, with the same comfort for the passenger.
> The problem with HSR is, that you cannot increase the cant angle, because in case of an emergency stop, the train would fall out of its rails.


This isn't correct. A train would not fall out of the rails until much higher cant than this whilst the train is stationary - obviously this depends on the particular design of train - but trains with under-slung motors would fare very well in this excercise. If the regulations state 6.5° , that means the maximum outward force on a curve at max speed (cant deficiency) is attained at this amount of lean, but the the same maximum amount of cant deficiency is acheived in the opposite direction (towards the inside of the curve) if the train were to stop on the curved, banked track. After all, if it's not safe to have hot drinks flying towards one window while the train is passing a banked curved section then it's not safe to have them falling towards the other window if the train came to a halt on that same section.


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> Thanks for the info. As I've mentioned before on other threads, much of the reason why conventional trains do not run tighter curves is not because of the physics involved in keeping the stresses on the track down to tolerable levels, but health and safety imposing maximum lateral acceleration that will be experienced by the passengers. Basically we don't want the passengers' coffee splatting against the window when the train hits a corner.
> 
> Even if there are slight gain to be made by maglev technology there is absolutely no chance a maglev line designed for 250mph wont need to be as straight or straighter than a conventional line designed for current hsr speeds of 200mph. The argument that maglev cornering abilities will reduce engineering and land requisition costs I believe is false.


No that is where you are wrong since a train with a fixed axle being able to negotiate turns is the differencial within the size from bottom to the edge of a wheel. With centrifugal force applied, the rim of the wheel is force to the edge further, with too much force the train risks derailment. So HSR needs either a large radius at high speed or needs to slow down at small radius turns. Tracks always have an inherit speed limit within design and trains that are heavier lowers that speed limit due to physics and trains that have tilting mechanism can negotiate tighter curves by moving the center of gravity, heightening the limit but never the less it is not limitless.
With maglev centrifugal force is some what offset through magnetic positioning within the guide system but there is still a limit.


----------



## 33Hz

^^If this were the case then the French 574km/h TGV would have wrecked the tracks or derailed. But it didn't.


----------



## Tri-ring

33Hz said:


> ^^If this were the case then the French 574km/h TGV would have wrecked the tracks or derailed. But it didn't.


That is because there was no turns within the test run.


----------



## xote

Why are people so hell bent on using a relatively novel strategy on such an important corridor?

Plus, building a HSR line would allow for intermediate services to be offered, by allowing the high speed train to veer off the dedicated line onto the regular line.

:crazy2:


----------



## 33Hz

Tri-ring said:


> That is because there was no turns within the test run.






















Not exactly true.


The top picture was taken with the train at 338mph, the bottom 336mph. Does that look like very steep super-elevation to you?


----------



## Tri-ring

33Hz said:


> This picture was taken with the train at 338mph. Does that look like very steep super-elevation to you?


Point taken but it doesn't mean it could clear the same point at over 500Km or if it was full with passangers adding extensive weight.
As you probably know weight is key component in centrifugal force.
Plus I hear the wheels were specially modified for this test run.


----------



## 33Hz

Actually it was loaded with passengers, technicians and measuring equipment on both decks. At this point *it is* doing over 500km/h.

The wheels were made bigger on the power car so as to reduce the necessary speed of the drive train and motors. You seem to be infering that doing so is somehow cheating.


----------



## Tri-ring

33Hz said:


> Actually it was loaded with passengers, technicians and measuring equipment on both decks. At this point *it is* doing over 500km/h.
> 
> The wheels were made bigger on the power car so as to reduce the necessary speed of the drive train and motors. You seem to be infering that doing so is somehow cheating.



No it wasn't since I saw the footage film when the record happened. It was full of equipemnts but they were lighter than an average human.
The 500Km mark was not made on a curve either.
I'm not infering that they were cheating, I saying it is impossible to make tight curves at high speed and it becomes more difficult as weight becomes heavier and/or radius becomes smaller because of inherent limit within design of all rail/fixed axis wheels.

Fixed axis wheels do not make turns by steering because the distance between rails are fixed there by even trying to steer the axis will cause derailment. 
Turns are negotiated by the differential of circumference within the inner and outer rim of the wheel, sliding the contact point between the rail and wheel from one side to the other makes it possible to turn curves.
A larger wheel can negotiate curve better because it can develop larger differentials within circumference of inner and outer rim.


----------



## Xusein

We need new railroads for any real HSR to take place in the Northeast Corridor.

A lot of the tracks, especially in New York and Connecticut are simply at the end of the ropes, and have no potential to be upgraded further, IMO. Problem is, land in that area is incredibly expensive and NIMBYs are *huge*...remember, this is one of the most expensive areas in the nation.

Unlike in other regions of the US, the NEC isn't used for freight, and is used mostly by Amtrak and existing commuter rail. I think, to get the plan actually on the ball, it would cost billions. And that's a word that is like fucking kryptonite for some of the scumbag politicians in this neck of the woods. hno:

But, HSR is totally viable here...with the horrible air traffic here, I believe that if it's not doable in BosWash, it can't be done anywhere else in the US. It can be done, but it would take effort, money, and time.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tri-ring said:


> No that is where you are wrong since a train with a fixed axle being able to negotiate turns is the differencial within the size from bottom to the edge of a wheel. With centrifugal force applied, the rim of the wheel is force to the edge further, with too much force the train risks derailment. So HSR needs either a large radius at high speed or needs to slow down at small radius turns. Tracks always have an inherit speed limit within design and trains that are heavier lowers that speed limit due to physics and trains that have tilting mechanism can negotiate tighter curves by moving the center of gravity, heightening the limit but never the less it is not limitless.
> With maglev centrifugal force is some what offset through magnetic positioning within the guide system but there is still a limit.



No no no absolutely not. The APT, when in testing, was driven around a 40 mph corner at Dover at 90 mph, with the tilting mechamism locked in the wrong directin, to test it's stability, i.e. would it tip over. The engineers were not worried about the flange losing lateral traction with the railhead, just if it would tip over. It didn't, it was fine. The technical maximum of track and train are always much higher than limits imposed. That's mainly because the passengers don't wear seatbelts.


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> No no no absolutely not. The APT, when in testing, was driven around a 40 mph corner at Dover at 90 mph, with the tilting mechamism locked in the wrong directin, to test it's stability, i.e. would it tip over. The engineers were not worried about the flange losing lateral traction with the railhead, just if it would tip over. It didn't, it was fine. The technical maximum of track and train are always much higher than limits imposed. That's mainly because the passengers don't wear seatbelts.


Oh boy. hno:
What was the designed speed limit for that certain section where they conducted the test? 
As a side note tilting mechanism only off set 5%~15% of the limit and are not designed to tip over.
Seatbelts has nothing to do with the speed limits imposed on track and I really want to know why you got that notion in the first place. :nuts:

Please study again how rail with fixed axle wheel negotiates curve since it is 101 train technology.


----------



## elfabyanos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant_deficiency

CD = gage_se / ( 1 + R^2 * g^2 / Vact^4)1/2 - super_el.


Where:
gage_se = guage - in this case 1511.03mm
R = Radius in m
g = 9.8 m/s^2
Vact = actual velocity
super_el = super elevation in mm
cd = cant deficincy measured in mm from the virticle axis at track level.

The minimum curve on LGV Est is 4000m so let's take that as R. (7 curves are only 3200m). Let's take a hypothetical, and assume there is no banking on this track, so super_el = 0, and let's assume the train is travelling at 300 kph (88.33 m/s^2)

The equation gives as a cant deficiency of 93.4mm, which is inside the 100mm max for an LGV (as per French policy on LGVs), and well within the 150+mm max in the USA and the rest of France's network. And that's with no super elevation.

At the minimum radii of 3200m which only exist a few times on the LGV est, wihout cant super elvation the cant deficiency is 115mm, just over French policy for LGVs, but well under the technically allowed max in France, and well under again the safe maximum. It is generally considered that the cant deficiency needs to approach the rail (so that on the curve the vector of lateral accelration points towards the outside rail) before there is any danger of the train losing contact or balance endangering the vehicle. Though this varies considerably with the way the load is contained within the vehicle, the cant deficiency to achieve this is about 750mm, or 6-7 times more than the calculation shows. And even then there could be super elevation up to 100mm, enabling even higher speeds on the LGV Est. So then, why on earth do the French build their lines so unecessarily straight?

BECAUSE ITS MORE CONFORTABLE.

Forget the nonsense about maglev going round corners better. Engineers don't even take conventional trains ANYWHERE NEAR their technical limit so just drop it.


----------



## 33Hz

Tri-ring said:


> No it wasn't since I saw the footage film when the record happened. It was full of equipemnts but they were lighter than an average human.
> The 500Km mark was not made on a curve either.


Let me remind you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM

Obviously the people (and equipment) onboard this train and the corners it goes around at over 500km/h are figments of my imagination.



> Fixed axis wheels do not make turns by steering because the distance between rails are fixed there by even trying to steer the axis will cause derailment.
> Turns are negotiated by the differential of circumference within the inner and outer rim of the wheel, sliding the contact point between the rail and wheel from one side to the other makes it possible to turn curves.
> A larger wheel can negotiate curve better because it can develop larger differentials within circumference of inner and outer rim.


I know how a train wheel works, thanks.


The maglev "following a highway" claim is a myth. As you can see here, even pushed to the extreme, TGV is perfectly safe and stable on a regular track at 350mph / 570km/h.


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant_deficiency
> 
> CD = gage_se / ( 1 + R^2 * g^2 / Vact^4)1/2 - super_el.
> 
> 
> Where:
> gage_se = guage - in this case 1511.03mm
> R = Radius in m
> g = 9.8 m/s^2
> Vact = actual velocity
> super_el = super elevation in mm
> cd = cant deficincy measured in mm from the virticle axis at track level.
> 
> The minimum curve on LGV Est is 4000m so let's take that as R. (7 curves are only 3200m). Let's take a hypothetical, and assume there is no banking on this track, so super_el = 0, and let's assume the train is travelling at 300 kph (88.33 m/s^2)
> 
> The equation gives as a cant deficiency of 93.4mm, which is inside the 100mm max for an LGV (as per French policy on LGVs), and well within the 150+mm max in the USA and the rest of France's network. And that's with no super elevation.
> 
> At the minimum radii of 3200m which only exist a few times on the LGV est, wihout cant super elvation the cant deficiency is 115mm, just over French policy for LGVs, but well under the technically allowed max in France, and well under again the safe maximum. It is generally considered that the cant deficiency needs to approach the rail (so that on the curve the vector of lateral accelration points towards the outside rail) before there is any danger of the train losing contact or balance endangering the vehicle. Though this varies considerably with the way the load is contained within the vehicle, the cant deficiency to achieve this is about 750mm, or 6-7 times more than the calculation shows. And even then there could be super elevation up to 100mm, enabling even higher speeds on the LGV Est. So then, why on earth do the French build their lines so unecessarily straight?
> 
> BECAUSE ITS MORE CONFORTABLE.
> 
> Forget the nonsense about maglev going round corners better. Engineers don't even take conventional trains ANYWHERE NEAR their technical limit so just drop it.


I was going through your posting concerning cant deficiency trying to understand what you wanted me to comprehend, in simple physics term cant deficiency is inertia generated through centripetal acceleration. 
This means your are being pulled sideways away from the center of curve.
This can be compensated by superelevating the inner and outer rails by creating an right angle against the bank making a smoother ride.
This however does not desolve the additional load (force*weight) created by centripetal acceleration to the rails.

Here is an excerpt concerning the whole subject concerning derailment.



> The true derailment risk at high cant deficiency comes from the fact the vehicle attempts to push the track out from under itself. The safety issue is closely related to track buckling. High-speed trains may encounter speed restrictions during extremely hot weather. Greater track longitudinal forces due to temperature and greater net axle lateral forces due to cant deficiency increase the risk of track buckling.
> 
> The critical value is the net axle lateral load. In Europe, the limit is defined by the *Prud’homme formula*. Track lateral strength is defined by a constant term and a term linearly dependent on axle load. Relative to *axle load*, maximum track strength is obtained at low axle loads. Tilting vehicles intended for high cant deficiency thus have comparatively low axle loads, on the order of 15 tons to 20 tons maximum per axle. The current U.S. standard is solely proportional to axle load. However, current discussions and research findings will probably move the U.S. to adopt a limit similar in form to the Prud’homme formula.


Link for full text.

Here is a report concerning Prud’homme formula.

One side note, your figure was wrong concerning speed per second and I did not understand the equation since the unit was not formatted properly. Why is gauge represented in mm while other figures are represented in meter?


----------



## Tri-ring

I have calculated the G force generated through centripetal acceleration for reference.
Lateral component (g)
speed 300 500
radius
2000 0.35 0.98 
2500 0.28 0.78
3200 0.22 0.61
4000 0.18 0.49

Combined force(g) 
speed 300 500
radius
2000 1.06 1.4 
2500 1.04 1.27
3200 1.02 1.17
4000 1.02 1.11

Multiplying the weight of a cart becomes load.
Safety margin is usually 15~25% of maximum load.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tri-ring said:


> I was going through your posting concerning cant deficiency trying to understand what you wanted me to comprehend, in simple physics term cant deficiency is inertia generated through centripetal acceleration.
> This means your are being pulled sideways away from the center of curve.
> This can be compensated by superelevating the inner and outer rails by creating an right angle against the bank making a smoother ride.
> This however does not desolve the additional load (force*weight) created by centripetal acceleration to the rails.


Yes, you've followed up to there. What you're still not getting is that the limits imposed by the rail authorities regarding cant deficiency, or centripetal acceleration, is NOT governed by safety, but by comfort. The comfort maximum is a fraction of the safe maximum. A TGV will go down an LGV track at near enough the speed of sound before centripetal acceleration causes the train to derail. (Current suspension would probably cause the train to bounce off the track at that speed even on the straight anyway so it's irrelevent.)



> Here is an excerpt concerning the whole subject concerning derailment.
> 
> 
> 
> Link for full text.
> 
> Here is a report concerning Prud’homme formula.
> 
> One side note, your figure was wrong concerning speed per second and I did not understand the equation since the unit was not formatted properly. Why is gauge represented in mm while other figures are represented in meter?


Tell me about it - I got it from Wikipedia and it took me half an hour to decipher it. Formatted better it's

CD = (gage_se / ( 1 + (R^2 * g^2) / Vact^4)1/2) - super_el

But like 33Hz I know exactly how a conventional wheel / rail system works. Any current train that adheres to UK rail certification standards could quite easily throw any standing passengers over and/or splatting against the window before it would destabilize.


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> Yes, you've followed up to there. What you're still not getting is that the limits imposed by the rail authorities regarding cant deficiency, or centripetal acceleration, is NOT governed by safety, but by comfort. The comfort maximum is a fraction of the safe maximum. A TGV will go down an LGV track at near enough the speed of sound before centripetal acceleration causes the train to derail. (Current suspension would probably cause the train to bounce off the track at that speed even on the straight anyway so it's irrelevent.)
> 
> Tell me about it - I got it from Wikipedia and it took me half an hour to decipher it. Formatted better it's
> 
> CD = (gage_se / ( 1 + (R^2 * g^2) / Vact^4)1/2) - super_el
> 
> But like 33Hz I know exactly how a conventional wheel / rail system works. Any current train that adheres to UK rail certification standards could quite easily throw any standing passengers over and/or splatting against the window before it would destabilize.


I see want you're saying but your are missing two factors as written within the link I provided.
One, cant deficiency addresses the possibility of derailment concerning the differencial of attack angle in the front axle and rear axle of the cart.

Second and major factor is that force generated through centripetal acceleration is the major factor to derailment and as you can see within the cant deficiency equation it does not address mass or weight of the train so it's irrelevent to what I am talking about.

One question concerning the equation, where did the trigonometric value disappear ?
Since centripetal acceleration is a lateral component independent from the vertical component(g), I don't understand why g is included within the equation without a trigonmatric value. 
Am I missing something?


----------



## aquablue

reroute track in-land in CT to hartford --> PVD-->Boston. More rural there. Highspeed all the way!! Track could parallel interstate between danbury and Hartford, comming into NYC via the westchester line (metro north). No other way to upgrade CT track due to coastal towns and nimbies.


----------



## 33Hz

Indeed the first TGV line had made an ROI of 15% after its first decade.

In terms of ridership, a TGV line can handle a train every 3 minutes (and some are at capacity). With typical a maximum of 1200 passengers per train, then over a 16 hour day, the line would carry 768000 passengers if used fully.

There is a load of useful stuff on this here: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=595477


----------



## 33Hz

aquablue said:


> reroute track in-land in CT to hartford --> PVD-->Boston. More rural there. Highspeed all the way!! Track could parallel interstate between danbury and Hartford, comming into NYC via the westchester line (metro north). No other way to upgrade CT track due to coastal towns and nimbies.


Tunnels?


----------



## aquablue

too expensive. 

Two proposals

1) Track follows I-684 to danbury, waterbury, hartfrd, providence, boston.

2) Follow Merrit PKWAY to New Haven..then Hartford, PVD, Boston.

Lots of open forest land along the route, low density. Cheaper to build a true HSR - shorter time even though longer route.


----------



## miamicanes

Which illustrates why "true HSR" would have hemorrhaged cash in Florida -- the HSR "Vision Plan" called for one train each way PER HOUR. Spending billions of dollars to build a HSR line from scratch, just so you can run one train per hour, is absolute madness. There *is* no sane justification for building a brand new HSR line just to run one train per hour on it. It also illustrates why 110mph ISR "baby steps" make more sense in most parts of America right now. Most people agree that the demand is there for one train per hour. Maybe even two, during peak travel periods. But even in the NEC, you'd be hard-pressed to fill a full-length HSR train leaving Grand Central Station every 3-6 minutes, even at 5pm. I don't even think New York and DC's _subways_ run every 3 minutes... so the theoretical carrying capacity of a HSR line is largely moot.

With service that infrequent, you could LITERALLY run 180mph trains on a single track, with double-tracked stations, and passing trains would barely even notice each other's presence if the schedulers and dispatchers were "on the ball" and timed them to both arrive at some station along the way within a minute or two of each other. It's also a major reason why grade crossings aren't a huge problem for 110mph trains... if you only have one per hour, the gates are only going down twice per hour at any given road crossing, and the whole thing (from first flashing light to rising gate after the train blows past in 5 or 6 seconds) will probably take less time than most of the red lights in Orlando.


----------



## aquablue

Whats the current progress on the 110mph train in Florida -- it seems all talk no action. I don't see why a tilting train couldn't work in Florida - would brand new tracks be needed for a tiltin train at 125mph? Or just upgrades to existing tracks? The Jet train would be a good step foward


----------



## 33Hz

miamicanes said:


> Which illustrates why "true HSR" would have hemorrhaged cash in Florida -- the HSR "Vision Plan" called for one train each way PER HOUR. Spending billions of dollars to build a HSR line from scratch, just so you can run one train per hour, is absolute madness. There *is* no sane justification for building a brand new HSR line just to run one train per hour on it. It also illustrates why 110mph ISR "baby steps" make more sense in most parts of America right now. Most people agree that the demand is there for one train per hour. Maybe even two, during peak travel periods. But even in the NEC, you'd be hard-pressed to fill a full-length HSR train leaving Grand Central Station every 3-6 minutes, even at 5pm. I don't even think New York and DC's _subways_ run every 3 minutes... so the theoretical carrying capacity of a HSR line is largely moot.


Firstly, this is an extreme illustration of what a line can carry - not what it needs to break even. Secondly, the service pattern doesn't need to be A to B - the HSR lines in Europe are the backbone used by services starting from and going to a multitude of destinations at each end.





> With service that infrequent, you could LITERALLY run 180mph trains on a single track, with double-tracked stations, and passing trains would barely even notice each other's presence if the schedulers and dispatchers were "on the ball" and timed them to both arrive at some station along the way within a minute or two of each other.


This is exactly what is being proposed for lines in several developing world countries



> It's also a major reason why grade crossings aren't a huge problem for 110mph trains... if you only have one per hour, the gates are only going down twice per hour at any given road crossing, and the whole thing (from first flashing light to rising gate after the train blows past in 5 or 6 seconds) will probably take less time than most of the red lights in Orlando.


That's may be, but it doesn't seem to stop people running the lights in many other states where the frequencies are just as low.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tri-ring said:


> One, cant deficiency addresses the possibility of derailment concerning the differencial of attack angle in the front axle and rear axle of the cart.


Cant deficiency doesn't address this. Cant deficiency applies to any cornering movement, including cars, planes and maglev - none of which can possibly derail. It is normally measured in degrees, though for a fixed curve and fixed gauge railway track it can happily be given as a distance from the centre of the track.



> Second and major factor is that force generated through centripetal acceleration is the major factor to derailment and as you can see within the cant deficiency equation it does not address mass or weight of the train so it's irrelevent to what I am talking about.


As above, cant deficiency isn't about this. Mass won't affect the value of cant deificiency - the centripetal acceleration is dictated by the velocity and the track curvature. The Prud'homme formula is about track movement, progressively over long periods of time, causing safety problem. If the track was built on a 5 metre deep block of steel that absolutely wouldnt move under any circumstances, this analysis would not help us to understand the speed at which the train could be predicted to derail from a curve on it. 



> One question concerning the equation, where did the trigonometric value disappear ?
> Since centripetal acceleration is a lateral component independent from the vertical component(g), I don't understand why g is included within the equation without a trigonmatric value.
> Am I missing something?


I don't see why a trigonometric function would be required - centripetal acceleration is uniform around a constant radius curve.
Gravity is a compenent of the resulting vector. A proportion of the acceleration due to gravity will be deflected by the track inwards, varying with the angle of the the track's banking. Since this again is a constant independent of speed or position on the curve or radius of the curve I see no reason for a kind of trigonometric function.

In order to model how a train may derail due to high cant defiency we would need to know the mass of the train, the center of gravity, virticle and lateral wheel/rail reaction vectors and a pretty good knowledge of the suspension system which would introduce a few things aswell. We would find out that in most circumstances the train would effectively topple over, leaning over to the point where the wheel is at quite an angle to the track, and can slide over it. Cant deficincy would increase as this point is reached, but the the height and mass of the vehicle are the determining factors - a 100 ton 1 meter high vehicle would have far less trouble than a 5 ton 20 meter high one - yet they wold both experience the same cant deificency at the same speed.

Trains in service in the uk that use tilt technology have a cant defiency of over 10 degrees over many curves. Thats because the cant defiency experieced by the passengers is reduced to under 4 degrees by the vehicle body tilting 5 degrees. But this doesn't alter the physics between the track and train.


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> Cant deficiency doesn't address this. Cant deficiency applies to any cornering movement, including cars, planes and maglev - none of which can possibly derail. It is normally measured in degrees, though for a fixed curve and fixed gauge railway track it can happily be given as a distance from the centre of the track.


You should read links which are provided.



> Wheelset angles of attack decrease with increased cant deficiency. The diagram at the top right of Figure 7 shows the usual curving orientation of a truck at balance speed. The leading axle takes an angle of attack and the trailing axle takes a near-radial position. The bottom right diagram shows the curving orientation at high cant deficiency. In this condition, the leading axle moves into a radial position (the angle of attack decreases) while the trailing axle goes to an over radial position. *This has important consequences in terms of derailment safety.*


This is the point I was talking about in the first place.



elfabyanos said:


> I don't see why a trigonometric function would be required - centripetal acceleration is uniform around a constant radius curve.
> Gravity is a compenent of the resulting vector. A proportion of the acceleration due to gravity will be deflected by the track inwards, varying with the angle of the the track's banking. Since this again is a constant independent of speed or position on the curve or radius of the curve I see no reason for a kind of trigonometric function.


Gravity is a vertical component, which has no influence to lateral centripetal acceleration. Gravity is not a resulting vector, inertia is. Inertia is represented as m/t^2 (acceleration). I did not understand why gravity is included within this equation to obtain a figure that is suppose to be independent from effect of gravity in the first place.
Trigonometric function is needed to combine lateral component, centripetal acceleration with vertical component, gravity to gain combined force in order to compensate superelevation.




elfabyanos said:


> In order to model how a train may derail due to high cant defiency we would need to know the mass of the train, the center of gravity, virticle and lateral wheel/rail reaction vectors and a pretty good knowledge of the suspension system which would introduce a few things aswell. We would find out that in most circumstances the train would effectively topple over, leaning over to the point where the wheel is at quite an angle to the track, and can slide over it. Cant deficincy would increase as this point is reached, but the the height and mass of the vehicle are the determining factors - a 100 ton 1 meter high vehicle would have far less trouble than a 5 ton 20 meter high one - yet they wold both experience the same cant deificency at the same speed.


Actually your missing an important factor which is lateral load limit of the rail. Other factor would be heat deformation rate of rail. 
Again read the link I have provided.
Simply put heavy load(regardless of height and/or center of gravity) at high speed at steep curves destroys rails resulting to derailment.


----------



## miamicanes

> Whats the current progress on the 110mph train in Florida -- it seems all talk no action.


At the moment, FDOT's preoccupied with getting CSX's freight operations relocated from the JAX-Orlando segment to the JAX-Auburndale segment (that runs through Ocala) to clear the way for FDOT's purchase of the CSX tracks for Orlando's commuter rail, which will also be used by future intercity trains. They have to get that done first, because the tracks through Orlando will be expensive to buy (comparatively speaking... it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of trying to ram a brand new rail corridor through the area), and by officially justifying it as a "commuter rail" project, they can get the federal government to pay a big chunk of its purchase and improvement costs.

Basically, FDOT's strategy is to make sure that their plan is so financially bulletproof, not even Wendell Cox will be able to find an opportunity for it to lose money. The upside is that it means that their eventual success is nearly assured (the legislature won't vote against it if it won't lose money). The downside is that it's going to take about a decade to make it happen, because they have to take advantage of every possible opportunity to get the federal government to buy corridors for them since that's going to be their largest single cost. They already own WPB to Miami. They'll own Kissimmee to DeLand fairly soon. From that point, DeLand to Jacksonville will be cheap (since it'll be almost completely devoid of commercial value). So will Auburndale to West Palm Beach (it costs CSX more money to maintain it than they actually make from all their operations on it). That leaves Tampa to Kissimmee as the only expensive segment left. If push came to shove, they could launch phase 1 with only Miami to Orlando service (Miami-Orlando would probably take in enough passenger revenue to pay its own costs, even without Miami-Tampa and Tampa-Orlando), and use its objective success to sell the Tampa segment to the legislature a year or two later (since its total cost would be a fraction of the original Miami-Orlando segment's costs, and would more or less double the service's ridership by adding Miami-Tampa and Tampa-Orlando).

In other words, you aren't going to see FDOT boldly calling for the state to indiscriminately throw money at them and "build the future." They're going to show up at the capitol building quietly, business plan in hand, accountants in tow, and sell them on an incremental plan with minimal financial risk to the state that's likely to be popular with voters and tourists alike. And re-emphasize a few hundred times that it'll be cheap, and won't require perpetual subsidies. It won't make the HSR firebrands happy, but it _will_ get us frequent, fast, and reliable rail service in a few years -- probably long before ANYONE in America successfully launches "true" HSR for revenue service.



> That's may be, but it doesn't seem to stop people running the lights in many other states where the frequencies are just as low.


Which is why FDOT built concrete barricades in the median at crossings in Fort Lauderdale... so people can't try to drive around the lowered gates. They also modified the traffic lights where there's a light "just beyond" a crossing, so that there are now two lights... the one "before" the tracks turns red a few seconds before the one "after" the tracks, to minimize the likelihood of a daydreaming driver getting stuck on the tracks by gridlocked traffic. And when a train IS approaching, the traffic lights "before" the tracks turn red when the gates go down, but the lights "after" them stay green for an extended period of time to clear the area between the tracks and second light. Remember... Americans who'll ignore a train signal are still conditioned from birth to regard a red traffic light as sacred. Even at 4am, in the middle of the Everglades, with no other cars in sight, Americans will still sit at a red traffic light for 2 minutes waiting for it to turn green.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tri-ring said:


> You should read links which are provided.
> This is the point I was talking about in the first place.


The discussion is centering around the possibility of maglev going round a tighter corner than conventional rail. The links you are providing discuss how a train might derail, and what the loads are. But this is much like discussing how a jumbo jet's wings might fare if the pilot started doing dive-bomb manouvres - it wouldn't have much relevence to normal in-service performance statistics, because a pilot wouldn't be allowed to push the plane that far as it wouldn't make for a very confortable ride.



> Gravity is a vertical component, which has no influence to lateral centripetal acceleration. Gravity is not a resulting vector, inertia is. Inertia is represented as m/t^2 (acceleration). I did not understand why gravity is included within this equation to obtain a figure that is suppose to be independent from effect of gravity in the first place.
> Trigonometric function is needed to combine lateral component, centripetal acceleration with vertical component, gravity to gain combined force in order to compensate superelevation.


No gravity doesn't have any effect on the centripetal acceleration. That's not what I said. Unless gravity is acting on a body that is resting on a completely flat surface, it is responsible for a lateral force on the body due to the slope deflecting the effect of gravity. If a ball rolls down a hill is gravity not responsible for the sideways element of the balls motion, aswell as it's virticle descent?

I don't quite understand the issue with the equation - if you would notate how you think it should appear instead it may help.



> Actually your missing an important factor which is lateral load limit of the rail. Other factor would be heat deformation rate of rail.
> Again read the link I have provided.
> Simply put heavy load(regardless of height and/or center of gravity) at high speed at steep curves destroys rails resulting to derailment.


I did read the link but I found it irrelevent to discussion. Technical failure happens at speeds way above the maximum speeds permitted by what is effectively a 'comfort' policy the rail regulators. As people are the same people whether they be in a maglev or a conventional train I see no reason why it would be permissable to fling people round corners more in one mode of transport than another. I must stress again that trains can go round corners a lot faster than they are allowed, and this restriction is not a safety-critical one. It obviously would have implications for maintenance which must be the consideration for the lower tolerances on the LGVs, in addition to the comfort.


----------



## aquablue

ridiculous - disgusting that it takes 10 years to implement slow rail in the biggest economy in the world -- What a long, drawn out process you described. Its ludicrous. Sounds like something a third world nation would be doing.


----------



## miamicanes

Just think of it as old-money frugality, vs nouveau-riche extravagance. Third-world countries feel like they have to prove to others that they're worthy of respect. America yawns, then acts amused when everyone else pretends to be sleepy and ready to go to bed just so they can be like us, too.


----------



## elfabyanos

Just think of it as not being able to see the wood for the trees. See it as old-money arrogance that an idea they didn't have can't be any good because they didn't have it, ignoring all the countries around the world that have deployed the idea to very great effect. Whilst France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, Austria, Russia, Denmark, Sweden, China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea develop the next stage in the 21st century golden age of rail, America yawns, feels a bit asleepy as it suffocates under the clouds of it's own monoxide - blissfully unaware of the the rest of the world's decreasing reliance on the one remaining superpower to lead the way in any form of technology. The USA is the definition of nouveau-riche.


----------



## Tcmetro

Amtrak sucks, the government won't pay for neccessary rail improvements, and the current lines are conjested. The government is more interested in building airports that building short links between cities. The freeways are getting to the end of their useful life. In my city, there was a freeway that was just upgraded. The first time since 1937. Short regional links like Chicago-Indianapolis and the like need high speed rail. The Acela is not true HSR, it rarely goes over 125 mph. Amtrak charges way too much for a trip also. Charlotte-Atlanta is probably one of the worst HSR lines to build. Many segments are being upgraded to 110 mph, though.


----------



## miamicanes

IMHO, Charlotte-Atlanta is a perfect example of a GOOD route for 110mph ISR. It doesn't have anywhere near the market to sustain HSR yet... but almost certainly has enough of a market to sustain a much cheaper ISR line.

France didn't build the TGV just for the hell of it, or because they thought it would be an impressive, forward-looking thing to do. They built it because their _existing_ passenger rail network was saturated to the breaking point, and desperately needed HSR's increased capacity. If France's domestic passenger rail network in the 1960s/1970s were like America's is today, _they_ probably wouldn't have built the TGV, either.

Let's suppose that someone decided to throw caution to the wind, and build a multi-billion dollar HSR line someplace besides the NEC or (maybe) California. Say, if Indiana were to build a no-compromise HSR line from Indianapolis to Gary (hoping Illinois would eventually continue it to Chicago, but deciding to build their part anyway -- possibly, justifying it by propping it up with lots of feelgood buzzwords about how it will "stimulate Gary's economic recovery" and other BS). I think everyone can agree that a HSR line linking *only* Indianapolis and Gary would be a miserable failure of scope and magnitude rarely seen anywhere outside North Korea. It would consume a huge chunk of Indiana's transportation budget, and contribute almost nothing useful to the daily lives of the state's taxpayers. Worse, its failure would be used to argue against _other_ proposed HSR lines. Highly-visible failure has a way of doing that.

Now, let's suppose instead that they got neighboring states to cooprate and launch 110mph service between Indianapolis and St Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Detroit, and (of course) Chicago. All things considered, Indiana's share of the cost to build ALL of those lines for 110mph would probably be about the same as what they'd spend on a True HSR line to Gary. Which do YOU think would be more genuinely useful to people on a daily basis? 

It's an extreme example, but it illustrates an important point. Right now, American passenger rail is practically nonexistent. If someone builds a HSR line, it really WILL be almost like the Indianapolis-Gary example -- alone, without anything resembling a network of regional trains to augment it, probably linking two cities that aren't even far enough apart to be WORTH bothering with the train instead of just driving (< 100 miles). Like the crazy Tampa-Orlando HSR line almost did. And such a HSR line will fail miserably and spectacularly, because such a line should have never been built as HSR to begin with. Before you can do handstands on a skateboard, you have to learn to stand on one first. Otherwise, you'll just get hurt, and be laughed at afterwards. Whether or not America's passenger rail network should have been allowed to degrade to its current nadir is besides the point. It was, and it did. Going forward, burning billions on expensive projects that exist in isolation of one another without the supporting network of regional rail service it really needs to succeed would be a terrible mistake.


----------



## Tri-ring

First of all what will be the comparison for construction cost between ISR and HSR?
What will be the best guess estimate projection of ridership between gary and Indianapolis with in 10 years, 20 years and 30 years regardless of speed?
What is going to be the frequency?
How about net traveling time(check-in and security clearance time, traveling time to and from airport, delay,etc.) compared with air?
How about price?
Without answering these questions, I think your hypothesis is meaningless, just trying to justify your own thoughts.

You can extrapolate estimated travel figures with present ones and see the trend to give a best guess projection.

How about construction costs?

If you're going to build from scratch, the cost difference is not going to be that significant between ISR and HSR. 

Construction cost and/or ridership doesn't have to be at par with present expectation as long as it meets mid/long term goals and would be foolish and a waste if it reaches it's limit with just short term demand.
If you are going to build something from scratch then might as well build something with scalability to meet growing demand for at least 20~30 years.


----------



## elfabyanos

I see your point about France in the 70s Miamicanes, but it doesn't lead to any conclusions. Why was France's rail network in need of increased capacity? Because France was a highly industrialised nation with an excellent (by worldwide standars) integrated railway network. If France were to have been like the USA now it would have to have had a completely different transport approach for the preceeding 50 years. But even then that doesn't mean that the French wouldn't suddenly adopt a different approach. It's not the current state of transport that leaves the USA paralysed to do anything. I would suggest a deeply entrenched relationship with oil at every level from car consumer up to oil-rich government over the past 100 years has left a stubborn infrastructural and social blind-spot with public transport.

There is also no need to increment rail speeds up slowly - take Spain. Their railways up until the 80s were basically rubbish. Now they're building one of the largest HSR networks in the world, and what has opened so far has been a runaway success.


----------



## miamicanes

Spain's also doing it because they have the EU throwing money at them by the fistfull. If the feds showed up in Tallahassee and asked, "Will you build HSR throughout Florida if we pay 95% of the cost? Here's 10 billion to get you started...", it would be quite sane and rational for Florida to do the same. The overwhelming majority of the funding for HSR in Spain isn't coming from Spanish taxpayers. It's basically "manna from heaven" (or Brussels, as the case may be).

Also, the point of 110mph is that it _doesn't_ require building a brand new track that's 100% grade-separated every inch of the way before the first train carrying passengers can run. Throwing down a new track in an existing rail corridor through relatively flat countryside (or someplace hilly that HAS an existing flat trackbed where a track used to be 30 years ago) costs about $1-3 million per mile. And you don't have to do a single damn environmental impact study first, nor can NIMBYs stop it, because it can all be built as of right. An old railroad was "there" long before someone decided to build $3 million estate homes and a golf course next to it, and has more vested and grandfathered rights than Walt Disney World, courtesy of some old-but-still-on-the-books laws passed by Congress at the behest of the 19th-century railroad barons. The elimination of the need to do those studies, and fight NIMBYs alone, reduces many of the startup costs and time a brand new line would have to bear.


----------



## CrazyMac

miamicanes said:


> Spain's also doing it because they have the EU throwing money at them by the fistfull.



This is true...over the last 20 years just about everything thats been built in Spain has been paid for by other EU countries tax payers, its been the same in Ireland.

This is coming to an end though, as money switches to the poorer eastern countries.


----------



## Stifler

miamicanes said:


> Spain's also doing it because they have the EU throwing money at them by the fistfull. If the feds showed up in Tallahassee and asked, "Will you build HSR throughout Florida if we pay 95% of the cost? Here's 10 billion to get you started...", it would be quite sane and rational for Florida to do the same. The overwhelming majority of the funding for HSR in Spain isn't coming from Spanish taxpayers. It's basically "manna from heaven" (or Brussels, as the case may be).


95%? Are you crazy? EU funding is around 33% in the three new HS-lines that will be opened soon. In the future it will decrease a lot to become net payers in 2013 due to the entry of the EE-countries. That's the way the EU works.

It's all about priorities. 45% of the Spanish infraestructure budget in 2005-2020 will be spent in railways.


----------



## Tcmetro

Major train lines should e grade seperated, especially in urbanized areas. Amtrak should try to improve all train lines to 110, but there is too much conjestion and delays on the current system. You have to remember most of the rail in the US is single track.


----------



## miamicanes

> Major train lines should e grade seperated, especially in urbanized areas.


Yes, they should. But if you make it a non-negotiable baseline prerequisite to having service at all, you'll never be able to make a business case for passenger rail anywhere in the US. Right now, today, there just aren't many potential passenger rail corridors that could economically sustain more than one or two trains per hour at their busiest peak service. That's just not enough to justify the incredible cost of elevating every single road crossing over them. 

While you don't want passenger trains sitting behind mile-long coal trains, you don't have to banish every trace of them to have a viable rail line. For a tiny fraction of what it would cost to build a brand new rail network from scratch, you can triple-track an existing corridor, and still give the freight trains their own track (with the only real interaction being places where the freight trains cross the passenger tracks to get to a yard on one side or the other of the passenger pair).

In many parts of the US, there are LOTS of rail corridors with only a few trains per day. The railroad (and its users to whom one or two of those trains per week might be their business' lifeline) won't give them up entirely without a fight, because they can spend another half-century wringing the equity out of them by neglecting maintenance and running the trains slower and slower. However, most of them would be DELIGHTED to let someone else pay to throw down another track or two & maintain them to passenger standards at their own expense, as long as they can still use them for their own trains as well. Where railroads get obstinate is sharing a single track with passenger trains (for obvious legal liability and logistics reasons). The moment a state offers to double-track a disused corridor and assume its future maintenance costs, freight railroads almost always become enthusiastic partners, because it lets them have their cake and eat it too.

It's a mistake to make perfection the enemy of good. There are lots of rail corridors where 110mph passenger service would make financial sense, but HSR would be cost-prohibitive. Getting to 110mph is relatively cheap, and will help re-establish the market for higher-speed rail travel so that HSR can someday make its _own_ business case, just like the TGV did in France. It's also worth noting that Spain didn't just pull HSR out of a magic hat, either... it had fast, frequent ISR trains filled with passengers running across the country _long_ before the first True HSR™ service was launched there.


----------



## AR1182

miamicanes said:


> France didn't build the TGV just for the hell of it, or because they thought it would be an impressive, forward-looking thing to do. They built it because their _existing_ passenger rail network was saturated to the breaking point, and desperately needed HSR's increased capacity. If France's domestic passenger rail network in the 1960s/1970s were like America's is today, _they_ probably wouldn't have built the TGV, either.


If saturation of existing rail lines had been the only reason to build a new railway line between Paris and Lyon, I think they would have chosen a more modest solution instead of building a high-speed line. While it is true that congestion on the classic PLM line urgently required new infrastructure, it was indead a "forward-looking" thought of how "impressive" a high-speed train would be not just for actual but especially for potential passengers that led to this particular solution in that context. It's not just about taking a definite amount of people from A to B. In fact most of the later high-speed lines have been built not because of saturation on existing lines but because the existing infrastructure was just not good enough to generate the same expansive economic effects as high-speed lines.

That being said, I don't doubt that there are just a few corridors in the United States that would justify 250-350 Km/h dedicated high-speed lines, and that 160 or 177 Km/h diesel trains on existing tracks would make more sense economically in many other cases. But that analysis shouldn't be made just upon actual or current traffic figures, but also focussing on high-speed trains' potential to generate more traffic in a very efficient and economically productive way.


----------



## miamicanes

France had two problems... lack of capacity, and lack of room within the existing corridors to build more tracks. They had to build a brand new corridor _regardless_ of whether or not it was high-speed. With that expensive decision carved in stone and settled, the decision to go HSR was fairly straightforward. It meant they could get away with a narrower corridor, since each track could carry more trains per hour. Analysis of the business market for intercity air travel drove the ultimate decision to go 180mph instead of 150, but from that point it wasn't a huge leap. It was more a case of, "Oh, merde! This is going to cost a fortune! Is there anything we can do to drum up enough new riders to help pay for its astronomical cost, so the voters won't crucify us in the next general election?"

That's a scenario that doesn't exist in ANY existing passenger rail corridor in America right now. Low speeds on the NEC are due to curve radii and political infighting. If Amtrak wanted to double the number of trains running between New York and Washington, and they had enough trains and employees to do it with, they could double the number of trains they have running between New York and DC _tomorrow_, and have plenty of track capacity left to spare. That's wasn't a serious option in France.

I maintain, bring on the 110mph trains in the US, and the market for HSR will arrive on its own, eventually. When the time is right, voters won't balk at the cost of HSR, any more than they balk at the cost of 16-laning a gridlocked freeway, or building a new mile-long suspension bridge that'll cut 15 minutes or more from their drive to and from work every day. Ironically, it probably _won't_ be the NEC. Instead, it'll probably be California, probably followed by Texas or Florida. Maybe Virginia. Why? Too many states have their hands in the NEC cookie jar. The first states to really do HSR will be ones that are big enough to go at it alone. Or *maybe* do it with the cooperation of one adjacent state (say, Washington & Oregon, Indiana & Illinois, North & South Carolina, etc). I don't envy the job of the future person who has to try and get New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut to agree on *anything*...


----------



## aquablue

according to the following new study: 

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/project...rwg-report.pdf

It will take until 2050 for florida


----------



## Richard Mlynarik

miamicanes said:


> Spain's also doing it because they have the EU throwing money at them by the fistfull. [...] The overwhelming majority of the funding for HSR in Spain isn't coming from Spanish taxpayers. It's basically "manna from heaven" (or Brussels, as the case may be).


Laughably factually incorrect.


miamicanes said:


> [...]. Throwing down a new track in an existing rail corridor through relatively flat countryside (or someplace hilly that HAS an existing flat trackbed where a track used to be 30 years ago) costs about $1-3 million per mile.


Laughably factually incorrect.


miamicanes said:


> And you don't have to do a single damn environmental impact study first, nor can NIMBYs stop it, because it can all be built as of right.


Laughably factually incorrect.


miamicanes said:


> [...] The elimination of the need to do those studies, and fight NIMBYs alone, reduces many of the startup costs and time a brand new line would have to bear.


Laughably factually incorrect.

Have you considered a job in US transportation planning?
You appear to have all the qualifications!


----------



## AR1182

miamicanes said:


> France had two problems... lack of capacity, and lack of room within the existing corridors to build more tracks. They had to build a brand new corridor _regardless_ of whether or not it was high-speed.


Again, it is true that the construction of a new line, "regardless" of whether it would be high-speed or not, was based on the saturation of the existing network. The decision to build the new infrastructure as a high-speed line, however, was not. Instead, high-speed was chosen because of its huge potential and positive effects on the economy. And this last reason has later shown to be sufficient and independent from the former one to justify the construction of further high-speed lines. Today the saturation of existing rail lines is not considered to be a _sine qua non_ condition for the construction of parallel new high-speed lines. It is rather decided upon economic reasonings and perspectives than on the basis of operational saturation.



> With that expensive decision carved in stone and settled, the decision to go HSR was fairly straightforward. It meant they could get away with a narrower corridor, since each track could carry more trains per hour. Analysis of the business market for intercity air travel drove the ultimate decision to go 180mph instead of 150, but from that point it wasn't a huge leap. It was more a case of, "Oh, merde! This is going to cost a fortune! Is there anything we can do to drum up enough new riders to help pay for its astronomical cost, so the voters won't crucify us in the next general election?"


The costs of choosing a commercial top speed of (initially) 260 Km/h instead of the 160 to 200 Km/h of the PLM can hardly be described as a small leap. Building a new line is always expensive, but the cost can easily double if different track characteristics (like broader curves and more bridges, new catenary and signalling systems, special high-speed switches, etc.) and more research and development are necessary. So it's hard to believe they opted for a new high-speed line with purpose-developed technologies instead of a cheaper new conventional 160 to 200 Km/h line relying on existing techincal resources just to "sweeten" the deal for tax payers.



> That's a scenario that doesn't exist in ANY existing passenger rail corridor in America right now. Low speeds on the NEC are due to curve radii and political infighting. If Amtrak wanted to double the number of trains running between New York and Washington, and they had enough trains and employees to do it with, they could double the number of trains they have running between New York and DC _tomorrow_, and have plenty of track capacity left to spare. That's wasn't a serious option in France.


The saturation "scenario" you describe didn't exist in most of the later high-speed developments in Europe either. In most cases the authorities didn't wait for anyone or anything else to create a "market for HSR" than HSR itself. Increased travel (and thus economic ties) between different cities and regions was seen as a (very desirable) result of high-speed rail, not the other way around. Of course in each particular case there may be additional reasons for these investments. I also don't doubt that there are enough corridors in the United States that already are "markets for HSR" and which should have some kind of priority over smaller markets with potential.


----------



## miamicanes

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by miamicanes View Post
> [...]. Throwing down a new track in an existing rail corridor through relatively flat countryside (or someplace hilly that HAS an existing flat trackbed where a track used to be 30 years ago) costs about $1-3 million per mile.
> 
> Laughably factually incorrect.


Bullshit. Even in Miami, FDOT only spent ~$3 million per mile in hard costs to build Tri-Rail's second track alongside the rehabbed original one in the corridor they already own. You'll notice I specifically limited the scope to relatively flat countryside, or someplace hilly that has an existing unused flat trackbed... neither of which is the case in California, as was conceded several months ago.

Read back a few posts, and you'll notice that I've been shockingly tolerant of California's HSR proposal (at least, the part between LA and San Francisco, at a cost of $12 billion or less). I do, however, reserve the right to question the sanity of spending another $8-12 billion on top of that just to add San Diego and Sacramento.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by miamicanes View Post
> And you don't have to do a single damn environmental impact study first, nor can NIMBYs stop it, because it can all be built as of right.
> 
> Laughably factually incorrect.


No it's not. The feds might require an EIS as a condition of receiving federal funding, but a state with its own money (or a private railroad pursuing the matter on its own) can do anything legal within the scope of its operation as a railroad within its right of way. In Florida, a railroad can even condemn and acquire property from adjacent property owners by _eminent domain_ if it so chooses. As far as I know, there aren't even any limits to that power -- they don't even have to show that it's for a public purpose, or anything directly related to running trains. In theory, CSX could condemn and acquire land next to their tracks for purely speculative real estate development. The law is vague, and its absolute limits have never been tested in court. It's likely that the law would be quickly changed if they ever abused it that way... but they'd still get to enjoy the benefit of that one-time abuse, because laws can't be retroactively changed.


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> The discussion is centering around the possibility of maglev going round a tighter corner than conventional rail. The links you are providing discuss how a train might derail, and what the loads are. But this is much like discussing how a jumbo jet's wings might fare if the pilot started doing dive-bomb manouvres - it wouldn't have much relevence to normal in-service performance statistics, because a pilot wouldn't be allowed to push the plane that far as it wouldn't make for a very confortable ride.


I give up on the equation concerning cant deficiency since the more I look at it, the more it does not make sense to me.

Anyways we have the figures for centripetal force which I posted eariler and I think that is all we need in terms of whether a maglev can go around in tighter curves than conventional rail which is Yes.

Let's look at the figures;


> Lateral component (g)
> speed 300 500
> radius
> 2000 0.35 0.98
> 2500 0.28 0.78
> 3200 0.22 0.61
> 4000 0.18 0.49


As you can see at radius of 4000m at the speed of 500Km the lateral force is about 0.5g that means half the weight of the train will be pushing aside of the rail.
Going through specs. I found that the engine cart weighs around 60 tonnes and a full rolling stock weighs between 385 and 750 tonnes depending on the equipment type.
Steel is resilient against compression so vertical limit is much higher but how about the stakes that keeps the rail in place?
What is the lateral force limit for these tracks? 
How about the wheel?

The same centripetal force is applied on maglev as well but Maglevs works on the principle of magnetic attraction-repellent. 
Japanese Maglev propulsion coils are applied on the vertical wall of the guide way so whether it is pulled or pushed the force goes vertically into the walls.
The coils can be anchored to the wall with more strength than a stake using various methods making the whole system resilient. On top, the maglev engines are more lighter since the coil for the motor is attached on the wall and not within the engine.


----------



## elfabyanos

Tri-ring said:


> Anyways we have the figures for centripetal force which I posted eariler and I think that is all we need in terms of whether a maglev can go around in tighter curves than conventional rail which is Yes.


You're still not getting my point and you're still not understanding that I know how conventional rail works and I know how maglev works and have done for decades. Yes, Maglev can go around corners faster than conventional rail. On the LGV Est alignment Maglev could probably do over 1000kph against a probable maximum of 700 kph for conventional train.

Yet the maximum speed for comfort due to centripetal forces is limited to 350kph on this line. So it's a pointless conversation, seeing as both technologies easily obtain unusable performance on this stretch of line.

So it goes back to the original point. Why are LGV lines as straight as they are?

COMFORT.

Are people on maglevs somehow physically different from people on conventional trains?

NO.

Therefore, the operational minimum radius of curve for a given speed is governed not by the choice of technology but by choices in comfort for the passengers, effectively making maglev and conventional train EQUAL.

So, Maglevs won't go around corners tighter than conventional train, even though they can.


----------



## Tri-ring

elfabyanos said:


> You're still not getting my point and you're still not understanding that I know how conventional rail works and I know how maglev works and have done for decades. Yes, Maglev can go around corners faster than conventional rail. On the LGV Est alignment Maglev could probably do over 1000kph against a probable maximum of 700 kph for conventional train.


Now we are moving from the realm of the improbable to the impossible.hno:

Let's see now, centripetal force a object moving at 700Km in a curve with a radius of 4000m is a whopping 0.96G that's almost the full weight of the engine pushing on side of the rail. 
Even if it was somehow able to manage that feat, E=mv^2/2 meaning the engine will have to be twice as strong at the same weight of a engine with a maximum limit of 500Km(without any consideration of air resistance).:nuts:
There is also the consideration of loss in traction between rail and wheel with accumulated velocity.
700km with conventional train for passanger transit? 
Yeah, dream on.


----------



## aquablue

Back on topic please -- which routes do you think could be doable through CT?


----------



## Chafford1

The Keystone Corridor in the US is a good example of how lines can be upgraded on limited finances - electrified and upgraded to 110mph (176kph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Corridor

The South East High Speed Rail Corridor (http://www.sehsr.org/)

the Mid West Regional Rail Initiative,

(http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/onepagers/midwest.html)

and the Ohio Hub all follow this 110mph template (albeit using diesel power).

(http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio Hub/Website/ordc/index.html).

And despite what was posted earlier in this thread,they all look like serious, achievable schemes.


----------



## trainrover

sarflonlad said:


> The trouble with HSR and America is that your average American is not aware of what HSR can achieve.


I disagree -- today's average N American's is agoraphobic (as ever) . . . .


----------



## manrush

There have been plans to make an HSR from Boston all the way to Montreal. Would be cool, as New England could use some HSR. Too bad Massachusetts has a score of other problems.


----------



## Galls

trainrover said:


> I disagree -- today's average N American's is agoraphobic (as ever) . . . .


I agree, but I also find that the Ipod has been the greatest aid to public transit.

So while I really do not care for its isolationist ability, actually deplore them, it has been a great aid to public transit; putting idiotic people in their own little world under the guise of "chilling out" or relaxing.


----------



## Galls

manrush said:


> There have been plans to make an HSR from Boston all the way to Montreal. Would be cool, as New England could use some HSR. Too bad Massachusetts has a score of other problems.


Through Vermont and New Hampshire right? I have a suspicion that will not happen. To damn hilly, low population route, descent distance and Boston sucks, they would rather go straight to NYC. However it will most likely be left to the plane.


----------



## Xusein

I don't know if there are any viable railways that go down that path anyway...maybe there is some, but it would take major reconstruction and as said before, it's not viable enough.

Boston should concentrate on getting a REAL HSR to New York. Acela's ok, but it doesn't cut it.


----------



## flierfy

Galls said:


> Through Vermont and New Hampshire right? I have a suspicion that will not happen. To damn hilly, *low population* route, descent distance and Boston sucks, they would rather go straight to NYC. However it will most likely be left to the plane.


Low population is rather good for high-speed rail-line. Trains don't stop anyway and the less people live along such a rail-line the less resistance there would be.


----------



## UrbanBen

flierfy said:


> Low population is rather good for high-speed rail-line. Trains don't stop anyway and the less people live along such a rail-line the less resistance there would be.


Yeah, the "not enough people" argument for HSR that you hear is completely bogus. If you have enough for an airport, you have enough for HSR.


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

There really is no need for HSR in the U.S. at this point. Regional flights are cheap and even with the high gas prices, driving is still viable. 

Dont get me wrong, I would love to have a train going 250 mph that would get me from Milwaukee to Chicago in 20 minutes, but its not worth the cost to build that this point in time.


----------



## elfabyanos

Actually every high speed line that has ever been built turns a profit within about a decade. Unless the economics that apply to the rest of the world don't apply to the USA then "not worth the cost" is not valid. Not worth the political effort maybe.


----------



## Galls

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> There really is no need for HSR in the U.S. at this point. Regional flights are cheap and even with the high gas prices, driving is still viable.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I would love to have a train going 250 mph that would get me from Milwaukee to Chicago in 20 minutes, but its not worth the cost to build that this point in time.


It is desperately needed in BosWash, the fact that our highways are clogged and now our airports, especially NY and Phily, are far beyond capacity warrants high speed rail.



elfabyanos said:


> Actually every high speed line that has ever been built turns a profit within about a decade. Unless the economics that apply to the rest of the world don't apply to the USA then "not worth the cost" is not valid. Not worth the political effort maybe.


That I do not think is true. The NEC is no where near the black when you account for infrastructure costs.


----------



## elfabyanos

The NEC is not considered a new high speed line. That's an expensive upgrade to modest high speeds by international standards, and expensive upgrades rarely achieve great benefit to cost ratios. Most new high speed lines turn a profit in about a decade.


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

Galls said:


> It is desperately needed in BosWash, the fact that our highways are clogged and now our airports, especially NY and Phily, are far beyond capacity warrants high speed rail.


You are talking about one line, maybe in the entire country that might be a necessity. 

Its not worth the cost in most of the U.S. Nobody would use it when you can simply take an equal or less expensive flight.


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

Galls said:


> It is desperately needed in BosWash, the fact that our highways are clogged and now our airports, especially NY and Phily, are far beyond capacity warrants high speed rail.


You are talking about one line, maybe in the entire country that might be a necessity. 

Its not worth the cost in most of the U.S. Nobody would use it when you can simply take an equal or less expensive flight.


----------



## Galls

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> You are talking about one line, maybe in the entire country that might be a necessity.
> 
> Its not worth the cost in most of the U.S. Nobody would use it when you can simply take an *equal* or less expensive flight.



If it is full trip time comparative or even slightly longer you can assume that a statistically relevant amount, everyone, would choose the train instead of the tortures of air travel.


----------



## dösanhoro

Hsr rail is not worth the cost in many places. Solution: build it where it makes sense. If a hsr takes as long as a flight with comparable cost the flight loses 90% of the time. No airplane I was ever in has ever matched the comfort of an average train imo. Unless your loaded with money planes are cramped and uncomfortable. The only bonus for planes is the view on start and landing. Have you ever ridden a half decent train? I am sure the majority will agree with me

These are classical arguments for hsr. Airport security takes long. But then again why is there no train security. Or security in every place where crowds are. Hijack a train and you are limited by the tracks. 

Airports are very often in the middle of nowhere. Hsr rail can stop at the outskirts of a city and in the center. But then again the rail tracks where built already. If there are no rail tracks in the center I can imagine this can become expensive


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

Galls said:


> If it is full trip time comparative or even slightly longer you can assume that a statistically relevant amount, everyone, would choose the train instead of the tortures of air travel.


Why does the train system need to be HSR? High speed rail, opposed to Amtrak Diesel trains, does not equate to that much shorter of travel time. They have done studies about that on the East coast. 

I agree that MagLev trains would be an excellent way to connect regions, but its costs are even more astronaumical than regular high speed trains.


----------



## Galls

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Why does the train system need to be HSR? High speed rail, opposed to Amtrak Diesel trains, does not equate to that much shorter of travel time. They have done studies about that on the East coast.
> 
> I agree that MagLev trains would be an excellent way to connect regions, but its costs are even more astronaumical than regular high speed trains.


I am not, nor have I ever argued for the development of a transnational high speed rail system, so people can take the train from LA to NY. What I would like to see is HSR between economically viable cities. BosWash is just the defining example of HSR in the country as the cities are strong and so is the desire to travel between them. 

As for your argument of why not just use Amtraks P42s instead of their HHP-8s and Acela Express engines is a very simple one. Why not just use coal fired boilers instead of diesel trains, the fuel is cheaper and they where capable of just as high speeds as the P42s achieve today.


----------



## dösanhoro

Maglev trains have not seen widespread use even when they have been available for years. Hsr vs non hsr might just make the difference between people choosing or not choosing rail. Non hsr rail ca also mean very different things. Have heard many people not satisfied with Amtrak. I have got the impression Amtraks problem is not the speed but cargo trains making decent service impossible. Make lighter trains with adequate separation so trucks and sheep won't derail trains. Unnecessarily heavy trains mean higher costs. 

Why should it not possible to replace some shorter flights with rail , high speed or not.


----------



## ramvid01

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Why does the train system need to be HSR? High speed rail, opposed to Amtrak Diesel trains, does not equate to that much shorter of travel time. They have done studies about that on the East coast.
> 
> I agree that MagLev trains would be an excellent way to connect regions, but its costs are even more astronaumical than regular high speed trains.


Studies? What studies? The only reason it isn't much faster on the East Coast is because of politics and the fact that Acela only goes 150 mph for 16 miles on the NEC.

Why does it have to be HSR? On short routes it has to be HSR because it needs to compete with the small regional airlines or else it just won't be make a big impact on regional travelers. We are to a point in this country where we have to have HSR on some of the shorter routes.

And even with Acela not being a true high-speed solution, it still carries the majority of the passengers between Was and NY (I think I read 54%).


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

Amtrak has said that increasing speed on its Acela lines will not substantially make a difference in destination time. 

You people are fighting a battle your not going to win. Americans dont want to ride on trains. Until oil/gas prices make regional air/auto travel too expensive, then its not going to happen. Trains are seen as a step below taking a plane in this country.


----------



## Galls

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Amtrak has said that increasing speed on its Acela lines will not substantially make a difference in destination time.
> 
> You people are fighting a battle your not going to win. Americans dont want to ride on trains. Until oil/gas prices make regional air/auto travel too expensive, then its not going to happen. Trains are seen as a step below taking a plane in this country.


The ignorance, stuns me.

You do realize amtrak controls more than half of the train plane NY-DC and NY-Boston market right? Door to door is faster via plane to Boston than the train, yet for some reason the train has the majority market share? How does that fit into your the train is for the peasants idiotic world.

So no, the train is not seen as a step below flying in this country, in case you have not realized a prostate exam, passing kidney stones and giving birth is more pleasurable than flying in this country. So I am just gonna call you a bias idiot once again and go on my way.


----------



## ramvid01

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Amtrak has said that increasing speed on its Acela lines will not substantially make a difference in destination time.
> 
> You people are fighting a battle your not going to win. Americans dont want to ride on trains. Until oil/gas prices make regional air/auto travel too expensive, then its not going to happen. Trains are seen as a step below taking a plane in this country.


Guess what...

I'm American and I want to ride a high speed train *shock**shock*. I don't know what "you people" means but you aren't on some morale high ground over me.

And you think cutting almost an hour off the current time between DC and New York is not enough? (from 2:30 hours to 1:30 hours?). Please.


----------



## elfabyanos

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Amtrak has said that increasing speed on its Acela lines will not substantially make a difference in destination time.


I'm no expert on USA rail politics, but if I remeber rightly what Amtrak actually said is that investing any more into it's existing tracks for some gains in speed would not substantially make a difference - read into that a brand new high speed line would make a difference, politics and nimbyism aside.


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

Galls said:


> The ignorance, stuns me.
> 
> You do realize amtrak controls more than half of the train plane NY-DC and NY-Boston market right? Door to door is faster via plane to Boston than the train, yet for some reason the train has the majority market share? How does that fit into your the train is for the peasants idiotic world.
> 
> So no, the train is not seen as a step below flying in this country, in case you have not realized a prostate exam, passing kidney stones and giving birth is more pleasurable than flying in this country. So I am just gonna call you a bias idiot once again and go on my way.


When did I say that it was my viewpoint? Americans do view train travel as a step below air travel. Leave your New England bubble sometime.


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

ramvid01 said:


> Guess what...
> 
> I'm American and I want to ride a high speed train *shock**shock*. I don't know what "you people" means but you aren't on some morale high ground over me.
> 
> And you think cutting almost an hour off the current time between DC and New York is not enough? (from 2:30 hours to 1:30 hours?). Please.


When did I say that I wouldnt ride a train? You people judge me and its laughable. 

Build your high speed train to D.C., but dont expect the rest of the lower density U.S. to follow suit until there is a need for it. You train advocates try to shoe-horn train travel down our throats and dont let the market decide. There obviously is not a big enough need for it, or else there wouldnt be such a fight to build these things in pretty much every place around the country.


----------



## elfabyanos

Mariachi McMuffin - I agree with you that the majority of americans have the view that you say, I don't remember who but a politician I think described HSR as a glorified form of victorian transport (even though the railways pre-date Queen Victoria). There are amny and varied reasons why HSRs haven't happened, and it's not just fair and free market conditioins. there's little political will, the freight operators have such a stranglehold on operations that passneger services are severely impacted by them thereby suppressing ridership through poor services, which makes the case for HSR harder to convince without healthy classic rail services. Most other places in the world a have approved HSLs on the back healthy passenger numbers on the route already - for example Paris - Lyon had a similar average speed in the late 70s as Acela does now, and that was before the first French LGV was built.

But it's not the same playing field in the USA. Strange rules which say locos have to be ridiculously heavy restricts the speeds at which they can run or severely increases maintenance costs of the infrastrucure to way above what the rest of the world achieves. There are many other reasons too why the market is not a level playing field for passnger rail in the USA.

I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you at all, that is not my intention!


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

^no, I dont think you are attacking me at all. Those other two were though.

High speed rail will happen eventually, its only a matter of time.


----------



## GTR22

I think for the rest of the country to see the benefits of high speed rail the CHSR is going to have to be implemented. I really hope it pulls through, it makes no sense in spending almost $100 for roundtrip fair for a city one travels to quite often. So once CHSR is working the rest of the nation will realize how much more efficient it is in connecting corriodors than flights where one has to arrive 90 minutes early to check their bags and wait in the security lines then to find out their flight is delayed....

Amtrak is so pathetic. If one wants to go by rail to Los Angeles, they would have to take a train from Emeryville, which is on the other side of the bay. Then they would catch a slow train with so many stops , it probably takes about 7 hours to get to Bakersfield. Then from Bakersfield one would have to take a bus to get to Union Station in Los Angeles, and that bus is bound to get stuck in traffic. The Coast Starlight from San Jose to LA takes i think 12 hours? And there have been huge delays of up to 9 hours... so yea Amtrak? Its a third world rail line.... Even Greyhound would be a better substitute over that.......


----------



## storms991

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> When did I say that I wouldnt ride a train? You people judge me and its laughable.
> 
> Build your high speed train to D.C., but dont expect the rest of the lower density U.S. to follow suit until there is a need for it. You train advocates try to shoe-horn train travel down our throats and dont let the market decide. There obviously is not a big enough need for it, or else there wouldnt be such a fight to build these things in pretty much every place around the country.


Wow, so hostile? The Northeast can continue to upgrade to a more efficient means of travel while you and your beloved Milwaukee can sit around wasting away. It's not like Milwaukee is important anyway.


----------



## jpIllInoIs

Illinois has invested plenty into HS rail and is at the forefront of building the MWHSR system. I don't think Mariachi knows what he is talking about, or what is going on in his own state. The Hiawatha Amtrak line between Chicago and Milw has seen record ridership in each of the last 3 years. This line will likely be the first true HS line outside of the NE Acela. The 2nd midwest HS line will likely be Chicago-St. Louis and then Chicago - Detroit.

Ther are currently 6 rounds trips daily between Chi and Mke. They are scheduled for 1.5 hours for the 92 mile ride. Already that is faster than you could actually drive that route, esp between 7:00am and 7:00pm.

Ridership Total for YTD March 2008
Line FY08 FY07 %gain over FY07 
Hiawatha Chicago - Milwaukee 62,399 47,863 +30.4%
Lincoln Service Chicago-St. Louis 42,932 33,857 +26.8%
Chicago-Carbondale (Illini/Saluki) 24,581 20,857 +17.9%
Wolverine Chicago - Detroit 40,115 35,834 +11.9%
Hoosier State Chicago - Indy 2,948 2,110 +39.76

Source is Amtrak monthly reports:
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0803monthly.pdf


----------



## elfabyanos

^^ That fits the title of the thread perfectly - that is not high speed rail at all. That is typical of outer suburban commuter lines in most european countries where speed is not the important factor. Acela is not accepted as a real high speed line anywhere else either, apart from a small 25 mile section of the entire northeast corridor.


----------



## trainrover

jpIllInoIs said:


> Illinois has invested plenty into HS rail


Uhm, on whose planet might Illinois be found?

Here, lemme share some comparative state of mind with you: Voilà!


----------



## priamos

jpIllInoIs said:


> Illinois has invested plenty into HS rail and is at the forefront of building the MWHSR system... There are currently 6 rounds trips daily between Chi and Mke. They are scheduled for 1.5 hours for the 92 mile ride.


I agree with you that this is faster than the car - especially during the rush hours. Remains the fact that the internationally agreed definition of HSR is speeds of no less than 250 km/h on a substantial part of the line. (Proposed by the European Commission for its own purposes and since then widely used.) I guess in the Imperial system that would be just over 150 miles per hour? 

I think I have a problem with HSR in the United States that is a bit different from that of most other posters on this thread. I don't think this boils down to "lower class vs. upper class transport" or, necessarily, an unwillingness of politicians to "see the light". Even in the US transport corridors which ressemble Lille-Paris-Lyon-Marseille it would be awfully difficult to replicate the success of the TGVs. (With the likely exception of Boston-New York-Washington DC.) Why? Because the European successes with HSR hinge not only on the point-to-point efficacy of these trains but also on the quality of the public transportation networks at the start and end points. French experts have actually expressed doubts about the viability of the proposed San Francisco-Los Angeles line. Nobody will get out of the train in LA and take a metro to their destination, because... there IS (almost) no metro. Which being so, if travellers know that they're going to need a car the moment they arrive to LA then they will drive there by car. - Or fly, and rent a car in the airport.


----------



## RawLee

priamos said:


> if travellers know that they're going to need a car the moment they arrive to LA then they will drive there by car. - Or fly, and rent a car in the airport.


Whats the difference between taking the train and renting a car and flying and renting a car?


----------



## priamos

RawLee said:


> Whats the difference between taking the train and renting a car and flying and renting a car?


Er....? Well, even the fastest highspeed train is much slower than a jet plane. For example, Paris-London takes 2h20 by Eurostar and about one hour by plane. So, why do most people prefer the train? Because the train goes city centre to city centre (plus, of course, these days also the security brouhaha in the airports...) so that you don't have to spend copious amounts of time getting to and from the airport. This advantage is only absolute if both your starting point and destination happens to be located next to the railway stations. It is dented if you have to travel at quite some distance between the railway station and your starting point and/or destination. And it is mostly eliminated if, any way round, you have to step into a rented car upon arrival.


----------



## RawLee

So if the train station would be outside the city it would work? Come on...I believe the topic is about routes where trains could be competitive with planes. If this statement is true,then what is the difference between taking train/renting and flying/renting?

Lets take this LA-SF distance(~550km). With a 250km/h train,its 2h,with a plane,probably 3h. Then why wont the train work? Both the airport and the train station will probably be far from your destination...Why is it more difficult to rent a car there than at the airport?


----------



## priamos

RawLee said:


> So if the train station would be outside the city it would work? Come on...I believe the topic is about routes where trains could be competitive with planes. If this statement is true,then what is the difference between taking train/renting and flying/renting?
> 
> Lets take this LA-SF distance(~550km). With a 250km/h train,its 2h,with a plane,probably 3h. Then why wont the train work? Both the airport and the train station will probably be far from your destination...Why is it more difficult to rent a car there than at the airport?


RawLee, you seem not to understand where I'm coming from? Very well, let's take a numerical example. The expected travel time between SF and LA is 3 hours, not 2 as you suggested (the planned line, far from straight, will be closer to 650 km). Flying takes 1 hour 15 minutes. If you're going to somewhere away from central LA then one might assume, for the sake of simplicity, that your destination is situated at an equal distance from the railway station and the airport. Let us call this additional transport time "X". Thus, the total travel time with plane and rental car becomes 1h15+X; the total travel time with train and rental care becomes 3h+X. The only situation in which a rational traveller will choose the train is if his/her commute to SF airport plus the checkin time is at least 1h45 minutes longer than his/her commute to SF railway station. 

Conversely, in Paris a person arriving at Charles de Gaulle airport is in a bit of a bind (with or without rental car), whereas a person arriving at Gare du Nord/Gare de Lyon/Gare Montparnasse has access to a network of 14 urban metro lines, 5 suburban trains and, I suppose, 20-25 commuter lines to the outlying parts of the sprawl.


----------



## RawLee

What about checking in,boarding,delays,weather,checking out? You dont have these with trains...and you dont die if the train runs out of fuel.

The speed just doesnt matter...250km/h is the bottom of HSR...could the plane compete with a TGV? I dont think so...it would do the trip barely over 1h,just like the plane.

So in the end,it doesnt matter where the airport/train station is,because you have to get away from it. It only depends on your "mood"(do I want to go through all that at the airport,or just get on the train?) and getting the connection you need at your destination. You dont need working PT at the end of your trip. Why? For the same reason why neither airports. So here I get back to my original question: 

-Whats the difference between taking the train and renting a car and flying and renting a car?


----------



## Dan

HSR would work fantastically:
-All along the East Coast
-In California
-Los Angeles to Vegas, and maybe even California-Portland in Oregon-Seattle in Washington
-Connecting the major cities in Texas
...and maybe others as well, but definitely these for sure, which would cover a huge part of the US population.

There is nothing to lose. Advantegeous in light of increasing gas prices, fast connection times between the cities, comfortable, affordable, and more environmentally friendly too.


----------



## elfabyanos

Priamos is right that the european style dense local transport networks play an important role. It's not decisive by any means in every circumstance, but overall it has a great effect on high speed rail's success.

A good example is me, hometowm Brighton. If I'm going to Paris I can go to Gatwick airport which is 20 miles away, or get Eurostar from London, which is 50 miles away. Now, me, on a budget, I'd have to take the train to the airport, which would cost £10. Or, I could stay on the train to St Pancras and take the Eurostar - the ticket of Brighton - Paris is £10 more than the normal London - Paris Eurostar ticket anyway, and I end up in central Paris and can easily get anywhere, instead of an hours train ride from the centre at the airport.

Timewise - total - 3.5 hours by train, 3.0 hours by plane (50% of which spent queuing at Gatwick so they can inspect everyones feet and water bottles).

Cost wise probably less by train at £69 return. Plane - cost of flight plus train to and from Gatwick at 2x£10 and the Paris metro ticket x2.

Once going by train it's easy to do the whole lot by train here, all I do is haul the luggage to another platform every so often - easy.


----------



## Alexriga

Well there are problems with green thinking in US. Trains are much better for environment. Short flights make enormous CO2 emissions per passenger. Also elfa stated right. I've been to Brighton, nice town BTW. 
I personally always prefer train while traveling in EU. Because there delays in airports, you have to give away your luggage, stand it the long queue, arrive at least hour before departure because of traffic. And smooth ride in the train with great views out of window are superior. On planes it is turbulence, unpleasant take offs and landings also.


----------



## priamos

Elfabyanos's qualification to my argument is of course well earned: it's not as if a mediocre public transport network in a city automatically disqualifies that city from being a strong candidate for HSR. But it does make it more of an uphill struggle to attract passengers - except, of course, if the station happens to be located bang-next to the place where everyone wants to go. (The only example I can think of is EuroDisney...;-)) 

The issue of car rental at the station does, now that I think of it, look a bit differently in Europe and the United States. Our railway stations are normally located in cramped inner-cities where most people would consider it a nightmare to have to drive - especially during the rush hours.


----------



## trainrover

priamos said:


> I don't think this boils down to "lower class vs. upper class transport"


Of course it's like that in N America. For the most part (i.e., save for Québec), you got snazzy highways that go through some form of retrofitting nearly twice per decade while virtually zero investment's been sunk into a track network resembling some poor country's.

N America oughtta quit taking itself to be some continent of developed countries.


----------



## Metsfan1520

Hopefully with high gas prices, this will become a reality.


----------



## trainrover

^^ For such HSR networks like those to be beneficial enough, the USA might as well get cracking on taking maglev rail up the technological scale (read: speed scale) a few notches. I just can't imagine conventional foreign HSR ever working well enough over here.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Why should conventional HSR not being able to work in the US? If there is the will to create such a system there are a lot of potential regions that could sustain it. The map above somes those regions pretty much up.


----------



## Benn

Something like the ICE/TGV systems would work great in the midwest (Minneapolis/Chicago, St. Lious/Chicago). The East Coast and West Coast would also be fantastic spots for this sort of thing. I don't see long distance maglevs ever being an economically viable option. 110mph isn't all that good, but I guess we have to start somewhere, If we could get 200mph trains in the near future it would be totally worth it.

If I could get from Minneapolis to Chicago in 3 or 4 hours on a train it would be the only way I would make that trip.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Well, if you construct new high speed tracks, you should go with 200 mph right from the start. Everything else would be wasting money as you don't construct railways every 10 years newly. You will have to stick with them for longer.


----------



## 2co2co

Would JR-maglev speeding across USA at 600-700km/h be a good competitor to planes?


----------



## trainrover

Slartibartfas said:


> Why should conventional HSR not being able to work in the US?


Yeah, I guess you --and a subsequent respondent-- have a point. I was thinking in terms of longer distances than those within the midwest and eastern seaboard conurbations, e.g., DC to Atlanta, etc.



2co2co said:


> Would JR-maglev speeding across USA at 600-700km/h be a good competitor to planes?


Hmmmm, me, I'd say 900 - 1,000 KPH . . .


----------



## sotavento

Took the map and edited a little bit:










RED = "pure" HSL built from scratch (200mph or more preferably) 
Blue = interurban corridors (like Acela and french TGV) ... somethign in between 125/200mph using some new dedicated tracks in current well established corridors 
Grey = lond distance corridors ... should be improved to a better standard (like some 125mph) ... and preferably add double tracking and electrification for those freigh trains to run better ... but of dubious interest to a "pure" HSL network (too long routes). :lol:

For those looking for good HSL corridors ... look where it counts:

http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/USA/index.shtml

^^ It even ahs half a dozen of possible interested HSToperators in it. :cheers:


----------



## Bureaucromancer

Transcontinental HSR might not be as crazy as it seems. No, the schedules won't be anywhere near the 4-5 hours by airline, but they could probably be kept under 12 hours for the major markets that can justify true non stop service. With that sort of schedule, a very nice overnight schedule can be arranged, almost duplicating the current airline schedules to Europe (longer travel time yes, but still leaving after the work day ends, and arriving before it starts). If we could push service speeds up to 300 mph (how doable is this without maglev? I suspect it could be done) this would work quite easily.

Paying for it now... Ugh, not gonna happen anytime soon. That said, I do expect to see several projects follow California quite closely, something like we saw after San Diego with light rail (wouldn't it be amusing if HSR in North America was kicked off by California and Alberta).


----------



## foxmulder

IMHO, this is a must for US. It will be faster, cheaper, more comfortable, and environment friendly on mentioned routes than anything else. However, current airway and oil lobby together with relatively high initial cost are strong barricades against this plan.


----------



## hoosier

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Americans do view train travel as a step below air travel.


That is only because most Americans have never ridden on a passenger train and don't know what the **** they are talking about. Give me a 200+ mph, air conditioned train cabin over a long delayed, crowded airplane ANY day.


----------



## hoosier

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Its not worth the cost in most of the U.S. Nobody would use it when you can simply take an equal or less expensive flight.


That isn't true. You are not even factoring in the long delays at airports not to mention the time consuming security checkpoints.


----------



## hoosier

priamos said:


> I agree with you that this is faster than the car - especially during the rush hours. Remains the fact that the internationally agreed definition of HSR is speeds of no less than 250 km/h on a substantial part of the line. (Proposed by the European Commission for its own purposes and since then widely used.) I guess in the Imperial system that would be just over 150 miles per hour?
> 
> I think I have a problem with HSR in the United States that is a bit different from that of most other posters on this thread. I don't think this boils down to "lower class vs. upper class transport" or, necessarily, an unwillingness of politicians to "see the light". Even in the US transport corridors which ressemble Lille-Paris-Lyon-Marseille it would be awfully difficult to replicate the success of the TGVs. (With the likely exception of Boston-New York-Washington DC.) Why? Because the European successes with HSR hinge not only on the point-to-point efficacy of these trains but also on the quality of the public transportation networks at the start and end points. French experts have actually expressed doubts about the viability of the proposed San Francisco-Los Angeles line. Nobody will get out of the train in LA and take a metro to their destination, because... there IS (almost) no metro. Which being so, if travellers know that they're going to need a car the moment they arrive to LA then they will drive there by car. - Or fly, and rent a car in the airport.


You are wrong. Both San Francisco and Los Angeles have decent public transit infrastructures that continue to grow each year. And any proposal for HSR also involves building and expanding mass transit systems in the cities it would serve. HSR is just one piece of the rail transit puzzle.


----------



## hoosier

That map of federally designated HSR corridors is woefully inadequate. First off, there is no HSL connecting Chicago with the BosWash megalopolis.

HSR would work fabulously in California, Texas, the Midwest, SE and East Coast. That leaves the plains states and interior mountain regions of America unserved, but few people live there anyways. However, there is no reason why slower speed rail service (100-125 mph) couldn't connect cities like Salt Lake City and Denver with nearby smaller metro areas.


----------



## metsfan

Remember most tracks in the usa are freight grade and are only cleared to 79 mph for passenger service. It's sad corruption has caused the focus to be taken away for so long from a viable national high speed system and put it on cars & roads. Gee, i wonder why we have 5 dollar gasoline.. Could it be because our interstate passenger rail system is a joke?

- Andy


----------



## sotavento

foxmulder said:


> IMHO, this is a must for US. It will be faster, cheaper, more comfortable, and environment friendly on mentioned routes than anything else. However, current airway and oil lobby together with relatively high initial cost are strong barricades against this plan.





hoosier said:


> That isn't true. You are not even factoring in the long delays at airports not to mention the time consuming security checkpoints.


Airways are a IN sector in HSR ... it's in their own interest to be a player in the sector ... 

Oil lobby will cease to exist in less than a decade ... it will became "algae producers" or "ethanol producer lobby instead (or anithing else that produces juice to fuel cars + planes) 

a key factor is knowing one's NEEDS and LIMITATIONS

Need's only in short-haul/big traffic routes you need to replace planes by trains ... forget those routes longer than 500/600km unless they are main axis (midwest-texas midwest-florida midwest-norteast) :cheers:

Start by creating interurban corridors at speeds of 125/140mph (like NE corridor) and then see if any can be run at 200mph safely ... that's your limitations 

As I posted earlier ... some key factors to acount:










Minneapolis , Lincoln(?) , Oclahoma city , Louisville , Detroit , cleveland , columbus are easily identifiable routes out of Chicago.










out of denver there is no identifiable HSR corridor ... but it could became the central HUB of a regional interurban fast network 


















A single 1200km "corridor" from S.Francisco/Sacramento to Tucson could replace almost the entire air traffic in the west coast ... if a 1200km long network would even be viable. hno: 

In any case there is not much place in the traffic pattern of the USA for true "pure" HSR ... it's much more cheap to just fly everywhere over 150km than to have dedicated trackage linking spot-to-spot (notice that thru-traisn would need to have a "variant" outside most cities making things even costier) hno:

A "dedicated" 200/250mph(320/400 km/h) route between Chicago and Washington would take 3h of travel time between city centers given enough connections in intermediate cities (like Toledo-Detroit , Cleveland-Akron , FtWaine , Columbus , etc) it would be highly viable comercialy ... a couple of other "dedicated" HSR routes (not linking town directly but bypassing major cities nearby) would have an enormous efect on traffic ... Airports could serve as HUB's between local and long distance traffic in the same way they are used today ... one would just take a train instead of a plane to some of the more used destinations.


----------



## sotavento

hoosier said:


> That map of federally designated HSR corridors is woefully inadequate. First off, there is no HSL connecting Chicago with the BosWash megalopolis.
> 
> HSR would work fabulously in California, Texas, the Midwest, SE and East Coast. That leaves the plains states and interior mountain regions of America unserved, but few people live there anyways. However, there is no reason why slower speed rail service (100-125 mph) couldn't connect cities like Salt Lake City and Denver with nearby smaller metro areas.


Are you talking about "my" map ??? it's just a _wish list_ or something like that. :lol:


----------



## Chafford1

*US High Speed Rail Plan Launched*

Documents can be found at:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

This is revolutionary for the USA and all credit to Obama!


----------



## Dan

Really cool, I just hope that if/when these turn into reality, that they will actually go faster than a mere 240 km/h...


----------



## LAmarODom420

I wish they would start talking about funding...this will cost hundreds of billions...the earlier the better

Not to quibble with a vision, but why would Houston not be connected to the South Central network? Ditto for Pittsburgh - Cleveland and Jacksonville - Orlando?


----------



## city_thing

Are there any other maps of the planned routes available? The PDF's aren't opening on my computer for some reason. 

...or is this picture (that's been posted a million times before) the actual plan?


----------



## Kwame

^^ Pretty much.


----------



## zkline

*This is sort of disappointing*

Why aren't they focusing on just a few really high-density routes? Why bother with Dallas-Little Rock? Worcester-Albany? How many people need to get from Raleigh to Savannah? Even Albany-Buffalo seems fairly marginal. And as someone already said, why oh why wouldn't you connect Dallas to Houston? Those are enormous cities, and the distance is perfect.


----------



## Dallas star

zkline said:


> Why aren't they focusing on just a few really high-density routes? Why bother with Dallas-Little Rock? Worcester-Albany? How many people need to get from Raleigh to Savannah? Even Albany-Buffalo seems fairly marginal. And as someone already said, why oh why wouldn't you connect Dallas to Houston? Those are enormous cities, and the distance is perfect.


I agree with why they would make Dallas-Little Rock routes, I wonder why they wouldn't just connect Dallas with the rest of the Eastern Route.


----------



## Ganis

maybe its because of the distance between dallas and Houston.


----------



## zkline

*could be*

But as far as I can tell Dallas-Houston is only ~40 miles longer than Dallas-Austin


----------



## zkline

and Dallas-Houston is much much shorter than Houston-NOLA, plus I've gotta think there are way more Houstonians who need to Dallas than NOLA.


----------



## hans280

Is the United States by any chance a federal nation? :lol: This smacks strongly of "every part of the country should have a piece of the cake". But in some ways it makes sense: the 8 billion in the kitty are only a drop on the hot stone if they are to invest in real HSR. The cost will run to hundreds of billions. All Obama is saying is, whichever state(s) moves first will get a handful of cash in start-up aid. The map shows the corridors that are candidates for such aid, should the Governors get their act together.


----------



## sweek

Shouldn't it be possible to link up the Chicago and the North East network? I really wouldn't bother with Florida or the Northwest just yet.


----------



## gramercy

People, please.


This is just lip service. 8 billion for 5 years. Thats less than 2 bn per year.

How much for WEAPONRY / year in the same period? outside of 400 bn


get real americans. protest your government for much more than this


china allocated almost 900 bn (!) just for rail for the next couple of years

europe is spending in the 10s of bns / year on HSR



COME ON, this is pathetic


----------



## gramercy

the chuo shinkansen (550 km maglev from tokyo to osaka) will cost almost 50 bn dollars

the swiss are spending close to 40 bn CHF on their revitalizing programme, including the longest tunnel, the 3rd longest tunnel in the world and another 18 km long tunnel

the swiss are spending more on HS rail than the US

PATHETIC


----------



## FlyFish

gramercy said:


> People, please.
> 
> 
> This is just lip service. 8 billion for 5 years. Thats less than 2 bn per year.
> 
> How much for WEAPONRY / year in the same period? outside of 400 bn
> 
> 
> get real americans. protest your government for much more than this
> 
> 
> china allocated almost 900 bn (!) just for rail for the next couple of years
> 
> europe is spending in the 10s of bns / year on HSR
> 
> 
> 
> COME ON, this is pathetic




What is pathetic is that someone above's hero Mr Obama has to borrow the 8 billion from the Chinese in the first place. The US doesn't have the money for a giant far reaching dive into this right now. If this is to be done at all it should start with the NE corridor and see how it goes with that one route. Once there is a public buy in then expand it but for now they should stick with the one area where there are passengers who will definetely ride it.


The US isn;t China and certainly isn't Europe. Americans are not rail riders, we've been trained since birth to get in that car and drive, and when the trip is too far you take a plane. Changing that won;t happen overnight and you can't force it simply buy building the trains. The US has a bunch of open spaces and we like to drive the cars. Rail travel isn't really even in the picture except between Boston and Washington DC where traffic and air congestion make it a viable and attractive alternative. HSR in that corridor is a great idea IMO. It will ease congestion on the roads and air in that corridor. Don't get me wrong, I am not against this in principle, but I am against it in areas where the end result will likely be two trains daily filled to 10% capacity. I don't agree with building it just to build it. To me that's a terrible investment of public funds.


----------



## gramercy

Both coasts, the north-east, the mid-west and texas have the same or higher population densities than europe. 

Furthermore, places like Spain have very low population densities but have cities far away. There is nothing in the desert in the LA/LV/PHX corridor....but I bet people would ride the train from city-centre to city-centre if it could do the distance in an hour and a half.


----------



## FlyFish

Agreed, the only trouble in a City like LA is that there is no longer really a city center. LA from a businessperson's perspective, is extremely large. If this thing was to be built there and made to be viable you would need a huge infrastructure module around it. You would need every service that the airport has; rental car, taxi, food, etc etc. That gets prohibitive in the CIty Centers. It's a challenge here in the US. Folks above me have read me wrong. I'm a train buff. I couldn't wait to ride Acela and seeing HSR would be an awesome thing. But, as one of those evil conservatives I would want to see tax money spent for highest and best use. In this regard there are very few corridors where HSR is the best use of infrastructure dollars. 

Boston to DC, absolutely, SFC to LA and LV, probably, but the sprawl of those cities makes it a challenge. If you have to stop ten times in LA then it is hardly high speed no matter how fast the train goes. It will work in the US, but not as pictured in that map above. That map represents the potential waste of hundreds of billions of dollars just so Congressman X can say that his/her district got some. If you want to spend infrastructure dollars between Omaha and Denver in reality just add a lane to the interstate within 75 miles of each city. That would ease congestion in that regard.


----------



## gramercy

Not really. The train can run at 200 kph inside the city stopping at -say- every 20 mile interval, picking up people. Then at Palm Springs accelerate to 360 kph all the way till the western side of PHX where it would stop then continue all the way till Tucson at 200 kph. Stopping at least 3-4 more times inside PHX.

And yes, american cities CRY for much denser PT. But I think high speed trains have proven themselves against planes already: look at japan or the Paris-Marseilles route: only 1/3rd chose something else, 2/3rd goes by train. Thats HUGE. And thats a comparable distance to say Irvign-Las Vegas.


----------



## pcrail

*The funding is missing !*

Well to jump-start this issue there shall be at least 5 times more funding. Switzerland spends for the new railway link thru the Alps every year about 1.1 bn USD. To have a funding proportional to the polpulation US shall spend *44 bn USD every year*!


----------



## sotavento

FlyFish said:


> Agreed, the only trouble in a City like LA is that there is no longer really a city center. LA from a businessperson's perspective, is extremely large. If this thing was to be built there and made to be viable you would need a huge infrastructure module around it. You would need every service that the airport has; rental car, taxi, food, etc etc. That gets prohibitive in the CIty Centers. It's a challenge here in the US. Folks above me have read me wrong. I'm a train buff. I couldn't wait to ride Acela and seeing HSR would be an awesome thing. But, as one of those evil conservatives I would want to see tax money spent for highest and best use. In this regard there are very few corridors where HSR is the best use of infrastructure dollars.
> 
> Boston to DC, absolutely, SFC to LA and LV, probably, but the sprawl of those cities makes it a challenge. If you have to stop ten times in LA then it is hardly high speed no matter how fast the train goes. It will work in the US, but not as pictured in that map above. That map represents the potential waste of hundreds of billions of dollars just so Congressman X can say that his/her district got some. If you want to spend infrastructure dollars between Omaha and Denver in reality just add a lane to the interstate within 75 miles of each city. That would ease congestion in that regard.


Quite the contrary ... LA has teh right infraestructure already built ... all it needs is a HUB connection between:

Los Angeles International and Irvine (route to San Diego) , Ontario (routes to Las Vegas/Nevada and Arizona) , Burbank (routes to S.Francisco) , and other such things ... 

... then what remains is to build those 125mph/200mph routes along the densely packed american countryside. :lol:


Sidenotice: LA urban area is what ??? bigger than 100miles east-west ??? :bash:hno:


----------



## sotavento

sarflonlad said:


> Hamburg to Sevilla - that's what, 33 hours in total on at least 5 trains? Most people would fly that route.
> 
> HSR becomes viable, competitive and a very attractive form of transport when journey times are 2-3 hours city centre to city centre. For example, whilst it's still much quicker to fly to Brussels from London, the train wins on total journey time (1h50mins) because there's no need to get to the airport, check-in, wait for your flight, go through security, inevitable delays etc. Hamburg to Sevilla however - 2 hours versus 33 hours... hmmmm.
> 
> For HSR to work in Eastern US, the vision needs to be realistic, and the benefits need to be communicated properly.


Thats preciselly the point ... 


Hamburg and Seville are connected to their neighbouring towns by HSR ... in distances acceptable ... So are Cordoba , Barcelona , Marseille , Lyon , Frankfurt and many other big cities ... it's the sum of all this that adds to a HUGE HSR network. 


I find amusing to hear/read some people claim that the USA should stick with the NEC. :lol:


A 4 track route from Ontario(LA eastern suburbs) to Palm Springs (100km = 25 minutes) , Yuma (320km = 1h) , Phoenix (570km = 1h50) , Tucson (740km = 2h30) ... 2 tracks for freight + 2 tracks for "true" HSR (let's say 360km/h perfectly isolated/segregated from either freight trains and everything else) ...


^^ The easier way to do this right is just to connect the Airports of those same cities with one another .. .add some other smaller airports along the way and you have a hugelly dense network ... and remember that the HSR could also serve to link the airports with their respective downtown areas ... and the outer suburbs.


----------



## hoosier

Onn said:


> 50 years ago?? You have to be kidding me! Since when are any of the people that worked on the railroad 50 years ago still on the job? And since when were those rails electrified, with trains traveling at 150mph? State's don't have that kind of experience, look how long it's taken California to even get to a planning stage! They started their committee to look into high-speed rail in the 1990s! And that was when things were good! How long do you think it's going to take an ordinary state to get together such a proposal? Much of the money for roads comes from cities and states, which are almost all cash-strapped right now.
> 
> Ummm expect we don't have goo gobs of money to spend anymore. Did the 10 trillion+ budget deficit just vanish or something? It could be 50 years before the federal government has sufficient money to give for high-speed rail! Furthermore, it doesn’t make any sense to go out of our way to build one when we already have perfectly capable system in place. This isn't 1960, you’re going to have to have some patience if you want rail to make a comback. We don't even have companies to build high-speed rail components and trains in the US! I don't know what idiot decided to throwaway rail travel. But that rail sure wasn't high-speed, either. There hasn't been a major rail project in the US in decades. And high-speed rail has to have it's own system, or it doesn’t work. Just like Amtrack is finding out with Acela.
> 
> The interstate highway system was originally built to shuttle around the military. If the government wants to take money out of the defense budget to a build a national electric rail network, with the intention to shuttle the troops around the country, then fine. The Pentagon has plenty of money.


There are plenty of companies that make HSR vehicles- Bombardier, Alstom, Siemens, and Tagon just to name a few.

They would gladly build production facilities in America in exchange for the contracts to produce high speed trains for use there.

You don't think that America can't hire engineers and operations specialists from France or Japan to oversee the construction and implementation of a domestic HSR network? GIVE ME A BREAK!! Fucking Nazi scientists were brought over from Germany after WWII to work for NASA.

And you completely eliminate any credibility you have by saying first that the federal government has these huge deficits and can't afford to build a HSR network and then later state that the military has plenty of money!hno:

Doofus, the military is funded with TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

The government can find $700 billion to give to big banks and over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Money can be found for HSR by eliminating TARP and cutting defense spending in half.

Raise income taxes to pre-Reagan levels, eliminate corporate tax loopholes, start enforcing the tax code and revenues to the government will increase significantly.


----------



## DShoost88

I really hope it's actually built between Miami & Orlando. With all the tourists that go between the two cities/regions all year long, it's a no-brainer. Besides, they've been building the Miami Intermodal Center near MIA Airport to accommodate HSR as well. I know I'd use the line if it were built.


----------



## london24/7

Onn said:


> The interstate highway system was originally built to shuttle around the military. If the government wants to take money out of the defense budget to a build a national electric rail network, with the intention to shuttle the troops around the country, then fine. The Pentagon has plenty of money.


no it wasn't, it was built with the military in mind, and could you explain again how highway building money links to defense spending? ( although that is hideously bloated anyway). 
Hey perhaps we could have more money to HSR if we stopped spending 80% of transport money on highway building as a federal mandate??


----------



## -Corey-

FM 2258 said:


> I think the U.S. should just focus on getting a Japanese style high speed train going from Washington D.C. to Boston through Philadephia, New York, New Haven and Providence.


I dont know if am i right, but i heard that California will have the japaneses style hst.


----------



## london24/7

-Corey- said:


> I dont know if am i right, but i heard that California will have the japaneses style hst.


japanese if you like, or european, or korean, or chinese.. basically what the rest of the world calls 'true' HSR travelling at 300kph or 186mph. 
By the way, HSR is competitive on travel times under 4 hours and it get majority market share under 3 hours. People will use the best mode available. Arguing that americans aren't 'ready' to use HSR is nonsensical.


----------



## Rasputin1970

Good plan!


----------



## G5man

-Corey- said:


> I dont know if am i right, but i heard that California will have the japaneses style hst.


There's no definite decision yet since rolling stock could change within the next 5 years with the development of the Fastech 360, the AGV, and the Zefiro. We will not know until construction starts.


----------



## Brice

-Corey- said:


> I dont know if am i right, but i heard that California will have the japaneses style hst.


I know you're wrong


----------



## dachacon

^^ such nieve and narrow minded comment? hno:


----------



## riles28

I'm just thinking why the high speed rail in america are not like in other country like europe, china, and japan with vast network of high speed railline and train and mostly of high speed are only in the west part of america like the "ACELA" and mostly of the high speed service in east part are using diesel power locomotive and not EMU.


----------



## Brice

dachacon said:


> ^^ such nieve and narrow minded comment? hno:


keep your comments, that's only the truth.


----------



## LAmarODom420

Metropolitan said:


> We often hear people saying that the US is too large and its population density too low to make an HSR network viable.
> 
> Here's a map showing both Eastern US and Western Europe *at the same scale*. In red, you can see European HSR network. As you can see, a system as extensive as the one currently existing in Europe would be already far enough to serve most of US HSR needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In looking at that map, I realized how much we actually underestimate European distances compared to US distances. For instance, we imagine Boston and Miami to be incredibly far away, but Boston is actually closer to Miami than Hamburg is to Sevilla ! Both European cities being actually served with high speed rail...
> 
> I think that if we don't realize that European distances aren't that small, it's because of two major problems: *First, half of the US is empty (all the Rockies and desert states) and can thus be ignored here.* Second, Europe has a very weird shape with tons of islands and peninsulas. As such, there are tons of water in Europe (North sea, Med sea, Adriatic sea, Baltic sea), which are of course not counted in land area but which don't put Helsinki, Palermo or Edinburgh any closer.


Yeah just ignore an entire coast and the only state, California, that has advanced plans for TRUE HSR


----------



## gramercy

he wasnt ignoring california, read the GD post...


----------



## hkskyline

*US transportation secretary praises Spain's bullet train system as model to follow *
30 May 2009

MADRID (AP) - Spain's bullet train system is a model to follow as America plans how to spend the money the government is injecting to stimulate the economy, the U.S. transportation secretary said Saturday.

Ray LaHood said the $8 billion allocated for high-speed railways in the United States will spur economic growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

President Barack Obama has cited Spain, France and Japan as countries with systems worth emulating.

The Spanish network is likely to interest the U.S. government because its specially designed, electrified tracks -- first devised for the French TGV system -- are not as expensive to lay and run as some German or Japanese alternatives.

And Spanish state-of-the-art tunneling technology has proved successful in boring efficiently through mountain ranges to reach the cities of Valladolid and Malaga.

LaHood met with Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to discuss how investing in such a train system could stimulate job creation in the U.S.

"Yesterday I traveled on a train at close to 350 kilometers (215 miles) per hour, the fastest I've ever ridden on a high-speed train," LaHood said. He said he had enjoyed a conversation and beverage aboard and found the experience very civilized.

"Our leaders have made the decision that America will have high speed rail," LaHood said.

Of $787 billion approved in Obama's stimulus bill, $48 billion is destined to improving overall transport infrastructure, with rail receiving for the first time an important share, LaHood said.

He said that by the end of the summer there will be American people working in well-paying jobs building high speed rail links in the U.S.

The U.S. transportation secretary also met with Spanish Development Minister Jose Blanco. The two discussed how rail can be tailored to provide "intermodal links" with other forms of transport such as road, air and sea, as well as issues relating to safety on a high speed network.

The secretary said he was scheduled to meet with Vice President Joe Biden next week in Washington D.C. to decide how best to spend the $8 billion allotted to high speed rail. He said there would be "an early infusion of money to get things going."

Spain's high-speed train system began operating in 1992 between Madrid and Seville in the southwest. Since then the network has been extended by nearly 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles) to link central Valladolid and Segovia to southern Malaga and northeastern Barcelona.

By 2014 bullet trains are expected to travel from Portugal's capital, Lisbon, to Madrid in under three hours.

High-speed lines will eventually stretch from Portugal's Atlantic coast, through France to Britain and Belgium, providing Europe with fast passenger transport to rival air travel.


----------



## He Named Thor

hkskyline said:


> *US transportation secretary praises Spain's bullet train system as model to follow *
> 30 May 2009
> 
> MADRID (AP) - Spain's bullet train system is a model to follow as America plans how to spend the money the government is injecting to stimulate the economy, the U.S. transportation secretary said Saturday.
> 
> Ray LaHood said the $8 billion allocated for high-speed railways in the United States will spur economic growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> President Barack Obama has cited Spain, France and Japan as countries with systems worth emulating.
> 
> The Spanish network is likely to interest the U.S. government because its specially designed, electrified tracks -- first devised for the French TGV system -- are not as expensive to lay and run as some German or Japanese alternatives.
> 
> And Spanish state-of-the-art tunneling technology has proved successful in boring efficiently through mountain ranges to reach the cities of Valladolid and Malaga.
> 
> LaHood met with Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to discuss how investing in such a train system could stimulate job creation in the U.S.
> 
> "Yesterday I traveled on a train at close to 350 kilometers (215 miles) per hour, the fastest I've ever ridden on a high-speed train," LaHood said. He said he had enjoyed a conversation and beverage aboard and found the experience very civilized.
> 
> "Our leaders have made the decision that America will have high speed rail," LaHood said.
> 
> Of $787 billion approved in Obama's stimulus bill, $48 billion is destined to improving overall transport infrastructure, with rail receiving for the first time an important share, LaHood said.
> 
> He said that by the end of the summer there will be American people working in well-paying jobs building high speed rail links in the U.S.
> 
> The U.S. transportation secretary also met with Spanish Development Minister Jose Blanco. The two discussed how rail can be tailored to provide "intermodal links" with other forms of transport such as road, air and sea, as well as issues relating to safety on a high speed network.
> 
> The secretary said he was scheduled to meet with Vice President Joe Biden next week in Washington D.C. to decide how best to spend the $8 billion allotted to high speed rail. He said there would be "an early infusion of money to get things going."
> 
> Spain's high-speed train system began operating in 1992 between Madrid and Seville in the southwest. Since then the network has been extended by nearly 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles) to link central Valladolid and Segovia to southern Malaga and northeastern Barcelona.
> 
> By 2014 bullet trains are expected to travel from Portugal's capital, Lisbon, to Madrid in under three hours.
> 
> High-speed lines will eventually stretch from Portugal's Atlantic coast, through France to Britain and Belgium, providing Europe with fast passenger transport to rival air travel.


Wisconsin's governor and others from the Midwest visited Spain back in Feb. to tour their system. There are a bunch of photos from the trip on one of the websites.


----------



## Brice

Lahood went to France and Germany too


----------



## Slartibartfas

LAmarODom420 said:


> Yeah just ignore an entire coast and the only state, California, that has advanced plans for TRUE HSR


His point for the eastern part is valid however. The population at the west coast is pretty concentrated in California as well and large enough to justify a intra californian island HSR solution. That does not in anyawy make his point any weaker.




> US transportation secretary praises Spain's bullet train system as model to follow
> 
> 
> 
> The Spanish HSR system is brand new, fast, very convenient and simply great and still rapidly expanding. Just the tickets should be bought online in advance, buying them at the railwaystation is quite an undertaking that can under circumstances take as long as the rail journey itself.
> 
> If the US would follow Spains model, it would be not only ambitious but also making a good decision.
> 
> Thats a minor aspect though that can be easily tackled.
Click to expand...


----------



## Slartibartfas

sarflonlad said:


> Hamburg to Sevilla - that's what, 33 hours in total on at least 5 trains? Most people would fly that route.


I have tried out the route: Vienna - Madrid by train.

2 night trains and spending the day in between in Zürich on my way to Spain and in Bern on my way home. So actually I hardly spent any time awake in a train without preparing for the sleep / for the day or with my breakfeast in front of me. 
Additionally I had take the high speed train from Barcelona to Madrid. That was 2 and a half hours more maybe? But if I'd understood Spanish a seeing a recent block buster would have been included in that journey. (1st class also a meal would be included). I'd prefer this way of travelling anytime over flying as long as its somewhat affordable. 

True, night trains don't need HSRs but I think one should think about them. Is there btw the chance of a high speed night train? With the growing European network it should be possible to really go as far as ~ 3000-4000 km in one night. Why aren't there any plans in this regard. Are there technical limitations or are the companies just not creative enough?



> HSR becomes viable, competitive and a very attractive form of transport when journey times are 2-3 hours city centre to city centre. For example, whilst it's still much quicker to fly to Brussels from London, the train wins on total journey time (1h50mins) because there's no need to get to the airport, check-in, wait for your flight, go through security, inevitable delays etc. Hamburg to Sevilla however - 2 hours versus 33 hours... hmmmm.
> 
> For HSR to work in Eastern US, the vision needs to be realistic, and the benefits need to be communicated properly.


I'd say that up to 3 hours it is highly competitive but its up to 4 hours feasible. Many people would prefer the train even if it takes as long or a bit longer than the flight for various reasons. Comfort might be among them.


----------



## philvia

G5man said:


> Well they do not have the plans or studies right now and have not gotten there act together. Whoever has there act together and best proposals first will receive the funds.


so a HSR link from little rock to houston or something could potentially be more worthy than the NEC... by your logic?


----------



## davsot

No, it's just that some states are busting their backs because maybe they're a lil forward thinking while the NEC is just sitting there waiting for the government to throw money at them.

I'm not sure if the NEC has any studies, but just commenting in respect to G5Man.


----------



## Xusein

It's the elephant in the room.

I think the main barrier to having true HSR in the Northeast Corridor is the right-of-way, it would cost quite a lot of money to build a separate railroad because land costs in many parts of the corridor (especially in CT, NY, NJ) are very high.


----------



## davsot

Yet it's necessary... 

Something like this perhaps?

http://bwmaglev.com/about/interactivemap.htm


----------



## Xusein

G5man said:


> Well they do not have the plans or studies right now and have not gotten there act together. Whoever has there act together and best proposals first will receive the funds.


Keep in mind that the NEC goes through eight states (as well as a district) with different issues and concerns, it's a little harder to come up with something compared to that HSR plan in California, which is obviously one state.


----------



## Xusein

davsot said:


> Yet it's necessary...
> 
> Something like this perhaps?
> 
> http://bwmaglev.com/about/interactivemap.htm


That would great to see! Maglev is kind of expensive though...


----------



## davsot

^^^^ oh no, I was referring to the map lol.

Yea MagLev is a long shot and only if Baltimore gets the Olympics. So, either way HSRFTW.


----------



## nomarandlee

Even though as a Chicagoan I would like to see HSR around here I think without a doubt priority should be given to the NEC and then the Cali routes with the rest starting a distant third on down.


----------



## Basincreek

Have they started an EIR for upgrading the NEC?


----------



## hoosier

philvia said:


> i agree^^^ the NEC should be priority and deserves the first 220mph+ track, not some retarded STL connection to chicago or whatever other HSR projects that politicians propose to seem "forward thinking"


The 220 mpg Chicago-STL high speed line wasn't proposed, nor has been endorsed, by any politician. It was proposed in a study by the non-governmental Midwest High Speed Rail Association.


----------



## hoosier

FlyFish said:


> Liberals are obviously also open minded and tolerant of the views of those who disagree with them, LOL.
> 
> 
> To the topic. HSR has a great and immediate benefit from Boston to DC, that corridor should be developed into a true HSR corridor as soon as practical and financially feasible. Of course, under this administration ANYTHING is suddenly financially feasible so I guess we could start building it right now. Let's not build it just to build it, or build it just because France has it (where is France anyway?), let's build it where it makes sense and go from there. Japan and France didn't wake up one morning and suddenly have HSR networks, it took time. Let's start with the busiest rail corridor we have, transform it and see if it works. It likely will and then we can go from there.


Tolerance does NOT mean acceptance or non-criticism. Open-mindedness does NOT mean agreeing.

As for you jab that under the Obama administration, everything is financially feasible, I kindly suggest you pull your head out of your ass. We are talking about $8 billion, a paltry sum. And considering that it was Bush that launched the trillion dollar debacle known as Iraq despite the existence of a budget deficit after Congress approved his two surplus destroying tax cuts, you have no right to criticize. And the conservative icon Ronald Reagan TRIPLED the amount of federal government debt with his tax cuts for the rich and arms race with the Soviet Union so the modern GOP has ZERO credibility when it comes to "fiscal responsibility."


----------



## hoosier

davsot said:


> No, it's just that some states are busting their backs because maybe they're a lil forward thinking while the NEC is just sitting there waiting for the government to throw money at them.
> 
> I'm not sure if the NEC has any studies, but just commenting in respect to G5Man.


The NE is behind the game when it comes to developing plans for a NSR network because the Bush administration wanted to eliminate the federal subsidy for Amtrak and turn over its operation to the states. The NE states were rightly opposed to this, and thus avoided any collaboration with respect to interstate passenger rail service. Now that Bush is gone and a train friendly administration is in charge that wants to spend money on HSR, the NE states are starting to work together to develop a plan.


----------



## philvia

but just because a plan is in place doesn't mean it's worthy. the majority of proposed HSR plans would be a massive waste because the majority of the citizens there will not support it. they are just ways to make politicians seem like they're doing something "new and progressive".

the NEC has by far the highest ridership in the western hemisphere and thus would have the most advantage from the feds $$


----------



## Basincreek

philvia said:


> but just because a plan is in place doesn't mean it's worthy. the majority of proposed HSR plans would be a massive waste because the majority of *the citizens there will not support it.* they are just ways to make politicians seem like they're doing something "new and progressive".
> 
> the NEC has by far the highest ridership in the western hemisphere and thus would have the most advantage from the feds $$


Do you have evidence that the citizens will not support it?


----------



## nomarandlee

hoosier said:


> Tolerance does NOT mean acceptance or non-criticism. Open-mindedness does NOT mean agreeing.


 Tolerance means not devolving into sophomoric caricatures or crass generalizations.

You may think you are smarter then when a ******* conservative calls the whole swath of liberals "fucking morons" but you would be wrong.


----------



## davsot

philvia said:


> but just because a plan is in place doesn't mean it's worthy. the majority of proposed HSR plans would be a massive waste because the majority of the citizens there will not support it. they are just ways to make politicians seem like they're doing something "new and progressive".
> 
> the NEC has by far the highest ridership in the western hemisphere and thus would have the most advantage from the feds $$


If NEC has the highest ridership, why wouldn't more people support it? LOL


----------



## philvia

Basincreek said:


> Do you have evidence that the citizens will not support it?


smaller midwest cities will NOT support it. they cant even support their own mass transit. look at STL metrolink.. it's a tourist thing if anything. the people in most of the country are still way too dependent on their vehicles and that wont change just because there's a fast train to another city. they'll still drive because most of the connecting cities have horrible mass transit, if any.

like i said, the ONLY region that has proven support is the NEC. chicago has it, but only in it's metro. CA voted it in, but that doesn't mean they'll use it.

the stuff proposed by politicians are just for image and the money will likely sit there doing nothing for years... and then probably transferred off to roadway projects once the money is forgotten about.


----------



## philvia

davsot said:


> If NEC has the highest ridership, why wouldn't more people support it? LOL


i dont even know what you're trying to say :nuts:


----------



## hoosier

People only drive because that is their only option and human physical development is tailored towards automobile use. Americans flocked to trains prior to the massive federal investment in the interstate highway system. 

These anti-HSR idiots are completely historically illiterate. There was no evidence that the interstate highway system would be a success, but so much money was put into it at the expense of rail travel that people started using it.

If American cities are linked by HSR, there will be a demand for mass transit to complement it, just as the interstate highway system produced large surface streets, malls, and parking lots.


----------



## hoosier

philvia said:


> but just because a plan is in place doesn't mean it's worthy. the majority of proposed HSR plans would be a massive waste because the majority of the citizens there will not support it.


Another anti-HSR idiot talking out their ass. Tell me, is the $15 BILLION expansion of O'Hare airport a wise use of money? The entire Midwest HSR network would only cost $10 billion and link all major cities with 110 mph rail.


----------



## FlyFish

Basincreek said:


> Of course you also have to deal with the Republicans whose solution to every problem in the history of everything is tax breaks for the rich. That makes funding things harder.


Nice soundbite! The trouble with those is that they rarely capture very much of the truth. Stick to the point.


Look, this isn't supposed to be a political forum but the trouble I see with the "investment in the US economy" is that it has to be done with borrowed money. So while you are investing in the economy by actually building something, a much better use of tax dollars than handouts IMHO, you are still paying interest on it. Our Federal Government is in such a financial mess right now, a mess started by one party and worsened by the other, that something like this will probably not "grow legs" for a while. Our deficits now are at such levels that even some Democrats are balking at new programs. The 8 billion that was in that economically unsound "stimulus" bill will get spent but beyond that I don't see this as anything more than dreams for a while. 


I agree that the train would be competitive, I agree that to some extent it is cleaner, I even agree that building it Governmentally is OK but the fact is we do have the air network and we do have the highway network so the big question is this: how much do we actually NEED this new rail system?


A question to our Euro Bretheren. All of these wonderful trains you have, did your Gov't's have to borrow the money to get them built?


----------



## RawLee

^^The EU itself is willing to pay a huge chunk of HSRs. And since the money of the EU comes from the members,I'd say they are not built from loans.


----------



## FlyFish

You see, that in my mind is a huge difference.


----------



## ArthurK

The Dutch HSL did cost around 7 billion euros to construct. The funding from the EU is far less than in Eastern Europe for example, as it's one of the whealthiest regions in the EU. Holland and to a lesser extend Belgium pay far more to the EU as they get back from EU subsidies. In 2006, the gap between payments and revenues was 0,47 percent of the Dutch GDP, which is really huge! There are many Dutch politicians who were upset about that.

So it depends largely on which country we're talking about. The Dutch high speed line is built as a PPP-construction. As Holland has an public debt of 45 percent of the GDP, the money should be borrowed. The EU subsidy was a mere 200 million euros [source], while the Madrid-Valladolid high speed line could get 55 percent EU funding and loans [source].


----------



## HAWC1506

Hey, new to the thread! Interesting discussions, especially on the plane v. train.

I know that in Seattle, there are a lot of flights to Portland and the airport is becoming more and more crowded. In the future, there's only so much expansion you can do to the airport. One solution is to build another airport for just short-length flights. Or you can build high speed rail...


----------



## hoosier

FlyFish said:


> Nice soundbite! The trouble with those is that they rarely capture very much of the truth.


You're one to talk about soundbites. That's all you have to offer.

"Government sucks, spending is bad, **** the less fortunate, WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


----------



## hoosier

FlyFish said:


> I agree that the train would be competitive, I agree that to some extent it is cleaner, I even agree that building it Governmentally is OK but the fact is we do have the air network and we do have the highway network so the big question is this: how much do we actually NEED this new rail system?



How much did we need airports or the interstate highway system? After all, we had excellent rail service and there were canals and other inland waterways that could be used to transport people.

I would say the U.S. desperately needs high speed rail. Airports and highways are big polluting concrete pieces of shit that consume far more land than rail. Airports and highways drastically lower property values, especially in the inner city, and are completely incompatible with human-centric development (the type that allows for walking and biking). Not to mention that our major roads and airports are heavily congested and expanding them is just as if not more expensive than building a HSR system.

The key to a good transportation system is DIVERSITY. HSR can easily compete with and often does out-compete air travel over distances of 500 miles or less. This is borne out by the total shift in passenger traffic from plane to train in France and Spain along certain high speed rail routes.


----------



## hoosier

FlyFish said:


> You see, that in my mind is a huge difference.


So if a nationwide HSR program was funded by spending cuts in another area of government or via a dedicated tax you would have no problem with it?


----------



## nomarandlee

hoosier said:


> How much did we need airports or the interstate highway system? After all, we had excellent rail service and there were canals and other inland waterways that could be used to transport people.
> 
> I would say the U.S. desperately needs high speed rail. Airports and highways are big polluting concrete pieces of shit that consume far more land than rail. Airports and highways drastically lower property values, especially in the inner city, and are completely incompatible with human-centric development (the type that allows for walking and biking). Not to mention that our major roads and airports are heavily congested and expanding them is just as if not more expensive than building a HSR system.
> 
> The key to a good transportation system is DIVERSITY. HSR can easily compete with and often does out-compete air travel over distances of 500 miles or less. This is borne out by the total shift in passenger traffic from plane to train in France and Spain along certain high speed rail routes.



I think that is false and it is very arguable that planes are less environmentally destabilizing to their surroundings. Sure airports take up a huge swaths of lands but they are rather isolated and as long as they are not built in environmentally sensitive areas they can be pretty relatively environmentally neutral. Roads and rail by contrast run huge scars in the landscape which planes do not. Flights once they are takeout from their town sized airports are rather inconspicuous to humans, foliage, and animals along their route unlike trains and auto's.

The point about highways and airports lowering land values is also somewhat of a species argument. There are numerous towns and subdivisions with highways and airports right near them. Yes, nobody likes to live right next to either but nobody ideally chooses to live right next to a busy freight train either. Train lines/yards often separate neighborhoods and lessen aesthetics and movement similar to busy roads and expressways in urban neighborhoods. Granted I see more of a necessity for those train yards and viaducts but don't tell me they don't aren't detrimental to the urban continuity in their own way either.

I think it is highly arguable if expanding airports would be as expensive as a build out of HSR that you talk about. For instance the 10 billion St.Loui's-Chicago 10 billion projection. O'Hare is going to get up upgraded capacity of over 50 million for between 10-15 with the O'Hare modernization project. This capacity is MANY more times then the demand of the St.Loui's-Chicago route could ever dream to necessitate.

Diversity is good but there has to be limit sometime (not saying that HSR is necessarily that limit). Perhaps those that sing the virtues of MagLev will intently say the inclusion and diversity that MagLevs bring is paramount in addition to HSR, air, and auto's. There are needs and wants in our society. How much is HSR a need compared to a want in contrast to other programs? Is making sure that the 50 million who don't have insurances get coverage less important then building HSR even given that there are other modes of transit?

Did we NEED airports or highways? I think we could have muddled through without most highways but I do think airports were absolute essential. If you think that America would have remained competitive insisting that travelers come to the U.S. by ship in the 21rst century or deny most Americans the privilege of traveling across the continent in mere hours when technology provided I think you are extremely naive to suggest that would have been a sustainable political platform to run on.




hoosier said:


> So if a nationwide HSR program was funded by spending cuts in another area of government or via a dedicated tax you would have no problem with it?


 That is a fair question. Another fair question is is there any approximate amount of accumulated debt or threat of financial insolvency of this nation that should prohibit or slow down the most ambitions plans for comprehensive HSR?


----------



## FlyFish

hoosier said:


> You're one to talk about soundbites. That's all you have to offer.
> 
> "Government sucks, spending is bad, #%[email protected] the less fortunate, WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!



Ugh, I don't think I ever said any of that....oh and watch your language, there could be kids reading this. You can make your point without the MTV language.


Yes, I'd be OK if Gov't built this without borrowing as long as it did so in a manner that makes sense........NOT by locating segments first in the districts of the Congresspersons who have the most seniority. I am against dedicated taxes, we are taxed enough as it is. This Government spends too much, that's what should be looked at to close budget gaps.


You keep going back the the interstate system. Stop posting in the past. Whether we needed the interstates sixty years ago is not relevant, we HAVE them now. You keep argueing to make the same "mistake" again. You are against the idea of us having built the interstates because we had rail and didn;t need them and now you want to do the same thing again. Build a huge HSR system that we don't need because we have the interstates. The environmental footprint of the highways and airports is an irrelevant arguement because those aren't going to change no matter what rail is built. Sheesh, what do you think is going to happen, build the train and then tear down O'Hare? The need of a system like this is simple. Is there overcrowding of the current systems and can the rail alleviate it? Leave the environmental stuff out of it, that's feel good nonsense with very little bearing on reality. You have to generate the power to run the train and like it or not right now that means mostly burning something so the train really isn't that clean.


Spend the 8 billion on the NE corridor and the LA-San Fransisco corridors. make them true high speed runs and lets see how it goes. Then let's meet back here in ten years once we've got our financial house in order (I am an optomist) and see if it REALLY makes any sense to expand it.


----------



## davsot

nomarandlee said:


> I think that is false and it is very arguable that planes are less environmentally destabilizing to their surroundings. Sure airports take up a huge swaths of lands but they are rather isolated and as long as they are not built in environmentally sensitive areas they can be pretty relatively environmentally neutral. Roads and rail by contrast run huge scars in the landscape which planes do not. Flights once they are takeout from their town sized airports are rather inconspicuous to humans, foliage, and animals along their route unlike trains and auto's.


That's not true. Planes consume a huge amount of fuel and release a huge amount of emissions. Did you think airplanes have Harry Potter broomstick technology and can just levitate? http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mf.html

Roads leave *WAY* more scars than rail. More people / cargo can go over one rail than over a single lane of road. Your arguments are hilarious. No one said airports aren't necessary, but flights within the contiguous United States can be replaced or the overcrowding can be lowered with HSR! 

I also know a lot of airports that have been built over mangroves with infill or simply infill a beach and create an artificial island for your airport. Not exactly environmentally friendly. 

Inconspicuous to humans? You should come to Puerto Rico or if you live near an airport. The FAA has organized all flights over land and NOT water. The sound of these planes flying above is so annoying. Though, to be fair HSR makes noise too. Either way, as long as we avoid the tunnel booms we'll be fine.



nomarandlee said:


> The point about highways and airports lowering land values is also somewhat of a species argument. There are numerous towns and subdivisions with highways and airports right near them. Yes, nobody likes to live right next to either but nobody ideally chooses to live right next to a busy freight train either. Train lines/yards often separate neighborhoods and lessen aesthetics and movement similar to busy roads and expressways in urban neighborhoods. Granted I see more of a necessity for those train yards and viaducts but don't tell me they don't aren't detrimental to the urban continuity in their own way either.


Well, with all this talk of Smart Growth®, people are realizing that it's better to live closer to a mass transit station than to a highway exit. Even the government is promoting it. So property values will go up if you're near mass transit (in most cases). 



nomarandlee said:


> I think it is highly arguable if expanding airports would be as expensive as a build out of HSR that you talk about. For instance the 10 billion St.Loui's-Chicago 10 billion projection. O'Hare is going to get up upgraded capacity of over 50 million for between 10-15 with the O'Hare modernization project. This capacity is MANY more times then the demand of the St.Loui's-Chicago route could ever dream to necessitate.


It will be more expensive over the long run because airports, like roads, pollute too much and if you just keep building more of them, securing the addiction to roads America has, it is not efficient. That O'Hare modernization project: Does it involve new designs, entirely new system? Then WHY are you using it in your argument? It's an unfair comparison, though I can understand you were simply replying to what hoosier said. 



nomarandlee said:


> Diversity is good but there has to be limit sometime (not saying that HSR is necessarily that limit). Perhaps those that sing the virtues of MagLev will intently say the inclusion and diversity that MagLevs bring is paramount in addition to HSR, air, and auto's. There are needs and wants in our society. How much is HSR a need compared to a want in contrast to other programs? Is making sure that the 50 million who don't have insurances get coverage less important then building HSR even given that there are other modes of transit?


HSR is a need because of our overdependance on fossil fuels, especially foreign ones. Diversity is *fair*, therefore necessary. You can't expect everyone *wants* to pay for gasoline, but if you make it a *need*, it becomes *unfair*. An HSR is very much in need, though priority should be given to those who need it the most *COUGH* California. or NEC. 



nomarandlee said:


> Did we NEED airports or highways? I think we could have muddled through without most highways but I do think airports were absolute essential. If you think that America would have remained competitive insisting that travelers come to the U.S. by ship in the 21rst century or deny most Americans the privilege of traveling across the continent in mere hours when technology provided I think you are extremely naive to suggest that would have been a sustainable political platform to run on.


Like I said no one said destroy all airports and HSR!! Hoosier said and I quote: 



hoosier said:


> How much did *we* need airports or the interstate highway system? After all, we had excellent rail service and there were canals and other inland waterways that could be used to transport people.


I guess it could be debatable what he meant, but what I understood was he was referring to travel between the contiguous 48 states. Therefore, keep airports for international travel, but if local flights are causing overcrowding, than let's lessen the need for expansion (not modernization! lmao).


----------



## nomarandlee

davsot said:


> That's not true. Planes consume a huge amount of fuel and release a huge amount of emissions. Did you think airplanes have Harry Potter broomstick technology and can just levitate? http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mf.html



Planes make up for less then 2% of all Green House gasses in the world. What I thought was clear in my post was talking about the ground environment on which planes, cars, autos traversed on route. If one wants to look like a dip and claim that a plane up 30k feet in the air overhead is as much of a nuisance to those on the ground for say 300 miles as a road/track is then go ahead.



> Roads leave WAY more scars than rail. More people / cargo can go over one rail than over a single lane of road. Your arguments are hilarious. No one said airports aren't necessary, but flights within the contiguous United States can be replaced or the overcrowding can be lowered with HSR!


 Again, where did I claim that roads left less scars then rails? 



> I also know a lot of airports that have been built over mangroves with infill or simply infill a beach and create an artificial island for your airport. Not exactly environmentally friendly.


 The VAST (like 99%) majority of airports are not built on infill and or artificial islands. Where artificial airport have been used there likely have been other alternatives that could have been implemented.
There are also railroads which run through pristine areas like Empire Builder which cuts through beautiful wilderness near Glacier NP and runs right alongside the Columbia River Gorge.



> Inconspicuous to humans? You should come to Puerto Rico or if you live near an airport. The FAA has organized all flights over land and NOT water. The sound of these planes flying above is so annoying. Though, to be fair HSR makes noise too. Either way, as long as we avoid the tunnel booms we'll be fine.


 Yes, for a much greater majority of its route air is about as inconspicuous to humans as it gets.

I live less then a few miles to the 2nd busiest airport in the world so I am well accustomed. I also grew up for a time less then 300ft from a CN route in the Chicago region as well where I could feel the foundation of my house shake when freights rolled by. For me the latter was worse (though I can't say I am particularly bothered by either). 



> Well, with all this talk of Smart Growth®, people are realizing that it's better to live closer to a mass transit station than to a highway exit. Even the government is promoting it. So property values will go up if you're near mass transit (in most cases).


 Trains and their infrastructure exist more then just in terms of mass transit. Believe you me I am all for smart growth and I think the government should promote regardless of an effort to promote high real estate prices. It is simply myopic to claim though that roads decrease land values and rails promote them. 
I will use the Chicago region as an example. Suburban west Northbrook is miles from rail and near a major expressway and is vastly more expensive real estate then West Garfield Park that has the Green Line going through it only miles away from downtown. As far as the aesthetics or urban continuity the IC rail viaduct that runs through Hyde Park in Chicago serves to separate a neighborhood and could be considered a visual scar every bit as much as the Dan Ryan x-way a mile to its west. 
Now I think the the benefits of this scaring from viadcuts and embankments of rail is higher then the scaring of auto roads to my line of thinking but as a rail fan don't disingenuously beat up on roads and act as if rail doesn't sometime carry approximate issues for which we damn autos.



> It will be more expensive over the long run because airports, like roads, pollute too much and if you just keep building more of them, securing the addiction to roads America has, it is not efficient. That O'Hare modernization project: Does it involve new designs, entirely new system? Then WHY are you using it in your argument? It's an unfair comparison, though I can understand you were simply replying to what hoosier said.


 Again that is arguable. Would a 787 flying from NYC-Chicago pollute appreciable more then a HSR like that of the Jet Train? Or would a HSR train that runs through states that depend primarily on coal plants? Would algre fuel in planes level the equation in the future or if we do primarily go to wind in the future would that enhances HSR supposed advantage even more still. There are many variables and future changes that could change with each to that could potentially change the equation
Long distance for personal autos will likely never come close to be as carbon neutral as trains even given technological improvements (unless the big IF of hydrogen ever comes to fruition) however I don't have not advocated that personal autos and the infrastructure for them should be be catered to in order to enhance travel for Americans. 



> HSR is a need because of our overdependance on fossil fuels, especially foreign ones. Diversity is fair, therefore necessary. You can't expect everyone wants to pay for gasoline, but if you make it a need, it becomes unfair. An HSR is very much in need, though priority should be given to those who need it the most *COUGH* California. or NEC.


 Diversity is fair? So in order to be "fair" we need to build MagLev infrastructure as well? That is like saying that even though most everyone has the right to basic medical care that everyone has a right to alternative medicine as well just because it is possible. Our society already provides a plethora of options by way of air, bus, low speed rail, and autos. Does that mean HSR should not be part of platform? No, but this argument that for many people not having HSR is a NECESSITY for their lives (like oh say in contrast to not having medical coverage to get a lump removed) is a bit of a stretch. 




> I guess it could be debatable what he meant, but what I understood was he was referring to travel between the contiguous 48 states. Therefore, keep airports for international travel, but if local flights are causing overcrowding, than let's lessen the need for expansion (not modernization! lmao).


 Even if he was talking primarly about cross continental travel it would still apply that Americans would have never been for denying them fast travel across the nation by air by their politicans.

I myself hope we can both increase air capacity and further HSR in this nation. I just take issues that increasing airport capacity is an economical boondoggle when HSR is not. Like I say, O'Hare modernization has a 10-15 billion price tag that will enhance capacity to 50 million per year for people all throughout the world. If one wants to claim that Chicago-St.Louis HSR for ten billion will be nearly as utilized for approximate price tags I would love to see one argue that.


----------



## davsot

nomarandlee said:


> Planes make up for less then 2% of all Green House gasses in the world. What I thought was clear in my post was talking about the ground environment on which planes, cars, autos traversed on route. If one wants to look like a dip and claim that a plane up 30k feet in the air overhead is as much of a nuisance to those on the ground for say 300 miles as a road/track is then go ahead.


All right. Do you have a source?



nomarandlee said:


> Trains and their infrastructure exist more then just in terms of mass transit. Believe you me I am all for smart growth and I think the government should promote regardless of an effort to promote high real estate prices. It is simply myopic to claim though that roads decrease land values and rails promote them.


I never said roads decrease land value. I only said that living near mass transit is better than living close to a highway exit. Why? Because while you will *always* have access to roads, having proper access to mass transit isn't always possible. So, would you rather have a choice than not to?





nomarandlee said:


> Again that is arguable. Would a 787 flying from NYC-Chicago pollute appreciable more then a HSR like that of the Jet Train? Or would a HSR train that runs through states that depend primarily on coal plants? Would algre fuel in planes level the equation in the future or if we do primarily go to wind in the future would that enhances HSR supposed advantage even more still. There are many variables and future changes that could change with each to that could potentially change the equation.
> Long distance for personal autos will likely never come close to be as carbon neutral as trains even given technological improvements (unless the big IF of hydrogen ever comes to fruition) however I don't have not advocated that personal autos and the infrastructure for them should be be catered to in order to enhance travel for Americans.


It's only arguable because you make it so. Unfortunately, I never stated what my preferred technology is. First of all, electrification. Second, picking your energy sources carefully. There, now you know what my example is, and it definitely beats the plane. 

Listen, the point is that rail has ways of not polluting as much, if the technology is implemented correctly. Airplanes so far have *zero* ways of lowering their emissions. They are testing out biofuel technology but last I checked biofuel still pollutes. It would be nice to have helium-filled zeppelins and fitting more people on less planes (through double-deckers) to reduce the fuel consumption, but they still don't compare to the ideal HSR. 




nomarandlee said:


> Diversity is fair? So in order to be "fair" we need to build MagLev infrastructure as well? That is like saying that even though most everyone has the right to basic medical care that everyone has a right to alternative medicine as well just because it is possible. Our society already provides a plethora of options by way of air, bus, low speed rail, and autos. Does that mean HSR should not be part of platform? No, but this argument that for many people not having HSR is a NECESSITY for their lives (like oh say in contrast to not having medical coverage to get a lump removed) is a bit of a stretch.


You keep taking my comments and turning them into monsters lmao. I don't think MagLev infrastructure is worth it. The only reason the Japanese are doing it is because they are so successful with rail, they actually profit from it. Which means they can devote time and money on R&D for MagLev. If the US can't even do basic HSR right, why should they do MagLev? Either way, I *never* mentioned MagLev in my argument sooo... I do think there should be some form of HSR on routes that can benefit from these. 




nomarandlee said:


> Even if he was talking primarly about cross continental travel it would still apply that Americans would have never been for denying them fast travel across the nation by air by their politicans.


It's a free country. Politicians shouldn't take away airline routes. They should however build HSR where it makes sense because last I checked the government pays for airports, so why shouldn't they pay for train terminals that make sense? And then let the market decide what they like best.


----------



## hoosier

HSR is a far more efficient way of delivering people than flying. The trains can hold more people, are not delayed by weather, and provide city center to city center service.

Rail is far less intrusive on the environment than a highway or an airport. Two rail tracks consume a small amount of right of way, and if electrified, emit ZERO pollution!!!

I strongly disagree that airports are more needed than HSR. For international, trans-oceanic travel, yes airplanes have a place, but HSR is a much better way of moving people distances of less than 500 miles. It is absurd that there are flights from Detroit to Grand Rapids or Chicago to Madison. I can name MANY other short-haul flights that could be easily eliminated by HSR. A good HSR system would eliminate the need for the O'Hare expansion. Many flights in and out of O'Hare are to other Midwestern cities a short distance away.

And what is with the opposition to CHOICES in transportation? High speed rail is NOT an unproven technology like Maglev. Americans got around on the train for over a hundred years before the government decided that airports and highways were the way to go.


----------



## Johnny Ryall

I know HSR is hip and I'd love to see more of it in the future, but I'd cut it from the budget and concentrate on paying down the national debt (not to mention ending both of W's wars). The world is holding it's breathe as we teeter on the brink of default. China mortgages $1,000,000,000 of $4,000,000,000 of U.S. debt... DAILY.
The auto industry & oil companies have shelved technology for decades that would give cars unfathomable MPG. We have an incredible interstate system that would be a nice combo for really efficient cars. Don't get me wrong, I ride Amtrak to NOLA quite freqently and I can see that HSR would be a great amenity for people & the enviroment.
My point is that the USA shouldn't spend a dime for something that doesn't provide sharp returns of investment until the national debt is greatly reduced (except for matters of health, education, etc., of course). It would take year$ & ten$ of billion$ to get something like this to be able to compete with planes & automobiles. Although, I hope it does prevail in the future.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK 
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Jul 2009 is:

$11,618,179,490,201.92 

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3,910,000,000 PER DAY since September 28, 2007

These numbers are a runaway high speed train that must be stopped.


----------



## FlyFish

Johnny Ryall said:


> I know HSR is hip and I'd love to see more of it in the future, but I'd cut it from the budget and concentrate on paying down the national debt (not to mention ending both of W's wars). The world is holding it's breathe as we teeter on the brink of default. China mortgages $1,000,000,000 of $4,000,000,000 of U.S. debt... DAILY.
> The auto industry & oil companies have shelved technology for decades that would give cars unfathomable MPG. We have an incredible interstate system that would be a nice combo for really efficient cars. Don't get me wrong, I ride Amtrak to NOLA quite freqently and I can see that HSR would be a great amenity for people & the enviroment.
> My point is that the USA shouldn't spend a dime for something that doesn't provide sharp returns of investment until the national debt is greatly reduced (except for matters of health, education, etc., of course). It would take year$ & ten$ of billion$ to get something like this to be able to compete with planes & automobiles. Although, I hope it does prevail in the future.
> 
> U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
> The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Jul 2009 is:
> 
> $11,618,179,490,201.92
> 
> The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
> $3,910,000,000 PER DAY since September 28, 2007
> 
> These numbers are a runaway high speed train that must be stopped.



Bravo!


----------



## davsot

Johnny Ryall said:


> I know HSR is hip and I'd love to see more of it in the future, but I'd cut it from the budget and concentrate on paying down the national debt (not to mention ending both of W's wars). The world is holding it's breathe as we teeter on the brink of default. China mortgages $1,000,000,000 of $4,000,000,000 of U.S. debt... DAILY.
> The auto industry & oil companies have shelved technology for decades that would give cars unfathomable MPG. We have an incredible interstate system that would be a nice combo for really efficient cars. Don't get me wrong, I ride Amtrak to NOLA quite freqently and I can see that HSR would be a great amenity for people & the enviroment.
> My point is that the USA shouldn't spend a dime for something that doesn't provide sharp returns of investment until the national debt is greatly reduced (except for matters of health, education, etc., of course). It would take year$ & ten$ of billion$ to get something like this to be able to compete with planes & automobiles. Although, I hope it does prevail in the future.
> 
> U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
> The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Jul 2009 is:
> 
> $11,618,179,490,201.92
> 
> The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
> $3,910,000,000 PER DAY since September 28, 2007
> 
> These numbers are a runaway high speed train that must be stopped.


Agreed, but only on one condition: When the time comes to renew the transportation bill, it shouldn't balance in favor of roads. It must be equally divided between road, rail and pedestrian infrastructure. 

Maybe the stimulus should've never happened...


----------



## HAWC1506

I'm really wondering how our debt is ever going to be paid off...


----------



## FlyFish

^^ I'm 45 and I'll never live to see it.


----------



## UD2

HAWC1506 said:


> I'm really wondering how our debt is ever going to be paid off...


by inflation.


----------



## hans280

TedStriker said:


> As for high speed trains in America, assuming that it will be the Europeans who get the contracts to build the things, do you reckon they'll be built to the wider North American loading gauge, or simply be clones of the trains running in Europe?


That's really not a problem: Siemens already made its first Velaro clone for a broad-gauge network (Russia). Others will follow. 

The question is, is it necessary in the United States? It IS necessary in Russia, and Germany and France (but not Spain) because the HS trains often borrow ordinary tracks to cover part of the distance. This is typially the case with "line prolongations" like for example when French SNCF decide that three of their daily trains to Rennes should be carried through to Brest. But as far as I have heard a big problem for HS in the United States is that the incumbent railway operators will NOT share their existing tracks with the new HS rolling stock - apparently because proper HS service implies that you "kick away" all slow freight trains to make place for the fasties. That's hardly a problem in EU where we have so few freight trains. In the US on the other hand.. 



TedStriker said:


> If they are European clones, do you think they'll have to opt for 2+1 seating plans, because the larger size (width) of the average American?


He, he, he... that's a new one! :lol: I've heard some American tourists complain to the theatre owners in West End that their seats are too narrow. It was such a hoot... it didn't occur to these people to apologise for beeing disgustingly fat - it was all the theatre's fault. Maybe we'll soon be having the same discussion here on the railway boards? :lol:


----------



## octopusop

Another sad message, The Third Railway Survey and Design Institute Group Corporation of China created Los Angles HSR project section. Chinese are highly experienced HSR infra constructors, mileage of HSR lines they built one year, is longer than mileage of Franch HSR!


----------



## HAWC1506

octopusop said:


> Another sad message, The Third Railway Survey and Design Institute Group Corporation of China created Los Angles HSR project section. Chinese are highly experienced HSR infra constructors, mileage of HSR lines they built one year, is longer than mileage of Franch HSR!


Quantity doesn't say anything about quality. The Chinese may have built more toys than the rest of the world but a lot of them still contain lead.


----------



## gincan

octopusop said:


> Another sad message, The Third Railway Survey and Design Institute Group Corporation of China created Los Angles HSR project section. Chinese are highly experienced HSR infra constructors, mileage of HSR lines they built one year, is longer than mileage of Franch HSR!


What a bunch of bullshit, the chinese wouldn't be able to build their way out of their own as if they tried. All the knowhow, project planning, execution of construction, technical installations, etc have they bought and brought from Europe and Japan. Project managers and construction site formen are flown in from europe and USA since the chinese lack the experience to handle it on their own!


----------



## davsot

Okay, but there's a difference between proposed "HSR" at 110MPH than 220 MPH HSR. 110MPH "HSR" should be done now. If there's an "HSR" in the Midwest let 'em have it.


----------



## mgk920

davsot said:


> Okay, but there's a difference between proposed "HSR" at 110MPH than 220 MPH HSR. 110MPH "HSR" should be done now. If there's an "HSR" in the Midwest let 'em have it.


And to think that that slower 'high speed' was used in the USA nearly a century ago. In the 1910s, the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad (now part of Union Pacific) built a well-engineered true 'high speed' passenger railroad on a new ROW running much of the way between Chicago and Minneapolis/Saint Paul via Milwaukee. That line, their 'Air Line' and 'Adams' lines is still in use today and among the other freight that uses it now it hosts UP's high-priority intermodal trains that run between MStP and Chicagoland. UP is also now doing major track upgrades to that line - but, alas, it will remain freight only.

Later on, CNW started their '400' passenger trains in 1935 - advertising a trip between their stations in Chicago and Minneapolis on that route in 400 minutes (6:40) - believed to be the fastest schedule in the World for that distance at that time. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Cities_400



Mike


----------



## Benn

They should seriously consider talking to Bombardier about that JetTrain prototype they have shelved for Minneapolis-Chicago and the other midwest routes.
For those unfamiliar its turbine powered train with a small standard diesel motor for use under to 25 mph and then a turboshaft (similar to those on turboprop aircraft) engine for higher speeds. The turboshaft in question is a very light weight engine (about 1/20 the weight of a diesel with similar power output) that accelerates quickly that is quieter and uses less fuel than a conventional diesel at speed (however is very inefficient at lower spends, hence the small secondary engine). The idea was toyed around with in France and England in the 60s and 70s, but electrified lines made the concept rather obsolete on that side of the pond.

We could have 150 mph service speed and wouldn't need to electrify the line (which unfortunately no one is ever likely pay for). They (besides the powerplant) are basically Acela Express trainsets (tilting, intended for mixed traffic, ect) in all other respects and were designed for the North American market in the first place. They would need to upgrade some portions of the tracks beyond what is being done at the moment, but it shouldn't be too bad, and they could probably cut down the time between Minneapolis to Chicago to around 4 hours (currently about 7 hours on a good day) just makes all the sense in the world to me at any rate.


----------



## davsot

No, that goes against 21rst century rail. Just because it's cheap doesn't mean it makes sense. Or does it?

One of the benefits of rail is that it doesn't pollute if you manage your power sources correctly. 

Are you willing to sacrifice rail argument in favor of a smaller price tag? What about the future? 

In all fairness, a train will always be more efficient than the private automobile. Also, diesel pollutes less than gasoline. Then again, it is a fossil fuel, another key to the rail debate, which also goes nowhere. 

:gaah: Am I honestly debating with myself?


----------



## nomarandlee

I think you and Hoosier acting a bit reactionary in this thread.

Actually it could be a good interim solution. Is it ideal to permanently run diesel in perpetuity? No, but electrification is a long term, time intensive, and expensive proposition especially over long distances. For some of our cross country routes that are very long and don't have many runs per day the cost of electrification may not be feasible. 

Heck, even in the UK given their much smaller distances they still have depended on diesel trains on a variety of routes.


----------



## Benn

davsot said:


> No, that goes against 21rst century rail. Just because it's cheap doesn't mean it makes sense. Or does it?
> 
> One of the benefits of rail is that it doesn't pollute if you manage your power sources correctly.
> 
> Are you willing to sacrifice rail argument in favor of a smaller price tag? What about the future?
> 
> In all fairness, a train will always be more efficient than the private automobile. Also, diesel pollutes less than gasoline. Then again, it is a fossil fuel, another key to the rail debate, which also goes nowhere.
> 
> :gaah: Am I honestly debating with myself?



Well If you can talk Federal and State governments into electrifying these lines more power to you:cheers:, but I am not that optimistic, especially here in the midwest. It would be several billion dollars to get the lines between Minneapolis and Chicago electrified, much less have total ROW seperated lines strait enough to run and ICE or a TGV on, which would be ideal, but I don't see anyone paying for that sort of thing in the next 20 years. If you really want to get idealistic we should be putting in Maglevs that just hit the more major population areas and do 300 mph in service, but that sure isn't happening around here either.

I know using something like JetTrain is a less effective long term solution and ideally I would like to see an ICE type of system here, but realistically I don't see it happening soon. With the JetTrain idea they would need to upgrade rails in spots and buy new rolling stock, it could be operational in a couple of years if the funds came together. This seems a whole lot more likely to happen than proper HSR, even if it is less effective.


----------



## davsot

^^^^ Yeah, you're right. It would get done much faster.



nomarandlee said:


> I think you and Hoosier arting as a bit of a reactionary in this thread.


It's called healthy debate. It tends to happen when you're in forums!


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Glad I found this thread that discuss about US HSR plan. I support USA HSR network. 

I am wondering what do you guys think about having entire country high speed rail system? Or you guys prefer having HSR to service to larger/denser population centers only (e.i. Vancouver-Eugene or California or East Coast) than serve to rural towns too? Why or why not?


----------



## zaphod

^^^^
That's an interesting point.

High speed trains generally run between closely-spaced big cities and like to cater to business travelers. But I never got this, in the Northeast for example there are way better options than Amtrak-you can take a bus that is cheaper or fly from a smaller airport on a low-fare airline.

Yet, your right, when you think about it, trips originating from a smaller city would probably have the most time advantage over flying, and being able to string a chain of regional towns together would create economic benefits. Fast trains can win over planes when the stations are more local, and the total time it takes to get from driveway to station parking lot and taxi to final destination will obviously be much less than trying to get to a major airport in another city. They also have better turn-around time and are not direct but stop by stop and not point to point. There's also the point of real-world schedules, I'm sure everyone's flown somewhere and spent more time total waiting for connecting flights than in the air. Rather than catching the infrequent puddle jumper at 7 am and waiting at the hub airport, hopping on the hourly bullet train as it passes through carrying riders going other places would make sense.


----------



## hoosier

zaphod said:


> ^^^^
> That's an interesting point.
> 
> High speed trains generally run between closely-spaced big cities and like to cater to business travelers. But I never got this, in the Northeast for example there are way better options than Amtrak-you can take a bus that is cheaper or fly from a smaller airport on a low-fare airline.


Considering just how congested and delay prone NYC's airports are, and how long it takes to get from them to the city center, Amtrak is a much more convenient way to go. The only reason why the Acela express is so expensive is because Amtrak is mandated by federal law to maximize revenue, not ridership.

And the Acela isn't even real HSR. It only averages 68 mph from Washington to Boston and only goes 150 mph for a couple of short stretches in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.


----------



## metsfan

They are severely limited by freight traffic, or else those thick red lines would be longer.

- A


----------



## isaidso

TedStriker said:


> As for high speed trains in America, assuming that it will be the Europeans who get the contracts to build the things, do you reckon they'll be built to the wider North American loading gauge, or simply be clones of the trains running in Europe?


This continent has it's own high speed rail manufacturer, Bombardier. It may go to the Europeans, but I wouldn't count Bombardier out. They may be known as the 3rd largest civil aircraft manufacturer, but they're also the world's largest train company. Not sure about the rest of the continent, but in Canada, high speed rail contracts are Bombardier's to lose.


----------



## dl3000

isaidso said:


> This continent has it's own high speed rail manufacturer, Bombardier. It may go to the Europeans, but I wouldn't count Bombardier out. They may be known as the 3rd largest civil aircraft manufacturer, but they're also the world's largest train company. Not sure about the rest of the continent, but in Canada, high speed rail contracts are Bombardier's to lose.


Im not sure Bombardier has much experience making HSR networks on par with those in Europe and Asia. Thats usually Hitachi/Kawasaki and Alstom. Maybe they can do a joint venture with Alstom like they did on Acela Express.


----------



## zaphod

I had a neat idea

What if incorporated in conventional rail line were linear-induction strips that catapulted the train to speed from station stops? The train could make a ton of stops, then take off like a drag racer and never really lose time. Likewise it could be set in reverse to slow trains down from speed as they approach stations.

I know metro systems use something similar, but this would be a high-speed version.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Great idea, apart from cost. You'd need two separate propulsion systems.


----------



## hkskyline

*Wash. seeking $1B in federal stimulus for rail *
29 August 2009 

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state is going after another $1 billion in federal stimulus money to pay for high-speed rail projects.

The state Department of Transportation applied earlier this week for $435 million to pay for 20 rail projects along the "high-speed" corridor between Eugene, Ore. and Vancouver, B.C. State officials say the projects will add additional daily Amtrak passenger trains between Seattle and Portland, as well as reduce rail congestion and improve on-time reliability.

The project list includes upgrades to tracks and facilities in Blaine, Everett, Tacoma, Seattle and Vancouver.

The News Tribune of Tacoma reports that the state plans to go more federal money for rail projects by October.


----------



## hans280

^^That must be seed money to fund the feasibility studies? You're not going to get any HSLs for a few hundred millions. - But, fair enough: in Europe as well federal money (well, government money more generally...) to finance the initial studies have sometimes acted as an important foot in the door. I guess it's now up to the state authorities to put down their cards and come forward with concrete plans (plus perhaps supplementary seed funding) if they really mean business? 

One question, though: isn't there a risk that many local politicians will merely recycle railway projects they already had in their drawers and rebrand them as "high speed"? I'm asking because in Europe renovations of existing railway lines these days routinely - even if they are essentially regional - upgrade these to 160 km/h. If they are to serve as important intercity links the upgrade more often than not targets a speed of at least 200 km/h. These are normally not considered as highspeed rail, merely bread-and-butter line upgrades. Many of the plans that I have seen so far from various parts of the US are no more ambitious in terms of operating speed. Is there a risk that the whole American "high speed project" will fizzle into a dour federal co-funding of line upgrades?


----------



## FlyFish

This likely isn't "high speed" the way the Europeans think of it. High speed in this case likely menas upgrading trackage to handle 100mph trains, or adding passing sidings or extra tracks to make passenger service a bit quicker. We considre the Acela service from DC to Boston to be "high speed" but it certainly isn't when copmpared to the European or Asian trains.

Your concern is valid about what this will fall into. It will likely fizzle as you say because there is not broad taxpayer support (other than folks on this board) to spend the kind of money that would be required to build a true high speed system. I would think that by the time the inevitable lawsuits from the environmental concerns, cities that are skipped, landowners near the rails etc etc etc are settled and the thing gets bid out and built it would be 40 years and would run into many hundreds of billions of dollars. By that time we'd have ended up building an obsolete system.

We're in such a fiscal mess right now thanks to both parties that I really don't think this will get very far off the ground. Our government just does not have the money and those who fund our government are getting really sick of the way they have spent money over the past twenty years and are forecast to continue to spend it over the next ten. True super fast Euro style high speed rail is just not a priority. We can argue all day about whether or not it should be, but the fact is that it just isn't.


----------



## hans280

^^Well, I suppose you can call anything "high speed" provided it's faster than what went before. The only reason there's such a thing as a Euro definition is squarely that the EU Commission had to decide what they are willing to subsidise and what not. In Europe the HS definition is thus newly laid tracks for speeds exceeding 250 km/h (155 mph). This was done mostly to suit the Germans who are a bit less "ambitious" than their neighbours. In France and Spain tracks are not currently characterised as HS unless they enable speeds exceeding 300 km/h. 

That said, by this standard the new line between Los Angeles and San Francisco would truly be characterised as high speed? We'll see if it gets built, though. The Californian economy is not exactly healthy these days. However, your more general point about HS getting mothballed because of the financial crisis is, I think, a bit silly. The one European economy which is in as much of a mess as the US these days in Britain, and the Brits are drawing up pretty ambitious plans for a "HS2" high speed line from London to Glasgow. At the end of the day...

...I guess it's a question of priorities. The British government has announced that it will likely respond to the financial crisis by cutting military budgets. The German government has announced that it will respond by cutting back on road construction work. But, both of them consider railways as a high priority. The United States, with its car-loving culture and international military engagements, may ultimately choose differently. :sly:


----------



## FlyFish

I think your last sentence hits the nail right on the head. Right or wrong, when you come right down to it, the US is auto-centric. IN Europe rail has a much bigger profile in moving people. Here is it the auto and the airplane. As I said that may be right or it may be wrong but as the cheezy saying goes,.....it is what it is.


----------



## dl3000

FlyFish said:


> I think your last sentence hits the nail right on the head. Right or wrong, when you come right down to it, the US is auto-centric. IN Europe rail has a much bigger profile in moving people. Here is it the auto and the airplane. As I said that may be right or it may be wrong but as the cheezy saying goes,.....it is what it is.


I think that has to do with the fact that much of the US in the way as we know it was built and established as the car was becoming popular for the average consumer. On the other hand, modern Europe had most of its development occur during the industrial revolution when railroads were coming around. Yes the US at one time embraced railroads, but the infrastructure was never as established as the Europeans. When prosperity hit after WWII, interstates were built and the infrastructure framework of the US was based on the car and plane, both relatively newer forms of transportation for the average person to use. That said, they certainly are far less efficient than trains, and hopefully the mindset will evolve in the US to include trains and provide a complete mix of transportation options.


----------



## mrmocha413

dl3000 said:


> I think that has to do with the fact that much of the US in the way as we know it was built and established as the car was becoming popular for the average consumer. On the other hand, modern Europe had most of its development occur during the industrial revolution when railroads were coming around. Yes the US at one time embraced railroads, but the infrastructure was never as established as the Europeans. When prosperity hit after WWII, interstates were built and the infrastructure framework of the US was based on the car and plane, both relatively newer forms of transportation for the average person to use. That said, they certainly are far less efficient than trains, and hopefully the mindset will evolve in the US to include trains and provide a complete mix of transportation options.


There are still extensive railways throughout the nation, many of which obviously are abandoned, yet their rights of way are still in tact. If there was enough money to bring these corridors back to life again, and improve the current passenger corridors where high speed rail would be profitable, I think there is still a fighting chance. Europe has capitalized on its railways substantially, and I think the US can look to them to develop corridors here.


----------



## dl3000

Agreed.


----------



## Xusein

FlyFish said:


> We're in such a fiscal mess right now thanks to both parties that I really don't think this will get very far off the ground. Our government just does not have the money and those who fund our government are getting really sick of the way they have spent money over the past twenty years and are forecast to continue to spend it over the next ten. True super fast Euro style high speed rail is just not a priority. We can argue all day about whether or not it should be, but the fact is that it just isn't.


Compared to all the other stuff that the Federal government is willing to spend on (war, bailouts), a few billions on a HSR network from DC to Boston for example is a drop in the bucket and won't really make much of a difference. The US is going bankrupt regardless of what happens, we may as well improve our infrastructure and well being for once while we're at it.

Besides, fixing our fiscal house in order would make a tax hike almost necessary, as well as reduced spending. Nobody seems to want that.


----------



## hans280

mrmocha413 said:


> There are still extensive railways throughout the nation, many of which obviously are abandoned, yet their rights of way are still intact.


I've read about that as well. It certainly sounds sounder than certain other suggestions to piggyback on existing freight corridors. The latter is really a weak idea: TGVs mix very poorly with portly freight trains. That said, is this a road to highspeed railways or merely to a reactivation of a railway architecture that once was? I'm asking because HS lines need a radius on every curve exceeding 3000 metres (4500 according to some HS definitions). Would existing rights of way allow for such traces? I somehow doubt it, but supplementary works here and there could of course be put in place.


----------



## Matthieu

As Hans280 said it's unlikely you can drive at high speed on a conventional line, if you want HSR as it exists in Yurp or some Asian country you'll most likely need to rebuild the lines anew.


----------



## FlyFish

Xusein said:


> Compared to all the other stuff that the Federal government is willing to spend on (war, bailouts), a few billions on a HSR network from DC to Boston for example is a drop in the bucket and won't really make much of a difference. The US is going bankrupt regardless of what happens, we may as well improve our infrastructure and well being for once while we're at it.
> 
> Besides, fixing our fiscal house in order would make a tax hike almost necessary, as well as reduced spending. Nobody seems to want that.


True dat!

I'd like to see a real effort at spending cuts, just once.


----------



## mrmocha413

I'm sure the rebuilding of abandoned lines and the upgrading of conventional lines to high speed may come true in the US, though the hurdles are massive. Take for example the Northeast Corridor, which is severely congested partly due to Amtrak rolling stock showing its age, and the fact that there are too many different owners on different segments of the line. For god sake!!!!!! I may take advantage of my dual US-British citizenship and go to the UK because I may be able to live out my dream of seeing one of my homelands with a developed network!


----------



## Matthieu

As far as I know the only HSR line in UK is used by the Eurostar


----------



## hans280

^^True, but you have to give one thing to the Brits: they are good at squeezing speeds close to 200 km/h out of renovated tracks - on both the eastern and western main lines. Their main Achilles's heel so far is the massive congestions around a handful of cities. 

In the medium term, the upgraded lines between, first, London and Birmingham, secondly, Birmingham and Manchester will however also become saturated. IMHO opinion it is this fact that has affected an apparent U-turn in UK thinking. New tracks WILL be needed and, if so, why not build the best and most modern? All of a sudden, after scoffing at TGVs for decades, everybody seem to agree that an HS2 from London to Manchester must be built.


----------



## franciszek

Hello everybody....
Its really a good news for the US peoples.
It will really boost up the transportation and huge development in US rail transportation.
Anyways good too see the achievement.
Thankyou for the news.


----------



## TedStriker

mrmocha413 said:


> I'm sure the rebuilding of abandoned lines and the upgrading of conventional lines to high speed may come true in the US, though the hurdles are massive.


I agree. 

One just to has to have patience. I'm sure the United States will one day, one day, see high speed rail lines built en-mass. It's not really a question of money, it's more a question of building up momentum and overcoming what you might call cultural inertia. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that perhaps the fact high speed rail is a European-dominated concept, is in itself a handicap to 'selling' the idea to American taxpayers. I'm thinking specifically of the hostility by some US citizens - and Fox News - towards the idea of a universal healthcare system, akin to the NHS in Britain. The scenes I've seen on youtube and The Daily Show have been both funny and bemusing. If Obama has two terms, and providing he does not completely screw anything up, I think perhaps he'll stand a good chance of instilling some kind of change within the mindset of America. 

Failing that, a massive hike in gasoline prices might do the trick.


----------



## hans280

*Bad news?*

I picked this off AP: 

"*Upgrades to Rail Networks Will Come Slowly, Offiical Says*

The Obama administation's top railroad official says Americans should not expect to see networks of bullet-fast trains after the $8 billion set aside in the federal stimulus bill for high-speed rail is spent. 

But the official, Joseph Szabo, head of the Federal Railroad Admnistration, said in prepared remarks for an industry conference Friday in Chicago that the White House was committed to upgrading train service, adding that the stimulus cash was just a down payment on what he dubbed "a rail renaissance". 

Mr Szabo noted that US speending should be seen in perspective of the huge amounts spent by some other countries, like Spain, which he said has devoted more than $140 billion to its high-speed networks." 

* * *

Well, it looks like my fears were correct. Words like "upgrading" makes me suspect that all that's going to happen is a few line renovations which, insofar as the trains will be running a bit faster than before, will be dubbed as "high speed". 

A bit depressing, really. I need not compare with the France where I live. I can compare with the Denmark of my birth: the Danes run conventional intercity trains at 160 km/h, soon to be upgraded to 200 km/h. Nobody in the Kingdom considers this as high-speed. On the contrary, they look a bit folornly across the borders, to the HS trains of the Swedes and the Germans, and mumble "Yeah, but in our small country we don't need that kind of speed..." If Mr. Szabo thinks he's going to convince anybody that 100 miles per hour equals high-speed then he's got another thing coming. hno:


----------



## Smallville

This money is probably going to Acorn instead! :lol:


----------



## TedStriker

^^


So after all the excitement seen on this thread, it seems that HSR in the USA is just the stuff of fantasy. 

I am more curious now to know what exactly will result from the $8 billion plan. A brand new HSR is one thing, but just what kind of 'upgrades' does the Federal government have in mind for existing lines?

As virtually all railways/railroads in the US are freight-centric, and owned by rail freight companies, how can they be made to be any better, in passenger train terms, than what they are today?


----------



## nomarandlee

> http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/60077732.html
> 
> *Milwaukee to Chicago in 36 minutes? French railroad says "oui"*
> By Larry Sandler of the Journal Sentinel
> Sept. 21, 2009
> 
> With 110-mph trains still on the drawing board, a French railroad is proposing service twice that fast, claiming it could cut the travel time from Milwaukee to Chicago to 36 minutes by 2018.
> 
> *SNCF, the company that owns and operates France's high-speed trains, submitted proposals to the Federal Railroad Administration to build and run a 220-mph rail system throughout the Midwest, as well as similar systems in California, Florida and Texas*. The Midwestern network would cost $68.6 billion, with U.S. taxpayers picking up 54%, or $37 billion, says the proposal from SNCF, which is 51% owned by the French government.
> 
> That proposal dwarfs a separate push by Wisconsin and other Midwestern states to establish a 110-mph passenger rail network, starting with $3.5 billion for Milwaukee-to-Madison, Chicago-to-St. Louis and Chicago-to-Detroit routes. The Midwestern governors are competing with other states for a slice of $8 billion in federal stimulus funding set aside for high-speed rail, and none of the rail funding proposals being debated in Congress would appropriate amounts on the scale sought by SNCF.
> 
> In a news release, SNCF acknowledged that its proposal was part of a process that started under the Bush administration and has been eclipsed by the current scramble for stimulus funds. But the company decided to submit its proposal anyway "in the interests of advancing the discussion about how high-speed rail can benefit the U.S.," SNCF Chairman Guillaume Pepy said.
> 
> SNCF's proposal envisions the already-planned Midwestern network as a "feeder system" to its faster trains, which would run on separate but parallel tracks. That would mirror Europe's rail network, in which express trains offer swift service between major cities and somewhat slower trains provide local service to more stops. Sturtevant, for example, would be served by 110-mph trains but bypassed by 220-mph trains, in the SNCF plan.
> 
> In the SNCF proposal, the first 220-mph route would connect Milwaukee and Chicago to Fort Wayne, Ind.; Toledo, Ohio; and Detroit by 2018. Service would extend to Madison, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cincinnati and St. Louis by 2023. The lineup of 28 stations in seven states would include both downtowns and major airports, such as Milwaukee's Mitchell International Airport and Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.



..


----------



## Matthieu

Any US politician who award a $68.6 billion contract to a foreign, and especially a French, company is dead meat!


----------



## He Named Thor

nomarandlee said:


> ..


Wtf? 

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. Does this mean that we'd have a semi-private company running a truly high-speed line?


----------



## dl3000

Sure is what it sounds like. I wonder what SNCF's aspirations are for California. Didn't know they had the capital to pull stuff like that off. Obviously there would be public funds but SNCF would have to fork over a lot. Interesting. If I'm not mistaken, SNCF is partially owned by the French government. What's in it for them I wonder?


----------



## mgk920

Deride the French all you want, and I agree, there are many times that they do deserve it, but in the area of common-carrier passenger transportation, they know their stuff.

Yes, SNCF is mostly (as in 51%) owned by the French government, but their domestic TGV (short for 'Train à Grande Vitesse', literally 'Very Fast Train') services operate at a *PROFIT* and they singlehandedly destroyed the French domestic airline industry.

If they can make the needed deals and pull it off, more power to them.

Mike


----------



## Matthieu

Hum well, I guess French banks can lend the SNCF the money to invest there and they'll get concessions on profits for a few years. Just like they do to Morocco, the Moroccan government has bought the TGV, money was lend by French banks and in return the SNCF will get parts of the benefits generated by the future Moroccan transits for a while.


----------



## metsfan

Before PC bit the brake dust, it had plans to have turbine trains on most routes.

- A


----------



## disturbman

mgk920 said:


> Deride the French all you want, and I agree, there are many times that they do deserve it


It's allways nice to read things like that. French deserve it as many times as everyone else.

Back on topic. It's quite clear too me that this proposal will not be only backed up by the SNCF. The company doesn't have the necessary capital and financial might. The SNCF will only a part of a biding consortium (along with banks, investors, contractors, manufactors...) They will most likely offer and sell their engineering skills as well as provide the expertise on the topic of running HST and HSR. The scheme could be part of a normal 3P concession contract.

Anyway the whole contract will not be awarded solely to the SNCF but the bigger part will go to US contractors for building the line. Same will go with the trains, a part of them will be build on US soil.

But the whole thing stinks politics like hell. I'm guessing that the SNCF decided to publish an old, or not so old study, of them. You know, pissing on a possible territory, saying "hey, we are here"! Nothing more.


----------



## Matthieu

Considering it would be a 220mph line it would be the AGV.


----------



## dfwcre8tive

SNCF, operator of France's TGV, unveiled their proposal for the Texas high speed rail line. 

From:

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/09/french-interested-in-texas-hig.html

"From Yonah Freemark on the TransportPolitic blog:

At $13.8 billion in construction costs, SNCF expects benefits to outweigh public infrastructure costs by 170% over a period of 15 years. This project would have the highest rate of return of any of the corridors profiled in the studies presented here.

Quoting now from the proposal, as posted on a federal website:

Speeds of up to 220 mph for HSR services are expected to generate a significant number of new trips as well as draw from the air and auto modes. Access to HSR services for both residents and visitors will be convenient due to 7 proposed stations conveniently located close to medium and large city populations, city central business districts and airports to attract residents, providing convenient and cost competitive alternative to driving and air travel.

This HST 220 concept keeps pace for a further complete Texan HS network ("Triangle" or "Tbone" type) involving Houston, once the pertinence of HS services proven. Meanwhile, the existing corridors will serve as key feeders."


Full DFW-San Antonio Proposal:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20231126/Rail-Plan


----------



## Onn

Well the faster the better I say, but what makes SNCF qualified to take on this task? Have they worked on something of this magnitude in a foreign country before, in the modern era?


----------



## enkay

Well, aside from the TGV in France, SNCF had a lot to do with Korea and Spain's HSR network


----------



## Onn

enkay said:


> Well, aside from the TGV in France, SNCF had a lot to do with Korea and Spain's HSR network


Yeah, but the TGV project started in the 70s. And I don't think Spain and Korea's HSR lines are quite this extensive. They're going to need help either way.


----------



## hans280

^^Dear Amercian friends, I think you misunderstand the way France work. Strictly as a foreigner in Paris I'd say one of the big differences between the two countries is the role of business in the social fabric. In the United States some big corporations may be larger than life ("What's good for GM is good for the United States..."), but in France the big companies are seen as the prolonged arm of the State. This is strengthed by the use of the elite "Grand Ecole" schools, without whose tuition one will never be considered for a top job in either business or the administration. Effectively, the top decision makers on both sides of the table, in a French infrastructure, defense or any other public procurement project, are former classmates. 

Therefore, this discussion is not about what the SNCF has to offer to California. If they walk into the West Coast then they will do so as ringleaders of a coalition that will include Alstom, the producer of TGV rolling stock, and the 2-3 construction companies that have built all of France's high-speed infrastructure. (Foreign bidders were allowed by EU rules, but effectively barred from competition through ministerial declarations that these companies were not welcome and any "embarassing" bids would have severe consequences for the French's State's willingness to work with them in the future.) This angle choir will be discretely monitored by M. Bussereau, the State Secretary for Transports. 

That said, whereby we who live in France often suffer from this anti-competitive attitude, the French "state-industrial complex" has often been known to subsidise its bids for foreign contracts in order to get a foot in the door - or for unspecified "political" or "strategic" reasons. (More like it, to subsidise domestic jobs if you ask me....) Effectively, this means there's a very real chance that California may get the French taxpayers to co-finance its highspeed railways. In France this will be portrayed as a success because "we beat the bl**dy Germans and Japanese...." 

The last question, perhaps, is whether SNCF and its partners are the best guys for the job. In Morocco I'd say an unqualified "yes", since they know the country, speak the language and the geography is not unlike southern France. But in California? The Turks brought in the Japanese for their big projects, because the Japanese are the only ones with experience with highspeed railway construction in an earthquake zone. (These days we may add China and Italy...) Do they have any earthquakes in California? :lol:


----------



## dl3000

Wow thanks for the information. Just as I expected, French taxpayer money would be in there. Fascinating stuff. Well whoever wishes to take on this challenge, I am all for it. Indeed the Japanese have experience, but I think in California, the French already have their foot in the door as a couple California politicians were present to observe the speed record in 2007 and come out very impressed.


----------



## HAWC1506

Would be nice if Boeing put some research into high-speed rail...


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

HAWC1506 said:


> Would be nice if Boeing put some research into high-speed rail...


I'd like that too.


----------



## Matthieu

HAWC1506 said:


> Would be nice if Boeing put some research into high-speed rail...


You'd get a gas powered turbine train...


----------



## HAWC1506

^^:lol: That would be quite interesting.

Boeing has expressed interest in Maglev technology a few years ago.


----------



## Matthieu

Think I'm moking you? Just google Jettrain for a brillant example of what oil lobbies can do to a brillant concept (which is HSR)!


----------



## hans280

^^Matthieu, t'es sur? I mean, I too am no fan of the Jettrain, but are you sure this train was developed under the influence of the oil lobbies? You'll keep in mind that, for example, the new reasonably-high-speed trains for eastern Saudi Arabia will be diesel powered, simply because the Kingdom is not going to draw electric lines through a desert. It's easy enough to rustle up 25 kV between, say, Bordeaux and Toulouse or between Manchester and Carlisle, because there's plenty of high-voltage electrical infrastructure in those areas already. But... in the middle of the North American wilderness? I always thought THAT was the real reason for the Jettrain.


----------



## disturbman

The Pato might be ugly and a patch work of "nationality" but it works prety well.

When comparing (HS) systems it will be more pertinent to look at their "funcionality". By that I mean:
- authorized speed
- frequencies
- price
- where are located the stations and if they are easily and well connected to their hinterlands.

Meaning the overall level of services, the first two being in my opinion the most important. The last ones giving an idea of the penetration of the system.

Speaking about California HSR. The system needs to be able to run to true HS. I know they aimed for 220mph but it's still unclear wether it will be possible on the major part of the route. References to speed up to 125mph, wich will cost a lot less to implement, are still poping. Anyway, the plan to the presend day is very good but there is still some uncertainties where as it will be built like proposed or not.


----------



## Matthieu

I'm not saying it's shit, it's not! But then the cutting edge systems are the very latest models by Siemens and Alstom really. One of the factors that will be determining in the USA, more than in France for example, is power consumption will be very important in a country where fossil energy sources are so dominant and in this domain trains using an electric propulsions (small engines below the trains) would certainly be most interesting than mechanical ones (two big engines at the front and the back). Trains with an electric propulsion from Europe are the AGV and the Valero (Spain uses this one but it's made by Siemens not by Talgo).

In Morocco, they took a very interesting stance on HSR. Of course they're buying older TGV (not AGV) Duplex, but they join that development with a massive solar power plant near Oujda to help fueling the trains (among other things). No offense to our American forumers but when a country that was traditionally considered developing is investing seriously in such modern technologies while clean energy and public transportations struggle to get funding in the USA you can tell there's something odd.


----------



## hans280

Matthieu said:


> Trains with an electric propulsion from Europe are the AGV and the Valero (Spain uses this one but it's made by Siemens not by Talgo).


Not so fast, Matthieu, je t'en prie. Those are the "automotrices" with distributed power units. (Incidentally, Siemens's prototype is called Velaro, not Valero.) Trains with an electric propulsion, as you say, are produced in almost every European country, and high-speed EMUs in at least five.


----------



## Matthieu

I was talking of the propulsion (or traction) not the energy source. You can have a mechanical propulsion electrically powered. Which is the concept of most trains today (even the JetTrain uses alternators). The AGV or the Velaro (my mistake) are using and electric propulsion and electrically fed. A comparison with ships is that ships can be nuclear powered and still use a mechanical propulsion (like the CdG or the Nimitz class) or can be fueled with gas and use an electrical propulsion (take for example anything that uses azimuth thrusters).


----------



## hans280

^^D'accord. Some posters on this board appear to be getting a bit iffy about what they perceive as US-bashing, so I guess I'd better go easy on what I have to say now. (It's also a cultural thing: In Europe everbody is kicking about each others' nations all the time. In a politicially correct culture one should shut up unless one has something positive to say...) 

One of the reasons that what we might call "foreign" lovers of highspeed rail are a bit sceptical about the Californian is that they - which is to say, we - have learned the hard way that a HS-train either stops only a few times or ceases being a HS-train. According to Wikipedia these are the stations planned for LA-SF: San Francisco; SFO Airport; Redwood City/Palo Alto; San Jose; Gilroy; Fresno; Bakersfield; Palmdale; Sylmar; Burbank; Los Angeles. That's 9 intermediate stops on less than 400 miles of railway. On the significantly longer "French pride", the LGV between Paris and Marseille, a train could maximally stop four times underway - and to my knowledge no one train does. In order to allow nine stations without punking the high-speed concept those stations need to be either underground or located in far-away suburbs. A passthrough in legacy railway stations in city centres will cost too much loss of time - and make a mockery of the 220 mph obtained in the Central Valley. 

Finally, one last word from me to those posters here who object to spending tax payers' money on railway lines. I am myself a thrifty Scandinavian "trapped in France" and I have to confess that I'm less of a "prestige hunter" than many of the people surrounding me. That said, I also believe that public money, if at all, should be spent on future generations rather than destructive purposes. Let's take an example: The war in Iraq has so far cost US taxpayers more than 600 billion US. Therefore...

...show me one person who holds that the US cannot afford to pour, let's say, 60 billion US of public money into railways over the next couple of years and I'll show you a very nasty person indeed.


----------



## He Named Thor

zaphod said:


> You know people never appreciate what's there
> 
> The reality is that I can fly across a couple states in 3 hours in a ordinary plane departing from any modest airport in small cities and larger towns. These towns and cities of course are all linked by 4 lane paved highways carrying Wal-mart trucks loaded with crap I buy to live a comfortable existance.
> 
> I mean, I really want quality regional rail in urbanized regions and high speed in places where air travel is congested, but I think in the end the US will come out better for not entering a pissing contest over expensive flashy infrastructure and increasing the national debt. Come on, you don't think Obama will be prez forever--IMO the way US politics work is a reactionary right wing candidate will be elected next and cut everything, leaving whatever paltry progress made so far in the lurch.
> 
> Likewise in the end I bet China's greatest investments in their infrastructure will be mundane stuff that people find useful, like extensive 4 lane highways in the most rural of areas. Hell, power lines running to places where 30 years ago things could have passed for being 3000 years ago. Think about it.


I agree with some of what you said there. This certainly needs to be planned out well, and with the midwest HSR network (the only one I am familiar with) I think it is. 

Most of the network is kept relatively short. Chicago to Madison, or St. Louis, those sort of distances. I think Chicago to Cleveland is the longest there. Those are the distances where HSR is going to be very competitive. They'll be faster than driving, and competitive with flying when adding in check-in times. 

Generally with these distances too you'd be getting a small regional aircraft. Trains are generally much more spacious and comfortable. 

Also, small airports have distinct drawbacks. Most of them require a stopover in another city before going to your destination, and prices of flights to and from smaller airports tend to be very expensive.


----------



## disturbman

hans280 said:


> One of the reasons that what we might call "foreign" lovers of highspeed rail are a bit sceptical about the Californian is that they - which is to say, we - have learned the hard way that a HS-train either stops only a few times or ceases being a HS-train. According to Wikipedia these are the stations planned for LA-SF: San Francisco; SFO Airport; Redwood City/Palo Alto; San Jose; Gilroy; Fresno; Bakersfield; Palmdale; Sylmar; Burbank; Los Angeles. That's 9 intermediate stops on less than 400 miles of railway. On the significantly longer "French pride", the LGV between Paris and Marseille, a train could maximally stop four times underway - and to my knowledge no one train does. In order to allow nine stations without punking the high-speed concept those stations need to be either underground or located in far-away suburbs. A passthrough in legacy railway stations in city centres will cost too much loss of time - and make a mockery of the 220 mph obtained in the Central Valley.


Yeah but the idea of the french system was to have a "plane on rail". The Californian HSR could be to the standards of the Japanese model if correctly build and run. On a Japanese HSR you see three types of different services, some operating at different speed (because of different rolling stock). It's possible to have an omnibus service, stopping at all the stops, a half omnibus service, stopping in the biggest stations, and an express that will not stop at all except at the extremities.


----------



## xXFallenXx

Matthieu said:


> From what I read they'll use Spanish made trains, that would then be, at most, the Talgo class 102.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Class_102
> 
> The other HSR trains operated in Spain are either French (the class 100 is an older generation TGV) and the most recent ones used in Spain are Germans Valero.
> 
> The Talgo Class 102 which is ok of course, a pretty good system, it's based on a Bombardier systems (engines and stuffs) integrated to a Spanish chassis. We'll have to see how it performs but so far systems like the AGV or Velaro, that are Europe's most advanced ones for sure, are certainly more interesting.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotrice_à_grande_vitesse


I'm not sure where you read that, but as of now they haven't chosen what trains they will use. I know that the CHSRA has been in contact with almost all major HST suppliers, from Alstom to Bombardier to Siemens, and others.



hans280 said:


> One of the reasons that what we might call "foreign" lovers of highspeed rail are a bit sceptical about the Californian is that they - which is to say, we - have learned the hard way that a HS-train either stops only a few times or ceases being a HS-train. According to Wikipedia these are the stations planned for LA-SF: San Francisco; SFO Airport; Redwood City/Palo Alto; San Jose; Gilroy; Fresno; Bakersfield; Palmdale; Sylmar; Burbank; Los Angeles. That's 9 intermediate stops on less than 400 miles of railway. On the significantly longer "French pride", the LGV between Paris and Marseille, a train could maximally stop four times underway - and to my knowledge no one train does. In order to allow nine stations without punking the high-speed concept those stations need to be either underground or located in far-away suburbs. A passthrough in legacy railway stations in city centres will cost too much loss of time - and make a mockery of the 220 mph obtained in the Central Valley.


Yes, it's true that the system has a lot of stops, but a person will be able to buy an "Express" ticket, and not stop at any intermediate stations. I'm ignorant about other countries HST networks, simply because I live in the USA, but the California system will be built with tracks that allow trains to fly past stations without slowing down.

When California's citizens passed Prop 1(a) last November, it forced the CHSRA to build a train that goes from L.A.'s Union Station to San Fransisco's Transbay Terminal in 2 hours and 40 minuets. It can't go slower than that, by law, so the people saying it wont be up to par with the European and Asian systems, or that it will only have a top speed of 125mph are simply wrong.


----------



## disturbman

xXFallenXx said:


> When California's citizens passed Prop 1(a) last November, it forced the CHSRA to build a train that goes from L.A.'s Union Station to San Fransisco's Transbay Terminal in 2 hours and 40 minuets. It can't go slower than that, *by law*, so the people saying it wont be up to par with the European and Asian systems, or that it will only have a top speed of 125mph are simply wrong.


So every single propositions on the ballots that passed has to be implemented as presented? Sounds interesting... and a bit crazy at first. I'd like to hear more about that. How is this possible? What's the process and idea behind it?


----------



## xXFallenXx

^ Admittedly I'm fairly ignorant on the matter, but if you want to learn more about it I'd check out this blog: http://cahsr.blogspot.com/.

It's done a great job of covering everything related to the California High Speed Rail project.


----------



## Tri-ring

disturbman said:


> The Californian HSR could be to the standards of the Japanese model if correctly build and run. On a Japanese HSR you see three types of different services, some operating at different speed (because of different rolling stock). It's possible to have an omnibus service, stopping at all the stops, a half omnibus service, stopping in the biggest stations, and an express that will not stop at all except at the extremities.


This model requires high acceleration rate within all train sets to work properly.


----------



## hans280

xXFallenXx said:


> Yes, it's true that the system has a lot of stops, but a person will be able to buy an "Express" ticket, and not stop at any intermediate stations. I'm ignorant about other countries HST networks, simply because I live in the USA, but the California system will be built with tracks that allow trains to fly past stations without slowing down.


Ah, that's reassuring. But it begs the question: how do they plan to achieve this? I'm not aware of any "legacy station" in mid-town ever being upgraded for 200 mph passthroughs (OK, I suppose many of the towns on the SF-LA line don't currently HAVE downtown train stations, but...). It would have to - as I mentioned in my earlier posting - either underground stations or suburban stations. The first of these solutions is obnoxiously expensive; the second can be... a tad inconvenient for the passengers.


----------



## xXFallenXx

hans280 said:


> Ah, that's reassuring. But it begs the question: how do they plan to achieve this? I'm not aware of any "legacy station" in mid-town ever being upgraded for 200 mph passthroughs (OK, I suppose many of the towns on the SF-LA line don't currently HAVE downtown train stations, but...). It would have to - as I mentioned in my earlier posting - either underground stations or suburban stations. The first of these solutions is obnoxiously expensive; the second can be... a tad inconvenient for the passengers.


I think they're planning on building a set of tracks that bypass stations completely.


----------



## Oscuro_XS

Matthieu said:


> I'm not saying it's shit, it's not! But then the cutting edge systems are the very latest models by Siemens and Alstom really. One of the factors that will be determining in the USA, more than in France for example, is power consumption will be very important in a country where fossil energy sources are so dominant and in this domain trains using an electric propulsions (small engines below the trains) would certainly be most interesting than mechanical ones (two big engines at the front and the back). Trains with an electric propulsion from Europe are the AGV and the Valero (Spain uses this one but it's made by Siemens not by Talgo).


EMUs do not use less energy _per se_ than traditional high speed trains. E.g. Talgo 350 (S-112) uses 16 Kwh/km, whereas Siemens Velaro E (S-103) demands 18.5 kwh/km. And they need almost the same energy per passenger.



Matthieu said:


> From what I read they'll use Spanish made trains, that would then be, at most, the Talgo class 102.


Ave Class 102 is no longer produced, as Talgo only produces Ave Class 112 by now. But this train is going to be replaced by the far better Talgo Avril in a few years.
Also, CAF (another Spanish high speed train manufacturer) is developing a 300 km/h train.


----------



## Matthieu

xXFallenXx said:


> I'm not sure where you read that, but as of now they haven't chosen what trains they will use. I know that the CHSRA has been in contact with almost all major HST suppliers, from Alstom to Bombardier to Siemens, and others.


A Spanish forumers had posted, somewhere on this forum, the Californian HSR was to be jointly developped with Spain, but maybe it was too early.



> EMUs do not use less energy per se than traditional high speed trains. E.g. Talgo 350 (S-112) uses 16 Kwh/km, whereas Siemens Velaro E (S-103) demands 18.5 kwh/km. And they need almost the same energy per passenger.


In what conditions were these stats taken? Top speed for each trains or in equal conditions?


----------



## xXFallenXx

Matthieu said:


> A Spanish forumers had posted, somewhere on this forum, the Californian HSR was to be jointly developped with Spain, but maybe it was too early.


Yes, it definitely was too early. Not that there is anything wrong with the Spanish system or anything, but the fact of the matter is the California High Speed Rail system is being developed and built solely by the CHSRA. (At least for now. )


----------



## Oscuro_XS

Matthieu said:


> In what conditions were these stats taken? Top speed for each trains or in equal conditions?


Both train stats are given at 300 km/h (185 mph) in regular services.
Talgo data is given by the manufacturer, whereas Siemens' is given by Renfe (Spanish operator), using the HSR Madrid-Barcelone (11400 Kwh, 621 km length).
Also, 13400 KWh at 320 km/h and 14800 KWh at 350 km/h.


----------



## makita09

Matthieu said:


> In what conditions were these stats taken? Top speed for each trains or in equal conditions?


The choice of motoring system (distributed or separate loco) is not informed by total energy consumption. Its an engineering choice of keeping axle weights down, tractive effort, and/or maximising passenger space (as locos have none), and/or maintenance and operational flexibility requirements.

Using a loco instead doesn't necessarily mean higher energy consumption, as normal passenger cars are lighter than powered ones in a distributed power design. For example, in the UK (example is 125mph), the distributed power class 390 (WCML) is about 50 tons per car, but an equivalent mkIV passenger car (ECML) is about 40 tons, and is hauled by a class 91 locomotive, which weighs 80 tons. So at approximately 9-11 cars in length there is a no tangible weight benefit to either approach. (nb class 390 has tilt technology adding weight, whereas the mkIV cars don't, however they nearly did and are somewhat over engineered accordingly, mkIII 125mph cars used on other routes are only 30-35 tons, but are powered by diesel locos)

A fairer comparison would be an ICE 3 with a TGV, but ICE3 has 25 metre cars, and TGV 20m, with the addition of the latter articulated on shared bogies. Due to the odd layout of a TGV a direct comparison isn't easy, but it still holds true that there isn't an energy consumption penalty with either approach.

Comparing trains of the same passenger capacity, energy per passenger, the loco approach does less well when there are few cars, but once cars become over 75% of total train weight (i.e. more then about 8) the difference becomes negligible.

The main benefit of distributed power is a much higher tractive effort (if all axles motored), giving better acceleration and ascent climbing at low to mid speeds. There are other benefits to distributed, such as if one motor dies it makes little difference to performance and is less likely to cause the train to be cancelled, among other things. The main benefit of locos is their interchangable nature, maintenance facilities don't have to be the length of a whole train (negated now that modern passenger vehicles are so complicated anyway that full-length maintenance facilities are becoming common regardless), and the locos can be used for other operations like freight (though this doesn't really apply for HS locos), again among other things.

Sometimes locos are a necessity due to other choices. In France they set out to keep axes weights low and keep friction low. After setting a low axle load, and then articulating the axles, giving half as many axles per car as a normal layout, one has to reduce the length to 20m keep the weight below the set axle limit. This also meant power had to come from a separate loco as the passenger axles couldn't get heavier. And the amount of power required meant they needed 2 locos. Technology has moved on of course so with the AGV the French have managed to keep the axle weights down, use distributed power and keep the articulated design.


----------



## Basincreek

hans280 said:


> Ah, that's reassuring. But it begs the question: how do they plan to achieve this? I'm not aware of any "legacy station" in mid-town ever being upgraded for 200 mph passthroughs (OK, I suppose many of the towns on the SF-LA line don't currently HAVE downtown train stations, but...).


Outside of Union Station in LA there will be no "legacy stations." Union Station will have a huge new platform built on top of it that will be the new HSR station and all the other stations will be purpose built for the HSR system. This is a matter of necessity, mostly, since private companies own the railroad tracks, and any old stations along them, and they are adamant they will not let California's HSR system use those tracks or the land around them.




hans280 said:


> It would have to - as I mentioned in my earlier posting - either underground stations or suburban stations. The first of these solutions is obnoxiously expensive; the second can be... a tad inconvenient for the passengers.


There will be only one underground station, in San Fran, the rest will be either elevated or at grade. There will be no suburban stations.


----------



## hans280

Basincreek said:


> Outside of Union Station in LA there will be no "legacy stations." Union Station will have a huge new platform built on top of it that will be the new HSR station and all the other stations will be purpose built for the HSR system. This is a matter of necessity, mostly, since private companies own the railroad tracks, and any old stations along them, and they are adamant they will not let California's HSR system use those tracks or the land around them...
> 
> There will be only one underground station, in San Fran, the rest will be either elevated or at grade. There will be no suburban stations.


Many thanks, but... this almost raises more questions than it answers. I mean, surely totally new railway stations have to be either underground or in the suburbs??? Otherwise, what are they going to do? Knock down 50,000 residential dwellings in order to create a new railway corridor into the heart of town? Or build 20 km of elevated tracks through each town, giving thousands of residents a HSR next to their bedroom window?


----------



## gincan

Matthieu said:


> The Talgo Class 102 which is ok of course, a pretty good system, it's based on a Bombardier systems (engines and stuffs) integrated to a Spanish chassis.


The Talgo 350 engine is based on the TRAXX family of locomotives, it was designed, developed and built in a collaboration between Talgo, Krauss-Maffei and Adtranz. The design of the engine was done by Krauss-Maffei with Adtranz providing technology from the development of the new DB engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBAG_Class_145_and_146

So the only thing that is Bombardier about the Talgo 350 is that they bought Adtranz in 2001. In effect, the Talgo 350 is a German-Spanish collaboration and has nothing to do with Bombardier. 

Now the Talgo 350 is not a cutting edge train in any way but it is a high performing HSR train with poor passenger capacity which is the main reason why no one will buy it except for Renfe. Actually the Talgo 350 completely outperform the Siemens Velaro E on the Madrid-Barcelona HSR line and has during testing achieved similar traveltimes going 30 km/h slower, IE 350km/h for the Velaro to achieved what the Talgo 350 can do with only 320km/h


----------



## k.k.jetcar

hans280 said:


> Many thanks, but... this almost raises more questions than it answers. I mean, surely totally new railway stations have to be either underground or in the suburbs??? Otherwise, what are they going to do? Knock down 50,000 residential dwellings in order to create a new railway corridor into the heart of town? Or build 20 km of elevated tracks through each town, giving thousands of residents a HSR next to their bedroom window?


Actually, the HSR line will be using existing railroad rights of way, for example, the Caltrain peninsula line. Whether the owning railroads will be willing to let the HSR line use part of their ROW is another question- Union Pacific is reluctant in many instances, while BNSF seems to be more open to the idea (BNSF has always been more friendly with passenger rail BTW). Anyway, there is a battle heating up over areas where the HSR will run through wealthy suburbs (i.e. Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park), though it must be said that the residents did purchase homes right next to a busy working railway, not some abandoned or undeveloped open space.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

gincan said:


> The Talgo 350 engine is based on the TRAXX family of locomotives, it was designed, developed and built in a collaboration between Talgo, Krauss-Maffei and Adtranz. The design of the engine was done by Krauss-Maffei with Adtranz providing technology from the development of the new DB engine.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBAG_Class_145_and_146
> 
> So the only thing that is Bombardier about the Talgo 350 is that they bought Adtranz in 2001. In effect, the Talgo 350 is a German-Spanish collaboration and has nothing to do with Bombardier.
> 
> Now the Talgo 350 is not a cutting edge train in any way but it is a high performing HSR train with poor passenger capacity which is the main reason why no one will buy it except for Renfe. Actually the Talgo 350 completely outperform the Siemens Velaro E on the Madrid-Barcelona HSR line and has during testing achieved similar traveltimes going 30 km/h slower, IE 350km/h for the Velaro to achieved what the Talgo 350 can do with only 320km/h


Surmising what trains will run on the new line is fun, but it is way too early to say which type or manufacturer is in the lead. First of all, many route alignments have yet to be determined specifically (for example in the central valley- will the UP RR cooperate or else go to the BNSF route?). Once the route is finalized, work will begin on building a 100 mile long test track in the central valley somewhere between Bakersfield and Merced. At this test track the various manufacturers will demonstrate their products, and "the best train will win", so to speak (barring political wheeler-dealing and shenanigans). Personally, I think the top three candidates are Siemens (Velaro), Alstom (AGV), and Hitachi/Kawasaki/JR Central (N700 variant), as these companies have the most proven products and/or experience building "in-house" rolling stock, as opposed to acquired technology (ahem, Bombardier).


----------



## zaphod

> Many thanks, but... this almost raises more questions than it answers. I mean, surely totally new railway stations have to be either underground or in the suburbs??? Otherwise, what are they going to do? Knock down 50,000 residential dwellings in order to create a new railway corridor into the heart of town? Or build 20 km of elevated tracks through each town, giving thousands of residents a HSR next to their bedroom window?


Don't really know, but doubt it.

In LA the lines will try and squeeze in along existing highway, power line, and rail corridors. To the north in Burbank there's a wide right of way next to a freight line with mostly industrial uses next to it, and almost serendipitously this track runs virtually in a straight line suitable for high speeds.

In the central valley I'd assume the line will bypass towns the way the highways do, with stations on the edge of town. Again no clearance of neighborhoods will be necessary.

Approaching San Jose I'm not sure the details but yeah...

On the SF Peninsula, just pull up Google Earth. There are some tight spots which might require some properties to be bought out. Downtown San Mateo will be interesting and may require a tunnel. But its funny in that the communities which are complaining the most(Palo Alto) that the line runs along a busy 4 lane road and through a litter strewn brushy no man's land where the current Cal Train diesel expresses roar by every 30 minutes.

Sickeningly though, I guarantee it will be the rich folks to get a billion dollar underground tunnel for purely aesthetic reasons...you know homeowners and small businesses in places that actually need a tunnel to prevent any eminent domain takings will probably get screwed. I guess "important interests" run things, even professional planners who must kowtow to attorneys and city councils.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> Sickeningly though, I guarantee it will be the rich folks to get a billion dollar underground tunnel for purely aesthetic reasons


They are free to demand a tunnel through their town. Of course they will have to pay for it out of their pockets (through taxation). Tunnels are tremendously expensive, plus in PA's case the tunnel must accomodate big lumbering UP freight trains pulled by smoking diesel locomtives...

Interestingly, when the Southern Pacific railroad built their line through Palo Alto more than 100 years ago (before most of these towns even existed), the right of way was built to accomodate a future four-track high speed railway- history does come full circle.


----------



## Manila-X




----------



## hans280

^^Those are certainly fine words. I'm not kidding: I'm very impressed with Obama's retorics and his greater visions (though perhaps less with his ability to get his stuff through Congress...). That said, somebody ought perhaps to send the West Wing a copy of one of the latest, triumphant postings on the Spanish HSL thread? According to a posting by gincan, the Spaniards are planning the following for 2010: "The Spanish railway investments for the year 2010 have now been published and amount to 10,2 billion euros, of this 5,4 billion will be allocated to HSR investments".

I'm not saying this to point fingers at the USofA. By any standard in the world - other than perhaps China - this is mind boggling. A sum of 5.4 billion euros - that's 8 billion USD - allocated to building HS lines in one... single... year. Spain is a county of 40 million inhabitants so it would correspond to an annual highspeed budget in God's Own Country of 60 billion USD. (And THIS, let's not forget, in a country with an average household income at 2/3 of North American levels...) Methinks Mr. Obama needs to rethink the 8 billion USD he plans to throw at highspeed rail. :lol:


----------



## gramercy

obama's all yup-yup-yup but he hasn't delivered a single campaing promise in 9 months

and i say this as a person who would strike limbaugh on site


----------



## poshbakerloo

Are these new HS trains gonna just be house size locatmoves pulling unpainded metle boxes? I sure hope not. Its s shame as it gives such a negative view of the USA when it comes to transport etc. In someples they are really making an effort but you never hear about that tho...like the bus servies in Santa Monica etc


----------



## poshbakerloo

k.k.jetcar said:


> Actually, the HSR line will be using existing railroad rights of way, for example, the Caltrain peninsula line. Whether the owning railroads will be willing to let the HSR line use part of their ROW is another question- Union Pacific is reluctant in many instances, while BNSF seems to be more open to the idea (BNSF has always been more friendly with passenger rail BTW). Anyway, there is a battle heating up over areas where the HSR will run through wealthy suburbs (i.e. Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park), though it must be said that the residents did purchase homes right next to a busy working railway, not some abandoned or undeveloped open space.


Long tunnels under built up areas have been done. the HS1 line in England thru London is a good example of this...


----------



## Manila-X

Just curious, why don't some forumers here don't consider The *Acela* to be high speed?


----------



## xXFallenXx

^ It only reaches 150mph (240kph), and that is only for a very short amount of time. IIRC, it averages about 79mph (127kph).


----------



## poshbakerloo

xXFallenXx said:


> ^ It only reaches 150mph (240kph), and that is only for a very short amount of time. IIRC, it averages about 79mph (127kph).


Yeah its a shame really. The train itself is actually really quite good. Just its full potential has never been used...

Also the average speed of 79Mph is really bad as the WCML in England has an average speed of 90Mph for the whole route and 118Mph London-Birmingham and 112Mph average London-York on the ECML, the top speed is only 125Mph...

If England can do it on victorian rail routes then I'm sure the USA can


----------



## zaphod

I wish there was more effort to upgrade the NEC before spending money elsewhere. It's the one part of Amtrak that actually makes money.

rebuilding the catenary wires to high tension ones, a new tunnel under Baltimore, some flyovers, whatever. It might end up being expensive but turning the DC-New York segment into something world class wouldn't be impossible.


----------



## hans280

poshbakerloo said:


> Long tunnels under built up areas have been done. the HS1 line in England thru London is a good example of this...


Well, the long tunnels on the HS1 line is a fact, but I'm in two minds about whether to call this example "good". It made the line so unbelievably expensive (by far the highest cost per km anywhere in Europe...) that many of us were afraid it would put the Brits off HS rail forever. 

But, then again... I doubt if - even considering the extremely dense urbanisation of nothern and eastern London - this cost could have been justified by anything other than plans of a future HS2 line? That tunnel comes in from east London on an almost straight east-west trajectory and only in the very last moment swings south toward St Pancras. It cries to high heavens that, one day, there will be a continuation toward the north-west.


----------



## poshbakerloo

zaphod said:


> I wish there was more effort to upgrade the NEC before spending money elsewhere. It's the one part of Amtrak that actually makes money.
> 
> rebuilding the catenary wires to high tension ones, a new tunnel under Baltimore, some flyovers, whatever. It might end up being expensive but turning the DC-New York segment into something world class wouldn't be impossible.


Yeah, thats what I think. Finish what has been started before moving on, otherwise they will just end up with a load of 'ok' rail lines...


----------



## Nexis

*The Acela averages 130 mph on a Good Day 79 mph on a bad day. 

South of NYC its 130 mph
NYC-CT its 100mph max due to Metro North Rules about speed and old bridges 
Rhode Island-Mass its 130-155mph

so its not always 79, except during Rush Hour.
*


----------



## mgk920

One of the big problems with speed on Amtrak's Acela is that the NEC ('NorthEast Corridor') between NYC and Boston, especially through Connecticut, is rife with tight curves (it literally hugs the Long Island Sound/Atlantic Ocean coastline) and that to eliminate them would cost billions of dollars just for ROW acquisition alone and that such a straightened route would have to pass through an area of populated by people with the money and willingness to spend it to fight such projects off - it is a NIMBY area on steroids.

:no:

<sigh...>

Mike


----------



## makita09

Nexis said:


> *The Acela averages 130 mph on a Good Day 79 mph on a bad day.
> 
> South of NYC its 130 mph
> NYC-CT its 100mph max due to Metro North Rules about speed and old bridges
> Rhode Island-Mass its 130-155mph
> 
> so its not always 79, except during Rush Hour.
> *


Not so. A typical Acela service from Washington to New York (e.g the 12:00 from Washington) takes 2 hours 47 minutes to travel the approximately 225 miles, thats an average of 81 MPH (approximately) - so in accordance with the previously stated 79 MPH.

If the train had an average of 130MPH it would only take 1 hour 43 minutes DC - NY, knocking a whole hour off the current timetable.

The train itself may hit 130 MPH along the way, but commercially this is irrelevant.


----------



## hans280

mgk920 said:


> One of the big problems with speed on Amtrak's Acela is that the NEC ('NorthEast Corridor') between NYC and Boston, especially through Connecticut, is rife with tight curves (it literally hugs the Long Island Sound/Atlantic Ocean coastline) and that to eliminate them would cost billions of dollars just for ROW acquisition alone and that such a straightened route would have to pass through an area of populated by people with the money and willingness to spend it to fight such projects off - it is a NIMBY area on steroids.


Yeah, but... this is a bit frustrating. The "French" solution to this problem would be to tell the NIMBIES of Connecticut that, "fine, then we draw a straight line from New Haven to Boston. You won't be bothered, but you won't be serviced by the new train either". (I don't need to speak in the subjunctive here: we have precisely that discussion about Marseille-Nice which might follow the Mediterrenean coast... or not.) I now understand that there USED to be a direct link from New Haven to Boston but that, some years ago, it was scrapped??? hno:


----------



## gramercy

acela averaging 130 mph? thats a laugh

the direct train from Paris to Marseille averages 210 kph and thats on a 700+ km dedicated line with 300-320 kph maximum speeds...


----------



## mgk920

hans280 said:


> Yeah, but... this is a bit frustrating. The "French" solution to this problem would be to tell the NIMBIES of Connecticut that, "fine, then we draw a straight line from New Haven to Boston. You won't be bothered, but you won't be serviced by the new train either". (I don't need to speak in the subjunctive here: we have precisely that discussion about Marseille-Nice which might follow the Mediterrenean coast... or not.) I now understand that there USED to be a direct link from New Haven to Boston but that, some years ago, it was scrapped??? hno:


The problem in Connecticut is that any 'straight lines' pass directly through the most strongly NIMBY areas - that whole region is heavily populated with lots of 'old' money.

:no:

Mike


----------



## poshbakerloo

Nexis said:


> *The Acela averages 130 mph on a Good Day 79 mph on a bad day.
> 
> South of NYC its 130 mph
> NYC-CT its 100mph max due to Metro North Rules about speed and old bridges
> Rhode Island-Mass its 130-155mph
> 
> so its not always 79, except during Rush Hour.
> *


135Mph is the max speed south of NYC and for a lot of the time it runs a lot slower so the average speed cnt be 130Mph anyway...


----------



## Nexis

*its 110-120 Average , most days 130 max , once in a while 140*

*The NEC is very crowded Commuter corridor, was the Acela a mistake to launch? No , were just in the beginning of US High Speed , over the next 5 to 8 yrs will really see High Speed Rail in the US take off. you just need to wait everybody , as for the Noreast , High Speed Rail Connections , The ARC Project needs to be complete before they added anymore lines onto the NEC. Once thats done , you will see a Northeast / New England Rail / High Speed Rail Construction spike*.

*~Corey*


----------



## gramercy

maybe you have a problem with the mathematical concept of average

according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express



> 150 mph (240 km/h) maximum
> 70 mph (110 km/h) average





> With a top speed of 150 mph (241 km/h) the Acela Express is the only service in North America that exceeds the U.S. Department of Transportation's 125 mph (201 km/h) definition of high speed rail.[30] The Acela achieves an average speed of 80 mph (129 km/h) between Washington and New York, which is comparable to the Denver Zephyr service that ran at an average speed of 77 mph (124 km/h) between Chicago and Denver in the early 1960s. The highest speed attained by Acela Express is 150 mph (241 km/h) on two sections of track in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. There are also many miles of track, especially east of New Haven, that have been upgraded to allow maximum speeds in excess of 110 mph (177 km/h). South of New York, Acela Express is limited to 135 mph (217 km/h), even though several stretches of track there are straight enough to allow 150 mph (241 km/h) speeds. The limiting factor is stated to be the overhead catenary support system which was constructed prior to 1935 and lacks the constant-tension features of the new catenary east of New Haven, although in the late 1960s the Pennsylvania Railroad did run Metroliner test trains as fast as 164 mph (264 km/h) and briefly intended to run the Metroliner service at speeds reaching 150 mph (241 km/h). Although the Acela Express trainsets are capable of 165 mph (266 km/h) operation, FRA regulations do not permit any speeds above 150 mph (241 km/h) on tracks that are shared with freight and slower passenger trains regardless of circumstances, and for Acela Express trains to run above 150 mph (241 km/h) it would require purpose-built dedicated track in a separate right of way.
> The slowest section of the electrified NEC is the portion owned by Metro-North Railroad and the Connecticut Department of Transportation between New Haven and New Rochelle. Trains here are limited to only 90 mph (145 km/h) on a 4 miles (6.4 km) stretch in New York State, and to 75 mph (121 km/h) between the New York state line and New Haven. Additionally, tilting is not allowed anywhere on Metro-North or ConnDOT (Connecticut Dept. of Transportation) property. At a maximum 4.2° tilt,[1] the Acela Express trainset would pass other trains on parallel tracks only 10 inches (25 cm) away, which is too close for FRA-mandated clearances. ConnDOT has a number of projects either planned or underway that will upgrade the catenary system,[31] replace outdated bridges, and straighten certain sections of the New Haven Line to eventually enable the Acela trains to run at their 150 mph (241 km/h) top speed.
> The scheduled transit time for the 5:00 a.m. departure from Washington, D.C., (the quickest stopping pattern) to Boston's South Station on Acela Express service is roughly 6 hours 36 minutes. Allowing for the fifteen-minute scheduled layover in New York City, the average speed is 72 mph (116 km/h) for the 456 miles (734 km) trip. For the 225 miles (362 km) journey between Washington, D.C., and New York's Penn Station, the transit time is 2 hours 48 minutes, an average speed of 80 mph (129 km/h). If the infrastructure supporting the Acela were upgraded to allow for an average speed of 125 mph (201 km/h), the current 6.5 hour journey between Boston and Washington would be just under four hours and 45 minutes.
> On July 9, 2007, Amtrak introduced two limited-stop trains. Train 2105 left New York Penn Station at 6:50 a.m, made only one stop, in Philadelphia, and arrived in Washington at 9:25 a.m. Northbound, train 2120 departed Washington at 3:55 p.m., stopped in Philadelphia, and arrived in New York at 6:30 p.m. This shortened the trip between the two cities to just 2 hours 35 minutes, making the trip roughly an hour faster than some of the Regional train services. These trains were an experiment on Amtrak's part to find ways to expedite travel time on the Acela despite the speed restrictions on certain parts of the line. Amtrak has since dropped these two limited-stop trains. In the Amtrak Northeast Corridor 1 train schedule effective August 4, 2008, trains 2105 and 2120 are not listed.


----------



## makita09

Nexis said:


> *its 110-120 Average , most days 130 max , once in a while 140*
> 
> 
> *~Corey*


No. As stated a few pages previously, a typical Acela service from Washington to New York (e.g the 12:00 from Washington) takes 2 hours 47 minutes to travel the approximately 225 miles, thats an average of 81 MPH (approximately) - so in accordance with the quoted 79 MPH.

Gramercy is correct, you need to understand what is meant by average. It is total distance divided by total time. Acela has the potential to achieve 130mph average times, but it requires an upgrade to the infrastructure it operates on. 

To find out more, read this http://www.railwaygazette.com/filea...om/PDF/RailwayGazetteWorldSpeedSurvey2007.pdf

To quote from it, the fastest rail schedules in the USA between major cities are;

USA (240 km/h) 
7 Acela Expresses between Baltimore and Wilmington, 110∙1km, 41 minutes, 161∙1 km/h (approx 100MPH)
15 Acela Expresses between Philadelphia and Wilmington, 50∙6km, 19 minutes, 159 km/h


----------



## ranieri

*Good ol' U.S.A.*

The only way I can experience the railroad is it should be here in the States is by reading about it. For instance, no fewer than 6 main railroads ran through this area in Allentown, Pa. back in the 1940's. The bus and car took over all of it. Whatever remains was just too stubborn to die. Rail travel in the NorthEast is reduced to running the coast, and very little else. A country that was completely connected by rail is now talking about high-speed rail. What a very sad joke.


----------



## He Named Thor

ranieri said:


> The only way I can experience the railroad is it should be here in the States is by reading about it. For instance, no fewer than 6 main railroads ran through this area in Allentown, Pa. back in the 1940's. The bus and car took over all of it. Whatever remains was just too stubborn to die. Rail travel in the NorthEast is reduced to running the coast, and very little else. A country that was completely connected by rail is now talking about high-speed rail. What a very sad joke.


The joke is that by "high-speed rail" we are talking about speeds we were traveling at decades ago, but on a much smaller scale.


----------



## gramercy

He Named Thor said:


> The joke is that by "high-speed rail" we are talking about speeds we were traveling at decades ago, but on a much smaller scale.


well if it makes you feel a bit better: 100 years ago we had steam trains going on a single track with manual signage at 140 kph....today we are talking about refurbishing the tracks to......paramparampararararampapmapm: 120 kph :nuts:


----------



## Nexis

*This Is Jersey Ave Station in New Brunswick,NJ : North East Corridor .

NJ Transit uses outer Tracks : Amtrak uses inner for High Speed*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi2I37AXCHw


----------



## hans280

^^Nexis, I think you've proven a point from your previous posting: exactly how crowded the line is. It looks to me like they're taking the Acela through the bottleneck first, followed by a couple of slower trains on its tail? In mixed traffic that makes sense, of course, though I do have to note that all trains seem to have the same (slow) passthrough speed at the station. It is certainly not like the TGVs running through Avignon at 300 km/h, and not even like the Eurostarts running through Lille at 200 km/h. The Acelas are... well, passing the station like any other train.


----------



## gramercy

hans280 said:


> ^^Nexis, I think you've proven a point from your previous posting: exactly how crowded the line is. It looks to me like they're taking the Acela through the bottleneck first, followed by a couple of slower trains on its tail? In mixed traffic that makes sense, of course, though I do have to note that all trains seem to have the same (slow) passthrough speed at the station. It is certainly not like the TGVs running through Avignon at 300 km/h, and not even like the Eurostarts running through Lille at 200 km/h. The Acelas are... well, passing the station like any other train.


I'm not sure but I think Avignon is 320kph :cheers:


----------



## poshbakerloo

They need to ditch the mismatched coaches and 'backward' running trains...
Its just a case of getting what it 'ok' sorted before they move onto new things...

Not an example of high speed, but these trains are all fully matched up properly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpV5Ug32qkU


----------



## Nexis

*Another video form the Northeast Corridor

Station : Hamilton / Trenton

uses : Outer Tracks NJ Transit / Inner Amtrak High speed Line*

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9iGuUe8txk*


----------



## metsfan

*ALP-46a locomotive.*

Here it is:









http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1000001&lang=1

It has finally arrived off the assembly line!! I cannot wait to be in a train pulled by one of these! The multilevel coaches are rated to 110 mph, so it should cut travel time by at least 15 minutes between new york and trenton. The next round of coaches should be upgraded to 125 mph rating, but that won't be for several years. When that happens, The 5:01 PM super express from NYP will finally take under an hour to get to trenton, a monumental feat by a state (new jersey) run transit system!!! 

:banana: :dj::eek2::bow::cucumber::rock::master::banana2::drool::righton::nocrook::yes:kay::bowtie:m)):dance:epper:

Yes, it's really that big of an event.

- A


----------



## Momo1435

Yay for German locomotives!


----------



## tuckerbox

Brilliant Locomotive.
I would like to know more about the State run New Jersy System.
Is there a thread within this forum somewhere?


----------



## metsfan

tuckerbox said:


> Brilliant Locomotive.
> I would like to know more about the State run New Jersy System.
> Is there a thread within this forum somewhere?


Not sure, but there is one here:

Rail: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19

Bus: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=95

Very cool site, i was a mod & very nice forum little drama, just lots of questions answers videos and photos (and a lot more!!!).

- A


----------



## Snowguy716

hans280 said:


> Many thanks, but... this almost raises more questions than it answers. I mean, surely totally new railway stations have to be either underground or in the suburbs??? Otherwise, what are they going to do? Knock down 50,000 residential dwellings in order to create a new railway corridor into the heart of town? Or build 20 km of elevated tracks through each town, giving thousands of residents a HSR next to their bedroom window?


How do you think they built the freeways? 

A freeway takes a lot more space than a rail corridor.

There has been little talk in this thread of the high speed rail initiatives in the midwest. Of course it has all been mostly talk here unlike in California, but I daresay the midwestern states also tend to be a tad more timely and more efficient in these matters as well 

High speed corridors have been designated by the federal government in a hub and spoke system based out of Chicago. Ultimately, they'd like to see the main lines operate at a max of 220mph (355km/h) with regional lines operating from 110mph to 150mph and smaller local lines at the current 79mph.

In addition to Hiawatha service from Chicago to Milwaukee, the current Empire Builder route would be upgraded to the Twin Cities. Even with minimal track improvements, they could up the speeds to 110mph and shave 2 and a half hours off the trip time between the Twin Cities and Chicago, making it superior to driving and somewhat competitive with flying (at least when price is a big factor).

In Minnesota, true high speed service will likely operate from the Twin Cities through a new corridor through Rochester, serving the Mayo Clinic, and then following the pre-established routes at top speeds of 220mph.

In addition, "regional high speed" service to 110mph would be offered from the Twin Cities to Duluth with the current slow service Empire Builder Route being offered beyond the Twin Cities to Fargo and Grand Forks.

Twin Cities to Duluth rail service, called the "Gopher" route, was discontinued in 1985 because of low demand... mostly caused by poor trackage and a speed limit of 50mph!!

But these days the freight railroads are doing much better and they have improved their trackage greatly... now we have 2 mile long trains barreling by at 70mph.. pretty amazing.


----------



## hans280

^^Sure, but in these climate-conference times there is a consensus building in most countries (perhaps not the US?) that collective traffic should increase and (polluding) car traffic should diminish over the next 10-20 years. 

I'll grant you in the case of North America it's not obvious that this can be done through a handful of flashy new highspeed railways lines. This has worked in a few European countries plus Japan BECAUSE these countries have an extremely tightly knit subway architecture in all their major cities. Hence, once you arrive to Paris/Tokyo/Madrid/whatever by bullet train you walk down one flight of stairs and take the "metro" straight to the doorstep of your destination. In the United States, I believe, only NY and the Windy City have that kind of density in their urban public transport networks? Anyway, I personally would hate arriving to, say, Los Angeles by highspeed train and... then stand there like an idiot. Almost anywhere I go within the LA agglomeration I'd need a car.


----------



## LtBk

Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Philly to some extent has good rapid transit(by US standards) to get around.


----------



## Snowguy716

hans280 said:


> ^^Sure, but in these climate-conference times there is a consensus building in most countries (perhaps not the US?) that collective traffic should increase and (polluding) car traffic should diminish over the next 10-20 years.
> 
> I'll grant you in the case of North America it's not obvious that this can be done through a handful of flashy new highspeed railways lines. This has worked in a few European countries plus Japan BECAUSE these countries have an extremely tightly knit subway architecture in all their major cities. Hence, once you arrive to Paris/Tokyo/Madrid/whatever by bullet train you walk down one flight of stairs and take the "metro" straight to the doorstep of your destination. In the United States, I believe, only NY and the Windy City have that kind of density in their urban public transport networks? Anyway, I personally would hate arriving to, say, Los Angeles by highspeed train and... then stand there like an idiot. Almost anywhere I go within the LA agglomeration I'd need a car.


Most midwestern cities have extensive bus networks. The Twin Cities has an efficient, dense bus transit network (map here: http://metrotransit.org/sysmap/map_system.pdf )

With numerous light rail and commuter rail projects completed in recent years and many more coming with connecting bus routes, you'd have no problem getting around in a clean and efficient manner.


----------



## Snowguy716

Here is a link to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association website. This organization is one of the best as far as helping to coordinate rail projects throughout the midwest.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/index.html

Here's a map of what they envision for an extensive Midwest rail network:
http://www.midwesthsr.org/images/network/midwest_hub_map_30Jun09_large.gif
High speed (150-220mph) through the major cities with "regional high speed" (110mph) to smaller cities and conventional speeds on existing routes or on less populated routes.

Also: good info on the national network that connects regional networks together with transcontinental sleeper trains (like Amtrak's California Zephyr, Empire Builder, and Southwest Chief... all based out of Chicago and connected to the Cardinal, Lakeshore Limited, etc. to the east)
http://www.midwesthsr.org/network/national.html


----------



## hans280

^^Thanks, Snowguy. It looks more ambitious than I thought: in the past a lot of states have mumbled about HS rail and then gone on to suggest an upgrade of existing lines to 110 mph, which may be a good idea in itself but has little to do with highspeed. At least in the midwest some people seem to be thinking all the right thoughts. That said...

...they cannot build this entire network all at once. It would take several decades. Do you have any idea where - if at all - they plan to start? I've been thinking to myself that it might be best to start modestly and pragmatically with a HS connection between Chicago and Milwaukee. The cost would be bearable, the passengers are manifestly there and a neat little initial success would, judged by the experiences of other countries, vet the appetite of a skeptical public for more railway investment. However, from the website you provided links to it looks like plans are more progressed for a longer line connecting Chicago and Saint Louis?



LtBk said:


> Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Philly to some extent has good rapid transit(by US standards) to get around.


Hum... I guess we shall have to agree to disagree (although you hedge your bets with the words "by US standards") because DC is one of the cities I think of as having an insufficient metro-infrastructure. OK, if you come as a tourist, or you happen to live between K Street and the Smithsonian, then you're home and dry. But, for example, a student neightbourhood like Georgetown seems to have been left behind, and as soon as you move a bit away from Penn Ave you're nowhere near the unofficial objective of Paris and London that no one should live more than 500 metres from a station.


----------



## Snowguy716

Well they will do it incrementally. Right now the plans are pretty well set in stone for upgrades to 110mph service from St. Paul to Chicago. 

The state has also begun thinking about a dedicated, purpose built high speed corridor from the Twin Cities to Rochester since the Mayo Clinic has broadly supported that idea.

I think first you will see 110mph service in most areas on shared freight trackage and then new purpose built rails with true high speed service after that.

Even a 110mph network would be successful, I think.


----------



## gramercy

yea, but WHEN?


----------



## hans280

Snowguy716 said:


> Well they will do it incrementally. Right now the plans are pretty well set in stone for upgrades to 110mph service from St. Paul to Chicago.


Hum... then I hope that they won't get any federal money for the project. 110 mph is not high speed in my book. :lol:

Seriously, though: the map you linked speaks of speeds between Chicago and St. Louis of more than 150 mph. Is that all hogswash? I somehow don't think that they will pay billions for a line upgrade to 110 and THEN go on to replace the whole thing. :nuts:


----------



## MarcVD

Snowguy716 said:


> 110mph service from St. Paul to Chicago.


This is the speed that was offered by the Hiawata services with steam traction some 60 years ago, isn't it ? Hardly an "upgrade" in my naive eyes...


----------



## Snowguy716

Okay, so there are two organizations in the midwest. 

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative: This is made up of the various states in the midwest that has been planning and has already begun work on upgrading existing tracks and signaling systems so trains can run at 110mph. This is basically a quick fix, if you will. It would shorten trip times between major cities to be significantly faster than driving and competitive with flying in certain routes.

This initiative is expected to be completed within the next several years.

For example, the Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities trip would be reduced from over 8 hours to 5 and a half, allowing for up to 6 round trips daily along the route.

Then there's the Midwest HIgh Speed Rail initiative. This organization has seen some participation by the states and is gaining more participation as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Inidana, and Ohio have all expressed interest in true high speed rail linking their cities.

They envision a system like I posted previously with 220mph lines linking major cities with the 110mph "regional high speed" routes expanded to serve smaller towns and cities where no rail service is currently available.

The federal government has provided grants and funding for preliminary studies into these truly high speed corridors... but the states are really the backbone behind this.

With 220mph service, Chicago to St. Louis would be 1 hour and 54 minutes while Chicago to St. Paul would be just under 3 hours. That makes it time competitive with flying.


----------



## Snowguy716

MarcVD said:


> This is the speed that was offered by the Hiawata services with steam traction some 60 years ago, isn't it ? Hardly an "upgrade" in my naive eyes...


The government killed our passenger rail system, and should be responsible for helping bring it back.

Over regulation and high taxes on railroads as well as huge subsidization of alternative forms of travel like highways and airports.. saw demand for passenger rail fall through the floor. This discouraged investment by the railroads after being stung after WWII when they put big investments into new trains only to see nobody ride them.

When the railroad administration put in new rules limited trains to 79mph or less without new cab signaling systems, the railroads saw little reason to upgrade their trains that were already money pits, so they just slowed their speeds to 79mph.. except in the NEC where cab signaling was already in place.

On top of this, the government prevented the railroads from discontinuing passenger service without a lengthy approval process that could take years.. so the trains continued to run, ever shorter and with older locomotives until the money pit of a passenger rail system finally started to bring the entire railroads down.

That's when the government stepped in and formed Amtrak... which cut 60% of passenger service that was left in 1971 and operated a largely piecemeal system of slow, old trains that saw very little investment because the government, while not wanting to be responsible for ending passenger rail, also didn't want to do anything to improve it.

Only now since Obama has become president has Amtrak been guaranteed proper funding... and even still they are struggling.

Amtrak will never be profitable and the private railroads will never get back into the passenger rail market because the way our economy is set up right now with massive subsidization into all transportation options just won't allow profitable trains to be run.


----------



## gramercy

The government should own and build the railroads themselves. Then the operation of services could be done by private sector and could even be profitable.

Start with HSL and commuter rail.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Snowguy716 said:


> When the railroad administration put in new rules limited trains to 79mph or less without new cab signaling systems, the railroads saw little reason to upgrade their trains that were already money pits, so they just slowed their speeds to 79mph.. except in the NEC where cab signaling was already in place.


Why was they so strict? In England we have 125Mph trains in no incab signalling. The limit here is 140mph for it i think.


----------



## poshbakerloo

gramercy said:


> The government should own and build the railroads themselves. Then the operation of services could be done by private sector and could even be profitable.
> 
> Start with HSL and commuter rail.


I agree. Virgin trains has done real well with the WCML and invest loads of their own money into it aswell.


----------



## makita09

poshbakerloo said:


> Why was they so strict? In England we have 125Mph trains in no incab signalling. The limit here is 140mph for it i think.


The max without full in cab signalling is 125mph, unless there are two drivers then it is 140mph on some stretches of the ECML. *correction* 140mph is no longer allowed at all on the ECML, the 140mph seems to have been a trial that was not taken forward.

But the US rules may actually relate to incab signalling aids, like ATP and AWS which we require, rather than full incab signalling. Would be interesting to know. I'm sure vast areas of the US do not have and do not require incab aids perhaps.


----------



## Snowguy716

makita09 said:


> The max without full in cab signalling is 125mph, unless there are two drivers then it is 140mph on some stretches of the ECML. *correction* 140mph is no longer allowed at all on the ECML, the 140mph seems to have been a trial that was not taken forward.
> 
> But the US rules may actually relate to incab signalling aids, like ATP and AWS which we require, rather than full incab signalling. Would be interesting to know. I'm sure vast areas of the US do not have and do not require incab aids perhaps.


Yes, I believe it is the ATS that the trains would need to operate above 79mph... and then you are beholden to the quality of the track for speed.

Most trackage in the U.S. is only built to class 4 standards which has a speed limited of 60mph for freight and 80mph for passenger rail... so even if they installed the ATS in the trains, many corridors wouldn't allow faster train travel anyway.

The busiest freight routes outside of the NEC are currently mostly class 5 which allows freight speeds up to 80mph and passenger travel up to 90mph.

The current higher speed initiative in the midwest would upgrade the tracks to class 6 which allows passenger trains to drive at 110mph.

Currently, the highest class trackage in the U.S. is in small, recently built stretches of the NEC, which is class 8 trackage, allowing passenger train speeds up to 160mph. 

These use concrete ties, welded rails, and are precisely measured so that the gauge is rather constant given any distance.

The tracks for the new California high speed rail will be beyond any classification by the FRA as the class 10 rails allow speeds up to 200mph while the CA project will see trains operating to 220mph. At the same time, I'm not 100% sure about that because since the system will be self enclosed, they are not subject to FRA regulations.


----------



## makita09

Thanks for the info Snowguy. I thought as much. Of course ATS isn't just about speed, so I'm sure the US can justify its roll-out on some routes on safety and operational grounds, before the track is upgraded to higher class standards.


----------



## andrelot

I love to see same arguments repeated over and over. For instance, some people advocate heavy passenger railway investment as a proxy for pushing anti-suburban ideology, which is, as of US Census 2000, the urban arrangement in which majority of Americans now live in.

More ingenuous (or insidious) is comparing "subsidiation" of road and air transport with alleged "obligation" to provide railway service. One thing is to provide the infrastructure (runways, road lanes, interchanges, airport terminals etc.). Other, completely unnaceptable thing, is to provide for vehicles and service themselves. Does US or state governments run a state-owned airline? Do they run Greyhound? At most, the government pay that US$ 1,2 bln/yr subside for low demand strategic air routes, and they also pay for _Amcrap._

On the other side, rail transport in US is not, at all, a failure: no other higly developed country uses rail freight as much as US in relate of total tons X miles. Why? Essentialy, because US railways are optimized for freight, thus they can run freight operations efficiently,24/7, without given right-of-way to passenger trains in peak times, without being limited to night operations only (like in most of Belgium and Netherlands), and they can run those trains at lower speeds and long crossing times without jeopardizing service competitive position in relation with road freight!

Now, unless we all want to see thousands of trucks adding to Interstate congestion, there is no way to massively use present railways to greatly expand passenger service. Indeed, I'm totally appaled by some initiatives "requiring" private railroads to collaborate with passenger service as if it was a moral obligation to them. They are doing a far better job by moving freight, especially coal, that US depends on.


----------



## FlyFish

gramercy said:


> The government should own and build the railroads themselves. Then the operation of services could be done by private sector and could even be profitable.
> 
> Start with HSL and commuter rail.



Uh, this is America, the Government should NOT own the railroads. I don't think that is provided for in our constitution.


And besides, the Chinese are running out of cash, how would we in America pay for it?


----------



## gramercy

FlyFish said:


> Uh, this is America, the Government should NOT own the railroads. I don't think that is provided for in our constitution.
> 
> 
> And besides, the Chinese are running out of cash, how would we in America pay for it?


sell all the highways then moron

come to think of it, that just might be enough to balance your budget

china is buying


----------



## FlyFish

gramercy said:


> sell all the highways then moron
> 
> come to think of it, that just might be enough to balance your budget
> 
> china is buying



moron? That's the way you engage in debate with someone who disagrees with you? You have learned alot from the political left here in the US, lol. When you encounter someone who disagrees with you, either raise your voice and talk over them or call them names.

Just for fun let's pretend you made a valid point and continue this "debate" since I am bored at work this afternoon. I assume you mean that the US Government should construct new rail lines to carry this HSR beause you know the Government did not build, nor does it own, most of the rail and rail right of way here in the US. There are some very sticky issues to deal with here to make this happen.

First, to build this line our Government would have to appropriate funding which will be tough because we are bankrupt at the present time. Under our current administration that would be the easiest part. Being bankrupt isn't stopping them with anything else so why not go to the Chinese and borrow some more.

Second, there would be little political will to appropriate said funding because HSR is the want of a few and not a need of the many. I know the few is highly represented here but the truth is most of the population doesn't even know what high speed rail is, let alone have any need of it's existence or any desire to pay for its construction. There is no pressing need to have this system in the US. Yes, for some commuters in the Northeast and SoCal it would be nice and in places in the mid-west there would be some riders but it is not a need. Certainly not needed enough to try to convince the taxpayers that we need to shovel out however many hundreds of billions it would require to buy right of way and get it built.

Third, the environmentalist lobby here would not allow this line to ever be built. Why, well I am sure there is some bird or squirrel, or rare sub-species of groundhog somewhere that would be displaced or some other such thing. The lawsuits that would pile up would be staggering. Everyone sues the Government because they have a non-ending supply of money to dole out for this sort of thing. The end result of this is that in 15 years we'll still be in court and the lawyers will all have beach houses in St. Barts. 

Forth, they can't buy the existing lines because then they would be subjogating the frieght traffic that the lines (privately owned) depend on. The US rail system, for better or worse, is built and maintained for frieght service. That's just the way it is. Plus, the Union Pacific might not want to sell out it's east west trackage no matter what promise the Government makes. Hence, lawsuits and we are back to number three. Now, this one is also easier right now because our current administration has found a way to take over banks and car companies so why not railroads too. 


So, there's four reasons it can't and won't happen any time soon. The US left playbook requires you to now make a snappy comback about how much the Iraq war has or will cost. Oh, and to call me another name.


----------



## hoosier

FlyFish said:


> Is it worth 200 billion of my Grandchildren's money (at 6% interest) to make that trip in half the time? Well, there's the question.


Is it worth that amount of money to shave a few minutes off the commute of someone that drives? The federal government has spent over a trillion dollars building freeways just so people can drive to a place more quickly.


----------



## hoosier

andrelot said:


> Well, I still think we should promote HSR American-style, which means with thousands of parking spaces attached to each station, even if it means people living downtown have to take a light rail or cab to a suburban HSR station.


Why must transportation policy cater to the car? The car is only popular insofar as it is the only option many people have to get around.

BART was designed to cater to suburban commuters and it's ridership is half that of the D.C. metro which was designed to be a true urban style mass transit system.

If we want to maximize rail ridership, we must change land use policies and build around rail stations and provide suitable pedestrian and cyclist amenities.

The car is not king. It was selected by the government a long time ago to be the dominant mode of transportation in this country and has been subsidized long enough. It's time to put rail on an equal footing.


----------



## andrelot

> If we want to maximize rail ridership, we must change land use policies and build around rail stations


That's the problem: anti-car feeling to the point it amounts to and ideology. Build rail lines, let it build around them, but *don't attack suburban lifestyle only to create "demand" to otherwise "oh-so-cool" European-like tranportation system that cannot attract sufficient costumers.*

Let those who want to live near rail live, and those who want to live in suburubs live there. Free market, bro.


----------



## LtBk

The anti-transit people act the same way too(not everybody of course). Besides, people can't use rail lines if the development only caters to those who can drive there, than use transit. May as well keep driving.


----------



## hoosier

andrelot said:


> Let those who want to live near rail live, and those who want to live in suburubs live there. Free market, bro.


You really are ignorant of basic facts. There is no free market involved in the construction of large freeways to serve low scale suburban sprawl hellholes made possible by local government zoning laws.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

andrelot said:


> When it comes to funding, it is easy to say "raise taxes" or "cut military". But tax money is not, and should not, be earmarked unless it had closed relation with the financed system. For instance, it makes totally sense to have a highway trust fund which collect money from gas tax. That is fair.
> 
> But what would pay for a, say, railway trust fund?


Prior to the 9-11 attacks the US spent 60 billion dollars a year on military expenses related to the Middle East, which is only of strategic importance due to the oil. That is 60 billion dollars per year that was financed out of general revenue, that should be allocated to the activity which benefits from our oil imports. Oil imports, we should place a tariff upon every barrel of oil imported into America, at a rate of 4 billion bbl per year the rate would need to be set at 15 dollars per barrel.

The money would then be available for energy independence infrastructure for America such as rail electrification and high speed rail.

As for where to cut military spending, we can begin to extricate ourselves from the many alliances that burden us down, such as NATO, Korea, and avoid being drawn into conflicts of no concern to us, such as the Arab-Israeli dispute. If Americans envy Europe's railways, then stop spending money to defend Europe and spend the money at home on America. return to the principle of "America First" that built our nation in the first place, "China First" is working out pretty good for China, lets us do the same here.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Totally off topic, but who was Moke?


----------



## andrelot

Earmarking diverted funding (tax gas to pay for rail) is a receipt for disaster, financially and politically. It creates dependency on funding from a different, unrelated source (gas tax) to build infrastructure drivers will not use (rail). I'm totally against it. It would be feasible to increase gas tax, if only to expand and mantain the current network, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## lkx314

andrelot said:


> Earmarking diverted funding (tax gas to pay for rail) is a receipt for disaster, financially and politically. It creates dependency on funding from a different, unrelated source (gas tax) to build infrastructure drivers will not use (rail). I'm totally against it. It would be feasible to increase gas tax, if only to expand and mantain the current network, nothing more, nothing less.











Earmarking diverted funding (tax gas to pay for highways) is a receipt for disaster, financially and politically. It creates dependency on funding from a different, unrelated source (gas tax) to build infrastructure drivers will not use (highways). I'm totally against it. It would be feasible to increase gas tax, if only to expand and mantain the current network, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## andrelot

Why gas tax for car use is unrelated to highways?


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

andrelot said:


> Earmarking diverted funding (tax gas to pay for rail) is a receipt for disaster, financially and politically. It creates dependency on funding from a different, unrelated source (gas tax) to build infrastructure drivers will not use (rail). I'm totally against it. It would be feasible to increase gas tax, if only to expand and mantain the current network, nothing more, nothing less.


My proposal was a tariff on imported oil, not a tax on gasoline. Oil is used for far more than gasoline, and two thirds of the oil we use is imported, which creates a military burden for the US. When the US needed no oil imports it did not concern itself with the Middle East. A simple tax on gasoline would not allocate the burden properly, since oil produced in South Dakota would pay the same tax as oil produced in Saudi Arabia, and others users such as plastics would be exempt from sharing the burden.

Anyone who uses very little oil is forced to share the military burden of those who consume it profligately via the income tax.


----------



## andrelot

That is a very pessimistic approach, thinking of US military like an "oil international police". I'd say it is almost (almost, not yet) insulting to suppose the mission of US Military is to secure its oil supply.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

andrelot said:


> That is a very pessimistic approach, thinking of US military like an "oil international police". I'd say it is almost (almost, not yet) insulting to suppose the mission of US Military is to secure its oil supply.


OMG!!! Perish the thought that America should actually use it's military to defend it's national interests. Prior to 1971 we had next to no military engagement in the region, it was only after Britain withdrew from "East of Suez" that we very reluctantly became engaged., and that only after the "Twin Pillars" strategy was proven to be like leaning upon a weak reed. 

Outside of oil the Middle East is of no strategic consequence to the United States whatsoever, it would be as irrelevant as the Arab-Israeli blood feud to which only one American in fifty has stake in. If this is merely a delusion on my part, I can note that the Soviet Union seemed to share the delusion in that they devoted a great deal of effort to the ability to interdict the flow of oil from the region. The nations who joined with us in 1991 to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait seem to "suppose" the same thing.

The funds flushed down the toilet since 2003 to ensure that Iraqis could dip their fingers in purple ink and elect the Dawa Party (responsible for bombing our Kuwait embassy in 1983) could have funded the construction of a synthetic oil industry in the US that would produce more oil than the combined exports of Iran and Iraq. We need to have an "America First" energy policy, and ditch all the Sally Struthers crap.


----------



## TampaMike

LtBk said:


> From what I read, people in Florida did want a HSR but the conservative politicians canceled it. Personally, I see HSR happening in the Northeast,(upgraded Acela), Midwest, and West Coast in 20 or so years.


What happened is that the state voted to fund a HSR in 2000. Jeb Bush, who was 50/50 on the system first off, raised up the issue that all this money would be spent on the system, but cities like mine(Tampa) and Orlando would be connected but wouldn't have any transportation options besides a few bus routes to transport them from the HSR to anywhere. So we got it back on the ballot again and voted to not fund it. But now that Orlando and Tampa are getting closer to funding for a Light Rail System, it's coming back in to the picture.


----------



## nomarandlee

Frank J. Sprague said:


> Prior to the 9-11 attacks the US spent 60 billion dollars a year on military expenses related to the Middle East, which is only of strategic importance due to the oil. That is 60 billion dollars per year that was financed out of general revenue, that should be allocated to the activity which benefits from our oil imports. Oil imports, we should place a tariff upon every barrel of oil imported into America, at a rate of 4 billion bbl per year the rate would need to be set at 15 dollars per barrel.
> 
> The money would then be available for energy independence infrastructure for America such as rail electrification and high speed rail.
> 
> As for where to cut military spending, we can begin to extricate ourselves from the many alliances that burden us down, such as NATO, Korea, and avoid being drawn into conflicts of no concern to us, such as the Arab-Israeli dispute. If Americans envy Europe's railways, then stop spending money to defend Europe and spend the money at home on America. return to the principle of "America First" that built our nation in the first place, "China First" is working out pretty good for China, lets us do the same here.


 Where do you get the 60 billion figure from? I agree with the general premise. If Japan and NATO want to continue to have mutual defense pacts then they should increase spending and carry more of the burden.


----------



## nomarandlee

hans280 said:


> Secondly I have a more fundamental question: are you (and other Americans) not afraid of missing the train (!) of modernity?


 I'll be honest, while I admire HSR and think it would be great for the US to have it though if it doesn't I don't think it will "left behind". I frankly think it is much more important for the US to be leaders in next generation passenger aircraft and next generation autos. Both will still be a much more fundamental part of our transit infrastructure just like both still are in Japan and Europe despite the ubiquity of HSR. 



andrelot said:


> Well, I still think we should promote HSR American-style, which means with thousands of parking spaces attached to each station, even if it means people living downtown have to take a light rail or cab to a suburban HSR station.
> 
> Anyhow, China is not building "10000 km" HSR, truly HSR is only 3.400. Then, they have a population that is 5 times the American. Then, there's no such things like eminent domain, due process of law, fair compensation etc. They just seize your home/farm, period. Landlords there have less rights than American ones had in the 1800's. Also, there is no NIMBYism out there.
> 
> .


 Your right on the second aspect of China's reality versus the United Staets which the screaming mob of "look at the Chinese, they are so much more progressive with their HSR!!" crowd loves to ape.

Your first point is flawed though. Even though our cities are much more decentralized then other nations it is still a fact that almost universally our downtown's are the most dense part of our metros and they have the most interconnectivity in our metros. It would be horribly misguided not to include a primary stop in each one HSR runs through.

However we have to acknowledge the reality of our already built environments and in order to maximize rider ship would likely need one or two suburban stops on a given route outside major cities. To chose not to serve major suburban areas where much of the population also lives and that have a major catchments area is also regressive planning. Given the auto centricity of our cities and suburbs having a parking garage that includes rental car agencies will also have to be part of the reality in most cases even in transit friendly downtown terminals.


----------



## hans280

nomarandlee said:


> I'll be honest, while I admire HSR and think it would be great for the US to have it though if it doesn't I don't think it will "left behind". I frankly think it is much more important for the US to be leaders in next generation passenger aircraft and next generation autos. Both will still be a much more fundamental part of our transit infrastructure just like both still are in Japan and Europe despite the ubiquity of HSR.


The United States is a big country. When it comes to long-distance travel, the aircrafts will reign. When it comes to commuting and short-distance travel, the cars will reign. On this I agree. But the congested airspace and ditto roads in areas such as the Boston-NY-DC corridor, southern and western California and parts of the mid-west virtually cry out for a third solution. 

Secondly, you seem to confuse the development and the usage of new technologies? Developing your "transit infrastructure" can be done with domestically produced or foreign fronteer technologies. I grant you the US (and Europe) is likely to remain a world leader in aircraft technology for at least one more generation, but I think both the US and European car drivers will soon be driving vehicles produced in east and south Asia. - And whyever not? When a high-margins industry is reduced to low-margins it normally migrates to low cost production locations.


----------



## FlyFish

hans280 said:


> Flyfish, I have a problem with arguments that shift over time while the cause they promote remains the same. In your case, this applies to the reason not to invest in high-speed rail. Back in the days of the dot-com boom the tentative steps toward a HS connection in central Florida (I understand that plan's back on the agenda?) was roundly ridiculed by conservative commentators. The US was flush with money, it is true, but "bullet trains just don't offer the freedom of choice that this great country is all about...." (Or some such tripe.) Now, ten years later, HS trains are still a bad idea, but now the reason is that the country has no money! OK, then please tell me this: if the US of A find itself rolling in 5-10 years' time, will you then come out as a strong supporter of a modern railway system?
> 
> Flyfish, are you not afraid of becoming - as the Europeans have been on countless occasions - stuck in the mud?


Well, both arguements are still valid. There is still the issue of how to get to SeaWorld after the train dumps you off at Disney or how you get to Clearwater Beach after the train dumps you in Downtown Tampa but now the overwhelming arguement is the financial one. The first arguement hasn't gone away, it's just not as important a critisism as the financial one.

Would I be for it if the money was there? Sure, I guess so if it was built in places that make some sense. NEC, SoCal first and the mid-west with Chicago as a hub after that. Those routes make some sense. The trouble with us is that the routes that make sense will not be what gets built. You see, when our wonderfully bloated Federal Government gets involved, what make sense tends to be thrown right out the window in favor of what garners the most votes. You are just as liable to see a route between Salt Lake City and Reno to keep two Congressional seats from going over to the opposition party. We have two corrupt parties that control the Congress. Whichever one is in power has as it's sole goal to remain in power. That often clouds what you and I would consider common sense.

As far as being stuck in the mud, why does what works in Europe have to be seen as what would be better for the US or vice versa? We are auto centric, that's how it is. The Euro's are more rail friendly, that's how it is. One way works here, one way works there, why would the US doing what it does be considered being stuck in the mud. I'm sure some over there would love to have our highway system.


----------



## hans280

FlyFish said:


> You are just as liable to see a route between Salt Lake City and Reno to keep two Congressional seats from going over to the opposition party. We have two corrupt parties that control the Congress. Whichever one is in power has as it's sole goal to remain in power.


Sure. Things have evolved since the well-known joke about President Cleveland and his young wife. (I don't know if you know it.) She is said to have woken her husband in the middle of the night with an elbow to his side: "Grover, wake up!! I think there are thieves in the house!" The president is supposed to have responded sleepily: "My dear, you are mistaken. The thieves are not in the House, they're in the Senate." 

However, these days - even from my remote part of the world - the politics of the House look more murky than those on the Senat floor. 



FlyFish said:


> As far as being stuck in the mud, why does what works in Europe have to be seen as what would be better for the US or vice versa? We are auto centric, that's how it is. The Euro's are more rail friendly, that's how it is. One way works here, one way works there, why would the US doing what it does be considered being stuck in the mud. I'm sure some over there would love to have our highway system.


Of course in principle there's no reason why country A should do something just because country B does it. However, this has been the argument on countless occasions here in Europe when "progressive" people pointed to recent innovation in the United States and "conservative" mainstream types scoffed at the notion that we should imitate US inventions. But... in the end we usually ended up doing just that. 

As for the US being auto-centric this is no doubt true, and it's IMO also the main reason why HSR will work only in some corners of the country where there's enough of an urban transport architecture in the main cities to persuade people to venture out without their car. On this point, at least, I think we agree? 

However, you're mistaken if you try to portray it as a choice of one versus the other, and you compound your mistake by saying that the Europeans would "love to have your highway system". Many of us do. The French highway system, for example, is IMO better than the one in the United States. Around the major cities there's not much difference - I might even give the edge to the Americans there - but out in more empty parts of the country there's no dilapidated "interstates" like the ones you see in rural and southern US states. It's all kept fresh like paint. The French don't want modern highways OR highspeed rail - they want both. (And, I must confess, they're disturbingly generous with taxpayers' money to get both.)


----------



## andrelot

First step: stop thinking or yelling that US citizens should drop their expectations of big houses, PRIVATE (not a public park!) gardens and lawns, SINGLE houses etc.

Sometimes it is almost ofensive (let alone boring) to hear Americans who have minority housing preferences (dense, multi-storied, "can walk everywhere") trying to push down the throat of their fellow citizens a transatlantic European-idealized housing pattern.

If you are so angry about US not having HSR, being car-centric, having too many suburban delvelopments, not enough "vibrancy" and the streets to the point that you start bashing your fellow countrymen for not agreeing with your urbanistic options and insisting in driving cars everywhere... move out to New York, or stamp your passport, get a visa and move to Europe.


----------



## miami305

E2rdEm said:


> You Americans are so.... outdated. :lol:
> 
> I'd say you should stick to your car-centric sprawl-increasing policy if you wish. You still have lots of land to cover with your beloved detached-housing suburbia. Just don't tell Europeans what they should do. I mean, use Google-Earth - browse through Netherlands or even Denmark. See the distance between cities. See the density. And then stop giving us such an advice...
> 
> But I won't say even that. Because there's a problem with greenhouse emissions. How do you expect to cut these if you stick to your 2x7-lanes-wide, but always congested highways? If you still refuse to cut the emissions, Europe will probably give up on the task too - I mean, how long do you expect Europe will decrease its emission just to see you (and Asia) immediately fill out the gap with your pollution?
> 
> It's sad to see the Americans just never learn.
> 
> 
> We know. In Europe we really pay at least $5/gallon of taxes. The total price is now around $7.5/gallon. :lol:


Wait a minute!! don't speak for all Americans! I for one and many others (young people) are not stuck in the past or are outdated....we want HSR now! I think it is time for the USA to give us another choice of transportation.


----------



## miami305

I will give up my Mercedes-Benz (SLK-350) if my city will provide me with HSR tomorrow!!!


----------



## xXFallenXx

miami305 said:


> I will give up my Mercedes-Benz (SLK-350) if my city will provide me with HSR tomorrow!!!


If you give me your Mercedes I'll run _really _fast with you on my back.


----------



## miami305

xXFallenXx said:


> If you give me your Mercedes I'll run _really _fast with you on my back.


:cheers:


----------



## Onn

miami305 said:


> Wait a minute!! don't speak for all Americans! I for one and many others (young people) are not stuck in the past or are outdated....we want HSR now! I think it is time for the USA to give us another choice of transportation.


I don't know, the more I think of the idea the more it doesn’t register with me. The problem with high-speed rail is it's EXPENSIVE. It's not only expensive to build, it's expensive to ride on too. And I don't see how high-speed rail is a cost effective substitute for the car, when it comes to the daily commute to work...? I mean if you want go to another major city it's great, but how often do you really do that? You don't.


----------



## hans280

FlyFish said:


> Look, we just live differently here. Your way works for you and my way for me. I commute 11 miles each way so that my family can live in a suburban development and away from the issues that urban life provides. I like it this way. When gas spiked after the hurricanes and the speculators made a rush on it I groaned like everyone else but I paid the price.


One moment, FlyFish. I live outside Paris and commute daily 14 miles each way, so I guess we're in the same boat. The main difference is, I do so by train. When my wife and I looked around for a house we chose - like everybody else in this urban sprawl - a place that was conveniently located with regards to the most direct commuter line. 

Look at it any way you like, locating yourself in an area where you cannot get around without a polluding car is NOT part of the Charter of Human Rights.


----------



## andrelot

Likewise, living only where the government deems "recommended" because it doesn't want to invest in new rail lines is not fair also.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Onn said:


> I don't know, the more I think of the idea the more it doesn’t register with me. The problem with high-speed rail is it's EXPENSIVE. It's not only expensive to build, it's expensive to ride on too. And I don't see how high-speed rail is a cost effective substitute for the car, when it comes to the daily commute to work...? I mean if you want go to another major city it's great, but how often do you really do that? You don't.


While I think the US is really, really crazy that they don't invest more in their infrastructure in general and mass transit in particular, I can't help thinking that that commuter argument is correct. 
A good public transport network on a local level can exist, and can more or less pay for itself, without having that network connected by HSR to another city's.
Having a fast, high-quality (and thus expensive) HSR line between two cities that lack such a local network - that seems a bit like building a really great Interstate highway that can only be reached by taking a tram.


----------



## hans280

^^Of course, but these days there ARE some real concerns about pollution. Consider this equivalent example: you cannot play loud music in an appartment block at 2 am and claim that this is your individual right in the name of constitutional "freedom". There's a cost to other people, and this cost you must take into account. The world is currently too polluded - chiefly because we burn too much fossile fuel - and as developing countries (!) develop it's going to get worse. 

Seeing this situation I don't think it's reasonable to jump up and down and claim to have a "right" to buy as many and as big-motored cars as you want and can afford. A particularly malicious colleague of mine (I'm a political economist) made the following little calculation: if all US SUVs and (other) 8-cylindred passenger cars were converted to VW Golfs then THIS CHANGE ALONE would reduce pollution by an amount equal to the entire annual CO2 emissions of India. (India has 1.2 billion people.) So, andrelot...

...please don't tell me that US households have a right to pollude as much as they like. They're not alone on this planet of ours. 



andrelot said:


> Danish should start adopting American patterns, not the opposite. It would boost their economy and increase conversion on uncompetitiv farmland in nice housing developments.


You seem to harbour some pretty naive preconceptions about the Danish economy? Our relatively obsessive corporatism has served the country quite well. This year there's going to be a budget deficit of 3% of GDP (11% in the US), an unemployment of 5% (10% in the US) and a per capital income around 10% above US averages. Part of the reason for this is that the government during the "seven fat years" put a lot of money aside instead of - as would have been done in a more individualistic country - immediately giving the money back to the households through tax cuts. In consequence Denmark enjoyed balanced growth instead of a fools'-party in the housing markets. The governments is now planning to spend some of its spare cash (it has net assets rather than debts...) on greatly boosting its railway infrastructure. :lol:

- Oh, and: the Danes are quite unsentimental about their farming community. Your point about converting uncompetitive farms to housing projects would be better addressed to Switzerland. Most of the Christmas trees they sell on the streets of European capitals these days are imported from Denmark. That's one thing we've been doing with marginal lands: turning them into fir tree farms. :lol:


----------



## Koen Acacia

hans280 said:


> ^^Of course, but these days there ARE some real concerns about pollution.


All the more reason to spend your money on public transport systems that can actually be used IMHO.
Without good local transport such a rail line will not be about reducing emissions, it will just be about keeping up with the Joneses.


----------



## andrelot

Well, if discussion is about pollution, I don't think we should slip into "let's live with less" leftist, environwackist discourse. Instead, we should look after ways to massively improve renewable fuels (from solar power to efficient biofuels, from wind farms to electrical and/or hydrogen powered cars). It's easier, in the long term, to move cars with clean energy than to try to "teach" Americans that they should give up on their extremelly sucessful society (not without its problems, for sure).

Developed countries must keep an economic, political and military edge over the rest of the World. Pushing for third generation clean cars is one of the ways to go. Using biofuel, in the short term, is good because most of our enimies cannot produce them, yet they will be bit by increased costs that will diminish their ability to buy arms instead of fuel or, in some cases, food - but this is a completely different discussion.


----------



## sergiogiorgini

Can't we work on both?


----------



## Nexis

For the Last time , which ive been trying to tell you guys but you don't listen , because you rather pick on the US. We are building alot of Public Transit and have alot Planned. As for High Speed Rail , public Transportation in Urban Areas has gained more traction then HSR , unfortunately. Use this site to look at some of the projects happening or planned.. And STOP with the Anti-American Crap its getting retarded and makes you look immature hno:

~Corey


----------



## FlyFish

hans280 said:


> One moment, FlyFish. I live outside Paris and commute daily 14 miles each way, so I guess we're in the same boat. The main difference is, I do so by train. When my wife and I looked around for a house we chose - like everybody else in this urban sprawl - a place that was conveniently located with regards to the most direct commuter line.
> 
> Look at it any way you like, locating yourself in an area where you cannot get around without a polluding car is NOT part of the Charter of Human Rights.


THat's just wonderful for you. You should be very proud of yourself. What would you do if you lived in a moderate sized City that didn't have trains?

Where is this Charter thing, I never got my copy. I certainly never got notice that I had to live in a certain place. And how do you know what I drive? I could be one of these tree-hugging smug as hell, look at me I care about the planet hybrid folks for all you know.

And, I call BS on your SUV to VW thing. That is a ridiculous assertion considering the actual emissions from vehicles versus that just of fuel fired power generation. Linked somewhere here on this thread is an study by actual scientists that equate electric trains to the cars they replace. It finds that the pollution reduction really isn't all that dramatic when the power is generated through fossel fuels. Your particularly malicious friend as you describe them is probably in Copenhagen right now scheming to steal money from "rich" countries to give to "poor" countries under the guise of saving the world from a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## hans280

FlyFish said:


> THat's just wonderful for you. You should be very proud of yourself.


Not at all. There's nothing to be proud of, since most of my colleagues and most of my neighbours are in the same situation. 



FlyFish said:


> What would you do if you lived in a moderate sized City that didn't have trains?


What size of city is that? I've lived in Paris (10 million inhabitants), Copenhagen (1.5 million) and Basle (250.000) and in all of them I commuted to work by means of trains. (OK, trams in the case of Basle.) 

The problem with a certain European addiction to public transport is IMO a different one (which one of the other posters on this thread alluded to): it decreases job mobility because people who own their home have optimised their location given train, tram and metro lines. I've often heard Parisian people say they'd turned down a job offer because it would gave given them a too long commute. 



FlyFish said:


> Your particularly malicious friend as you describe them is probably in Copenhagen right now scheming to steal money from "rich" countries to give to "poor" countries under the guise of saving the world from a problem that doesn't exist.


What problem doesn't exist? Increasing global pollution? You'd have to be blind to claim that problem doesn't exist. Whether that's then a source of "global warming" is of course another discussion entirely.


----------



## hkskyline

*Japan aims for US billions with bullet trains, but European rivals have head start*
16 December 2009

NAGOYA, Japan (AP) - On a desolate stretch of track just before midnight, when all passenger lines have been put to bed, a juiced-up Japanese bullet train goes online and accelerates to over 200 miles per hour. The 700-ton train, about a quarter of a mile long, whooshes by rice paddies in under five seconds.

There are no locals around to witness the train glide to a stop at a deserted Kyoto Station, but that's not the point. This is an accelerated sales pitch aimed squarely at the U.S., where Japan is competing with European train makers for a new high-speed train network that could deliver contracts worth hundreds of billions.

Diplomats, business leaders and journalists were crammed in to watch special speedometers record the feat last month, the first time operator Japan Central Railway Co. has allowed outsiders to join a test run. Rivals abroad said Japanese trains weren't up to spec, and JR Central wanted to set the record straight.

"In France and Germany they have been saying we can only do 280 kilometers (170 miles) per hour, so we had to demonstrate," says company chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai.

That Japan's bottle-nosed bullet trains -- known here as the "shinkansen" -- can hold their own against overseas models has long been a point of pride. But now a massive sales race is underway. While the majority of services to date have been built in Europe, where makers like France's Alstom and Germany's Siemens dominate, governments around the world are looking to upgrade as existing lines age.

A diverse group of countries is at various stages of introducing super trains, including Russia, the U.K., Vietnam and Brazil, but the U.S. is the ultimate prize.

President Barack Obama's stimulus package included an $8 billion provision for high-speed trains, and some say eventually $600 billion will be needed for a nationwide network. Japan's exports to the U.S. last year totaled about $140 billion.

A high speed network would drastically cut U.S. train times. The Washington to New York route would drop from two and half hours to about 70 minutes, according to Kasai. That would create a viable alternative to planes and cars, cutting down on traffic and depositing travelers at stations that are often in the city center.

Some analysts question whether cash-strapped Washington can afford to follow up the initial provision with more funds. But building new train lines can also be a vote winner, hitting political touchstones like jobs and reduced pollution.

JR Central, one of the operators created when Japan privatized its railways in 1987, is leading the charge in the U.S., but is also taking a risky winner-takes-all approach. The company is pitching a total package covering everything from train cars to signals to maintenance machinery and even employee instruction -- even though many in the industry prefer to rely on a variety of suppliers.

Few countries have the technology to safely move passengers and hundreds of tons of train so swiftly.

Japan was an early innovator, launching services in 1964 to coincide with the Tokyo Olympics. Rivals with more experience at exporting include Alstom, a world leader by market share, and Siemens, which already has a light rail factory in Sacramento. Both have 200 mph trains in Europe and have said they will pursue the rail dollars from Washington.

Japan is hoping its close political ties to the U.S. will give its sales pitch a boost. When Obama visited Tokyo last month, Japanese leader Yukio Hatoyama highlighted Japanese trains and handed over promotional DVDs.

The country has had some success abroad. Earlier this week the U.K. launched its first high-speed service using trains made by Hitachi. In Vietnam, a major recipient of Japanese government financial assistance, officials have said they want to use Japan's technology for a new train network that may include high-speed services.

JR Central runs high-speed services on the prized routes from Tokyo to Kyoto and Osaka, and designs and operates its own fleet. Bullet trains built by the company are currently used in a high-speed network in Taiwan, the first time they were sold abroad.

But that $18 billion project combines the Japanese train cars with technologies from other countries, a hodgepodge solution that JR Central wants to avoid in the U.S., because it means modifying proven technologies and a smaller paycheck.

"This is not a system that can be divided up into parts, and we are proposing adoption of the entire system," said Tsutomu Morimura, an executive in charge of JR Central's technology division.

Morimura says this is the only way to employ the company's advanced technology and guarantee a safe and efficient system. Rail experts agree that Japan's train tech is among the best in the world, but wonder whether an all-or-nothing approach will work in the U.S.

"If you rely totally and completely on a single country, when a problem arises there is a lot of risk, so the fundamental stance of many buyers is not to rely on the technology from one country," said Credit Suisse analyst Osuke Itazaki.

Robert Eckels, chairman of the Texas High Speed Rail Corp. that works to bring such a system to the state, was present at the demonstration in Japan. He was impressed but wasn't sure how the company's all-in-one pitch would play out in the states.

Unlike in Europe, where border crossings and ensuring compatibility on differing rail networks are prerequisites for doing business, Japan's trains have been developed on an island, with homebrew technology. Other Japanese industries with enviable but non-compatible technologies, like its mobile phone operators, haven't fared well in repeated attempts to go abroad.

Another wrinkle: Japan's high-speed trains run on their own tracks, with no crossings and dedicated bridges over crowded areas. Building such lines from scratch in the U.S. would be costly, but executives like Morimura say it's an advantage to be unconstrained by the standards of conventional networks.

Bullet trains do have an impressive history. No passengers have died from a derailment or collision in nearly a half century of service, with the only derailment during a major earthquake in 2004. The average delay for JR Central services each year, despite hundreds of trains each day, is typically less than a minute.

For Japan, billions in contracts would be a welcome boost as the economy begins to recover from recession, and help stir national pride. The "shinkansen" are a symbol of the country's technological prowess here, where services have names like "Hope" and "Light," and miniature replicas are popular among children.

When one of the original trains was retired and put on display at a museum on the outskirts of Tokyo earlier this year, some 16,000 visitors crammed in during the first week to take pictures and rub its elongated nose.


----------



## Onn

Koen Acacia said:


> While I think the US is really, really crazy that they don't invest more in their infrastructure in general and mass transit in particular, I can't help thinking that that commuter argument is correct.
> A good public transport network on a local level can exist, and can more or less pay for itself, without having that network connected by HSR to another city's.
> Having a fast, high-quality (and thus expensive) HSR line between two cities that lack such a local network - that seems a bit like building a really great Interstate highway that can only be reached by taking a tram.


Maybe Eisenhower was right, wouldn't that be something. :lol:

But I think we should take a "wait and see" approach on high-speed rail in California before we go nationwide. I want to see just how effective it's going to be. American's don't take very well to any travel other than car already, is it even worth going that far? I agree mass transit needs to be built up, yet we can do that other ways than going high-speed. I think simple passenger trains would be very beneficial in many places.


----------



## dl3000

First build where it's needed. I can say California can really use the modal variety. As for what technology, Japanese have experience with earthquakes no doubt, but Alstom had their foot in the door long before. Original renderings (though not indicative of the future) featured the TGV Duplex, so Alstom was definitely on the minds of the HSR Authority board long before anyone else.


----------



## andrelot

Maybe with the current health care debate, some Senator will make a compromise like voting for Health Care reform bill in exchange for a HSR linking Boise and Des Moines.


----------



## enkay

Although that would be awesome, it probably wont happen, considering that the folks against the the Health Care bill aren't likely to be keen on HSR either.


----------



## mattec

HSR isn't cost effective, driving will be cheaper... Not to mention we cannot afford to spend hudreds of billions of dollars to build the infrastructure in the first place.


----------



## Matthieu

mattec said:


> HSR isn't cost effective, driving will be cheaper... Not to mention we cannot afford to spend hudreds of billions of dollars to build the infrastructure in the first place.


But you can to bailout banks or to finance a controversial war. Sometimes I don't understand people's reasoning, we're talking of a long term investment not some leisure spending trend.


----------



## Onn

Matthieu said:


> But you can to bailout banks or to finance a controversial war. Sometimes I don't understand people's reasoning, we're talking of a long term investment not some leisure spending trend.


We'll only spend on it if it's going to work, and I think the feeling is it probably won't here. The US is not Europe, Japan, or China...which are very tightly built countries and societies. We already built an entire transit system here decades ago, and today car travel is still cheaper than high-speed rail. If we spend all our money on high-speed rail we're going to miss out on the next big thing. Most parts of the country don't even need it, and frankly paying 110 dollars to go from San Francisco to LA one way is appalling.


----------



## dl3000

mattec said:


> HSR isn't cost effective, driving will be cheaper... Not to mention we cannot afford to spend hudreds of billions of dollars to build the infrastructure in the first place.


Is this ironic or ignorant? How do you think they build roads or do you propose everyone drives ATV's so you dont have to spend billions on infrastructure?


----------



## Nexis

We need HSR , but i think is what going to happen is Expansion or Building of Mass Transit and commuter lines first , then 4 or 7 HSL in 10 years , that seems to be happening here.

Heres a Video of the Northeast Corridor 150 mph zone.


----------



## Slartibartfas

andrelot said:


> There is no obsession. I like suburban developments, I see no problem on they being car-centric, but it is under attack from the "cool", "urban-tendy" camp of environwackos and so on. There is no inherently problem with car transportation, for sake! Many peoplw write here like cars, big lots and single houses were essentialy bad because they are "non-European". I guess that, given an opportunity, these people would raise gas taxes to US$ 1/gal.


The point is that suburbs don't have to be totally car centric, not at all. While I like the European style of a city, I do not write the way I do because I am a euronationalist nuthead. A walkable mixed use neighborhood with great PT access is simply a completely different quality of life than car centric suburbia.

While I am living in Vienna, I come from the country side. Suburbia seems to me like combining the disadvantages of both the countryside and the city with each other. But thats not the point here, the point is that even if you want a life in a boring neighborhood with lots of green around, no where is it written that it has to be hostile to pedestrians. You can create suburbs also in a way to make them accessible for PT. 

The funny thing is btw, that while fuel is much more expensive in Europe than in the US this is compensated to a very lalge extend by far more efficient cars on average. So actually people are not less mobile, they are more efficient, my point is that the US Americans will follow at some point because eventually they will realize that they can't afford wasting resources and money to such a big extend as they are doing now.


----------



## Xusein

mattec said:


> HSR isn't cost effective, driving will be cheaper... Not to mention we cannot afford to spend hudreds of billions of dollars to build the infrastructure in the first place.


What kind of infrastructure _is _cost-effective? Please don't say highways or driving, because they definitely are NOT.


----------



## mattec

Xusein said:


> What kind of infrastructure _is _cost-effective? Please don't say highways or driving, because they definitely are NOT.


Well, we already have the system in place, so as of right now, I would say it's cheaper than installing a whole new system.


----------



## Nexis

High Speed Rail Can work in The Most of the Midwest & the Texas Network, there is demand there. I don't know anyone these days who flavors Roads over Rail for future mass building. Most of our Roads aren't tolled, and bring nothing but more pollution & Noise to our cities in Suburbs , our Rail Network is growing. Have you seen the Utah , New Mexico , and Minnesota New Commuter Rail Projects , they are slowly but steadily pulling off Cars and people off , they have been successful so far even though the numbers are small for now wait till the economy picks up. Georgia , Kentucky , Oklahoma , Florida are all discussing expanding are building a commuter Rail network. So maybe you should study things before you make , weak claims that it won't work , the key thing is Time.

~Corey


----------



## Xusein

mattec said:


> Well, we already have the system in place, so as of right now, I would say it's cheaper than installing a whole new system.


Not really. :lol:

Well, highways like all our infrastructure in general is currently aging rapidly and will need several tens of billions to be updated. Bridges, flyovers, and even entire highways will need entire rebuilding if anyone wants to see them viable in the years ahead, all that good stuff won't be cheap by any means. 

Actually compared to all that work (which will be done regardless of HSR projects anyway, don't want another Minneapolis bridge situation), putting money in HSR will be a drop in the bucket, literally. Nobody even knows how much it cost to update the entire Interstate Highway System to a 21st century standard, but it's known that it would be really really expensive!


----------



## Onn

Xusein said:


> Not really. :lol:
> 
> Well, highways like all our infrastructure in general is currently aging rapidly and will need several tens of billions to be updated. Bridges, flyovers, and even entire highways will need entire rebuilding if anyone wants to see them viable in the years ahead, all that good stuff won't be cheap by any means.Actually compared to all that work (which will be done regardless of HSR projects anyway, don't want another Minneapolis bridge situation), putting money in HSR will be a drop in the bucket, literally. Nobody even knows how much it cost to update the entire Interstate Highway System to a 21st century standard, but it's known that it would be really really expensive!


Yeah...but where are the problems? I'm not sure I see them, maybe if your in more rural areas. But large metropolitan areas are fine, there is no need for billions of dollars to fix things. It's already been spent in most places, there aren't any radical changes that need to take place. Bridges yes, but it depends where you are. I don't see any problems with the interstate system in my own state. State and city governments continuously spend money to keep up most roads. Your talking like nothing's been done here since the 70s. How do you define a 21st century interstate system? The Minnesota bridge collapse had little to do with the fact that’s it was built in the 20th century, and more to do with the fact it was flawed design. The bridge really could have collapsed at any time since it was built. Maybe they are building a 21 century interstate system in China, but it's also been very expensive for the government and very expensive for people to use. In fact, the US probably has one of the best all around “interstate” highway systems in the world. I'll stand by that comment.


----------



## Nexis

Onn said:


> Yeah...but where are the problems? I'm not sure I see them, maybe if your in more rural areas. But large metropolitan areas are fine, there is no need for billions of dollars to fix things. It's already been spent in most places, there aren't any radical changes that need to take place. Bridges yes, but it depends where you are. I don't see any problems with the interstate system in my own state. State and city governments continuously spend money to keep up most roads. Your talking like nothing's been done here since the 70s. How do you define a 21st century interstate system? The Minnesota bridge collapse had little to do with the fact that’s it was built in the 20th century, and more to do with the fact it was flawed design. The bridge really could have collapsed at any time since it was built. Maybe they are building a 21 century interstate system in China, but it's also been very expensive for the government and very expensive for people to use. In fact, the US probably has one of the best all around “interstate” highway systems in the world. I'll stand by that comment.


Yes i agree with you its a nice system , but regional & High Speed Rail are needed , becuz in the coming decades , more and more people are going to be against widening our Highway system in Suburban & Urban areas and for Rail Projects. We see it slowy happening all over the US & Canada. People when give the option will take mass Transit & Rail over car , if it saves them a Headache or costs less, so ONN it don't really get your perspective? It doesn't make any sense to continue to add to system , what we need now and are slowy building is a Interstate Passenger Rail Service. Half Electric & half Diesel.

~Corey


----------



## Snowguy716

Onn, you're absolutely wrong.

The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed due to poor maintenance. Yes, the design was flawed.. but given the proper inspections and maintenance, it was still usable.

The design flaw was that the bridge relied to heavily on gusset plates to hold the joints together at the support pillars. Those plates weren't thick enough and due to heavy corrosion and cracking from weather, weight stress, and of all things, pigeon poop, one of them failed.

Unfortunately, the bridge was not designed to be redundant.. so if one piece fails, the whole bridge falls.

Perhaps the interstates in your state are fine. But honestly.. who are you or I to say whether they're fine or not. I'll leave that to the engineers and not to your anecdotal evidence.

Either way, high speed rail WILL be built in this country and it will provide us with better options. While the baby boomers sure love their cars.. they aren't going to be able to drive them forever.. a true "individualistic" statement of the "ME ME ME!" generation.. but young people want options. We want fast, efficient, clean transportation in an age when oil prices will rise out of control.

But judging from your post above (and forgive me if I'm completely wrong), you probably believe oil is an endless resource and that prices will settle down to $1.50/gallon forever and ever and that the only solutions we need to transportation and congestion is to rip out more homes and businesses (as long as they're not yours.. right?) and widen those freeways so you can be "whisked" (at relatively low speeds compared to rail) to work.

As things are going, for every one of you, there are two of me and change will come. Freeways will no longer be front and center, but a part of a multi-faceted approach to transportation in this nation.

The world is too unstable these days to carelessly throw all of our eggs into the "car" basket.


----------



## Onn

Snowguy716 said:


> Onn, you're absolutely wrong.
> 
> The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed due to poor maintenance. Yes, the design was flawed.. but given the proper inspections and maintenance, it was still usable.
> 
> The design flaw was that the bridge relied to heavily on gusset plates to hold the joints together at the support pillars. Those plates weren't thick enough and due to heavy corrosion and cracking from weather, weight stress, and of all things, pigeon poop, one of them failed.
> 
> Unfortunately, the bridge was not designed to be redundant.. so if one piece fails, the whole bridge falls.
> 
> Perhaps the interstates in your state are fine. But honestly.. who are you or I to say whether they're fine or not. I'll leave that to the engineers and not to your anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Either way, high speed rail WILL be built in this country and it will provide us with better options. While the baby boomers sure love their cars.. they aren't going to be able to drive them forever.. a true "individualistic" statement of the "ME ME ME!" generation.. but young people want options. We want fast, efficient, clean transportation in an age when oil prices will rise out of control.
> 
> But judging from your post above (and forgive me if I'm completely wrong), you probably believe oil is an endless resource and that prices will settle down to $1.50/gallon forever and ever and that the only solutions we need to transportation and congestion is to rip out more homes and businesses (as long as they're not yours.. right?) and widen those freeways so you can be "whisked" (at relatively low speeds compared to rail) to work.
> 
> As things are going, for every one of you, there are two of me and change will come. Freeways will no longer be front and center, but a part of a multi-faceted approach to transportation in this nation.
> 
> The world is too unstable these days to carelessly throw all of our eggs into the "car" basket.


You are way out of control, there's NOTHING wrong with the system! Oil is still far cheaper than high-speed rail, nothing is going to change that in the next 40 years! Use your eyes and ears and stop being ridiculous! The Minnesota bridge wouldn't have collapsed if weren't for the stupid design!


----------



## Onn

Nexis said:


> Yes i agree with you its a nice system , but regional & High Speed Rail are needed , becuz in the coming decades , more and more people are going to be against widening our Highway system in Suburban & Urban areas and for Rail Projects. We see it slowy happening all over the US & Canada. People when give the option will take mass Transit & Rail over car , if it saves them a Headache or costs less, so ONN it don't really get your perspective? It doesn't make any sense to continue to add to system , what we need now and are slowy building is a Interstate Passenger Rail Service. Half Electric & half Diesel.
> 
> ~Corey


We don't need to "widen" the system, there's plenty of capacity! The US is in NO WAY China, Europe or Japan! So people can shut their mouth, this country is huge! Rail travel needs to happen, but it doesn’t need to be high-speed to be effective! Rail travel is not the future either, there is another solution that is not nearly as costly to the government.


----------



## Nexis

Onn said:


> We don't need to "widen" the system, there's plenty of capacity! The US is in NO WAY China, Europe or Japan! So people can shut their mouth, this country is huge! Rail travel needs to happen, but it doesn’t need to be high-speed to be effective! Rail travel is not the future either, there is another solution that is not nearly as costly to the government.


I can't beleave i'm this form an American on Skyscrapercity , HSR is the future. Although i Think we should build another Pilot line. DC to Atlanta via Richmond & Charlotte an Ext of the NEC. Onn , our Oil dependency has caused us war, and whenever theres a Natural Disaster oil goes up. It isn't feasible to keep relaying on Oil. Most people have realized that, thats why were building cleaner Energy Sources all around the US & Canada. Where do you live Onn?

~Corey


----------



## Xusein

Onn said:


> Yeah...but where are the problems? I'm not sure I see them, maybe if your in more rural areas. But large metropolitan areas are fine, there is no need for billions of dollars to fix things. It's already been spent in most places, there aren't any radical changes that need to take place. Bridges yes, but it depends where you are. I don't see any problems with the interstate system in my own state. State and city governments continuously spend money to keep up most roads. Your talking like nothing's been done here since the 70s. How do you define a 21st century interstate system? The Minnesota bridge collapse had little to do with the fact that’s it was built in the 20th century, and more to do with the fact it was flawed design. The bridge really could have collapsed at any time since it was built. Maybe they are building a 21 century interstate system in China, but it's also been very expensive for the government and very expensive for people to use. In fact, the US probably has one of the best all around “interstate” highway systems in the world. I'll stand by that comment.


Interesting analysis, let me retort...

The Interstate Highway System, for the most part, is a successful highway system that does it's job well in most areas. 

However, it's beginning to show it's age in many areas. There are several bridges in every single state that is in dire need of repairing. The Minneapolis bridge's structural deficiency was known for several years, and there are 150k bridges (or 25% of the total) that are structurally deficient...replacing them isn't going to be "cheap" by any means. There is a common argument that we won't be able to afford HSR, but will we be able to afford updating highways either? LOL, it is a rock and a hard place.

Add this with the fact that the highway system is already functionally outdated in some metropolitan areas (like LA, NYC, DC, Atlanta...). Many highways that have been built in some places were built for a certain number of cars. As the population increases, the congestion will get worse and worse unless we change the status quo.

I'm from Connecticut, where we have I-95. It is a nightmare during the rush hour not only because of commuters going to NYC, but because it is a major trucking route down the entire Eastern Seaboard, 90% of all the freight down this corridor is done by truck, not rail. The no-brainer would be to widen lanes, but the state can't even do that because of cost of land in this area is one of the highest in the nation. So they have no choice but to try to update the rail network, which too is heavily outdated and overcrowded. The state shot itself in the foot in the past by not fixing both when the situation was relatively stable. Ironically, there have been several accidents in the past and they still didn't heed the warnings of the fact that the highway is choking trade and hurting us economically. Only now are there ideas of updating the commuter rail network (no HSR yet).

When I talk about a "21st century interstate highway system", I am referring to a highway system that can adequately take on the growing demands of transport in the future. Some states and cities are lucky because they have relatively small populations and/or less dense surrounding as well as lower costs to make it easier for them to do well as far as updating is concerned. But not all, and many of them that aren't are our largest and more important cities. Unless many billions are spend on updates, I can't see our highway system realistically amounting to much around 2025, at least here in the Northeast.

As far as HSR plays into the question, nobody (and I guess myself) is saying that it will replace the car or highways as the premier mode of travel in this country, but a diversification of modes of travel, like more HSR, stronger commuter rail and public transportation, would help put a load off our highway system and we could tackle the problems of congestion and infrastructure aging better if we could get it done in areas where there is already enough demand for it to be feasible. We aren't asking for a giant network going to NYC or LA or whatever, but something like NYC to DC or Boston, that's what should be where it can be needed.


----------



## Xusein

Onn said:


> We don't need to "widen" the system, there's plenty of capacity! The US is in NO WAY China, Europe or Japan! So people can shut their mouth, this country is huge! Rail travel needs to happen, but it doesn’t need to be high-speed to be effective! Rail travel is not the future either, there is another solution that is not nearly as costly to the government.


What's with the defensiveness? :dunno:

The future is a more diversified transportation network that can deal with the growing demands of the future. It isn't an "either, or" equation. Rail and Road are not "enemies". We should be looking for something that could suit our needs the most efficiently, not look for the cheapest way out.


----------



## Onn

Xusein said:


> However, it's beginning to show it's age in many areas. There are several bridges in every single state that is in dire need of repairing. The Minneapolis bridge's structural deficiency was known for several years, and there are 150k bridges (or 25% of the total) that are structurally deficient...replacing them isn't going to be "cheap" by any means. There is a common argument that we won't be able to afford HSR, but will we be able to afford updating highways either? LOL, it is a rock and a hard place.


Well that's great, but how much of the interstate highway system is really made up of bridges? They are mostly in rural areas where no one lives and the amount stress that would take to crack them doesn't come close. We could certainly afford HSR, Obama had an opportunity to do that. He didn't, so it leads me to believe he thinks we don't need it. And I back his point of view. I think you guys are a little crazy, the system still got plenty of juice left. I don’t know about Cali, but in Texas there has been a lot of expanding of highways and the like.



> Add this with the fact that the highway system is already functionally outdated in some metropolitan areas (like LA, NYC, DC, Atlanta...). Many highways that have been built in some places were built for a certain number of cars. As the population increases, the congestion will get worse and worse unless we change the status quo.


Same EXACT thing in China! Expect we don't have as many people...yet. I agree rail travel in many places is needed, by I'm not set on high-speed. And I don't necessarily think the federal government has to play as big of a role of in doing it as you seem to suggest. All of California’s mass transit that has been built recently (subways, computer rails, and HSR) have all been funded by the state. Now I get that that state's bankrupt, but that just means they took off more than they could chew too quickly.



> I'm from Connecticut, where we have I-95. It is a nightmare during the rush hour not only because of commuters going to NYC, but because it is a major trucking route down the entire Eastern Seaboard, 90% of all the freight down this corridor is done by truck, not rail. The no-brainer would be to widen lanes, but the state can't even do that because of cost of land in this area is one of the highest in the nation. So they have no choice but to try to update the rail network, which too is heavily outdated and overcrowded. The state shot itself in the foot in the past by not fixing both when the situation was relatively stable. Ironically, there have been several accidents in the past and they still didn't heed the warnings of the fact that the highway is choking trade and hurting us economically. Only now are there ideas of updating the commuter rail network (no HSR yet).


I don't know, I think if you went back in time you would have found it was the same back then. The major established metro areas around the country have been established for a long time now, it's not like traffic jams are something new to the country. Yes, there probably is a better way of doing it, for some. I can't say rail travel would be good for everyone, it depends where you live. Trains aren't going to go rolling through massive sub divisions, which are very common here in the Midwest. You have to work with what you have. America's sprawl is in many cases to blame, I get it. But that's not something we can reverse right now, it's going to take time to build up intercity cites. New England is a tricky area to navigate, with small states and lots of people, and home to financial hub of the world. But again, it depends where you are. New England is a tiny part of the US, here in the Midwest they've built a lot of new bridges in the last 10 years and spending on road infrastructure has been very high. During this downturn things are bad for the state government, but they aren't that bad. I would go as far to say as the stimulus package has been funding things that didn't even need to be done.

I mean, the state built a new 14 million dollar bridge just down the road from my own house long before the recession hit. It won an architectural award even. I can think of very few examples of decayed infrastructure here, or in the surrounding states. Granted, the Midwest is flat. But that means there are fewer bridges too, less decay in general.



> When I talk about a "21st century interstate highway system", I am referring to a highway system that can adequately take on the growing demands of transport in the future. Some states and cities are lucky because they have relatively small populations and/or less dense surrounding as well as lower costs to make it easier for them to do well as far as updating is concerned. But not all, and many of them that aren't are our largest and more important cities. Unless many billions are spend on updates, I can't see our highway system realistically amounting to much around 2025, at least here in the Northeast.


But I think you would find it the same 30 years ago, I'm not sure anything has changed. I'm not sure how worse it's gotten. Yes the Northeast has a big problem, I've heard Washington DC is a huge mess now because it wasn't built to handle as many people as it has today. I understand, what do you want me to say? I live in a one of the countries largest metro areas where there isn't even bus support. And yes, we do have traffic jams too during rush hours. But it wasn't any different back in the day either from what I hear. And traffic jams are becoming a signature around the world today, they are in no way limited to the US anymore. If the rest of the world can't get rid of them how on earth do we plan to do that? Even our best efforts at mass transit likely would not be enough. States like New York are waking up to reality that something has to be done, but it's no small task.



> As far as HSR plays into the question, nobody (and I guess myself) is saying that it will replace the car or highways as the premier mode of travel in this country, but a diversification of modes of travel, like more HSR, stronger commuter rail and public transportation, would help put a load off our highway system and we could tackle the problems of congestion and infrastructure aging better if we could get it done in areas where there is already enough demand for it to be feasible. We aren't asking for a giant network going to NYC or LA or whatever, but something like NYC to DC or Boston, that's what should be where it can be needed.


Absolutely, I agree. But I don't think it matters what they do things are still going to be overcrowded and people are always going to complain about something. There's no easy way to get a mass amount of people from Point A to Point B. 

What would Obama say….there's no sliver bullet. :lol:


----------



## Onn

Xusein said:


> What's with the defensiveness? :dunno:
> 
> The future is a more diversified transportation network that can deal with the growing demands of the future. It isn't an "either, or" equation. Rail and Road are not "enemies". We should be looking for something that could suit our needs the most efficiently, not look for the cheapest way out.


The future is air travel, not ground travel. People don't get it. Diversified transportation is nothing more than a fad of the beginning of the 21st century. There's a reason street cars were rejected the first time around. People want something that works. The problem is the technology is not their yet, at least not outside the furthest reaches of the military and NASA. The advantage of air travel is that air is free, it doesn’t cost anything to maintain. And as long as oil continues to be cheaper than high-speed rail, I see no reason to change. We should milk it for all its worth while we can, and I'd say another 40 years is not out of the question for much of the US. Eventually the baton will be passed to something else however, and it will almost certainly originate in the US, not the tight confines of Asian and European cities. There could be easier ways to go from state to state without planes or high-speed rail.


----------



## mattec

Here's a good article:

http://newsroanoke.com/?p=3191

Passenger Rail for Roanoke is Too Costly, Used by Too Few

Earlier this month, a representative from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation was in Roanoke to discuss the possibility of passenger rail for the Roanoke Valley. I know lots of well-intentioned people like the idea of rail service connecting the valley to other Virginia cities and Washington (I was one of them once), but a look at the facts shows it’s not necessarily a good idea. Ample research shows that rail is entirely too expensive for taxpayers to shuttle around the few who would use it, and rail is not the panacea for traffic congestion, high gas prices, and “greenhouse gas” emissions.


Using data published by the U.S. departments of Transportation, Energy, and Commerce, the American Dream Coalition (ADC) – along with renowned transportation expert Randal O’Toole – has debunked many of the overstated claims we are hearing about passenger rail.

We are often told that rail is a more affordable alternative to cars. But in fact, to make rail ticket prices at all competitive with driving, we taxpayers must heavily subsidize them. According to the ADC study, in per passenger mile comparisons, taking all costs – including taxpayer subsidies – in to consideration, auto travel costs about 23 cents per mile, while Amtrak is 56 cents per mile, and bus is 85 cents!

The cost for linking Roanoke to Lynchburg is estimated to be $117 million by the time it may happen in 2015. As with any other construction project – especially a government project which will be fraught with typical governmental delays and estimating errors – add at least 50% to that number (bringing it to $175 million). Add to that an annual operational subsidy from taxpayers in the millions, because the revenue generated from ticket sales won’t ever cover the cost of fuel and maintenance of the trains and tracks (the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation acknowledges this).

While we often think of rail as convenient and affordable, the reality is that many people can’t use it. This is because the train schedules don’t fit their schedules, the trains don’t go to the destinations they want, or the people need cars when they get to their destinations, and the cost of a train ticket plus rental car is higher than the cost and convenience of driving. So, in the end, a very small percentage of the population actually uses rail where it is available. All taxpayers end up subsidizing rail travel for a few.

It would be cheaper just to buy a fleet of limousines and pay chauffeurs to drive those rail travelers to their destinations. If taxpayers wouldn’t approve of paying to shuttle people around in limos, then why on earth should they approve of the more expensive option of rail?

What about energy savings? Per passenger mile, rail uses only slightly less energy than cars. So the conservation with rail is minimal; and if you’re driving a hybrid car, you’ve got rail beat.

Can passenger rail cut greenhouse gas emissions? I don’t even like this question, because in my previous columns, I pointed to research which shows that “greenhouse gases” emitted by human activity have a negligible effect on the environment (remember that it’s the cycles of the sun which have the greatest effect on our global temperature changes). But, I’ll answer the question anyway. Most public transit emits as much carbon dioxide per passenger mile as driving cars, especially when you include the gases emitted during the construction of the transit system. However, again, no mode produces less CO2 than hybrid cars.

Won’t rail cut traffic congestion? The ADC report shows that people tend to choose cars over other forms of transportation, even when gas prices were as high as four dollars a gallon. This is again because most transit systems, except in the largest cities, “cannot take people where they want to go, when they want to go there.” Even in Europe, where we think mass transit is used significantly more, Europeans drive for about 79% of their travel (compared to Americans 85%).

So, if studies are showing that passenger rail isn’t more efficient, isn’t more earth-friendly, doesn’t really slow congestion, AND will cost you and me hundreds of millions of dollars, why would we think that it’s a good investment for the valley?

By Brian Gottstein
[email protected]
You can see the full report, “Rails Won’t Save America,” on the ADC website at www.AmericanDreamCoalition.org.


----------



## Xusein

^ Errr, what's your point of bringing up that up, it just reiterates the usual weak talking points that don't hold much water in reality. "It's expensive", "we live in a big country", yeah...is he even a transportation expert or does he know about the massive subsidization that the highways get? I noticed that the author is a libertarian, btw, obviously he wouldn't support anything like this anyway because they hate anything that deals with government. 



Onn said:


> Well that's great, but how much of the interstate highway system is really made up of bridges? They are mostly in rural areas where no one lives and the amount stress that would take to crack them doesn't come close. We could certainly afford HSR, Obama had an opportunity to do that. He didn't, so it leads me to believe he thinks we don't need it. And I back his point of view. I think you guys are a little crazy, the system still got plenty of juice left. I don’t know about Cali, but in Texas there has been a lot of expanding of highways and the like.


We're crazy...? I hope you know that congestion and questions about the future highway system are some of the most talked about subjects in the transportation field. This is not a fringe topic by any means...I did my college thesis on the subject actually. 

Bridges are an integral part of the highway system regardless. It doesn't matter how much of a percentage that they are of the entire network. Even in Texas, officials are pondering about improving rail and putting HSR while doing those highway plans. 



> Same EXACT thing in China! Expect we don't have as many people...yet. I agree rail travel in many places is needed, by I'm not set on high-speed. And I don't necessarily think the federal government has to play as big of a role of in doing it as you seem to suggest. All of California’s mass transit that has been built recently (subways, computer rails, and HSR) have all been funded by the state. Now I get that that state's bankrupt, but that just means they took off more than they could chew too quickly.


I never suggested that the federal government has to play the biggest role, but they have the biggest resources so they will ultimately play an influential role regardless of the circumstances. If the state and even private companies can do the job, good.



> I don't know, I think if you went back in time you would have found it was the same back then. The major established metro areas around the country have been established for a long time now, it's not like traffic jams are something new to the country. Yes, there probably is a better way of doing it, for some. I can't say rail travel would be good for everyone, it depends where you live. Trains aren't going to go rolling through massive sub divisions, which are very common here in the Midwest.


I was speaking from a Northeastern perspective. We already have the infrastructure, it needs updating, but it exists. If you guys in the Midwest want to stick to cars and highways, go ahead, at least there the congestion is not as bad. In Connecticut and other East Coast states, they are not as lucky to just dismiss it, they have no choice. 




> But I think you would find it the same 30 years ago, I'm not sure anything has changed. I'm not sure how worse it's gotten. Yes the Northeast has a big problem, I've heard Washington DC is a huge mess now because it wasn't built to handle as many people as it has today.


The same problems have existed back then and all the government did was twiddle their thumbs and now it's worse. There are millions more people and millions more cars on the road, and it will continue to be like that. If you can't see that as a problem, I don't know what to say.




Onn said:


> The future is air travel, not ground travel. People don't get it. Diversified transportation is nothing more than a fad of the beginning of the 21st century. There's a reason street cars were rejected the first time around. People want something that works. The problem is the technology is not their yet, at least not outside the furthest reaches of the military and NASA. The advantage of air travel is that air is free, it doesn’t cost anything to maintain. And as long as oil continues to be cheaper than high-speed rail, I see no reason to change. We should milk it for all its worth while we can, and I'd say another 40 years is not out of the question for much of the US. Eventually the baton will be passed to something else however, and it will almost certainly originate in the US, not the tight confines of Asian and European cities. There could be easier ways to go from state to state without planes or high-speed rail.


Air travel is not feasible for the East Coast cities which are close enough that going to the airport and dealing with checkout/security actually adds time to travel. Most people don't go on a plane between New York to Boston. They either drive, go on Acela, or take the many bus options out there. 

Either way, that is more of a long-distance thing you are referring to. For commutes and smaller distance traveling between cities, ground transportation that is a mix of private and public transportation is the key, with the infrastructure that can adequately support it. The plane's evolution never was in opposition to ground transport, although it ruined cross country rail services.


----------



## Ranor

I think the cost issue of HSR will be smaller in the future because gas/oil prices cannot stay it the low level that they are now. The economies of China and India are still growing and there demand for oil is still going up. If we add to this that the rest of the developed world will also demand more oil as there economies recover it is clear that cheap gas is a thing of the past. HSR can bring relief on those medium distance routes where it is more viable than airplanes. 

Also on the matter of government involvement, I have never understood why Americans are so allergic to any form of government involvement in rail travel for example. you don't ask airlines to build there own infrastructure and you don't ask greyhound companies to build there own highways so why rail.


----------



## FlyFish

Ranor said:


> Also on the matter of government involvement, I have never understood why Americans are so allergic to any form of government involvement in rail travel for example. you don't ask airlines to build there own infrastructure and you don't ask greyhound companies to build there own highways so why rail.


UGH, one last time. We who are "allergic" are allergic because they screw up everything they touch. Libertarians like myself and the guy who wrote that edictorial shown above do not want this Government to spend money it does not have. It has nothing to do with rail specifically, it has to do with the fact that our beloved Government (BOTH PARTIES) is bankrupting this great nation and it seems that very few of us care. We don't hate the Government, but we also don't trust it to do the right thing. Right now the US Government is destroying this nation. Not Wall Street, not terrorists, not any of the usual suspects, the US Government.

You Euros do not have the same view of strong central government that we do. Who is right? Who knows? The point is that our Government is spending something on the order of 1.4 TRILLION dollars more than it is taking in. I'll bet you folks in France can't say that. It is criminal but no one cares as long as they get some (see Sens Ben Nelson and Mary Landreau and their yes votes on the health care issue). How long can that be sustained? Every President since Reagan has said we need to stop spending money we don't have, but no one ever does. We have a terrific infrastructure here that is in the middle stages of crumbling. If we have the money to spend on infrastructure we need to spend it on rehabilitating what we have, not on starting over again.

The left will say, raise taxes. Oh they don't want thier taxes raised, just on the evil rich. Fine, but that is counterproductive. You raise revenues on the short term but you take the economy down the toilet by taking money out of the system. The right says lower taxes. That actually works better since every time it has been tried tax revenues actually went up after two years or so. But that only helps the big picture if Congress can stop its spending spree and they can't.

HSR rail is an awesome concerpt, but don't confuse opposition of it to be opposition of passenger rail. Most of the opposition is based on the fact that we just can't afford it and that this Government will screw it up.


----------



## Nexis

Wow , you certain don't want this , I do. Traffic is a Nitemare in the Northeastern , and Airports are overcrowded. ONN you don't live here , you probably live somewhere Rural. During this recent Snowstorm the only thing that was moving slightly was Amtrak , The Airliners & Roads were clogged & Shut down. The Northeast ins't building anymore HSR lines but were building like i said High Speed Commuter Lines. Lackawanna Cutoff Restoration , Connect NYC-Scranton PA , expected to be used by 30-50,000 people daily , it will be electric , top speed 130 on straight sections. CT is building a Central Corridor to relive traffic on I-91 : New Haven-Hartford-Springfield line, for now its a diesel start up , with Electrification a few years after. about 20-40,000 expected to use this line. Electrification of the Downeaster : Boston-Portland,ME. bringing speeds up to 110 aswell and adding a commuter service , as an alt to Amtrak. 10-20,000 expected to use this. Theres also plans and funding to restore some old SEPTA lines , Norristown-Reading to re leave Traffic on US 422 & Dolyestown-Bethlehem to provide a safer and less Congestion trip to the New Casinos and Retail space. 12,000 expected to use this daily. ONN you see we like Transit in the Northeast. Next year a projects will open, further reliving stress on the Road. Need i say more , and Harrisburg is adding Passenger Service along the Keystone Corridor between Harrisburg-Lancaster. The other Day when we got hit by that Snowstorm some of the Domestic Airliners allowed passengers to exchange there tickets for Amtrak. So ONN get you facts straight and come here to see how things work in a more Transit Friendly environment. Did i mention that close to 2.4 million New Jerseyites use Transit Each Day. 

Here's some Videos

Amtrak's pass a NJT Train at Edison Station along the Northeast Corridor






Amtrak Acela's at Kingston,RI











Hamilton,NJ NJT / Amtrak







Princeton JCT,NJ NJT/ Amtrak 











*~Corey*


----------



## Slartibartfas

Onn said:


> The future is air travel, not ground travel. People don't get it. Diversified transportation is nothing more than a fad of the beginning of the 21st century. There's a reason street cars were rejected the first time around. People want something that works. The problem is the technology is not their yet, at least not outside the furthest reaches of the military and NASA. The advantage of air travel is that air is free, it doesn’t cost anything to maintain.


A pretty naive view of the world. 

First of all, while air is for free, airports are not. In aviation the infrastructure costs are simply more concentrated in one area rather than spread along a track. The rest of the difference is easily made up by higher energy consumption, as the planes have to climb several km each time they fly and have to be kept in the air as well and then the turbines used today are not the most efficient thing on earth either. But most importantly, capacity of air travel is quite limited. 

Every wondered why HSR shows to be highly competitive on distances of around or below 1000 km? London-Paris, only masochists still fly between both capitals. Paris-Lyon-Marseilles? Whats the most likely choice of transportation? Madrid-Barcelona or Madrid-Malaga? What would you take?

On the route Paris-Lyon they even have to use double decker TGVs on a regular basis with 1100 seats per double traction. 4 Trains are running per hour on this connection. ... and now show me how airports would have to look like to cope with such capacities and not as total capacity, thats just the capacity of one route departing from Paris.


Having that said, aviation makes perfectly sense, for distances larger than lets say 1500 km, airports will struggle to cope with the capacities needed for that alone, its pretty stupid to clog them with shorter routes.



> And as long as oil continues to be cheaper than high-speed rail, I see no reason to change.


That sentence makes absolutely no sense. You compare the price of a resource with the costs of a service. The costs of aviation are a bit more than just fuel as well. 


PS: There is a reason street cars got rejected? Continuing your logic I simply claim, there is a reason why light rail is on the rise.


----------



## Onn

Xusein said:


> We're crazy...? I hope you know that congestion and questions about the future highway system are some of the most talked about subjects in the transportation field. This is not a fringe topic by any means...I did my college thesis on the subject actually.
> 
> Bridges are an integral part of the highway system regardless. It doesn't matter how much of a percentage that they are of the entire network. Even in Texas, officials are pondering about improving rail and putting HSR while doing those highway plans.


I think it's very much a fringe topic here, the only people talking about the kind of projects you are here is the governor herself. And frankly we don't need it. Again, it depends where you are. You seem to think most people in the country live somewhere like you do. That's not true. Maybe in the Northeast rail is heavily needed, but the majority of the country is not the Northeast. There's plenty of space in much of the country for freeway construction, and the ONLY place that is even remotely experiences traffic jams is the inner most city. I live in one of the largest metro areas in the country, and I can tell you all these different kinds of transportation are not needed here. The freeways are generally empty at it is. No way in heck trains would profitable outside the metro area.

If bridges are out in the middle of nowhere where few cars use them, how can that be considered "integral" to the system?? Most of interstate highways don't get much traffic at all. Maybe you need to travel the country a little more. Most interstate highway bridges are not in large cities, they're in the middle of nowhere.

I can see where you’re coming from if your solely talking about the Northeast, I'm sure there are major issues in that region. But the most progressive cities today are not in the northeast, neither is the new money. You’re complaining about how bad things are, but the rest of America is not necessarily that way. Oil still works here, there's no reason to change right now. And at the current pace it will still be that way decades from now.


----------



## Onn

Slartibartfas said:


> A pretty naive view of the world.
> 
> First of all, while air is for free, airports are not. In aviation the infrastructure costs are simply more concentrated in one area rather than spread along a track. The rest of the difference is easily made up by higher energy consumption, as the planes have to climb several km each time they fly and have to be kept in the air as well and then the turbines used today are not the most efficient thing on earth either. But most importantly, capacity of air travel is quite limited.


I'm not talking about planes sir, I said the technology is not on the market yet. :lol:



> Every wondered why HSR shows to be highly competitive on distances of around or below 1000 km? London-Paris, only masochists still fly between both capitals. Paris-Lyon-Marseilles? Whats the most likely choice of transportation? Madrid-Barcelona or Madrid-Malaga? What would you take?


But what if you could fly between those cites in a third of the time it takes HSR?



> On the route Paris-Lyon they even have to use double decker TGVs on a regular basis with 1100 seats per double traction. 4 Trains are running per hour on this connection. ... and now show me how airports would have to look like to cope with such capacities and not as total capacity, thats just the capacity of one route departing from Paris.


I never said anything about an airport, again. And the trains may be full, but most "large" cities here are not as large as their European counterparts, and they are spread out over larger distances.



> Having that said, aviation makes perfectly sense, for distances larger than lets say 1500 km, airports will struggle to cope with the capacities needed for that alone, its pretty stupid to clog them with shorter routes.


I'm not talking about PLANES....



> PS: There is a reason street cars got rejected? Continuing your logic I simply claim, there is a reason why light rail is on the rise.


Many large America cities had street cars in the early 20th century, and they were all taken out. Now cities are putting them back in again!


----------



## tampasteve

I am not getting into the mix; however, I did want to point out that at least down here in Florida there are a LOT of bridges that are a part of the interstate and highway system. These are in the city and outside of it and they range from a span of a few feet to a few miles. With that said, we also must remember that bridges and overpasses also span other roadways, not just water.

Steve


----------



## tampasteve

> Many American cities had street cars in the early twienth century, and there were all taken out. Now there putting them back in again. I don't get it.


It is a rather well known fact that most street car networks were not removed because of in-efficiencies or that buses/roads were favored over rail. In most major cities the removal was because of the system being bought and removed in favor of buses - bought by conglomerations of tire and automotive industry heavyweights.

Steve


----------



## Xusein

Onn said:


> I think it's very much a fringe topic here, the only people talking about the kind of projects you are here is the governor herself. And frankly we don't need it. Again, it depends where you are. You seem to think most people in the country live somewhere like you do. That's not true. Maybe in the Northeast rail is heavily needed, but the majority of the country is not the Northeast. There's plenty of space in much of the country for freeway construction, and the ONLY place that is even remotely experiences traffic jams is the inner most city. I live in one of the largest metro areas in the country, and I can tell you all these different kinds of transportation are not needed here. The freeways are generally empty at it is. No way in heck trains would profitable outside the metro area.
> 
> If bridges are out in the middle of nowhere where few cars use them, how can that be considered "integral" to the system?? Most of interstate highways don't get much traffic at all. Maybe you need to travel the country a little more. Most interstate highway bridges are not in large cities, they're in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> I can see where you’re coming from if your solely talking about the Northeast, I'm sure there are major issues in that region. But the most progressive cities today are not in the northeast, neither is the new money. You’re complaining about how bad things are, but the rest of America is not necessarily that way. Oil still works here, there's no reason to change right now. And at the current pace it will still be that way decades from now.


Well, okay then. I really don't think I can really add much to what you are saying because I don't think you understand the situation really. There is an entire field devoted to these situations. I will tell you this though, it definitely is no fringe topic for the people "in the know".


----------



## Nexis

Onn how old are you? I'm just wondering, Oil ins't going to be around for ever. We might as well start rebuilding our Rail service now, becuz when it goes up again , next year with the economy your going to be screaming wheres my other options. Streetcars and Light Rail are Alt to construction Metros and they are cheaper , they also attract New Development and rise property Prices , you seem to be lost in an old generation. The Midwest is = to the Northeast , many of there cities are building or have a Railway system. Maybe you research things before you , point out old facts about High Speed Rail vs. Plane. High Speed Rail is needed in the Midwest , Northwest , and Texas....with California later. Since they have to build a Earthquake safe system. Onn how many cities have you actually been to , with a Great Transit Network, those cities are usually nicer , then the major cities without. Portland,Or has one the nicest modern Systems , you should go there and check it out. So does St. Louis , Dallas , Minneapolis , and many other cities out side the NE. So go visit them and try to understand our view on life. Also check Real estate developments. along the routes & in surrounding neighborhood, they always flock to the areas with Rail & Metro routes the most. Crime is also lower in many areas where Transit cuts through , at least thats the case in the NE.

*~Corey*


----------



## andrelot

Use ethanol from efficient sources, there is plenty of potential for very efficient ethanol-crops like palm tree or sugar cane in Africa and South America.


----------



## Onn

Nexis said:


> Onn how old are you? I'm just wondering, Oil ins't going to be around for ever. We might as well start rebuilding our Rail service now, becuz when it goes up again , next year with the economy your going to be screaming wheres my other options. Streetcars and Light Rail are Alt to construction Metros and they are cheaper , they also attract New Development and rise property Prices , you seem to be lost in an old generation. The Midwest is = to the Northeast , many of there cities are building or have a Railway system. Maybe you research things before you , point out old facts about High Speed Rail vs. Plane. High Speed Rail is needed in the Midwest , Northwest , and Texas....with California later. Since they have to build a Earthquake safe system. Onn how many cities have you actually been to , with a Great Transit Network, those cities are usually nicer , then the major cities without. Portland,Or has one the nicest modern Systems , you should go there and check it out. So does St. Louis , Dallas , Minneapolis , and many other cities out side the NE. So go visit them and try to understand our view on life. Also check Real estate developments. along the routes & in surrounding neighborhood, they always flock to the areas with Rail & Metro routes the most. Crime is also lower in many areas where Transit cuts through , at least thats the case in the NE.


I live here sir, I think I know what's needed and not.


----------



## StreetView

andrelot said:


> Use ethanol from efficient sources, there is plenty of potential for very efficient ethanol-crops like palm tree or sugar cane in Africa and South America.


For what? How does this comment fit what's being discussed here?:nuts:


----------



## andrelot

To undermine the argument that HSR would be a "necessity" because the "oil age" would be "over".


----------



## Hopobcn

"Necessities for future high speed rolling stock"
http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/PDF/4620_Naoto2009.pdf
contains a table with all high speed trains in the world.


----------



## StreetView

^^ 
Whereas ethanol can be produced to replace gasoline as car fuel, it's not a long-lasting solution. For starters, ethanol-powered vehicles are about 30% less fuel-efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles. If your car gets 30 mpg hwy running on gas, it'd get only 21 mpg hwy on ethanol. 

It's not worth it to fuel your car with ethanol in the US because it's just a little cheaper and much less efficient. Besides, it doesn't help to cut emissions to reduce air pollution. There's a whole lot of arguments saying that ethanol is just a temporary solution for several reasons. 

I see intercity rail travel as a necessity much more due to the lack of an alternative for travelers who don't want to drive, take the greyhound or hop in an airplane and also to help reduce emissions.


----------



## dl3000

Switch grass is the most productive ethanol maker. If they could break down cellulose then youd have an efficient biofuel because all plant waste could be fuel. Making ethanol takes too much water and land.


----------



## zaphod

> Use ethanol from efficient sources, there is plenty of potential for very efficient ethanol-crops like palm tree or sugar cane in Africa and South America.


Ethanol is silly for all the energy it takes to manufacture and transport it, and the distortions it introduces into the ag commodities market.

With electric, I could plug in my car at home, not go to the ethanol station. And where I live at least in the US with deregulated utilities, I can choose who to buy power from at the lowest rate if not generate some of it in my backyard from a personal solar panel or windmills. Maybe bio and organic products will be useful for processing into new kinds of plastics and fertilizer-that will be an important step in phasing out oil.

Since this thread is about trains though-this brings up an interesing scenario. To continue to compete railroad companies will need to electrify eventually, a switch as big as the move from steam to diesel. Short lines and spurs could use battery or fuel cell locomotives but the trunk lines will need wires. It will also be a time of reckoning for the ones that rely on bulk coal, assuming that's a sunset industry.


----------



## makita09

dl3000 said:


> Switch grass is the most productive ethanol maker. If they could break down cellulose then youd have an efficient biofuel because all plant waste could be fuel. Making ethanol takes too much water and land.


There is a you tube vud somewhere about an american scientist who has developed a strain of mushroom that digests the cellulose, then the mushroom can be turned into ethanol using the processes already in place. Its "6 ways mushrooms can save the planet" I think.


----------



## andrelot

To make it clear: I think HSR are cool things to have, like stack interchanges or big, long urban tunneled freeways. However, I do no agree with governments subsidizing not only the tracks and stations (which we could compare to support government give to airports and higways) but also rolling stock and daily operations. In other words, I hate the idea of government stepping in and deciding timetables, prices, fares etc. At most, govt. should build the tracks, then charge for traffic over them (if there is more demand at a given line/time, then right to traffic there should be put on bid).


----------



## 1772

Which is most likely to be choosed by the US; european high-speed or japanese? 

I'd prefer the japanese since it's more reliable and goes faster.


----------



## StreetView

andrelot said:


> To make it clear: I think HSR are cool things to have, like stack interchanges or big, long urban tunneled freeways. However, I do no agree with governments subsidizing not only the tracks and stations (which we could compare to support government give to airports and higways) but also rolling stock and daily operations. In other words, I hate the idea of government stepping in and deciding timetables, prices, fares etc. At most, govt. should build the tracks, then charge for traffic over them (if there is more demand at a given line/time, then right to traffic there should be put on bid).


First of all, they have Amtrak to decide on schedules, fares, services and products, as well as operations, so "the government" as you say wouldn't decide this kind of details. Amtrak is supported by the federal government, but it has its own management and they don't have to call "the government" each time they want to change schedules, lower or raise fares.

As you said yourself, highways and freeways receive money from government support. There are not that many tolled roads in the US, so most of the network is subsidized and nobody has to pay a penny to drive on free roads, unlike Amtrak passengers, who have to pay a fare to ride. Other than that, a company like Amtrak should favor only its costumers (or what they call "guests" now), not shareholders, because its services are of best interest of the population. The main HSR systems in Europe are government-owned or jointly-operated by two or more countries' government in the case of Thalys and Eurostar. South Korea's Korail is government-owned and Japan's JR Group is of mixed-ownership. I don't think private companies have ever started successful passenger rail services, although I could be wrong.


----------



## Slartibartfas

andrelot said:


> Use ethanol from efficient sources, there is plenty of potential for very efficient ethanol-crops like palm tree or sugar cane in Africa and South America.


South America is already exploiting valuable land for ethanol production on an enormous scale. The technological state of the art as of yet means that only sugar cane is a feasible ethanol source. Having to transport it around half the globe severely limits that feasibility again however. 

Fact is that energy from ethanol is in direct competition to food production. Its doubtable that one can afford to expand it even further beyond status quo. 

But even if this should turn out to be no problem at all, its perfectly possible to run Rail and also high speed rail on Ethanol (ethanol power plants or directly run by ethanol, I think the former option makes more sense for a busy rail line)


----------



## Slartibartfas

zaphod said:


> Ethanol is silly for all the energy it takes to manufacture and transport it, and the distortions it introduces into the ag commodities market.
> 
> With electric, I could plug in my car at home, not go to the ethanol station. And where I live at least in the US with deregulated utilities, I can choose who to buy power from at the lowest rate if not generate some of it in my backyard from a personal solar panel or windmills. Maybe bio and organic products will be useful for processing into new kinds of plastics and fertilizer-that will be an important step in phasing out oil.
> 
> Since this thread is about trains though-this brings up an interesting scenario. To continue to compete rail road companies will need to electrify eventually, a switch as big as the move from steam to diesel. Short lines and spurs could use battery or fuel cell locomotives but the trunk lines will need wires. It will also be a time of reckoning for the ones that rely on bulk coal, assuming that's a sunset industry.


While I am sceptical of ethanol or other biofuels as well, where does your neat electricity come from? From the power plug?

Electric cars are great for what they are, they are however not an energy source. The big, actually the gigantic problem ahead of us is how the hell we are going to produce the energy needed in the future. Should car traffic switch to electricity only by half, this would create a huge new additional electricity demand. Where to take it from? Build another few dozen nuclear power plants? countless wind turbines, hundreds of solar thermal power plants ...?

While the transition to electricity is intermediate form of energy makes sense, also for cars, not just for trains, it is this question of the nature of the primary energy source that will be the key problem of the future.


----------



## StreetView

^^
I think in Calgary, AB they have an LRT line completely powered by wind (I'm not sure whether they use solar power as well or not). It could be an alternative for long distance rail travel as well, but I don't think it would be feasible to power cars (even if we're talke about half of the country's fleet), given the huge demand for electricity that would be needed to power all those cars.


----------



## Slartibartfas

It hardly is solely powered by wind alone, as this source is far too volatile, but wind power can of course make a considerable contribution.

Otherwise I fully agree with you.


----------



## StreetView

^^
Calgary's C-Train is powered by wind electricity generated by TransAlta in southern Alberta. It claims to have become the first emissions free LRT system in Canada.


----------



## makita09

andrelot said:


> To make it clear: I think HSR are cool things to have, like stack interchanges or big, long urban tunneled freeways. However, I do no agree with governments subsidizing not only the tracks and stations (which we could compare to support government give to airports and higways) but also rolling stock and daily operations. In other words, I hate the idea of government stepping in and deciding timetables, prices, fares etc. At most, govt. should build the tracks, then charge for traffic over them (if there is more demand at a given line/time, then right to traffic there should be put on bid).


I agree with you on this, but with some qualifications.

I think the government should have the right to require certain service requirements. One would be last train time - often it becomes easy for a company to stop the last service and force everyone to use an earlier one. More economic perhaps but hardly for the greater good. I think things like this could be fleshed out in the detail, but a company is far better at organising the most profitable, and therefore efficient, way of doing something. But, I think it is OK for the government to specify certain things that have a wider value, such as late trains, but causes marginal effect on the bottom line. Far easier said than done of course. Here we have council-supported bus routes for unprofitable routes. They cost about the same to use, but they are unprofitable, but without them grannies can't get to the doctor and things like that. Its probably cheaper than paying for callouts by doctors and various other socially relevant stuff, and the area gets a bus service, albeit usually quite irregular. But I survived on one in my teens, pre driving licence.

Things like that I think can be worked in, and I would hope any sensible govt would keep interference to less than 5% of total operation.

Ultimately the way I see it is that rail, high speed rail, or even a drain, is just infrastructure. If it is designed by someone sensible then it will be functional and not redundent, and therefore useable. If a society cannot make this work within its normal operational boundaries, then it is a failing of the society, not the infrastructure. Build it and they will come. Surely this is the American dream? After all the railway revolution in Britain was privately funded. So was every transport revolution come to think of it until the car.


----------



## dl3000

I think a major factor in alleviating electricity demands on power plants is to decentralize its production. Advances in solar panels and the like for consumer level use will decrease the demands on the power grid on that level and permit what is saved to be used for plug in hybrids, transit, industry, etc.


----------



## Glodenox

The fact remains that electricity *can* be produced in a green way and doesn't require any expenses if the source of energy is to be changed because electricity remains electricity, no matter how it was produced.

Just for that reason alone, I feel that electricity is the way to go. It's the most flexible solution of them all. Hydrogen cars would also be acceptable, but only if the hydrogen was generated using green electricity.

But I think we're getting slightly off-topic here...

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## mgk920

Glodenox said:


> The fact remains that electricity *can* be produced in a green way and doesn't require any expenses if the source of energy is to be changed because electricity remains electricity, no matter how it was produced.
> 
> Just for that reason alone, I feel that electricity is the way to go. It's the most flexible solution of them all. Hydrogen cars would also be acceptable, but only if the hydrogen was generated using green electricity.
> 
> But I think we're getting slightly off-topic here...
> 
> Greetings,
> Glodenox


They've been producing 'green', 100% renewable electricity here in Appleton, WI since the early 1*8*80s, it is called 'hydro-electric'. OTOH, most of the places on the planet where hydro-electric power plants (AKA 'dams') can be reasonably set up have already been taken.

Mike


----------



## HAWC1506

StreetView said:


> I don't think private companies have ever started successful passenger rail services, although I could be wrong.


Taiwan's high speed rail was started by a private company, but wasn't able to pull through successfully, so it was taken over by the government.


----------



## andrelot

But in Taiwan, the whole project was put uner a finance project scheme: land purchase, tracks, stations, trainsets etc. And the company was on the hook for all bonds.

I envision a system like air transportation: government or public-private entities build tracks and stations. Private companies operate services. If the market is wide enough, I bet some leasing compains would appear soon, like in the air industry. Therefore, if you wanto to run a train operation, you don't need to actually buy the engines and the cars, you can just lease them.

As for late trains, weekend service etc., I still think government should not interfere as it doesn't interfere with flight schedules. Because trains have far more capilarity than air transport, and because it is relatively cheaper to build an station over an existing line instead of a new airport, government interference would open a pandora box of local constituences demands. I can barely imagine in California, for instance, a city in San Joaquin Valley demanding that the first LA - SF trais MUST stop at its station so its population wouldn't be at disvantage when looking for job opportunities in both metros and so on.


----------



## Tri-ring

StreetView said:


> I don't think private companies have ever started successful passenger rail services, although I could be wrong.


Think again, Meitetsu for long distance and countless commuters rail companies in Japan are all successful, some close to being hundred years old.


----------



## StreetView

andrelot said:


> I envision a system like air transportation: government or public-private entities build tracks and stations. Private companies operate services. If the market is wide enough, I bet some leasing compains would appear soon, like in the air industry. Therefore, if you wanto to run a train operation, you don't need to actually buy the engines and the cars, you can just lease them.


I see that _you want to_, but there's no way _you can_ compare the operation of an airline with that of a passenger rail company. First of all, you have to build all the rail tracks where the trains would be running, while airplanes just fly in the air, which doesn't require additional infrastructure construction and is totally free. The only thing they have to build is airports, but rail stations are built for the same propose as airports. One may say that building an airport is very expensive and complicated, and therefore building an air system could be much more expensive than building a rail system. 

However, due to the nature of each operation, building up an air system doesn't cost as much for the government or, at least, has a shorter payback period. First of all, everyone pays fees at the airport: boarding passengers pay airport fees, car rentals pay concession fees, landing aircraft pay landing fees, airlines pay fees to have access to the gates as well as rent to use their check in counters and airport retail pays rent to the airport owner, not to mention additional specific fees that do not apply to the general rule, but can apply to certain cases. 

Passenger railroad companies have to subsidize most of their stations because in many cases they don't even charge a boarding fee and in most cases they don't make nearly as much money from rents and concession fees. Additionally, if they own the station and their own trains operate from there, it doesn't make any sense to charge themselves a fee each time one of their trains stops at a given station.


----------



## StreetView

Tri-ring said:


> Think again, Meitetsu for long distance and countless commuters rail companies in Japan are all successful, some close to being hundred years old.


You know, when I first thought of a successful passenger railroad model, I thought of Japan. However, I did some research and have learned that they use a mixed-ownership model in Japan. Apparently some branches are state-owned and other branches are privately owned. I didn't find much about how it works in terms of revenue, profit and expenses -- how they share it all if it's actually one system, the JNR.

If you have this sort of info, please post here. I'm eager to learn about it.


----------



## Tri-ring

StreetView said:


> You know, when I first thought of a successful passenger railroad model, I thought of Japan. However, I did some research and have learned that they use a mixed-ownership model in Japan. Apparently some branches are state-owned and other branches are privately owned. I didn't find much about how it works in terms of revenue, profit and expenses -- how they share it all if it's actually one system, the JNR.
> 
> If you have this sort of info, please post here. I'm eager to learn about it.


JR had been privatized more than 10 years ago, as for revenue, profit and expenses of Japanese rail companies, I believe there was a thread within this forum that covers that information somewhere.


----------



## StreetView

Tri-ring said:


> JR had been privatized more than 10 years ago, as for revenue, profit and expenses of Japanese rail companies, I believe there was a thread within this forum that covers that information somewhere.


I have read about the JR Group on wikipedia, which is not the most accurate source, but it's not all that bad. According to their article on Japan Railways Group, the branches of Hokkaido, Shikoku, Kyushu as well as the freight division belong to the _Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency_, a government agency.

Here it is:


> In 1987, the government of Japan took steps to divide and privatize JNR. While division of operations began in April of that year, privatization was not immediate: initially, the government retained ownership of the companies. Privatization of some of the companies began in the early 1990s. By 2006, all of the shares of JR East, JR Central and JR West had been offered to the market and they are now publicly traded. On the other hand, all of the shares of JR Hokkaido, JR Shikoku, JR Kyushu and JR Freight are still owned by Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency, an independent administrative institution of the state.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group

If you can find that thread that discusses revenue and expenses on the JR Group, please let me know. Merry Christmas, by the way.


----------



## Belxos

StreetView said:


> ...
> 
> However, due to the nature of each operation, building up an air system doesn't cost as much for the government or, at least, has a shorter payback period. First of all, everyone pays fees at the airport: boarding passengers pay airport fees, car rentals pay concession fees, landing aircraft pay landing fees, airlines pay fees to have access to the gates as well as rent to use their check in counters and airport retail pays rent to the airport owner, not to mention additional specific fees that do not apply to the general rule, but can apply to certain cases.
> 
> Passenger railroad companies have to subsidize most of their stations because in many cases they don't even charge a boarding fee and in most cases they don't make nearly as much money from rents and concession fees. Additionally, if they own the station and their own trains operate from there, it doesn't make any sense to charge themselves a fee each time one of their trains stops at a given station.


Big railway stations also have retail, concessions, airline check-in counters, car rental facilities, hotels...
And if the operator doesn't own tracks & station they pay a fee to use the tracks and a fee to stop at a certain station.


----------



## Suburbanist

Likewise, airlines pay landing, terminal and hangar fees to airport operators. This is what I'm talking about: separate infrastructure of HSR from vehicles. If within a set or lines some route services are not feasible, just don't provide the service. I'm very afraid of political localism clout over an integrated rail operator (who'd own tracks + stations + trains).


----------



## Snowguy716

Onn said:


> I think it's very much a fringe topic here, the only people talking about the kind of projects you are here is the governor herself. And frankly we don't need it. Again, it depends where you are. You seem to think most people in the country live somewhere like you do. That's not true. Maybe in the Northeast rail is heavily needed, but the majority of the country is not the Northeast. There's plenty of space in much of the country for freeway construction, and the ONLY place that is even remotely experiences traffic jams is the inner most city. I live in one of the largest metro areas in the country, and I can tell you all these different kinds of transportation are not needed here. The freeways are generally empty at it is. No way in heck trains would profitable outside the metro area.
> 
> If bridges are out in the middle of nowhere where few cars use them, how can that be considered "integral" to the system?? Most of interstate highways don't get much traffic at all. Maybe you need to travel the country a little more. Most interstate highway bridges are not in large cities, they're in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> I can see where you’re coming from if your solely talking about the Northeast, I'm sure there are major issues in that region. But the most progressive cities today are not in the northeast, neither is the new money. You’re complaining about how bad things are, but the rest of America is not necessarily that way. Oil still works here, there's no reason to change right now. And at the current pace it will still be that way decades from now.


I don't know what city you're from.. but almost everything you just said doesn't apply here in Minnesota.

Firstly, the streetcar network in the Twin Cities was dismantled in the early 1950s not because buses were superior, but because the company was bought and taken over by a New York City investor named Charles Green.

The man wanted to squeeze dividends out of the private company that operated the streetcar network... that company had traditionally invested its profits into expansion of the network. Immediately Green stopped expansion, cut maintenance to a bare minimum, cut schedules, and laid off hundreds of employees.

He wanted conversion to buses by 1958.. he completed that early in 1953. It was one of the greatest swindles in Twin Cities history. Even my conservative grandfather couldn't believe what the guy had done (he lived in Bloomington, which in 1951 when they moved in, was an exploding streetcar suburb on the Minneapolis grid. He took the streetcar to work downtown each day.

They had to buy a car in 1952 because of service cuts and he had to take city streets to downtown Minneapolis.. which took much longer because of increased traffic (50 people in 50 cars rather than 50 people in one trolley).

Ever since the freeways were built beginning in the 1940s, they have been congested here. Since the city developed largely as a transit oriented, denser, street grid city, it was very hard to put big, expansive freeways in like down south where most of the growth has occurred in the automobile age.

So while your city might not need transit improvements, the Twin Cities do.

And the fact that you are actually promoting putting all of our eggs in one basket shows a high level of ignorance. Have you watched oil prices? As soon as the economy picks up again, we'll be right back at $4/gallon. We'll probably go even higher.

But you'd just assume have us live in sprawling burbs 30 miles from work and take massively overbuilt and increasingly expensive (thanks to huge spikes in asphalt and concrete prices thanks to rising oil prices) freeways..

Sorry.. your vision for the future will be one of economic collapse. I'll pay the extra few dollars in taxes and have a train system that can be run on American energy and American steel.


----------



## Onn

Snowguy716 said:


> I don't know what city you're from.. but almost everything you just said doesn't apply here in Minnesota.


How about the rest of the Midwest, like every large Midwest region besides the Twin Cities....



> And the fact that you are actually promoting putting all of our eggs in one basket shows a high level of ignorance. Have you watched oil prices? As soon as the economy picks up again, we'll be right back at $4/gallon. We'll probably go even higher.


You don't know that, 4 dollars a gallon would still be cheaper than high-speed rail. It's not even about diversifying the system, it's just not needed in the first place. There's not enough people to warrant those kind of things. I live in a large metropolitan area and I know that kind of system would never pay for itself. 



> Sorry.. your vision for the future will be one of economic collapse. I'll pay the extra few dollars in taxes and have a train system that can be run on American energy and American steel.


Rail systems cost money to mantain too! And frankly they would be hurting the econmey because people wouldn't be buying as much. Looks at it from the consumer point of veiw, no one's going to take 10 bags full of stuff on a train. :lol:


----------



## Nexis

Oh shut up ONN , clearly Skyscrapercity isn't the place for you , Most of US on here are Future Thinkers , not past thinkers. You Obviously don't understand what High Speed Rain can do for this economy.


----------



## StreetView

Belxos said:


> Big railway stations also have retail, concessions, airline check-in counters, car rental facilities, hotels...
> And if the operator doesn't own tracks & station they pay a fee to use the tracks and a fee to stop at a certain station.


I know big train stations also have retail and concessions (take for example Penn Station in New York or Union Station in DC), but what about small town train stations? They barely have a car rental company, an ATM and a gift shop/bookstore/newsstand. How can you make money off of it? That's why sometimes bigger stations have to subsidize small stations operations.



Suburbanist said:


> Likewise, airlines pay landing, terminal and hangar fees to airport operators. This is what I'm talking about: separate infrastructure of HSR from vehicles. If within a set or lines some route services are not feasible, just don't provide the service. I'm very afraid of political localism clout over an integrated rail operator (who'd own tracks + stations + trains).


I'm sorry, but it's not always all about the money. Sometimes bigger stations do have to subsidize small stations, so that you can serve a region properly, with decent service. Also, a train station that is not profitable today can well be profitable within five years, for example, as the rail network expands.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Onn said:


> Rail systems cost money to mantain too! And frankly they would be hurting the econmey because wouldn't be buying as much. Looks at it from the consumer point of veiw, no one's going to take 10 bags full of stuff on a train. :lol:


If you have to carry around half a truck, there is a thing they invented for exactly this: Package delivery services. Normal people on a normal trip have no problems carrying their luggage themselves.


----------



## Acerola

Nexis said:


> Oh shut up ONN , clearly Skyscrapercity isn't the place for you , Most of US on here are Future Thinkers , not past thinkers. You Obviously don't understand what High Speed Rain can do for this economy.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## He Named Thor

StreetView said:


> I know big train stations also have retail and concessions (take for example Penn Station in New York or Union Station in DC), but what about small town train stations? They barely have a car rental company, an ATM and a gift shop/bookstore/newsstand. How can you make money off of it? That's why sometimes bigger stations have to subsidize small stations operations.


 
I know big airports also have retail and concessions, but what about small airports? There are plenty without all that, and they certainly do get subsidized heavily.


----------



## StreetView

^^ Certainly. We are talking about the same thing: if you read the second part of what I wrote on post #541, you'll see that I actually said that sometimes bigger stations have to subsidize small ones. 

However, like I also said earlier, comparing railroad stations to airports is not all that simple. In a rail system like Amtrak, the operator (Amtrak) usually owns the stations. Now with airports, the owner (usually local government) doesn't operate routes from there to nowhere, as they are not into airline business. Also, sometimes local government has to maintain a losing-money airport in order to offer more strategic services to its local community and the same thing goes for rail stations.

The bottom line is we (you and I) are agreeing here.


----------



## Suburbanist

@Streetview:

I guess I didn't make my point clear. I would support, under certain restrains (like not diverting money from road or air transportation...), government-backed ownership of tracks and stations. There are a lot of airport which do not collect enough money to pay for their own operation through fees and concessions. Likewise, I see no major problems if the government decides to build stations without immediate perspective of high income generation.

I was refferring to train services themselves. Given the stations and the tracks, there is no point is subsidizing a given train serice if it cannot be itself profitable. Suppose there is a high speed rail from Miami to Atlanta, with some stations between, all of them government-owned. Then, private operators (likewise airlines) should lease/buy and operate trains at their will, paying use fees for stations and tracks to the agency who owns them, and competing for highest bid in case of timesXstretches in which there are more rail operators wanting to run trains than track capacity. By the way, brand new pure HS lines can accomodate up to 15 services per direction per hour (HSL-Zuid, Milano-Roma axis etc.).

In that scenario, what I meant is that if no train operator finds a service attractive, it should be not provided. If no one can/would run profitable trains between Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, there is no reason to "foce" a operator to run a service there as a compensation for being "allowed" to run Talahassee / Miami ones, for instance.

I'm assuming we are talking about high-speed rail, meant for medium distance. If we were talking about a metropolitan commuter rail (MARTA or PATH for instance), things would be different. I do not see a reason why specific train services should be offered once tracks ans stations are there for the use of private operators.

Then, likewise airport construction, it would be up to government entities who invest in tracks and stations to make informed guess (at least) about viability of routes and stations proposed, otherwise, they will end up empty with no services running, in the same fashion that building a 4 runways 12.000 ft each airport in Sheridan, WY, won't make it a major international passenger hub.


----------



## hans280

Suburbanist said:


> I guess I didn't make my point clear. I would support, under certain restrains (like not diverting money from road or air transportation...), government-backed ownership of tracks and stations. There are a lot of airport which do not collect enough money to pay for their own operation through fees and concessions. Likewise, I see no major problems if the government decides to build stations without immediate perspective of high income generation.
> 
> I was refferring to train services themselves.


It's funny, you're pretty much aligned with the prevailing attitudes here in France. When a new HS line is prepared there's (nearly) always a demand that the train SERVICES shall be expectecd to generate enough revenue to pay for the CONSTRUCTION of the tracks. Often the payback period is not that long either. Another story entirely is the acquisition of land and rights of way. This the government subsidies with big hands in the hope of, some day, getting the money back. The logic is not unlike yours ("...we also pay public money for roads and sea ports..."), plus the French have a high opinion of the staying value of land. If they ever regret having built a railway line (and assuming that the construction costs have been recouperated) they can always remove the tracks and sell the land at a profit. All good and neat, but...


...what is less good and neat is, instead of paying the "land subsidies" up front as part of the fiscal budgets they rolled it into the track operating company RFF which is now buckling under an unmanagable debt burden.


----------



## Nexis

*Heres some recent Videos of the Acela form my Favorite NEC Railfanners

Kingston,RI*











Heres a video form a barrowed NJT Train carrying ppl down to DC form the Obama inauguration. 






Some things Amtrak Experimented with back in the 90s for HSR possibilities , and may now be purchased for future HSL , Because Amtrak is replacing 85% of there Fleet , with newer lighter Trains in Diesel & Electric forms.






*~Corey*


----------



## StreetView

Suburbanist said:


> @Streetview:
> 
> I was refferring to train services themselves. Given the stations and the tracks, there is no point is subsidizing a given train serice if it cannot be itself profitable. Suppose there is a high speed rail from Miami to Atlanta, with some stations between, all of them government-owned. Then, private operators (likewise airlines) should lease/buy and operate trains at their will, paying use fees for stations and tracks to the agency who owns them, and competing for highest bid in case of timesXstretches in which there are more rail operators wanting to run trains than track capacity. By the way, brand new pure HS lines can accomodate up to 15 services per direction per hour (HSL-Zuid, Milano-Roma axis etc.).
> 
> In that scenario, what I meant is that if no train operator finds a service attractive, it should be not provided. If no one can/would run profitable trains between Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, there is no reason to "foce" a operator to run a service there as a compensation for being "allowed" to run Talahassee / Miami ones, for instance.


There are a few reasons why certain services should be kept even though they don't appear to be profitable. First of all, railroad require great capital investments in order to be fully functional. Railroad companies have to put their money in locomotives, cars, stations, maintenance depots and a lot of other things. All these things are assets and the company has to pay for them. However, it is hard to determine how much money the railroad operator should "charge" its customers in order to have return on all those assets, which do not necessarily generate revenue, but there would be no revenue whatsoever without them. 

Depending on how much the rail operator decides to "charge" in order to cover the fixed costs of its operation, an specific train service can be profitable or not, but still be generating profits to the whole system. Let's say (just a fictional example) that it costs Amtrak $20 per hauled mile to cover its capital costs and $50 to cover specific costs of each train trip.

Now, let's suppose that they only have two train services. One service runs 6 times per day and travels 200 miles per trip. If we do the math, we'll learn that it runs 1200 miles per day and so it costs $84,000.00 per day of operation [(50+20)x1200]. 

Service 2 runs 4 times a day and travels 100 miles per trip, totaling 400 miles per day, which costs $28,000.00 per day of operation [(50+20x400)].

In this scenario, service 1 has strong competition from Greyhound Lines as well as airlines, so they can't charge too much for each fare. Let's say that each passenger on service 1 pays a $69 fare. Service 2 doesn't have too much competition, so passengers riding this line have to pay a $45 fare.

Let's also that service 1 carries 1200 passengers per day (200 per trip) and service 2 carries 720 passengers per day (180 per trip). If we do the math again, we'll see that service 1 generates $82,800.00 in revenue per day and service 2 generates a $32.400,00 daily revenue. 

Now, remember that daily costs of operation for service 1 are $84,000? So apparently service 1 is losing $1,200 per day because its daily revenue is only $82,800. Looking at service 2, we'll see that it's making $4,400 per day, so the whole system is making $3,200 per day. 

Suburbanist, I ask you: do you think it makes sense to discontinue service 1, provided that the financial spreadsheets show that this line is a loss-maker? I will respond to it as soon as you give me an answer, but no later that tomorrow


----------



## StreetView

^^ 
Since nobody happened to answer my question as to whether service 1 should be discontinued or not, I will post a few reasons why it should be maintained even though it doesn't appear to be making money.

Suburbanist, I said that, in order to cover capital costs, Amtrak (on that fictional example) should "charge" from each service $20 per hauled mile. I also said that its trains run a total of 1600 miles per day (1200 from service 1 and 400 from service 2), so capital costs are about $32,000.00 per day. If we chose to discontinue service 1, it would reduce the profitability of service 2 by $24,000.00 per day, because then service 2 would have to pay for all capital costs, because even with only one service the company has to have maintenance depots, reservation systems, they have to pay for their stations and rolling stock and all of that. 

However, if we were reasonable to say because service 2 accounts for only 40% of the daily departures, so only 40% of the capital costs would remain (it's just an supposition -- in the real world more than 40% would remain), then total capital costs would be $12,800.00 per day, reducing profitability of service 2 by $4,800.00 per day, making it lose $400 per day.


You can see all the (fictional) numbers organized on two tables, as follows.

----------- Distance-- Freq-- Dist/Day--- Cap Cost------ Spec Cost------ Total Cost 
Service 1--- 200------ 6----- 1200------ $ (24.000,00)--- $ (60.000,00)--- $ (84.000,00)
Service 2--- 100------ 4----- 400------- $ (8.000,00)---- $ (20.000,00)--- $ (28.000,00)
Freq: Frequency / Dist/Day: Distance per day / Cap Cost: Capital Costs / Spec Cost: Specific Costs 


-------Pass/Trip-- Trips-- Tot Pass---Fare------ Revenue------ Costs---------- Profit 
Serv 1-- 200------ 6------ 1200------ $69,00--- $82.800,00-- $(84.000,00)-- $(1.200,00)
Serv 2-- 180------ 4------ 720------- $45,00--- $32.400,00-- $ (28.000,00)-- $4.400,00
Pass/Trip: Passengers per trip / Tot Pass: Total Passengers (day)

Moreover, there are other reasons for keeping a loss-making service. These reasons could be:

Connecting traffic: sometimes a few loss-making services provide connecting traffic that helps the most important services remain profitable (this applies more to airlines than rail service);
Schedules & Timetables: there are situations where a train is only profitable because an unprofitable train operates. For instance, the first departure of the day runs at a 95% load factor and 45% of this traffic returns on the last departure of the day. However, the last departure of the day operates only with a 50% load factor, which is not enough to break even. By discontinuing the last departure of the day, the first train of the day could lose as much as 45% of its passengers, thus becoming a loss-maker as well. 

These are just a couple reasons why sometimes unprofitable services should be kept -- because they benefit the system. It is not rare for a company to look at each service individually and overlook the fact that even though some services don't appear to be profitable, they actually make the rest of the system more profitable.


----------



## makita09

StreetView said:


> Connecting traffic: sometimes a few loss-making services provide connecting traffic that helps the most important services remain profitable (this applies more to airlines than rail service);


This was something the railways in Britain discovered after the Beeching cuts. A lot of the 'mainline' passengers dried up after the under-used unprofitable branch lines were given the chop. Further undermining profitability of the whole.

Unfortunately cold hard statistics are normally focused on a specific as per your example, and it is hard to effectively explain the reality of passenger behaviour unless the model becomes necessarily complex. In part because it is quite easy to re-model a sepecific set of statistics to confirm most preconceptions. This is also what happened in the UK in the mid 20th century.


----------



## Suburbanist

That is fair easy: set up a consistent origin-and-destination market research. There is no rocket science involved in identifying where people come from and go to. Sample, ask, analyze - and that is it.

Of course I do not ignore the importance of feeder services, akin of commuter short haul flights that feed main hub-to-hub traffic of so many airlines. Rail companies should and would analyze the overall income brought from passengers departing and arriving from a giving station, and impacts on overall demand for their services, likewise supermarkets usually sell generic groceries and basic food at a loss to they can atract costumers to buy profitable appliances for instance, yet they will not let a store open if its overall operation is not profitable.

That why we must have private rail operators for non-daily commuting traffic services, and let them compete against each other over the same tracks which would be owned by a public entity. I fear that public train operators would be pressured to provide "comprehensive" service over its economic feasibility. Sure, we need a backbone, go-everywhere transport network (government build roads even if its usage is very load because it is unconceivable to have, say, a village or a small city unconnected just because traffic doesn't justify laying tarmac over a dirt road), but this role is fulfilled by road transportation, not rail.

I see rail and air transportation as high capacity and supplementary networks that do not have to reach every corner of every state. In case of air transport, there is a program which provides some subsidize for some "strategic" air routes whose operation would be otherwise unnatractive or loss-generating for airlines. I do not see a compelling reason out of vanity or nostalgy for which passenger rail services (I'm not reffering to track laying) should be entitled to.

Amtrak should have died completely in early 80's, so we would be talking now about only HSR, state-of-the art fast rail services, not "enchanced" serices running at 100 mph in century-old railways as the last marvel of passenger transportation  So bad that Reagan didn't shut down Amtrak altogether.


----------



## mopc

Slartibartfas said:


> While I am sceptical of ethanol or other biofuels as well, where does your neat electricity come from? From the power plug?
> 
> Electric cars are great for what they are, they are however not an energy source. The big, actually the gigantic problem ahead of us is how the hell we are going to produce the energy needed in the future. Should car traffic switch to electricity only by half, this would create a huge new additional electricity demand. Where to take it from? *Build another few dozen nuclear power plants? *countless wind turbines, hundreds of solar thermal power plants ...?


YEAH!:cheers:










Actually the USA should build another 200 nuclear power plants, Herr Professor.


----------



## StreetView

Suburbanist said:


> That is fair easy: set up a consistent origin-and-destination market research. There is no rocket science involved in identifying where people come from and go to. Sample, ask, analyze - and that is it.


Definitely. There's no better way of planning future products and service than asking your customers what they think. However, we cannot forget that in certain cases the demand is there, not too small to be left behind but not too big to justify high frequency service. 



Suburbanist said:


> That why we must have private rail operators for non-daily commuting traffic services, and let them compete against each other over the same tracks which would be owned by a public entity. I fear that public train operators would be pressured to provide "comprehensive" service over its economic feasibility. Sure, we need a backbone, go-everywhere transport network (government build roads even if its usage is very load because it is unconceivable to have, say, a village or a small city unconnected just because traffic doesn't justify laying tarmac over a dirt road), but this role is fulfilled by road transportation, not rail.


In theory that would be perfect, but it reality we know that nothing is perfect. I'm sure it would be nice to choose from a non-stop service from New York Penn Station to Washington DC provided by another rail company, instead of the traditional 8-stop Amtrak service between those two cities. Of course people like to have choices. But in order to trains bypass each other, there has to be an extra track. United States law allows states' governments to charge property taxes on railroad tracks, so it's not just the expense of building and maintaining those tracks.

Airlines are different, because once the airplanes are in the air, they don't have to run on any structure. Air is free and it doesn't have to be built or repaired and maintained. Moreover, nobody owns the air, so no one has to pay property taxes.



Suburbanist said:


> I see rail and air transportation as high capacity and supplementary networks that do not have to reach every corner of every state. In case of air transport, there is a program which provides some subsidize for some "strategic" air routes whose operation would be otherwise unnatractive or loss-generating for airlines. I do not see a compelling reason out of vanity or nostalgy for which passenger rail services (I'm not reffering to track laying) should be entitled to.


Yes. Personally I think that a complete transportation network should include short bus services (no longer than 100 miles), which would take passengers from small towns that cannot support train stations to the nearest town/city served by rail. Long-distance trains should move people between smaller towns and bigger cities and airports, for those who would be traveling really long distances (like 500+ miles). Main airports should have a ground transportation center attached to their terminals. This way, long-distance trains and local rail services could feed airline flights, allowing even code-share agreements between rail operators and airlines. It already happens in France, if I'm not mistaken, where *American Airlines *code-shares with SNCF. Continental code-shares with a few Amtrak services at Newark Liberty Int'l Airport. This could be a win-win situation, providing alternative routes to people who live in small towns poorly served by airlines and don't want to drive alone when traveling long distances. It could expand both the rail passengers market and the scheduled airlines market.

Amtrak already provides bus services connecting specific towns to train stations, called Amtrak Thruway Motorcoaches. The problem I see is that this service has taken over many train services, leaving big cities (like Las Vegas, NV) with no rail service at all. 



Suburbanist said:


> Amtrak should have died completely in early 80's, so we would be talking now about only HSR, state-of-the art fast rail services, not "enchanced" serices running at 100 mph in century-old railways as the last marvel of passenger transportation  So bad that Reagan didn't shut down Amtrak altogether.


I don't really think so. Unfortunately truth is that if Amtrak had completely died, long-distance train services in the United States would be almost non-existent nowadays. Should the government have left passenger rail service to privately owned companies, the only existing service today would be the Northeast Corridor. Almost nobody supports passenger rail service in the US (nobody meaning the people, government/politicians and private companies), therefore I believe that train speeds and technology wouldn't be any better than what Amtrak offers today. With the record-high gas prices in 2008, Amtrak gained a lot of attention as an alternative for travelers not willing to pay high gas prices or higher airline fares and baggage fees. Probably the economy would have hurt much more if Amtrak wasn't there.


----------



## Suburbanist

> complete transportation network should include short bus services (no longer than 100 miles), which would take passengers from small towns that cannot support train stations to the nearest town/city served by rail.


No need for that. With low driving and car ownership costs, everyone could drive 100 miles to the nearest station or renting a car in a station and driving 100 miles to a small town. It would be too costly to provide every single incorporated town a public transit connection.

How much intercity market share does Amtrak have? I doubt it is over 1,5%, but right now DOT site is under maitenance, so maybe I'll check later and edit this post.

As for long routes, I've read conflicting reports, but all from news outltes, that routes like the Sunset Limited operate at a loss equivalent at more than $ 200 per passsenger travelling the whole route from N. Orleans to California... Indeed, I'd say every multi-day transcontinental journeys are unprofitable. Does anyone have more detailed information in which Amtral services are profitable, and which are not?

Europe is cutting hard on overnight train services due to competition with both faster high-speed day trains and low-cost airlines. Amtrak should to, at least, the same and drop those routes leaving to Chicago all the way to the West Cost, the Sunset Limited, Florida - Virginia trains, Crescent express etc. Only vacationers are served with 72h train journeys departing 3 times a week. Concentrate operations in commuting and medium distance clusters in California, around Chicago, between Texas and Oklahoma, in the NEC, and that is it - no need to run biweekly trains just to have a nice route map.


----------



## sotavento

Suburbanist said:


> Guys, air travel doesn't know borders. No one (except for rail fans) would travel LAX-ORD or MIA-BOS in a multiday journey. Full HSR is a very intersting concept, but it is not suitable for >1500 km journeys as it is not suitable for regional commuting (<50 km, say).



Family of 5 on vacations = pick the "overnight" express sleeper (running at 200/225km/h 125/140mph ?) Depart from BostonHSR station at 21h(9pm) and arrive at Miami HSR at 8h (8am)

Business Executive (option A) = depart from Boston Airport as early as 6am and catch a plain that LAUNCHES at 8am to Miami ... arrive at 12h ... do your business and calmly return on the nightly train .. 

Business Executive (option B) = depart from BostonHSR at 6h00 in the morning DIRECT HST to Washington (use the time to sleep?) ... arrive in Washington at 8h00 (roundabound HSR bypasses in NYC and Phillie?) have your instant comute checkin on board and hop into the folowing Washington-Atlanta HST arriving at 10h30 (breakfast and some 2 hours of work on the laptop) ... jump into the nearest Miami bound HSand arrive at 13h just in time for the meeting ... time can be used for on-the-run meetings with coworkers/clients from other areas ... when all work is done just catch the evening flight back home. 

^^ When the options DO EXIST things start to revolve around a much different star ... :lol:



Slartibartfas said:


> I had that idea myself already but it seems its not realistic, which is a pity. The reason is that high speed tracks need a lot of regular maintenance which is carried out during the nights, when there is no service. That's what I was told at least.


An early departure (let's say 5h45) can cover a lot of ground before breakfast ... connecting DOT's make the longer routes feasible ... but they are not the MAIN purpose of the long routes creation.

Boston-NYC-Phillie-Washington = 650km ... de-saturate the NEC
Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlote-Atlanta = 850km ... a good excuse to de-saturate the airspace in the east ??? 
Atlanta-Jacksonville = 450km ... a good "pure" HSR ??? 
Florida "mirrored" F HSNetwork = 500km north-south ... trains each 10 minutes along it's tracks ??? :lol:

think about DUPLEX high speed trains 400m long (16 double deck coaches carrying some 6000 pax each in those long-hauls ... now think that If you leave NYC at 6am by 11am you would be in the sunny beaches of Florida (1400km between NYC and Jacksonville). :cheers: 



Suburbanist said:


> Exaclty Slartibartfas. I'll talk a little about the situation in Europe.
> 
> Demand for night trains is falling fast, and with the annualy timetable adjustment (done in mid-December yearly) for 2010, a lot of night services have been axed. For instance, in Italy they cut more night trains past December, they are down to 34% of services offerred 10 years ago.
> 
> Night trains interfere excessively with freight operation that dominate most Western Europe railways. For a freight train, it is not big deal to be held for 2 or 3 hours, or to operate under "strange" schedules if that is what optimizes traffic. Same cannot be said for passenger traffic. Indeed, passenger traffic is very disruptive to freight traffic as peak-holiday car traffic (Christmas, summer weekends etc.) severely disrupts truck traffic in Western Europe.
> 
> Assuming night trains are not operating regular seat cars, they need to be very long and thus operate with extended platforms.
> 
> There is, also, a cultural change: shared compartments are not longer vastly tolerated as something civilized. Many people that wouldn't mind be stranded on an airplane seat for 3 or 4 hours would not accept the idea of sleeping in a bunk bed, in the dark, in a 500m-long trains in a compartment filled with strangers. It is a pattern with consequence in other areas, like demise of hotels with shared bathrooms, end of organized tours that offered "shared accomodotation" to people travelling alone, children having their own bedroom from early age etc. Private night compartmens can be luxurious, but they are expensive.
> 
> Finally, as Slartibafpas said, high speed rail is desgined to operate without restrictions during peak/day hours, like a subway, but then they need to be partially or totally closed during the night to allow space for cleaning maitenance etc. It is not feasible to operate a round-the-clock high-speed line with the extremely high reliability we have today.


Freigh in europe doesn't run in "dedicated" HS trackage... in the east (in USA) there is so much population scatered around everywhere to serve that a nightly (read early morning) operation would be like having rush hour from 5am to 10pm ... :lol:



Suburbanist said:


> I don't think so. First, people usually don't driver overnight expecting to enjoy the whole following day. I've done some overnights driving trips (Irún-Genova, Amsterdam-Firenze, Los Angeles-Salt Lake City for instance), and they worn you out once you arrive. Even more important is the fact that group car travel (4 people in the same car) is fairly cheap even with insidious gas taxes and overpriced tolls in Europe. Families take the car to their vacations because it allows them to make short trips once they arrive in their destinations, giving them unmatched flexibilty once you arrive.
> 
> When it comes to price, it is unfeasible that an overnight train will ever match low-cost airfares. If I were an airline CEO, I'd put my prices as low as possible in any new overnight train route to fight it to the death, if I ever felt that it were to be a threaten to my business. Same for speed: no comercially competitive 500 mph trains are expected to be in service for the foreseeable future.


Most low cost airline CEO's look into HSRoperations as if looking at a sacrificial pig ... others look at it as a pot of gold. :cheers:

A) Fly Boston-Orlando ... leave home at 5am in a CAB or your own car ... arrive at 15h in Disney with the kids ... un-automobilized

B) leave home in your car ... pack it into a Auto-train at 8pm and boar the night express (probably even with a McDonalds restaurant on board) ... arrive at Orlando at 7h in the morning ... get up ... pick up your own car ... happy hollidays.

The potential for seasonal travelling (be it leasure or business) is enormous in the USA ... 



> So the only advantage of a (non subisidized) night train would be delivering passengers willing to pay premium fares for single/double compartments so they can travel overnight. Moreover, many night routes are purposedly "slowed down" in order to increase total travel time. This is the only reason to explain why some night trains take as long as 40 years ago to travel in conventional rail where extensive modernization was done in past decades, yet who wants to arrive at 3 AM in Berlin?
> 
> Even in Europe, after cars became comfortable and more reliable in the mid-60's, night train travel never accounted for a significant part of long distance travel. It was, is and will always be a niche that will be never profitable in many routes.
> 
> In Italy, when they cut down the "espresso" night services up to 80%, there was an outcry far beyond reasonable. It was a kind of "entitlement" those 1500km+ routes linking different regions, and journalists complained that it would be "unfair" to target cheap services that catered for the poor Italians and students who couldn't otherwise afford holiday trips to their hometowns to have luch with mama. These trains had a lot of seat compartments that allowed one to travel from Milano to Reggio Calabria, for instrance, for less then 40 euros (1880km...) in 15 to 17 hours! An absurd, Third-World service indeed.


Night trains IN THE OLD "standards" ara thing of the past ... just like slam door / 2 axle COMUTER coaches is nowadays ... night trains travelling at 200km/h ARE NOT a thing of the past ... a big diference. 



> Most of those trains were cut and nobody (save for rail fans or eldery retirees "too old to start flying" Easyjet at 60 y.o.) misses it. I don't like the idea of government stepping in to finance backpacker's transportation too (so they can maximize the # of cities they visit during their winter break by taking as many night trains as possible...).


this is b0ll 5hit ... 60yo are the main age target of Easyjet/Ryr ... in fact low cost IS favorite amongst retirees/youngsters.





> Freeing up the tracks for freight-only operations during the night would be an AMAZING thing to do. Suppose it were possible to run only frieght trains, innovative route planning and service scheduling schemes could be placed to increase efficiency and speed of European cargo rail service, which is lagging behind US in many aspects.
> 
> In case of US, the share of overnight train trips is so, so small that increasing it 10-fold would be still negligible.


Night trains usually are run in 2 (two) different ways in europe ... you either get a city-to-city night train or you get a rolling hotel serving a lot of intermediate cities ... those of the former usually just dump you in a freight sidding somewhere between the night to kill some time ... the others just hop as fast as they can to run and run hundreds of miles ... :bash:


----------



## sotavento

Slartibartfas said:


> I am skeptical though if this was done due to a lack of customers. The ÖBB and the Italian railways for example are involved in some turf war currently. That seems to be the reason why the train between Vienna and Venice was axed for example, rather than low demand.
> 
> I think that night trains are a great way to travel, superior to any other mode for distances up to a bit above 1000 km where you don't have high speed connections.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thats probably the reason why they are everything else than popular among train operators. So you can add this to above argument.
> 
> Why? But anyway, I can't see a problem here. The infrastructure obviously exists, otherwise, they could not have been run in the past and I seriously doubt that the railway stations experience capacity problems during the night.
> 
> 
> 
> No? During my last trip I shared my cabin with a journalist and his wife. Very distinguished people and great conversation partners. If you are four people on a trip (in many cases not an unrealistic number) you can without paying a lot more have a cabin all for yourself btw. A couple can have a 2 person cabin as well, even though it costs somewhat more.
> 
> I agree with the rest of your post though.


european railway executives ate NOWADAYsuffering from the same LOBOTOMIZING ideas that North American railway execurtives sufered some 50 years ago ... plain and simple.


Night travell is falling ???where ??? night travell was AXED purportedly to FEED the HSR trains with a vial/ blood/oxigen pumping machine. 

example:

Lisboa-Irun-Paris "Sud Express" was AXEd in france ... in the iberian side is still a night train ... in the french side is a "mornig"/"evening" TGV ... nobody rides it anymore since you cant arrive at 8am either in Lisboa or Paris ... it's a 10am t 12am arrival at most ... a "proper" (read: direct) night train would be able to arrive at the end at 8am ... rolling stock to allow this does exist (talgo RD) but they just negate it's usefullness (SNCF) ... 

1600km ... 1/2 of that is trackage for 160/200 km/h ... even some sections allow 220/300km/h. hno: 

Going by plane usually means getting up at 4/5am ... getting to the airport and catching an early flight ... wich arrives at the same LATE hours (10am?) :dunno:


----------



## sotavento

Suburbanist said:


> No need for that. With low driving and car ownership costs, everyone could drive 100 miles to the nearest station or renting a car in a station and driving 100 miles to a small town. It would be too costly to provide every single incorporated town a public transit connection.
> 
> How much intercity market share does Amtrak have? I doubt it is over 1,5%, but right now DOT site is under maitenance, so maybe I'll check later and edit this post.
> 
> As for long routes, I've read conflicting reports, but all from news outltes, that routes like the Sunset Limited operate at a loss equivalent at more than $ 200 per passsenger travelling the whole route from N. Orleans to California... Indeed, I'd say every multi-day transcontinental journeys are unprofitable. Does anyone have more detailed information in which Amtral services are profitable, and which are not?
> 
> Europe is cutting hard on overnight train services due to competition with both faster high-speed day trains and low-cost airlines. Amtrak should to, at least, the same and drop those routes leaving to Chicago all the way to the West Cost, the Sunset Limited, Florida - Virginia trains, Crescent express etc. Only vacationers are served with 72h train journeys departing 3 times a week. Concentrate operations in commuting and medium distance clusters in California, around Chicago, between Texas and Oklahoma, in the NEC, and that is it - no need to run biweekly trains just to have a nice route map.


Here (soutwestern europe):


Comuter/regional traffic has "feeder" BUS routes everywhere ... 

^^ each brake of service (as in changing transportation) throws 10x more people into the auto-mobilized crowd 


Buy an intercity 2 way (return?) ticket and you can rent a car in the destination for as low as 9€ per day, and your parking in the start/end station is free for up to 3 days.

^^ they would probably woudn't be able to find the dot's to make the X and select this options at the stations ... there goes the idea that complementary services are all that wonderfull. :lol:



As I make my countings it goes like this (300km trip):

1 person in the car and it pays 2 times as much as if it wen't by train/bus , the same as on an intercity train ot 1/4th of a plane trip

2 persons in the car and it's the same as if BOTH had gone by bus/train , or one gone by intecity ... or 1/2 a plane ticket 

3 persons and they get money enought to pay for lunch/dinner 

4 people and you have motorway tolls , lunch/dinner and lodging paid with the surplus savings ... and you can even throw some of the car loan payments i you do that counting in a monthly basis. 

So the focus should be entirely placed on ISOLATED travellers (as in one person only) ... all else is residual traffic in the greater scale. hno:


----------



## Suburbanist

Families or groups larger than 3 will always have an advantage to travel in their cars. Especially when you have little kids, it is good to have private transportation at hand.


----------



## He Named Thor

Suburbanist said:


> Guys, air travel doesn't know borders. No one (except for rail fans) would travel LAX-ORD or MIA-BOS in a multiday journey. Full HSR is a very intersting concept, but it is not suitable for >1500 km journeys as it is not suitable for regional commuting (<50 km, say).


Really? That's odd, my parents have chosen to take Amtrak out to Montana twice, and Washington DC once. Both are two day trips. They certainly don't qualify as rail fans. That is, unless you label a rail fan as someone who likes the view like you get in a car without having to drive for hours on end, look for hotels/gas/food, hope the car doesn't break down, find parking, possibly get into a car accident, etc. 

But otherwise no, nobody does that. Why would they, when you can pay more to be charged fees for having luggage, interrogated by security, wait for your delayed plane, shoved into a tiny seat with no leg room next to a fat guy drunk off of the free booze, be re-interrogated, and have your luggage sent to a distant country/broken by security. It's a no-brainer!

And anyway, This:








is greater than first class on almost any airline. Your own private cabin (with the nicer ones you even get a private bathroom and shower) with a real bed and no snoring passengers/screaming babies next to you.


As for funding, how about we just siphon off some of the insane excess that goes to funding tiny airports that cater only to hobbyist fliers. 
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-09-17-little-used-airports_N.htm


----------



## Suburbanist

As I wrote in other topic, I hope airport-like security comes fast to medium and long-distance train transport before a moron tries to hop on with a bomb. X-ray for everyone, sealed (sterile) platforms and lugage inspection would be a good beggining.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> As I wrote in other topic, I hope airport-like security comes fast to medium and long-distance train transport before a moron tries to hop on with a bomb. X-ray for everyone, sealed (sterile) platforms and lugage inspection would be a good beggining.


But why?

Why make railtravel more expensive and less convenient without making any significant contribution to safety.


----------



## Nexis

K_ said:


> But why?
> 
> Why make railtravel more expensive and less convenient without making any significant contribution to safety.


Hes being Anti-Transit , you can read it in his Signature.


----------



## Suburbanist

I'm not being anti-transit, I'm being in defense of car transportation, owners and drivers who get ripped off to finance PT systems they will never use in normal conditions. Besides tobbaco and acohol, nothing gets as taxed as car mobilty in Western Europe (from purchase and licsense fees to gas taxes). Gas should pay VAT and taxes enough (together with vehicle excise taxes, registration fees etc.) to cover road expansion and maitenance and health care for injured people in car crashes, nothing more.

As an European citizen, I feel ripped off each time I go to the gas station and know I'm paying 4 times the volume-price my American friends are paying, yet we drive, in average, 38% of the American driver average year mileage. No matter how "cool" or transit systems might be, I just think it is not fair. Cities should be adapted for car in first place, and new developments always planned taking the car into consideration. But that is another discussion.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> I'm not being anti-transit, I'm being in defense of car transportation, owners and drivers who get ripped off to finance PT systems they will never use in normal conditions. Besides tobbaco and acohol, nothing gets as taxed as car mobilty in Western Europe (from purchase and licsense fees to gas taxes). Gas should pay VAT and taxes enough (together with vehicle excise taxes, registration fees etc.) to cover road expansion and maitenance and health care for injured people in car crashes, nothing more.
> 
> As an European citizen, I feel ripped off each time I go to the gas station and know I'm paying 4 times the volume-price my American friends are paying, yet we drive, in average, 38% of the American driver average year mileage. No matter how "cool" or transit systems might be, I just think it is not fair. Cities should be adapted for car in first place, and new developments always planned taking the car into consideration. But that is another discussion.


Cars are great and all ,but i guess you don't have Northeastern views. The Car is losing here to Transit / PED Malls. Trains and High Speed Trains will become very popular here soon, when they upgrade the lines to handle higher speeds and more volume. Transit is used by 2.4 million New Jerseyites daily, and by 70% of New Yorkers. Many cites in the NE have tried your car approach and now are getting rid of it. over the next 10 years you'll notice Transit becoming more widely used. And if your going to say only poor ppl use transit , your dead wrong , becuz i know rich ppl who use it. High Speed Rail will also become a key part of the system here in the NE. Transit & Car have been will be balanced. also the US doesn't have or probably won't be as taxed as EU. The Northeast Corridor is being upgraded in phases to handle 180mph trains in the future. Currently they are replacing all the Tracks slowy.


----------



## Suburbanist

A lot of prophecy, but outise NYC Metro, transit usage remains low by European standards and I truly hope that, if anything else, Tea Party and other conservative pressure stop those transit projects for the sake of financial healthy of United States! If we could only import some Tea Parties here to Europe...


----------



## LtBk

Those groups don't really have much power plus most of those conservatives group don't know shit. Besides, people in those cities with mass transit projects like Denver and LA want more public transit.


----------



## Nexis

Exactly , 80% of Americans want Rail back , espically poor Americans. Suburbanist you don't live here , so don't tell us Americans how we should build our future , we will do it as we please. We don't care about how Europeans think our networks are small. NYC Metro Rail is probably at or will be at Euro Standards within 2 to 7 years since alot is UC or beginning.


----------



## makita09

Suburbanist said:


> A lot of prophecy, but outise NYC Metro, transit usage remains low by European standards and I truly hope that, if anything else, Tea Party and other conservative pressure stop those transit projects for the sake of financial healthy of United States! If we could only import some Tea Parties here to Europe...


We don't have the Fox news network to propogate falsehoods and emotive scaremongering to the masses in such an efficient manner. Mainly because European news networks aren't allowed to just blatantly make stuff up. Therefore tea parties are not likely to occur in quite the same way. TF.


----------



## hans280

I'd like to share the following quotation with you. It's from an op-ed Roger Cohen did for IHT a few days ago: 

"China is the world’s manufacturer. It is America’s creditor. It is using global technology and resources to fast-forward some 20 percent of humanity to modernity. The churning landscape here, of cranes and half-finished high-rises and new highways, speaks of a gargantuan national project inconceivable without the treasure globalization has furnished....

I took the new high-speed train from Chongqing to Chengdu across the rolling hills of Sichuan with their patchwork of vegetable plots. The distance is about the same as New York to Boston but this train service (one of hundreds projected) has cut travel time below two hours — dream on, East Coast commuters! Everywhere the countryside is being gouged open as workers heave some new project into being. Yes, China is leaping ahead!" 

Sorry but... you'd have to be blind to deny the fact that a "quantum leap" in the area of railway travel is in the making. The fruits will be harvested mainly by those bold enough to sink large investment into new railway infrastructure of a truly HS nature. 

I revert to an earlier point of mine: during almost every major wave of consumer-directed innovation that I can remember (intra-industry innovation is a bit different) the Europeans have sat on their hands for quite a while. Cars in the 1920s? "Yeah, well. In America anything's possible..." Remote control televisions and mobile phones in the 1980s? "They are crazy, those Japanese..." Internet and GPS in the 1990s? "It's probably some underhand plot by Pentagon..." In Europe there was always an excuse for doing nothing, and if all other failed then the new technology was, somehow, "unadapted to European ways of doing things". 

Well, healthy scepticism is sound. Boneheaded conservatism is not. Unfortunately my fellow Europeans were all too often in the latter camp. But listen to the arguments by conservative America now: "This is a Euro-Japanese solution that will not work here; it's alien to American values and the freedom bestowed by our car-loving tradition; it's creeping socialism..." Americans seem on the best way to vye for the position that was traditionally ours.


----------



## LtBk

Yet cells phones are extremely popular in Europe now, more so than the US. Maybe the European bonehead conservatism is dying out?


----------



## Suburbanist

Well, you brought another issue to the light: though I particularly don't know about scientific controlled polls to determine the share of American public eager for more rail transport, people in developed countries in N. America, Europe and Australia will suport almost any infrastructure project they might use someday in the future provided that:

- it is not going to be built in their backyard (1)
- it will not be paid by tax hikes in they will have to bear (2)

So, build it away from my house, and don't ask me for money, and it is okay. The difference, AFAIK, is that the threshold of #2 in US and, to a certain extent, Canada and Australia, if far lower than in Europe, particularly because many local- or state-funded infrastructure projects needs to be financed through property and sales tax increases that immediately falls upon taxpayers.

I didn't have the intetion to "dictate foreign development", though it would be nice if you checked whether I have multiple nationalities, therefore multiple voting rights etc. I just want to point that brakes and reality checks on rail infrastructure have more chances in US than in Europe.

Still, as a repeated visitor to US (my status at the moment), I have nothing to complain: parking fees in the most expensive area of US (Manhattan) are roughly the same what I'm extorted to pay in much smaller Dowtown Amsterdam, but every complain about that disappears when I fill up my rental car's gas tank.


----------



## Nexis

Ok.....where to start......

1. Why are you telling the US how we should build our Rail network

2. Your Not an American

3.We are building it carefully to suit peoples needs

4.The Tea Party is weak and as soon as President Obama does more right things it with dissolve

5. Why do you even drive into Manhattan?

6.most new Transit projects in the Northeast are funded by Tolls and fares , except a few large projects

7. People in most of Urban Areas want and are getting rail , intercity rail is on the drawing broads, and some lines will start later this year or next year.

8. High Speed Rail in Northeast other then the NEC has been put on hold , for smaller but more potential lines. 

9. NIMBY are losing , since the government has finally had enough , and just takes peoples land , which is legal.

10. Just stop , criticizing or guessing how we operate over here its getting annoying , and i speak for a few members.


Heres the Northeast Corridor in a few states, the long term goal of the NEC is to increase speeds south of New York to 190mph, and North of New York to 170mph and add more Tracks.

!30-40mph zone New Jersey

Edison & New Brunswick






Princeton JCT






Hamilton






~Corey


----------



## nomarandlee

> *http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-getting-around-18jan18,0,6021303.column*
> 
> *High-speed rail seen as economic engine in Illinois*
> 
> Downstate Normal, Chicago's West Side among communities looking to ride the rails to modernization
> 
> Jon Hilkevitch
> 
> January 18, 2010
> 
> The residents of Normal, Ill., have one word to describe their community's train station:
> 
> "Amshack."
> 
> Don't get them wrong. Amtrak's intercity passenger trains provide essential transportation in central Illinois for the twin cities of Bloomington, which includes Illinois Wesleyan University, and Normal, home to Illinois State University.
> 
> Airline service to the area from Chicago and other big cities has declined in recent years, contributing in part to the train station in downtown Normal ranking as the fourth-busiest Amtrak terminal for passenger boarding in the Midwest, behind Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Louis.
> 
> But the station is in bad shape and it's inadequate to serve future needs, officials said.
> 
> Normal Mayor Chris Koos traveled the approximately 135 miles to Chicago on Friday to participate in a conference that Gov. Pat Quinn called to improve passenger and freight rail operations in Illinois, and to be prepared to get off on a fast start when $8 billion in federal stimulus grants for high-speed rail are awarded to the states sometime before spring.
> 
> The meeting offered Koos the opportunity to spread the word about a downtown renewal program in Normal that includes building a modern transportation terminal in the town's central business district and surrounding it with office-residential redevelopment that is designed for people to walk, ride a bus or pedal a bike to where they are going instead of drive a vehicle.
> 
> The centerpiece of the Uptown Normal Renewal Plan is a new transportation center that will offer multiple travel choices -- Amtrak on the Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle routes; interstate and regional buses to other Illinois cities as well as destinations in Indiana, Missouri and Iowa; local cabs serving the town as well as the Central Illinois Regional Airport; and shuttle buses to O'Hare International Airport and Midway Airport in Chicago.
> 
> A new Marriott hotel and conference center opened late last year about 100 yards from the Amtrak stop. When the transportation center is built, "the walk from the hotel will be 50 yards," Koos said.
> 
> "It gives people the opportunity to come into a community for a conference, get off the train, go to the hotel, spend two or three days in a lively business district and never see a car the whole time," he said.
> 
> But the redevelopment program, which was started in 1999, is only about one-third complete. It needs an economic lift that a statewide rail modernization program can help provide, officials said.
> 
> "One hundred ten mile an hour trains would cut the travel time from Normal to Chicago to 1 hour 45 minutes," Koos said. "It's so important to getting us closer to the Chicago region."
> 
> Meanwhile, the optimism over rail modernization and high-speed trains is just as strong on Chicago's West Side.
> 
> Business leaders and community activists who have worked to turn around the West Garfield Park neighborhood are welcoming railroading in all its forms because of the great potential for economic expansion.
> 
> A major focus is retooling old factories and building new ones to support a manufacturing base for equipment and parts needed in the new high-speed rail system, said Steven McCullough, president of Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development corporation working to establish a sustainable community on the West Side.
> 
> It all comes down to creating jobs in a neighborhood already surrounded by rail operations, including a Union Pacific Railroad maintenance facility, the Green Line, Metra commuter rail, freight trains and the emerging high-speed passenger service.
> 
> "Rail is an integral part, along with land-use polices, to develop a successful neighborhood and combat the atmosphere of isolation in our community," McCullough said.
> 
> Chicago is the hub of a proposed eight-state Midwest high-speed rail network that includes various corridors with top speeds of 79 mph, 90 mph, 110 mph and eventually 220 mph, under plans submitted by the transportation departments in the states.
> 
> "High-speed rail is an incredible boost in mobility that is not just for Chicago," said Howard Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center.
> 
> "It's for the huge numbers of people -- 2 million people within a 50-mile radius of Kalamazoo, 700,000 people in 15 counties within a 50-mile radius of Springfield, 1 million people within a 50-mile radius of Bloomington-Normal. This is beyond transportation. This is about communities," he said.
> 
> Quinn told the rail conferees that he is committed to making Illinois an inland port that will be the leading rail transportation hub in the U.S. "We've got to get it completed in my lifetime," he said. "I expect to live to 102 because at that point in time, I will have paid off my kids' college loans."
> 
> Contact Getting Around at [email protected] or c/o the Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. Read recent columns at chicagotribune.com/gettingaround.



..


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> A lot of prophecy, but outise NYC Metro, transit usage remains low by European standards and I truly hope that, if anything else, Tea Party and other conservative pressure stop those transit projects for the sake of financial healthy of United States! If we could only import some Tea Parties here to Europe...


Quite a few of the "conservative" parties in Europe aren't against transit. Especially rail based transit. One of the leaders of the SVP in Switzerland is a man named Peter Spühler. He's the CEO of Stadler Rail. Anyone who knows a bit about the current market for railway equipment in Europe will know that name but Stadler Rail has deliverd DMU's to three agencies in the US also, so the company isn't an unkown there either.
That conservatives are by default against mass transit or regional rail is thus not true. Conservatives are in favor of sound fiscal policy, but this does not preclude subsidising transit, as transit has a big positive externality.


----------



## Suburbanist

Data from the European Comission:

*Car ownership per 1.000 inhabitants as of 2008:*
Portugal - 431
France - 542
Italy - 593
Netherlands - 517
Germany - 558
Spain - 503

_Data from FHWA:_
USA - 794

Not that different, huh? Tokyo, London and, for that matter, Madrid and Amsterdam commuting patterns do not represent not even the majority of their countries' patterns, unless you are proposing that, in the future, everyone should or would live in a Manhattan-like urban environment.

As for thr 0.6% tax increase, it is not masive of course, but it could only fund a limited service in Denver Metro. A decent service, yet limited. I'd bet no more than 4% of daily commuters of Denver Metro ride the T-Rex trains.

(again: not against Denver, it is one of the most interesting metro areas in US along with Houston, Salt Lake City, Phoenix and Oklahoma City).


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^34-85% higher number of car ownership per capita (among the examples you quoted) is "not that different"?

Well, acutally thats the very thing I am suggesting, it is quite a difference.


----------



## aab7772003

The statistics do not say how the cars are being used.

Are vans, service vehicles, buses etc., counted as "cars?"

What a pointless rebuttal.


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Not that different, huh? Tokyo, London and, for that matter, Madrid and Amsterdam commuting patterns do not represent not even the majority of their countries' patterns, unless you are proposing that, in the future, everyone should or would live in a Manhattan-like urban environment.



Transport patterns in Tokyo, London, and Paris do not represent the majority of the traffic patterns in Japan, the UK, and France? What planet are you on?

Your so-called Manhattan-like urban environments are present in all "wealthy" countries. Add Milan, Barcelona, Osaka, Nagoya, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Oslo, Stockholm, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Cologne, Oslo, Stockholm, Vancouver, Chicago, San Francisco, Manchester, etc. The list goes on.

In your own fantasy world, urbanization does not exist.


----------



## HAWC1506

But remember that the best transportation system isn't one that relies on one mode over the other. It's a combination of modes. It's when we start shunning the other modes that leads to an inadequate transportation system.

And it goes both ways. Yes cars are nice, but they have limitations that public transportation can address. The vice versa holds true as well.

That also doesn't mean that our development patterns can't change. Here in Washington, land use is becoming much more strict. New developments in the suburbs are higher density, "urban villages" with mixed use zoning. Most of the low-density suburban areas I see are 10+ years old. It's a relatively new thing in the Western U.S. to develop high-density suburbs, but it doesn't mean that it won't proliferate in the future.


----------



## K_

HAWC1506 said:


> Yes cars are nice, but they have limitations that public transportation can address. The vice versa holds true as well.


Indeed. I'm answering posts on a webforum on the internet while commuting to work. Try doing that in a car...

Public transport also increases mobility for those who can't drive like children for example, which also means that their parents don't have to drive them around al the time.


----------



## aab7772003

K_ said:


> Public transport also increases mobility for those who can't drive like children for example, which also means that their parents don't have to drive them around al the time.


Plus, not everyone is born to drive.


----------



## Suburbanist

aab7772003 said:


> Plus, not everyone is born to drive.


Not an excuse. If someone is handicapped in some way, he/she will suffer and deal with adaptation in a way or other. Not liking to drive is not an excuse (one could say "I was not born to pay taxes" or "I was not born to avoid smoking in closed spaces").



aab7772003 said:


> The statistics do not say how the cars are being used.
> 
> Are vans, service vehicles, buses etc., counted as "cars?"
> 
> What a pointless rebuttal.


Those statistics don't account for commercial vehicles, just private ones.


----------



## makita09

^^ The statistics you posted still show a significant difference, I'm not sure how you are reading them if you think they don't. 50% more is significant by most people's standards.

Also public transport is a significant provider for many commuters all around the UK, not just London. Sure for many people that means buses and not trains, but excepting remote rural areas, if even half of commuters had to go by car everything would be [email protected]%*ed.


----------



## Suburbanist

Sure:

*United Kingdom* (including Northern Ireland, excluding overseas possessions)
Population: 61.113.205 (2009)
Area: 244.820 km²
Density: 246 ppl/km²

*United States* (including Alaska and Hawaii, excluding Guam, P. Rico, Virgin Islands and American Samoa):
Population: 308.549.000 (2009, Census Bureau est.)
Area: 9.826.675 km²
Density: 32 ppl/km²

This explains, almost alone, many of the issues he wave been discussing here. America is huge, sparsely populated, scattered (two major population centers N.Y.C. and L.A. separated by 3800 km of land and two mountain ridges) and has plenty of land to grab on. UK doesn't.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> America is huge, sparsely populated, scattered (two major population centers N.Y.C. and L.A. separated by 3800 km of land and two mountain ridges) and has plenty of land to grab on. UK doesn't.


Plenty of land to grab on, but looking at real estate prices mostly land that noone wants to live on...


----------



## NCT

Suburbanist said:


> Sure:
> 
> *United Kingdom* (including Northern Ireland, excluding overseas possessions)
> Population: 61.113.205 (2009)
> Area: 244.820 km²
> Density: 246 ppl/km²
> 
> *United States* (including Alaska and Hawaii, excluding Guam, P. Rico, Virgin Islands and American Samoa):
> Population: 308.549.000 (2009, Census Bureau est.)
> Area: 9.826.675 km²
> Density: 32 ppl/km²
> 
> This explains, almost alone, many of the issues he wave been discussing here. America is huge, sparsely populated, scattered (two major population centers N.Y.C. and L.A. separated by 3800 km of land and two mountain ridges) and has plenty of land to grab on. UK doesn't.


China:

Population: 1,338,612,968 (2009)
Area: 9,569,901 sq km
Density: 139 ppl/sq km

So China has half the population density as the UK, so what's it doing investing in all the high-speed railways and highways?

Raw figures tell you nothing. Population distribution and degrees of urbanisation are much more telling. The fact that 80% of the population is concentrated on the East Coast of China gives an *effective population density* much much higher than Europe.

It's the same with the US, where the majority of the population live in the highly-urbanised coastal states, so the _effective population density_ wouldn't be much different to that of England at all.


----------



## poshbakerloo

But there is a huge advantage of a lot of land that is empty and cheap to buy...

Here in the UK I don't think we will ever see a whole new HSR network built, partly to do with the fact that anything above 140Mph is pointless due to the small distances between places, but also because there isn't anywhere to put it...


----------



## NCT

poshbakerloo said:


> But there is a huge advantage of a lot of land that is empty and cheap to buy...
> 
> Here in the UK I don't think we will ever see a whole new HSR network built, partly to do with the fact that anything above 140Mph is pointless due to the small distances between places, but also because there isn't anywhere to put it...


Where have you been the last couple of months? I thought you visted the UK transport section ...


----------



## Suburbanist

China has a huge desertic area, an autoritarian government that has the right to deny or allow people to migrate from farms or not etc. Imagine if it were illegal for a retiree to leave Buffalo, NY to Tucson, AZ without prior government consent...

Unless you propose that, for high-speed purposes, US should be reduced to both coastal regions, I'd guess (maybe I'm wrong) that high-speed rail projects would stall, at least on federal level. I'd guess (maybe I'm wrong, again) that would be impossible to sell such an expensive project while telling guys from Idaho to Missouri that they won't get any high-speed rail because they live "in the wrong places".

One of the reasons that made the construction of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was the fact that every state (HI and AK joined after the plan was conceived) was given at least a decent through interstate, even (then) sparsely populated Nevada, Wyoming, North Dakota etc. There was, from historical accounts, many opposition that tons of money were to be spent in almost unpopulated strechtes of mountains and desert like the I-70 from Salt Lake City to Reno. However, the comprehensive approach is one of the reasons that made states to accept a degree of intervention of a federal agency in their backyard unherad of until then.

Maybe without a comprehensive plan in which every lower-48 state (plus some compenstation investiment in AK an HI) gets its share of high-speed rail, it will never gain much needed Congress support.

I have a close friend who works for a conservative think-tank and she is adamantly that passing infrastructure viewed as for "yuppies only" would garnish more and more opposition from increasingly "anger-prone" places like the Midwest, where depopulation, weakening of farm indutry etc. would turn them heavily against "unbalanced" spend, like high-speed rail for California, BosWash, Texas, Florida and Seattle-Portland only. And all you need are a hard group of US Senators elected by those "abandoned" states to cool down such projects.

I'd love to read different viewpoints on the politics of HSR investment in America, though.


----------



## NCT

Suburbanist said:


> China has a huge desertic area, an autoritarian government that has the right to deny or allow people to migrate from farms or not etc. Imagine if it were illegal for a retiree to leave Buffalo, NY to Tucson, AZ without prior government consent...


This is the most retarted comment I've ever read in my lifetime. I must be hallucinating when I see hoards of rural migrants flooding the cities.



> Unless you propose that, for high-speed purposes, US should be reduced to both coastal regions, I'd guess (maybe I'm wrong) that high-speed rail projects would stall, at least on federal level. I'd guess (maybe I'm wrong, again) that would be impossible to sell such an expensive project while telling guys from Idaho to Missouri that they won't get any high-speed rail because they live "in the wrong places".


There are *already* _parts_ of the US with the right geography to warrant a HSR network, without forcing people to move. As for living 'in the wrong place', that happens in Europe too - people of Inverness must object to a HSR line that only goes as far as Glasgow or Edinburgh then? Villages on French LGVs but without stations must have been oppressed then?



> One of the reasons that made the construction of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was the fact that every state (HI and AK joined after the plan was conceived) was given at least a decent through interstate, even (then) sparsely populated Nevada, Wyoming, North Dakota etc. There was, from historical accounts, many opposition that tons of money were to be spent in almost unpopulated strechtes of mountains and desert like the I-70 from Salt Lake City to Reno. However, the comprehensive approach is one of the reasons that made states to accept a degree of intervention of a federal agency in their backyard unherad of until then.
> 
> Maybe without a comprehensive plan in which every lower-48 state (plus some compenstation investiment in AK an HI) gets its share of high-speed rail, it will never gain much needed Congress support.
> 
> I have a close friend who works for a conservative think-tank and she is adamantly that passing infrastructure viewed as for "yuppies only" would garnish more and more opposition from increasingly "anger-prone" places like the Midwest, where depopulation, weakening of farm indutry etc. would turn them heavily against "unbalanced" spend, like high-speed rail for California, BosWash, Texas, Florida and Seattle-Portland only. And all you need are a hard group of US Senators elected by those "abandoned" states to cool down such projects.


So state intervention is alright as long as it helps people with their cars, genious.



> I'd love to read different viewpoints on the politics of HSR investment in America, though.


Oh really now ...


----------



## poshbakerloo

NCT said:


> Where have you been the last couple of months? I thought you visted the UK transport section ...


erm I do don't I? lol. What do you mean?


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Not an excuse. If someone is handicapped in some way, he/she will suffer and deal with adaptation in a way or other. Not liking to drive is not an excuse (one could say "I was not born to pay taxes" or "I was not born to avoid smoking in closed spaces").


Stop making your own "excuses" for car driving. Crazy about driving is an excuse too.

So, you mean that society should not invest in all the facilities to improve the mobility for handicapped people?

The fact that some people simply cannot drive or drive very well is NOT a matter of choice.


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Sure:
> 
> *United Kingdom* (including Northern Ireland, excluding overseas possessions)
> Population: 61.113.205 (2009)
> Area: 244.820 km²
> Density: 246 ppl/km²
> 
> *United States* (including Alaska and Hawaii, excluding Guam, P. Rico, Virgin Islands and American Samoa):
> Population: 308.549.000 (2009, Census Bureau est.)
> Area: 9.826.675 km²
> Density: 32 ppl/km²
> 
> This explains, almost alone, many of the issues he wave been discussing here. America is huge, sparsely populated, scattered (two major population centers N.Y.C. and L.A. separated by 3800 km of land and two mountain ridges) and has plenty of land to grab on. UK doesn't.



It depends on which parts of the US you are talking about. There are several big pockets across the 48 contiguous states perfect for HSR. In fact, all Americans now are actually saying that it is crazy to turn every inch of wilderness into lawns with picket fences. 

Do everyone here a favor by stopping to profile Trenitalia nonstop without meaningfully benchmarking it with the leading rail operators around the world. It is obvious that you do not know other rail operators well. Since when Trenitalia has become the rail operator par excellence?

If there were no migration controls in China, more young people would work and live in the mega cities within China and more of them would make even more trips to visit their families in the provinicial towns, which are way bigger than many major European cities. The case for HSR would be even more compelling for China; double-decker high speed rail carriages would be the norm then. Take sometime to seriously study the operational history of the Wuhan-Guangzhou line before sounding off more of your ignorant remarks.


----------



## Suburbanist

aab7772003 said:


> Stop making your own "excuses" for car driving. Crazy about driving is an excuse too.
> 
> So, you mean that society should not invest in all the facilities to improve the mobility for handicapped people?
> 
> The fact that some people simply cannot drive or drive very well is NOT a matter of choice.


There are a lot of solutions for people who cannto drive due to illness, disabilities etc. Many wealthy cities in Houston Metro, for instance, have public services of modified vans that transport those who cannot drive around.

Remember that most physical disabilities do not preclude the use of a car, like deafness, paraplegy, lack of one arm and others. There a lot of handicap-aid solutions so these people can still drive with computer-aided mechanisms, adaptations and so on.

I'm all for acessibility, which is different than convenience. Nobody is talking albout shuttind down old subways because the cannot be feasible updated to accomodate people with reduced mobility, for instance.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

You guys are wrong Florida was chosen because our HSR Plan is the same one from the early 00's which was about to begin construction until funding was taken away and the project killed. The ROW and studies already exist and this project is basically ready to start with a few things to work out here and there.


----------



## HAWC1506

^^Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Obama did say that Floriday's plan was "Shovel-Ready". I think that supports your argument.

California is also expected to get at least $2 billion.

As far as Amtrak Cascades, don't expect any significant upgrades. There hasn't been any push for true HSR in Washington State. We're busy building a light rail network at the moment.


----------



## makita09

FlyFish said:


> to us here in the US, the BBC is seen as a pretty left leaning organization, especially with regard to it's environmental reporting.


Funny, as the right here agree with the left on that issue, I get the feeling the only 'right' that doesn't is the right in the USA. The BBC, whilst it might appear left, is just reporting things that are justifiable. They wouldn't get away with doing otherwise. Channel 4 got punished for showing a documentary debunking climate change, that on closer analysis was shown to be scientifally nonsense. And Channel 4 only showed the doc to maintain balance on not appear biased one way or the other, which is ironic. But still, whichever side's view they are reporting, they tend to have to check it isn't utter nonsense. 

I'm not saying the UK or Europe's news reporting is perfect, and I only have direct contact with americans with a point of view on transport on SSC. As someone with a genuine interest in all infrastructure I would love to be able to come on the US threads and actually learn something about the railway infrastructure and what is happening, and tbh I'm slightly frustrated at level of hyperbole. I don't understand why everything is a left or right issue. Can't something just be an issue? I'm not interested in politics, apart from how it affects infrastructure projects (ie I'm not really all that fussed who is in power, but I want to know if they are helping/hindering certain projects). There's a huge amount of false-binary arguments.

Rail, high speed rail, urban mass-transit, planes and cars are all perfectly valid forms of transport. Arguing about the benefits of the car when someone mentions high speed rail is like arguing about the length of a spin-cycle on a washing machine when someone mentions they like eggs for breakfast.

I'm glad there is actually some news and it would be great for the Florida central belt to get the first big announcement. Is this inteneded to be true high speed (150mph +) or an enhanced conventional (110-125 mph)? I would imagine that as the route is not particularly long the enhance conventional would suffice, though of course I would like to see higher speeds, especially if it is intended to continue eventually down to Miami.

Does anyone have any idea how much detail is likely to be presented with the announcements?


----------



## poshbakerloo

Nexis said:


> its going to be like the British HST , that run Diesel or Gas and not Electric like the Midwest or NE expansions .....ugh....hno:
> 
> ~Corey


The HSTs have been hugely successful in the UK...35 years old and still the best diesel trains in the world!


----------



## city_thing

So the Florida HSR system will only go from Orlando to Tampa? Wouldn't sending it to Miami be a smarter move? Miami's a huge city, I expect it would be more deserving of HSR than Tampa. Can someone explain the thinking behind the line only linking Orlando and Tampa _with the possibility of Miami_?


----------



## hans280

makita09 said:


> Funny, as the right here agree with the left on that issue, I get the feeling the only 'right' that doesn't is the right in the USA. The BBC, whilst it might appear left, is just reporting things that are justifiable. They wouldn't get away with doing otherwise. Channel 4 got punished for showing a documentary debunking climate change, that on closer analysis was shown to be scientifally nonsense. And Channel 4 only showed the doc to maintain balance on not appear biased one way or the other, which is ironic. But still, whichever side's view they are reporting, they tend to have to check it isn't utter nonsense.


There is IMO a stronger sense of corporatism in Europe (even the U.K.) than in most of the western hemisphere - and this is also reflected in the (self)views of the press. Television channels, and to a lesser extent newspapers, are expected to fulfil a modicum of public interest obligations, otherwise they get shouted at. I remember some years ago The Times writing a few articles that were seen as in the commercial interest of its owner, Rupert Murdoch. They really got hammered - right, left and centre. (That said, newspapers of course have editorial lines beloning to different parts of the political spectre.) In the United States I understand this to be a bit different? Owners are, in the name of free speech, free to do whatever they like with their news media? Certainly when one watches Fox News and CNN report from Afghanistan one would get the impression they are covering two different wars. :lol:

But in the context of HS railways: I've been mightily amused to see how the business conservative press in the United Kingdom (e.g. Financial Times, The Economist...) have come around to support modern railways. This is a total u-turn relative to their editorial line 10-15 years ago. When SNCF (accompanied by great Gallic fanfare, I must admit...) opened their HS line from Valences to Marseille The Economist "celebrated" the event with a photo of a TGV on the impressive bridge next to Avignon with the caption "... but the French love it." These days both newspapers apparently support a HS line from London to the North West. What happened? One thing is that the railway privatisation in Britain (or the initial privatisation, at least) is widely seen as having been a monumental flop. Even strongly conservative constituencies have been heard clamouring for "Getting our railway system to work. Now! Even if it means throwing in public money!" Another factor was probably the popularity of the link between London and Folkstone. Prior to construction conservative Britain scoffed and fumed at the thought of "turning Eastern Kent into a moon landscape in order to save 20 minutes!" Now, most people love it. The power of examples... :lol:


----------



## makita09

city_thing said:


> So the Florida HSR system will only go from Orlando to Tampa? Wouldn't sending it to Miami be a smarter move? Miami's a huge city, I expect it would be more deserving of HSR than Tampa. Can someone explain the thinking behind the line only linking Orlando and Tampa _with the possibility of Miami_?


Because Miami is quite a lot further away and would be a bigger project from the outset to link it to anywhere at all. Its a different project entirely.


----------



## FlyFish

makita09 said:


> Because Miami is quite a lot further away and would be a bigger project from the outset to link it to anywhere at all. Its a different project entirely.


Also because the Tampa - Orlando thing has been discussed forever and the planning is already done. I lived in Tampa from 90 to 96 and remember it being talked about even then. This is probably one of the few HSR proposed corridors where construction could actuially start in a reasonable length of time.

As to the type of HSR I do not know.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> Another factor was probably the popularity of the link between London and Folkstone. Prior to construction conservative Britain scoffed and fumed at the thought of "turning Eastern Kent into a moon landscape in order to save 20 minutes!" Now, most people love it. The power of examples...


How true. People tend to fear what they don't know (in the U.S. not only HSR, but public health care). I bet 98% of Americans when asked to paint a picture in their minds about a passenger train, think of the once a day Amtrak train that stops (often late) in their town, and averages 30mph on its route. And that's if they actually have a passenger train in their town. Otherwise it's a long lumbering freight train that blocks their drive home, or, even worse, some conservative talking point that HSR doesn't make a profit anywhere and is a "boondoggle". Chew on this figure- only 2% of Americans have ever ridden a passenger train....


----------



## FlyFish

k.k.jetcar said:


> How true. People tend to fear what they don't know (in the U.S. not only HSR, but public health care). I bet 98% of Americans when asked to paint a picture in their minds about a passenger train, think of the once a day Amtrak train that stops (often late) in their town, and averages 30mph on its route. And that's if they actually have a passenger train in their town. Otherwise it's a long lumbering freight train that blocks their drive home, or, even worse, some conservative talking point that HSR doesn't make a profit anywhere and is a "boondoggle". Chew on this figure- only 2% of Americans have ever ridden a passenger train....


I don't think it is fear as much as ambivalence. HSR is not on the radar of very many people here. Even in Florida where it may actually happen I would bet that a big segment will hear of it and say... "why do we need that. If I am in Tampa and want to get to Orlando I just jump on the interstate and in 90 minutes I am there. Why drive to a train station, park my car, take the train, and then worry about transportation to wherever I am going once I get there"...

In the end, on that route, from point to point it isn't faster than driving no matter how fast the train goes, unless you live within three or so miles of the station and are going somewhere within walking distance of the station on the other end.


I really fear we will spend billions of dollars and end up with really fast, really pretty and really empty trains. I hope this works, I really do. I am a train buff but I just don't think it will work here in the short term.


Health care? A whole different animal and discussion. And one where, with respect, no opinion outside the US is valid. You folks don't know our Government well enough to even know what those of us who are scared are actually scared of. :cheers:


----------



## Onn

Here's the list of lines getting funding, more in the article. Looks like California sweept the board.

*California: $2.25 billion for HSR, $99 million for smaller conventional rail projects

Chicago-St. Louis corridor: $1.1 billion

Chicago-Detroit corridor: $244 million

Milwaukee-Madison corridor: $810 million

Cleveland-Cincinnati corridor: $400 million

Tampa-Orlando corridor: $1.25 billion

Raleigh-Charlotte corridor: $520 million

Washington State: $590 million*

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...D1A66CA7501E947E862576B9000CFB3F?OpenDocument


----------



## FlyFish

Hmm, the one place you could argue that we actually need the damn thing and the one place we KNOW it will be ridden enough to cash flow, the North East Corridor, doesn't get any money to build it.


Ya gotsta love the US Government


----------



## Onn

FlyFish said:


> Hmm, the one place you could argue that we actually need the damn thing and the one place we KNOW it will be ridden enough to cash flow, the North East Corridor, doesn't get any money to build it.
> 
> 
> Ya gotsta love the US Government


I agree, neither did Texas where the cities are almost all larger than the one's on the list. I wonder if a certain set of voters are being snubbed here? 

hno:


----------



## WatcherZero

How much of its High speed? the article mentions California-San Fransico 220mph, but then other line raised above 79mph or another raised TO 90mph?


----------



## Onn

WatcherZero said:


> How much of its High speed? the article mentions California-San Fransico 220mph, but then other line raised above 79mph or another raised TO 90mph?


Well according to this article, the other two 1 billion dollar projects will support 110 mph lines. The rest of the money is for regular rail improvements, yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35123528/ns/politics-white_house/


----------



## FlyFish

When i lived in FL in the 90's the Tampa - Orlando thing was looked at as a Euro or Japanese-styled bullet concept. I don't know what they mean to do now. I only know that the money they allocate to FLA is less than half what they need to build it sooooooooooooo, where's the rest come from? I also know that the reaction of non-politicians was "eh whatever". Not a lot of passion from those you'd hope would be your paying customers.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the first smart politician asks his Congressional rep, "uh hey, I was uh, just thinking and uh, who do you expect is going to uh subsidize the operation of this thing?"

State of Florida, congratulations on the receipt of your latest unfunded mandate. :applause:


----------



## FlyFish

Onn said:


> I agree, neither did Texas where the cities are almost all larger than the one's on the list. I wonder if a certain set of voters are being snubbed here?
> 
> hno:


Nah, that would never happen. I am sure the White House only granted this money to the most deserving applicants. Politics would never infringe on something like this. :nuts:

{heavy sarcasm intended}


----------



## boyerling3

FlyFish said:


> I don't think it is fear as much as ambivalence. HSR is not on the radar of very many people here. Even in Florida where it may actually happen I would bet that a big segment will hear of it and say... "why do we need that. If I am in Tampa and want to get to Orlando I just jump on the interstate and in 90 minutes I am there. Why drive to a train station, park my car, take the train, and then worry about transportation to wherever I am going once I get there"...
> 
> In the end, on that route, from point to point it isn't faster than driving no matter how fast the train goes, unless you live within three or so miles of the station and are going somewhere within walking distance of the station on the other end.
> 
> 
> I really fear we will spend billions of dollars and end up with really fast, really pretty and really empty trains. I hope this works, I really do. I am a train buff but I just don't think it will work here in the short term.
> 
> 
> Health care? A whole different animal and discussion. And one where, with respect, no opinion outside the US is valid. You folks don't know our Government well enough to even know what those of us who are scared are actually scared of. :cheers:


I totally agree. I've ridden on a couple trains in New York and Chicago but never used Amtrak and I think the majority of Americans don't care too much about trains. So far America really hasn't had a problem with everybody owning a car and driving everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the balance can't change to allow a bit more train travel. They will certainly need to try and make HSR somewhat affordable and competitive with airline rates if they want it to succeed. I also totally agree with the Healthcare comment quoted above.


----------



## Onn

FlyFish said:


> When i lived in FL in the 90's the Tampa - Orlando thing was looked at as a Euro or Japanese-styled bullet concept. I don't know what they mean to do now. I only know that the money they allocate to FLA is less than half what they need to build it sooooooooooooo, where's the rest come from? I also know that the reaction of non-politicians was "eh whatever". Not a lot of passion from those you'd hope would be your paying customers.
> 
> I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the first smart politician asks his Congressional rep, "uh hey, I was uh, just thinking and uh, who do you expect is going to uh subsidize the operation of this thing?"
> 
> State of Florida, congratulations on the receipt of your latest unfunded mandate. :applause:


They should have given the money out in 2 or 3 big packages, as the experts suggested. Two for blue states, one for a red. I think that would have been fair at least. I agree, much of this is probably putting a new coat of paint on an old station. Obama seems to have botched up the stimulus package big time, including no major worthwhile projects in it (Hoover Dam, anyone?)


----------



## hans280

FlyFish said:


> When i lived in FL in the 90's the Tampa - Orlando thing was looked at as a Euro or Japanese-styled bullet concept. I don't know what they mean to do now. I only know that the money they allocate to FLA is less than half what they need to build it sooooooooooooo, where's the rest come from? I also know that the reaction of non-politicians was "eh whatever". Not a lot of passion from those you'd hope would be your paying customers.


Yeah, but... sorry FlyFish conservative America cannot have it both ways. Either budgetary prudence is an absolute value or it is not. Please consider this: in every war since Mr. Madison governments have raised taxes to pay for the whole thing. This applies to the Civil War, WW2, Korea, Vietnam...

There is one recent exception. When G.W.Bush declared War on Terror and sent troops into, first, Afganistan and, second, Iraq he actually cut taxes. No... I mean, really, no... don't argue with me. The President of the United States went to war and, at the same time, slashed the Treasury's income. To me (I'm a political economist) this is incredibly daring. But, apparently, middle America approved wholeheartedly. 

So... what is, now, the fundamental objection to the Federal Governemtn underwriting an undertaking to invest in public transport just because the money is not there? :lol:


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.


You in fact now know nothing about public transportation in Japan.



Suburbanist said:


> After all, public transportaiton is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort.


This is not what public transportation all about. Many people will not call driving for long hours or getting stuck in traffic jams in their own "state-of-the art" cars comfortable.


----------



## nomarandlee

> *http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_high_...5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNtb25leXdvZXNjb3U-*
> 
> *Money woes could threaten high-speed rail's future*
> 
> By MICHAEL TARM, Associated Press Writer Michael Tarm, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 5 mins ago
> 
> CHICAGO – The $8 billion in stimulus cash awarded to 13 high-speed rail corridors across the country may seem like a windfall for advocates, but there's a catch: The money isn't enough to finish any of the major projects.
> 
> State coffers are dry and federal spending is being cut back, so it's unclear who, if anyone, will pay the rest of the multi-billion dollar bill.
> 
> Many states have been vague about how they would foot their part of the bill. But experts say most are counting on the federal government to cover at least half of their costs over the next few decades — a hope that may clash with President Barack Obama's recent pledge to curb spending.
> 
> "As time goes on, as fast trains become a way of life for America, there will be more and more federal help," Ill. Gov. Pat Quinn said Friday after his state learned it would get more than a $1 billion of the stimulus money.
> 
> Optimists point to the 2011 federal budget Obama proposed Monday that seeks $1 billion more for high-speed trains on top of the $8 billion he announced in stimulus money last week. There's another $2.5 billion tucked away in the 2010 federal appropriations bill that has been approved but not yet allocated.
> 
> A proposed $500 billion, six-year federal transportation reauthorization bill includes $50 billion for high-speed rail. But that generous sum was included before Obama began talking about belt tightening, and it seems unlikely to win approval in its current form.
> 
> "This is all pork barrel stuff from House transportation committee leaders who threw everything and the kitchen sink in there," said Randal O'Toole, a researcher at the free-market Cato Institute and a critic of the rail plans. "This bill is dead in the water."
> 
> *Even if it came through, that money hardly covers the proposed price tag of the 13 high-speed rail corridors, which are estimated to cost at least $60 billion and possibly more than $100 billion over the next decade *or two. Those cost estimates also don't include the hundreds of million of dollars it could cost each year to operate the networks — costs that states typically pick up.
> 
> "States have to be very, very careful, and realize that it might be hard for the feds to kick in the money for high-speed rail," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers.
> 
> It also might be hard for states that are grappling with huge budget shortfalls to justify spending more on high-speed rail while education and health care are on the chopping blocks, Pattison said.
> 
> Illinois, Florida, California have by far the most to win if the money does keep flowing — and the most to lose if it doesn't. Those three states were given the bulk of the federal stimulus money.
> 
> Chicago would become the hub of an eight-state network, which, in all, won a third of the $8 billion in stimulus money. Officials say completing the Midwest system will cost nearly $10 billion, though skeptics say it could be twice that.
> 
> Florida is getting $1.25 billion for a new high-speed track that would run from Tampa to Orlando, then later from Orlando to Miami. Officials have said building the entire network should cost around $12 billion, though others put it closer to $20 billion.
> 
> A planned California network is by far the most ambitious. It received the second largest slice of the stimulus pie, $2.3 billion, to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego.
> 
> The California network is also the priciest, at more than $40 billion. Critics say the actual price tag could eventually be double that.
> 
> The problem is that both California and Illinois face yawning budget deficits of more than $11 billion and $20 billion, respectively, and Florida's stands at $3 billion. So anything short of a sustained federal commitment over decades could stick them with construction and then operating bills they can't pay.
> 
> Even without a solid plan to fund the rail projects, high-speed train advocates haven't stopped from thinking big. Some envision creating a true high-speed rail system like the ones in Asia and Europe that could cost $1 trillion.
> 
> "The idea is to get a pipeline of projects set up, then get more and more projects later," Andy Kunz, president of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, said about the injection of federal stimulus funds. "This is just seed money — a down payment."
> 
> Critics of high-speed rail projects fear advocates will do just that.
> 
> "They're trying to create momentum so it can't be stopped," said John Tillman, head of the conservative Illinois Policy Institute. "They come back one day and say, 'We already spent the $50 billion, we can't waste it by not spending $100 billion more."



..


----------



## hammersklavier

Suburbanist said:


> A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.


 Only when it's _supposed_ to be faster. On light rail and rapid transit speed efficiency is traded for people-moving efficiencies, and the irony that city roadways tend to limit traffic to 15 mph or less means that, when well-engineered, these trains _still_ go faster than cars on heavily congested roads.


> If a medium or long-distance train cannot beat average reasonable driving speeds, it is not worth keeping.


Ridership is actually more important. There is a transit hierarchy ranging from "local bus" up to "express commuter". If ridership is below a certain threshold, express buses are probably going to be the most efficient and economical means of mass transit.


> After all, public transportation is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort. That's why most people will take a flight from Miami to - say - Denver and not drive for 2 days in their state-of-the-art SUV, hybrid or whatever vehicle!


1) No, it's not. Rapid transit is about providing optimal services at the expense of comfort, yes, but comfort is part of the allure of light rail and commuter rail services. For example, I take the train an hour each way every day to go to school, and every day, when I take the train, I _expect_ certain amenities, like cushioned seats and a decent nap :lol:
2) Wrong wrong wrongity wrong! You're looking at a trip where airplanes will always win out, simply due to the distance being covered being far too great for convenient service on any other mode! (At least until fuel prices make affordable plane tickets untenable.) And remember, the best carriers _do_ afford their customers a comfortable experience as well.


> That's wh*y* people, except for the poorest ones, ride subways in places like New York or Chicago instead of driving Dow*n*town.
> 
> A slower-than-driving service will never get a seriou*s* market share of travel (and at least on freeway planning and managing politicians don't buy the "lower the speed to make that creepy XYZ system competitive". Same reasoning applies to Europe, Japan etc. That is, for instance, one of the reason of decadence of a lot of older spur lines in Italy, for instance. Even with the limited road infrastructure, trains that don't beat the car speed in mountainous and rugged terrain usually don't have sufficient ridership to justify running them. They will have a small market share, but will never make a significant dent like Eurostar, TGV, TAV, AVE or other services did on air and road travel in their regions, which eve*n*tually shut down or drastically reduced a lot of air shuttle services competing with them.


I have already pointed out that in the European climate, otherwise money-losing services are kept open for political reasons.


> For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph commercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.


Um, did you miss the sign at the door where if the system's under 110 mph it's not considered "high-speed rail" in the U.S.? Why are you even posting this here? Do you _like_ stating the obvious?

Your thread corresponds to the weak argument that fast rail transit "is only good between 100 and 500 miles". In fact, the best rail systems _exceed_ that length, by being point-to-point-to-point Paul Revere systems (or axes), thereby arranging service in such a way that multiple "corridors" are served by the same equipment: this represents a clear operational efficiency unobtainable in cars or planes, and is _the_ key reason why I believe that the American HSR system _must_ ultimately be national in scope, and why we must regulate the buildout of the system with interoperability in mind, so that we _can_ have a single train that services the Twin Cities-Chicago, Chicago-Louisville, Louisville-Nashville, Nashville-Atlanta, and Atlanta-Savannah "corridors" simultaneously. Sharing operating equipment reduces operating costs across the board, on everything from maintenance to crews to interchanges...indeed, this ability, which among all modes of transportation is utterly _unique_ to railroads, is one of _the_ key reasons why rail transport is so danged profitable.


----------



## makita09

Suburbanist said:


> For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph comercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.


!

What planet are you one dude? Most railway engineers throughout the world can get 60mph averages out of their networks just by standing on the back of the train and farting in unison.

The USA is astounding in its ability to provide a passenger service that is as fast as the rest of the world would expect of a tram.

If a system cannot yeild 60mph commercial speeds, the infrastructure management should shoot themselves in the face.


----------



## Oponopono

makita09 said:


> The USA is astounding in its ability to provide a passenger service that is as fast as the rest of the world would expect of a tram.
> 
> If a system cannot yeild 60mph commercial speeds, the infrastructure management should shoot themselves in the face.



makita, for the philosophy of American railroading, it wouldn't make sense to have trains running at more than that. The lower the speed the lower the infrastructure costs, both of building it and maintaining it. And it serves the purpose of freight transport perfectly. Now, those speeds for pax traffic are a whole different thing.

Please remember that in the US, unlike in Europe, the traffic pays not only for the operation but also for the infrastructure it runs on.


----------



## nomarandlee

via the Christian Science Monitor Op/Ed



> *http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/275730*
> 
> *US high-speed rail to the rescue*
> 
> By Steve Yetiv and Lowell Feld Steve Yetiv And Lowell Feld – Mon Feb 1, 9:57 am ET
> Norfolk, Va.; and Washington – What if you could travel the 347 miles from Los Angeles to San Francisco in a fraction of the time it takes to drive this distance and without the security checks, the clogged terminals, and flight cancellations that seem to plague air travel these days? What if you could also save money, substantially decrease pollution and the need to build expensive highways, and create American jobs while you were at it? Seem like a pipe dream? It's not.
> 
> The technology is already here but it's underrated, underutilized, and often overlooked. High-speed rail is an important part of the answer to much of America's travel and environmental woes, not to mention potentially easing American oil dependence. The United States, as Obama pointed out recently just needs to take it seriously.
> 
> Around the world, high-speed trains have roundly beaten planes on price, overall travel time, and convenience at ranges of up to 600 miles.
> 
> Consider what happened in Europe: Commercial flights all but disappeared after high-speed trains were established between Paris and Lyon. And in the first year of operation, a Madrid-to-Barcelona high-speed link cut the air travel market about 50 percent. Traveling by train from London to Paris generates just 1/10th the amount of carbon dioxide as traveling by plane, according to one study.
> 
> Consider Asia: While America fumbles, China has seen the light. It plans to build 42 high-speed rail lines across 13,000 kilometers (some 8,000 miles) in the next three years. The Chinese Railway Ministry says that rail can transport 160 million people per year compared with 80 million for a four-lane highway.
> 
> In addition to the central goal of decreasing oil use and pollution, China seeks to bolster its economy with investment in rail and also to satisfy the demands for mobility of its growing middle class.
> 
> For America, as fewer people opt for gas-guzzling air or car travel, a high-speed rail system would hit US oil dependence right where it counts: in the gas tank.
> 
> High-speed rail is most economical in areas of high population density. In August 2009, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman found that America has a "bigger potential market for fast rail than any European country."
> 
> Meanwhile, the US Department of Transportation has identified 11 high-speed corridors, including Los Angeles to San Francisco. And Congress has wisely dedicated $8 billion to pay for high-speed rail projects across the country as part of last year's stimulus package.
> 
> A few states such as Florida are actively considering the viability of high-speed rail. Yet California is one of the few states that have made noticeable strides toward rail. Indeed, in November 2008, California voters OK'd $10 billion in funding for a rail system linking L.A. and San Francisco. This system will include trains capable of traveling 220 miles per hour, cutting travel time from about six hours via Route I-5 to just 2-1/2 hours.
> 
> According to a study by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, building the rail system there will create 150,000 construction jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs. It will also "bring economic benefits worth twice the cost of construction," including the development of business centers, and create less environmental impact than a two-lane highway.
> 
> The system would "save up to 5 million barrels of oil per year and reduce pollutant emissions," while even managing to "avoid 10,000 auto accidents yearly with their attendant deaths, injuries, and property damage compared to expanding only highways."
> 
> We spend a lot of time bemoaning US oil dependence, the job market, and horrible air travel, but high-speed rail is the answer right in front of us.
> 
> What should be done to make it a reality nation-wide?
> 
> First, state leaders should encourage citizens to really consider the long-term benefits. High-speed rail would not only create jobs for Americans, it would actually increase our national security over time by helping us get off our oil addiction – an addiction that strengthens our adversaries and leaves us vulnerable to foreign crises and oil disruptions. Investment in rail is well worth it.
> 
> Second, the price of gasoline is still very low in the US compared with other industrialized nations with developed rail systems. This perpetuates the American culture of sprawl and big vehicles. States could restructure taxes to raise the gas tax while decreasing taxes on payroll, so that taxpayers don't pay a higher tax overall. Higher gas taxes will give citizens incentive to switch to rail.
> 
> When citizens start taking rail seriously, states can start taking it seriously and develop careful plans to move forward and take advantage of federal rail money. Of course, rail won't solve every energy problem, but it should be an important part of a national energy policy.
> 
> Steve Yetiv is a professor of political science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. His latest book is called "The Absence of Grand Strategy." Lowell Feld worked for 17 years in the US Department of Energy as a senior energy analyst.


---


----------



## Smooth Indian

Suburbanist said:


> A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.
> 
> If a medium or long-distance train cannot beat average reasonable driving speeds, it is not worth keeping. After all, public transportaiton is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort. That's why most people will take a flight from Miami to - say - Denver and not drive for 2 days in their state-of-the-art SUV, hybrid or whatever vehicle! That's what people, except for the poorest ones, ride subways in places like New York or Chicago instead of driving Dowtown.
> 
> A slower-than-driving service will never get a seriour market share of travel (and at least on freeway planning and managing politicians don't buy the "lower the speed to make that creepy XYZ system competitive". Same reasoning applies to Europe, Japan etc. That is, for instance, one of the reason of decadence of a lot of older spur lines in Italy, for instance. Even with the limited road insfrastructure, trains that don't beat the car speed in mountainous and rugged terrain usually don't have sufficient ridership to justify running them. They will have a small market share, but will never make a significant dent like Eurostar, TGV, TAV, AVE or other services did on air and road travel in their regions, which evetually shut down or drastically reduced a lot of air shuttle services competing with them.
> 
> For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph comercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.


Actually medium and long distance trains can also provide plenty of comfort when compared to driving a luxury SUV. You must remember that driving a car even a luxury can get tiring over long distances. And for overnight travelling, long distance trains can provide reasonable comfort for an affordable price. So even if it may take additional time many people might actually prefer medium to long distance travel because it can be less tiring and hassle-free.

As for commercial speeds of 60 mph/96 kmph even third world countries can easily achieve those with their own home-built technology


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> A train that is slower than driving even when you account for expected dealys at metropolitan congetion lanes is a failure in US, in Japan, in Europe, in Australia and in Mozambique.
> 
> If a medium or long-distance train cannot beat average reasonable driving speeds, it is not worth keeping. After all, public transportaiton is about providing faster services at expense of privacy and comfort. That's why most people will take a flight from Miami to - say - Denver and not drive for 2 days in their state-of-the-art SUV, hybrid or whatever vehicle! That's what people, except for the poorest ones, ride subways in places like New York or Chicago instead of driving Dowtown.
> 
> A slower-than-driving service will never get a seriour market share of travel (and at least on freeway planning and managing politicians don't buy the "lower the speed to make that creepy XYZ system competitive". Same reasoning applies to Europe, Japan etc. That is, for instance, one of the reason of decadence of a lot of older spur lines in Italy, for instance. Even with the limited road insfrastructure, trains that don't beat the car speed in mountainous and rugged terrain usually don't have sufficient ridership to justify running them. They will have a small market share, but will never make a significant dent like Eurostar, TGV, TAV, AVE or other services did on air and road travel in their regions, which evetually shut down or drastically reduced a lot of air shuttle services competing with them.
> 
> For engineering rationality sake, if a system cannot yield 60mph/96kph comercial speeds (to offset travel time from house/office trips to departure station and from arrival station), it is better to be shut down for good and left for freight trains only.


Oh be quiet , you don't live here , so don't tell US Americans how too build things , i have reviewed all the Light Rail & Metro plans for the cities that submitted them and only 4 cities have made a bad plan. Are you saying only poor ppl ride mass transit and Rails? Your severely wrong here in the Northeast Everybody , rides Public Trans , just to say that extra dollar or 2 , and many ppl here are turning to PT instead of buying a car or bike. I know rich ppl , poor ppl , black , white , Latino all ride PT. ppl use PT becuz its more relaxing then driving , and some PT services come with wifi and the New Double-Decker trains can with toilets and some might in future have snack bars. The average speeds here in the Northeast for Trains is 60-100mph and Express Trains 80-130mph. Much of Northeast will rebuild its Rail over the next 10 years , about 40% would be Electrified and 2 more High Speed Lines, The 3 New Projects here in the NYC metro would speed up and double Capacity. All 3 Projects would have a daily usage of 500,000 ppl. Across the Northeast once all the planned and under construction projects are completed by 2025 you will be aloud to be Car-free ,in most cities and travel to most cities via Rail and to more Airports (some Airports have destinations others don't , espically to Europe.) All these Projects would have a daily usage estimated at 25 million + more then the estimated 10 million now. Once the NEC upgrade is completed in 2020? Trains will roar at 180mph, the entire NEC except NYC , where it would 130mph. So how bout you do some research before you spew wrong and stupid facts or ideas.

~Corey


----------



## Suburbanist

This is an international forum, and I have lived in US before. I've paid my fair share of sales taxes, federal income tax and so on. I'm giving an opinion, just that. Unfortunately I don't have the political clout I'd love to have to shut down most of unprofitable train systems, worldwide, tomorrow 

The most I've so far achieved in my "pro-car crusade" was promoting a restless campaing that resulted in a university expanding parking lots over a green, other university cutting extensivelly bus and van shuttles instead of rising room&board fees for everyone by $70 and a (private, not published yet) controlled experiment in which extensive negative publicity about "the dangers of buses" affected attitudes of university students about bringing or not their cars to the campus - even some bad news publicity about a rape in a bus stand 10 years ago dramatically affected the attitude of new female students about bringing their cars to campus.

This being said, people's opinion about choice of transportation are different. They value different things with different wheighs. A minority of people car less about privacy than about not driving. Many people don't mind driving on a daily basis if they have enough income and highway capacity available to them. Another minority, which I'm part to, hates the idea of being in close quarters with strangers for long periods of time, especially urban-types, and therefore preffer to drive even if it is more expensive or if it takes longer.

In a nutshell, not every commuter is the same!

However, the bottom line is that a transportation system should be planned for the "average" guy. Extensive cultural marketing reserach has shown different attitutes toward transit and transportation choice in Europe and North America + Australia. Ignoring those facts would be silly and resource-wasteful.

I'm not against train systems and I think high-speed has a valid case under certain circumstances. Technically, I understand shortcomings of a not-so-high-speed network and its detrimental effects over ridership and competition with other modes of transportation. Politically, I do not support using railway expansion (of any kind) if it were to be used as a platform to argue against bigger and less dense housing developments - which is more of a problem in Europe than in other parts of the developed World.

Finally, whatever transit projects are, they must consider attitudes of their potential users. I don't like totalitarian approaches like "ok, we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway".


----------



## GunnerJacket

Suburbanist said:


> Unfortunately I don't have the political clout I'd love to have to shut down most of unprofitable train systems, worldwide, tomorrow.


Would you do the same for all the unprofitable roadways, too? 


> ...and a (private, not published yet) controlled experiment in which extensive negative publicity about "the dangers of buses" affected attitudes of university students about bringing or not their cars to the campus - even some bad news publicity about a rape in a bus stand 10 years ago dramatically affected the attitude of new female students about bringing their cars to campus.


How delightfully political: Using tangential reasoning and negative advertising to infer that a method of transportation is responsible for victimhood or direct personal crime! Was this view balanced with data about incidents of crime in parking lots at odd hours? More importantly, did it illustrate that methods of transportation aren't the cause of crime? That architecture and site design can be used to limit criminal behavior? Seriously, any allusion to equating mass transit with the criminal element is blatant fear-mongering. 


> Another minority, which I'm part to, hates the idea of being in close quarters with strangers for long periods of time, especially urban-types, and therefore preffer to drive even if it is more expensive or if it takes longer.


There's a difference between defending your view and assailing that of someone else, and what you seem to miss in your current discussion is that rail advocates are fighting for more balance in a system overwhelmingly tilted towards the personal automobile. If you want to champion auto-commuting then have at it, but try to do so by suggesting the positives from that option as opposed to hurling insulting innuendo towards those wishing another option. Especially when your preferred option is the existing default model.



> However, the bottom line is that a transportation system should be planned for the "average" guy. Extensive cultural marketing reserach has shown different attitutes toward transit and transportation choice in Europe and North America + Australia. Ignoring those facts would be silly and resource-wasteful.


Agreed, but the parameters of those studies often are less than comprehensive. Similar studies indicate the "average guy" would use whatever options prove convenient, cost effective, safe, and so on, and that all things being equal there exists only a minimal bias towards mass transit, in part due to the malefactors discussed above.

What's also at play here is the idea that these decisions are made in a vacuum, which they are most certainly not. Transportation methodology is obviously intertwined with land use patterns, and any form of land development is both costly and difficult to amend. Thus, planning for and investing in such infrastructure must be thoughtful of many factors besides the simplistic view of personal convenience. Even where rail does _not_ yield a shorter travel time nor significant savings there can be benefits in terms land reserved for other uses, lower fuel consumption, and fostering urban levels of economic efficiency.


> Politically, I do not support using railway expansion (of any kind) if it were to be used as a platform to argue against bigger and less dense housing developments - which is more of a problem in Europe than in other parts of the developed World.


Is this a mistype? Typically rail service fosters HIGHER densities of housing and office use. Regardless, it is the current level of low-density housing in the US that is making efficient rail development so difficult, and seeing us lose land by the hundreds of square miles even during a recession.


> Finally, whatever transit projects are, they must consider attitudes of their potential users. I don't like totalitarian approaches like "ok, we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway".


I'm not either, which is why I would like to see an end to the totalitarian approach that has for decades force fed the US consumer that the only way to travel is via the car. We're not even investing in sidewalks for crying out loud! hno:


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> This is an international forum, and I have lived in US before. I've paid my fair share of sales taxes, federal income tax and so on. I'm giving an opinion, just that. Unfortunately I don't have the political clout I'd love to have to shut down most of unprofitable train systems, worldwide, tomorrow
> 
> The most I've so far achieved in my "pro-car crusade" was promoting a restless campaing that resulted in a university expanding parking lots over a green, other university cutting extensivelly bus and van shuttles instead of rising room&board fees for everyone by $70 and a (private, not published yet) controlled experiment in which extensive negative publicity about "the dangers of buses" affected attitudes of university students about bringing or not their cars to the campus - even some bad news publicity about a rape in a bus stand 10 years ago dramatically affected the attitude of new female students about bringing their cars to campus.
> 
> This being said, people's opinion about choice of transportation are different. They value different things with different wheighs. A minority of people car less about privacy than about not driving. Many people don't mind driving on a daily basis if they have enough income and highway capacity available to them. Another minority, which I'm part to, hates the idea of being in close quarters with strangers for long periods of time, especially urban-types, and therefore preffer to drive even if it is more expensive or if it takes longer.
> 
> In a nutshell, not every commuter is the same!
> 
> However, the bottom line is that a transportation system should be planned for the "average" guy. Extensive cultural marketing reserach has shown different attitutes toward transit and transportation choice in Europe and North America + Australia. Ignoring those facts would be silly and resource-wasteful.
> 
> I'm not against train systems and I think high-speed has a valid case under certain circumstances. Technically, I understand shortcomings of a not-so-high-speed network and its detrimental effects over ridership and competition with other modes of transportation. Politically, I do not support using railway expansion (of any kind) if it were to be used as a platform to argue against bigger and less dense housing developments - which is more of a problem in Europe than in other parts of the developed World.
> 
> Finally, whatever transit projects are, they must consider attitudes of their potential users. I don't like totalitarian approaches like "ok, we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway".


Pure rubbish.

How about automobile-related crimes? Ah, yes, women being attacked in empty parking lots on their way to their own comfortable cars furnished with all the protective feminine comforts imaginable :lol:

Actually, governments around the world design and build their public transport networks with the local conditions in mind. When situations like "... we have a brand new high-speed line so we will not expand that parallel freeway" happen because probably voters want it that way, sometimes they even make their consent loud and clear in a referendum.

Most "average" people do not want ultra low-density housing developments; they want mixed-used urban developments with creative architecture with rail transport as the core of them in North America, Europe, Oceania, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.


----------



## Suburbanist

aab7772003 said:


> Most "average" people do not want ultra low-density housing developments; they want mixed-used urban developments with creative architecture with rail transport as the core of them in North America, Europe, Oceania, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.


Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?


----------



## hammersklavier

Suburbanist said:


> Besides clear buyer behavior indications...


Hold on--what kinds of buyer behavior indications are you talking about? Because, you know, if you use the argument that 95.3% people drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix and therefore that corridor could not support a HSR corridor because _93.5% of people drive_, isn't that a circular argument? Because isn't it the case that if there is _no other option_ then you're _forcing_ people to only utilize one system of transportation?

When you have situations where you're trying to compare product that is produced in unequal amounts (like the difference between urban and suburban dwellings), then, using a statistic like "54.whatever% people buy suburban dwellings" is fallacious, utter nonsense, and worse--misleading--because _75% of the supply is in suburban conditions_ due to housing policies put in place during the Great Depression. Thus, a far more accurate comparison would be that of cost per square foot of house (because an elevation in that cost in urban dwellings as compared to suburban dwellings would reflect the existence of some other sort of amenity which the buyer felt justified the higher per-square-foot cost, i.e., buying a Victorian rowhome for the same price as a sprawling North Dallas Special, in urban areas compared to suburban areas). When we do this, I believe (somebody can check the actual math) that, all other factors being equal (comparable neighborhood economic/demographic composition, etc.) _urban houses cost on the order of twice to thrice more per square foot than do their suburban counterparts_. Ergo, urban units are more in demand, and part of the reason why they don't come on-line at the same rate as do suburban units is because it is far more difficult, from a regulatory standpoint, to do so.


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?


What about it? You bringing up random statistics out of context?

Did you read the part "ultra low-density"? The sizes of single detached homes and the lots these homes sits on vary greatly across the US. 

Do not abuse the abjective "recent" to confuse. 

Keep it up with your fact-twisting. Sooner or later your fact-twisting will be exposed once again.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?


I asked alot ppl why they don't use Transit more , its becuz it doesn't reach them yet, all the ppl i asked. But all the ppl i asked live in areas that will get Rail extensions. Your idea of Rail expansions the US is wrong , we are expanding alot , and doing it smartly. I don't beleave you lived here , or if you did , probably in an area without rail and good BUS. I ask you nicely stop spewing your false and immature views, Do some research! What are you getting a PH.D in , How to annoying & Spew false crap, I give you an "A" in that.

~Corey


----------



## GunnerJacket

Suburbanist said:


> Besides clear buyer behavior indications (like the fact 58,4% of American population lives in single-detached homes) and faith in new-urbanism, what indicates or could indicate that people want mixed-urban developments? What about most recent trends in mass suburban housing in Italy, France, Australia or Spain?


a) The US population, like the worlds, is shifting to one with more urban residents than rural, and trends indicate that the share of multi-family units or single-family attached units will grow. More importantly, lot sizes in urban and suburban metro areas are shrinking as the nation tries to preserve its rural areas by increasing density in urban areas.

b) That US residents live in predominantly sfa units is also the default of state policies favoring home ownership and, most importantly, the lack of credible alternatives. Young, burgeoning metro areas didn't learn about true options in housing like duplexes and townhomes until land costs made those models attractive to developers. This is also the fault of archaic Euclidian zoning policies that (unknowingly) outlawed mixed-use and forced larger lot sizes and parking requirements than were truly necessary. I've lost track of all the cities with great turn-of-the-century town squares, that people love, but their own development codes wouldn't recreate that because the code was born at a time when people only saw suburban forms of new development.

Take it from a practicing urban and regional planner in the US, the car will always have a dominant role in built environments for generations to come but much of what's been done hasn't come this way as a result of pure infatuation or will, rather it is from the confluence of many factors that shaped US development form at a time when our cities grew exponentially. Thus, regrettably we grew by eating up a lot of greenspace per person and now we're even pricing the beloved car out of reach for many households because of our congestion, oil prices, etc.


----------



## Suburbanist

hammersklavier said:


> Hold on--what kinds of buyer behavior indications are you talking about? Because, you know, if you use the argument that 95.3% people drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix and therefore that corridor could not support a HSR corridor because _93.5% of people drive_, isn't that a circular argument? Because isn't it the case that if there is _no other option_ then you're _forcing_ people to only utilize one system of transportation?
> 
> When you have situations where you're trying to compare product that is produced in unequal amounts (like the difference between urban and suburban dwellings), then, using a statistic like "54.whatever% people buy suburban dwellings" is fallacious, utter nonsense, and worse--misleading--because _75% of the supply is in suburban conditions_ due to housing policies put in place during the Great Depression. Thus, a far more accurate comparison would be that of cost per square foot of house (because an elevation in that cost in urban dwellings as compared to suburban dwellings would reflect the existence of some other sort of amenity which the buyer felt justified the higher per-square-foot cost, i.e., buying a Victorian rowhome for the same price as a sprawling North Dallas Special, in urban areas compared to suburban areas). When we do this, I believe (somebody can check the actual math) that, all other factors being equal (comparable neighborhood economic/demographic composition, etc.) _urban houses cost on the order of twice to thrice more per square foot than do their suburban counterparts_. Ergo, urban units are more in demand, and part of the reason why they don't come on-line at the same rate as do suburban units is because it is far more difficult, from a regulatory standpoint, to do so.


You have a point on regulatory constrained urban housing supply. However, in other places where pro-suburban development never got the same traction and extent they've got in US, suburban housing, far from central locations, are usually less expensive per area unit.

Under a statistical or econometric approach, the biggest difficult modeling what you proposed ("everything else being equal") is that there might be a strong correlation between clustered defined sociodemographic groups, their housing choices and following price patterns. Then, you'd have to establish whether external factors (like "independent youth declared preference to live within walking distance of nighlife") are driving prices naturally up because of their specific demands or higher "gentrified" neighborhood prices (always considering price/area ratio) reflects just overall higher demand for housing that is in short supply.

Analyzing the question the other way around, it might be that there is a general implicit "convenience" value expressed in terms of living within walking distance of many facilities, commerce and leisure location, for which people would be willing not only to pay higher prices per a given area but also to live in smaller residential units. Then, you'd have to model (statistically speaking) this "walking convenience-space" elasticity, and consider that for some people walking convenience might be completely irrelevant and for other people perks like lawns, gazebos and so one might be completely irrelevant - all introducing noise in your model you'd have to account for.

The planning of transport systems faces similar challenges, particularly the continuum of medium distance trips where, under certain circumstances, car, train and plance can be all competitive to a non-majority yet relevant market share. Modelling a urban transportation network is fairly easily compared to the methodological hurdles of measuring to an acceptable confidence interval the interactions between housing, income, time-price sensibility, comfort-time indifference curve etc.

Of course, these issues shouldn't be a hindrance on HSR projects, yet they poses additional uncertainty on financial modelling of "integrated" high-speed projects where rail and train operation are bundled into one single project with unknown or hard to estimate transfer prices etc. etc.


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> I asked alot ppl why they don't use Transit more , its becuz it doesn't reach them yet, all the ppl i asked. But all the ppl i asked live in areas that will get Rail extensions. Your idea of Rail expansions the US is wrong , we are expanding alot , and doing it smartly. I don't beleave you lived here , or if you did , probably in an area without rail and good BUS. I ask you nicely stop spewing your false and immature views, Do some research! What are you getting a PH.D in , How to annoying & Spew false crap, I give you an "A" in that.
> 
> ~Corey


I lived in Colorado and (mostly) Wyoming FYI. The breakdown of housing unit types I take for granted as official data, hardly disputable (a single house is an architectural concept easy to be narrowed defined). As for transportation choice surveys, you can either develop an apropriate set of questions and design a research plan (sampling, data analysis etc.), which is expensive, or take revealed preferences (like housing choices) as proxies, which carries higher uncertainty and casts validity concerns.


----------



## hammersklavier

I'm not going to doubt that there are people who are sincerely attracted to the suburban lifestyle. There are. My point is that when deriving skewed predictions from skewed data sets, you're going to get skewed results.

Another issue that you may want to concern yourself with is the size of the central cities (that is, traditional downtowns coupled with the gentrified areas now nearly universally floating around their edges) viz. the size of the metro area as a whole. For instance, the Philadelphia metro area, which I am most familiar with, has a central district which, even when you add NoLibs, Fairmount, G-Ho, Bella Vista, Queen Village, Franklin Town, Uni City, Powelton Village, Fishtown, and Brewerytown (the gentrified neighborhoods adjoining either our traditional CBD, Center City, or other gentrified neighborhoods which do) is so small as to be _trivial_ in size compared with the greater Philadelphia metro area. (CC itself is about 2 sq. m., the region between Spring Garden St. and Washington St., which is the effective reach of CC doubles that, Uni City and Powelton Village--on the other side of the Schuylkill--another 2 sq. m., and Fishtown and Brewerytown another sq. m., so that's 4 + 2 + 1 = about 7 square miles of the most intense city-center activities in a metro area that extends about 50 sq. m. from City Hall in all directions). Contrast that with London, whose area of intense urban activity is so large you can see it even when zoomed out to see most of Europe!

European communities, it seems, have tended to build urban developments whereas American developments have been suburban. Trying to make a case that one is better than the other in any really objective _sociological_ sense (quality-of-life, etc.) is thus doomed.

BTW, Suburbanist, you're really swimming against the tide. I believe oil prices are already starting to begin the period of terminal rise--that is, we're not going to be seeing cheap oil anymore--and suburban development is absolutely _predicated_ on the existence of cheap oil. In addition, the history of American urban development suggests that suburban development, by its very nature, is never static, but always transitory. Philadelphia offers an extreme example of this in that the traditional borders of Center City reflect the borders of the original city, and thus anything north of Vine or south of South must have, at one point, been a suburb.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Suburbanist said:


> You have a point on regulatory constrained urban housing supply. However, in other places where pro-suburban development never got the same traction and extent they've got in US, suburban housing, far from central locations, are usually less expensive per area unit.


Well, if you're such a strong believer in the free market, and the free market decides that, even in places with very little suburban housing, a suburban home far from a central location has less value than a more central home, doesn't that kind of defeat your point?


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> You have a point on regulatory constrained urban housing supply. However, in other places where pro-suburban development never got the same traction and extent they've got in US, suburban housing, far from central locations, are usually less expensive per area unit.


Which shows that there is demand is higher to closer you get to a central location.

I'm househunting in Switzerland at the moment, and it is striking how much cheaper houses become once you are no longer at walking distance from a train station. A clear indicator of the value people put on good pubic transit...


----------



## makita09

Suburbanist said:


> However, the bottom line is that a transportation system should be planned for the "average" guy.


I had a response but I've withdrawn it.

In place I'm just going to yawn.


----------



## Xusein

I think we should put some thread about these kinds of debates somewhere in the forum because they really are taking over the topic. I want to read more about potential developments (after all, some if not enough money was promised to at least bring the fundamentals recently) of the planned HSR networks but instead we dither on ideological issues that theoretically can apply anywhere on this forum.


----------



## xerxesjc28

^^ totally agree, this has gone on for far too many pages. I think everyone's viewpoint has been made already.


----------



## jpIllInoIs

*USPIRG synopsis of Rail Plan*

Below you will find a link to a synopsis of the new US Rail plan. It by far, the most informed and accurate summation of the US rail plan. Disregard any of the quick news headline stories that have appeared elswhere and are nothing more than regurgitated, uniformed and unefforted reports.

This documents breaks down plans by region; bothers to delineate the difference between HSR & Intercity rail and itemizes long vs. short range plans. Any one who wants to have a semi informed opinion of the passenger rail topic should at least read this document. 

http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/d2cbda5b0c2d2d23101a0aef69daece6/The-Right-Track-vUS.pdf

And the main website;
http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/...st-century-high-speed-rail-system-for-america


----------



## strong

Finally, main stream media starts paying attention at HSR. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/business/global/13rail.html?pagewanted=1&hp


----------



## wayneyoung

We just wait several years, then the plan come ture. HSR is a new technical revelation in Europe & E.Asia, I don't know it wether or not fit for the auto and air country like U.S., people change their travel behavior are needed.


----------



## oliver999

very nice to see US has a good plan of highspeed trains.


----------



## hans280

wayneyoung said:


> We just wait several years, then the plan come ture. HSR is a new technical revelation in Europe & E.Asia, I don't know it wether or not fit for the auto and air country like U.S., people change their travel behavior are needed.


I'm not quite sure that's how it works. Here in France where I live (and I would like to repeat the point that, no, I'm not French....) absoLUTEly nobody travelled by train between Paris and Lyon in the 1970s. Then the government invested large sums of money in a highspeed track between those two cities, and suddenly EVERYBODY travelled by train. 

Young Wayne, it's a little bit too glib for my taste to speak of people "changing their travel behaviour if needed". Sometimes individuals react to centrally created inducements. - And, sometimes, are happy foreever after. The government is not always good, but it's sometimes a positive factor.


----------



## southwestforests

This found in news today:
http://www.burbankleader.com/articles/2010/02/13/politics/blr-rail021310.txt



> *High-speed rail system: Leaders mull benefits, fears*
> 
> Federal grant makes project more likely to happen, they say.
> By Zain Shauk
> Published: Last Updated Friday, February 12, 2010 10:07 PM PST


I see several good points within.



> ...but city officials say they are leery of the potential impacts.
> 
> Existing rail corridors would have to be expanded, cutting into surrounding properties and infrastructure; raised tracks would have to be built to avoid clashing with road crossings; Glendale’s historic train station would have to be moved to accommodate a closer railroad right-of-way; Bob Hope Airport could be isolated from the line; and Burbank’s Metrolink station could be relocated, altering city plans crafted around the current site.
> 
> At the same time, the benefits of the plan could be extensive for the region, including tens of thousands of new jobs associated with the system’s construction. The proposed 800-mile project would be capable of whisking passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 hours and 38 minutes, according to the California High Speed Rail Authority. A station planned for Burbank could also attract new businesses and commuter residents, officials and economists say.





> Still, concerns about high-speed trains are already presenting an array of difficult considerations for local authorities, even before rail representatives have completed a draft report on possible options for the area.
> 
> Increased traffic congestion and construction to accommodate the new rail system could dramatically affect surrounding property, infrastructure and communities, city officials say.





> That would create problems with existing traffic infrastructure that abuts the route, as well as surrounding properties, proposed developments, planned freeway expansion and Glendale’s historic Amtrak/Metrolink station.
> 
> When Glendale City Council members raised concerns about the potential demolition of the commuter station, built in a Spanish colonial revival style in 1923, authority representatives responded with a possible compromise.
> 
> “You won’t lose that,” said Steven Ortmann, station planning manager for the authority. “Just move it.”





> Airport disconnection
> 
> And despite an emphasis on connecting commuters to high-speed public transit, the trains would zip past Bob Hope Airport, leaving it isolated from riders who might want to use the rail line to travel from other parts of California and catch flights.
> 
> Area leaders and stakeholders have frequently raised concerns about that aspect of the proposed path, asking that it instead be diverted from the San Fernando Road corridor to connect with the airport, but rail representatives have contended the detour would slow the system down.
> 
> The high-speed line could accommodate a light-rail-based connection to the airport, but the authority would not fund or develop the link, which could cost between $200 million and $400 million, depending on the location of the stop, said Dan Feger, executive director of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.
> 
> A connection to the airport could not only help with increasing its accessibility, but also offer rail passengers options for rental car, taxi, bus and light rail services as part of a proposed $100-million regional transportation center at Bob Hope Airport, Feger said.
> 
> “It provides a whole suite of options of ‘What do you do once you get off the high-speed rail,’ which they’re not thinking about,” he said.


----------



## southwestforests

Something in my mind apart from the article is that to make room for HSR in a developed area is that something someone owns somewhere is going to have to be bulldozed out of the way.

Who is willing to lose their stuff?


----------



## G5man

*sigh* Short sightetness of congestion this and that. That is why we need to change the way we develop the country to an urban village instead of suburb upon suburb. That way, congestion can be managed by walkable living areas.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ 100% agreed. Some suburbs in Seattle area are in process to become urban villages as well. That is good thing. I hope more US cities will follow that.


----------



## southwestforests

G5man said:


> That way, congestion can be managed by walkable living areas.


Amen to that 
A couple years ago moved to small town after decades in major metropolitan area.
Bit of an adjustment, but I like much better.
Feel healthier too. And something kind of like "less compressed". Can't define why, but I just do.


----------



## poshbakerloo

G5man said:


> *sigh* Short sightetness of congestion this and that. That is why we need to change the way we develop the country to an urban village instead of suburb upon suburb. That way, congestion can be managed by walkable living areas.


I think people will be happier for it aswell. Sometimes taking the air outside really is good, even on a very hot day!


----------



## Suburbanist

Some people will like villages, others will like exurbs. Let the market provide housing for everyone's taste.


----------



## 2co2co

southwestforests said:


> Something in my mind apart from the article is that to make room for HSR in a developed area is that something someone owns somewhere is going to have to be bulldozed out of the way.
> 
> Who is willing to lose their stuff?


Hence the reason why any new Shinkansen systems are built deep (40m+) underground in urban areas


----------



## Ternarydaemon

2co2co said:


> Hence the reason why any new Shinkansen systems are built deep (40m+) underground in urban areas


Not only that. Legally speaking the land can be compulsory purchased, but paying for such large areas at market prices adds up, and coupled with the political pressure, it is easier and perhaps faster to use expensive underground methods.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Suburbanist said:


> Some people will like villages, others will like exurbs. Let the market provide housing for everyone's taste.


As long as living in the middle of nowhere is not subsidized indirectly or directly and as long as zoning laws are not biased towards them. I can live with that. Soaring energy costs of the near future will do their job. (once the economic crises is over again)


----------



## dl3000

Ternarydaemon said:


> Not only that. Legally speaking the land can be compulsory purchased, but paying for such large areas at market prices adds up, and coupled with the political pressure, it is easier and perhaps faster to use expensive underground methods.


Even so, it may still be better to exercise eminent domain because if construction occurs under private property, whoever is doing the construction must still purchase or negotiate an easement through the property. Hence why most underground construction is under roads since they are public property.


----------



## mgk920

A few of my thoughts:

-The biggest 'wildcard' here is the price of fuel. If/when fuel prices go nutty again like they did a couple of years ago - and they don't come back down - rails will shine for all but the long-haul routes. Rail can draw tractive energy from whatever source is most economical at any given time and in any given place and are not beholden to the vagaries of the market of one commodity (think: "electric power"). High fuel prices will make short-medium distance air impractical from a cost standpoint.

-Terminal dwell time will favor true high-speed rail on short-medium distance routes (think: "airport hassles that do not exist with rail and those hassles are steadily getting worse").

-Cars will always be with us, even if/when fuel goes over USA$2/liter in today's money. They are just too convenient for local use. Case in point: even though the Netherlands has the highest or second highest petrol prices in all of Europe and a very well developed rail passenger system, their BIGGEST ongoing transport problem is highway traffic congestion.

-Most airports are inconveniently located in relation to their markets' business and tourist centers (only Las Vegas, NV McCarran and San Diego Lindburgh are really 'close in') while most rail stations are in their market's central cores - saving a lot of time in getting between the terminals and the centers of their markets.

Mike


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> I want to see an aircraft-like security protocol for trains (and trams, buses and whatever vehicle used in commercial public transportation): preemptive security measures, traceability up to the bolt level, certification of individual parts, critical or not (albeit with different levels of control for sure).


And after that we put checkpoints along the roads every 25 miles where every car (and it's occupants) are completely searched for explosives. 

Tell me, why do you want the terrorists to win so desperately?


----------



## K_

mgk920 said:


> -Cars will always be with us, even if/when fuel goes over USA$2/liter in today's money. They are just too convenient for local use. Case in point: even though the Netherlands has the highest or second highest petrol prices in all of Europe and a very well developed rail passenger system, their BIGGEST ongoing transport problem is highway traffic congestion.


I think the future is for rural and suburban areas: Electric cars for short distances, and the trip to the park&ride to take the train to the city. 
For urban areas: comprehensive integrated public transport. High speed trains from city to city.

For long distance trips: Either a combination of trains and planes, or once the high speed networks mesh up enough, high speed night trains. 

I've lived both in the Netherlands and Belgium, and now live in Switzerland. One interesting observation is that motor fuel in Switzerland is cheaper than in the Netherlands, but still car use is lower too. The reason why so many people commute by car in the Netherlands have a lot to do with taxes. High payroll taxes mean that companies like to compensate their employees differently. A company car is a popular fringe benefit, and half of all new sales are company cars...
It's similar in Belgium. It's not uncommon for someone fresh from college to get a car like an Audi A4 or A6 with the first job. With the car often comes a fuel pass paid for by the company also. This actually encourages commuting by car. 
In Switzerland payroll and income taxes are much lower, so employees rather have more money than fringe benefits. The company I work for doesn't even provide free parking for it's employees, and nobody has a company car, not even the CEO. One side effect is high PT use in urban areas. In Switzerland more and more "urban" people often don't even get a driving licence, and apartments get sold or leased increasingly without a parking or garage spot.

What is big in Switzerland, and growing like crazy, is car sharing. I think this is an interesting pointer to what car useage might look like for more and more people in the future. Car sharing has a lot of advantages. You have cars available around the country, without any of the hassles asociated with cars. You don't have to worry about maintenance, about insurance or having the right tires. The car sharing company does that. They have cars stationed at most train stations.
I don't have a car. I live in the city, and get around on foot, on my bicycle or by PT. When I need to go to another city in Switzerland I take a train. All major routes have a train every half hour, so it's usually no problem to schedule my activities around the train schedule. When I need to be somewhere in the country I just take the train to a convenient station, and continue by car. 
When I feel like spending a day in the mountains, doing a few pass roads - I actually quite enjoy driving a nice car - I just rent one for the day.


----------



## Koen Acacia

I'm not going to make any "better"/"worse" claims since I'm simply not nearly well-informed enough to make statements like that, but:


dl3000 said:


> Can someone detail the general European standards that are better? *I know they rely heavily on signaling.* I can tell that they should be better since the trains aren't tanks on rails, but what exactly are the regulations?


Yes, pretty much. The target is not so much to increase the survivability of train crashes, but rather to eliminate any train crashes whatsoever, so the focus isn't on weighing down the trains themselves, but pretty much exclusively on the crossings, signalling, all that sort of stuff.


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> What is big in Switzerland, and growing like crazy, is car sharing. I think this is an interesting pointer to what car useage might look like for more and more people in the future. Car sharing has a lot of advantages. You have cars available around the country, without any of the hassles asociated with cars. You don't have to worry about maintenance, about insurance or having the right tires. The car sharing company does that. They have cars stationed at most train stations.


Rental cars and car sharing have its market potential, but never forget that for many people cars are far beyond a transportation vehicle. They are a personalized space where you attach gadgets, decorate and give your personal touch, let alone you personalize it to feel like yours. Moreover, car sharing fleets are quite standardized, thus not allowing for you to differentiate yourself buying a different vehicle (like you differentiate yourself wearing a given clothe's style or adopting a given haircut).

Cars are essential things in the individualization of people, at least those well-off enough to afford them but poor enough not to have yatchs, private jets etc.


----------



## strong

*China is bidding on USA HSR projects*

China to bid on US high-speed rail projects
Minister: China to bid for US high-speed rail projects; building lines in Venezuela, Turkey 

Topics:
International

Joe Mcdonald, AP Business Writer, On Saturday March 13, 2010, 7:43 am EST 

BEIJING (AP) -- China plans to bid for contracts to build U.S. high-speed train lines and is stepping up exports of rail technology to Europe and Latin America, a government official said Saturday.

China has built 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers) of high-speed rail for its own train system and President Barack Obama issued a pledge in November with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, to cooperate in developing the technology.

"We are organizing relevant companies to participate in bidding for U.S. high-speed railways," Wang Zhiguo, a deputy railways minister, told a news conference.

Wang gave no details of where China's railway builders might seek contracts, but systems are planned in California, Florida and Illinois. He said state-owned Chinese companies already are building high-speed lines in Turkey and Venezuela.

Beijing plans to construct a 16,000-mile (25,000-kilometer) high-speed rail network by 2020 in a 2 trillion yuan ($300 billion) project it hopes will spur economic and technology development. A new line linking the central city of Wuhan with Guangzhou near Hong Kong on China's southern coast is billed as the world's fastest at 237 miles (380 kilometers) per hour.

China produces high-speed trains using French, German and Japanese technology. Its manufacturers have developed a homegrown version but have yet to produce a commercial model.

Chinese rail authorities have signed cooperation memos with California and Russia and state companies plan to bid on a line in Brazil linking Rio de Janeiro with Sao Paulo, Wang said. He said Saudi Arabia and Poland also have expressed interest.

The White House announced $8 billion in grants in January for rail projects including the high-speed systems in California, Florida and Illinois.

"China is willing to share its mature and advanced technology with other countries to promote development of the world's high-speed railways," Wang said.

So far, China's government has completed 2,295 miles (3,676 kilometers) of rail lines with top speeds of up to 220 mph (350 kph) and 1,795 miles (2,876 kilometers) with speeds up to 155 mph (250 kph), according to Wang.

Another 6,000 miles (10,000 kilometers) of lines are under construction, he said.

Once the network is completed, it will cut travel time from Beijing to Hong Kong from 24 hours to 10.

Some critics say high-speed train fares are too high for average Chinese and question whether the lines can recover their construction costs.

Wang said high-speed trains already have higher occupancy rates than regular trains, though he gave no details.


----------



## dl3000

How is the Chinese technology mature if their own system is a mix of French, German and Japanese?


----------



## Xoser_barcelona

^^ indeed?


----------



## Suburbanist

*USA HSR in Wired.com*

Wired published a relatively unbiased short report and scheme on HSR in USA. I cannot copy much of it because it's blocked and they have flash content too. Follow it at http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_fasttrack/all/1


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Well, but maybe they can manage to make a considerably cheaper offer? Knowing how sensitive Americans are when it comes to the price tag, they might think its worth it.


----------



## Restless

The 4 potential train designs are all currently in full-scale production in China - using a mix of domestic and imported components.

In addition, there is considerable expertise in track construction that Chinese companies have gained from constructing the worlds largest and most technologically sophisticated high-speed railway network.


----------



## [email protected]

^^ :cheer:


----------



## foxmulder

dl3000 said:


> How is the Chinese technology mature if their own system is a mix of French, German and Japanese?



I don't see any problem with this. Actually it is a huge advantage. They can synthesize best of three worlds


----------



## Nexis

wow thats interesting although the Northeast is forcasted to get 4 lines by 2025 , the Empire , Keystone Extension , I-91 Corridor and Upgraded NEC which Amtrak has plans to bring it to 180 mph top speed and 160-70 average speed. But we will have the best system in the Country , on top of that a thick network of Regional Rail is in the planning or construction phases.


----------



## UD2

dl3000 said:


> How is the Chinese technology mature if their own system is a mix of French, German and Japanese?


read the article. They're bidding on line contruction. Not moving stocks.


----------



## FlyFish

Why shouldn't they build it, it's their money.


----------



## Davodavo

Suburbanist said:


> Wired published a relatively unbiased short report and scheme on HSR in USA. I cannot copy much of it because it's blocked and they have flash content too. Follow it at http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_fasttrack/all/1


At last!!!
I hope it all becomes true soon, I've never been able to understand how a country like the United States is unable to move forward in this aspect.


----------



## FlyFish

Davodavo said:


> At last!!!
> I hope it all becomes true soon, I've never been able to understand how a country like the United States is unable to move forward in this aspect.


Simple, because of lack of money, lack of political will, the fact that existing trackage is owned by everyone and their Brother, we have cheap gasoline, and the fact that no one wants a new rail right of way in thier backyard......................and lack of money.


----------



## Davodavo

FlyFish said:


> Simple, because of lack of money, lack of political will, the fact that existing trackage is owned by everyone and their Brother, we have cheap gasoline, and the fact that no one wants a new rail right of way in thier backyard......................and lack of money.


^^ The question is, has any of that changed?


----------



## dl3000

That pretty much sums it up. That along with the lack of an understanding of what constitutes actual high speed rail since there are no systems nearby. California is getting close but the high initial investment is scaring people.


----------



## strong

You might be right in speaking of patent thing. :lol: I am thinking about if japanese car makers ever paid to USA a dime patent as japanese stole american automobile tech decades ago. 
Btw, can anyone tell me if toyota owns sudden acceleration gas pedal patent? If not, has it paid for such pedal patent fee? 




Tri-ring said:


> I have doubts since I do not believe any of the HSR forerunners would have transferred sensitive technology like on-board signaling system to PRC without a catch within the contract.
> This system is built-in to the tracks so whoever wins the bid requires the necessary patents and/or pay fee to the actual patent owner to install them.


----------



## foxmulder

You may not see it but there is a huge relationship. *Since China is the largest market right now and foreseeable future, it has a significant leverage.* That simple. They are also not selling it for free. Don't worry China has paid for the technology too  As I wrote if you want to sell your trains to China you have to give the technology. This is clear since they have started to build trains (both Siemens and Kawasaki models) in China and stated that they are going to upgrade (already upgraded Kawasaki model- base model cannot run at 350km/h) these trains. It is clear future models will be based on technology from these trains and no one can stop China to sell these trains to other countries. Not immediately but in ten years, I am sure we will see some Chinese high speed trains in international market. 

For Siemens and Kawasaki, it was a deal. They have been earning billions of dollars.


----------



## dl3000

strong said:


> You might be right in speaking of patent thing. :lol: I am thinking about if japanese car makers ever paid to USA a dime patent as japanese stole american automobile tech decades ago.
> Btw, can anyone tell me if toyota owns sudden acceleration gas pedal patent? If not, has it paid for such pedal patent fee?


Japan didn't steal, the US gave the patents especially in early electronics. It's diplomacy like the Marshall Plan, you don't expect money back but you get something less tangible instead, loyalty.


----------



## Tri-ring

foxmulder said:


> You may not see it but there is a huge relationship. *Since China is the largest market right now and foreseeable future, it has a significant leverage.* That simple. They are also not selling it for free. Don't worry China has paid for the technology too  As I wrote if you want to sell your trains to China you have to give the technology. This is clear since they have started to build trains (both Siemens and Kawasaki models) in China and stated that they are going to upgrade (already upgraded Kawasaki model- base model cannot run at 350km/h) these trains. It is clear future models will be based on technology from these trains and no one can stop China to sell these trains to other countries. Not immediately but in ten years, I am sure we will see some Chinese high speed trains in international market.
> 
> For Siemens and Kawasaki, it was a deal. They have been earning billions of dollars.


Still don't make any sense, patents are not sold they're usually lent with limitations.
As for the 350Km, it's a little known fact but JR group caps a 25% allowance on top of it's commercial top speed for safety so 280X125%=350 meaning PRC is just pushing the E2 to it's design limits.


----------



## Restless

Siemens initially weren't selected to participate in the train programme - allegedly due to the technology licensing conditions they attached. Then apparently Siemens submitted a revised proposal on technology transfer and received a _special _contract on top of the existing requirements. But who actually knows what is in this contract and the in the other contracts?

There's a good article by the FT (the UK equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) that summarises the state of the industry.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a04d14cc-310b-11df-b057-00144feabdc0.html

*China on track to boost high-speed rail*
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing


For decades the high-speed railway sector has been dominated by a handful of companies in Europe, Japan and North America that have mostly concentrated on projects in their own regional markets.

But now, just as the industry is witnessing a proliferation of high-speed rail projects across the globe, the rapid rise of Chinese state-owned rail producers is posing a serious threat to the dominance of companies like Germany’s Siemens, France’s Alstom, Canada’s Bombardier and Japan’s Kawasaki.

“Chinese companies are changing the landscape of the global railway market because of the dimensions of their home market and because they are becoming involved in international tenders, which is new,” according to Dominique Pouliquen, Asia-Pacific managing director for Alstom.

In a sign of how competitive the Chinese state railway equipment producers now are, Siemens has abandoned its own bid for the second phase of the “pilgrim express” linking the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia and joined a Chinese consortium instead.

While the Chinese companies are new to the global stage and lag their European rivals in terms of quality and technology they have some significant advantages.

“Price is their number one competitive advantage and they are very well organized with financing support from Chinese state-owned banks,” Mr Pouliquen told the Financial Times. “They offer a global package which is usually combining technical solution with financing so it is very easy for governments to make a decision to use their products.”

The Chinese Ministry of Railways, which directly owns many of the country’s rail companies, co-ordinates tenders so Chinese companies don’t bid against each other and also encourages foreign companies to join Chinese consortiums by holding out the prospect of greater access to the enormous Chinese market.

Analysts say Chinese companies are already very active in bidding for projects in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as Latin American countries like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.

They are also targeting a number of projects in Australia and the US and have already made significant inroads in their own region with contracts in Thailand and Hong Kong.

The rise of the Chinese rail industry with its global aspirations has happened virtually overnight.

Iain Carmichael, managing director Lloyd’s Register Rail in Asia, says that as recently as three years ago Chinese companies didn’t have the knowhow for many parts of their own rail systems, *such as signaling* and high-speed technology, and that provided a huge opportunity for European companies.

“But as the Chinese gained the know-how, the relationship changed so now the Chinese have the upper hand and the Europeans now have to work co-operatively if they want to compete,” Mr Carmichael said.

“Rolling stock products are built cheaper in China than anywhere else and the quality is now at the level where they can sell to global projects.”
He says the main constraint on Chinese exports of rolling stock is capacity, as Chinese producers are trying to keep up with orders at home in what is now the largest market in the world.

“Some big manufacturers are tripling their output this year and we’re seeing a vast expansion of metro systems as well as high speed rail,” Mr Carmichael said.

China’s market for rail equipment, including trains, components and equipment like signaling systems, is expected to quintuple from an average of $10bn a year in the period between 2004 and 2008 to more than $50bn a year between 2009 and 2013, according to estimates from McKinsey and Co.

This year, China is expected to account for more than half of the total global expenditure on rail equipment.

The government plans to build at least 30,000km of new railway, most of it high speed, over the next five years and China is expected to soon overtake Russia to have the second-largest rail infrastructure in the world after the US.

These ambitious expansion plans have been on the books for years but in the wake of the financial crisis, the government accelerated its planned build-out to help boost growth, moving the target date for completion for many projects up from 2020 to 2015.

The size and scale of the Chinese market partly explains why European and international rail equipment providers are scrambling over each other to partner with the Chinese state producers inside the country and around the world.

But co-operation has come at a price.

“European manufacturers have complained that they have transferred technology to China as required [by Beijing] and now the Chinese are using their technology to compete on price in the international market and even in the European home markets,” said Evan Auyang, an executive at Hong Kong-based Transport International and a former infrastructure consultant at McKinsey.

Chinese regulations for the sector include onerous local content requirements stipulating that 70-90 per cent of rail equipment must be Chinese-made and the official state policy on using foreign rail technology is known as “introduce, digest, absorb then innovate”.

“Around 90 per cent of the technology the Chinese currently are using is derived from their partnerships or equipment developed by foreign companies,” Mr Pouliquen said.


----------



## Tri-ring

Restless said:


> Siemens initially weren't selected to participate in the train programme - allegedly due to the technology licensing conditions they attached. Then apparently Siemens submitted a revised proposal on technology transfer and received a _special _contract on top of the existing requirements. But who actually knows what is in this contract and the in the other contracts?
> 
> There's a good article by the FT (the UK equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) that summarises the state of the industry.
> 
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a04d14cc-310b-11df-b057-00144feabdc0.html


I could come up with a different conclusion reading this article based on my original hypothesis that China does not obtain the necessary technology and that it needed to team up with companies like Siemens that obtain the international patents to participate in bids overseas. Seimens on the other hand saw an opportunity to enter the lucrative mainland China market with little damage overseas by partnering with PRC splitting roles since actual production of components will had done through outsourcing anyways.


----------



## GreenPeas

*China willing to share hi-speed railway tech*

March 23, 2010 

With 6442 kilometers of high-speed passenger railway, China currently has world's longest high-speed rail operations mileage. China is willing to share its mature technology with other countries to boost the development of high-speed railway worldwide, said He Huawu, chief engineer of China's Ministry of Railway (MOR).

High capacity and low energy conservation

China's high-speed rail lines operate at a top speed of 350 km/h (220 mph). Meanwhile, as one passenger train can carry over 1,000 passengers and the minimum wait-time was only 3 minutes, China's high-speed railway system has a remarkable capacity. Weather has also very limited impact on the operation of the high-speed railway.

"The high-speed trains are 'green' and meet the calls of energy conservation and emission reduction," He said.

Independent intellectual property rights

With the principles of "Advanced, mature, economic, practical and reliable", China has got considerable technological innovations targeting world advanced level.

"We now possess a package of advanced high-speed railway technologies, from construction to operation and management, and have built up a high-speed railway technology system with independent property rights," He noted.

High-speed railway was originated in Japan, Germany and France. However, China's high-speed railway technology is more complex and there has been none intellectual property right disputes between China and foreign companies, said He, adding that China has filed 946 patent applications in this field.

Currently, China's high-speed railway system has the world's most comprehensive technologies, highest integration capacity, longest operation mileage, highest operation speed and largest construction scale.

"Going out"

In recent year, China's achievements in the modernization of its railway system and the development of the high-speed railway have had great influence worldwide, and created an excellent opportunity for the "going out" of China's rail constructors.

He disclosed that China has been in contact with the US, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in cooperation in the high-speed railway field. "They hope that China could take part in their domestic high-speed railway projects."

Chinese enterprises now have contracts with over 50 countries and regions, and the total contract value is over $26 billion. China's railway equipment has been exported to over 30 countries located in Asia, Africa and Oceania. It is believed that the widening export of rail equipment will boost the transformation of "Made in China" from low-end to high-end and from labor intensive to technology intensive.

The US, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Poland have expressed that they want to cooperate with China's railway constructors in their domestic high-speed railway projects. China's MOR has already signed MOUs with the US and Russia.

"China is willing to share its mature technology with other countries to boost the development of high-speed railway worldwide," He iterated.

By People's Daily Online


----------



## Restless

Tri-ring said:


> I could come up with a different conclusion reading this article based on my original hypothesis that China does not obtain the necessary technology and that it needed to team up with companies like Siemens that obtain the international patents to participate in bids overseas. Seimens on the other hand saw an opportunity to enter the lucrative mainland China market with little damage overseas by partnering with PRC splitting roles since actual production of components will had done through outsourcing anyways.


Based on the FT article below on the Saudi HSR, my thoughts are:

a) The China South consortium saw an opportunity to derail a rival bid
b) This is the first? overseas HSR railway project. Having Siemens on board reduces the apprehension of the Saudis about the technology - as the Chinese are newcomers
c) Siemens and the German government will help lobby for the contract as well

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


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae804264-30fa-11df-b057-00144feabdc0.html?catid=53&SID=google

*Siemens joins China bid for Saudi rail link*
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
Published: March 16 2010 13:56 | Last updated: March 16 2010 13:56

Siemens, the German industrial giant, has dropped a bid to supply trains and equipment for the Mecca-to-Medina high-speed railway line in Saudi Arabia and has joined a Chinese consortium, in a sign of the growing competitiveness of Chinese rail manufacturers.

Siemens abandoned its own bid as part of a consortium with the Saudi Binladin Group and has joined a bid led by state-owned China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock Corporation for the second phase of the $7bn Haramain high-speed rail project, according to people familiar with the situation.

The German engineering group will provide signalling and electrification equipment to the Chinese consortium, which also includes China Railway Construction Corp and the Beijing Railway Administration.

The 450km railway will link Islam’s two holiest sites via the port of Jeddah and will ease congestion during the annual Hajj pilgrimage, when more than 2.5m people make the journey to Mecca.

The Chinese bid is seen as the frontrunner – China Railway Construction Corp, which is also state-owned, was part of a consortium that won a $1.8bn contract to build the first phase of the project last year.

“Siemens realised when China threw its hat in the ring, that they were unlikely to win so they decided to join them rather than let one of their competitors team up with the Chinese bidder,” said one person involved in the project.

France’s Alstom and South Korea’s Hyundai and Samsung are also bidding for the second phase of the Haramain project, according to someone close to the situation.

Siemens said it was unable to comment on the project due to the ongoing tender.

“Generally, we can say that co-operation with our Chinese partners in international projects is always an option for us,” Ansgar Brockmeyer, head of public transit at Siemens Mobility told the Financial Times.

Shafqat Rabbani, project manager for the Haramain high speed rail at the Saudi Railways Organisation, said the SRO had not been “formally informed” that Siemens was joining the Chinese consortium.

Final bids for the project are due in on May 1.

Analysts said Siemens’ decision to hitch its wagon to the Chinese bid was a sign of how competitive the Chinese rail industry has become and how state backing from Beijing helps in winning contracts abroad.

A series of bids by state-owned Chinese rail companies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have all been co-ordinated by China’s Railway Ministry. Two $1.8bn contracts were announced last year during a visit to the Kingdom by Chinese President Hu Jintao.

“China is now the largest producer of rolling stock and related technologies globally, and we’re seeing more and more of these Sino-foreign partnerships exploring new markets,” said Evan Auyang, an executive at Transport International and a former infrastructure consultant at McKinsey.

Additional reporting by Eliot Gao in Beijing


----------



## foxmulder

China/German consortium has a huge chance to win.


----------



## K_

Tri-ring said:


> I have doubts since I do not believe any of the HSR forerunners would have transferred sensitive technology like on-board signaling system to PRC without a catch within the contract.
> This system is built-in to the tracks so whoever wins the bid requires the necessary patents and/or pay fee to the actual patent owner to install them.


Patents don't last for ever, so the key technology is probably already available patent free. After all, cabin signaling systems have been around almost a century now, so have track circuits and beacons. The new systems like ETCS are mostly software, and no company has a monopoly on ETCS.


----------



## SPIREINTHEHOLE!

A few recent news items concerning high-speed rail:

*Amtrak reorganizing to advance high-speed rail*

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2010/03/Amtrak-reorganizing-to-advance-high-speed-rail.aspx



> Amtrak announced it is reorganizing and establishing a new department to pursue opportunities to develop new intercity high-speed rail service in select corridors around the country and to plan for *major improvements on the Northeast Corridor, including determining the feasibility of increasing top speeds up to 220 mph.*
> 
> "Amtrak is the unparalleled leader in high-speed rail operations in America today and we intend to be major player in the development and operation of new corridors," said President/CEO Joseph Boardman, noting Amtrak is the only railroad in America to operate passenger trains at 150 mph.
> 
> Boardman explained the Amtrak board of directors recently approved the creation of a new High-Speed Rail department as the next step in an ongoing process to better position Amtrak to maximize the opportunities available in the new intercity passenger rail environment. He said the department will be led by a vice president that reports directly to the president and CEO and that he will move quickly to fill the position with a highly qualified individual.
> 
> The new department will focus on the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor and conduct the necessary planning activities required to provide: *a major reduction in trip-times between Washington, D.C., and New York and New York and Boston; a significant increase in the number of train frequencies; and determining the feasibility of increasing top speeds up to 220 mph.*
> 
> *In addition, it will pursue partnerships with states and others in the passenger rail industry to develop federally-designated high-speed rail corridors* such as the new projects moving forward in California and Florida.


----------



## SPIREINTHEHOLE!

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/mar/24/241622/state-dot-construction-high-speed-rail-could-begin/

*State DOT: Construction of high-speed rail could begin by February* 




> By TED JACKOVICS | The Tampa Tribune
> 
> Published: March 24, 2010
> 
> Updated: 03/24/2010 04:22 pm
> 
> LAKELAND - *Construction could begin by February or March for the high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando, with the first trains running by the first or second quarter of 2015*, a Florida Department of Transportation official said Wednesday during a regional briefing.
> 
> State officials are refining cost estimates and plans for required work on the high-speed rail corridor that largely will run on the median of I-4 to prepare for requests for federal funding. Although Florida was awarded $1.25 billion by the Obama administration toward the $2.6 billion project, the state does not receive the money until it completes various portions of the project.
> 
> That work would include preparation of the corridor to accommodate two tracks that will be separated from the I-4 vehicular traffic by barriers, reconstructing bridges and moving utilities to make way for the rail line.
> 
> Wednesday's regional rail briefing with the mayors of Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando drew more than 100 area business and civic officials in the first of a series of forums to improve public understanding of high speed rail.
> 
> "High speed rail is not just building a train," said Ed Turanchik, founder of the grassroots rail support group fastrailconnectus.com. "It is about bringing together two regions and creating a broader community."
> 
> Rail and enhanced mass transit advocates, including local and regional economic development officials, seek to push their message that private sector investment goes hand in hand with transportation improvements, from development surrounding stations and enhanced mobility between regional cities.
> 
> Reports by two consultants that helped Florida win the federal money indicate that *2 million passengers a year would use high-speed rail at the beginning*, said Nazih Haddad, chief operating officer of the Florida Rail Enterprise, which the Legislature created in December - modeled on the Florida Turnpike Enterprise - to oversee the state's passenger rail development.
> 
> That *would amount to 12 percent to 13 percent of the traffic in 2015 along that corridor*, Haddad said. Other officials have said I-4 truck traffic is likely to increase as the Port of Tampa enhances its container cargo business and a limited access connector links the port and I-4 by 2013.
> 
> Fifty percent of high-speed rail passengers are expected to be tourism or leisure related; the other 50 percent are expected to be business travelers.
> 
> About 45 percent of the high-speed rail travelers are expected to take the train between Tampa and Orlando, with the remainder on shorter legs, such as between Tampa and Lakeland or Lakeland and Orlando.


----------



## SPIREINTHEHOLE!

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=444487

*Red Wing, other officials push for high-speed rail along river*




> By Brett Boese
> The Post-Bulletin, Rochester MN
> 
> RED WING — *More than 50 elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin gathered in La Crosse recently to drum up support for high-speed rail along a river route that would connect the Twin Cities to Madison, Wis., by 2015.*
> 
> The proposal, which would essentially run along a rail line that already exists near the Mississippi River, is one of two being considered by Wisconsin officials. The other proposed route would run east from St. Paul to Eau Claire, though it's unclear whether it would also hook up with Wisconsin's capitol, which lies nearly 200 miles to the southeast.
> 
> The debate in Minnesota about where to build high-speed rail is essentially on hold until Wisconsin's decision is made, said Red Wing Mayor John Howe. However, it's clear what he prefers.
> 
> "We certainly feel the river route is the best route," said Howe, who is a member of the Minnesota High Speed Rail Commission that meets monthly in Red Wing. "There's a four-to-one payback."
> 
> From Howe's perspective, the river route has four advantages: it makes sense environmentally since a rail is already in place; improvement to the existing tracks would benefit current freight transportation; it would lead to a commuter option; and it would be more time- and cost-efficient to upgrade rather than build from scratch.
> 
> Rochester has often been mentioned as an alternative to Minnesota's river route. While Howe doesn't believe that a Rochester route has as much to offer, it remains under consideration.
> 
> *Minnesota received $600,000 in federal stimulus money earlier this month to conduct an environment impact study for the project*.
> 
> Once Wisconsin makes its decision — WisDOT secretary Frank Busalacchi says a study is being formulated — then MnDOT officials will better be able to chart their own path. It's unclear how soon Wisconsin will decide between Eau Claire and La Crosse.
> 
> "We do need the Minnesota Department of Transportation to make a recommendation, a data-driven recommendation, and then we can make our case to the transportation officials," Howe said.


----------



## trainrover

Hmmmm, just by the very matter of this thread is the state of N American R&D revealed, huh? :lol: As far as rail travel goes, it's clearer to me now why cab designs of N American trucks have yet to shun their coziness with 1930s --errrrr-- panache...


----------



## chicagoboulder

Mateusz said:


> Question is... what trains ?
> 
> Something European ?



That is a good question. What about the British Pendolino's used on the West Coast Main Line? I say this because they tilt and can be very useful on routes that have some wind to them. The NEC would benefit from these trains, and as for the rest of the proposed corridors, I would propose either the Siemens Valero or the SNCF POS trains.


----------



## chicagoboulder

Having read through this entire thread, here is what I have concluded:

1. The gov't is not funding as much as it should
Reply: There are other factors going into it, such as the economy, healthcare, and immigration.

2. The Interstate system is very efficient as it stands
3. We are not paying the "full cost" of using the roads and associated infrastructure.
4. Gas is still subsidized heavily by the gov't

Here is what I propose:

1. We start paying the "full cost" that will encourage people to use alternate modes of transportation, and also hopefully (cause we never know what will happen) increase support for HSR in multiple regions of the US.

2. What about using some of the right-of-way of the Interstates to build HSR? Some of them have HUGE medians that could work for a two track system.

3. Identify major megalopolises and metropolitan areas that could benefit from HSR.

4. In the Midwest, there are a few major key cities, such as Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Kansas City (not sure), and Salt Lake City. There could be HSR JUST between the major cities, and regional trains to service the individual metro areas. The proposed Chicago Hub system is a great example of this. It includes medium-sized cities in the system, like Milwaukee, Peoria, Springfield, and the concept continues in the subsystem the Ohio Hub.

5. I would love to see a system of HSR trains zigzagging across the country, but that is not possible due to the enormous size of the US. The reason that many countries in Europe have developed such great intra-country HSR systems is because their cities are closer together. This, in the case of France, almost completely wiped out the domestic air travel. This is happening in Spain as well. Each of these European countries is the size of one of the Midwestern states. That is a HUGE size difference.


----------



## Suburbanist

chicagoboulder said:


> 1. We start paying the "full cost" that will encourage people to use alternate modes of transportation, and also hopefully (cause we never know what will happen) increase support for HSR in multiple regions of the US.


Why so many people want to raise taxes on an essential component of modern life just to make the alternative attractive? This is what bothers me most: people want rail (ok), but also to come with massive price increases (e.g., taxes - NOT OK) on road mobility to "incentive" change of use patterns.

Build a decent, true high-speed system, and a reasonable number of people will use it for what it is worth for: medium distance travel usually covered either by relatively inefficient short-haul commuter flight (to much time on the ground for too little time in the air) or relatively long driving trips (many hours lost). It is competitive on its own features.

Build a "patched" system, poison it with too much politics (like building stations not where demand and easy access to/from station exists, but on pork-loaded downtown renovation schemes instead...), revamp a century old railroad and place a "high speed" sticky, and it will not be used. If the latter is chosen, just don't make car drives double-pay for the costs of such bad choices (as taxpayers at general, than as drivers).



> 2. What about using some of the right-of-way of the Interstates to build HSR? Some of them have HUGE medians that could work for a two track system.


Not so easy. The allowed gradients, curve radius etc. for high-speed railways (in some European projects as low as 17/1000 and 5300m respectively) are far more stringent than those allowed on FHWA manuals for interstates. On long plain curve-less stretches like I-80 west of Salt Lake City that could be viable, but otherwise, it's not.



> 5. I would love to see a system of HSR trains zigzagging across the country, but that is not possible due to the enormous size of the US. The reason that many countries in Europe have developed such great intra-country HSR systems is because their cities are closer together. This, in the case of France, almost completely wiped out the domestic air travel. This is happening in Spain as well. Each of these European countries is the size of one of the Midwestern states. That is a HUGE size difference.


France has a population of over 60 million, Spain, over 40 million. Population density plays a role, too, but not only for good of HS rail, it must be said: too much dense countries like Germany and Netherlands, with scattered population patterns instead of few big metropolitan areas, end up not building much true HSR because there is too much pressure for "intermediate" cities that don't want to be "downgraded" by being left out of HSR service. The historically hot-debated HS line project between Frankfurt and Stuttgart in Germany is a good example - too bad that the great city of Mannheim doesn't want to have "second class" medium speed service only, so no line gets fully build because serving Mannheim would greatly increase the costs of such new HSR line.


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak to study 220mph operations on NEC and elsewhere*

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/23/amtrak-planning-major-push-to-operate-true-high-speed-lines/

I think can be done , the only question is the how much $$$ and how long with it take?


----------



## chicagoboulder

^^I meant size wise as in total area of the country. Thank you for pointing out that Interstate median might not be the best idea, it was just a thought I had. If you look at a map of the US at night, the population centers become clear. Yes population density does play a role, but having a sizeable population can spur density developments. As to the "full-cost". It is defined as paying for the costs of drilling, transporting, refining, and transporting the oil. If we factor this in, the price per gallon goes way up. I am a student and this is something we discussed in one of my classes.


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> I think can be done , the only question is the how much $$$ and how long with it take?


Sure it can be done. That ($$$) is the problem, particularly with the current fiscal situation. In the NEC area, for instance, all state governments are pretty much on dire straits. Then, you have all the political situation in Capitol Hill. Imagine if DOT appear with a "billionaire wasteful bill" that you put "America a little closer of coming an European socialist state"... I doubt the US fed. govt. would be willing to pick up a fight in the light of swift opposition even to things like modestly increased Pell Grants for students...

I'm not being a negative person, but I think there is no political will to build such a system right now. In 3/4 years, if the economy stars recovering and the bailouts turn out a profit or only a modest loss to the government, then we can think about HSR real activity construction.

However, it is not all bad that there is no money/will to do it right now: projects have more time do be discussed and assessed, so when there is money available, projects will be more close do shovel-ready status.


----------



## Tom 958

Suburbanist said:


> Sure it can be done. That ($$$) is the problem, particularly with the current fiscal situation. In the NEC area, for instance, all state governments are pretty much on dire straits. Then, you have all the political situation in Capitol Hill. Imagine if DOT appear with a "billionaire wasteful bill" that you put "America a little closer of coming an European socialist state"... I doubt the US fed. govt. would be willing to pick up a fight in the light of swift opposition even to things like modestly increased Pell Grants for students...
> 
> I'm not being a negative person, but I think there is no political will to build such a system right now. In 3/4 years, if the economy stars recovering and the bailouts turn out a profit or only a modest loss to the government, then we can think about HSR real activity construction.
> 
> However, it is not all bad that there is no money/will to do it right now: projects have more time do be discussed and assessed, so when there is money available, projects will be more close do shovel-ready status.


Sad but true. Between that, the immense amount of money it would take to create even one proper HSR corridor, and the length of payback once an HSR project begins functioning, now isn't the time to move forward. 

I wish that we'd been thinking HSR in the '90's when we were running $200 billion federal budget surpluses, or during the 00's when the Bush tax cuts induced the private sector to pour money into building a vast glut of housing instead of wiser investments like alternative energy and transportation. But it's a bit late for that now.

IMO, we'd do better to play to our strengths through incremental improvement of our freight railroads, with an eye to the possiblity of 110 mph passenger service in improved existing corridors as a secondary consideration. Leave HSR forwhen we can afford it.

EDIT: A rail corridor along I-81 that would get traffic and the economy moving again


----------



## Nexis

South of Newark,NJ wouldn't require alot , 2 bypasses , some more tracks , Constant Catenary Tension , Replaced Interlocks , that would only cost around 5 billion, and should only take 3 years. NY Penn to New Haven would require alot , but part of it is getting done , so Amtrak wouldn't have to done much. Metro-North & CDOT are doing the CT section. Amtrak is adding more Tracks in NJ , PA , and DE already. So only a few big are needed , a few bypasses and bridge / tunnel replacements. The Only section of the NEC that i can see handle 220mph is South of Newark , the CT section will max out around 170mph. Amtrak has been getting very popular here in the NE , Northeast Regional & the Keystone have been selling out a few trains daily. The Acelas are also getting popular. & Amtrak is looking at a certain type of fleet for the NEC & Keystone lines.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Not so easy. The allowed gradients, curve radius etc. for high-speed railways (in some European projects as low as 17/1000 and 5300m respectively) are far more stringent than those allowed on FHWA manuals for interstates. On long plain curve-less stretches like I-80 west of Salt Lake City that could be viable, but otherwise, it's not.


One of the advantages of dedicate high speed tracks is that you can build them with higher grades and tighter curves, as you can match super-elevation exactly to speed. That makes bundling the lines with freeways quite feasible. 
Just ride Köln - Frankfurt behind the driver once...

[/quote]
The historically hot-debated HS line project between Frankfurt and Stuttgart in Germany is a good example - too bad that the great city of Mannheim doesn't want to have "second class" medium speed service only, so no line gets fully build because serving Mannheim would greatly increase the costs of such new HSR line.[/QUOTE]

Leaving out Mannheim would also "leave out" much of southwestern Germany and even Switzerland, so this would not really be a good idea. The population distribution of that part of the world anyway means that upgrading the existing network piece by piece yields more value than building a ground level airline.


----------



## FlyFish

Suburbanist said:


> Sure it can be done. That ($$$) is the problem, particularly with the current fiscal situation. In the NEC area, for instance, all state governments are pretty much on dire straits. Then, you have all the political situation in Capitol Hill. Imagine if DOT appear with a "billionaire wasteful bill" that you put "America a little closer of coming an European socialist state"... I doubt the US fed. govt. would be willing to pick up a fight in the light of swift opposition even to things like modestly increased Pell Grants for students...
> 
> I'm not being a negative person, but I think there is no political will to build such a system right now.


Ding ding ding...we have a winner.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Sure it can be done. That ($$$) is the problem, particularly with the current fiscal situation. In the NEC area, for instance, all state governments are pretty much on dire straits. Then, you have all the political situation in Capitol Hill. Imagine if DOT appear with a "billionaire wasteful bill" that you put "America a little closer of coming an European socialist state"... I doubt the US fed. govt. would be willing to pick up a fight in the light of swift opposition even to things like modestly increased Pell Grants for students...
> 
> I'm not being a negative person, but I think there is no political will to build such a system right now. In 3/4 years, if the economy stars recovering and the bailouts turn out a profit or only a modest loss to the government, then we can think about HSR real activity construction.
> 
> However, it is not all bad that there is no money/will to do it right now: projects have more time do be discussed and assessed, so when there is money available, projects will be more close do shovel-ready status.


The NEC is entirely owned by Amtrak which is doing small improvements now , The NY Penn - New Haven section is finally getting upgraded to handle higher speeds and tilting. So by 2015 alot of the minor and some of the Major stuff will be done. & Speeds will increase for an Average of 80-90mph to 110mph then by 2020 it will increase to 200mph or 220mph. Its not that hard to upgrade the NEC. I'm more excited to see the New NEC & Keystone fleets Amtrak picks out.


----------



## Suburbanist

Are they going to remove all grade-crossings and rectify tracks where radius curves are too small?


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Are they going to remove all grade-crossings and rectify tracks where radius curves are too small?


Only 3 Crossings on both lines are left and they will be removed sometime in the next 5-10 years. The Curves will be straighted out and a few eliminated.


----------



## Tom 958

Nexis said:


> Only 3 Crossings on both lines are left and they will be removed sometime in the next 5-10 years. The Curves will be straighted out and a few eliminated.


Well, that certainly rocks! :banana:


----------



## Suburbanist

That is a good measure, standardizing VMax over longer stretches avoid additional time losses caused by deceleration/acceleration, which are usually more massive than the 1-2 minutes it cost to travel a couple miles at reduced speed.


----------



## TampaMike

I like the St.Paul-Madison link next to the river because it will go through where my grandparents live and I can catch a train to the Twin Cities from there. Also, there is more oppurtunity for economic growth along that line including the cities of Red Wing, Lake City, Winona, and La Crosse.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I think all cities where high speed rail stations planned should consider to build its own public transit systems to serve high speed rail passengers. There are some cities in USA where high speed rail supposed to be built though don't have local public transits system yet. I can see all cities that already have public transit systems will do successful with high speed rail system but I fail to see how it will be successful to serve some cities that lack of public transit system. That is something that some US cities should consider that.


----------



## Davodavo

^^ +1, but don't forget that some systems that do have it, need to improve it enormously, I have never been able to understand why a country like the United States or a city like New York, can not have an efficient public transportation system.


----------



## Suburbanist

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I think all cities where high speed rail stations planned should consider to build its own public transit systems to serve high speed rail passengers. There are some cities in USA where high speed rail supposed to be built though don't have local public transits system yet. I can see all cities that already have public transit systems will do successful with high speed rail system but I fail to see how it will be successful to serve some cities that lack of public transit system. That is something that some US cities should consider that.


Park-and-ride facilities and optimized station placement are better solutions for the usual american city traffic pattern. Build a high-speed road near a major intersection/junction, with massive parking lots nearby and facilities like car rental offices, just like in the airports. So you can drive to the origin station, ride a train and immediately take a rental car to reach your destination.

I'd say it is a big mistake to increase HSR costs by mixing high-speed with downtown revitalization/renovation/renewal. Usually (not always) those who can afford airfare-like prices on rail do not live downtown and don't take transit. New York-Washington corridor is probably an exception.

Billions can be saved if stations bypass dense built-up areas altogether, using interstates and freeways as their feeder backbone network, thus improving the catchment area.


----------



## Stainless

Suburbanist said:


> Park-and-ride facilities and optimized station placement are better solutions for the usual american city traffic pattern. Build a high-speed road near a major intersection/junction, with massive parking lots nearby and facilities like car rental offices, just like in the airports. So you can drive to the origin station, ride a train and immediately take a rental car to reach your destination.


I cannot see people doing this for the sort of distances trains are competitive for. When all the branch lines were axed in the UK in the 60s they assumed people would drive to the train station and then take the train the rest of the way. Far easier to just drive the whole distance. Most people find car rental a hassle and a double expense if they already own a car not too far away. Parkway stations do however work in the UK and work for many people living in rural areas and living in cities. But none have car rental stations as well as there simple isn't a market for them.


----------



## kato2k8

K_ said:


> Leaving out Mannheim would also "leave out" much of southwestern Germany and even Switzerland, so this would not really be a good idea.


There would also be no money saved by bypassing Mannheim - even in the DB plans with the bypass (which no one except DB supported, and which DB itself dropped two years ago), the connections to the WER/Pfingstberg lines through Mannheim would have to have been built anyway. Additionally, several 100 million investment would have been necessary for a new "bypass station".

The WER/Pfingstberg lines (built in the late 70s to early 80s for about 400 million DM) represent the current HSR route through Mannheim, allowing 200 km/h speed throughout; about 10% allow 250 km/h. This connection has about 20 km length within Mannheim proper, consisting of two separate sections of elevated railways, a 5 km long tunnel, and 4 dedicated platforms at Mannheim Central Station.
Of this stretch currently 30% are shared with regional passenger trains; none of it is shared with freight trains (during the day). With the current plan the shared trackage section will be shortened to 25%, and the usage of the shared section will switch to roughly 90% HS / 10% regional from current 75% HS / 25% regional.

Also, there's of course no debate about this line. It's being built, as in right now. First preliminary work started last year rebuilding the future link of this line into Frankfurt Airport.


----------



## Nexis

Davodavo said:


> ^^ +1, but don't forget that some systems that do have it, need to improve it enormously, I have never been able to understand why a country like the United States or a city like New York, can not have an efficient public transportation system.


What's wrong with NYC's & Regions System or network , its at Euro Standards of size, although we need a few more connectors, but were getting there. In 15 years we should have a dense network of Regional , Subways (urban areas) , Light Rail & a few High Speed Lines. New England is planning on building 4 HSL by 2030 and at least 1000+ miles of Commuter lines and 600 more miles of Electrified lines. Eastern PA isn't that far behind , although its different there , mostly regular rail will be built. Except the Keystone HSL Ext to Pittsburgh & Cleveland. Maryland and Virgina are planning a network of Regional Rail and 1 or 2 HSL. Most of these regular / Commuter Rail lines will have a top speed of 110mph and average speeds of 60-90mph , the HSL will have a top speed of 160-220mph with averages of 180 or 190mph. In 20 years the Northeast & parts of the Mid Atlantic will have a rail system similar to Europe. Also alot of small to medium towns are planning Streetcar systems , and Larger Towns and cities are planning or about to build Light Rail / Streetcar systems , some form private investment. I can name at least 40 NE cities and towns that are planning to.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Davodavo said:


> ^^ +1, but don't forget that some systems that do have it, need to improve it enormously, I have never been able to understand why a country like the United States or a city like New York, can not have an efficient public transportation system.


True. Some US cities like Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, and add on are expanding its public transit systems. USA is very fall behind when it comes to public transit but they're catching up now. Hopefully in next two decades, USA public transit system should be almost good as Europe. 



Suburbanist said:


> Park-and-ride facilities and optimized station placement are better solutions for the usual american city traffic pattern. Build a high-speed road near a major intersection/junction, with massive parking lots nearby and facilities like car rental offices, just like in the airports. So you can drive to the origin station, ride a train and immediately take a rental car to reach your destination.
> 
> I'd say it is a big mistake to increase HSR costs by mixing high-speed with downtown revitalization/renovation/renewal. Usually (not always) those who can afford airfare-like prices on rail do not live downtown and don't take transit. New York-Washington corridor is probably an exception.
> 
> Billions can be saved if stations bypass dense built-up areas altogether, using interstates and freeways as their feeder backbone network, thus improving the catchment area.


Park and ride facilities usually work better in the suburbs than city centers or limited public transit system in the general. There are some US cities that have public transit system that will connect to future HSR stations so park and ride facilities are out of questions for these cities. I can see some future HSR stations like Anaheim, Bakersfield, and Fresno to have park and ride facilities because they don't have decent public transit systems yet.


----------



## Suburbanist

CrazyAboutCities said:


> . I can see some future HSR stations like Anaheim, Bakersfield, and Fresno to have park and ride facilities because they don't have decent public transit systems yet.


Some cities along the "Texas Y" corridor would be fit to P&R too. And don't know about the scope of the Orlando-Tampa line, as the route is kind of odd.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Suburbanist said:


> Some cities along the "Texas Y" corridor would be fit to P&R too. And don't know about the scope of the Orlando-Tampa line, as the route is kind of odd.


Yeah but Dallas and Houston have its public transit system too but not so great but heard they're in process to expand its system as well. I don't know about Orlando-Tampa either since I am not familiar with state since I never been there before.


----------



## TampaMike

How is the Tampa-Orlando route odd. Look on Google Maps or Earth, zoom in to Central Florida and locate I-4, and that is where most of the HSR line will go. It will go off I-4 once it reaches the Orange County Convention Center and head towards Orlando International Airport. Later on, the line will extend to St. Petersburg, but that will likely occur after the Orlando-Miami line.


----------



## K_

kato2k8 said:


> Also, there's of course no debate about this line. It's being built, as in right now. First preliminary work started last year rebuilding the future link of this line into Frankfurt Airport.


Which is good news for me, as I often travel on the Basel - Mannheim - Frankfurt - Köln route.


----------



## Crownsteler

Back to high-speed rail in the US.

2 interesting things I came across while reading this blog. (note: I give this blog some credence because the author displays quite a bit of indept knowledge on the subject)
1) It seems to be all but decided that CAHSR will use ERTMS as its train protection system. (see here). While not really shocking or suprising news, I do think it is good news.
2) Included in a post describing (and damning) the San Fransisco Transbay Terminal project, is this sentence:
_'The minimum curve radius is just 500 feet (150 m), the sharpest allowable radius for European off-the-shelf trains, and too sharp for some Japanese high speed trains.'_
Seems quite likely we'll see European HSTs running in California. I like


----------



## Basincreek

It will be interesting to see if the politicians get their way and refuse to sell the bonds voters approved for the CAHSR system. There are just so many NIMBY's attacking it right now that things look bleak.


----------



## edubejar

Chafford1 said:


> Documents can be found at:
> 
> http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31
> 
> This is revolutionary for the USA and all credit to Obama!


I just noticed this thread now. The link above has the image I've pasted below under Chronology of HSR corridors. (You can zoom in if you view it on the fra.dot.gov website).

Anyway, without giving it any deeper thinking, I like some of those routes shown and I think that the idea is there. Building HSR in a country the size of the US would indeed have to be on corridors linking only certain cities like some of those shown on the map below. Afterall, even in Western Europe and parts of Asia HSR is only present between certain cities and those countries with many HSR corridors today like Germany and France began with 1 or 2 corridors first before moving forward with more corridors.

I look forward to one linking LA with San Francisco and eventually connecting San Diego too. Of course, the East Coast already has some sort of head-start with its much more rail-oriented infrustructure and mentality but I'm sure there is room for improvements.


----------



## trainrover

FlyFish said:


> Ding ding ding...we have a winner.


? 1 lack of governance = 1 winner ?


----------



## dl3000

trainrover said:


> ? 1 lack of governance = 1 winner ?


If I understand your question correctly maybe I can answer it to a minor extent. 

FlyFish said "we have a winner" because they believe that Suburbanist gave the correct answer as to why the US is so behind, not because lack of political will leads to a winning situation. That said, many people believe that a lack of governance as you put it in many respects (smaller government, less spending hence less taxes) is a winning situation, I am not one of them but there are many and they believe that high speed rail is a waste and the government should have nothing to do with it. I think the private sector doesn't have the balls to do it so why not let the government because I see a demand.


----------



## FlyFish

trainrover said:


> ? 1 lack of governance = 1 winner ?


Ditto above. I think Suburbanist gave the correct answer. Politically speaking in the US, if there is money to be sopent on infrastructure, the general political will dictates that t be spent improving what we use, not building something we don't use. Especially after the disasterous health care debate where the Feds pushed something through in such an ugly manner that now half the states are going to court against them the will for a major new and unfunded program just is not there.

There has been a lot of discussion here about how the Gov't built all these highways way back when and such. That's true, it was done, the highways exist and other than about .01% of the mileage in the nation they are sufficient. (You will disagree of course if your morning commute has you on that .01%). The air traffic system here is also pretty sufficient. It's getting overcrowded in certain corridors but it is generally sufficient. Our Government has and continues to spend us into bankruptcy. There is no money for a new and improved transportation system, there just isn't.

Yes, all you "tax the rich" fans, I guess you could do that but if history is a guide they'd still spend 20% more than they take in and just hasten the financial collapse of the country.


----------



## SPIREINTHEHOLE!

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=124932&catid=60

*Poll: Half Of U.S. Backs High-Speed Rail*



> About half of U.S. residents support President Barack Obama's plan to develop high-speed rail corridors, a poll released Tuesday indicated.
> 
> The Canadian polling company, Angus Reid Public Opinion, found 49 percent of those surveyed said they support high-speed rail. About one-third, 32 percent, said they would use the service rather than driving or taking a plane.
> 
> One-quarter of respondents, 26 percent, said they oppose building high-speed rail corridors.
> 
> Respondents were shown a map of proposed routes, which cover much of the country except the Plains and mountain states of the West. Obama has proposed high-speed rail in California and linking Portland, Ore., Seattle and Vancouver in Canada.
> 
> Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans -- 70 percent to 34 percent -- to support high-speed rail. Among independents, 44 percent support high-speed rail and 35 percent oppose it.
> 
> While 44 percent of Democrats would use high-speed rail, only 24 percent of Republicans and 30 percent of independents said they would.
> 
> Angus Reid surveyed 1,005 adults online March 31 and April 1. The margin of error is 3.1 percent either way.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

*China Offers High Speed Rail to California*

BEIJING — Nearly 150 years after American railroads brought in thousands of Chinese laborers to build rail lines across the West, China is poised once again to play a role in American rail construction. But this time, it would be an entirely different role: supplying the technology, equipment and engineers to build high-speed rail lines. 

The Chinese government has signed cooperation agreements with the State of California and General Electric to help build such lines. The agreements, both of which are preliminary, show China’s desire to become a big exporter and licensor of bullet trains traveling 215 miles an hour, an environmentally friendly technology in which China has raced past the United States in the last few years.

“We are the most advanced in many fields, and we are willing to share with the United States,” Zheng Jian, the chief planner and director of high-speed rail at China’s railway ministry, said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has closely followed progress in the discussions with China and hopes to come here later this year for talks with rail ministry officials, said David Crane, the governor’s special adviser for jobs and economic growth, and a board member of the California High Speed Rail Authority.

China is offering not just to build a railroad in California but also to help finance its construction, and Chinese officials have already been shuttling between Beijing and Sacramento to make presentations, Mr. Crane said in a telephone interview.

China is not the only country interested in selling high-speed rail equipment to the United States. Japan, Germany, South Korea, Spain, France and Italy have also approached California’s High Speed Rail Authority.

The agency has made no decisions on whose technology to choose. But Mr. Crane said that there were no apparent weaknesses in the Chinese offer, and that Governor Schwarzenegger particularly wanted to visit China this year for high-speed rail discussions.

Even if an agreement is reached for China to build and help bankroll a high-speed rail system in California, considerable obstacles would remain.

China’s rail ministry would face independent labor unions and democratically elected politicians, neither of which it has to deal with at home. The United States also has labor and immigration laws stricter than those in China.

In a nearly two-hour interview at the rail ministry’s monolithic headquarters here, Mr. Zheng said repeatedly that any Chinese bid would comply with all American laws and regulations.

China’s rail ministry has an international reputation for speed and low costs, and is opening 1,200 miles of high-speed rail routes this year alone. China is moving rapidly to connect almost all of its own provincial capitals with bullet trains.

But while the ministry has brought costs down through enormous economies of scale, “buy American” pressures could make it hard for China to export the necessary equipment to the United States.

The railways ministry has concluded a framework agreement to license its technology to G.E., which is a world leader in diesel locomotives but has little experience with the electric locomotives needed for high speeds.

According to G.E., the agreement calls for at least 80 percent of the components of any locomotives and system control gear to come from American suppliers, and labor-intensive final assembly would be done in the United States for the American market. China would license its technology and supply engineers as well as up to 20 percent of the components.

State-owned Chinese equipment manufacturers initially licensed many of their designs over the last decade from Japan, Germany and France. While Chinese companies have gone on to make many changes and innovations, Japanese executives in particular have grumbled that Chinese technology resembles theirs, raising the possibility of legal challenges if any patents have been violated.

All of the technology would be Chinese, Mr. Zheng said.

China has already begun building high-speed rail routes in Turkey, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is looking for opportunities in seven other countries, notably a route sought by the Brazilian government between São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Mr. Zheng said.

International rail experts say that China has mastered the art of building high-speed rail lines quickly and inexpensively.

“These guys are engineering driven — they know how to build fast, build cheaply and do a good job,” said John Scales, the lead transport specialist in the Beijing office of the World Bank.

The California rail authority plans to spend $43 billion to build a 465-mile route from San Francisco to Los Angeles and on to Anaheim that is supposed to open in 2020. The authority was awarded $2.25 billion in January in federal economic stimulus money to work on the project. 

The authority’s plans call for $10 billion to $12 billion in private financing. Mr. Crane said China could provide much of that, with federal, state and local jurisdictions providing the rest. Mr. Zheng declined to discuss financial details. 

China’s mostly state-controlled banks had few losses during the global financial crisis and are awash with cash now because of tight regulation and a fast-growing economy. The Chinese government is also becoming disenchanted with bonds and looking to diversify its $2.4 trillion in foreign reserves by investing in areas like natural resources and overseas rail projects.

“They’ve got a lot of capital, and they’re willing to provide a lot of capital” for a California high-speed rail system, Mr. Crane said.

Later plans call for the California line to be extended to Sacramento and San Diego, while a private consortium hopes to build a separate route from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

Toyota is shutting a big assembly plant in Fremont, Calif., that it once operated as a joint venture with General Motors, and one idea under discussion is converting the factory to the assembly of high-speed rail equipment, said Mr. Crane, who is also a member of the state’s Economic Development Commission.

Rail parts from China would then come through the nearby port of Oakland, in place of auto parts from Japan.

“High-speed rail requires a lot of high technology — we would send many high-end engineers and high-end technicians” to California, Mr. Zheng said.

G.E. estimates that the United States will spend $13 billion in the next five years on high-speed rail routes. China, with a much more ambitious infrastructure program, will spend $300 billion in the next three years on overall expansion of its rail routes, mainly high-speed routes, according to G.E.

China’s long-term vision calls for high-speed rail routes linking Shanghai to Singapore and New Delhi by way of Myanmar, and someday connecting Beijing and Shanghai to Moscow to the northwest and through Tehran to Prague and Berlin, according to a map that Mr. Zheng keeps on a bookshelf behind his desk. He cautioned that there were no plans to start construction yet outside China.

A high-speed rail link for passengers from Beijing to Shanghai will be finished by the end of 2011 or early 2012, and cut the journey to four hours, from 10 hours now, Mr. Zheng said.

New York to Atlanta or Chicago is a similar distance, and takes 18 to 19 hours on Amtrak, which must share tracks with 12,000-ton freight trains and many commuter trains.

For the American market, Mr. Zheng said, “we can provide whatever services are needed.” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08rail.html?hpw


----------



## UD2

^^

how long before the so called patroits begin to swing around anti-China bashies?


----------



## Nexis

So when will they be operating along the Northeast Corridor?


----------



## sotavento

All hands salute those europeans and their STATE RUN passenger train companies ... :nuts:



too bad such things don't exist in all mighty american rails. 


^^ pHun (un)intended. :cheers:




Momo1435 said:


> Yay for German locomotives!



since when is Bombardier a German company ???



Long live the canuck corporations with their 3rd world factories (namely in germany)


----------



## thun

The ALP 46 is a variation of the German DB Type 101 which was developed by German ADtranz before the aquisition by Bombardier. Bombardier Transportation is based in Berlin, btw. So yes, German locomotive. :yes:


----------



## Momo1435

To be more precise, these loco's are developed and built at Bombardier's site in Kassel, Germany. This is the former Henschel site producing locomotives since 1848 and electric locomotives since 1910, more then 34,000 in total. 

Bombardier just bought up a lot of European companies to get into the European market and were smart enough not to interfere to much with the technology. They just reorganized in such a way that every site specialized in what they already did best.


----------



## Basincreek

The Palo Alto Daily Post has laid out what will be the foundation of their plan to try and stop High Speed Rail in California.



> *Letters won’t stop the rail*
> 
> If you want to stop high-speed rail, you have been told to spend the next month flooding Sacramento with e-mails and letters. The more letters we send, the greater the chance we will stop this train. Or so we are told.
> 
> Go ahead and write, if it makes you feel better. But our legislators and officials at the California High Speed Rail Authority are not going to read your letters. They’re going to hire a PR person to skim them over and provide a canned response. Your letters aren’t going to stop the powerful backers of this railroad (labor, engineering firms, land developers) from gutting the heart of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City, San Mateo and Burlingame with a monster wider, louder and uglier than Caltrain.
> 
> Instead of writing letters, let’s take some serious steps to stop high-speed rail.
> 
> *Go back to the ballot*
> 
> Put the question back on the statewide ballot. A signature- gathering effort will cost about $500,000, and the election campaign could cost millions more. So this won’t be easy.
> 
> The campaign would have two themes:
> 
> *High-speed rail, at a cost of $43 billion, will take needed state funds away from other more important things like police, firefighting and schools.
> 
> *The public wasn’t told all of the facts about the rail before the 2008 election, and many of the “facts” at the time were greatly exaggerated, such as the projected ridership.
> 
> *Bring out the lawyers*
> 
> The Palo Alto area has some of the world’s top lawyers and Stanford’s law school. We need to form an all-star legal dream team of hundreds of lawyers working on a pro bono basis to stand up to the army of lawyers the state has to push this project down our throats. These lawyers could be:
> *Suing over every aspect of this project, and constantly demanding restraining orders and injunctions. The more litigating we do, the more likely we can stop this project in the courts. Environmental groups know how to do this better than anyone – let’s see if they’ll help us?
> 
> *Going to bat for homeowners whose property the rail authority intends to seize through eminent domain. It’s important to act fast because once the state has decided to take a property, it’s gone, and the only issue at that point is how much money the homeowner will get.
> 
> *Threaten their jobs*
> 
> Let’s create a political action committee to raise money and defeat legislators who back this project. Knocking off one or two pro-train or “done right” lawmakers will have more impact than a million letters and e-mails.
> 
> Legislators and the rail authority don’t care how many letter we write. It’s a big joke to them. That’s why they’re telling us to write. It will distract us as they push their project through. But they will care if their jobs are threatened. Let’s hit them where it hurts.


It will be interesting to see how well these idiots do.


----------



## Nexis

Basincreek said:


> The Palo Alto Daily Post has laid out what will be the foundation of their plan to try and stop High Speed Rail in California.
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see how well these idiots do.


Prey that an Earthquake levels that town and the morons that live within it.hno: Honestly , they are costing the project more, aren't they only town opposing it. What does the rest of Cali think about this?


----------



## dl3000

Nexis said:


> Prey that an Earthquake levels that town and the morons that live within it.hno: Honestly , they are costing the project more, aren't they only town opposing it. What does the rest of Cali think about this?


They appear to lead a group of towns on the Peninsula (Palo Alto, Belmont, Menlo Park, Atherton and Burlingame). I'm pissed about it but I'm speaking for myself. These guys are smack between San Jose and SF who both appear to be all for the system in general but probably will have to iron out details. This is the biggest hurdle for sure and the cities are amassing cash for legal battles when they should use it to get the tunnels they so desperately want.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Californians already voted for this project. This town needs to let it go and shallow their 60's style attitudes.


----------



## Basincreek

What's really weird is all their worries are pretty much unfounded. They think the high speed train is going to crash property values when there is absolutely no precedence for that world wide. They think the train will be very noisy when it really will be quieter than what they have now. They think having a station will bring in all sorts of crime and "undesirables." Which I'm pretty sure is code for non-white people.

Okay so it might allow non-white people to move in more but that shouldn't be a problem unless you're racist like the people of Palo Alto.


----------



## Suburbanist

Well, if you look some of the official videos and renders from the California HSR, it proposes radical transformation (to the worse sometimes) in the immediate vicinity of some stations, with too much construction and density for the usual patterns in Central California.


----------



## Basincreek

I don't recall seeing any renders showing radical transformation for the worse. I guess if you oppose all transit oriented development it would look bad to you though.


----------



## makita09

^^ hehe, spot on.


----------



## city_thing

LOL @ the article claiming that HSR would 'gut the heart of xyz cities'. As if car parks and interstates don't already do that. Some people are just idiots.


----------



## Basincreek

Peninsula Consortium Cities to try and deny HSR funding!

Item #7 indicates they are going to try and repeal Prop 1A which authorized a $10 billion bond for HSR.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29889537/PCC-Agenda-041610-Final


----------



## G5man

The usual NIMBYs, will they just get the *$&% over it! They mudslam this more than their state assembly people who can't get a budget passed.


----------



## Basincreek

Apparently a lot of it is at the instigation of one guy who might lose 15 feet of his backyard and this has him livid. But he's rich and has been bankrolling most of this opposition including the newspaper articles.


----------



## HyperMiler

Outcome of California project's bid will be determined by how much loan the train vendor is willing to provide, $12 billion minimum, preferably more.

China has been marketing its yet-to-be-built high-speed train model in California on the promise of China making the loan for the necessary construction cost. Japan too is making a similar offer, now that Vietnam chose to build its Shinkansen line on a $33 billion Japanese ODA loan.

This puts Alstom's AGV and Rotem's HEMU-400x at a great disadvantage, two 400 km/hr models with 360 km/hr service speed.


----------



## Zorobabel

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be an American.


----------



## HAWC1506

^^Second.

I seriously cannot believe that the world's most power country is so far behind in such basics. It's really a shame that we have such a large cultural inertia that's stuck in the 1950s.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

I believe the biggest problem within the US society is that it focuses too much on individualism which also fuels NIMBYism.
Present political dismay such as the Tea Party movement are also related.
IMHO individualism has gone renegade by agitators with hidden agendas blinding people of the US of the "Greater Good" to society as a whole.


----------



## pathfinder_2010

New here.. Interesting topic. 42 pages to read....
so where are we headed with high-speed railways in america ?
We sure need a Houston-Dallas high speed railway. I-45 is way too clogged


----------



## Nexis

Here's some of the Key Higher Speed High Speed Rail developments in the Northeast that will happen over the next 2 decades.
Speeds of 110-190mph

Boston-Portland,ME
Improvements to the entire Northeast Corridor line
Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland
NYC-Albany-Montreal
NYC-Albany-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Cleveland?
NYC-Albany-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Toronto
Boston-Montreal
Richmond-DC

Conventional Rail lines in the Northeast that will happen by 2030
Speeds of 80-110mph

Newark-Scranton-Binghamton-Syracuse
New Haven-Hartford-Springfield
Newark-Allentown-Harrisburg
Norristown-Reading
Baltimore-York-Harrisburg
Richmond-Newport News

~Corey


----------



## Smooth Indian

SamuraiBlue said:


> I believe the biggest problem within the US society is that it focuses too much on individualism which also fuels NIMBYism.
> Present political dismay such as the Tea Party movement are also related.
> IMHO individualism has gone renegade by agitators with hidden agendas blinding people of the US of the "Greater Good" to society as a whole.


I agree with you. I also feel American today are in a sort of inertia or cultural inertia to be more specific. Many people still spout slogans and catchphrases from 20, 30 or 40 yrs ago to justify their opposition to infrastructure projects


----------



## FlyFish

SamuraiBlue said:


> I believe the biggest problem within the US society is that it focuses too much on individualism which also fuels NIMBYism.
> Present political dismay such as the Tea Party movement are also related.
> IMHO individualism has gone renegade by agitators with hidden agendas blinding people of the US of the "Greater Good" to society as a whole.


Just to agitate a bit. Who gets to decide what the "greater good" is?

The United Stastes was built on individualism. NIMBY is a good thing here. NIMBY stops all kinds of nonsense from going on. That man who is upset about the 15 feet of porpoerty actually OWNES that property. It is his.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

FlyFish said:


> Just to agitate a bit. Who gets to decide what the "greater good" is?
> 
> The United Stastes was built on individualism. NIMBY is a good thing here. NIMBY stops all kinds of nonsense from going on. That man who is upset about the 15 feet of porpoerty actually OWNES that property. It is his.


At the end majority of society is the one to decide what is the greater good.
Individualism at times hinders progress and a wise person should consider some self sacrifice for progress rather than stubbornly insisting on something that may or may not affect one's life.


----------



## dl3000

While I'm as disappointed in America as the next guy and agree with the reasons being tossed around, the reason the "most powerful nation" (though I tend to doubt that every time I look at China) has no high speed rail is because we spent the money for it on two wars against an undefined enemy (more a war on an idea which is the hardest to fight) and defense projects that other countries wouldn't dream of. I'm glad at least now there is an effort to rectify this.


----------



## hans280

SamuraiBlue said:


> At the end majority of society is the one to decide what is the greater good.
> Individualism at times hinders progress and a wise person should consider some self sacrifice for progress rather than stubbornly insisting on something that may or may not affect one's life.


As a native Scandinavian I'd find it easy to agree with you. The Danes also believe in voting - after due process and debate, of course - about what is in "the interest of the nation". After that vote... I wouldn't advice anyone to remain NIMBY. They'd get clobbered for their "lack of respect for democracy". Having said that...

...it must be admitted that this implies a lack of minority protection. Majorities of, say, 52% may sometimes decide to do awful things to the remaining 48%. It was to avoid this situation that the founding fathers (who had in fresh memory a situation where a majority of Church of England adherents decided "democratically" to clubber the country's Puritan and Presbytarian fringes...) decided on a strong minority protection. And it...

...worked pretty well until 1968. The generation of our grandparents and before handled these minority protections pretty well because deep downside they felt that every societal right has to be balanced by a societal obligation. So, wealthy families in the 1920s who could easily avoid it faithfully paid their taxes. So, well connected families in the 1950s and 1960s sent their sons to Korea and Vietnam. But, alas, for the last 40 years it is as if...

...American individualism implies that the individuals have ONLY rights and no duties.


----------



## czm3

FlyFish said:


> Just to agitate a bit. Who gets to decide what the "greater good" is?
> 
> The United Stastes was built on individualism. NIMBY is a good thing here. NIMBY stops all kinds of nonsense from going on. That man who is upset about the 15 feet of porpoerty actually OWNES that property. It is his.


Agreed. Most people that want to see the CA project get built (and I am one of them), are threatened by this nimbyism as its only ultimate result will be delays and increased costs. However, I am sympathetic to the homeowner's concerns. While I dont believe that property values on the peninsula will be greatly affected by this, along the right of way, they will be destroyed. I too would fight against a govt entity that wants to literally put 180 mph trains in my yard.


----------



## Akiramujina

Basincreek said:


> What's really weird is all their worries are pretty much unfounded. They think the high speed train is going to crash property values when there is absolutely no precedence for that world wide. They think the train will be very noisy when it really will be quieter than what they have now. They think having a station will bring in all sorts of crime and "undesirables." Which I'm pretty sure is code for non-white people.
> 
> Okay so it might allow non-white people to move in more but that shouldn't be a problem unless you're racist like the people of Palo Alto.


Sometimes I feel like this is what living in isolated sprawl has done to many Americans. It's not that we are any dumber than the rest of the world...as many would like to believe. It's ignorance. Many Americans seem to have this "black and white" view of the world...ie: it's either their pristine McMansion on a 1/4 acre plot or it's a rat-infested concrete jungle with us all living in 'shoeboxes.' 
Sorry if this doesn't make any sense, but I seriously believe that if Americans could see the "grey" areas in between these two, or hell just visit another country, they wouldn't be so opposed to change.

If you think about it, it's like time stopped once the auto took over in the 1950s. Back then some of the points they bring up may have had some substance, but not in 2010.


----------



## Suburbanist

Akiramujina said:


> Sometimes I feel like this is what living in isolated sprawl has done to many Americans. It's not that we are any dumber than the rest of the world...as many would like to believe. It's ignorance. Many Americans seem to have this "black and white" view of the world...ie: it's either their pristine McMansion on a 1/4 acre plot or it's a rat-infested concrete jungle with us all living in 'shoeboxes.'
> Sorry if this doesn't make any sense, but I seriously believe that if Americans could see the "grey" areas in between these two, or hell just visit another country, they wouldn't be so opposed to change.
> 
> If you think about it, it's like time stopped once the auto took over in the 1950s. Back then some of the points they bring up may have had some substance, but not in 2010.


Property values on the immediate vicinity (=a hundred yards) of HSR lines would decrease assuming there will be no change in land use, e.g., their subdivision will remain as such. But I guess an even higher fear is that Californian government would step in to allow other uses for their subdivision. Then, once you start getting condos in your subdivision, it loses its tranquility and isolation (something that many people value, instead of avoid).

This doesn't mean that the project shouldn't go on, but somehow eminent domain process need to be revised. Indeed, most resistance against eminent domain came when it started getting used not only to get space for public projects (airports, roads, sewage treatment facility) but also for "community redevelopment" projects.

If California government could assure those owners, somehow, that they will be annoyed no further than a HSR line, with noise barriers in place bringing the noise down to what amounts for a rural interstate, and if they could be guaranteed that no one would go there and buyout whole swats of their neighborhood (something that wouldn't cost much because it is low dense there) with backing from some "planning commission" to "redevelop" the area into condos or townhouses, they would be less fierce about the project.

However, opposition to HSR draws heavily in cases where government, against the will of the dwellers on the area, changed zoning laws to increase the attractiveness of a rail transportation project - something that is far more rare in regard of road projects, which usually are just that- road projects.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

For China and Japan, providing loans is not that much of a problem and may even be beneficial to dump off some of the present currency surplus completely unrelated to the project.
These two nation with vast amount of US treasury bonds stocked to offset the trade imbalance merely needs to provide these bonds to the state as deliverable. This will be accounted as cash flow on the state budget balance sheet.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

HyperMiler said:


> Not at all. Japanese government already agreed to provide construction financing for any project that Japanese companies win in the US. After all, it is same Japanese government that is loaning $40 billion to construct the national Shinkansen line in Vietnam, so sparing $12 billion for California is not a problem.
> 
> It is actually Koreans who are having problems with $12 billion loan requirement for the California project, while Chinese and Japanese governments already pledged to make the construction loans to California should their respective bids win.
> 
> 
> JR Central is bidding on Florida project because it is being told to do so. Japanese government divided the US into several territories and gave each Japanese rail company the exclusive right to bid on projects in each territory to ensure that no two Japanese companies bid on same project.



Hypermiler, if the Japanese government is so on top of things in terms of support for domestic HSR builders, then why are the firms publicly stating they have tough odds and need more help, or Transport Minister Maehara seemed "surprised" at the level of competition? You seem to think that some old style industrial policy ala MITI is still being used, unless you have some inside info to the workings of the MLIT in Kasumigaseki.

You are right about firms planning to divide their efforts, though I think JR Central is more independent in their decision making- they hired a US consultant firm early on, which helped them identify which markets were best suited for their product- which would be better than some Tokyo-based bureaucrat's recommendation.



> It depends on what they are planning with second stage of construction


Which is anyone's guess/speculation- which is cheap. Concretly, what we do know *now* is that the stretch from Tampa to Orlando will be completely grade separated. Ideally, the stretch to the eastern shore linking with Miami, Fort Lauderdale, et al will be built to similar standards. You don't want to use existing track shared with heavy freight trains of CSX or FEC, which is deadly to any HSR plans regardless of builder, and traditional, slow commuter rail like Sunrail, which is a hindrance. Not to mention grade crossings- they simply don't belong on any new 21st century HSR line!


----------



## ukiyo

Shinkansen have the fastest acceleration, most energy efficient, and the safest record of all HSR systems. As for speed Shinkansens do not go slower than the other HSR, they run slower in Japan due to noise pollution and more frequent stops. 

Infact when it comes to speed records the Shinkansen holds the *conventional* speed record (not modified like the TGV 574.8 km/h run) at 443 km/h.

Finally the Japanese government is showing more support for Japanese companies as hypermiller's link says *Govt steps up Japan-brand sales efforts*, something they have only started since this year and did not do before (which is why there is an article on them doing it now in the first place).


----------



## k.k.jetcar

^^
Thank you NihonKitty, you put it more succinctly than any long winded responses from me:lol:

You also bring up a point that is often lost to many on comparing HSR types- the false assumption that higher top speed makes a trainset "better" than others. Fact is, most high speed trains spend little time of their operation running at their maximum design speed. This is because they must accelerate often and brake often as a matter of course due to station stops and traffic patterns, not to mention curves and gradients. So actually, average operating speed, and *importantly*, acceleration rates are more critical to effective HSR operation. Any competent railcar builder can run their HSR trains at super high speeds, but few railways run them at those speeds in _normal_ service- it would impose too much wear on track and catenary, as well as increase trainset maintenance costs- minuses that far outweigh any positives gained. Even China, which claims to have the best high speed track in the world (and it sure looks that way from pictures), slowed down their HSR trainsets after initial fanfare pre-Beijing Olympics. In the end, builder claims of having the fastest trainset is just hype. One hopes agencies and governments tasked with choosing a trainset builder look at the _best fit for their operating conditions_, regardless of top speed. That may be (for example) Siemens for California, JR Central/Nippon Sharyo for Florida, or Alstom for Midwest HSR. There should be no one size fits all way of procurement.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> Chinese are pretty out of US projects, their first indigenous model based on CRH2 E2 Shinkansen design won't enter service in China until 2013, and *their crashworthiness is inferior even to Shinkansen*.


Those are fighting words. May I suggest you provide proof of such inferior standards??


----------



## Nexis

*An Acela & MARC Express Train @ 110mph (177kph) future 190mph (305kph)*


----------



## Andres_Low

> Chinese are pretty out of US projects, their first indigenous model based on CRH2 E2 Shinkansen design won't enter service in China until 2013, and their crashworthiness is inferior even to Shinkansen.


To me this is a pointless discussion. what is safer on impact? an Airbus or a Boeing? Forget for a moment the american safety authority which demands and requirements are outdated and are not compatible with HSR. 
You can have a tank on rails or a fast and light train but both things at the same time it just impossible. 

Florida´s approach to HSR has more sense and that is why JR and other are more interested in: 
- line dedicated only to HS passenger trains
- a proper security system (like ERMTS or similar)
- no level crossing (not mandatory if signalling imporves)


----------



## Ariel74

k.k.jetcar said:


> Those are fighting words. May I suggest you provide proof of such inferior standards??


There is no point to reason with HyperMiler on that, as he's got a huge complex when it comes to China. The CRH2 based CRH380 will enter into service when the Beijing-Shanghai HSR line finishes construction, which is 2011, next year. Sightings of intensive testing of it has been recently reported by railway fans.

There are in fact currently three 380km/h level rolling-stock developments in China, one based on CRH2, one based on CRH3, and one in collaboration with Bombardier. It's conceivable that the CRH3-based CRH380 will soon hit the export-market as well.

One technical aspect that is in favor of the Chinese offer, which hasn't been mentioned, is that the HSR line in California will have many tunnels because the state is not exactly flat. The chinese had to deal with problems associated with high-speed travel in and out of tunnels in a way no other country had to deal with (on the Wuhan-Guangzhou line, especially). In fact, the air-tightness of the chinese train cabins, a crucial factor for trains shooting into a tunnel at 220miles/hour, is the best in the world.


----------



## HyperMiler

k.k.jetcar said:


> then why are the firms publicly stating they have tough odds and need more help, or Transport Minister Maehara seemed "surprised" at the level of competition?


1. Japanese railway companies can shift the blame on government if their bids fail.
2. Japanese diplomacy is indeed ineffective. Japan of 2010 is no longer the Japan of 1985.



> Which is anyone's guess/speculation- which is cheap. Concretly, what we do know *now* is that the stretch from Tampa to Orlando will be completely grade separated.


For shorter lines, yes.
For longer lines, less likely.



NihonKitty said:


> Shinkansen have the fastest acceleration, most energy efficient, and the safest record of all HSR systems.


That requires its own dedicated railway.



> Infact when it comes to speed records the Shinkansen holds the *conventional* speed record


That's a Fastech360 experimental train. Regular Shinkansen models aren't that fast.



> As for speed Shinkansens do not go slower than the other HSR, they run slower in Japan due to noise pollution and more frequent stops.


Japanese highspeed railways have smaller minimum curvature radius, thus a lower top speed rating of 300 km/h. Tilting enables a 20 km/h speed gain to 320 km/h, but that's the absolute limit on revenue service speed.

All the later-date highspeed rails constructed to Euro standard have a speed rating of 350 km/h.



Andres_Low said:


> You can have a tank on rails or a fast and light train but both things at the same time it just impossible.


So the compromise is the Euro standard, which Japanese cannot comply at the moment.



Ariel74 said:


> The CRH2 based CRH380 will enter into service when the Beijing-Shanghai HSR line finishes construction, which is 2011


Then you should fear for your life riding in an untested train like CRH380.



> Sightings of intensive testing of it has been recently reported by railway fans.


If the prototype began testing recently, then you would see it enter service for another 4 years at the earliest. But this being China, who knows. They may decide to conduct tests with real paying passengers inside to make it as realistic as possible.



> It's conceivable that the CRH3-based CRH380 will soon hit the export-market as well.


Siemens won't let Chinese export. 



> In fact, the air-tightness of the chinese train cabins, a crucial factor for trains shooting into a tunnel at 220miles/hour, is the best in the world.


Pushing aside the validity of this claim, CRH380 has no place in the US because.

1. It violates foreign IP.(Improper and unauthorized utilization of parts from E2 and Velaro CN)
2. Americans want prior sales record; they don't want to be the first user, and CRH380 has no prior sales record. Vietnam rejected CRH380 and selected Shinkansen, while Brazil is said to be leaning KTX2 from local media reports.
3. CRH380 is obviously a Shinkansen derivative and does not meet Euro regulations like Shinkansen on which it is based on.

Chinese bullet train is like Chinese car; everyone talks of an impending Tsunami of cheap Chinese cars in the US and Europe, yet there are no Chinese cars being sold in the US and Europe. Why? Can't meet safety and environmental regulations.


----------



## Ariel74

^^ Now you see how saying some positive things about Chinese trains has the effect of pushing the button on a hate-spewing machine, making it go wild like this :gaah:. Siemens has recently turned from a competitor to a junior partner with a chinese consortium in a bid to build HSR in the middle east, so that' that. Anyhow, have fun with him, guys.


----------



## HyperMiler

Ariel74 said:


> Siemens has recently turned from a competitor to a junior partner with a chinese consortium in a bid to build HSR in the middle east, so that' that.


That shows to everyone how ignorant you are.

Siemens split from Saudi-based Bin Laden consortium to join Chinese consortium as the rolling stock and signal system provider for Phase II contract. 

Yes, Chinese are bidding to construct the railway in Saudi Arabia, but are NOT providing rolling stocks and signal system. This is exactly the same arrangement like the Phase I contract, which Chinese also won, but the rolling stock and infrastructure provider is Alstom. Chinese have a similar arrangement in Turkey, where they are constructing some portion of Turkish high speed railway as a construction subcontractor, but rolling stocks are Italian, Spanish and Korean.

This is NOT what Americans are asking for, American construction companies will build the US high speed railway, but foreign companies will provide the rolling stocks. This is why there is no room for Chinese bidders in USA, because Chinese can't provide rolling stocks that Americans are seeking, and Americans do not require Chinese railway construction service.


----------



## Ariel74

HyperMiler said:


> Siemens split from Saudi-based Bin Laden consortium to join Chinese consortium as the rolling stock and signal system provider for Phase II contract.
> 
> Yes, Chinese are bidding to construct the railway in Saudi Arabia, but are NOT providing rolling stocks and signal system.


There is in fact no point responding to someone like the HyperMiler who despises facts. But let me just set the record straight for people on this forum, so they know who they are dealing with.

Siemens is *not* providing the rolling stocks in its joint bid. From the financial times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae804264-...dc0.html?catid=53&SID=google&nclick_check=1):



> Siemens joins China bid for Saudi rail link
> By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing
> Published: March 16 2010 13:56 | Last updated: March 16 2010 18:50
> Siemens has dropped a bid to supply trains and equipment for the $7bn Mecca-to-Medina high-speed railway line project in Saudi Arabia, opting to join a Chinese consortium bidding for the work.
> 
> In a sign of the growing global competitiveness of Chinese rail manufacturers, Siemens abandoned its own bid as part of a consortium with the Saudi Binladin Group.
> 
> Instead, it has joined a bid led by state-owned China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock Corporation for the second phase of the Haramain high-speed rail project, according to people familiar with the situation.
> 
> *Siemens will provide signalling and electrification equipment to the Chinese consortium*, which also includes China Railway Construction Corp and the Beijing Railway Administration.
> 
> The 450km railway will link Islam’s two holiest sites via the port of Jeddah and will ease congestion during the annual Hajj pilgrimage, when more than 2.5m people make the journey to Mecca.
> 
> The Chinese bid is seen as the frontrunner – China Railway Construction Corp, which is also state-owned, was part of a consortium that won a $1.8bn contract to build the first phase of the project last year.
> 
> “Siemens realised when China threw its hat in the ring, that they were unlikely to win so they decided to join them rather than let one of their competitors team up with the Chinese bidder,” said one person involved in the project.
> 
> France’s Alstom and South Korea’s Hyundai and Samsung are also bidding for the second phase of Haramain, according to a person close to the situation. Siemens said it was unable to comment on the project because of the ongoing tender.
> 
> Final bids for the project are due in on May 1.
> 
> Analysts said Siemens’ decision to hitch its wagon to the Chinese bid was a sign of how competitive the Chinese rail industry has become and how state backing from Beijing helps in winning contracts abroad.
> 
> A series of bids by state-owned Chinese rail companies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have all been co-ordinated by China’s Railway Ministry. Two $1.8bn contracts were announced last year during a visit to the Kingdom by Hu Jintao, China’s president.


----------



## eminencia

*HSR network map*

I do not know whether it has been already posted here, but this is the map of proposed HSR network in the US by US High speed rail association. It shows more than 17 000 miles of dedicateh HS track.










I would like to ask you if it is possible to take such a plans seriously or it is just idealized vision of HSR enthusiasts.


----------



## HyperMiler

Ariel74 said:


> Siemens is *not* providing the rolling stocks in its joint bid. From the financial times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae804264-...dc0.html?catid=53&SID=google&nclick_check=1):


Good for them, then Chinese bid has almost no chance of winning.

I did take some time to read up on Saudi high speed rail project, and this is what's happening.

Phase I Civil ground work : Basically, the winning contractor builds rail way and 5 stations from Mecca to Medina. Chinese does railway work, while Alstom does electrical work(I thought Alstorm was supplying rolling stock, sorry).

Phase II Equipment & Operation : The winning contractor gets to supply rolling stocks, signaling system, maintenance facility, and 10~12 years worth of trains operations service. 

This is the cream of this project and Chinese are bidding to supply their rolling stock against TGV, Velaro, Talgo 350, and KTX2.

So if the Chinese does manage to beat the likes of TGV and Velaro, my hats off. But that's highly unlikely because Saudi high speed rail is scheduled to enters service in 2012. 

For more info on Phase II, http://www.saudirailexpansion.com/saudirailexpansion/slp/hhr_phase2.pdf


----------



## Ariel74

eminencia said:


> I do not know whether it has been already posted here, but this is the map of proposed HSR network in the US by US High speed rail association. It shows more than 17 000 miles of dedicateh HS track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to ask you if it is possible to take such a plans seriously or it is just idealized vision of HSR enthusiasts.


Most definitely HSR enthusiasts daydreaming :nuts: I am not sure the scale of the network even makes sense for the US in the short to medium term (in 100 years, maybe). On the east and west coasts however, HSR makes sense even now, but the idea will be up against shortage of funding and ideology, and I am personally not counting on there being any substantial regional HSR-network in the states for the next 20 years. But I am happy to be proven wrong, especially when it comes to the west and east coasts.


----------



## HyperMiler

*CRH380 Wiki is up, in Chinese. Linked via Google Translate*


----------



## foxmulder

eminencia said:


> I do not know whether it has been already posted here, but this is the map of proposed HSR network in the US by US High speed rail association. It shows more than 17 000 miles of dedicateh HS track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to ask you if it is possible to take such a plans seriously or it is just idealized vision of HSR enthusiasts.


wow, I wish it was true but it is obviously a wet dream. Chinese are building approximately at 20,000km dedicated high speed rail network and the cost estimates are around 700 billion $. Something like this in USA will cost at least twice of that. I dont see the money and more importantly political will for that. If Obama suggest something like that GOP will burn him. The Obama Rail  Most feasible high speed line in USA is the California one right now. Hopefully, I will be wrong  



By the way, hey hyper, Chinese high speed rail network rulezzz!! It is the the most modern, the longest, the fastest  :cheers:


----------



## k.k.jetcar

^^
I think just one third of that network built by 2050, when I am an old man, would be a victory. 110mph lines through the Rocky Mountains are a pipe dream IMO.


----------



## ukiyo

@Hypermiller The 443 km/h record was made in 1996 by conventional Shinkansen, not modified (and not the fastech 360 which is 2005/2006). The fastech 360 found it not feasible in JP to run at 360 km/h because of tunnel boom (noise pollution), ballast(?) etc, so the new E5 in 2011/12 will run at 320 km/h (operational speed) compared to N700 at 300 km/h (sanyo).

BTW on november 16, 2009 JR demonstrated that the N700 can run at 332 km/h.

Also I would like to add when it comes to the Florida HSR plan Shinkansen would be good (I don't know about other ones). This is the Florida Plan

"Trains with a top speed of 168 mph (270 km/h) to 186 mph (299 km/h) would run on dedicated rail lines alongside the state's existing highway network".

Dedicated rail, and the speeds match.


----------



## mgk920

foxmulder said:


> wow, I wish it was true but it is obviously a wet dream. Chinese are building approximately at 20,000km dedicated high speed rail network and the cost estimates are around 700 billion $. Something like this in USA will cost at least twice of that. I dont see the money and more importantly political will for that. If Obama suggest something like that GOP will burn him. The Obama Rail  Most feasible high speed line in USA is the California one right now. Hopefully, I will be wrong


As I have been saying all along, the price of fuel will be the wild card in all of this. If/when the market for petroleum-based fuels goes nuts like it kind of did a couple of years ago, you'll see more of this happen sooner than later.

Mike


----------



## K_

SamuraiBlue said:


> I'm lost, I can't see the correlation between the proposed articulated design and crash resistance. Whether it be traditional or articulated, there should be no difference at the front.


The TGV only runs at full speed on dedicated tracks. There the thing you worry about is how the train behaves in a derailment, not in a head on crash. Here (as has been demonstrated) the articulated design helps. 
How your train deals with head on collisions is only relevant if your train also runs on routes with level crossings, which the TGV does a lot, but the Shinkansen mostly doesn't. However where the TGV runs on existing lines with at grade crossing it will not do so at more than 160kmh. Generally when the speed of a line is raised above this all grade crossings are eliminated. The nose of the TGV is designed to absorb the impact of a grade level collision with a road vehicle at speeds this is likely to occur, and that this works has also been demonstrated.


> As for axle load, Alstrom sacrificed cabin space in doing so which is evident going over passenger capacity.(Seven to fourteen carriages, with a total of 250-650 seats)


The relevant metric is not "X seats for Y cars" but "X seats on a train with length Z". The TGV has relative short cars.

The 11 car AGV Alsthom is building for NTV is just 200m long, and has about 460 places. 200m is exactly half the maximum length for passenger trains in Europe, so it's a useful size. The 8 car "Velaro D" sets Siemens is building for DB are also 200m long, and have about 460 seats too. So the AGV uses cabin space just as efficiently as the Velaro D...


----------



## K_

NihonKitty said:


> BTW the first HSR was Shinkansen and Japanese travel the most by rail each year than every other nation in the world...you make it seem like japanese train companies have no idea what they're doing :smug:
> 
> Distance travelled by rail per inhabitant in km/year
> # 1 Japan: 1,900


Actually the Swiss are #1, with 2400 km/year per inhabitant.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

K_ said:


> The TGV only runs at full speed on dedicated tracks. There the thing you worry about is how the train behaves in a derailment, not in a head on crash. Here (as has been demonstrated) the articulated design helps.
> How your train deals with head on collisions is only relevant if your train also runs on routes with level crossings, which the TGV does a lot, but the Shinkansen mostly doesn't. However where the TGV runs on existing lines with at grade crossing it will not do so at more than 160kmh. Generally when the speed of a line is raised above this all grade crossings are eliminated. The nose of the TGV is designed to absorb the impact of a grade level collision with a road vehicle at speeds this is likely to occur, and that this works has also been demonstrated.


Your explanation does not answer the question, of proposed correlation between articulated design and crash resistance.
As for derailment as I have posted earlier a Shinkansen ran through epicenter of a M6 earthquake without a major incident so I don't see much of an advantage in that part either.



> The relevant metric is not "X seats for Y cars" but "X seats on a train with length Z". The TGV has relative short cars.
> 
> The 11 car AGV Alsthom is building for NTV is just 200m long, and has about 460 places. 200m is exactly half the maximum length for passenger trains in Europe, so it's a useful size. The 8 car "Velaro D" sets Siemens is building for DB are also 200m long, and have about 460 seats too. So the AGV uses cabin space just as efficiently as the Velaro D...


So Alstrom made shorter carts to reduce axle load. Really not something to brag about.


----------



## HyperMiler

SamuraiBlue said:


> I'm lost, I can't see the correlation between the proposed articulated design and crash resistance.


Articulated designs resist roll-over better than traditional designs in the event of a derailment.



> As for axle load, Alstrom sacrificed cabin space in doing so which is evident going over passenger capacity.


AGV is indeed shorter than competing designs, but also much lighter at only 270 ton for a 7 car train set, to keep axle load under 17 ton with powered articulated design.

AGV's closest rival is HEMU-400X, which abandoned articulated design of KTX2 and returned to traditional axle layout design because each car is 50% longer than AGV and the axle load requirement is 13 tons.

So powered articulated design is hard, as Koreans prove. How Koreans plan to deal with derailment is unknown, must be taking design cues from Shinkansen.



SamuraiBlue said:


> Your explanation does not answer the question, of proposed correlation between articulated design and crash resistance.


Articulated design does not offer superior crash resistance, it offers superior roll-over and jack-knife resistance in case of a derailment caused by an impact.

As for the topic of Shinkansen's flimsy construction, here is a video. Not very crashworthy looking. This is the latest Shinkansen E5.


----------



## K_

SamuraiBlue said:


> So Alstrom made shorter carts to reduce axle load. Really not something to brag about.


The shorter cars are a consequence of the choice for an articulated set. They have nothing to do with reducing the axle load down. In fact, having only two axles per car in stead of the usual four increases axle load.
When you use "Jacobs" bogies you have to reduce car lengths, otherwise your train won't fit in the loading gauge.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

HyperMiler said:


> Articulated designs resist roll-over better than traditional designs in the event of a derailment.


As I have mentioned time after time, Shinkansen ran through epicenter of a M6 earthquake without a major incident so I don't see much of an advantage in that part. 




> AGV is indeed shorter than competing designs, but also much lighter at only 270 ton for a 7 car train set, to keep axle load under 17 ton with powered articulated design.


If it's shorter then it will naturally be lighter in comparison, there is nothing to brag about, you are just playing with numbers since if it's shorter, saying 7 cars only weighs 270 tonnes doesn't mean a thing since it can only carry a fraction of another HSR system with the same amount of carts. 




> As for the topic of Shinkansen's flimsy construction, here is a video. Not very crashworthy looking. This is the latest Shinkansen E5.


Ahh, the famous, "picture states more then a hundred words" trick.
You'll have to do better then that, without actual crash testing fact it is meaningless.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

K_ said:


> The shorter cars are a consequence of the choice for an articulated set. They have nothing to do with reducing the axle load down. In fact, having only two axles per car in stead of the usual four increases axle load.
> When you use "Jacobs" bogies you have to reduce car lengths, otherwise your train won't fit in the loading gauge.


Ahh, you'll have to elaborate more since it really does not make sense.
I can only read, articulated sets have less axle to divide overall weight of cart so to compensate they had to shorten the length.
As I have been saying there is nothing to brag about.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> As for the topic of Shinkansen's flimsy construction, here is a video. Not very crashworthy looking. This is the latest Shinkansen E5.


Hypermiler, just _give it up_ (btw-you should change your name to "crashworthy"- I swear you seem to use that phrase in every other sentence you post). We understand you don't like shinkansen- do us all a favor and go back to shilling for Rotem and their Alstom based designs. As for the video, you can't even correctly identify the railcar- it's a N700, not the E5, so no one is going to take your *opinions* seriously.


----------



## ukiyo

*US transport chief rides 300-mph Japanese maglev*


> TSURU, Japan – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood took a ride Tuesday on the fastest passenger train in the world, a Japanese maglev, as part of Tokyo's sales pitch for billions of dollars in high-speed train contracts from the U.S.
> 
> Washington is attempting to drive development of a new train network that will eventually span the country, but the U.S. has almost no domestic experience or technology. Japan, with one of the most advanced train systems in the world, is an eager seller, though it has had scant success with exports so far.
> 
> LaHood, who in the past few months has also ridden high-speed trains in Spain and France, said he was impressed with Japanese technology but that was only part of the equation. He said potential manufacturers need to "come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers."
> 
> "It's getting America into the high-speed rail business, but it's also putting Americans to work building the infrastructure," he said.
> 
> During his short visit to Tsuru, a quiet town in the shadow of Mt. Fuji about 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Tokyo, he came straight to the Maglev Test Line in Yamanashi prefecture. The train hit speeds of 311 miles per hour (502 kph) during a 27-minute run.
> 
> Unlike standard trains that ride along on metal rails, magnetic levitation trains float along suspended by powerful magnets. The Japanese version, developed mainly by operator JR Central, uses superconducting magnets to hover above the track.
> 
> The train set a speed record for a passenger train of 581 kilometers per hour (361 mph) in 2003, which JR officials say still holds today.
> 
> After decades of testing, the train has been approved by the government and is to begin service in Japan in 2027 between Tokyo and central Nagoya.
> 
> "I explained this is proven technology that is already in practical use," said JR Central Chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai.
> 
> The U.S. in January awarded $8 billion in starter funds to several regional projects, and is due to give $2.5 billion more this year, LaHood said.
> 
> *Japan's high-speed rail services are among the most advanced in the world, with hundreds of trains running each day and an average annual delay that is typically less than a minute. No passengers have died from a collision or derailment in nearly a half century of service. The only derailment was during a major earthquake in 2004.*
> 
> For the sales pitch in the U.S., top government officials are working closely with the country's main train operators.
> 
> But unlike in Europe, where border crossings and interoperability are prerequisites for doing business, Japan's trains have been developed on an island with homebrew technology. Other Japanese industries with enviable but non-compatible technologies, like its mobile phone operators, haven't fared well in repeated attempts to go abroad.
> 
> In addition to the obvious financial benefits, Japan's sleek bullet trains are a point of pride for the country, and the media is closely following the sales race in the U.S. On Tuesday at the Otsuki research facility, dozens of photographers attempted to snap pictures of a 330-foot (100-meter) experimental train as it flew back and forth on the test track.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_hi_te/as_japan_maglev_lahood_1



K_ said:


> Actually the Swiss are #1, with 2400 km/year per inhabitant.


I see and Japan is #2 at 1,980 not 1,700. Well if you look at passenger/population %

#1 Japan 69.6
#2 Switzerland 40.9

Modal Share (how many use rail compared to other modes of transport)
#1 Japan 27%
#2 Switzerland 15.3%

Well switzerland has good statistics for this. However, Japan has 127 million people, and has lowest car usage among G8 countries. Apparently Japan carries 8.78 billion passengers a year by rail.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

^^
According to UIC statistics K's figures are correct. However statistics can be misleading, especially in this category of passenger km per head of population. Switzerland is a small country (you can get from one end to another in what, 2 or 3 hours?) with a highly developed railway system, with population concentrated on rail corridors- so you get high railway usage per head. Japan is (relatively) a much bigger country, with a population 16 times larger than Switzerland, with a well developed expressway and internal airline system, but it still has the second largest number of passenger km per person in the world. 

Japan is still on top with passengers carried per year at 8.78 billion, and is a respectable third in passenger km at 254 billion passenger km, trailing only geographically giant China and India.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

OK, steering the thread back to US High Speed Rail. US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (after making a visit to scold Toyota) rode the Maglev in Yamanashi. I'm doubtful about the economic viability of the whole maglev concept, but I'm sure the Secretary had a nice ride.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsYzVvuHuCQa2zg5UbnJynPYK5EQ

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FKM4Q80.htm


*apparently there is a proposal to build a maglev line between Baltimore and Washington DC, plus I think another one in PA (Pittsburgh area?)


----------



## HyperMiler

NihonKitty said:


> *US transport chief rides 300-mph Japanese maglev*


Maglev is out of question in the US market.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/economy/business/100511/biz1005112106032-n1.htm

According to this Sankei article, the cost of Maglev line construction is $162 ~ 216 million / km, far too high to be sold in the US. Sinkansen line construction cost is half that, still too high compared to what US high speed railway authorities are budgeting for their respective projects.

The likely outcome is that US high speed railway authorities would adopt UIC standard high speed railways and equipment vendors to save money, and run high speed trains partially on shared tracks. In other word, American high speed rail landscape will look like Europe and not like Japan and China.


----------



## HyperMiler

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRRfjGjDCeHoYlT8YqUFiIJ8tAUgD9FKL27G0



> LaHood, who in the past few months has also ridden high-speed trains in Spain and France, said *he was impressed with Japanese technology but that was only part of the equation.* He said potential manufacturers need to "come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers."





> But unlike in Europe, where border crossings and interoperability are prerequisites for doing business, *Japan's trains have been developed on an island with homebrew technology. Other Japanese industries with enviable but non-compatible technologies, like its mobile phone operators, haven't fared well in repeated attempts to go abroad.*


----------



## ukiyo

Why didn't you just use the link I posted on the page before and also the quote I posted which has the exact same sentences verbatim? :lol:

So basically your second quote doesn't matter all but only this part in the first quote. *"come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers." *

Since Toyota and Honda already do that I don't see why the train companies can't. As for cell phones that is entirely different issue, Japan was using 3g (the first 3g network in the world) years before the west so that is one of the main reasons why they could never market them. Last time I checked Japanese (and korean) cameras, TV's, cars and basically all other appliances do very well in the USA; cell phones are an exception and I don't see what they have to do with trains really..


----------



## HyperMiler

NihonKitty said:


> So basically your second quote doesn't matter all but only this part in the first quote. *"come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers." *


Which is what Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasaki, Rotem already do, they are required to do so under "Buy American rule". It is not a competitive advantage at all.



> As for cell phones that is entirely different issue, Japan was using 3g (the first 3g network in the world) years before the west so that is one of the main reasons why they could never market them.


Exactly the same issue. The carrier(railway) technology is different from world standard, so cellphone(rolling stock) can't be sold overseas.


----------



## ukiyo

The point is the only issue he had was with building them in the US. He didn't cite any negatives of Shinkansen. Cells and trains can't be compared, the US government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure. 10 years ago Japanese cell phone companies were trying to sell 3g cells when 3g infrastructure didn't exist..


----------



## HyperMiler

NihonKitty said:


> He didn't cite any negatives of Shinkansen.


That wasn't a good place to discuss shinkansen's negatives. Usually that's done behind closed doors.



> the US government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure.


Actually it is individual state railway authorities who decide what to buy.



> 10 years ago Japanese cell phone companies were trying to sell 3g cells when 3g infrastructure didn't exist..


Same thing.

It is almost certain that the UIC high speed rail standard will be America's national high speed rail standard. Which Shinkansen model is compatible with UIC standard? None.

Kawasaki does understand that there is almost no possibility of Shinkansen track format overseas and is developing a UIC compliant train model called efSET. However, efSET faces the problem of higher cost resulting from being an export-only model, competing against other UIC compliant models(TGV, AGV, Velaro, Talgo, KTX2, HEMU-400x, just to name a few) that are mostly paid for and technically validated through domestic service. They have the economy of scale and could offer their models for far less than the price of efSET.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_11_48/ai_n31009671/



> KAWASAKI, Japan, showed a model of its Efset concept design for a new 350km/h train which will be *built to international standards as it is aimed at the export market.* Kawasaki hopes to complete the detailed design for Efset by 2010.
> 
> *Efset will be an eight-car* train with an output of 11MW and *weighing 450 tonnes* to give an axleload of 14 tonnes. The objectives for the Efset project are to reduce energy consumption through regenerative braking and improved aerodynamics, and cut noise emissions from the body and bogies. Efset will have a new design of bogie with a stronger suspension system.
> 
> "Japanese high-speed trains are designed to cope with micro-pressure waves in tunnels, but this is not so much a problem abroad, so Efset will adopt a more-European nose design," says Mr Yoshitaka Yashiro from Kawasaki Heavy Industries' rolling stock overseas marketing department.


One thing you notice is that efSET weigh 450 ton, at least 100 ton heavier than a typical Shinkansen model and heavier than even the base model Velaro. Why? Because it needs to meet Euro crashworthiness standard, and their first time effort is going to be inferior to their competitor's 2nd and 3rd time efforts. Both AGV and HEMU-400x weigh significantly less than efSET, making efSET uncompetitive against those.

AGV : 270 ton for 7 x 17m cars.
HEMU-400x : 414 ton for 8 x 25m cars
efSET : 450 ton for 8 x 25m cars


----------



## ukiyo

It's not the same thing at all since the government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure... It's not hard to understand that but since all of your posts are just negative and now making ridiculous comparisons I see conversing with you will go nowhere unfortunately. You Said yourself the state will choose and they can choose whatever standard they want.


----------



## HyperMiler

NihonKitty said:


> You Said yourself the state will choose and they can choose whatever standard they want.


As long as the chosen model is Federal regulations compliant. 

Feds decide what's legal in the US.
States choose among Fed-approved models.









Kawasaki trying to persuade in its high speed rail presentation why higher US and UIC compression standard is worthless and why only a Shinkansen-style total track/control/rolling stock package guarantees safety.

Unfortunately, all non-Japanese and non-Chinese(Not at the moment, but probably will in the future) high speed rolling stock vendors already comply to UIC standard(Some even claim to comply with 360 ton US standard), so Feds don't have to waver this requirement for the sake of Japanese bidders.


----------



## Nexis

k.k.jetcar said:


> OK, steering the thread back to US High Speed Rail. US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (after making a visit to scold Toyota) rode the Maglev in Yamanashi. I'm doubtful about the economic viability of the whole maglev concept, but I'm sure the Secretary had a nice ride.
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsYzVvuHuCQa2zg5UbnJynPYK5EQ
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FKM4Q80.htm
> 
> 
> *apparently there is a proposal to build a maglev line between Baltimore and Washington DC, plus I think another one in PA (Pittsburgh area?)


The Maglev dreams are dead as far as i know , now there focusing on upgrading the Northeast & Keystone Corridor to speeds of 190 & 150mph.



HyperMiler said:


> Which is what Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasaki, Rotem already do, they are required to do so under "Buy American rule". It is not a competitive advantage at all.
> 
> 
> Exactly the same issue. The carrier(railway) technology is different from world standard, so cellphone(rolling stock) can't be sold overseas.


Bombardier has 4 plants in the Northeast / nearby in Canada , Rotem has a plant in Philly, Kawasaki has 2 plants around the NYC region , Siemens doesn't have a plant here yet , neither does Alstom but the demand for more Transit & Train sets will likely mean they will build one soon.



NihonKitty said:


> It's not the same thing at all since the government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure... It's not hard to understand that but since all of your posts are just negative and now making ridiculous comparisons I see conversing with you will go nowhere unfortunately. You Said yourself the state will choose and they can choose whatever standard they want.


May i ask why Japan won't invest in the Northeast Corridor? Why Florida? California i can understand , giant system. But Florida is a waste of an investment , it won't even meet HSR speeds. The Northeast Corridor is used to by 1,200+ Trains a day and breaks a profit , + almost 500,000 people use it daily.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue said:


> Articulated or not, I believe the unfortunate Amagasaki accident would have happened due to over speeding on a curve.
> (The accident has nothing to do with jackknifing nor collision)





HyperMiler said:


> The reason for articulated bogie design is to prevent jackknifing in the case of above accident situations. Yes, the train will derail, but they will continue to move forward as one piece.


Don't you dare make conjectures without knowing the facts.
The Amagasaki accident occurred because;



> the front two carriages rammed into an apartment building. The first carriage slid into the first floor parking garage and as a result took days to remove.


Tell me how articulated bogie design would have prevented this accident.


----------



## Matthieu

Ariel74 said:


> Just for an intuitive illustration of how far behind the French TGV is, look at it side-by-side with ICE-3. It will be obvious which one is the result of 19-century engineering


If the French could make HSR/TGV in the 19th century it was about time you Germans catch up, only 100 years late!

+ That's a 70s design, check for TGV Duplex for more recent designs.


----------



## Ariel74

Matthieu said:


> If the French could make HSR/TGV in the 19th century it was about time you Germans catch up, only 100 years late!
> 
> + That's a 70s design, check for TGV Duplex for more recent designs.


You are probably the dullest guy in any company, incapable of the appropriate response to jokes, sarcasm, or hyperbole...

It's obvious who is trying to catch up with whom. Let's hope AGV is a decent improvement over those ugly and cranky TGVs...


----------



## Matthieu

I got your sarcasm, don't worry, you're the one that didn't got mine. Since I have to explain it to you I was just saying your post was lame trolling comparing an old TGV to a recent ICE-3.


----------



## K_

SamuraiBlue said:


> As for AGV 200m 11 cart capacity, I have not yet seen a report to verify this figure, as for Velaro D 8 cart capacity, Wiki posts the following;
> "200 m/8 cars with up to 536 seats"
> Which is 100 seat more than AGV.


Note the magic "up to". How many seats a train actually has depends on a lot of factors. In the end the customer decides. The ICE-3 still has a restaurant, and DB is quite generous in the amount of legroom it allows it's passengers to have. As a result the Velaro-D now being delivered to DB has about 460 seats. The 11 car AGV sets Alsthom is building for Italy also have 460 seats. So both offer the same capacity in a 200 m train length. I'm sure that an 11-car AGV could accomodate 560 passengers too if you where willing to inflict that on your customers.
You can of course increase capacity in many ways. Many Shinkansen sets have 2+3 seating or even 3+3 seating, but that's a non starter in Europe. For one thing the loading gauge doesn't allow for trains as wide as the Shinkansen, and Europeans don't let themselves be stacked as tightly as Japanese.


----------



## K_

SamuraiBlue said:


> Tell me how articulated bogie design would have prevented this accident.


A TGV would probably have stayed within the railway alignment.


----------



## K_

Ariel74 said:


> So essentially, you are just giving the French *excuses*. But from the point of view of a customer, I don't care for excuses, and would buy from Germany or Japan over France any day.


Oh, I'm not giving them excuses. I'm only trying to give explanations. I'll choose an ICE over a TGV any day too. If you've seen my other posts you'll know that I think that the Germans run a better railway than the French. 
However, from an engineering point of view I quite like the AGV. I like the Talgo Avril even more. Now there's a train I would like to see more of. I especially think it might make a good basis for a long distance high speed night train (because of it's wider carriages).


----------



## Davodavo

TGV is not as good as it is thought to be, it depends on what your destination is, for instance, if you go from Hendaye to Paris it takes more than 7 hours, at a very low speed for almost the whole journey (except for the last part, as, the closer you are to Paris, the better the system works, which is logical).

This is because track is not adequate enough in Southern France to support TGV's high speed, and the construction of the new track recently was postponed, owing to financial problems (too expensive, and not enough population, not true this last thing however).

An example of good high speed rail is the Spanish one, which as a matter of fact, was used and visited by members of the US government, last year.
The good point: they only run trains in places where they can do it at the highest speed. 
The bad point: it is so expensive, it's driving the country to bankruptcy, and therefore nowadays with this crisis we have now, there's no money invested in extending the system, and apparently, there is not going to be for a long time.


----------



## Matthieu

That thread was much better when people were actually posting news on development of this project. The ***** contest on who's got the best trains are silly anyway. Really the quality of this thread has taken a hit in a few pages.


----------



## Micrav

Ariel74 said:


> Just for an intuitive illustration of how far behind the French TGV is, look at it side-by-side with ICE-3. It will be obvious which one is the result of 19-century engineering


:bash: How do you dare to compare the grandmother of modern high speed with one of its children? Don't forget that the french TGV was born on paper in 1967 and the first was on rails in 1978. There are generations in between. TGV still ride and they received new interiors, refurbishment. Nowadays. Sustainable design pushes us to make our products live longer. For me the future designs will be evolutive and sustainable. We have no choice!


----------



## czm3

Any of these trains would be a vast improvement over what the acela is now. Let's try to get back on topic...


----------



## Nexis

czm3 said:


> Any of these trains would be a vast improvement over what the acela is now. Let's try to get back on topic...


Its not the Acela thats bad , its the tracks along the NEC which our now just being upgraded. NEC is also very congested , so only certain parts even when fully upgraded will allow true-HSR , but its getting better. If you want true HSR along the NEC , build a New NEC.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Although this is my speculation, I do not think a true HSR is ever possible on the NEC due to track sharing with other traffic.
With all the upgraded being initiated I do not believe freight operators will ever install state of the art in-cabin signaling systems equipped with D-ATC/ATS within their locos. (For that matter most comuter trains as well to save a buck)
Thus coordination of speed and distance will be disrupted which will hamper all time schedule making it impossible for HSR trainsets to achieve it's desired cruise speed.
This is the reason why I advocate track segregation.


----------



## Davodavo

Matthieu said:


> That thread was much better when people were actually posting news on development of this project. The ***** contest on who's got the best trains are silly anyway. Really the quality of this thread has taken a hit in a few pages.


Why when people try to expose the different options the US can choose, regarding high speed trains, you call it a contest? 
It's just ridiculous!

Anyway if people don't want to discuss about the advantages and disadvantages of how the high speed trains work in each country and analyze which one would be the best for the US, there are still lots of things that can be done, apart from saying stupid things like it has been done in the post I''m refering to.


----------



## czm3

Nexis said:


> Its not the Acela thats bad , its the tracks along the NEC which our now just being upgraded. NEC is also very congested , so only certain parts even when fully upgraded will allow true-HSR , but its getting better. If you want true HSR along the NEC , build a New NEC.


agreed that the track is the issue. Just like the rest of this topic, right now the track is more important than the rolling stock. That being said, the bombardier that is acela is a terrible train. It is way too heavy due to fra regs. Also, the interior is an utter joke. I don't know about the business class, but the tray tables in first class are so misaligned that one has to hold on to their drink unless one wants it to end up in their lap...


----------



## czm3

Davodavo said:


> Why when people try to expose the different options the US can choose, regarding high speed trains, you call it a contest?
> It's just ridiculous!
> 
> Anyway if people don't want to discuss about the advantages and disadvantages of how the high speed trains work in each country and analyze which one would be the best for the US, there are still lots of things that can be done, apart from saying stupid things like it has been done in the post I''m refering to.


when people start discussing whether people in japan ride trains more often than people in Switzerland, it becomes a joke...


----------



## dl3000

Nexis said:


> Bombardier has 4 plants in the Northeast / nearby in Canada , Rotem has a plant in Philly, Kawasaki has 2 plants around the NYC region , Siemens doesn't have a plant here yet , neither does Alstom but the demand for more Transit & Train sets will likely mean they will build one soon.


Siemens has a plant in California that makes light rail/etc. If you meant no plant in northeast then my apologies.


Anyone have any specs on Zefiro? Looks like a pretty sexy train, not much out about it except a pretty sparse site. For that matter, anybody have a rundown of the EMUs out there that can do better than 350 km/h (I figure that would qualify in the very high speed category). All I know is Siemens Velaro, Alstom AGV, Bombardier Zefiro, Shinkansen E5 by Kawasaki I think (and perhaps earlier versions). What does that leave? Talgo? AnsaldoBreda?

And I didn't know Shinkansen demands complete isolation of its system. That definitely rules out California. Too bad, that's a loss of earthquake experience, maybe they can contract a deal for tips on how to build safe HSR rail beds in earthquake prone areas while using someone else's tech.


----------



## Ariel74

czm3 said:


> when people start discussing whether people in japan ride trains more often than people in Switzerland, it becomes a joke...


No it doesn't. Not everyone knows the facts, nor is there any a priori reason why the Swiss should ride the trains more often than the Japanese.


----------



## Ariel74

dl3000 said:


> For that matter, anybody have a rundown of the EMUs out there that can do better than 350 km/h (I figure that would qualify in the very high speed category). All I know is Siemens Velaro, Alstom AGV, Bombardier Zefiro, Shinkansen E5 by Kawasaki I think (and perhaps earlier versions). What does that leave? Talgo? AnsaldoBreda?


Where did you read that Velaro is capable of commercial speed above 350? It's usually said that it's top commercial speed *is at* 350. Shinkansen E5 does not have a top commercial speed above 350 either, keyword here is "commercial". And neither of the other two models you mentioned - AGV and Zefiro - has run commercial service yet, one of them is in test, the other is probably still on the drawing board.

In fact, the first train to enter service with a designed top commercial speed over 350km/h might be the chinese CRH380, which, according to chinese news sources, is scheduled to be delivered this october.

It was also believed that another development of such super high speed trains is taking place in china, based on CRH3 (which was largely siemens Velaro technology). Though the new Wiki-Article on CRH380 seems to deny this, it does not provide sources.


----------



## Davodavo

Ariel74 said:


> No it doesn't. Not everyone knows the facts, nor is there any a priori reason why the Swiss should ride the trains more often than the Japanese.


+1


----------



## Ariel74

K_ said:


> It's the Spanish version I was referring to, but I must have misremembered it's designated top speed. I checked, and you're right.
> The Velaro for DB has a top speed of 320. It's the Velaro's predecessor, the ICE-3 that has a top speed of 330. But they don't run that fast anywhere.


I wonder if there is any known project that Siemens is engaged in beyond the Velaros already on the market... Velaro is a beautiful train, but if they don't do anything, they will not keep up with their competitors on energy-efficiency, noise-reduction, and speed, all of which are characteristics attractive to their potential foreign customers.


----------



## dumbfword

Ariel74 said:


> oh, another American who doesn't know the difference between "being party to" and being acquainted with by reading/listening etc. Guess that just explains why it's the country where people are fooled by the illiterate G.W.B. twice.... what can I say.


Sad your the one that tries to act like the mature genius and yet always brings it to childish insults. 
hno:

Why are you in this thread with all your anti-American insults? Oh, wait. Following Hypemiler from thread to thread.


----------



## Ariel74

dumbfword said:


> Why are you in this thread with all your anti-American insults?


You've got to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has got to deal with illiteracy here in this forum before he can make *any* points whatsoever. You know how frustrating it is given that this is a thread frequented by people who are *supposed* to speak the English language but don't act like it??? One has to write 5 posts to explain why someone completely missed what the others are saying because he simply cannot read. 

I am not anti-american. I am just not your school teacher. Go buy a dictionary. And use it, ok?

And I don't follow anyone, let alone that rabid and illiterate hate spewer, whom I have ignored for a long time.


----------



## Basincreek

czm3 said:


> Agreed. Most people that want to see the CA project get built (and I am one of them), are threatened by this nimbyism as its only ultimate result will be delays and increased costs. However, I am sympathetic to the homeowner's concerns. While I dont believe that property values on the peninsula will be greatly affected by this, along the right of way, they will be destroyed. I too would fight against a govt entity that wants to literally put 180 mph trains in my yard.


Wrong. Property values along the ROW will go up. Remember these people already have a railroad there. A slow and noisy railroad with at-grade crossings. HSR will replace the old track with high end track and will grade separate all the crossings. On top of that it will be electrified getting rid of the diesel trains. The end result will be a more pleasant and quieter neighbor. The real problem here is that these people bought their homes in 80's assuming rail was dead and that the line would be decommissioned at some point and turned into a park. That, of course, didn't happen. Now here comes HSR and they start thinking they can milk it to force HSR into a tunnel thus burying all those noisy lines and giving them the park they always wanted. This is nothing more than a huge scam to make rich property owners richer.


Incidentally UPRR sent a letter to CAHSR informing them that they will not help HSR at all. Not only will they not let them use their ROW they will fight to prevent HSR from buying property, that's not theirs, adjacent to their ROW. Apparently they are afraid that there will be more dense residential developments along the HSR route and they want to rezone it to industrial.


----------



## dl3000

Basincreek said:


> Wrong. Property values along the ROW will go up. Remember these people already have a railroad there. A slow and noisy railroad with at-grade crossings. HSR will replace the old track with high end track and will grade separate all the crossings. On top of that it will be electrified getting rid of the diesel trains. The end result will be a more pleasant and quieter neighbor. The real problem here is that these people bought their homes in 80's assuming rail was dead and that the line would be decommissioned at some point and turned into a park. That, of course, didn't happen. Now here comes HSR and they start thinking they can milk it to force HSR into a tunnel thus burying all those noisy lines and giving them the park they always wanted. This is nothing more than a huge scam to make rich property owners richer.
> 
> 
> Incidentally UPRR sent a letter to CAHSR informing them that they will not help HSR at all. Not only will they not let them use their ROW they will fight to prevent HSR from buying property, that's not theirs, adjacent to their ROW. Apparently they are afraid that there will be more dense residential developments along the HSR route and they want to rezone it to industrial.


You know I hadn't understood UPRR's stance besides just being greedy and uncooperative until I read your post. Residents do complicate things substantially. I guess BNSF simply believes that the benefits outweigh the costs IF CAHSR can uphold their end and ultimately not adversely affect BNSF's business.


----------



## HAWC1506

czm3 said:


> agreed that the track is the issue. Just like the rest of this topic, right now the track is more important than the rolling stock. That being said, the bombardier that is acela is a terrible train. It is way too heavy due to fra regs. Also, the interior is an utter joke. I don't know about the business class, but the tray tables in first class are so misaligned that one has to hold on to their drink unless one wants it to end up in their lap...


Don't forget the overhead catenary systems. True high speed rail will require the use of a "zig-zagged" power line. American systems don't have that, meaning that any train trying to use existing tracks and catenary systems will have their pantographs sliced in half from the friction and heat.


----------



## makita09

^^ Is that true!? I cannot believe zig-zag catenary is not in practice. Actually I can


----------



## dl3000

Delete


----------



## dl3000

makita09 said:


> ^^ Is that true!? I cannot believe zig-zag catenary is not in practice. Actually I can


If they are talking about the Northeast, its 100 years old in many parts. Just look at some of the catenary posts and it looks like Edison himself designed it.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

dl3000 said:


> If they are talking about the Northeast, its 100 years old in many parts. Just look at some of the catenary posts and it looks like Edison himself designed it.


Yes, alot of the infrastructure was built by the Pennsylvania RR back in the day. At the time, it was state of the art- after all, the PRR labeled itself "The Standard Railroad of the World". Unfortunately, portions of that infrastructure have not been upgraded or maintained to a level allowing true sustained high speed operation.


----------



## Nexis

dl3000 said:


> If they are talking about the Northeast, its 100 years old in many parts. Just look at some of the catenary posts and it looks like Edison himself designed it.


The CT section is 90% replaced , the New York section is next , The New Jersey Section is 30% replaced , the PA section needs to be done , and Delaware , aswell Maryland.

New Catenary 









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4128858376/sizes/l/

Almost Replaced New Haven Catenary 









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4497818473/sizes/l/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4498447784/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Old Catenary , yet to be replaced









http://www.flickr.com/photos/kgradinger/3759398637/sizes/l/


----------



## k.k.jetcar

^^
Nice pictures, Nexis. I like the older catenary supports with their latticework and headspans- I see similar styles here in Japan on some of the older lines. However, the newer simplified catenary like that in the first picture is what's being installed in most places around the world, and probably this is seen as less obtrusive aesthetically by the general public (and less expensive to maintain certainly).

Like the position light signals too- where was this pic taken, I wonder?


----------



## Nexis

k.k.jetcar said:


> ^^
> Nice pictures, Nexis. I like the older catenary supports with their latticework and headspans- I see similar styles here in Japan on some of the older lines. However, the newer simplified catenary like that in the first picture is what's being installed in most places around the world, and probably this is seen as less obtrusive aesthetically by the general public (and less expensive to maintain certainly).
> 
> Like the position light signals too- where was this pic taken, I wonder?


I'm not sure could be in CT or PA.

Here's some New Haven Journey Clips. Shows you the Old , New & UC parts of the New Haven section of the Northeast Corridor.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> I'm not sure could be in CT or PA.


I see thanks. After some snooping around I found out these signals on the NEC are actually PRR style position light signals converted to color position lights, and signals like these mounted high lose their middle lamp, hence the somewhat "bald" appearance.


----------



## dl3000

Great pictures, Nexis, exactly what I'm talking about.


While on the subject of catenaries, anyone know why HSR and intercity catenary posts are on the outside of the railroad while on light rail type systems tend to have the posts in the center? I would think putting the posts in the center would save a good amount of money. I'm guessing it must be due to the strains of faster trains in both directions on the catenary post is too much for one post to handle so each direction has its own posts. Either that or it has to do with air flow but the former makes more sense. Anyone know for sure? This has to do more with simple 2 track railroads, more tracks like on the NEC necessitate the apparatus to span all tracks.


----------



## IcyUrmel

dl3000 said:


> Great pictures, Nexis, exactly what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> While on the subject of catenaries, anyone know why HSR and intercity catenary posts are on the outside of the railroad while on light rail type systems tend to have the posts in the center? I would think putting the posts in the center would save a good amount of money. I'm guessing it must be due to the strains of faster trains in both directions on the catenary post is too much for one post to handle so each direction has its own posts. Either that or it has to do with air flow but the former makes more sense. Anyone know for sure? This has to do more with simple 2 track railroads, more tracks like on the NEC necessitate the apparatus to span all tracks.


Might this have to do with the view and safety? Once you are between the two rows of cantenary posts, your view on both railtracks is totally unobstructed. So for workers, people passing at grade crossings and for train drivers, every train and every object is visible even when situated on the opposite track, what becomes more and more important with increasing speeds.

Just as an idea...


----------



## zaphod

You think one day freight could just be totally evicted or reduced from certain parts of the NEC? I guess there's through freights which would be complicated to bypass, and then there are locals. The CSX Pope's Creek Branch is an example, it serves multiple coal fired power plants down Maryland's western shore along with a few regular freight customers in the MD suburbs, and at Bowie long scuttlebutt coal trains come lumbering onto the NEC.

Maybe since coal is bogus anyways, the state could decommission those plants, leaving maybe one local freight which could run at 3 am or whatever time the rails are empty.

Likewise, is it just me or do the majority of spurs off the NEC, WAS-NYP, go off the eastern side of the tracks? Is that how they manage it? I've always wondered how the railroads are able to mix traffic and still have a fast schedule. 

Whatever, I don't know much about the NEC so this is just speculation on the part of your typical rail enthusiast.


----------



## HyperMiler

zaphod said:


> You think one day freight could just be totally evicted or reduced from certain parts of the NEC?


NEC isn't likely to go high speed. Acela is as good as it gets on that line.


----------



## czm3

HyperMiler said:


> NEC isn't likely to go high speed. Acela is as good as it gets on that line.



Lets hope they can go higher speed. I take this train a lot from NYP to New Haven and 110 mph service would cut a lot of time out of the ride.

BTW what does it mean when catenary "zig zags?" Also, couldnt they hang the new overhead lines from the old towers?


----------



## mgk920

czm3 said:


> Lets hope they can go higher speed. I take this train a lot from NYP to New Haven and 110 mph service would cut a lot of time out of the ride.
> 
> BTW what does it mean when catenary "zig zags?" Also, couldnt they hang the new overhead lines from the old towers?


'Zig-zags' means that the wire shifts from side to side as one progresses down the track, this to even out wear on the pick-up pans on the locomotive pantographs.

As for speed - 'tis a shame on the NEC NE of NYC - to make it any faster, especially to bring it up to 300+ km/h standards, would require an entirely new ROW which would have to be run through some of the most expensive and packed with lawyers land space in the entire USA.

hno:

Mike


----------



## Nexis

I think Amtrak has plans to bump the average speed of the Acela to 150mph for the entire corridor and higher tops.....but there mainly focusing on more capacity and better on times. They laided out a 52 billion $$$ improvement plan. I rather see added Capacity , then HSR.....if you use the NEC a few times a week you'll know what i mean....hno:


----------



## foxmulder

52 billion for just an improvement plan.. what are they doing? Beijing-Shanghai 350km/h line costs less than that.


----------



## zaphod

Who knows, its America for you

Maybe there is the matter of actual trip time, door to destination. Getting the infrastructure up to a constant 90-125 mph standard with a few 150 mph segments and running frequent express trains with a variety of stop combinations, running around the clock, hassle-free cross ticketing arrangements and local transport that arrrives in a coordinated fashion with the train, that would have some marked improvements that raw speed might not even match.


----------



## Nexis

Its the Northeast Corridor and A few Feeder lines , its Upgrades / Electrification. + New Tunnels , Stations , Bridges , more Tracks etc......Tunnels will cost a big bulk of that....


----------



## dl3000

+wider turn radii because I think the tilt still has its limits.


----------



## foxmulder

Just the amount of money that has to be spent on this "improvement" shows that a HSR network is almost impossible to materialize, at least in current economic and political circumstances.


----------



## Apoc89

That's the problem with trying to further develop an already developed country...any major infrastructure project has to force its way through a colossal wall of red tape, health and safety, and NIMBYism.


----------



## dl3000

That and people trusted the government more back when the last huge infrastructure project took place (the interstate). WWII was just won and people felt good and the government got out of the depression. Nowadays wars like Vietnam and Iraq drained resources and increased protesting, everybody has their little piece of suburbia that they will defend to the end, plus you have all these lawyers who are more than eager to represent whining NIMBYs. I'm not saying those were much better, the interstates plowed through poor neighborhoods when land was cheap and transformed the cultural landscape of cities and many cases for the worse, but things got done. HSR is much less negatively impactful than the interstate but its a different world.


----------



## makita09

Add to that HSR requires straighter routes than interstates or normal railways making avoiding nimbyism harder


----------



## Panya

Deleted Post


----------



## hammersklavier

When the first major part of the Interstate network was built, NIMBYism was either a) nonexistent or b) flat-out ignored. It was rare that an urban NIMBY group managed to successfully fight off an expressway proposal in their neighborhood; today we have to live with the effects of that. At the time, however, it was a fairly unanimous appraisal among all interested parties--except, of course, those being displaced--that they were a good thing, and in part I think this was because of how strong the dedication was to supporting them.

This is, in my mind, the problem we have with our HSR. Obama has managed to tap something in our _Zeitgeist_ or _Gestalt_ or something, managed to make us dream HSR dreams in ways his predecessors never did, but has as of yet failed to unveil a system that looks like it ought to live up to our dreams. China has a 4x4 HSR grid linking together their whole country; the U.S. needs, to make HSR a success, to dream Interstate dreams about it. Instead of just cobbling together inter- and intra-state corridors like the NEC, 3-C, Chicago Hub, CHSR, etc., we should demonstrate a Grand National Plan and the way the current corridors would fit into it, much as when the Interstate Highway System was first created, the turnpikes and thruways of the previous generation were for the most part incorporated into it (I-76, I-90, I-95, etc). Perhaps what's called for is a national super-grid consisting of a handful of major axes interlinked, with the current plans being shown as parts of this greater whole? Perhaps we need the _vision_ we were once able to muster and sadly can't seem to anymore?


----------



## Tom 958

hammersklavier said:


> When the first major part of the Interstate network was built, NIMBYism was either a) nonexistent or b) flat-out ignored. It was rare that an urban NIMBY group managed to successfully fight off an expressway proposal in their neighborhood; today we have to live with the effects of that. At the time, however, it was a fairly unanimous appraisal among all interested parties--except, of course, those being displaced--that they were a good thing, and in part I think this was because of how strong the dedication was to supporting them.
> 
> This is, in my mind, the problem we have with our HSR. Obama has managed to tap something in our _Zeitgeist_ or _Gestalt_ or something, managed to make us dream HSR dreams in ways his predecessors never did, but has as of yet failed to unveil a system that looks like it ought to live up to our dreams. China has a 4x4 HSR grid linking together their whole country; the U.S. needs, to make HSR a success, to dream Interstate dreams about it. Instead of just cobbling together inter- and intra-state corridors like the NEC, 3-C, Chicago Hub, CHSR, etc., we should demonstrate a Grand National Plan and the way the current corridors would fit into it, much as when the Interstate Highway System was first created, the turnpikes and thruways of the previous generation were for the most part incorporated into it (I-76, I-90, I-95, etc). Perhaps what's called for is a national super-grid consisting of a handful of major axes interlinked, with the current plans being shown as parts of this greater whole? Perhaps we need the _vision_ we were once able to muster and sadly can't seem to anymore?


I disagree. The real problem with HSR in the US is that there simply isn't enough money, not with federal deficits well past the $1 trillion mark essentially for the foreseeable future and with states and localities forced to balance their own budgets in the face of weak tax revenues. 

Beyond that-- if you're like me, you've prolly pipedreamed about being Bill Gates and spending $50 billion of your own money on HSR. But... if I were a hypothetically generous Bill Gates, I still have serious doubts that HSR would be the best way to blow $50 billion. What about alternative energy instead? Or huge improvements to the freight rail network? Or transit-friendly urban reconstruction? Even in fantasyland, the case for making investments that would pay off sooner is pretty compelling. Building a wind farm might take a year or two, and it starts making the nation a better place immediately, while even under ideal conditions it would likely take at least a decade for HSR to really make much of a difference.

In a way I share your disappointment with the Administration's plan, but at least it's somewhat realistic. And if we want something better, perhaps this plan will focus people's attention on what it'll actually take to do it.


----------



## HAWC1506

^^Good points from both posts. Personally, I think the entire project should start at the local level. Address sprawl and increase transit-oriented development in our cities. Make sure that _intra-city_ public transportation spurs dense growth in existing cities and use the density to create even more public transportation to increase its effectiveness.

Once you have a well-established and effective intra-city public transportation system in all the cities along a single corridor, then you should focus on inter-city high speed rail.

My reasoning behind that is simple; you want to maximize the advantages of HSR, which are:

*1.* Link high density urban cores
*2. *Move the most amount of people, possible only with increased density
*3.* Travel from your origin to your destination without the need for a car

Otherwise, you get on "HSR" from Seattle and get off at Eugene, Oregon, and then what? Rent a car? 

You need maximum accessibility to public transportation at both your origin and destination to make HSR truly effective.

So long story short, focus on getting people around the city effectively before trying to get them out of the city.


----------



## Suburbanist

HAWC1506 said:


> ^^Good points from both posts. Personally, I think the entire project should start at the local level. Address sprawl and increase transit-oriented development in our cities. Make sure that _intra-city_ public transportation spurs dense growth in existing cities and use the density to create even more public transportation to increase its effectiveness.
> 
> [...]
> 
> You need maximum accessibility to public transportation at both your origin and destination to make HSR truly effective.
> 
> So long story short, focus on getting people around the city effectively before trying to get them out of the city.


Although I understood your idea, I respectfully disagree with it. HSR is meant to be a competitor to air travel in short haul routes, mainly. Then, as people can rent cars in airports, they could rent cars in HSR stations, if they were properly built near major interchanges instead of being cramped in a CBD or a downtown.

I don't like the idea of using the HSR as a mean to "address" a housing and living pattern (suburb) that majority of American households have chosen to live in as for 2007.

If I, a reasonable person willing to discuss the issue carefully, can spot this problem (using HSR as a corollary to impose top-down restrictions on development or to "fight" the suburban way of life, restricting choice for American citizens), you can easily imagine how easy would it be for a regular Tea Partier to grab the argument and run an ad accusing HSR projects as being "social engineering orchestrated by the liberal-in-Chief".

On the other hand, you wouldn't like to sell expensive (true) HSR projects as something to be used mainly by yuppie fat-cats living in Midtown, Manhattan to get to their preferred lobbyist in DC. So the best case scenario, IMO, would be to have a "non-European" HSR design, in which stations are places on cheap land nearby a massive edge town or office park complex, thus avoiding expensive urban construction costs and so.

Then, you replicate for HSR the same structure you have for airports: rail (normal or light, non HSR) connections to downtown, massive car rental parking lots, easy access to the regional interstate network, business hotels and outlet complexes. That would be a truly American HSR, one that people would find attractive to ride: driving there, parking their car, boarding the train, renting a car/taking a cab and reaching destination. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

But if you want to "increase density" and "put growth boundaries in place" or so, people will start looking suspiciously at HSR.


----------



## zaphod

normally I don't agree with your posts but I agree with that one(sort of)

Many US cites don't have real train stations anymore, and it would complicated, expensive, and politically challenging to build a line directly into a city center when the majority of a metropolitan area's population is not concentrated there.

As for urban transit investment, I am a realist and would like to point out the comments made by current Federal Transit Administration chair, Peter Rogoff


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> I don't like the idea of using the HSR as a mean to "address" a housing and living pattern (suburb) that majority of American households have chosen to live in as for 2007.


Perhaps they chose it, or _perhaps_ it was a choice of the government in concert with certain industries to promote the suburban lifestyle- the interstate highway system was a massive _public_ i.e. government (tax) funded works project, not to mention zoning regulations favoring single use land and deemphasizing development (or indeed maintenance) of public and rail transport. Which is fine, considering the ample and seemingly endless quantities of cheap oil available. Some people believe that oil supplies have already peaked and are on a downward trend (we don't know, our Middle East suppliers keep supply information secret), and that the current pattern of US development (as well as agriculture and product distribution) which depends on cheap oil, will not be sustainable in the future. Whether that will come true we don't know, but_ if _it does, it will certainly come at greater cost to adjust to the new conditions than if measures are begun now to somehow deal with the possibilty. As the well-known CIA motto goes- "hope for the best, prepare for the worst".

I certainly agree that HSR should be built to compete with short haul airline routes, which in most cases in the world subsequently disappear or diminish in the face of frequent HSR service. Airlines would rather focus on more profitable long haul routes than the short hauls- that's why so many of the big airlines spun off their short routes to subsidiaries or contract airlines with lower costs. "Transcon HSR" is a pipe dream- better to spend that money on upgrading the air traffic control system and promoting more efficent jet engines for airliners.


----------



## Basincreek

No, many people choose suburbs because they like them. I know I prefer suburbs over the hell holes that are cities.


----------



## K_

Basincreek said:


> No, many people choose suburbs because they like them. I know I prefer suburbs over the hell holes that are cities.


But you do have no prejudices against cities, right...


----------



## Suburbanist

Well, it would be futile to restart the discussion again. Some people think of suburbs as degenerations of cities, some (me including) think of them as the ultimate realization of post-industrial democratic Western individualism, allowing people to have mode discretion about where, when and with whom they want to interact.

This being said, my point is that, no matter how fancy they might sound, HSR projects will have a (probably) insuperable obstacle if they are not sold as a more efficient alternative to short haul flights (and indirectly to long haul flights through freeing up airport capacity) but as a mean to "reinvent" the way American people live.

Most American families are scared by the crisis, and they want to be reassured they will keep living in a good way, with decent houses, privacy, the autonomy conferred by a car and by a car only and so.

If one just ignores these political realities, HSR will never come to fruition in US.


----------



## Nexis

NIMBYism in the Northeast against Transit is strange , it works like this. If 1-2 Towns oppose it and the rest of the towns along the planned / proposed support it the nimby's are silence basically. As for High Speed Rail / Intercity there are a growing support for them in the Northeast , people are realizing we can't just build all these freeways. White / Black Flight is reserving and the Cities are becoming dense cores again. Like Newark or New Haven , which by the end of the decade will be the JCT for New lines. The Sprawl growth is starting to die and New Urbanism is happening more and more. Most College , singles and Couples without Children are moving to the Urban areas for a cheaper and simpler life. 60% of them use Mass Transit & 50% don't own cars. The Region is slowly become Europeanized , the New thing popping up in cities is Pedestrian plazas or Markets and reuse of industrial buildings. The Northeast is taking advantage of the many old and Abandoned Rail lines and restoring them for Light Rail , Commuter or Intercity purposes. The region seems to leaning away for the European type trains and for Asian type trains. We have alot of Asian Plants here like Rotem , Hyundai , Kawasaki ,& Siemens
Bombardier Transportation , GE Transportation , Alstom
have plants here aswell , and alot of those companies are building more plants to keep up with demand. The Majority of the Region's car Culture is starting to die , as new Transit lines and better connectivity opens up. The Political climate towards transit Republican or Democratic is also warmer and nicer.


----------



## kjoseph717

sorry, but what's the difference, its it shorter?


----------



## MarcVD

poshbakerloo said:


> ^^ why would they have 2 locos at one end, and not 1 at each end!?


Don't know too much details, but apparently, this is one of the first 
appearance of those new locs in revenue service, right ? It might then
very well be that the train operator requested that two locs are used
in order to minimize the probability of a service interruption in case of
malfunction. We in Belgium frequently operate that way when new
locs are put in production. Iron the problems out without risking too
much incidents in the field. Expensive practice, but worth it in my
opinion...

And no, I don't believe that it was just one loc being brought back to
the barn, because in that case, such loc would not have its pantograph
raised. Here obviously both locs were operating in M.U. Gives nice muscle,
though... never saw so long a car rake start up so fast !


----------



## Momo1435

^^ You are probably right.

Even though they look the same it's only the 4629 that us the new loco, the 4601 at the back of the train is an old loco that has been in service since 2001.


----------



## K_

MarcVD said:


> Don't know too much details, but apparently, this is one of the first
> appearance of those new locs in revenue service, right ? It might then
> very well be that the train operator requested that two locs are used
> in order to minimize the probability of a service interruption in case of
> malfunction. We in Belgium frequently operate that way when new
> locs are put in production. Iron the problems out without risking too
> much incidents in the field. Expensive practice, but worth it in my
> opinion...


Well, the NMBS seems to be more suffer more from teething problems with new material than most railways. Other railways just put new stock in service without any problems.



> And no, I don't believe that it was just one loc being brought back to
> the barn, because in that case, such loc would not have its pantograph
> raised.


A lot depends on what the common practices of the railway are. I know that in Belgium "pantograph up" means "loc in operation", and that the engine driver can't even leave his position without lowering the panto. But other railways operate in different ways. In Switzerland I've seen consists of just engines (which are thus obvious engine moves) with each engine having its panto up. I don't know what the practices are in New Jersey though.
One advantage of having the panto up, even when an engine is just being moved in a consist, is that you can use the dynamic brake more efficiently (pushing energy back in the overhead). Many engines don't have enough braking power otherwise.


----------



## Momo1435

^^ I can give you a long list of new rolling stock with serious teething problems from most railway companies around Europe but I don't feel like it right now. The reality is that it happens too often, especially nowadays with all the high tech electronics and computer systems. So it's definitely not just a Belgian problem, but a overall problem of the railway manufacturing industry.


----------



## MarcVD

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ I can give you a long list of new rolling stock with serious teething problems from most railway companies around Europe but I don't feel like it right now. The reality is that it happens too often, especially nowadays with all the high tech electronics and computer systems. So it's definitely not just a Belgian problem, but a overall problem of the railway manufacturing industry.


Entirely agree with you, it happens far too often. A few examples

SNCF dual system locs BB 26000 (alstom) - took years to work OK
SNCF tri system locs BB36000 (alstom too) - still not working to spec now
SNCF motorcoaches X75000 (no, I'm not an alstom basher)
Prima locs in Iran (worn out after less than 10 years)
German ICE3 - still plagued with problems after what ? 10 years ? of service
DB E184 that never worked properly under DC current
DB E 120 with their chassis failing after 20 years of service
Italian pendolinos
The EE60 horror story in the US (old horse, I know, but still worth mentioning)
AMTRAK's SDP40F derailmments

And the list goes on and on. If car manufacturers behaved like this, they
would go out of business. Railway operating companies should press their
suppliers much more seriously.


----------



## HyperMiler

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=65346

Arnold Schwarzenegger is heading to China, Japan, and Korea in September, with the focus of trip on California HSR project.


----------



## Storm9

Building a High-speed rail hub would not be very difficult in Chicago. There are lots of excess rail tracks that are being under used. These can be rebuilt as dedicated HSL tracks within the city limits and going to union station. But just outside the city in the suburbs dedicated new tracks will be required as well as expensive land acquisition. We did it in the 50s with highways and I dont see why we cant do it again with rail.


----------



## Nexis

Here's some stuff i pulled form the Northeast Master Rail plan , some of which has already started. It shows how bad and how much is needed. I don't think there aiming for HSR anymore , but More Capacity / on time performance.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/21/fra-accepts-applications-for-state-high-speed-rail-planning/



















Full NEC upgrade










Current NEC & Feeder lines










Massachusetts / Rhode Island 










Eastern Connecticut










Western Connecticut 










New York City 










New Jersey 










Southeastern PA / Delaware










Maryland / DC










Northeast Regional Improvements in Virgina 










Keystone Corridor Extension










Hudson River line (NY)










Springfield - New Haven corridor improvements


----------



## HyperMiler

Nexis said:


> Here's some stuff i pulled form the Northeast Master Rail plan , some of which has already started. It shows how bad and how much is needed. I don't think there aiming for HSR anymore , but More Capacity / on time performance.


HSR was never an option for NE corridor. Just too expensive to build.

You will see HSR in FL and CA, but the rest is uncertain.


----------



## HyperMiler

http://www.sbsun.com/ci_15239527

Some interesting info.

Chinese are pushing Maglev train for SoCal - Las Vega Desert Express link, and China's Export Import bank committed $7 billion funding for it.

The catch is that Maglev tracks cost a lot more to build than conventional high speed rail tracks, so that means China's $7 billion wouldn't stretch too far.


----------



## HAWC1506

HyperMiler said:


> HSR was never an option for NE corridor. Just too expensive to build.
> 
> You will see HSR in FL and CA, but the rest is uncertain.


It's not expensive to the point where we can't afford it. Just look at our military expenditures.

The political environment just isn't there to support such a project. Sure, a few government officials like the idea, but that doesn't mean everyone will play along.

We've become too lazy, too short-sighted, and too caught up with our current way of life that we don't see the competition.

I think the best thing that can happen to the U.S. right now is for China, Europe, and other truly forward-thinking countries to eliminate American competition. Only then will we wake up and finally realize how far behind we are. I'm sorry, I love this country. We have so much potential and I want the best for it, but there's no point in continuously supporting a country that has become so unable to listen and move foward.

What we need is a giant whip, and if it has to come from other nations, then so be it.


----------



## Nexis

HAWC1506 said:


> It's not expensive to the point where we can't afford it. Just look at our military expenditures.
> 
> The political environment just isn't there to support such a project. Sure, a few government officials like the idea, but that doesn't mean everyone will play along.
> 
> We've become too lazy, too short-sighted, and too caught up with our current way of life that we don't see the competition.
> 
> I think the best thing that can happen to the U.S. right now is for China, Europe, and other truly forward-thinking countries to eliminate American competition. Only then will we wake up and finally realize how far behind we are. I'm sorry, I love this country. We have so much potential and I want the best for it, but there's no point in continuously supporting a country that has become so unable to listen and move foward.
> 
> What we need is a giant whip, and if it has to come from other nations, then so be it.


The Northeast is different , alot of Republicans and Democrats are for more Rail / Transit vs. more Highways. So the Political atmosphere is different here then the rest of the Country , the only problem is the $$$$. Hench why the Feds have funded half the Master plan outside the Main NEC and funding other systems.


----------



## HAWC1506

What's the cost of a full-out HSR network in the NEC?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> We've become too lazy, too short-sighted, and too caught up with our current way of life that we don't see the competition.
> 
> I think the best thing that can happen to the U.S. right now is for China, Europe, and other truly forward-thinking countries to eliminate American competition. Only then will we wake up and finally realize how far behind we are. I'm sorry, I love this country. We have so much potential and I want the best for it, but there's no point in continuously supporting a country that has become so unable to listen and move forward.
> 
> What we need is a giant whip, and if it has to come from other nations, then so be it.


Pretty much agree. I think Winston Churchill (himself of half-American background) summed it up well when he said:

"We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities." 

The question is, when they do, will it be too late??


----------



## hoosier

HAWC1506 said:


> What's the cost of a full-out HSR network in the NEC?


Much less than widening I-95 or building new airports.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> Although I understood your idea, I respectfully disagree with it. HSR is meant to be a competitor to air travel in short haul routes, mainly. Then, as people can rent cars in airports, they could rent cars in HSR stations, if they were properly built near major interchanges instead of being cramped in a CBD or a downtown.


So downtowns are not located near major highway interchanges? Are you this stupid intentionally?

Putting HSR stations in the Central Business District of cities ensures accessibility to the most people and ALL forms of transportation while not catering to the private automobile.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> If I, a reasonable person willing to discuss the issue carefully, can spot this problem (using HSR as a corollary to impose top-down restrictions on development or to "fight" the suburban way of life, restricting choice for American citizens), you can easily imagine how easy would it be for a regular Tea Partier to grab the argument and run an ad accusing HSR projects as being "social engineering orchestrated by the liberal-in-Chief".


The regular tea-bagger couldn't even spell "high speed rail" much less debate its merits.

So building HSR is a form of government control and imposition of a certain way of life but spending over a trillion dollars on the freeway network is not?


You do realize that the federal government received almost 100 BILLION in funding requests when it opened up the bidding for the paltry $8 billion it allocated in the stimulus for HSR. There is a demand.

It's pretty obvious from your posts that you are an ignorant hack desiring to force your unsustainable, oil-guzzling, anti-environment worldview on the rest of society. You are as much to blame for the gulf oil spill as TransAmerica or Halliburton.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> Then, the conditions to the system to flourish were already there. Construction was cheap, land was easy to buy or preempt by eminent domain, and NIMBY's, thank God, were nuts. Astutely, most interstate design in urban areas was set through plagued, blighted and decaying neighborhoods to avoid political controversy, doing those neighborhoods a favor to many of them by dismantling them as "communities" with no future anyway but crime and chronic poverty.


Wrong again. Many interstate highways were intentionally routed through MINORITY districts that were thriving prior to their destruction. Do a little bit of goddamn research for once. 

The interstate highway system was one of the single largest factors in the decimation of the inner-city and urban decline. It is government social engineering at its grandest. Rich white people could move out of the city to cheap land zoned by the government for low density housing. Government lending programs allowed many people to get financing to purchase these suburban dwellings.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> Then, you had a self-sustaining financing mechanism, the Highway Trust Fund... Had the trust fund been managed properly, it could still be used as the main source of finance for highway projects.


But raising the gas tax would undermine the core enabling aspect of suburbanism- cheap oil. People would finally be forced to bear the true cost of their autocentric, suburban lifestyle and once they felt the impact in their wallets- they would drive a lot less, move closer to work, and (GASP!) take mass transit. We saw this when gas prices zoomed to over $3.50/gallon a couple of years ago.


----------



## heywindup

Has construction even started in one of the proposed routes? Are you guys worried that if the Republicans get into power, they will pull the plug on this plan?


----------



## xerxesjc28

^^ It is actually impossible for them to do that even if they win every election in Novermber. They would either need the presidency or to win enough senate seats to overrule the president (67 I think) which is not going to happen in this up coming election. 

To answer your question, yes some lines are starting. Early next year a Tampa to Orlando HSR line is set to begin. Read more below. 

__________________________________________________________________
http://www.newschief.com/article/20100612/NEWS/6125022/1021?p=1&tc=pg

*FDOT WILL BEGIN TAKING BIDS FOR TWO CONTRACTS IN OCTOBER
High-speed rail construction to start in early 2011*


By Charles Gonzalez
News Chief staff

Published: Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 4:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 1:49 a.m.

_HAINES CITY - Initial construction on Florida's high-speed rail system is projected to begin in February or March, participants and visitors at a regional transportation meeting learned Friday.


Planning organization representatives from Polk, Lake, Brevard, Hillsborough and several other counties met at Haines City's Lake Eva Banquet Hall to discuss a range of transportation issues, but high-speed rail was the topic that drew the most interest from the public.

Several audience members left the meeting after the conversation turned from high-speed rail to other matters.

Kevin Thibault, the interim executive director of Florida Rail Enterprise, spoke extensively about multiple aspects of the high-speed rail system. He said that in October, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will begin accepting bids on two contracts, one for an "early-works" project and the other for a company that will design, build and maintain the rail system.

In May, Florida received $66.6 million in federal transportation funding to pay for the rail early-works project. FDOT has projected a $1.25 billion cost to complete the high-speed rail system, which Thibault said could begin carrying passengers in early 2015.

The early-works project will include median work along the Interstate 4 corridor from Tampa to Orlando, Thibault said. Barriers must go up along the corridor to keep vehicle traffic away from the high-speed rail, he said, adding that sign replacement and utilities work are included in the project.

"This is just the beginning of something that will be unique, and we are the first in the country to do this," Thibault said. "We have the ability to set the stage for something big that will impact not just Florida but other states as well."

Thibault said California and Illinois also are exploring opportunities for high-speed rail.

The initial goal for Florida Rail Enterprise is to have a high-speed rail route from Tampa to Orlando. Once that route is completed, another route from Orlando to Miami will be constructed.

Thibault said the long-term goal is to create a high-speed rail system that has connections all over the state.

Earlier this year, the Polk County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) recommended to the FDOT two possible Polk sites for a high-speed rail station along the Interstate 4 corridor - a site near the future University of South Florida Polytechnic campus between Auburndale and Lakeland and a site off Kathleen Road in Lakeland.

"We mandated a requirement that there be a stop in Lakeland," Thibault said.

He said that this summer, the rail authority will run tests to make sure there aren't any "environmental issues" in the proposed high-speed rail path in Polk County.

Two organizations represented at the Friday meeting, the Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Alliance and the West Central Florida Chairs Coordinating Committee, voted unanimously on a resolution of support for Florida high-speed rail.

Danny Ours, the interim executive director of the Polk Transit Authority, said the vote was just a formality. He said emphasis on high-speed rail is coming from the neighboring TPOs because Florida has been neglected by the federal government in past distribution of transportation funds.

"There is a tremendous momentum building here, and it's starting to come to a head," Ours said, referring to the high-speed rail project. "This is the first piece, albeit a small piece, but it's needed and the government can't afford for this to fail."_
________________________________________________________________


----------



## Davodavo

*



High-speed rail construction to start in early 2011

Click to expand...

*Let's hope they do so, but me at least, I don't really think it will happen (so soon I mean).
Cheers.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

What's about Desertexpress (Las Vegas - California)? I think they are supposed to start construction soon too.


----------



## xXFallenXx

Davodavo said:


> Let's hope they do so, but me at least, I don't really think it will happen (so soon I mean).
> Cheers.


They already have the money, it's going to happen.
DesertXpress is starting next year as well.
The CHSR system is basically a done deal also, but that wont start till 2012.


----------



## eddeux

^^Assuming that all the money needed is available (for florida, california, northeast, etc) how long would the construction take? I'm putting my bets on around 5 years?


----------



## Nexis

Some planned Intercity / HSR Northeastern Maps




























I call them the 2030 plans , because thats the targeted date of completion of the whole projects. Most Cities are also planning or about to build a small to large Streetcar network or feeder Light Rail or Bus Rapid Transit lines into there core / Station form Suburbs.


----------



## hans280

xerxesjc28 said:


> HAINES CITY - Initial construction on Florida's high-speed rail system is projected to begin in February or March, participants and visitors at a regional transportation meeting learned Friday.


Well... they've got it easy! When we undertake such projects in Europe, at least the first two years need to go into archeological surveys and the removal of unexploded ordnance. But, I guess Florida does not have a wealth of Roman ruins and has not hosted an invasion since Mr Madison's war... :lol:


----------



## GreenPeas

*Los Angeles conference to feature Chinese, German and Spanish high-speed rail systems *



> A two-day international conference on high-speed rail systems held later in the week will bring together industrial front-runners from countries including China, Germany and Spain to offer insight into their expertise in the field, the organizers said Tuesday.
> 
> "We're fortunate and excited that executives from companies involved in high-speed rail projects in China, Germany, Spain and across the globe will be joining us at High Speed Rail: 2010 to profile their projects and showcase what's possible here in the United States," said Andy Kunz, Chief Executive Officer and President of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association.
> 
> The meeting, which will be held by the U.S. High Speed Rail Association at the Hilton Universal City, Los Angeles, from June 17-18 will gather global rail industry executives, as well as policy makers, civic leaders, transportation officials and business people from across California and the United States, the organizers said in a press release.
> 
> The conference will explore a range of topics aimed at providing a closer look at plans, processes, pathways and potential for a high-speed rail system in California and other parts of the United States, organizers said.
> 
> Global leaders including China, Germany and Spain "will help deliver the blueprint, best practices and master plan for High Speed Rail in America," said Thomas A. Hart, the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's vice president for government affairs.
> 
> The first high-speed rail systems in the United States will be completed by 2020 in California, linking Los Angeles with San Francisco. It is expected to pump about 4.3 billion U.S. dollars each year into Los Angeles's regional economy and create about 55, 000 permanent jobs, the U.S. Conference of Mayors said on Tuesday.
> 
> Governments and private companies in some countries are designing, building and successfully operating and expanding high- speed rail systems, and exporting that technology to new entrants.
> 
> In China, for instance, nearly 1,200 miles (1931 km) of high- speed rail lines carrying trains capable of traveling 200 (322 km) mph and faster are opening this year alone, extending a massive green transportation system being expedited in that country, according to the organizers.
> 
> In Spain, another industry leader, high-speed trains already are navigating a varied geography through an impressive network of tunnels, as the country hopes to have a high-speed rail station within 30 miles (48 km) of most Spanish citizens in 10 years, the press release said.


Source: Xinhua


----------



## GreenPeas

*NY explores ways to fund high-speed rail*



> New York must make a long-term commitment to a high-speed rail system if the state expects the program to yield economic benefits.
> 
> “The key is, it must be sustainable. An initial investment will not continue to support the initiative,” said Michael Tucker, president and CEO of the Albany-based Center for Economic Growth.
> 
> That was one of the messages delivered at Monday’s high speed-rail summit held at the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. The event, which attracted 300 transportation, economic development and rail industry experts, was sponsored by Empire State Development Corp. and the state Department of Transportation.
> 
> Tucker made his comments during one of the five forums held at the day-long summit.
> 
> New York, which faces a $9.2 billion deficit, wants to upgrade the 263-mile Empire Corridor for high-speed passenger travel but does not have a long-term investment plan for the project. It would cost at least $3 billion to convert the corridor, which runs from New York City to Buffalo.
> 
> Earlier in the day, state Senate President Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, said the 2010-11 budget commits some funds to advance high-speed rail. Gov. David Paterson’s office said last week that the executive budget contains $51 million over two years for rail improvements. Most of that money will be used to upgrade other rail projects.
> 
> Smith said state legislators may create a rail authority that could borrow funds to advance a high-speed passenger system. Government-created authorities operate independently and have legal power to bond projects.
> 
> A counsel general from China who attended Monday’s summit told Smith his country is interested in loaning money for portions of the project, much like it has done in other countries. China recognizes that manufacturing for the project would be done in New York, Smith said.
> 
> As many as 3,500 workers in upstate New York are employed by 30 companies that manufacture railroad equipment and generate a combined $750 million in revenue, state officials said.
> 
> John Parisella, a delegate general from Quebec, said Canada wants to extend the rail system to Quebec and is willing to finance rail corridors beyond its own borders. Canada does a lot of trade with New York and much of the business comes from small- to medium-sized companies, he said.
> 
> Currently, passenger trains traveling north from New York City average speeds of 58 miles per hour. The goal is to increase speeds to 110 mph initially, and eventually to 150 mph, said U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, a long-time proponent of high-speed rail.
> 
> Slaughter called New York’s current system an “embarrassment that is falling apart.”
> 
> New York received $151 million in first-round stimulus funds to advance high-speed rail along its Empire Corridor. Of that amount, $90 million will be used to build a second track from Rensselaer to Schenectady.
> 
> In a perfect world, the tracks from Albany to Buffalo could be completed in 2 1/2 years, Slaughter said. Actually, the improvements would be built in increments and take much longer.
> 
> Slaughter said the rail corridor has plenty of space for a third track; it once had four tracks before the system deteriorated.
> 
> Parisella and others praised rail’s eco-friendly benefits, citing the advantages of having fewer cars on the road, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less reliance on foreign oil.
> 
> President Obama designated $2.5 billion of stimulus money for a second round of rail funding in 2010. Applications for that money are due later this summer, said Marie Corrado, director of DOT’s Major Projects Office. A long-term goal is to connect the Empire Corridor to large cities in other states, Corrado said.
> 
> Petra Todorovich is director of America 2050, a planning organization based in New York City.
> 
> Todorovich said it’s impossible to determine a cost-benefit analysis for rail because there are so many variables.
> 
> “One thing we know is that rail doesn’t pay for itself. And it shouldn’t,” she said. “New York City’s subway system doesn’t pay for itself, but it’s necessary for economic growth.


Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2010/06/14/daily16.html


----------



## HyperMiler

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_15349069

There is some wacky bill at California legislature. 

The bill could ban all corporations and foreign governments who played a role in Holocaust from working on California High Speed Rail project.

This bill would disqualify not only Germans, but also French railway operator SNCF, because SNCF's railways shipped Jewish prisoners to Auschwitz.

If this bill becomes a law, then the bidding landscape would look very interesting, with German and French bids eliminated. With Japanese Shinkansen bid also unlikely in California due to track share issues and also Chinese bid due to safety concerns and intellectual property rights issues, there is no one left to build the railway.


----------



## dumbfword

HyperMiler said:


> http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_15349069
> 
> There is some wacky bill at California legislature.
> 
> The bill could ban all corporations and foreign governments who played a role in Holocaust from working on California High Speed Rail project.
> 
> This bill would disqualify not only Germans, but also French railway operator SNCF, because SNCF's railways shipped Jewish prisoners to Auschwitz.
> 
> If this bill becomes a law, then the bidding landscape would look very interesting, with German and French bids eliminated. With Japanese Shinkansen bid also unlikely in California due to track share issues and also Chinese bid due to safety concerns and intellectual property rights issues, there is no one left to build the railway.


Spanish or Koreans.


----------



## HyperMiler

dumbfword said:


> Spanish or Koreans.


Spanish Talgo is not fully Spanish, power car is from Bombardier.

Korean KTX-II is fully UIC compliant and could run on shared mixed traffic tracks under the FRA's new rule unlike Shinkansen and CSR's CRH380A, but Koreans are unable to come up with a $10 billion+ construction loan offer that is attached to Japanese and Chinese bids.

Well, there is at least one major competitor still left and that's Bombardier, but will Canadian government come up with a $10 billion+ loan guarantee?


----------



## dumbfword

HyperMiler said:


> Spanish Talgo is not fully Spanish, power car is from Bombardier.
> 
> Korean KTX-II is fully UIC compliant and could run on shared mixed traffic tracks under the FRA's new rule unlike Shinkansen and CSR's CRH380A, but Koreans are unable to come up with a $10 billion+ construction loan offer that is attached to Japanese and Chinese bids.
> 
> Well, there is at least one major competitor still left and that's Bombardier, but will Canadian government come up with a $10 billion+ loan guarantee?


Pretty sure Bombardier's German side had some involvement in the Holocaust. ADtranz.


----------



## xXFallenXx

This is a pointless discussion seeing as the bill will never pass.


----------



## Apoc89

I don't see what's the point of the bill...any person old enough to have any major responsibility for the holocaust is either dead or retired. I don't see why modern companies have to be punished for something their long gone predecessors did.


----------



## AlexisMD

don't feed him..


----------



## Apoc89

Are you referring to me or the troll who introduced this bill?


----------



## AlexisMD

Apoc89 said:


> Are you referring to me or the troll who introduced this bill?


not you ,


----------



## Matthieu

dumbfword said:


> Spanish or Koreans.


Nope, Spanish would be evicted too if this bid passes. Franco was allied to Hitler and Mussolini.

Anyway, this bill is idiotic and whoever even thought of proposing it needs to check with a psychiatrist.


----------



## Koen Acacia

I wonder what's going to happen with the prices if you cut out 3/4 of the competition.


----------



## Panya

I realise that for those who allow the law to pass that it is a business thing, but it is just outrageous that they can use it as an excuse. Imagine the outcry if countries in the Middle East decided stick together as Arabians to enact similar laws for the deaths Americans and their Allies have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. It just starts a dangerous precedent and could give China even more of a competitive advantage in the future!


----------



## Neb81

Koen Acacia said:


> I wonder what's going to happen with the prices if you cut out 3/4 of the competition.


The travelling public will wind up getting less for morehno:


----------



## Koen Acacia

Panya said:


> I realise that for those who allow the law to pass that it is a business thing, but it is just outrageous that they can use it as an excuse. Imagine the outcry if countries in the Middle East decided stick together as Arabians to enact similar laws for the deaths Americans and their Allies have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. It just starts a dangerous precedent and could give China even more of a competitive advantage in the future!


It's not only about competitive advantage - Siemens is not going to collapse if they don't get this project. It's perhaps even more about wasting taxpayer money. If you're going to artificially limit a competition from eight companies to two, then you're going to end up with much less TGV for much more money.


----------



## xXFallenXx

I've been trying to read up a little one this bill, here's what I found:



> The bill would require any company that had "direct involvement in the
> deportation of any individuals to extermination camps, work camps, concentration
> camps, prisoner of war camps ... during World War II" to disclose its actions as
> part of its bid application. That documentation could be used as a reason by the
> state not to accept that particular bid.


That doesn't seem near as bad as banning any company that had a role in the holocaust to me.


----------



## Panya

The bill isn't going that far at the moment. But I can imagine that the next one will do or at least in that direction It is salami tactics; one small step at a time. Each individual step seems largely harmless but together they are damaging ! The next step will be including this legislation for any major infrastructure project that will involve foreign bidders.


----------



## Nozumi 300

I personally have to say that this is one stupid legislation, the US wants to construct a HSR network but at the same time eliminating the access to HSR technology.


----------



## common-sense

I can see you are an American.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Nozumi 300 said:


> I personally have to say that this is one stupid legislation, the US wants to construct a HSR network but at the same time eliminating the access to HSR technology.


Yes, my feelings exactly. The way this thing is gaining momentum, those companies from Germany and Japan are pretty soon going to compete for lines in Trinidad, Brazil, and - well.. you name it. The _planet _is going HSR and there really aren't that much companies that can provide it. Of course a contract in the US would be nice for them, but how large is that market really going to be?


----------



## Nexis

Maybe if they invested in the Northeast they would meet less resistance. I don't why they haven't there are a ton of projects.


----------



## xerxesjc28

^^ Because it is the Northeast. The Northeast is broken up into sooo many states, that it makes it very hard to get cooperation between all these states to build HSR. Don't forget if HSR wants to get built in the NE it would mean getting approval from all the legislatures/governors of those states.


----------



## Nexis

xerxesjc28 said:


> ^^ Because it is the Northeast. The Northeast is broken up into sooo many states, that it makes it very hard to get cooperation between all these states to build HSR. Don't forget if HSR wants to get built in the NE it would mean getting approval from all the legislatures/governors of those states.


We just formed a 12 state Plan , everyone Agreeded to do there part. Its going along smoothly so far. I think its the fact foreign companies are lazy and won't put in the extra effort in getting a few states on board. Most Projects are 2 State Intercity lines here.


----------



## dl3000

HyperMiler said:


> http://www.economist.com/node/16541661?story_id=16541661&fsrc=rss
> 
> Looks like this bill's actually gonna be signed into a law.
> 
> While aimed at SCNF, Japanese executives are said to be most worried.
> 
> Under this bill, bidders from following countries would be put to disadvantage.
> 
> Germany
> France
> Italy
> Japan
> Spain
> 
> Bidders from following countries are unaffected.
> 
> Korea
> China
> 
> So have your pick, KTX2 or CRH380A, assuming CRH380A could actually make it past the US intellectual property rights scrutiny and pass UIC crash worthiness regulation(KTX2 already meets UIC crashworthiness requirement).
> 
> I don't understand why California is pushing this bill that's essentially eliminating competition. :bash:


I think Bombardier stands to gain most from the list being cut down.


----------



## foxmulder

I think, if this is true, it works for GE-China partnership. However, I highly doubt it.


----------



## HyperMiler

foxmulder said:


> I think, if this is true, it works for GE-China partnership. However, I highly doubt it.


GE is not on a good term with Chinese government at the moment, because GE's CEO blasted Chinese government for "unfair business practices" a week ago.

But the real problem is that CRH380A(CSR's version) is even less ready for the US market than Shinkansen E6(According to words from Japan it would be E6 that would be proposed for the California project) because of sizing(CRH380A follows full-Shinkansen dimension so it exceeds US railway limit) and crashworthiness issues that's haunting Shinkansen, assuming Japanese did not sue the Chinese.

TGV and KTX2 may actually hold an advantage over other EMU type high speed train models in California because of the greater crashworthiness safety afforded by having traction power cars at each end in mixed-traffic environment of California highspeed rail system, where the high speed trains are expected to share certain segments of track with heavy Caltain, Metrolink, and Amtrak trains.


----------



## Nozumi 300

If Bombardier is also a contender then I wouldn't be suprised if they choose to market the Zefiro 380 that's being built for CRH.


----------



## HyperMiler

Nozumi 300 said:


> If Bombardier is also a contender then I wouldn't be suprised if they choose to market the Zefiro 380 that's being built for CRH.


Zefiro 380 is exclusively wide-body(Shinkansen) and shares same problem as CRH380A.

The version offered for California would be narrow-body(UIC) Zefiro 300, which doesn't look that competitive compared to rivals that are currently in service.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> While aimed at SCNF, Japanese executives are said to be most worried.


Where did you hear this? I have seen no such reports in the _Japanese press_.



> CRH380A follows full-Shinkansen dimension so it exceeds US railway limit


There are no such "limits"- FRA has not even drawn up guidelines for HSR lines running at speeds greater than 150mph.


----------



## UD2

GE will get the contract.

It's funny because the wife of the guy pushed the bill probably drives a BMW or Mercedes-Benz.


----------



## czm3

k.k.jetcar said:


> There are no such "limits"- FRA has not even drawn up guidelines for HSR lines running at speeds greater than 150mph.


I think that they are refering to railway gauge when discussing dimensional limits. Due to its non standard gauge, I really doubt we'll see Shinkansan on US soil.

The legislation is rediculous and is aimed at slowing progress and increasing costs, just what the NIMBYs want.


----------



## HyperMiler

k.k.jetcar said:


> Where did you hear this? I have seen no such reports in the _Japanese press_.


It's in the economist article. http://www.economist.com/node/16541661?story_id=16541661



> There are no such "limits"- FRA has not even drawn up guidelines for HSR lines running at speeds greater than 150mph.


It is understood that 360 ton compressive load requirement doesn't work based on Acela experience of too much wear and tear.

The next step is to downgrade it to UIC requirement of 200 ton compressive load. FRA already approved UIC train service on Caltrain, so extending it to high speed train is no brainer, and non-Japanese/Chinese vendors already meet UIC requirement.



czm3 said:


> I think that they are refering to railway gauge


Shinkansen is of standard gauge, same as all other high speed railways.

However, Shinkansen body profile at 3.4 meter is 300 mm wider than the US limit, thus Shinkansen trains cannot run on existing tracks even if there is no mixed traffic issues. Because of this issue Japanese are offering E6 for California, a narrower 2.9 meter mini-Shinkansen type model. However, this one is still not UIC crash standard compliant.


----------



## czm3

Very interesting, if it is just a difference of body width, it ought to be easy to modify the design for CA's needs.


----------



## HyperMiler

czm3 said:


> Very interesting, if it is just a difference of body width, it ought to be easy to modify the design for CA's needs.


Japanese are already addressing this issue with their 2.9 m wide E6.

Chinese on the other hand have nothing in their product line up that could meet the US railway body dimensional requirement, because Chinese adopted Japanese Shinkansen profile.


----------



## Neb81

Another factor with the CRH380A is that the manufacturer may not consider it a viable use of their resources modifying the design for the US market. HSR in China is a much bigger market, and the Chinese government is keen to hand as much of the work as possible to domestic manufacturers. As US regulations are very different to those in Europe and Asia, it may simply not be worth the time and effort to customise the product for one relatively small, and far from certain market.


----------



## HyperMiler

Neb81 said:


> Another factor with the CRH380A is that the manufacturer may not consider it a viable use of their resources modifying the design for the US market.


Not at all, since the Chinese government would consider it a great national propaganda worthy material to be able to sell something of this grand scale to the US market and they would sweeten their proposal with the fattest financial aid package to land the deal.

It's the issue of the Chinese being unable to meet the US technical and safety regulations that's blocking the Chinese bid, not the lack of desire on the Chinese part.


----------



## makita09

czm3 said:


> Very interesting, if it is just a difference of body width, it ought to be easy to modify the design for CA's needs.


Shinkansen are quite wide but not excessively so compared to other HS networks. I would be shocked if the US HS loading guage wasn't as big as european or asian HS guage (which are pretty much the same), given that most US railroads are already of a larger loading guage, and in fact the US has the biggest in the world, some routes cleared for 6 metres in height.

Building a slightly smaller (or bigger) cabin is not going to be an issue for any manufacturer. Same bogies, same wheels, same suspension, same equipment, same almost everything thats expensive.


----------



## HyperMiler

makita09 said:


> Shinkansen are quite wide but not excessively so compared to other HS networks.


Most UIC high speed trains are 2.9 m wide, opposed to Shinkansen's 3.4 m.



> I would be shocked if the US HS loading guage wasn't as big as european or asian HS guage


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge

UIC : 3.15 m(2.9 m for high speed trains)
USA : 3.2 m
Shinkansen(Japan and China) : 3.4 m



> Building a slightly smaller (or bigger) cabin is not going to be an issue for any manufacturer.


Shinkansens and CRH380 were not designed with crashworthiness in mind. Cabin reduction will not address this problem.

At least Kawasaki is aware of this problem and is busy developing efSET, a model that follows UIC standard and not Shinkansen standard, but no one knows when efSET will be ready for commercial service.


----------



## makita09

Don't reply to my posts HyperMiller.


----------



## HyperMiler

makita09 said:


> Don't reply to my posts HyperMiller.


I will, especially when you have certain incorrect ideas.


----------



## Nexis

My Amtrak videos form Tuesday

*Acela Express Rear power car # 2012 departing for DC form Newark Penn
*





*Acela Express passing over Track H @ Secaucus JCT
*





*Amtrak Keystone Roaring through Secaucus JCT
*


----------



## Simfan34

Regulations.... the things that will make American HSR a fantasy for years to come.
EDIT: WHAT... THE... HECK... is this California bill? Is this some kind of joke?!? This cannot be real?!!


----------



## HyperMiler

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/space-florida-something-korean-government

There is a "sort-of-US-national-bullet-train-model" under development at Space Coast, the organization that used to work on canceled Constellation moon rocket project.

The base model for the project is said to be KTX(Not clear if this is KTX-II or the upcoming HEMU-400X), and constellation engineers are being retrained on high speed rail, train, and signaling technology by KTX engineers.


----------



## Stainless

HyperMiler said:


> http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/space-florida-something-korean-government
> 
> There is a "sort-of-US-national-bullet-train-model" under development at Space Coast, the organization that used to work on canceled Constellation moon rocket project.
> 
> The base model for the project is said to be KTX(Not clear if this is KTX-II or the upcoming HEMU-400X), and constellation engineers are being retrained on high speed rail, train, and signaling technology by KTX engineers.





> South Korea opened its state-owned high-speed rail program in 2004. Based on the French high-speed rail system, the Korea Train eXpress (KTX) can travel 217 mph and incorporates an electrified, overhead rail that allows it to connect to the French line.


I have no idea what they are implying here. Firstly the KTX only does 186mph, secondly how does the 'overhead rail' allow it to connect to the French line? France is several countries away from S.Korea, although I would like to see the day I could go between them by HSR.


----------



## xXFallenXx

*The First High Speed Rail Station Breaks Ground*

In San Francisco today, a group of top local and national political leaders gathered to break ground on the new Transbay Terminal – the first high speed rail station in California, and potentially the country (depending on whether you define the Acela as “high speed rail” or not).









Photo by Congressman George Miller
(From L to R: Willie Brown, John Burton, Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan (TJPA), George Miller, Gavin Newsom, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ray LaHood, Barbara Boxer, Curt Pringle, and not sure who the other two are)

The California High Speed Rail Authority collected some of the remarks via their Twitter account, @CaHSRA:


> “We’re finally going to have high speed rail here in California” -SF Mayor Gavin Newsom
> 
> “The Transbay Transit Center is a bullet train for job creation” -Senator Barbara Boxer
> 
> “CA got the most HSR funding because you all have your act together” -USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood
> 
> “We need to get into the HSR business in America and there’s one way to do it: make the investment.” -LaHood
> 
> “Transbay will boost the dream of HSR in CA and across America.” -Speaker Nancy Pelosi


The CHSRA put out a press release with this quote from Chairman Curt Pringle (who probably can’t wait to have a groundbreaking in his own city of Anaheim for the ARTIC project):


> “We are all committed to building a world-class high-speed rail system and this groundbreaking signals another step in the process of making that system a reality. We’re pleased that the Transbay Joint Powers Authority has made the future development of a high-speed rail system a centerpiece of its planning for this multi-model transit center. Projects like these if done right have the potential to truly transform a city and reinvent the way Californians travel – making it faster, cheaper, more convenient and better for the environment,” said Authority Chairman Curt Pringle.


There were times in the last year or two that this day didn’t look like it’d ever come. Sure, there was always going to be a new Transbay Terminal, but the CHSRA and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority were squabbling over the details of where the station should be located. However, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Speaker Pelosi and Senators Boxer and Dianne Feinstein intervened to ensure that the existing TJPA project went ahead as the SF terminus for the HSR project and that the all-important “train box” was funded with $400 million in federal high speed rail stimulus money.

It’s good to see the HSR project breaking ground. We’ve got a long way to go, obviously, but we’ve gotta start somewhere. And here on August 11, 2010, we did.

Needless to say, this should be seen as another blow to the HSR critics and opponents on the Peninsula. As SF Supervisor David Chiu (likely SF’s next mayor, after Gavin Newsom is elected Lt. Governor this November) said at last week’s CHSRA board meeting, anyone who thinks that SF is going to let the Peninsula cut off the HSR project in San José is crazy. With HSR playing a key role in the multibillion-dollar Transbay Terminal project that is now officially under way, it seems even less likely than ever that the Peninsula can avoid HSR. Since clear majorities of Peninsula residents support HSR, despite what some city councils claim, that’s an outcome that will make most Peninsula residents very pleased indeed.
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/08/the-first-high-speed-rail-station-breaks-ground/


Good news, even if it doesn't necessarily mean anything.


----------



## desertpunk

^^
Yeah the new transbay Terminal will be MASSIVE. I hope the 1,200 ft. tower will get going in not too long as well.


----------



## xXFallenXx

The Transbay Terminal will definitely be one of the sexiest pieces of infrastructure out there. :drool:

I just wish they would have gone with SOM's proposal.


----------



## Davodavo

When will it be finished? :?

:cheers:


----------



## makita09

Stainless said:


> I have no idea what they are implying here. Firstly the KTX only does 186mph, secondly how does the 'overhead rail' allow it to connect to the French line? France is several countries away from S.Korea, although I would like to see the day I could go between them by HSR.


Ignore him, every post is bafflingly stupid, consistently.


----------



## HyperMiler

Stainless said:


> Firstly the KTX only does 186mph


KTX-II is rated for 330 km/hr(205 mph) service speed. The reason it has been restricted to 188 mph is because of mixed traffic issue with TGV-K, which can top at that speed. Once TGV-Ks are retired and replaced by HEMU-400X(rated at 370 km/hr service speed), the service speed should be upgraded to 205 mph.

That's only for Korea. The US proposed model has uprated motors good for 350 km/hr service speed rating.



> secondly how does the 'overhead rail' allow it to connect to the French line?


The writer didn't understand exactly what's involved.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

HyperMiler said:


> http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/space-florida-something-korean-government
> 
> There is a "sort-of-US-national-bullet-train-model" under development at Space Coast, the organization that used to work on canceled Constellation moon rocket project.
> 
> The base model for the project is said to be KTX(Not clear if this is KTX-II or the upcoming HEMU-400X), and constellation engineers are being retrained on high speed rail, train, and signaling technology by KTX engineers.


My question is, why would the US want KTX related technology?
After all the Acela is based on TGV which is the basis of KTX-II isn't it?


----------



## G5man

Pensions are the main issue. If those are cut, the liabilities are reduced my cutting the very nice pensions, California could become of better financial position. However, a budget hasn't come because Prop 13 requires 2/3rds to approve a budget. A budget should be only a simple majority in order to have a budget passed.


----------



## xXFallenXx

HyperMiler said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/794...ompanies-to-come-clean-on-Holocaust-role.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France
> Italy
> Germany
> Spain
> Japan
> Canada
> Korea
> China





manrush said:


> And this bill does not blatantly exploit a historical tragedy for political gain because?
> 
> California sure loves shooting itself in the foot.





Apoc89 said:


> So your government is in deep debt and rapidly losing money, cost-cutting and efficiency is at the top of the agenda, and you're desperately trying to sell HSR to the public, so what's the best move? Why of course, pass a law forcing the companies with the most experience with high-speed trains to give themselves bad press!
> 
> Bravo, politicians. :nuts:





Nexis said:


> This California were talking about , its a bizarre state....




Hey guys, you're all blowing this bill *WAY* out of proportion.



> Published Thursday, August 12, 2010, by the Associated Press
> 
> California bill would air rail bidders' Holocaust role
> 
> By Robin Hindery
> 
> SACRAMENTO -- Companies hoping for a piece of California's future high-speed
> rail project would have to disclose whether they transported Holocaust victims
> or POWs to Nazi camps during World War II, under a bill that passed the state
> Senate on Thursday.
> 
> *The measure would require companies seeking contracts with the state's
> High-Speed Rail Authority to reveal any involvement in transporting people to
> concentration, prisoner-of-war, labor or extermination camps. They also must
> report whether they took remedial steps for their action or paid restitution to
> victims.*
> 
> The Senate voted 31-1 to approve AB619 <http://tinyurl.com/2865mkl>, sending it
> back to the Assembly for a final concurrence vote before it heads to Gov. Arnold
> Schwarzenegger's desk.
> 
> The measure's author, Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, said he hoped it would
> encourage companies to acknowledge past wrongdoing.
> 
> "Any company that has failed to take responsibility for its participation in
> mass genocide should be made to disclose this fact before being considered for
> these lucrative contracts," the Woodland Hills Democrat said Thursday.
> 
> *As originally drafted, the bill would have given the rail authority the power to
> disqualify bidders based on their disclosures. It was later amended to remove
> that text.*
> 
> The rail authority will begin accepting bids for the $45 billion project next
> year, and several international railroads have expressed interest in building
> the 800-mile rail system.
> 
> One of those, the French national railway company, SNCF, was the inspiration
> behind AB619, Blumenfield said. In 2000, SNCF commissioned and released a study
> of its wartime operations, which included providing trains, personnel and
> logistics to the Nazis.
> 
> The study concluded that because SNCF was taken over by the Nazis during the
> German occupation, French railway workers were acting under duress when they
> transported people to concentration camps.
> 
> Blumenfield disputes that claim, saying the company should pay restitution to
> survivors, which it has not yet done.
> 
> A lawyer for SNCF, Peter Kelly, previously said the company would cooperate with
> AB619's disclosure requirements if they become law. He did not immediately
> respond to requests for comment Thursday from The Associated Press.
> 
> In January, California was awarded more than $2.2 billion in federal funding to
> help pay for the high-speed rail system. The state's voters approved nearly $10
> billion toward the system in 2008.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAHSR/message/5287

That's all it does. It's not really a big deal.


----------



## ImBoredNow

^^Really?
We can't get over history can we?


----------



## ImBoredNow

^^Really?
We can't get over history can we?


----------



## Nexis

xXFallenXx said:


> Hey guys, you're all blowing this bill *WAY* out of proportion.
> 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAHSR/message/5287
> 
> That's all it does. It's not really a big deal.


Your state keeps doing stupid things like this .....its getting absurd......grow up Cali Politicians.


----------



## Davodavo

> *Is the U.S. turning a corner on high-speed rail?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (CNN) -- For a while now, crazy situations, hunger pangs and frustrating hours behind the wheel have been making life slightly miserable for Florida commuter Joe Panyanouvong. The attorney who regularly makes the 84-mile journey between Orlando and Tampa on Interstate 4 is ready for a solution.
> "I have made this trip many times during peak hours for work and leisure. It can feel like a parking lot at times," said Panyanouvong. "During heavy traffic it's taken me as long as 2.5 hours to get from Orlando to Tampa."
> He recalls one day when -- despite departing Orlando early to get a head start on a business trip -- traffic and farm animals got the best of him near U.S. Route 27 and Interstate 4.
> 
> A cow had wandered past a fence onto the road, causing tie-ups and headaches.
> 
> "I ended up missing lunch because of that cow," Panyanouvong said with a laugh. "I don't like missing lunch and I especially don't like getting stuck in traffic due to wandering farm animals or any other reason."
> 
> For generations, much of the nation has been forced to use cars, buses or pricey aircraft to travel to nearby cities. But this year, Washington opened the door to what may be a historic turning point in regional travel.
> The Department of Transportation awarded $8 billion among 31 states to begin developing America's first nationwide high-speed intercity passenger rail service.
> 
> Panyanouvong said he loves the idea of jumping on a train, turning on his computer and getting some work done on his way to Tampa, "without having to worry about traffic or driving."
> 
> But the idea is much bigger than convenience, say supporters, who believe high-speed intercity rail will cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil, reduce climate-changing pollution and fatten wallets by triggering economic development.
> 
> Soon, Americans might find themselves rocketing along ribbons of rails at 200 mph in sleek, painted passenger cars -- never stopping until they arrive at destinations awake and refreshed.
> 
> The federal funding served as a down payment to develop the groundwork for 13 new high-speed rail corridors in the United States, including an Orlando-Tampa route.
> 
> "High-speed rail in America is long overdue and President Obama understands we can't build the economy of the future on the transportation networks of the past," said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Szabo.
> Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, these new dollars represent a historic investment in the country's transportation infrastructure. It will help create jobs and transform travel in America, according to a U.S. Department of Transportation official.
> 
> "High-speed rail will also revolutionize the way Americans travel by reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, lowering harmful carbon emissions, fostering new economic development and giving travelers more choices when it comes to moving around the country," said the official.
> 
> Despite these promises from the government, high-speed rail comes with its share of opponents, who say it is too expensive and won't save energy. Some even question if it will ever be built.
> 
> ... it would be more cost-effective to use that electricity to power electric or plug-in hybrid cars than high-speed rail ...
> --Randal O'Toole, senior fellow with the CATO Institute
> 
> "Even in a strong economy, building high-speed rail makes little sense, offering minimal reductions in travel times at exorbitant costs," said Ronald Utt, who is the Herbert and Joyce Morgan senior research fellow for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> "For instance, one has to wonder what exactly motivated the review team to endorse the proposed $1.1 billion investment in the Kansas City-St. Louis-Chicago route, which would allow customers to reach their destinations 10 percent faster than they could by driving between Chicago and St. Louis," said Utt.
> 
> Utt said the $1.25 billion federal investment in a $3.2 billion project to build a high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa would reduce travel time between the two cities to less than one hour, compared to about 90 minutes by car. He said other projects have similar travel time differences.
> 
> Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow with the CATO Institute, said it is far more cost-effective to save energy by encouraging people to drive more fuel-efficient cars than to build and operate high-speed rail.
> 
> "Moreover, in places that do generate electricity from renewable sources, it would be more cost-effective to use that electricity to power electric or plug-in hybrid cars than high-speed rail," O'Toole said. "A Department of Energy report adds that boosting train speeds to 110 mph will reduce the energy efficiency of the trains, making them less energy efficient than automobiles."
> A report from the United States Government Accountability Office also highlights potential issues with high-speed rail plans in the United States.
> "Passenger rail service, especially services at higher and high speeds, will require new safety rules, constant public capital investment and operating subsidies, and balance with freight rail service and the rest of the national transportation system -- and currently only some of these elements are in place," according to a GAO report.
> 
> While the recent federal funds may serve as a catalyst for many projects and have generated high public expectations, the planning necessary to meet the many concerns outlined above has not yet occurred, the GAO report said.
> "Given the funding, I would say that it is fairly likely that at least a few moderate-speed rail projects will eventually be completed," said O'Toole. "But the California high-speed rail project remains fairly unlikely considering that more than three-fourths of its costs are not yet funded. Florida probably has a 50-50 chance of completion since about half its costs are funded."
> High-speed rail also has many supporters.
> 
> The United States Conference of Mayors, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and America 2050 -- a coalition of regional planners, scholars and policy-makers -- back high-speed rail plans. The U.S. High Speed Rail Association is also among the supporters.
> "Experts in the oil industry have been saying for a number of years now that there is not enough oil left in the ground to continue our current level of consumption, not to mention no way to meet growing demand, and we can expect half as much oil available to us in the next 20 years," said Andy Kunz, president and CEO of the rail association.
> 
> "If we are to continue economic development and prosperity, we will need to greatly reduce our daily oil consumption, and high-speed rail is the only possible solution that can scale up to meet the growing demand of American mobility while greatly reducing our oil consumption," said Kunz.
> 
> High-speed rail supporters say the industry would stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs across numerous sectors.
> 
> "Based on our company's 45 years of experience with high-speed rail in Japan, bringing high-speed rail to the United States will translate into jobs," said Mike Finnegan, an executive with US-Japan High Speed Rail and US-Japan Maglev.
> 
> "Importantly, these jobs pay well and they cannot be shipped overseas."
> ... bringing high-speed rail to the United States will translate into jobs.
> --Mike Finnegan, US-Japan High Speed Rail and US-Japan Maglev
> 
> "The $8 billion investment in high-speed rail for America is just the beginning," said Szabo. "We know that it won't be built overnight, but the federal government is committed to the long-term development of the program. Of course, the Department of Transportation will fund projects that have the best chances to succeed and have instituted rigorous requirements to ensure successful completion of these projects."
> 
> So if and when high-speed rail does move forward in the United States, how would it be built and what type of technology would be used?
> The Department of Transportation says funding for the program is "technology neutral" and does not place preference on the type of technologies used to build high-speed trains. Instead, it is allowing states and regions to choose the technology, as well as routes and station locations that meet their needs.
> 
> Most high-speed rail lines in the United States will be upgraded using existing freight rail rights-of-way, but the project in Florida and portions of California will be built on newly constructed high-speed rail lines, said Nazih Haddad, the chief operating officer for Florida Rail Enterprise.
> 
> Trains could reach up to 168 mph on Florida's high-speed line. Estimates from the U.S Department of Transportation say speeds could reach up to 220 mph for some portions of California's rail lines, while most other regions would top 110 mph.
> 
> Maglev train technology, which is popular in many scientific circles around the world for its high speeds, is one mode of high-speed rail that is not catching on in the United States because of its high cost, according to the Department of Transportation and rail industry insiders.
> 
> Maglev is a train technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel and guide a vehicle over a guideway. It follows guidance tracks with magnets and does not use steel wheels or steel rails usually associated with trains.
> 
> A well-known high-speed Maglev system operates commercially at Shanghai's Pudong International Airport in China. Its train reaches speeds of 268 mph and is much faster than the high-speed trains proposed in the United States. Japan and Germany also use Maglev train systems.
> 
> So what's the time frame?
> One Department of Transportation report said high-speed rail lines in portions of California may not be completed until 2026.
> 
> For Joe Panyanouvong and the millions of Americans searching for solutions to "traffic headaches," the answers appear complex and in some cases, highly debatable and costly.
> 
> Panyanouvong will have to wait until at least 2015 until he has a chance to chuck his car and ride the rails from Orlando to Tampa.
> 
> Nonetheless, he said he'll be ready. "I would rather keep my 2002 Nissan Maxima at home."


http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/...index.html?npt=NP1#fbid=-WrGSFkpnto&wom=false


----------



## Spam King

^ ^ ^ As much as I like the CATO Institute on a number of things (Civil liberties, non-interventionism, school choice, limited government), their stance on high speed rail is just utterly idiotic. The US NEEDS viable alternatives to driving, and for distances >300-400 miles, high speed rail IS the best solution, both in terms of speed, time, comfort and convenience.




ImBoredNow said:


> ^^Really?
> We can't get over history can we?


+1


----------



## Benn

Libertarians are interesting idealists, but like most idealists not full of practical policies for the world as it actually functions.


----------



## Suburbanist

Benn said:


> Libertarians are interesting idealists, but like most idealists not full of practical policies for the world as it actually functions.


You can't plan a country effectively around the framework any extreme idealist creed, be it communist, libertarianism, technocracy, environmentalism and so. Every idealism lacks practicalities.


----------



## Matthieu

I wouldn't call Libertarianism an extremist creed, the extremist most liberal political movement would be anarchism, libertarians have a fairly rational point of view IMO.


----------



## Suburbanist

Matthieu said:


> I wouldn't call Libertarianism an extremist creed, the extremist most liberal political movement would be anarchism, libertarians have a fairly rational point of view IMO.


I know this is drifting the topic discussion, but I just want to make a point then. Some principles behind Libertarianism might be feasible and implementable. However, on their push to reduce State interference, they create a scenario in which the State would be powerless, for instance, to stop a group of people of reenacting slavery, for instance, where some people would voluntarily agree to work for free for an indeterminate term if they can't pay a debt, for instance.


----------



## letsgo

HyperMiler said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/794...ompanies-to-come-clean-on-Holocaust-role.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France
> Italy
> Germany
> Spain
> Japan
> Canada
> Korea
> China


Congrats to Canada and Korea, one of you will get it.


----------



## sotavento

G5man said:


> Pensions are the main issue. If those are cut, the liabilities are reduced my cutting the very nice pensions, California could become of better financial position. However, a budget hasn't come because Prop 13 requires 2/3rds to approve a budget. A budget should be only a simple majority in order to have a budget passed.


Economists will never learn ??? 


ANY cut in SALARY/PENSION/BUDGET is just the same as hammering a nail on the economic wealths coffin ... :lol:

Salaries/pensions are REINVESTED in the economy ... cutting them to solve any off situation only leads to some major setbacks and worsens some situations elsewhere. :dunno:



Matthieu said:


> I wouldn't call Libertarianism an extremist creed, the extremist most liberal political movement would be anarchism, libertarians have a fairly rational point of view IMO.


No ... the are extremists ... they dream that they live in _"utopia"*_!!!! 


Or as some people call it ..._ la la land._



_* u·to·pi·a (y-tp-)
n.
1. 
a. often Utopia An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
b. A work of fiction describing a utopia.
2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform._


----------



## sotavento

SamuraiBlue said:


> My question is, why would the US want KTX related technology?
> After all the Acela is based on TGV which is the basis of KTX-II isn't it?


Acela is a development of the Canadian LRC trains:

LRC (from the seventies):










Acela: (the only thing similar to the TGV is the use 4 asyncronous AC traction motors in each power car that were similar/identical to the ones used in the french TGV's) :cheers:










Class 221 Virgin (UK, another LRC derivative wich could see a great use in american intercity connections if properly adapted)










:cheers:


----------



## sotavento

HyperMiler said:


> Ditto for SCNF, yet SCNF is willing to go along with this bill. Of course they would just blame it on Nazi Germans who pointed guns at their heads.
> 
> Japan's explanation will be quite problematic.
> 
> 
> Japan Government Rail did, so its successor Japan Rail Central has an obligation to explain wartime actions of Japan Government Rail.
> 
> I don't know who built the rolling stock and locomotive, but they too must explain as well.
> 
> 
> California is the market territory of JR Central. If JR Central decides to not bid because of mixed traffic and this "WW2 transportation disclosure" bill issues, that's understandable.
> 
> 
> This bill doesn't affect Canadians, Chinese, and Koreans. French will just blame Germans for Holocaust transportation and get back into race.
> 
> But it does end Japanese and German bids in California because of stigma associated with this disclosure, possibly Italian bids if they are bidding.


^^ Americans and Sionists are so entertaining ... 


Do you realy want to see the rest of the world passing such anti sionist laws ??? 


Would be much funny to see any american corporation needing to explain the american and israely involvement in 99% of the wars and local disputes all over the world in the last 100 or so years ... try to prove that those sam companies had not CIA or Mossad operatives in their corporate foreign offices. (or any other kind of bullshit). :nuts: 


EMD couldn't bid Either ... they were part of GM and GM had OPEL trucks in the nazi germany (even if they proclaim that OPEL was rougue at that tiem it would be the same as in JR case) ... GEwould surelly have some other skeletons in it's case (being a major suplier of german automakers at that time) ... any other american local conglomerate would also be tied with some odd involvement in some utterly nazi-based enterprise associated in a meaningfull way to the forced trasnportation of holocaust victims.

Bombardier couldn't aply ... they own presently 1/2 the factories that made those trains back in germany at the time. 

^^ thats globalization for you ... too bad that the USA economy was up to it's hairs in it way back as the early 1900's . hno:


----------



## sotavento

HyperMiler said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/794...ompanies-to-come-clean-on-Holocaust-role.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France
> Italy
> Germany
> Spain
> Japan
> Canada
> Korea
> China


Bombardier owns almost the entire old german war machine (the factories that produced the panzers and the rail equipment back at WW2). 

:cheers:


----------



## Koen Acacia

I think the EU must retaliate and immediately stop procurement from all of California's High Speed Train producers! 

......

Oh, shit.


----------



## hans280

Koen Acacia said:


> I think the EU must retaliate and immediately stop procurement from all of California's High Speed Train producers!
> 
> ......
> 
> Oh, shit.


He, he, he... 

Actually, I don't think the French worry very much about this bill. SNCF "came clean" a few years back, making profuse apologies in all directions for its wartime and holocaust record. They are reasonably confident that this should be sufficient to meet the Californian requirement. (They cannot, in all likelihood, be held financially liable because their equipment was formally requisitioned by the Germans army in the midst of an ongoing war.) But, as Sotavento said, the Japanese have been much less fortright about their wartime history.


----------



## dl3000

China has their own human rights issues but they have America by the balls. Hopefully that idiom is understood by everyone. I'm for Alstom/SNCF, they appear to be interested with their HST 200 plan etc. Second oldest operators of high speed rail, I think that is a strong resume. This whole bill limiting those companies eligible is ridiculous, but If hans280 is right and they did come clean, then hopefully that bodes well for that proposal.


----------



## HyperMiler

http://www.sfvbj.com/news/2010/aug/27/legislature-approves-california-high-speed-rail-bi/

The bill passed the House too. Heading to Gov Arnold's desk for signing. This is a done deal.

SCNF's take

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0cc50ae4-b134-11df-b899-00144feabdc0.html



> Holocaust bill poses hurdle for SNCF rail bid
> 
> While the legislation does not bar SNCF from making a bid, it has created an extra hurdle for the French company ahead of what is likely to be one of the most lucrative rail projects up for tender in the world.
> 
> But the revival of the debate over state-owned *SNCF’s role in the deportation of 75,000 Jews to Nazi death camps* during the war, could make a French victory politically sensitive.
> 
> Mr Kelly said he did not expect the disclosure to affect SNCF’s chances of winning the bid. “The railroad was taken over and used by the Nazis,” he said. “[Some] 1,600 of our employees were killed as members of the resistance.”


Japan's take

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20100827p2a00m0na051000c.html



> Railway project bidders must reveal WWII histories under California bill
> 
> LOS ANGELES -- The California State Assembly approved a bill Aug. 25 requiring bidders for an estimated 4 trillion yen high-speed railway project to release information on their transportation of prisoners-of-war during World War II.
> 
> The bill was introduced to the state legislature with French national railways' transportation of Jews to Nazi concentration camps in mind. However, *the state senate also deliberated on the Japanese state-run railway system's transportation of POWs and about 670,000 Koreans.*
> 
> *East Japan Railway Co. (JR East)*, a member of a corporate alliance that intends to participate in the tender in a bid to sell its Shinkansen bullet train system, *could be subject to the law.*


----------



## hammersklavier

This bill is nonsensical. The only conceivable operator with credible technical experience who would not have WWII-era skeletons in their closets would be the Chinese. We all know this already. It doesn't really change who'll actually bid at all, either.


----------



## HyperMiler

hammersklavier said:


> The only conceivable operator with credible technical experience who would not have WWII-era skeletons in their closets would be the Chinese.


China has the least high-speed rail operating experience of all bidders. Chinese do have a vast network, but their history is short and the system they operate is not theirs.

Not to mention that CRH-380A would meet neither IPR and crashworthiness(Expected to be UIC standard) of US standard. 

What China's has is the best construction financing program attached to their bids. But the product itself is the least desirable of all, and may not even be legal to be sold in the US.

At this point, I would rule Chinese bids out in the US due to IPR, safety, and political reasons. Chinese will have success in 3rd world country HSR projects, but not in developed markets.


----------



## eddeux

^^ The Chinese and the Koreans (I'm sure) would be the only bidders with a clean record. 

This bill is just incredibly stupid, and w/ the case w/ SNCF, that happened over 6 decades ago, let bygones be bygones. Give the contracts to the best bidder.


----------



## HyperMiler

èđđeůx;62809117 said:


> ^^ The Chinese and the Koreans (I'm sure) would be the only bidders with a clean record.


According to Japanese rightwingers(who were furious at this law), no.

Chinese government took over Manchurian Railway and Korean government took over Korea Railway constructed and operated by Imperial Japanese government post-war, so they too should be held accountable as much as JGR and its successor JR East are.


----------



## mgk920

^^
My take on this out-of-control political correctness is an old, but very wise quote: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

hno:

Mike


----------



## old school

mgk920 said:


> ^^
> My take on this out-of-control political correctness is an old, but very wise quote: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
> 
> hno:
> 
> Mike


What does Glenn Beck think about High Speed Rail? Rush? Bill? Sean?


----------



## Panya

If you go back far enough in most western countries' histories then you will find some kind of unforgivable genocide. The Americans with the original native population, the Europeans with all of Africa and the Far East etc..... I'm not too sure about Asian history but the I know similar has happened there at one time or another.

This kind of law is unbelievable with respect to history... we have to move on some time or other. If a country has already accepted and apologized then we cannot hold grudges across generations !! If we don't then grudges will stay and racism and xenophobia will thrive whilst history is remembered in such a limited way !! 

China wins. :bash: (nothing against China)


----------



## dl3000

I'm sure this has come up but the notion of the Chinese once again building California's railroads is ironic. This time it won't be nearly as dangerous and it will be Chinese businesses operating/designing tracks built by American workers. Practically a reversal.


----------



## Upminster

Metropolitan said:


> We often hear people saying that the US is too large and its population density too low to make an HSR network viable.
> 
> Here's a map showing both Eastern US and Western Europe *at the same scale*. In red, you can see European HSR network. As you can see, a system as extensive as the one currently existing in Europe would be already far enough to serve most of US HSR needs.
> 
> In looking at that map, I realized how much we actually underestimate European distances compared to US distances. For instance, we imagine Boston and Miami to be incredibly far away, but Boston is actually closer to Miami than Hamburg is to Sevilla ! Both European cities being actually served with high speed rail...
> 
> I think that if we don't realize that European distances aren't that small, it's because of two major problems: First, half of the US is empty (all the Rockies and desert states) and can thus be ignored here. Second, Europe has a very weird shape with tons of islands and peninsulas. As such, there are tons of water in Europe (North sea, Med sea, Adriatic sea, Baltic sea), which are of course not counted in land area but which don't put Helsinki, Palermo or Edinburgh any closer.


All true. But there are major differences between US and Europe. For example, if I were to fly from USA to almost anywhere in Europe, I could easily take trains to almost anywhere interesting, arrive in the city center, and walkabout. I recently stayed in Genoa, Italy, and took trains to Monte Carlo, walked about, had lunch, and got back to Genoa the same day. In the USA that would be impossible, except maybe in the Bo-wash corridor. I live near Raleigh NC and would love to take a train to Charleston SC, except that the Charleston station is many miles from the city center and where I would like to walkabout. Not to mention a timetable that just doesn't work. So I take most of my vacations in Europe.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ LOL

I have no issues with vacations in Europe, but that is not an excuse. If you can afford on overseas trip to Europe (where I'm living for now) with its expensive hotels, I bet you can afford a good car and all gas you can fill in to go from Charleston to Raleigh...


----------



## Upminster

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ LOL
> 
> I have no issues with vacations in Europe, but that is not an excuse. If you can afford on overseas trip to Europe (where I'm living for now) with its expensive hotels, I bet you can afford a good car and all gas you can fill in to go from Charleston to Raleigh...


:banana: Indeed I can, and I just returned from a long weekend by car to Charleston, but it was not anywhere near as much fun as exploring Europe by train. In April I flew to Munich and took trains through Austria, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland to Genoa. Then took a cruise to Greece, Turkey, and the Ukraine. But for me the best part was traveling from city-center to city-center by train ( and walking to my expensive hotel ). If only we could routinely do that here. Worse, you can do that in the Bo-wash corridor, but when I lived up there I failed to take full advantage.

When I lived in the DC area I routinely took trains to NY. And when I lived in New Brunswick NJ, I took commuter rail in to Newark every day. So the US CAN do it, but we lack the political will to make it so on a larger scale. So far.


----------



## Matthieu

mgk920 said:


> ^^
> My take on this out-of-control political correctness is an old, but very wise quote: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
> 
> hno:
> 
> Mike


This isn't about political correctness but lobbies and winning votes from the Jewish community. If it was about political correctness China, with its current records on human rights, would be the first barred to participate, however such move would not only upset China but also the Chinese community in California.


----------



## endrity

So which company is left now? Clearly not Germans, cause you know, they were Nazis. Not the French and the Japanese, cause they participated with the Nazis. That's the three countries with probably the most developed high speed networks around the world!!!!


----------



## HyperMiler

http://alttransport.com/2010/08/usd...esign-standards-for-american-high-speed-rail/



> USDOT Announces Uniform Design Standards For American High Speed Rail
> 
> Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announce a set of uniform criteria for the design of double-decker train cars, which will help to scale the production of train manufacture to systems across the U.S.


I read the summary and this news 120 mph passenger railcar standard still requires 360 ton compressive load that ruined Acela with overweight structure.

We will have to see what the 220 mph railcar standard will look like.


----------



## HyperMiler

Matthieu said:


> This isn't about political correctness but lobbies and winning votes from the Jewish community.


Yes, this started as one Jewish legislator's personal vendetta against SCNF, but later expanded to include Japanese atrocities because it was politically incorrect to include only the atrocities in Europe.

The Jewish legislator doesn't care about human rights record in China, as long as Jews are not involved.

But don't worry, you will see actions from "Free Tibet" and "Pro Dhalai Lama" movie stars in action once the formal bidding process starts. 

That would leave only Koreans and Canadians as the bidders with UIC-compliant product and no historical or human rights record problems.


----------



## Matthieu

endrity said:


> So which company is left now? Clearly not Germans, cause you know, they were Nazis. Not the French and the Japanese, cause they participated with the Nazis. That's the three countries with probably the most developed high speed networks around the world!!!!


It's a biased and selective point of view because the SNCF was forced into this:

_Mr Kelly said he did not expect the disclosure to affect SNCF’s chances of winning the bid. “The railroad was taken over and used by the Nazis,” he said. “[Some] 1,600 of our employees were killed as members of the resistance.” _

Nevertheless, I don't see how they'll put that bill in place, is it even legal to the WTO?


----------



## HyperMiler

Matthieu said:


> It's a biased and selective point of view because the SNCF was forced into this:


Of course we know SCNF did not will it; but politics are politics and any ties to holocaust is a bad publicity.


----------



## miamipaintball

Matthieu said:


> It's a biased and selective point of view because the SNCF was forced into this:
> 
> _Mr Kelly said he did not expect the disclosure to affect SNCF’s chances of winning the bid. “The railroad was taken over and used by the Nazis,” he said. “[Some] 1,600 of our employees were killed as members of the resistance.” _
> 
> Nevertheless, I don't see how they'll put that bill in place, is it even legal to the WTO?


jews need to stop being cry baby's, what about the millions of German and soviet citizens who suffered under Stalin and Hitlers rule?

my family is from Germany, and they had to fight during ww2, as it was either death of your whole family for "going against the government" or fighting the war. they need to get over it already, if i was a law maker and that shit was brought up, i would sure be on all news networks for the outburst i would have.


----------



## Matthieu

let's not make generalization on all Jews, it's a bill a few people who passed it to get re-elected.


----------



## Benn

Sounds like a pretty damaging bill to everyone involved except Bombardier (I know most of the technology was adtranz, but most of our politicians aren't bright enough to look into it) and Rotem.....

I'd be a little more comfortable with atleast Siemens (and preferably an open competition) involved in the bidding process, hell they already do most of the electrification and make most of the LRVs in this country. But its not my state or my problem, so best of luck with below the belt politics.


----------



## Ariel74

miamipaintball said:


> jews need to stop being cry baby's, what about the millions of German and soviet citizens who suffered under Stalin and Hitlers rule?
> 
> my family is from Germany, and they had to fight during ww2, as it was either death of your whole family for "going against the government" or fighting the war. they need to get over it already, if i was a law maker and that shit was brought up, i would sure be on all news networks for the outburst i would have.


That's the craziest thing I have heard for a long time. 

The jews had _*no*_ choice in their being gassed. Your german ancestors *had* the choice between doing an immoral thing on the one hand, and risking their lives for not following immoral orders, on the other. The right choice would have been the second of the two. That most germans didn't make the right choice only speaks against them, it doesn't make the right choice wrong, the wrong choice right. That the right choice was dangerous doesn't change these facts either.

Honestly, saying what you are saying, you've got no business staying in America.


----------



## Apoc89

^^^^^^^

It's easy to talk about how terrible all the Germans were when you live in a relatively free society with access to near-unlimited media sources through the internet. In WW2-era Germany, where all Nazi atrocities such as the Holocaust were kept strictly quiet and the media was completely controlled by the state and pumping out propaganda 24/7, it's not difficult to see why people would not have even considered joining the military to be immoral. Neither you nor I are immune to the effects of living in such conditions. Also, the Allies committed plenty of atrocities, many of them government-sanctioned, would you blame every single Allied soldier for them as well? I wouldn't, the responsibility for atrocities lies with those who directly ordered and committed them and them alone.

Anyway, this is going horribly OT and doesn't change the fact that this bill, even if it doesn't directly exclude any companies, doesn't do California's HSR project any favors. In this economic and political atmosphere it needs all the good press it can get, but the local politicians seem to want to do the opposite.


----------



## Ariel74

Apoc89 said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> It's easy to talk about how terrible all the Germans were when you live in a relatively free society with access to near-unlimited media sources through the internet. In WW2-era Germany, where all Nazi atrocities such as the Holocaust were kept strictly quiet and the media was completely controlled by the state and pumping out propaganda 24/7, it's not difficult to see why people would not have even considered joining the military to be immoral. Neither you nor I are immune to the effects of living in such conditions. Also, the Allies committed plenty of atrocities, many of them government-sanctioned, would you blame every single Allied soldier for them as well? I wouldn't, the responsibility for atrocities lies with those who directly ordered and committed them and them alone.
> 
> Anyway, this is going horribly OT and doesn't change the fact that this bill, even if it doesn't directly exclude any companies, doesn't do California's HSR project any favors. In this economic and political atmosphere it needs all the good press it can get, but the local politicians seem to want to do the opposite.


Yes, we are going off-topic, and your mentioning of the Allies didn't help it either. The only point I was making is that it is outrageous to make the argument that since the Germans aren't complaining about their (grand-)parents' having to go through WWII, the Jews have no business complaining about *their* treatment in the WWII. That is what I call an outlandish, if not completely shameless argument.


----------



## miamipaintball

Ariel74 said:


> That's the craziest thing I have heard for a long time.
> 
> The jews had _*no*_ choice in their being gassed. Your german ancestors *had* the choice between doing an immoral thing on the one hand, and risking their lives for not following immoral orders, on the other. The right choice would have been the second of the two. That most germans didn't make the right choice only speaks against them, it doesn't make the right choice wrong, the wrong choice right. That the right choice was dangerous doesn't change these facts either.
> 
> Honestly, saying what you are saying, you've got no business staying in America.


sorry for going OT but..... anyways what someones generation did in the past shouldn't be on them, its about now and the future not the past, rail is needed simple the us has the worst transit system for a developed country, except the northeast which is really good on par with Europe.

what would you have done? die? lose generations of your family? tell me please. and my granpa didn't even kill jews he fought on the eastern front, the most brutal part of the European war. was captured by Russians and tortured/starved, cam back with stomach cancer, never complained, yea what happened to the jews is bad, but what about the 21 million who died under stalins rule, he killed millions of jews himself, what about the maybe half a million to a million Germans who were put in the death camps for "going against the goverment" to? what about the Japanese who killed millions of Chinese for social genocide aswell? i can go on and on, the jews weren't the only victims is all im saying, and i see your home town is frankfort, do you even know what happened after ww1? what the allies did to Germany? in the end war sucks, my grandparents lost half their family to the war.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

This law is turning CA local politicians into "PC Naked Kings" not daring to speak out against it fearing to be seen as a racist by their constituents.


----------



## HyperMiler

California holocaust law is spreading to Florida.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/01/1802670/holocaust-survivors-want-answers.html



> Holocaust survivors want answers from bidder on Florida's high-speed rail
> 
> Associated Press
> 
> ORLANDO -- The French national railway is being scrutinized by Holocaust survivors for its involvement in transporting Jews and others to Nazi death camps during World War II. The company is bidding for the U.S.' first high-speed rail project in Florida.
> 
> Survivors plan to raise the issue Thursday when the Florida Department of Transportation holds a public meeting in Orlando on the $2.6 billion project. They are asking SNCF to formally apologize, give full access to its records and reparations.


----------



## miamipaintball

HyperMiler said:


> California holocaust law is spreading to Florida.
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/01/1802670/holocaust-survivors-want-answers.html




so ridicules, like i said in my other post i would have an outburst, yeah it sucks what happened, but why should they apologize, they didnt do, and the older generations most likely had to because of the gestapo and SS

this only hampers the development of the US and further sliding it down the chain of developed countries. its about the future and the issues of todays world, not what happened decades ago


----------



## K_

miamipaintball said:


> this only hampers the development of the US and further sliding it down the chain of developed countries. its about the future and the issues of todays world, not what happened decades ago


Indeed. Even Israel buys trains from Siemens. Why shouldn't the US because of what happend 70 years ago?


----------



## Svartmetall

miamipaintball said:


> sorry for going OT but..... anyways what someones generation did in the past shouldn't be on them, its about now and the future not the past, rail is needed simple the u*s has the worst transit system for a developed country*, except the northeast which is really good on par with Europe.


No, it doesn't. New Zealand does.


----------



## miamipaintball

Svartmetall said:


> No, it doesn't. New Zealand does.


hmm did a quick Google search, it maybe sucks, but its an island what do you expect? cant really compare to japan, since japan is over populated. plus most major US cities have horrible PT especially from suburbs to the inercity. at least you have the most livable cities in the world.

but you still got these cute animals though


----------



## HyperMiler

miamipaintball said:


> what about the Japanese who killed millions of Chinese for social genocide as well?


JR East too must disclose the wartime transportation record of JGR if they wish to bid.

Observers in Japan are expecting JR East to not disclose and just skip California.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

HyperMiler said:


> JR East too must disclose the wartime transportation record of JGR if they wish to bid.
> 
> Observers in Japan are expecting JR East to not disclose and just skip California.


Uhh, most probably JR East would not hold any record of actual events since the change of entity through out the years. 
They would probably not be able to defend, deny nor verify any fact which may appear during the screening process after submitting documents making this whole exercise meaningless, biased or both.


----------



## endrity

Stupidity at its best, that's what these laws are. 70 years after WW2!!!!!!


----------



## mgk920

endrity said:


> Stupidity at its best, that's what these laws are. 70 years after WW2!!!!!!


Heck, there are some left-wing hotheads here in the USA who are demanding reparations for SLAVERY, which was outlawed nationwide in 1865. - that's 145 years ago!

hno:

Mike


----------



## FlyFish

Lots of good (and some really shameless) stuff here, but the issue is political correctness run-amoke in the US.

We have groups in this Country whose only purpose in existence is to find something to be offended about and then run around blabbing to a willing and lapdog media in order to scare politicians into doing the what the little loud group wants just so they don't get called anything ending in "ist".


----------



## nemu

Benn said:


> Sounds like a pretty damaging bill to everyone involved except Bombardier (I know most of the technology was adtranz, but most of our politicians aren't bright enough to look into it) and Rotem.....
> .


 Bombardier Transportation's HQ is in of all places, Berlin. 

Also , if the bill is 'damaging' to the French, (who will argue that they are acting under duress from their occupational masters) the same could potentially apply to Korea.


At the end of the day, the bill is a complete farce and made for those still living in the stone ages.


----------



## eddeux

HyperMiler said:


> According to Japanese rightwingers(who were furious at this law), no.
> 
> Chinese government took over Manchurian Railway and Korean government took over Korea Railway constructed and operated by Imperial Japanese government post-war, so they too should be held accountable as much as JGR and its successor JR East are.


:rofl: I'm sure it wouldn't matter. The Chinese bidders probably use technology given from the Japanese (that's if J-Rail companies had to transfer tech when operating in China), just upgraded. So in a way the Japanese bidders' trains will posibly be gliding across california.


----------



## eddeux

*Obama to Announce Transportation Infrastructure Fund *


> *President Barack Obama today will propose a six-year plan to rehabilitate the nation’s transportation infrastructure with an initial $50 billion to help spur an economy that’s lost jobs for three straight months.*Obama will announce the program to fix the nation’s roads, railways and runways to union families at a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee scheduled for 3:10 p.m. New York time, the White House said in a statement.
> 
> *Two months before congressional midterm elections, Obama will call for the formation of an “infrastructure bank” and request money to rebuild 150,000 miles (241,400 kilometers) of roads, construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail, and overhaul 150 miles of runways*, the statement said.
> 
> “This plan would build on the investments we have already made under the Recovery Act, create jobs for American workers to strengthen our economy now, and increase our nation’s growth and productivity,” according to the statement.
> 
> *The administration will work with Congress to ensure the plan is fully funded, and a “significant portion of the new investments would be front-loaded in the first year*,” according to the statement.
> 
> Today’s remarks to members of the AFL-CIO, the largest U.S. labor federation, kick off a week in which Obama promote his economic agenda in two Midwest states where incumbent Democrats are in close contests.
> 
> Mixed Economy
> 
> Faced with the prospect of Democrats losing control of Congress in the November elections and a series of mixed economic reports, Obama will offer proposals that combine tax breaks and additional spending to help an economy that’s struggling to recover from the worst recession in more than six decades.
> 
> Last week’s jobs report showed that private payrolls climbed 67,000 in August, more than forecast, easing concerns that the world’s largest economy is sliding back into a recession. Even so, overall employment fell by 54,000 the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent as more people entered the labor force.
> 
> Later this week, the president will also urge Congress to permanently extend and expand a research-and-development tax credit for businesses, according to two administration officials. The plan, which he’ll announce in Cleveland Sept. 8, would cost about $100 billion over a decade.
> 
> Research Credit
> 
> Every president since Bill Clinton has backed a permanent extension of the research tax credit, which Congress only temporarily extends because of its high cost.
> 
> Obama’s proposals, many of which he has introduced before, will run up against a tight congressional calendar and election- year politics. The Senate is scheduled to return to Washington Sept. 13, and the House the next day. Lawmakers will be at work for about three weeks before leaving again to campaign.
> 
> *The economic stimulus package approved last year allocated $38.6 billion for the Transportation Department and so far $18.5 billion has been paid out, according to a government website that tracks the spending.*
> The Milwaukee trip is Obama’s third visit to Wisconsin since June. The state’s unemployment rate, at 7.8 percent, is lower than the national average, even with pockets of greater economic stress, such as in the southern part of the state, where a General Motors Co. assembly plant closed in 2008.


Only $18.5 billion of the infra funding has been paid out? :sly: 
Wonder what the rest of that $20 billion would do.
Anyways, good news. I was hoping that the $50 billion would go directly to rail, but at least its getting more than the miniscule $8 billion in the stimulus package.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Ariel74 said:


> That's the craziest thing I have heard for a long time.
> 
> The jews had _*no*_ choice in their being gassed. Your german ancestors *had* the choice between doing an immoral thing on the one hand, and risking their lives for not following immoral orders, on the other. The right choice would have been the second of the two. That most germans didn't make the right choice only speaks against them, it doesn't make the right choice wrong, the wrong choice right. That the right choice was dangerous doesn't change these facts either.
> 
> Honestly, saying what you are saying, you've got no business staying in America.


BTW I am just curious. The law says that the companies bid for HSR contracts have to explain their role in the holocaust. But what is the purpose of that? Will it somehow set right injustices of the past? Also why is the holocaust the only important event? Surely there have been other ghastly events in history? Don't they need to be accounted as well? And What if in some of them the jews/israelis were the perpetuators? will that mean that is the basis for obstructing american economic ties with israel? Also how many people will think about the right and the wrong when they face the prospect of being killed in cold blood for doing the right thing?


----------



## SpeedoPro

this bill sounds pretty ridiculous to me. shouldn't this law be applied to the auto industry too? while we are at it, why dont we ban all products made by any company that associated themselves with germany and japan during wwii? 

this is about the hsr. let's select the most capable and fitting system for ca. i would crap myself if the chinese or the korean get selected.. hno:


----------



## Ariel74

Matthieu said:


> After this, it is not credible for you to talk about morality. You say I have little compass of morality, I say reading you here that you don't even know what that word (morality) means. Let me make it simple, something isn't immoral as long as someone doesn't complain? Nice morality and sense of proportion.
> 
> And please, _supposed_ human right abuses... just lol.


You can get worked up all you want. But if you want to respond, you have to read first. I never connected complaints with morality. I *distinguished* them. I said one of them is at issue, the other is not.

We are talking about the bidding of US high speed railway projects. The legislation that we are all talking about is made because holocaust survivors complained, not because there is a legal connection between morality and eligibility to build railways.

You are going way off topic. If you'd like to discuss human rights, open a new thread. Then we can start talking about the French human rights record in ernest, which isn't pretty. But please stay on topic here.


----------



## Matthieu

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of this bill, which everyone here seem agrees on so far. Have a problem with my opinion (not that it matters)? They have the right to bar whoever they want from their bid, I'm not saying they don't, but on the other hand I have the right to say their reason are unfair and immoral (and I've got twice more right to say you don't know what that word means when you say I make a fool of myself with these statements) and that this whole bill is complete nonsense. 

You disagree with me, that's nice, you say I made a fool of myself, I say you're rude and presumptuous and that your earliest comments were uncalled for. 

I mean look at your post again and the one your answering to:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=63419289&postcount=1251

I'm stating, without any ambiguity, that I believe this whole masquerade is just a plot to kill the whole project, and you answer on morality and sense of proportion, then later say I'm the one moving off topic; read again, who's moving off topic?

As long as politics were introduced into the discussion, and it was done by Californian themselves when they passed their populist bill, then the question of human rights cannot be eluded because it won't be the best bid that will win.


----------



## Ariel74

Matthieu said:


> I'm stating, without any ambiguity, that I believe this whole masquerade is just a plot to kill the whole project, and you answer on morality and sense of proportion, then later say I'm the one moving off topic; read again, who's moving off topic?


Let me help you sort this out: my comments on morality and sense of proportion is meant to argue that it is perfectly *understandable* why some people complained about SNCF in the US. A bidder's "morality" problem only becomes relevant under *both* of two conditions: (a) that there are *real* complaints from US Americans; and (b) these complaints are legitimate and understandable.

My hypothetical examples of Japan and China were meant to show that, 

(i) none of their historical/human rights "problems" is relevant for the bidding simply because no one in the US felt their interest to be hurt enough to complain, so condition (a) does not hold for either Japan or China; 

(ii) in the case of China, condition (b) does not hold either: it is hard to think of any understandable complaints by *Americans* about their mistreatment by the Chinese, in the way that holocaust survivors in the US can understandably complain about SNCF. In short, there's hardly anything the Chinese *could* apologize to Americans for.

Remember you were the one who made the preposterous comparison of Nazi collaborators with the Chinese, and that's where my comments of "moral compass" and "sense of proportion" were directed. In other words, they were about the condition (b). Some of my later posts made the point about condition (a).


----------



## Matthieu

And I have all right to state this is immoral in itself, unfair and a meant to kill the whole competition.


----------



## Ariel74

^^

and my opinion about that is that the legislation will have no such effect. For the absence of a French bid in no may reduces the level of competition and the quality of technologies offered.


----------



## Matthieu

Ariel74 said:


> ^^
> 
> and my opinion about that is that the legislation will have no such effect. For the absence of a French bid in no may reduces the level of competition and the quality of technologies offered.


That's your opinion, the one of someone that compares a 30 years old TGV to a brand new Velaro, or that compares the same Velaro to an Imac and an AGV to a PC .


----------



## Ariel74

Matthieu said:


> That's your opinion, the one of someone that compares a 30 years old TGV to a brand new Velaro, or that compares the same Velaro to an Imac and an AGV to a PC .


I am not the only one who does not think of TGV/AGV highly. Here is a piece of news that might shed some light on that, fresh from today:



> The Canadian Press
> MONTREAL — The fate of a $2 billion rail contract for Bombardier and its partner AnsaldoBreda is expected to be decided by an Italian judge on Sept. 29 following a complaint by French rival Alstom.
> 
> The government-owned operator of Italy’s train system, Ferrovie dello Stato (FS), ordered 50 high-speed trains.
> 
> But *Alstom challenged the selection of the Canadian-Italian partnership in court*.
> 
> Bombardier Transportation spokesman Marc-Andre Lefebvre said the Berlin-based division of plane and rail manufacturer Bombardier Inc. will “vigorously defend its interest” in the case.
> 
> In a news release, FS said that the tender was conducted in “full compliance” with Italian law. The Crown corporation added that it is confident the judge will confirm its selection.
> 
> *FS said the Bombardier AnsaldoBreda proposal was superior both technically and financially*. The consortium is asking 30 million euros per train, for a total of 1.5 billion euros, while Alstom’s bid was seven per cent more expensive at 1.75 billion euros ($2.3 billion).
> 
> Roberto Tazzioli, president of Bombardier Transportation Italia, told Italian media that it was now “common practice” for competitors to legally challenge government rail contracts.
> 
> If the court confirms the selection of Bombardier and AnsaldoBreda, the contract should be signed before the end of the year.
> 
> The contract would introduce Bombardier’s Zefiro train to Europe with 50 trainsets that can each accommodate 600 passengers. The trains can travel up to 360 km-h.
> 
> Propulsion and electrical system work will be completed at Bombardier’s factory near Genoa.
> 
> Ansaldo, the rail division of Italian engineering and defence giant Finmeccanica, will build the train bodies and do final assembly at its plant near Florence.
> 
> In addition to Alstom, the Bombardier group beat several Japanese companies including Kawasaki. Germany’s Siemens withdrew due to the complex technical specifications requested by the Italian railway group.
> 
> Bombardier shares closed up four cents at $4.79 in Friday trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange.


----------



## Matthieu

Yeah an Italian picked a train while another (NTV) picked the AGV. That's how public procurement goes, you make a offer and the one that fits at the lowest price wins. Alstom an Bombardier provided similar products that both met the requirements but Alstom was 16% more expensive, so that's it, if it can comfort you I never saw German products even meeting the requirement there in the first place.


----------



## dl3000

Bandit said:


> Who turned this thread into "Who to blame for the Holocaust legislation?" Who's the one paranoid enough to think China was behind it? Who's the one bringing up their insecure nationalism in here bashing countries? I don't see you having a problem with them. And you show your bias because all I'm doing is doing what everyone elses is doing which is digging up human rights violations. You guys are just upset because you forgot that you ain't no saints when it comes to human rights by a long shot. So if you have a problem with the way this thread is going, go blame the ones that obviously bringing in their own personal problems and guising it as the merits of whose trains are the best.
> 
> Of course you believe in your rights. Hitler also believed in his own rights. Does that make Hitler a human rights activist? You're argument doesn't carry weight. Love it when it's the people who hide behind rights and freedoms who want to stop others from exercising theirs. Who has the problem with the other guys excercising their rights? It's certainly not me because obviously my arguments speak for themselves. Or maybe I'm suppose to let the "superior" people have the right to their say and I'm not suppose to correct them when they're wrong or displaying hypocrisy. Hitler believed in that one too.


I see that debating with you is a waste of my time. I will say that some on what you call "my side" being American, have been unreasonable in their speculation of who is to blame for this legislation, but your statements are just too radical. You simply don't know how to debate rationally because your argument about rights has nothing to do with what I said.

And to make this post relevant, I am completely against the legislation, it is a tool to shoot down the project. I am for a fair bidding process, and I am partial to the experienced French and Germans. I am all for the Japanese too, but I simply think that the California system is more in line with ones that French and Germans have built (ie not exclusively HSR throughout).


----------



## nomarandlee

Bandit said:


> I love how people act as if none of you haven't done worse than you accuse others.
> 
> Let me tell you how in works in the US and pretty much the Western world. Everytime someone wants to do something, there's always someone else that wants to stop it and they'll use any means necessary to accomplish it. Just like using Tibetans as an excuse to stop China for about everything. And what have you done but only give lip-service to the Tibetans. You're just using them because of your personal fears of the future and not for the Tibetans. .


And the Chinese nationalist raise their ugly head. :lol:


----------



## Bandit

nomarandlee said:


> And the Chinese nationalist raise their ugly head. :lol:


And the notorious American bigot has raised his. :banana::banana:


----------



## Paddington

There's not going to be any high speed rail. I can't believe suckers keep believing Obama's lies. :laugh:


----------



## Bandit

dl3000 said:


> I see that debating with you is a waste of my time. I will say that some on what you call "my side" being American, have been unreasonable in their speculation of who is to blame for this legislation, but your statements are just too radical. You simply don't know how to debate rationally because your argument about rights has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> And to make this post relevant, I am completely against the legislation, it is a tool to shoot down the project. I am for a fair bidding process, and I am partial to the experienced French and Germans. I am all for the Japanese too, but I simply think that the California system is more in line with ones that French and Germans have built (ie not exclusively HSR throughout).


And you only had a problem with what I had to say which was nothing more than what anyone else was doing. What I said was too radical? Again, nothing more different from your side which was my point and you proved it with your bias. LIke it was a dastardly Chinese conspiracy behind this legislation? Why? Because the blame the Jews scapegoating was dangerously crossing the line? So let's absurdly blame the Chinese instead.


----------



## TampaMike

What I don't understand is the focus of making the major cities the major hubs for their regions. Like Chicago is of course the major city of Midwest, but I would suspect that St. Louis would be a better position to be the main hub for Midwest HSR than Chicago. IDK, my position.


----------



## K_

Matthieu said:


> Yeah an Italian picked a train while another (NTV) picked the AGV.


And I think NTV is going to eat Trenitalia's lunch. Trenitalia is easily the least competent railway company in Europe, competing with them should be easy. And that is without having the better trains too...
The fact that Trenitalia seem to prefer something Ansaldobreda is involved over an Alsthom or a Siemens product says a lot. Ansaldo Breda is know for delivering years late... But that is not a problem for Trenitalia who's core business is employing people, not moving people.


----------



## Matthieu

Paddington said:


> There's not going to be any high speed rail. I can't believe suckers keep believing Obama's lies. :laugh:


Seems like it's how things are going.


----------



## foxmulder

I don't know about California but North-East is just perfect for high speed. Not an ACELA but a true high speed train.


----------



## HyperMiler

foxmulder said:


> I don't know about California but North-East is just perfect for high speed. Not an ACELA but a true high speed train.


There is no room for a true HSR track in Northeast.


----------



## HyperMiler

Ariel74 said:


> (i) none of their historical/human rights "problems" is relevant for the bidding simply because no one in the US felt their interest to be hurt enough to complain, so condition (a) does not hold for either Japan or China;


Surviving US POWs are demanding an apology from Japan for their wartime deeds. http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_16014600

Followers of Dalai Lama and US practitioners of Falun Gong are also demanding China to stop prosecuting their leaders. So China too has plenty of opposition facing its bid, in addition to IPR legal problems.

One can cay Canadians and Koreans are only two bidders without blemish of past history. But these two don't have $10~20 billion construction loan financing attached to their bids.


----------



## nomarandlee

TampaMike said:


> What I don't understand is the focus of making the major cities the major hubs for their regions. Like Chicago is of course the major city of Midwest, but I would suspect that St. Louis would be a better position to be the main hub for Midwest HSR than Chicago. IDK, my position.


The problem is that in the Midwest there isn't a relatively long linear line like the Cali, NEC, and Pac-NW. 

The Chicago metro is nearly four times the size of St.Louis though so as many as four times those from a given city will be more likely to travel to Chicago then St.Louis from around the region. In term of serving as a hub Chicago presents itself as a rather ideal wheel hub even given its 15 miltes north from the tip of Lake Michigan.

Also Chicago is a good bit closer to other major Midwest cities like Detroit and Minneapolis. To the West and South the major gateways of St.Louis are Kansas City and Memphis. Not exactley big destination.

If one were go with your thinking I could see perhaps a Columbus but I don't really see it in St.Louis.


----------



## ukiyo

Dissapointing that the US is playing politics over this.

Anyway

*U.S. envoy Roos 'amazed' at maglev train after riding on test track*


> KOFU, Japan (Kyodo) -- U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos rode a high-speed linear motor train line on the test track of Central Japan Railway Co. in Yamanashi Prefecture on Friday on the invitation of JR Tokai, which aims to sell the train to the United States.
> 
> "I was amazed," Roos said after riding the four-car maglev for about 26 minutes for 57 kilometers at a maximum speed of 502 kph, adding that the technology is "something that is going to change the lives of people."
> 
> The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is placing "high priority" on high-speed railways and there is "big interest" in the technologies that have been developed in Japan, Roos said.
> 
> JR Tokai Chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai was delighted to have Roos take the ride, saying, "Seeing is believing. I think we were able to have him experience firsthand the potential of linear motors."
> 
> (Mainichi Japan) September 11, 2010


----------



## binhai

China has the best HSR in the world. This is an undeniable fact. Whether politics is going to block them from winning the bid is a whole different matter, but honestly, this project is at least a decade away from even being put out to bid (when China's HSR will be even better).


----------



## Luli Pop

Japan kills whales!


----------



## Ariel74

NihonKitty said:


> Dissapointing that the US is playing politics over this.
> 
> Anyway
> 
> *U.S. envoy Roos 'amazed' at maglev train after riding on test track*


by the way, how's the maglev project in Japan going? If I remember correctly, they plan to open the line by 2025/7. Why so late?


----------



## ukiyo

Ariel74 said:


> by the way, how's the maglev project in Japan going? If I remember correctly, they plan to open the line by 2025/7. Why so late?


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1184257&highlight=japan


----------



## dumbfword

US states can barely afford HSR. Maglev tech won't ever make it here.


----------



## xerxesjc28

Well, ever is a long time. Back in the 1940's if you would have said in 20 years almost all rail in the US would be torn up, you probably would have seemed crazy.


----------



## G5man

dumbfword said:


> US states can barely afford HSR. Maglev tech won't ever make it here.


If the feds offered a 90 10 match, it would take off like the Interstate Highway system. If we were to do a similar investment in rail like what France did, it would be to the tune of $470 billion. That would provide quite a few HSL lines.


----------



## dumbfword

G5man said:


> If the feds offered a 90 10 match, it would take off like the Interstate Highway system. If we were to do a similar investment in rail like what France did, it would be to the tune of $470 billion. That would provide quite a few HSL lines.


Interstate Highway was done when the country was booming and didn't have over 14 trillion in debt and massive yearly budget deficits. 

Too bad the gov couldn't trim 200 billion off the defense budget for HSR projects.


----------



## kominam

miamipaintball said:


> i guess the Chinese and Koreans cant build our railways cause we killed millions of them in 1800's to mid 30's to build railways in the states.


I think you can exclude the Koreans there since none of them built US railways.


----------



## eddeux

BarbaricManchurian said:


> China has the best HSR in the world. This is an undeniable fact. Whether politics is going to block them from winning the bid is a whole different matter, but honestly, this project is at least a decade away from even being put out to bid (when China's HSR will be even better).


Best HSR in the world, huh? I guess those tech-transfers paid off. :lol:

But anyways, if China is offering the best bid for the cheapest price, and agrees to manufacture at least *SOME* parts in the US (this should be required by all bidders), then I say go for China. If it can't meet that criteria then either pull this dumb law of transportation of people during holocaust and choose another bidder. I saw a story about Schwarzenegger thinking about the Chinese bid. I'll look it up.


----------



## eddeux

*Schwarzenegger checks out China's high-speed rail*



> SHANGHAI – *Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is engaging in a little window-shopping of China's new high-speed train lines while peddling Californian exports and tourism in the world's second-largest economy.*
> *His own state budget $19 billion in the red, Schwarzenegger says he is hoping for some "creative financing" from Asia to help lower costs and get California's proposed high-speed rail lines up and running.*
> *Industry experts say cash-rich China may be best placed to help with funding, and less risk averse than others whose banks are still recovering from the financial crisis. That could prove a key competitive advantage as it goes head-to-head against better established high-speed rivals rail in Asia and Europe.*
> "*That is something very attractive about the Chinese which the Europeans will find very difficult to compete with*," said Michael Clausecker, director general of Unife, the Association of the European Rail Industry. "*Even in America, finance is a scarce resource. Rail investments need a lot of investment up front*."
> 
> China has invested huge prestige, and tens of billions of dollars, in its high-speed rail industry — building on mostly European know-how acquired in joint ventures with Siemens AG, Alstom SA and to a lesser extent Japan's "Shinkansen" bullet train operators. It is gearing up to fight for a chunk of what Unife estimates to be a 122 billion euros ($155 billion)-a-year global market for railways.
> 
> Schwarzenegger posed for photos Sunday on a high-speed train in Shanghai, after spending Saturday, the first day of his weeklong trade mission of nearly 100 business leaders, hobnobbing in Hangzhou with Jack Ma, founder of Internet trading behemoth Alibaba.com, and other Chinese entrepreneurs.
> 
> "*Today what I have seen is very, very impressive. We hope China is part of the bidding process, along with other countries around the world, so that we can build high speed rail as inexpensively as possible*," he told reporters.
> 
> He also announced a plan for Silicon Valley to bid for the 2020 World Expo, which would be California's first time to host the event since 1940.
> 
> *The governor will also check out high-speed rail in Japan and South Korea — two others among at least seven countries that have officially shown interest in helping develop California's system — assuming the state can find the money.*
> "There is great potential over there and in Japan and Korea, when it comes to building our high-speed rail and also providing the money for building the high-speed rail," Schwarzenegger told reporters before leaving California.
> 
> *The fact-finding mission is also aimed at better understanding the technologies on offer.*
> 
> "He will learn a lot from that," said T.C. Kao, director of the Railway Technology Research Center at National Taiwan University, who has introduced many U.S. delegations to the technology.
> 
> "They get the impression, 'We need it.' They feel behind," he said. "You have to experience it to understand."
> 
> *The U.S. is the world leader in freight railway technology but has almost no high-speed rail expertise. It will have to import the technology for the 13 regional projects that have won $8.5 billion in initial federal funding, with $2.5 billion more to come this year and hundreds of billions needed before lines are up and running.**China already has the world's longest high-speed rail network, about 4,300 miles (6,920 kilometers) of routes, including nearly 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers) that can run at top speeds of 220 miles per hour (350 kph). It aims to develop 9,900 miles (16,000 kilometers) of such routes by 2020.*
> All of that construction involves "highly sophisticated work on infrastructure, on rails and design of track structure," says Chris Barkan, director of the Railroad Engineering Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, who recently toured facilities in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
> 
> A visit to a mammoth manufacturing plant in the eastern city of Qingdao "absolutely blew me away," he says.
> 
> *Having already build up a huge capacity for manufacturing trains and the systems to serve them, China is looking for a chance to prove it has the wherewithall to export the most advanced technology. *"China *now owns the most advanced high-speed rail technology and winning contracts in the U.S. would surely help it to sell more to other countries*," said He Xin, an industry analyst at Donghai Securities in Beijing.
> 
> *Other industry experts say it is difficult to know just how much China has achieved on its own. Both European and Japanese industry officials have expressed skepticism. *
> But Chinese officials insist the technology they plan to export is truly their own. They also have hired American lawyers to check for potential intellectual property problems, says T.C. Kao, director of the Railway Technology Research Center at National Taiwan University.
> 
> "*China is probably pretty sure it can pass the test on IP*," says Kao, former vice president of Taiwan's high speed rail company. "*China has copied, yes, but it has improved on the technology. Many things have been altered*."
> 
> Kao and other experts say that as newcomers, the Chinese would face logistical and regulatory challenges in entering a brand new market, compared with companies like Siemens, Alstom SA and Canada's Bombadier Inc. which already have train factories in the U.S.
> 
> *But China's experience in gradually raising the speeds of its train systems and then adding high-speed rail, sometimes on dual-use tracks, may give it an edge in designing systems suitable for the U.S., which in most areas plans a similar incremental approach*.
> 
> *South Korea's KTX high-speed rail, which is based on France's TGV technology, shares the same advantage*, said Kim Seok-gi, director of the international railroad division at South Korea's Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.
> 
> South Korea is "absolutely interested" in California's projects and meanwhile is preparing a bid for a high-speed rail project in Brazil linking Rio de Janiero, Sao Paulo and Campinas, he said.
> 
> For Japan, which pioneered high-speed rail in 1964, billions in contracts would be a welcome boost to the faltering economy. But its bullet trains, despite their impeccable record for safety and efficiency, run on dedicated tracks.
> 
> California and other states will eventually have to adapt whatever systems they choose to local conditions, and step up training of engineers and other personnel needed to build and run those trains by "orders of magnitude," said Barkan from the European rail industry group.
> 
> "*We're not going to be able to pick up train technology from elsewhere, drop it down in the United States and expect it to work perfectly," he said. "The question is where is the intellectual talent to build all these systems*?"


----------



## dl3000

dumbfword said:


> Interstate Highway was done when the country was booming and didn't have over 14 trillion in debt and massive yearly budget deficits.
> 
> Too bad the gov couldn't trim 200 billion off the defense budget for HSR projects.


And yet major projects like the Hoover Dam, Tennessee Valley Authority, etc were built during the Great Depression.


----------



## dumbfword

dl3000 said:


> And yet major projects like the Hoover Dam, Tennessee Valley Authority, etc were built during the Great Depression.


Yeah. The hoover dam cost about 48 million in 1931 which adjusted for inflation is like 600 million compared to the what? 46 BILLION needed for California high speed rail project.


----------



## HyperMiler

BarbaricManchurian said:


> China has the best HSR in the world. This is an undeniable fact.


Yea, but it wasn't designed by Chinese, both rolling stocks and railways.



> this project is at least a decade away from even being put out to bid


States better act fast if they were to tab into federal funding.



èđđeůx;63614763 said:


> Best HSR in the world, huh? I guess those tech-transfers paid off. :lol:


I think the word "license" doesn't exist in Chinese(This is a joke. Of course it does).



> But anyways, if China is offering the best bid for the cheapest price, and agrees to manufacture at least *SOME* parts in the US (this should be required by all bidders), then I say go for China.


Two problems.

1. IPR Lawsuits from Kawasaki/JR East.
2. FRA crashworthiness regulation.


----------



## greenlion

HyperMiler said:


> Yea, but it wasn't designed by Chinese, both rolling stocks and railways.


if technology is psrt of the deal, then european & Japanese got the money, & Chinese got the technics, I can't see anything wrong here


----------



## HyperMiler

greenlion said:


> if technology is psrt of the deal, then european & Japanese got the money, & Chinese got the technics, I can't see anything wrong here


Foreign vendors "licensed" their technology for use only in China, not "sold". Chinese licensees have the right to use the licensed technology within the specified territory(China only), but not outside of licensed territory. The difficulty is to get the Chinese to understand licensed != sold to the Chinese. Chinese are free to learn from licensed technology, then go back to drawing board and build their own version from scratch, like Koreans did.(This is why Alstom has been silent about KTX-II, while calling for a worldwide export ban on Chinese trains). Then the resulting product becomes exportable. But not CRH380A in its present condition.

Foreign vendors' mistake was to assume that Chinese would live up to the terms of bargain like Korea and Taiwan did based on their past experiences in use of licensed technology.


----------



## Matthieu

South Korea had its own program but it was staggering. They then bought the TGV to make the KTX while they kept progressing on their own program, of course the KTX II might have gained from the experience they've acquired from the TGV/KTX but it's nonetheless an evolution from their own program.


----------



## HyperMiler

Matthieu said:


> South Korea had its own program but it was staggering. They then bought the TGV to make the KTX while they kept progressing on their own program, of course the KTX II might have gained from the experience they've acquired from the TGV/KTX but it's nonetheless an evolution from their own program.


The key point is that KTX-II uses experiences gained from working on TGV-K but is not a copy of TGV-K; this is why KTX-II passes IPR test and why Alstom remains silent about it while competing against it in Brazil and Florida HSR projects.

If Chinese played the ball by the rule the hard way like Koreans did, then we wouldn't have this IPR disputes associated with Chinese bullet trains right now. Accordingly, Chinese are really banned from selling their train models in the US for the next 10 years or so, until they come up with a 100% indigenous design, or cut some kind of deal with Kawasaki on export of CRH380A. Cutting a deal with Kawasaki is easier than waiting 10 years for the maturity of Chinese indigenous design.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

One thing is for sure, if Kawasaki "Sold" their technology then Kawasaki no longer have the right to use that technology in question without paying loyalty to the present technology owner since that is not happening it is safe to say that Kawasaki licensed the technology in question and not sold it, now here comes the slippery part, depending on the license agreement it can apply various limitation including enhancement based on the technology in question since the patent will cover the base technology.
Based on the term of the contract, licensing could also allow the licensee to export products based on the technology in question but for every product sold loyalty occurs and the licensee is required to pay the due amount to the license holder.


----------



## hans280

dl3000 said:


> I understand that you are comparing fiscal impacts of the two projects, but are you seriously going to insinuate that labor standards, environmental standards, and material costs are comparative between the two periods?


Well, prices have gone up between 1931 and today, but "only" by a factor 15. The Hoover Dam, in our days' money, cost 9 billion USD. That said, I'm not sure it makes sense to compare dams with railway lines. My hunch would be that railways generally cost more (perhaps not in 1931, but these days a major part of the cost is the electrical alimentation, and computerised communications and safety systems...) Does anybody have recent figures? 

Let me also remind our "Amerrican brethren" that the largest federal spending on railways in US history was signed into law in the early 1860s by Abraham Lincoln. Surely we're not accusing Mr. Lincoln of being "anti-American"? :lol:


----------



## maldini

HyperMiler said:


> You and the Chinese do not understand the US and European intellectual property law then. What Chinese did is a derivative work on a prior art. Chinese modifications do not make Kawasaki's original art disappear or make it Chinese, it's still there and Chinese are infringing on Kawasaki's intellectual property under the US and EU intellectual property laws.


Perhaps you still cannot understand that US and European intellectual property law do not apply in this case. We are talking about indigenous Chinese designed trains here. The Chinese did gain experience with Kawasaki. But they then started their own indigenous design from scratch and that is why they can sell their own technology to whoever they want. The Chinese design has been tested extensively for speeds over 270km/h and crash situation.

Now you are claiming that the American IPR lawyer should have advised his Chinese client that they should seek a license. But are you a US lawyer yourself and have you looked at the CRH380 design in person at all? If you are not a lawyer and have not looked at the design, then your wild claims are totally baseless here.


----------



## maldini

The Chemist said:


> Your analogy assumes the only thing that was changed was the engine. If I take that civic and upgrade the brakes, the tires, the suspension, the aerodynamics, and increase the downforce, and run it on the smoothest race track designed for high speed driving available, as well as increasing the power, the original top speed would have little relevance to my new Civic, which I could now safely run at a much higher speed than 140mph thanks to my vast changes to the design and my use of the most advanced race track around.


Then your car is no longer a Honda Civic. It is a different car.


----------



## maldini

Ariel74 said:


> Why do you bother arguing with that HyperMiler guy? You know the type: the Korean nationalist who claims Confucius was a Korean (reminds me of the claim that Jesus was black. Same kind of inferiority complex at work). No specification of the various versions of CRH380 has been made public, and now he already claims he knows how much of the components is Chinese and how much is foreign.
> 
> He's on my ignore list where he belongs. Wish he's on yours as well, so that I can be spared of reading him even in quotes


yeah, these Koreans claiming Confucius (and other famous Chinese persons) as Koreans is just hilarious and embarrassing for them.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

The Chemist said:


> Your analogy assumes the only thing that was changed was the engine. If I take that civic and upgrade the brakes, the tires, the suspension, the aerodynamics, and increase the downforce, and run it on the smoothest race track designed for high speed driving available, as well as increasing the power, the original top speed would have little relevance to my new Civic, which I could now safely run at a much higher speed than 140mph thanks to my vast changes to the design and my use of the most advanced race track around.


While you're at it you'll need to change the gear box since the original gear box will probably not be able to transfer the extra power to the tires and if the power is twice the amount of the original then you'll need to change the power train altogether.

Amusing analogy as it is but one problem, there are no manufacturers that sales stand alone engines and even if there is one, the possibility of it fitting into the engine room is slim. Another problem in real life situation is that the chassis would probably not maintain integrity with the added power. 

Cars, train, power driven vehicle all require the balance of chassis, engine, and brakes to maintain it's expected lifetime.


----------



## kominam

maldini said:


> yeah, these Koreans claiming Confucius (and other famous Chinese persons) as Koreans is just hilarious and embarrassing for them.


Just to remind you that these accusations were fabricated by the qinese themselves at a time when qinese historians and the qcp were distorting Korean history claiming Koguryo was qinese in an attempt to steal other countries' sovereignty and if possible N. Korea, just to be at even stand and be able to reciprocate accusations. And how qinese feel good about themselves when they are able to do so.


----------



## The Chemist

maldini said:


> Then your car is no longer a Honda Civic. It is a different car.


Indeed. 

What the Chinese did to the Kawasaki design to make the CRH2/CRH380 is probably akin to what Ruf Automobile did to the Porsche 911 to make it into the Ruf CTR2 (which was so changed in all respects from the original Porsche design that it wasn't even sold as a Porsche anymore).


----------



## fragel

BarbaricManchurian said:


> China has the best HSR in the world. This is an undeniable fact.


I wouldn't say so. We may have the longest HSR network, but there is not much original technology involved. The tracks are amazing and the modification of the locomotives is impressive, but that is not enough. Let's focus on China's ability to build High-speed railways really fast with relatively low cost, after all the biggest challenge to US HSR is the funding. I can't wait to see a fully Chinese designed high-speed train but it is not going to happen soon. If we can't develop more technologies, what are we going to do after the current ones are outdated? Buy new technologies again?

The experience I had when riding the Amtrak trains was pretty good, the only problem is, too slow.....


----------



## foxmulder

fragel said:


> I wouldn't say so. We may have the longest HSR network, but there is not much original technology involved. The tracks are amazing and the modification of the locomotives is impressive, but that is not enough. Let's focus on China's ability to build High-speed railways really fast with relatively low cost, after all the biggest challenge to US HSR is the funding. I can't wait to see a fully Chinese designed high-speed train but it is not going to happen soon. If we can't develop more technologies, what are we going to do after the current ones are outdated? Buy new technologies again?
> 
> The experience I had when riding the Amtrak trains was pretty good, the only problem is, too slow.....



Well china is already developing its high speed rail technology. You can see the 380km/h trains.


----------



## fragel

foxmulder said:


> Well china is already developing its high speed rail technology. You can see the 380km/h trains.


Ok, I admit I am more than greedy I would really like to see a Chinese big name like Siemens or Bombardier, hope oneday both China South Locomotive & Rolling and China North Locomotive & Rolling can compete with the current market leaders.


----------



## fragel

Smooth Indian said:


> Even the Maglev is actually German. It was designed by transrapid.


You do understand there are high-speed maglev and low-speed maglev, don't you? And you do understand he is talking about Maglev trains (in this case high speed Maglev trains) rather than the Shanghai Maglev line built with German technology?


----------



## fragel

Smooth Indian said:


> I was referring to the Shanghai Maglev. I though Beijing Maglev was shelved because of *high cost *and public concern over safety.
> 
> Sorry for going a little off topic here, but generally i do agree with your point of indigenous vs foreign technology


What a clown. You don't even have any clue what Beijing Maglev is, and yet you can comment based on your ignorance.


----------



## foxmulder

As far as I know California has already secured 2.5 billion from federal government for the high speed rail. That is more than enough for feasibility studies. It also proves there is a high chance of this thing being built. If the biggest concern is the price, China has a real chance. Technology transfer will not be a problem for any of the bidders since all of them willing to do so. I think it will be between Germany, Japan and China. I dont think Italy, France or Korea can pull this thing. My odds:

Germany=Japan=China>France>Korea>Italy


----------



## Matthieu

I think the whole project won't happen until a long long time.


----------



## Panya

I think the lack of tweets from Arnie could just be to do with the incompatibility of the Japanese mobile phone system with the rest of the world. I believe unless you have a Japanese phone it simply won't work.


----------



## HyperMiler

Panya said:


> I think the lack of tweets from Arnie could just be to do with the incompatibility of the Japanese mobile phone system with the rest of the world. I believe unless you have a Japanese phone it simply won't work.


Arnold still tweeted about other stuffs from Japan, like meeting Tokyo governor and ministers, but didn't tweet anything about his Shinkansen ride. Arnie's Shinkansen ride may have been underwhelming because it ran at 110 km/hr or something like that, so nothing memorable to speak about.


----------



## Nexis

Matthieu said:


> I think the whole project won't happen until a long long time.


The Northeast Core High Speed Network will be done before this.....


----------



## Bandit

Yeah the only place you'll probably see HSR in the US is in the east coast. Look at the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge construction. Should've been done by now and is going to cost multiple times more than originally estimated simply because of all the bureaucracy that California is known for. What HSR will turn out to be is a big pricey white elephant.


----------



## Luli Pop

HyperMiler said:


> Germany : The Original Nazis.
> Japan : Abused US and allied POWs during WWII.
> China : Human rights abuser. Doesn't own the technology they are trying to sell.


I think no country should give the US HSR technology because of all the illegal wars, oil wars, war crimes, tortures, coup d'etat in other countries, invasions, non respect of International Laws, spying, bombing civilians with nuclear and bacteriological weapons (weapons of mass destruction), napalm, industrial spying that the US has been doing/is still doing around the world!


----------



## dumbfword

Isn't this thread about US HSR? Not China Vs. Korea, etc.


----------



## Micrav

So if you don't want Korean, Japanese, German, what do you want. French Alstom 350 km/h? Canadian Bombardier 360 km/h? Korean took their technology from the TGV of Alstom under a bad deal. Chinese took the technology from The Germans under a bad deal. I was amazed that the Koreans dared to apply for a tender in Brazil with their copy of Alstom first generation TGV. But hey, who did the bad deal here? America stopped developping railway material too long time ago. Therefore we alway say that America is under drug of petrol, us too, but not as deep as Uncle Sam... If I would caricature, *I would say, the only thing that is green in America is the dollar...* (untrue because the country is beautiful to see), but there is a part of truth in my sentence... I hope America would be able to develop new own technologies from scratch, start from white page to build new trains... And why not? Lacking smart people? Lacking engineers? Kennedy has sent men to the moon in less than 10 years... Not because it was easy, but because it was hard!


----------



## HyperMiler

Micrav said:


> I was amazed that the Koreans dared to apply for a tender in Brazil with their copy of Alstom first generation TGV.


And don't forget Florida and California too. Rotem will keep bidding on US HSR projects with KTX-II, and Alstom won't sue them in the US. Why? Because there is nothing to sue Rotem on. Alstom suing Rotem is like Boeing suing Airbus for designing planes that are similar-looking to Boeing. Do Airbus planes look similar to Boeing's? Yes. Are they related? No. Would Boeing be able to win in court by suing Airbus for IPR infringement? Nope. This is why Alstom whose CEO called out for a world-wide ban on Chinese train export for IPR infringement remains silent on KTX-II even in the US, because Alstom suing Rotem is like Boeing suing Airbus for IPR infringement. Rotem learned from Alstom the art of bullet train engineering, then went onto design its own one from scratch over the course of 11 years, fixing most of TGV's design errors in the process.



> I hope America would be able to develop new own technologies from scratch.


Actually the US bullet train project by former Project Constellation(The new moon rocket that Obama killed) engineers is based on KTX-II. Rotem's IPR on KTX-II even passes US government agency's standard too. http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/space-florida-something-korean-government


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak's unveils a 117 Billion $$ Bos-Wash Corridor High Speed Rail Network expansion by 2040*



















& 



















http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_on_bi_ge/us_amtrak_s_future

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106428077390771295791.0004907d7596fa9f0421a&z=6
This with the combination of the 2030 Amtrak Northeast Upgrading and Expansion plan will put the Northeast back on the map. Also in addition with the planned 4-6,000 miles of restored and New Commuter Rail lines in New Jersey , New York , Pennsylvania , Delaware , Rhode Island , Massachusetts , New Hampshire , Maine , Vermont , Virgina , Maryland and DC.


----------



## HyperMiler

Getting the land for it would be hell.


----------



## MWC

HyperMiler said:


> Getting the land for it would be hell.


I bet there would be so many delays that most of us would never see it complete.


----------



## Nexis

Most of this plan will use existing Railways like the Harlem line and NEC and Interstate ROW.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ The general specs for Interstates wouldn't allow, at least in the present form, enough curve radius (let alone vertical gradients if that is the case) required for 300km/h tracks. Are they coming with new technology for the new lines, like maglev?


----------



## dumbfword

It'll never happen.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The general specs for Interstates wouldn't allow, at least in the present form, enough curve radius (let alone vertical gradients if that is the case) required for 300km/h tracks. Are they coming with new technology for the new lines, like maglev?


Some Interstates can handle HSR , some can't , it varies. There is so much unused ROW here in the NE they can use , but most of that will be restored Commuter Rail. Its Regular HSR , this plan involves alot of Tunnels under Philly , NYC , Baltimore and Boston. 



dumbfword said:


> It'll never happen.


Why not? If a 17 billion $$ new Subway line can be built a New HSR Network can.


----------



## plasmalover

> Why not? If a 17 billion $$ new Subway line can be built a New HSR Network can.


I highly doubt this new network will be build this century let alone in 2040. The US has so much debt that there will never be 117B for this project. I do not see the private sector interested in this line because most rail networks have a difficult time producing profits. The US is not China where a comparable northeast line is built in 3 years ie. Gaungzhou-Wuhan HSR line.

In 30 years; we will be hoping for this line just has CA and NV residents have been hoping for the HSR network from LA to LA Vegas. IMO, that line has a higher probability to be built than this Northeast one because it is in NV best interest to have the line for easier access to Las Vegas for Southern CA residents.


----------



## Nexis

I don't really think its going to cost 117 Billion $$ , more like 45-50 Billion $$. However all the planned Restored and Expanded Commuter Rail and Urban Rail lines will cost between 50-200 billion $$$. The 6,000 miles of restored commuter and Urban Rail usually will happen , most of it is cheap. The Urban Rail is more expensive , but i do see something like this being built in the Bos-Wash Corridor.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Nexis said:


> I don't really think its going to cost 117 Billion $$ , more like 45-50 Billion $$. However all the planned Restored and Expanded Commuter Rail and Urban Rail lines will cost between 50-200 billion $$$. The 6,000 miles of restored commuter and Urban Rail usually will happen , most of it is cheap. The Urban Rail is more expensive , but i do see something like this being built in the Bos-Wash Corridor.


We're talking 2040 here. Trying to predict the cost of anything at all related to a project like this over such a long timeframe - the land costs, cost of technology, value of the dollar itself - that's practically science fiction.
It's like someone from 1980 trying to predict how many DMarken a new 21st Century station for Stuttgart might cost.

I think it's a cool plan, and I suppose we could talk a lot about the feasibility of it, but anything at all regarding the price tag - that's just fiction, nothing more.


----------



## mgk920

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The general specs for Interstates wouldn't allow, at least in the present form, enough curve radius (let alone vertical gradients if that is the case) required for 300km/h tracks. Are they coming with new technology for the new lines, like maglev?


My belief is that this will be conventional steel wheel/steel rail. Some of the I-routes on the NYC-BOS part are remarkably straight, too (I have driven all of the ones along the shown corridor), although such a line will require extensive tunneling and viaduct bridging, including the parts built along the I-routes (I-684, I-84 and I-95). Remember, for example, that many of the new true HSR routes in Germany are built roughly following autobahns and that they, too, require extensive tunneling and viaduct bridging. One interesting part, they can easily make use of I-95's median from the Foxboro, MA area to MA 128/I-93 and much of the unbuilt I-95 corridor from there almost to South Station.

Also, is developing a direct through connection between Boston South Station and Boston North Station part of these proposals?

Mike


----------



## manrush

Yeah, maybe the US could get some advice from JR Central, SNCF or DB on how to make railway networks.


----------



## mattec

meh..., what a waste of money, especially when we can't afford it...


----------



## binhai

never gonna be built, they should focus more on upgrading the Northeast Corridor to 250-300km/h in all sections


----------



## Xusein

The biggest problem with this plan isn't the cost (since it would take a long time to build and is developed through 3 decades), it is the fact that there are so much NIMBYs in the way. I don't think it'll even be easy to get this thing through Connecticut, let alone the entire thing.

But at least the government is starting to be serious for HSR in the place that it would work best!


----------



## mattec

I would rather see us upgrade local airports and promote air taxis; you wouldn't really need to worry about NIBYs and the cost would most likely be signifigantly lower.


----------



## Xusein

^^ Actually there are a lot of NIMBYs in what you are proposing as well. 

Upgrading local airports can get in messy disputes with local businesses and communities, and encouraging more air travel would make environmental groups and regulations cry foul. Moreover more airplanes in the sky would also make things worse for our already overworked air traffic controllers (especially in the NE corridor which is just SWAMPED with it and problems arisen heavily).

Moreover when it comes to dealing with infrastructure, the optimal situation isn't finding the CHEAPEST solution, it's finding the most cost-effective with the best end-result. Investing in our woefully underutilized rail system which already has most of the infrastructure already is around means less oil-dependency, a diversification of nodes, and alternatives. Nobody these days except for highly-paid professionals would take air-taxis from NY to Boston or DC.


----------



## Geography

How the heck is it projected to cost $117 billion? China's entire HSR network by 2020, which has 16,000 km of track and dozens of new stations, is projected to cost just over twice that amount, $300 billion. Is Amtrack going to build new stations?


----------



## dumbfword

Geography said:


> How the heck is it projected to cost $117 billion? China's entire HSR network by 2020, which has 16,000 km of track and dozens of new stations, is projected to cost just over twice that amount, $300 billion. Is Amtrack going to build new stations?


Labor, building materials, etc cost more stateside.


----------



## mattec

Xusein said:


> Investing in our woefully underutilized rail system which already has most of the infrastructure already is around means less oil-dependency, a diversification of nodes, and alternatives.



Aren't most, if not all of the rail lines in the US privately owned. Also, I wouldn't say the rail network is under utilized, it is just geared more towards freight service than passenger service because freight service, unlike passenger service, can actually turn a profit.


Also, back on the idea of air taxis, I see your points; I was really basing most of my idea off of my experiance when I took one run by LocAir from Beckley to BWI. It was actually a lot more conveniant than I expected; I didn't have to go through security and it was fairly cheap.


----------



## Suburbanist

The biggest mistake one could make is to say that the US rail system is inefficient. US has one of the highest shares of rail freight transport among developed countries. US railroads, private, unsubsidized and tax-paying, are a commercial and financial success after a painful reorganization that last 35 years.


----------



## aab7772003

Suburbanist said:


> The biggest mistake one could make is to say that the US rail system is inefficient. US has one of the highest shares of rail freight transport among developed countries. US railroads, private, unsubsidized and tax-paying, are a commercial and financial success after a painful reorganization that last 35 years.


With your own twisted way of looking at things, of course it is. How EFFICIENT is that when the rail travel time from Washington, DC to Pittsburgh is nine hours and delays of four or five hours are so common?


----------



## Xusein

mattec said:


> *Aren't most, if not all of the rail lines in the US privately owned. *Also, I wouldn't say the rail network is under utilized, it is just geared more towards freight service than passenger service because freight service, unlike passenger service, can actually turn a profit.


Not this corridor (NEC), it is either owned by Amtrak outright or by state transportation authorities. Freight lines however do have trackage rights but most freight transport is done by truck on the East Coast. The NEC is actually over-utilized though perhaps because of the fact that hundreds of trains use it per day. Majority of the US's passenger rail travel is on or branches from the Northeast Corridor.


----------



## mgk920

Xusein said:


> Not this corridor (NEC), it is either owned by Amtrak outright or by state transportation authorities. Freight lines however do have trackage rights but most freight transport is done by truck on the East Coast. The NEC is actually over-utilized though perhaps because of the fact that hundreds of trains use it per day. Majority of the US's passenger rail travel is on or branches from the Northeast Corridor.


There is a paralleling freight line along the NEC at least in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, that CSX line is only single track. There is an active proposal to build a new cross-harbor freight railroad tunnel between the Middletown, NJ area and NYC (Brooklyn) that would take a LOT of trucks off of the roads in the northeast, but I am unaware of its likely construction schedule, if any has even been set. Right now, the southernmost place where a standard-sized North American railroad freight car can cross the Hudson River is the CSX bridge that is along side of the NYSThruway Berkshire Extension bridge just south of Albany, NY.

Also, in addition to the NEC, Amtrak outright owns its line between northwest Indiana and Grand Rapids, MI.

It would be very interesting, indeed, if a way could be found to convert North America's railroads to an 'open access' system where the track infrastructure and the trains are owned, operated and maintained separately from each other and anyone who is qualified, their equipment meets minimum technical standards and they are willing and able to pay the necessary fees and tolls can operate wherever they want to (much like with the highways, airports, sea ports, etc), similar to what is now found in places like the UK and Germany. I firmly believe that conversion to such a scheme would take additional freight traffic off of the highways as quickly as track capacity could be expanded.

Mike


----------



## Simfan34

I don't know what's most distressing- the fact they plan to get this done in 30 years, the unlikeliness of this ever being done, how much this will cost, or how outdated this will be by the time it's finished. Heck, Somalia will have a longer HSR by the time this is done. (you have no idea how enterprising the Somalis are until you look in the Somalia picture thread!)


----------



## Suburbanist

With all due respect, you can compare setting up some cell phone towers and building a transportation network.


----------



## Simfan34

Suburbanist said:


> With all due respect, you can compare setting up some cell phone towers and building a transportation network.


???


----------



## SpeedoPro

back to the topic.. why does it take so long to build this thing? is this just a concept study? forgive me but 30 years to build a hsr system just sounds so ridiculous. it didn't take japan, france, germany, south korea, or taiwan nearly as long to build their hsr systems... hno:


----------



## Simfan34

SpeedoPro said:


> back to the topic.. why does it take so long to build this thing? is this just a concept study? forgive me but 30 years to build a hsr system just sounds so ridiculous. it didn't take japan, france, germany, south korea, or taiwan nearly as long to build their hsr systems... hno:


NIMBYs, bureaucracy, corruption, more NIMBYs, people who are like "I want HSR in MY town!", environmentalists, traditionalists, preservationists, lobbyists, particulaly the automobile lobby, the oil lobby, the asphalt lobby (it exists), the airlines, people concerned about the holocaust, people whose homes will have to be torn down, even more NIMBYs...


----------



## TheKorean

Environmentalists? Dont they know rail traveling is the most environmentally friendly way to travel?


----------



## Simfan34

TheKorean said:


> Environmentalists? Dont they know rail traveling is the most environmentally friendly way to travel?


But think of all the tress that would have to be town down; the habitats cleaved into two... I suppose _conservationists _would be better here.


----------



## desertpunk

mattec said:


> I would rather see us upgrade local airports and promote air taxis; you wouldn't really need to worry about NIBYs and the cost would most likely be signifigantly lower.


The whole point of developing HSR in the US is exactly to avoid having to expand and upgrade airports and further clog the already congested air corridors in the Northeast. That approach costs many extra billions and involves so many lawsuits and environmental impact fights from NIMBYs that a simple runway in the US can cost as much as an entire major airport does in China.

And cost is a big factor in why this plan will take so long to implement. Assuming that the deficit gets under control after 2015, there will still be a lot of resistance to spending these sums until either the economy recovers fully or the situation on the interstates and in the air corridors gets so much worse. The rights of way generally exist already but there's objections from the freights as to sharing any rail -and it's far better to separate the passengers from the freights, so doing that, as well as eliminating crossings, will account for much of the cost. Utilities will also need upgrading. Either way, this plan will get done because the ridership is there, the will is there, and the alternatives could actually cost more.


----------



## diablo234

desertpunk said:


> The whole point of developing HSR in the US is exactly to avoid having to expand and upgrade airports and further clog the already congested air corridors in the Northeast. That approach costs many extra billions and involves so many lawsuits and environmental impact fights from NIMBYs that a simple runway in the US can cost as much as an entire major airport does in China.


Exactly.

Even the airports and airlines want high speed rail because that means that they don't have to invest as much money in commuter aircraft to serve smaller/mid sized cities and instead just have the airline codeshare with the rail company. Amtrak already has a codesharing agreement with Continental Airlines in the Northeast Corridor.

American Airlines and Continental Airlines are even backing construction of a high speed rail line in Texas.


----------



## mgk920

diablo234 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Even the airports and airlines want high speed rail because that means that they don't have to invest as much money in commuter aircraft to serve smaller/mid sized cities and instead just have the airline codeshare with the rail company. Amtrak already has a codesharing agreement with Continental Airlines in the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> American Airlines and Continental Airlines are even backing construction of a high speed rail line in Texas.


IIRC, it was intensive lobbying by Southwest Airlines that put the kibosh on a planned Houston/San Antonio/DFW Texas triangle HSR proposal back in the 1980s and/or early 1990s.

Mike


----------



## diablo234

mgk920 said:


> IIRC, it was intensive lobbying by Southwest Airlines that put the kibosh on a planned Houston/San Antonio/DFW Texas triangle HSR proposal back in the 1980s and/or early 1990s.
> 
> Mike


True, Southwest played a huge role in shooting down the Texas HSR. Now however since Southwest's business model has changed in the last 10-20 years (ie flying more long distance routes, less point to point service) they are likely to face less opposition compared with before.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ In any case, I think airlines in US wouldn't watch, passively, HSR systems take their short-haul market, especially because it is so more important to them it was for European airlines on the onset of HSR in Spain, France and Italy.

As long as those HSR services are not subsidized on its operation, and have a segregation of infra-structure (government) and rolling stock (private), it would be nice to see the market forces operating full-throttle.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ In any case, I think airlines in US wouldn't watch, passively, HSR systems take their short-haul market, especially because it is so more important to them it was for European airlines on the onset of HSR in Spain, France and Italy.
> 
> As long as those HSR services are not subsidized on its operation, and have a segregation of infra-structure (government) and rolling stock (private), it would be nice to see the market forces operating full-throttle.


Oh shut up you ,Highways and Airports are subsided and you don't have a problem with that.  You are the weirdest poster on this site , you don't seem to know what your views are. Heres a tip stay out of the US , we don't want non-Progressive thinking ppl.hno: As Rail becomes more popular here and cities start building systems that would limit it you to a few cities.


----------



## mgk920

I actually agree and also would like to see the rails in North America treated just like the roads, airports and so forth - with separate ownership of the track infrastructure and operations - where anyone can operate anywhere as long as their crews are properly qualified, their equipment meets minimum technical standards and they are willing and able to pay the necessary fees and tolls.

If that could be done here, once the transition is complete and everything settles in, I fully expect a new 'Golden Age' of railroading to emerge and the track infrastructure authorities/owners will have to start expanding capacity, laying new track along existing lines, opening new and reopening abandoned routes and so forth and FAST.

The big problem is getting from where we are now to that ideal (addressing the existing railroad companies' property rights issues, etc).

Mike


----------



## AlexNL

Don't forget the Thalys PBKA sets built between 1995 and 1998. EMU's are most likely indeed now that even Alstom builds emu's.


----------



## makita09

^^ Thanks yes it slipped my mind.


----------



## luci203

So is safe to say that *NONE* of the "green" lines will be operational by 2015? :dunno:


----------



## sekelsenmat

luci203 said:


> So is safe to say that *NONE* of the "green" lines will be operational by 2015? :dunno:


Some small portions will probably be ready in 2015:
* Orlando - Tampa
* One piece of the californian line
* Saint Louis - Chicago

More details here:

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...tive-transportation-a-difficult-election-day/


----------



## ruffaramboo

^can you give us a clear construction status


----------



## luci203

^^ did they move 1 stone?


----------



## sekelsenmat

luci203 said:


> ^^ did they move 1 stone?


No.


----------



## luci203

sekelsenmat said:


> No.


Nice... :bash:

50% of internal flights are 300-600 miles (perfect distance for high speed trains)

Is easy to see why they don't want to build HSL to "mess up" the market.

Another crushing victory for big oil and airline companies lobby. :cheers1:


----------



## hmmwv

sekelsenmat said:


> Some small portions will probably be ready in 2015:
> * Orlando - Tampa
> * One piece of the californian line
> * Saint Louis - Chicago
> 
> More details here:
> 
> http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...tive-transportation-a-difficult-election-day/


Agreed, for one, Eugene-Portland-Seattle line probably won't be built until 2030.


----------



## TheKorean

Canadian should chip in and extend the line to Vancouver. Easier transportation between Seattle and Vancouver means more money coming in to Vanoucer from Seattle and Portland. Because more people will visit Vancouver.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Agreed. I live in Seattle and I would use high speed rail to Vancouver or Portland more often for sure. I use Amtrak to go to Portland sometime.


----------



## hmmwv

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ Agreed. I live in Seattle and I would use high speed rail to Vancouver or Portland more often for sure. I use Amtrak to go to Portland sometime.


Most definitely, I'm tired of the traffic jams on I5, but the constant landslides along the current Amtrak line is a potential problem for the future HSR line. Right now they can't even keep a decent service record on the Sounder commuter train during winter months.


----------



## Nexis

That map wasn't even close to be realistic , mostly a pipe dream...


----------



## hmmwv

Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail
(AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is calling for a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail, as he seeks to use infrastructure spending to jumpstart job creation.
An initial $8 billion in spending will be part of the budget plan Obama is set to release Monday. If Congress approves the plan, the money would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects. The White House wouldn't say where the money for the rest of the program would come from, though it's likely Obama would seek funding in future budgets or transportation bills.
Obama's push for high-speed rail spending is part of his broad goal of creating jobs in the short-term and increasing American competitiveness for the future through new spending on infrastructure, education and innovation. During last month's State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.
At the same time he's calling for new spending on sectors like high-speed rail in the upcoming budget, Obama also has pledged to cut overall spending as he seeks to bring down the nation's mounting deficit. The White House has said environmental programs for the Great Lakes, and block grants for community service and community development are among the programs that will face cuts.
But it's unlikely the cuts Obama proposes in the budget will be enough to appease the GOP. Republicans now controlling the House have promised to slash domestic agencies' budgets by nearly 20 percent for the coming year.
The White House has said cuts must be cautious, arguing that drastic reductions in spending could cause the still-fragile economic recovery to stall. Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday the administration wouldn't compromise when it comes to spending on the infrastructure, education and innovation programs Obama is touting.
"We cannot compromise. The rest of the world is not compromising," Biden said in Philadelphia at an event announcing the high-speed rail initiative.
Obama's call for increased spending on high-speed rail projects is nothing new. He's long seen the sector as an area of opportunity for creating jobs and improving the nation's transportation system. His administration awarded $10 billion in federal grants for high-speed rail projects last year, including $2.3 billion for California to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego; and $1.25 billion to Florida to build a rail line connecting Tampa on the West Coast with Orlando in the middle of the state, eventually going south to Miami.
Some Republicans have been critical of Obama's plans to expand high-speed rail across the country. House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., has urged the administration to focus its spending on the crowded Northeast rail corridor.
"Rather than focusing on the Northeast corridor, the most congested corridor in the nation and the only corridor owned by the federal government, the administration continues to squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal projects," Mica said Tuesday in a statement.
Amtrak already operates Acela service between Boston and Washington that briefly reaches speeds over 110 mph — generally considered the threshold for high speed — but the trains are forced to travel slower most of the time because they make frequent stops and because they share tracks with slower freight trains.
Last summer, Obama laid out a plan to invest $50 billion in highways, bridges, transit, high-speed rail and airports, adding it to the first year of a six-year transportation bill. Congress didn't act on the proposal before adjourning last year, but LaHood has said he hopes to have a bill on Obama's desk by August.
Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


----------



## hmmwv

Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail
(AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is calling for a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail, as he seeks to use infrastructure spending to jumpstart job creation.
An initial $8 billion in spending will be part of the budget plan Obama is set to release Monday. If Congress approves the plan, the money would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects. The White House wouldn't say where the money for the rest of the program would come from, though it's likely Obama would seek funding in future budgets or transportation bills.
Obama's push for high-speed rail spending is part of his broad goal of creating jobs in the short-term and increasing American competitiveness for the future through new spending on infrastructure, education and innovation. During last month's State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.
At the same time he's calling for new spending on sectors like high-speed rail in the upcoming budget, Obama also has pledged to cut overall spending as he seeks to bring down the nation's mounting deficit. The White House has said environmental programs for the Great Lakes, and block grants for community service and community development are among the programs that will face cuts.
But it's unlikely the cuts Obama proposes in the budget will be enough to appease the GOP. Republicans now controlling the House have promised to slash domestic agencies' budgets by nearly 20 percent for the coming year.
The White House has said cuts must be cautious, arguing that drastic reductions in spending could cause the still-fragile economic recovery to stall. Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday the administration wouldn't compromise when it comes to spending on the infrastructure, education and innovation programs Obama is touting.
"We cannot compromise. The rest of the world is not compromising," Biden said in Philadelphia at an event announcing the high-speed rail initiative.
Obama's call for increased spending on high-speed rail projects is nothing new. He's long seen the sector as an area of opportunity for creating jobs and improving the nation's transportation system. His administration awarded $10 billion in federal grants for high-speed rail projects last year, including $2.3 billion for California to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego; and $1.25 billion to Florida to build a rail line connecting Tampa on the West Coast with Orlando in the middle of the state, eventually going south to Miami.
Some Republicans have been critical of Obama's plans to expand high-speed rail across the country. House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., has urged the administration to focus its spending on the crowded Northeast rail corridor.
"Rather than focusing on the Northeast corridor, the most congested corridor in the nation and the only corridor owned by the federal government, the administration continues to squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal projects," Mica said Tuesday in a statement.
Amtrak already operates Acela service between Boston and Washington that briefly reaches speeds over 110 mph — generally considered the threshold for high speed — but the trains are forced to travel slower most of the time because they make frequent stops and because they share tracks with slower freight trains.
Last summer, Obama laid out a plan to invest $50 billion in highways, bridges, transit, high-speed rail and airports, adding it to the first year of a six-year transportation bill. Congress didn't act on the proposal before adjourning last year, but LaHood has said he hopes to have a bill on Obama's desk by August.
Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


----------



## Zero Gravity

^^ fucking cut 200 billion of the budget for the DoD, give 2 billion more to foreign aid to pakistan and the like, draw out of afghanistan and iraq = half the fiscal problem solved. 

Seriously, don't comment on that, it's just what immediately pops into my mind and i know this isn't the place to discuss this, however i wondered if any of you were aware of a serious forum (like skyscrapercity is) where you can discuss political matters like this one. I know there are a bunch from either side, but i want a neutral board where people don't argue according to ideology but rather listen to who has the better arguments and can support them with profound facts. 

anyways, back on topic. let's just hope cali hsr happens. Maybe this could spark a sort of revolution transportwise, away from heavily individual traffic to a balanced system.


----------



## Suburbanist

If HSR is build as a replacement for short-haul air transport, it's got good chances in US. If it is build an "enhanced" existing railways with 90mph "high" speeds focused on commuting routes, it will fail big time.

Yet, I guess economically speaking expanding interstates would me more sound policy, but once a decision is made to invest in rail, is best to have 300mi of top-notch sensible high-speed routes of 200mph than 600km of a patchwork of upgraded routes full of restrictions, bends and intermediate stations.


----------



## TheKorean

Zero Gravity said:


> ^^ fucking cut 200 billion of the budget for the DoD, give 2 billion more to foreign aid to pakistan and the like, draw out of afghanistan and iraq = half the fiscal problem solved.
> 
> Seriously, don't comment on that, it's just what immediately pops into my mind and i know this isn't the place to discuss this, however i wondered if any of you were aware of a serious forum (like skyscrapercity is) where you can discuss political matters like this one. I know there are a bunch from either side, but i want a neutral board where people don't argue according to ideology but rather listen to who has the better arguments and can support them with profound facts.
> 
> anyways, back on topic. let's just hope cali hsr happens. Maybe this could spark a sort of revolution transportwise, away from heavily individual traffic to a balanced system.


Cutting any more money from defense is idiotic and insane at this point. Our military need more support to handle all the responsibilities they have. Fighting terrorism and keeping the Chinese in check aint cheap.


----------



## Nexis

TheKorean said:


> Cutting any more money from defense is idiotic and insane at this point. Our military need more support to handle all the responsibilities they have. *Fighting terrorism *and keeping the Chinese in check aint cheap.


Fighting 2 Wars that we don't need and are bogus... I want my tax $$$ to be spent in my country not over seas...


----------



## TheKorean

We dont need wars, they are inevitable. 

We have no choice.


----------



## luci203

Nexis said:


> Somebody sounds panariod.......listening to *Fox news* eh....


Rush Limbaugh... :gossip:


----------



## K_

mgk920 said:


> The problem with the Acela is that northeast of NYC, the NEC mainline that it uses hugs the coastline with unbelievable amounts of tight curvature, especially in Connecticut, that its current speed is as fast as it physically can go.


Acela goes as fast as current regulations allow it to go. The limit is not physics, its bureaucracy.
It could go faster if higher speeds in the curves where permitted.


----------



## sekelsenmat

TheKorean said:


> I think the best way to improve our rail system is to upgrade Acela and show how clean, efficient, and convenient rail traveling is.
> 
> Imagine Acela going at 200mph, it would take 3 hours or even less between Boston and DC.


How long does Acela currently take to do Boston->DC?


----------



## Fan Railer

sekelsenmat said:


> How long does Acela currently take to do Boston->DC?


little less than 6 hr iirc


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Hence impractical as a true competitor for air (I doubt many people drive or take buses all the way down I-95 and NJ Turnpike from BOS to WAS).

As for FRA regulations, they are written with an extreme concern about safety. They might be reviewed - but carefully.


----------



## sekelsenmat

What's the ticket price currently?


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> As for FRA regulations, they are written with an extreme concern about safety. They might be reviewed - but carefully.


They might be written with the intention to provide safety, but they are certainly not written with an extreme concern about obtaining safety in an efficient way. Looking at how other countries achieve rail that is at the same time more performant and safer does make a lot of sense.

Acela is allowed to go around curves about as fast as a French TGV is, where the latter isn't even tilting. Tilting trains in Europe go around curves a lot faster. What does it have to do with safety that this isn't allowed in the US?


----------



## Suburbanist

K_ said:


> Acela is allowed to go around curves about as fast as a French TGV is, where the latter isn't even tilting. Tilting trains in Europe go around curves a lot faster. What does it have to do with safety that this isn't allowed in the US?


A lower tolerance for failure in US than in Europe. If fatal accidents happen in rail transport (other than suicides, vehicles running through closed gates), some people here have a very fatalist attitude: "meh, that happens, we just suck it and move on".


----------



## Xusein

Not really. US has a very low attention span when it comes to infrastructural disasters.


----------



## Xusein

Florida’s Governor Rejects Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail Line
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html


----------



## aquablue

Xusein said:


> Florida’s Governor Rejects Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail Line
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html


Oh well, Florida can reap the benefits of wider highways and years of more traffic and congestion.

This is the second HSR project that state has rejected now....i think it's time to move on to somewhere serious.


----------



## xXFallenXx

Xusein said:


> Florida’s Governor Rejects Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail Line
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html


Can't say I'm sad or surprised about that.
Give it to us, we'll put it to good use here.


----------



## LtBk

Florida is such a stupid state, and they get what they deserve.


----------



## manrush

This rejection of progress is sheer anti-Americanism on the part of the Florida governor.


----------



## TheKorean

Good more money for Acela improvement.


----------



## Nexis

TheKorean said:


> Good more money for Acela improvement.


Thats not going to the Acela , its going to Cali and IL. The Acela is getting 70 more cars though...


----------



## OakRidge

manrush said:


> This rejection of progress is sheer anti-Americanism on the part of the Florida governor.


Using federal money to fund a high speed train does not equal progress.


----------



## BoulderGrad

If I had to list the critical corridors for high speed rail, Orlando to Tampa wouldn't really be one of them. But I guess it did seem to be the lob they wanted to knock out of the park. Kindof like using Epcot to demo monorails. Just as well I suppose.

If I ruled the US with the iron fist I sometimes wish I could wield, it'd be the biggest cities first. LA to Bay Area, DC to NY, and the Chicago Spiderweb. If a governor got in my way, I'd build the tracks straight through their state's capitol building .

Too many people want this for it to NOT happen somewhere. And Florida will be kicking itself for passing on the chance to be one of the first.


----------



## HARTride 2012

manrush said:


> This rejection of progress is sheer anti-Americanism on the part of the Florida governor.


Agreed. The guy is a crook. He needs to be ousted.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl

aquablue said:


> Oh well, Florida can reap the benefits of wider highways and years of more traffic and congestion.
> 
> This is the second HSR project that state has rejected now....i think it's time to move on to somewhere serious.


Wider highways? Ha! More traffic congestion, definitely! This backwards state can't do anything right, highways are terrible, mass transit barely exists, it goes on and on. The governor is a crook and I can't believe how stupid the people here were to elect him.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> Using federal money to fund a high speed train does not equal progress.


Then I suppose same said federal monies when applied to highways and airports are also "not conducive to progress". Yeah, let the airlines pay to build the airports, and have toll roads with congestion pricing: sounds like "progress" of the intellectually honest type to me...


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> A lower tolerance for failure in US than in Europe. If fatal accidents happen in rail transport (other than suicides, vehicles running through closed gates), some people here have a very fatalist attitude: "meh, that happens, we just suck it and move on".


If the US has a "lower tolerance for failure", then why do the data not show this? In most European countries, in most years, the number of fatalities where a failure by the railway is the cause is exactly zero. For example: In Belgium there have been exactly 8 train collisions with fatalities in the last hundred years. The last time passengers got killed in a train accident in the Netherlands was 1992. And I can go on. Serious railway accidents in Europe are so extremely rare that no meaningful trends can be gotten from the data.

Seeing how the US builds road and rail vehicles in a way that causes the vehicle to sacrifice the occupants in order to save itself in a collision I would say that the US has a much higher tolerance for carnage in transport than the rest of the world.


----------



## K_

BoulderGrad said:


> If I ruled the US with the iron fist I sometimes wish I could wield, it'd be the biggest cities first. LA to Bay Area, DC to NY, and the Chicago Spiderweb. If a governor got in my way, I'd build the tracks straight through their state's capitol building .


In your position however I'd first investigate why upgrading an existing line so it can have a modest diesel light rail service run over it costs 15 million $ per mile in the US, a price that buys you a state of the art High Speed Railway in Spain or France...


----------



## Maarten Otto

Xusein said:


> Florida’s Governor Rejects Tampa-Orlando High-Speed Rail Line
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html


Funny, You spend over 250 billion a year to play around in someone else country for oil, and yet you can't pay for a decent health system and good transport facilities in your own country.

Good luck America in surviving the next century. We'll be laughing when you pay $20 the gallon at the petrol station.


----------



## makita09

^^ Yeah it'll be great when those same Republican senators who held back the country's progress start blaming the rest of the world for their mistakes and start calling on the president to invade the entire rest of the world.



K_ said:


> Seeing how the US builds road and rail vehicles in a way that causes the vehicle to sacrifice the occupants in order to save itself in a collision I would say that the US has a much higher tolerance for carnage in transport than the rest of the world.


Going back to the tilting at speeds on corners (where no tilting is required in Europe) would suggest a laxer tolerance on the the actual track geometry - if one is not certain that the cant of the track is precisely what it is supposed to be then the obvious answer is lower the speed accordingly, add in using tilt and you're only back up to the original speed. However I would say that the UK has slightly stricter speeds on curves on conventional lines like the NEC, and so does France though not as strict, but both countries allow higher speeds on curves on dedicated HSLs. I can only imagine that is because the track geometry is assumed to be (or is known to be) better?


----------



## Suburbanist

Maarten Otto said:


> Funny, You spend over 250 billion a year to play around in someone else country for oil, and yet you can't pay for a decent health system and good transport facilities in your own country.
> 
> Good luck America in surviving the next century. We'll be laughing when you pay $20 the gallon at the petrol station.


Electric car will solve those problems in the medium term. US has got plenty of coal and uranium anyway.


----------



## HARTride 2012

I-275westcoastfl said:


> Wider highways? Ha! More traffic congestion, definitely! This backwards state can't do anything right, highways are terrible, mass transit barely exists, it goes on and on. The governor is a crook and I can't believe how stupid the people here were to elect him.


Agreed.

What really gets me though is this guy didn't even wait for what he said he was going to wait for (studies, private companies, etc), he based everything on what the Tea Party was telling him to do. He is a true moron and I heavily regret voting for him.



makita09 said:


> ^^ Yeah it'll be great when those same Republican senators who held back the country's progress start blaming the rest of the world for their mistakes and start calling on the president to invade the entire rest of the world.


I'm willing to bet this will happen after 2012, when the US has an all-GOP government & president again.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> Electric car will solve those problems in the medium term. US has got plenty of coal and uranium anyway.


And that would make electricity prices skyrocket for everyone. But it is pretty clear that in your vision cars are so indispensable that no side effect of them matters.


----------



## krulstaartje

I thought the Florida scheme didn't sound that good anyhow. Time savings were minimal because the trains did just 250 kph and public transport on both sides is abysmal so you would have to transfer to a car or very slow buses.

Let's hope the money is transferred to the California project (who applied for $2bn more than they actually got).


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I heard this HSR money that went to Florida to build one might have go to few another states including my home state, Washington. If that happens, thank you Florida for giving us some HSR money so we can build HSR sooner than expected. 

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/02/16/florida-rejects-hsr-money-may-come-to-washington/


----------



## HARTride 2012

krulstaartje said:


> I thought the Florida scheme didn't sound that good anyhow. Time savings were minimal because the trains did just 250 kph and public transport on both sides is abysmal so you would have to transfer to a car or very slow buses.
> 
> Let's hope the money is transferred to the California project (who applied for $2bn more than they actually got).


That is true, In Tampa, the incompetent suburb/unincorporated county voters shot down a penny tax increase that would have brought improved bus service and light rail. In Orlando, they are planning a commuter rail system, but our governor may cancel that too.


----------



## Athenasaints

I love the electric cars versus HSR comparison. Electric cars don't solve traffic congestion problem, especially in range of 50 miles radius centered around a major city. A more valid comparison is bus/subway versus electric cars. In addition, there is a good chance lithium, a vital componenet of electric car battery, is mostly found in Bolivia. A country that is not too keen on getting cozy with the USA. It is same problem all over again, USA's energy supply is control by another country.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> Electric car will solve those problems in the medium term. US has got plenty of coal and uranium anyway.


So you would support large scale government incentives to purchase electric cars? More subsidies for the automobile, but I thought the free market selected the car as man's preferred source of transportation?

And coal is a HORRIFIC source of power, from the way it is extracted to the byproducts of its combustion (mercury, sulfur dioxide, C02).


----------



## binhai

time to redirect the money to california where they'll actually have an effective hsr system


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> So you would support large scale government incentives to purchase electric cars? More subsidies for the automobile, but I thought the free market selected the car as man's preferred source of transportation?


Maybe some tax breaks, temporary, to make them attractive. Most if not all PT systems in US are money-losing because they can't charge higher fares without losing ridership (though I think they should promote a reality shock instantly increasing the prices to cover at least the operational costs of running the vehicles).



> And coal is a HORRIFIC source of power, from the way it is extracted to the byproducts of its combustion (mercury, sulfur dioxide, C02).


Sure. It is kinda toxic, at least until underground CO2 storage becomes reality. But the point I was making is that is much of a US-sourced fuel, no needs to deal with unstable governments abroad to guarantee the supply of coal.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Maybe some tax breaks, temporary, to make them attractive. Most if not all PT systems in US are money-losing because they can't charge higher fares without losing ridership (though I think they should promote a reality shock instantly increasing the prices to cover at least the operational costs of running the vehicles).
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. It is kinda toxic, at least until underground CO2 storage becomes reality. But the point I was making is that is much of a US-sourced fuel, no needs to deal with unstable governments abroad to guarantee the supply of coal.


OMFG , so are roads you moron....nothing runs on profit except tolls and freight..... Hows your cheap transit going? Seems to be doing well....stop critizing my country and worry about your own...you nosy European....hno:


----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> Maybe some tax breaks, temporary, to make them attractive. Most if not all PT systems in US are money-losing because they can't charge higher fares without losing ridership (though I think they should promote a reality shock instantly increasing the prices to cover at least the operational costs of running the vehicles)


That's ridiculous, public transport in the USA is already ridiculously expensive. I often hear of single tickets costing around $2 USD and commuter rail lines that can cost up to $10 from one edge to the other.

In Poland I pay $300 USD for a full year of 24-hours a day access to public transport, including 20+ light rail lines, bus/light rail corridors in virtual all avenues, night buses to virtually everywhere and even express buses. That's how transit should be: sign a subscription and you get a full transport service whenever you want to wherever you want.

That people that don't use the system also pay part of the price is just fair considering that I also have to pay for the pollution and climate change that car users created in the first place. Plus, my transport money goes fully to local jobs, instead of to some oil rich dictator like Hugo Chaves.

Plus, Transit is a tiny fraction of the USA federal budget. ALL of transportation is only 0,6% of the federal budget. That's ridiculously low. Really, it must be a record low, I've never seen a country which invests so little in transportation as a % of the budget. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> OMFG , so are roads you moron....nothing runs on profit except tolls and freight..... Hows your cheap transit going? Seems to be doing well....stop critizing my country and worry about your own...you nosy European....hno:


Firstly, there is no need for personal insults here. I never personally insulted anyone in this forum and I DO expect the same from others. You don't have to agree with me, but, please, watch your words for the sake of civility.

Secondly, I wrote specifically about the costs to operate VEHICLES. I always wrote here that I support public construction and maintenance of the WAYS (highWAYS, railWAYS, runWAYS, waterWAYS) as public infrastructure and natural monopolies whereas TRAFFIC (VEHICLES) operations (airplanes, train sets, cars/buses, ships/barges) should be self-financing and able to pay for its direct operational and financial costs.

Is that so difficult to understand? The reason FL HSR and that other project in WI were cancelled is that even if the feds paid for construction, they couldn't run without making YEARLY losses on the 8-to-9-digit size, to be paid by strapped state budgets. Because gas and airfares are cheap, higher HSR fares would mean lower ridership, thus putting the projects in deeper financial trouble, unless they were truly comprehensive and with features like stations around MASSIVE (10.000 vehicles+) airport-style parking lots near highways, office parks and major shopping malls.

Last time I checked, airlines were not receiving subsidy to buy aviation gas, cars were taxed and so was gas they use, and CSX and other rail operators paid for their own vehicles and also for infrastructure. Greyhound is an entirely private business that collects money from fares and runs, as other road vehicles, in public highways. That is what I'd support for trains: gov't building tracks as public investments, but NEVER stepping into operating trains, acquiring rolling stock etc. Leave that to private entities, who could charge as much as they want, run whatever schedule they want, and be obligated only to abide by rules of rail traffic. Like an airline has to abide to FAA rules or Greyhound to FHWA norms.


----------



## Svartmetall

Nexis said:


> OMFG , so are roads you moron....nothing runs on profit except tolls and freight..... Hows your cheap transit going? Seems to be doing well....stop critizing my country and worry about your own...you nosy European....hno:


Though I don't agree with his philosophies or ideology, in this case he isn't just being openly belligerent. Please watch how you talk to him and simply argue with him about fact. Just a warning. 

On the flip side, Suburbanist, not everyone wants to engage in ideological debates on every single thread regarding public transport and its associated infrastructure. You have to understand that you may be met with hostility.


----------



## Suburbanist

sekelsenmat said:


> That's ridiculous, public transport in the USA is already ridiculously expensive. I often hear of single tickets costing around $2 USD and commuter rail lines that can cost up to $10 from one edge to the other.


And that is often more than the marginal immediate cost of a car ride if parking is free at both ends and there is no major bridge/tunnel toll.



> In Poland I pay $300 USD for a full year of 24-hours a day access to public transport, including 20+ light rail lines, bus/light rail corridors in virtual all avenues, night buses to virtually everywhere and even express buses. That's how transit should be: sign a subscription and you get a full transport service whenever you want to wherever you want.


That can only happens in heavily taxation countries where there is centralized control of transportation budget and management at the federal level and where there is political will to expend billions to subsidy such types of subscriptions. And Poland is a middle-income ex-communist country where old habits die hard. Similar passes in more developed countries cost way more. In Germany, the equivalent of US$ 6.730/year (Bahn 100 1st class), but yet not including optional seat reservations. In Netherlands, such plan cost US$ 3.900. Switzerland have such yearly subscription and it costs a lot also. I need to check the value.

Annual subscriptions work on the principle of sunk costs (you paid for it, now you are prone to use it instead of resorting to a car or a plane).

US is a HUGE country. Many US states are bigger than most European countries. There is NO WAY such scheme would ever be feasible in US on state level, let alone national level. If not for geography, because of the structure of public transit agencies and the way they are financed. Many US PT systems don't even have route subscriptions as they reduce revenue, of if they do, savings are minimal.



> That people that don't use the system also pay part of the price is just fair considering that I also have to pay for the pollution and climate change that car users created in the first place. Plus, my transport money goes fully to local jobs, instead of to some oil rich dictator like Hugo Chaves.


Most train services in US, regional ones (I"m not talking about HSR) run on diesel.. 

Plus, Transit is a tiny fraction of the USA federal budget. ALL of transportation is only 0,6% of the federal budget. That's ridiculously low. Really, it must be a record low, I've never seen a country which invests so little in transportation as a % of the budget. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png[/QUOTE]


----------



## Suburbanist

yaohua2000 said:


> At 220 mph max., it's only 14 hours from New York to Los Angeles. Think you can get on a sleeper train in New York at 8pm Eastern time and arrive in Los Angeles at 7am Pacific time the second morning.


Sleepers? Not going to happen. Moreover, any conceivable route would be via New Mexico, not on a "straight" line via NV, UT, CO.

HSR lines can't be open 24/7. They are usually closed (or operate with very reduced speeds) at night.

Sleepers is for backpackers who wouldn't be able to afford tickets anyway.


----------



## slipperydog

hoosier said:


> The decision by Scott Walker and Rick Scott to reject the HSR funds was PURELY ideological.


Yawn. When someone disagrees with you, it's because they're ideological. And we all know Rick Scott hates blacks, gays, AND trains. Where's the love?


----------



## manrush

slipperydog said:


> Yawn. When someone disagrees with you, it's because they're ideological. And we all know Rick Scott hates blacks, gays, AND trains. Where's the love?


Nice strawmen, but Rick Scott's cancellation of HSR in Florida *was* ideological.


----------



## slipperydog

Sure it was, now explain the ideology.


----------



## manrush

slipperydog said:


> Sure it was, now explain the ideology.


High Speed Rail in the country is the brainchild of Barack Obama, a person whose policies Rick Scott and his Tea Party base despise.

Scott's main reasoning for cancelling high speed rail was always about "The People" and "tax burdens." Never once did he take into account that the project would offer economic benefits.


----------



## slipperydog

That's your opinion. I probably would have done the same thing and have nothing against Obama. I've been skeptical about HSR working in certain parts of the United States from the very beginning. I didn't even know Obama was into HSR until the SOTU.

Also, please expand on the economic benefits + projected ridership of rail between Tampa and Orlando. Link would be preferable. Genuinely curious.


----------



## TampaMike

slipperydog said:


> That's your opinion. I probably would have done the same thing and have nothing against Obama. I've been skeptical about HSR working in certain parts of the United States from the very beginning. I didn't even know Obama was into HSR until the SOTU.
> 
> Also, please expand on the economic benefits + projected ridership of rail between Tampa and Orlando. Link would be preferable. Genuinely curious.


He had three concerns and every one of those were eliminated by either a private investor or by the federal government. 

He didn't want operation costs to be handled by the taxpayers and that would had been taken care of by the private investor. 

He didn't want cost overruns to come out of the taxpayers' wallets and that would had been taken care of by the private investor. 

He didn't want the state to be on the hook of paying back the $2.4 Billion if the train failed and the Fed. Gov't. came out a day before saying that Florida wouldn't have to pay back the money. And even if the Fed. Gov't. didn't come out with that announcement, the people involved were going to include that with the bid package that any private company would have to pay back the money, not the state.

He got his wish of protecting the taxpayers and still said "no". That is why his decision was purely ideological and politically motivated.


----------



## slipperydog

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. And I did hear about this 'private investor.' Sounded fishy. If this mysterious unnamed private investor was so enthusiastic about HSR to the point that it would eat all the cost overruns and operational costs, what was the point of involving the state to begin with? The feds should have just awarded a grant to this private investor, which could oversee the entire operation start to finish. HSR actually would be a great idea for private investment. If entrepreneurs think it'll work, they should go for it.


----------



## sweet-d

So one ting I haven't heard much about is are there any plans for a Dallas to Houston HSR. It's one of the best areas excluding L.A. to San Francisco and the whole New York to D.C. line.


----------



## TampaMike

slipperydog said:


> If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. And I did hear about this 'private investor.' Sounded fishy. If this mysterious unnamed private investor was so enthusiastic about HSR to the point that it would eat all the cost overruns and operational costs, what was the point of involving the state to begin with? The feds should have just awarded a grant to this private investor, which could oversee the entire operation start to finish. HSR actually would be a great idea for private investment. If entrepreneurs think it'll work, they should go for it.


LMAO its just "fishy" because it goes against everything you stand for. If this was any other highway project, you would be jumping in glee. Answer me this, what companies are moving when they hear of a widening of a highway or extension of one?

Private investors haven't been stepping up because we haven't had a government that seems serious about High Speed Rail in this country. Obama has been the first president that really seems interested in expanding our transportation infrastructure into the 21st Century with HSR. No other president has shown to private investors that this country is truely serious about HSR.

Lets also remember that it took about 25 years for highways to take shape in the US after Italy opened their highway. And England and Germany both had highways before our first highway opened. And most of the highways were financed by government subsidies, same with airports at that time. Where were private investors back then?


----------



## slipperydog

TampaMike said:


> LMAO its just "fishy" because it goes against everything you stand for. If this was any other highway project, you would be jumping in glee. Answer me this, what companies are moving when they hear of a widening of a highway or extension of one?


You have no idea what I stand for. And you didn't answer my question.


----------



## miamicanes

Here's Rick Scott/Teaparty logic:

1. No private company has officially submitted an ironclad bid to absorb 100% of all cost overruns. (Problem: he pulled the plug before Florida Rail Enterprise even had the OPPORTUNITY to solicit bids, so OF COURSE there were no ironclad, up-front bids.)

2. Because of #1, Florida's risk is infinite (Problem: FRE had no independent source of funds, and the Senate sure as hell wasn't going to kick in any extra funds, so unless condition #1 could be satisfied, it wasn't going to get built anyway.)

3. Everything Rick Scott reads from a Teaparty talking point is Holy Writ, not subject to independent verification or questioning. If Rick and the Teaparty said Florida might end up having to repay the $2.4 billion after spending $3 billion in overages without completing the job, then it MUST be 100% true, even if LaHood himself was jumping up and down screaming that it's a baldfaced lie, that Florida wouldn't have to repay a cent -- even IF the private company completely defaulted in the worst way possible, and that Florida would never be required to contribute a cent towards its operation, and could leave the tracks to rust in the median of I-4 if the private company went under and nobody else could be found interested in taking it over.

It's scary, but trying to reason with Teaparty people is like trying to deprogram somebody who's in a religious cult. You can go down their list of talking points, debunk every single one of them in 5 minutes with Google, and they'll tell you with a straight face that China is engaged in cyber-warfare against the US, hacking servers, and posting falsified documents online to mislead people.


----------



## makita09

slipperydog said:


> Take Boston to Washington for example.
> 
> Acela Express - $392 roundtrip, 7 hrs each way
> JetBlue - $159 roundtrip, 2.5 hrs each way


Acela isn't HSR, comparison bunk.


----------



## slipperydog

makita09 said:


> Acela isn't HSR, comparison bunk.


I'm well aware of what Acela really is. So name the estimated travel price and the time of your proposed HSR train. If it beats Jetblue on one or both, you're in business. If not, HSR is bunk.


----------



## Nexis

Well All these lines below will be Upgraded and Electrified with speeds up to 130mph outside the Core lines and up to 160mph on the core lines. Each state also has a state wide network in planning. Funding is an issue , but New England is well ahead of everyone else.


Northeast Master plan by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Northeastern Network by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


----------



## hoosier

slipperydog said:


> I'm well aware of what Acela really is. So name the estimated travel price and the time of your proposed HSR train. If it beats Jetblue on one or both, you're in business. If not, HSR is bunk.


Nonsense, Acela trains are packed despite having higher fares. Not everyone wants to sit in a cramped sardine can prone to large delays and then have to pay cab fare to get the central city or suburbs from the airport. Acela offers downtown to downtown service in both D.C. and New York where people can take the subway or commuter rail to their final destination.


----------



## hoosier

slipperydog said:


> That's your opinion. I probably would have done the same thing and have nothing against Obama. I've been skeptical about HSR working in certain parts of the United States from the very beginning. I didn't even know Obama was into HSR until the SOTU.
> 
> Also, please expand on the economic benefits + projected ridership of rail between Tampa and Orlando. Link would be preferable. Genuinely curious.


If you are genuinely curious about the ridership estimates then go find them for yourself. Many private sector operators believed ridership to be sufficient on the line to produce a profit, which is why they were clamoring for the chance to operate the line.


----------



## hoosier

slipperydog said:


> Sure it was, now explain the ideology.


Any form of transportation that does not burn oil and pad the profits of oil companies is an evil, socialist, tree-hugging plot to destroy 'Merica and force us to live in government housing and convert to atheism.


----------



## slipperydog

hoosier said:


> Nonsense, Acela trains are packed despite having higher fares. Not everyone wants to sit in a cramped sardine can prone to large delays and then have to pay cab fare to get the central city or suburbs from the airport. Acela offers downtown to downtown service in both D.C. and New York where people can take the subway or commuter rail to their final destination.


Interesting. But that still doesn't explain HSR in regions with very little intracity connectivity. Like another poster mentioned, once you get there, you're stranded.



hoosier said:


> If you are genuinely curious about the ridership estimates then go find them for yourself. Many private sector operators believed ridership to be sufficient on the line to produce a profit, which is why they were clamoring for the chance to operate the line.


Actually, when someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to produce evidence validating said claim. If the economic benefits and projected ridership are so obvious, it shouldn't be difficult for someone to provide a reputable source here. And no one has addressed why the feds didn't just award these funds as a private grant to this unknown private entity reportedly clamoring for the operational and cost overrun responsibilities of HSR.


----------



## TampaMike

slipperydog said:


> You have no idea what I stand for. And you didn't answer my question.


Why is the state involved? Because the state of Florida owns the Right of Way that the High Speed Rail line be placed and before the the intentions of having a private investor in the project, the project was going to be handled by the state. The state has owned the ROW since its plan of HSR back in 2000. The voters rejected the project in 2004 after a campaign of lies and misinformation from Jeb Bush and his buddies. But the state still owns the ROW and has widened and reconstructed I-4 since then in the case HSR does happen. That is why the state has been involved since the start.


----------



## hoosier

slipperydog said:


> Rail, in and of itself, is not what irks the right. It's the continous government spending, in spite of record deficits, on questionable projects and a general sense of throwing good money after bad just for the sake of politics, and all with 2012 on the horizon in a key battleground state. It's basically just earmarking on a larger scale, a practice which both sides agreed to eliminate back in December. Now if we shut down most of Amtrak's money-burning long-haul routes, maybe we could start looking at alternatives that make sense.


Record deficits caused by a NATIONAL recession that impacted REVENUE, not excessive spending.

One man's "earmark" is another man's crucial investment. 

Shutting down most of Amtrak's money losing routes would make as much of an impact on the federal budget deficit as cutting off a few hairs would have on someone's weight. How about ending the Bush tax cuts? How about cutting the bloated military budget?


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ That Amtrak has a terrible financial record only helps opposition to HSR. It is a very bad precedent of government involvement on rail service. As I wrote on this thread before, long-distance routes have an OPERATIONAL loss averaging ca. 60% of its costs.
> 
> If they agreed to ditch subsidized tourist trains (essentially, all transcontinental routes that are useless for real transportation + most of long-distance routes too slow to even compete with cars and buses), they could start building a case for increased public goodwill.
> 
> Amtrak could also commission a serious detailed study of a Boston-NYC-Washington true high-speed corridor mixing severely upgraded sectors and entire new ROW.


Those money losing Amtrak routes are popular in the states they serve. People in rural areas don't want to have a means of intercity transport cut off from them.

Amtrak does not come close to providing HSR. Anyone that has a negative opinion of HSR because of Amtrak is an uneducated moron.

And if you actually paid attention to a topic you so greatly enjoy pontificating about, you would know that Amtrak has released a detailed set of recommended upgrades to NE corridor to increase capacity and reduce travel times. Much money is needed for basic upgrades and replacement of century old infrastructure. The NE Corridor was built well over 100 years ago and has received minimal upgrades since then.


----------



## TheKorean

hoosier said:


> Record deficits caused by a NATIONAL recession that impacted REVENUE, not excessive spending.
> 
> One man's "earmark" is another man's crucial investment.
> 
> Shutting down most of Amtrak's money losing routes would make as much of an impact on the federal budget deficit as cutting off a few hairs would have on someone's weight. How about ending the Bush tax cuts? How about cutting the bloated military budget?


He does not represent us conservatives with common sense.

But no, US do overspend. Whether its military or inefficient bureaucracy this country is bleeding money.


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> Funny, you whined about conservatives getting treated poorly on here then post this condescending rant to all supporters of non-oil based transportation.


Last time I checked, most Amtrak routes run on diesel locos.



> Amtrak operates on a shoe string budget and the money it "loses" (as if a public benefit needs to generate a profit) PALES in comparison to the interstate highway system. I've yet to see any evidence it generates a profit.


Not an appropriate comparison, it's apples to oranges: the interstate highways are kept with public funds (most of it derived from gas taxes, so self-funding). However, government doesn't operate trucks, buses and rental cars! It only maintains and build infrastructure. Same goes with airport. I guess most people would accept the idea of a national public networks of tracks if different but private-only companies were freely allowed to run trains there - like airports (that are mostly public, but open to any airline willing to fly there).

Amtrak doesn't have a resemblance in others modes of transportations, as US government doesn't have a fleet of buses, rental cars, trucks and even ocean freight ships... 



> If we are going to shut down the lightly used Amtrak routes, then we need to shut down the interstates in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and any other lightly populated interior state because the use those roads get surely does not justify their exorbitant cost.


All transcontinental interstates (I-10, I-40, I-80, I-90) get fairly high long-distance traffic. In any case, shutting down an Amtrak route is not like closing an Interstate. It is just withdrawing some special vehicle there. The rail tracks would remain there, and they are indeed very active with freight rail. Shutting down an Amtrak route is just like dropping a flight - it doesn't mean demolishing the airports, just stop offering a direct flight between them. 



> Please tell me how a car traveling on a chronically choked Interstate 4 is going to get from Orlando International Airport to DT Tampa faster than a train with a top speed of 168 mph.


Top speed =/= commercial speed. Beyond that, you need to account for the time it takes for people to move from their doorstep to the airport check-in concourse.


----------



## slipperydog

hoosier said:


> Amtrak operates on a shoe string budget and the money it "loses" (as if a public benefit needs to generate a profit) PALES in comparison to the interstate highway system. I've yet to see any evidence it generates a profit.


Who claimed roads should be generating a profit? You people are too transparent. Someone makes a statement that states A, you move the ball 10 yards and say they stated B. Yeah, people are really going to purchase four individual HSR fares for an 80 mile trip when they could fill up a car and transport up to 4-5 people at a fraction of the cost. What world are you people living in?



hoosier said:


> Proudly ignorant, obnoxious AND insulting. You are the perfect conservative!


If anyone here been obnoxious and insulting, it's been you. Those were your own words. Should I re-post your degrading assessment of your own state here, or should I spare you the humiliation? I'm not kidding though, if the degree to which you get this worked up and treat people on the internet is any indication of your actual interactions in real life, I only pity you.



hoosier said:


> Record deficits caused by a NATIONAL recession that impacted REVENUE, not excessive spending.


The cause of these state budget crunches is irrelevant. Any unnecessary 'investment', at this point, is excessive spending.


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> Those money losing Amtrak routes are popular in the states they serve. People in rural areas don't want to have a means of intercity transport cut off from them.


They are certainly not popular at all. How can 3 routes serving Chicago-California connection, all scoring - combined - less than 1.000.000 passengers/years (we're talking about total ridership, not full-route equivalent passengers or passenger-miles), be deemed "popular"?

I guess nobody wants to have any mean of transportation taking off their town, particularly it if is subsidized. What doesn't make any sense it to sustain a service that, again, in all possible relations will be SLOWER than driving. 

If they were serious about providing local communities with alternative transport, they would organize routes with focus on major hubs from where continuing the journey by flight were possible, instead of stretching 4 transcontinental routes with meager patronage and slow commercial speeds, some of them slower then in 1940. A set of regional networks centered in cities like Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis would be far more reasonable that keeping a 43-stop, 46h travel time, highly prices Los Angeles -Chicago direct service.


----------



## Nexis

Why has this become the bash Amtrak and US HSR thread ...like the old thread....why can't we have intelligent discussions without launching attacks.... Unless you have strong facts or understand US Transportation / Funding...i suggest you not comment on this thread... because all it does is starts arguments ...


----------



## slipperydog

Nexis said:


> why can't we have intelligent discussions without launching attacks....


Good question.



hoosier said:


> Genius, the line was the FIRST LEG of a much larger network that would have extended to Fort Lauderdale and Miami.





hoosier said:


> If I had wanted to call names, I would have called him a fucking moron. Pointing out the obvious is not name-calling.





miamicanes said:


> It's scary, but trying to reason with Teaparty people is like trying to deprogram somebody who's in a religious cult.


----------



## TampaMike

slipperydog said:


> Who claimed roads should be generating a profit? You people are too transparent. Someone makes a statement that states A, you move the ball 10 yards and say they stated B. Yeah, people are really going to purchase four individual HSR fares for an 80 mile trip when they could fill up a car and transport up to 4-5 people at a fraction of the cost. What world are you people living in?
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone here been obnoxious and insulting, it's been you. Those were your own words. Should I re-post your degrading assessment of your own state here, or should I spare you the humiliation? I'm not kidding though, if the degree to which you get this worked up and treat people on the internet is any indication of your actual interactions in real life, I only pity you.
> 
> 
> 
> The cause of these state budget crunches is irrelevant. Any unnecessary 'investment', at this point, is excessive spending.


You're such a damn hypocrite. You're bashing his behavior even though you went to such a level to call construction workers "uneducated, obese ********". What's your escuse?

And unnecessary "investment"? What's keeping us in competition with other countries? Our enormous Defense Budget? These companies and corporations want to be in a country that's moving forward and investing in their infrastructure and future. Even with a pretty high corporate tax, it's still cheaper to do business in this country compared to countries like France and Germany. And yet, with High Speed Rail, companies are moving to these countries and investing. Improving the education and infrastructure in this country should be the way to go and many in this country believe it is our corporate taxes and overall taxes that need to be changed.


----------



## slipperydog

TampaMike said:


> You're such a damn hypocrite. You're bashing his behavior even though you went to such a level to call construction workers "uneducated, obese ********". What's your escuse?


That was actually a quote from Mr. Indiana himself, albeit from a different thread. He derides his own people when it seems politically prudent to his argument. It really has become the lowest common denominator with this guy.



> What's keeping us in competition with other countries?


Simple. Allowing states to operate freely without government mandates. Allow them to use federal funds to improve their schools, roads, hospitals, cut income taxes, shrink the corporate tax rate, thus giving states the financial wherewithal to attract the best workers and investment from corporations both at home and abroad. Not the continued endorsement of some broad federal "stimulus" that just throws money at the project with the loudest mob. 



> And yet, with High Speed Rail, companies are moving to these countries and investing.


Highly doubtful. All because of high speed rail? Care to post a link?


----------



## LtBk

Our incomes taxes has been lowest in over 20 years yet it hasn't prevented the 2008 recession or produce many good quality jobs. It's ironic how higher taxes in the 90's haven't prevented the great economic boom of that decade.


----------



## slipperydog

LtBk said:


> Our incomes taxes has been lowest in over 20 years yet it hasn't prevented the 2008 recession or produce many good quality jobs. It's ironic how higher taxes in the 90's haven't prevented the great economic boom of that decade.


If it hadn't been for the highly-speculative .com bubble and a House that slashed spending and balanced the budget, the 90's likely wouldn't have been much better.


----------



## Maarten Otto

Hey uncle Sam guess what...

The former soviets got their HST
The communistic Chinese got an entire HST network
Oh... and Iran is building one.

In Europe we build High Speed Lines under a sea, through mountains and under parks with outstanding natural beauty....

Where we enjoy free WiFi on the train you get clogged up in traffic jams all day.
Where we invested in a future transport mode before oil prices kill low coast airlines and even the car..... you are still asleep, dreaming about lower taxes and a dream which turned out to be a massive failure...


Sleep well.


----------



## Lordpenguinton

Not a total failure, come on, we are finacing the "free world's" military. Seriously can't we all get along? Again, HSR and just plain old trains work for some of us and 16 lane freeways work for others. The best thing is, is that a combination would work for everyone. But we can never get to that point because it's convenient for politicians and us. We want to argue, it's what we do best. Nothing will ever be right because we don't want it to be. Not sure what utopian Europe Otto lives in (ever seen the traffic in London)? but for most of us atleast in the U.S., we are a car dominated society, like it or not, that could use a train/HSR enhancement. Personally I don't own a car and I like my 6 block walk to work, so my carbon footprint is really small, you guys should do the same, then who would care about HSR or gas prices? hmmm, how small is your world?


----------



## TampaMike

slipperydog said:


> That was actually a quote from Mr. Indiana himself, albeit from a different thread. He derides his own people when it seems politically prudent to his argument. It really has become the lowest common denominator with this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. Allowing states to operate freely without government mandates. Allow them to use federal funds to improve their schools, roads, hospitals, cut income taxes, shrink the corporate tax rate, thus giving states the financial wherewithal to attract the best workers and investment from corporations both at home and abroad. Not the continued endorsement of some broad federal "stimulus" that just throws money at the project with the loudest mob.
> 
> 
> 
> Highly doubtful. All because of high speed rail? Care to post a link?


You still ignore the part where you're a complete ass comparing construction workers to uneducated ********.

This is transportation money. Goes in from transportation, comes out for transportation. I don't see how hard it is to understand that, but I guess it is for some. And money has gone to education and social programs, its not like the federal government abandoned those issues to fund High Speed Rail. 

I believe Florida is #11 in corporate taxes with a tax rate of 5.5%. We also don't have a personal income tax, reason why we pretty much have a statewide sales tax. So #11 in corporate tax and no income tax, why are companies relocating to states with both an income tax and higher corporate tax rates than us? 

And I said investing in our infrastructure and education right there after the comment you quoted.


----------



## FlyFish

hoosier said:


> Funny, you whined about conservatives getting treated poorly on here then post this condescending rant to all supporters of non-oil based transportation.
> 
> Amtrak operates on a shoe string budget and the money it "loses" (as if a public benefit needs to generate a profit) PALES in comparison to the interstate highway system. I've yet to see any evidence it generates a profit.
> 
> If we are going to shut down the lightly used Amtrak routes, then we need to shut down the interstates in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and any other lightly populated interior state because the use those roads get surely does not justify their exorbitant cost.
> 
> Please tell me how a car traveling on a chronically choked Interstate 4 is going to get from Orlando International Airport to DT Tampa faster than a train with a top speed of 168 mph.
> 
> 
> HSR isn't going to bankrupt California. It will not be funded with general tax revenues. Name one state that doesn't have budget problems. Conservative Heaven Texas has a $27 BILLION budget deficit.


GREATEST THREAD EVER!

Not whining dude, observing. There are definetely more of the left leaning mindset here than the right. that's OK though, we can hold our own. 

What did I say about non-oil based transportation except that this train will make so small a dent as to be immaterial. Last time I checked, other than a couple or three nuc plants the folks in Fla were burning things to make electricity so it's a non-starter. They will very likely still be burning coal or oil to run the train. I don't see this as non-oil based transportation unless they are planning to build windmills at the terminating stations.

For about 100 pages here you've been focused on the highway system but you are doing the apple to oranges thing. Yes, you are correct, highways, airports and railroads are big money losers if you incorporate construction and maintenance into the equation. There is NO arguement to that. The difference is that the airports and roads are ALREADY THERE. The other difference is that people and companies profit from the use of the highway system and the airports. And people and companies profit from moving stuff by rail. They do not profit by moving people by rail. You can tell that because trucking companies, airlines and cargo haulers exist and private passenger rail haulers do not. Another HUGE difference is that EVERYONE uses the interstate system. You might think you don't but I guarantee you that you do. If you go anywhere, eat any food, buy any product, get any mail from outside your City then you "use" the interstates. The same with the airport. If you travel anywhere outside your city, buy non-perishable goods and services, shop on the internet, then you use the airports. This rail system will be catering to a very closed user group. That's why there is doubt that this rail system will allow an operator to profit. It's economics, not politics. You only need to look at Amtrak to see where that doubt comes from. Amtrak only hauls people and probably some very limited and select cargo like US mail. It's a money loser. Making the train faster won't change that. Only selecting the proper routes will. I WANT HSR built....from Boston to DC and in Southern California where it makes sense to do so. I just happen to want to wait until the federal budget is in far better shape than it is right now.

Look, let's be honest. The money going to Florida in the first place was a payoff for the last election. We can all agree on that. If anyone with business sense was making these decisions any HSR money that was availabnle would be going to the NEC and Southern Cali. If the money gets re-allocated to Southern California I'll be as happy as I can be unless they spend it in the NEC or send it back to China in the form of repayment of debt.

To that car you mention.....If that car is at the Orlando airport and the destination is downtown Tampa then you are correct. If the origination or destination is anywhere else, you will not save any time on that train. The cities are just too close together. 

How are those in CA planning to fund it if not from tax revenues? It's got to be from some sort of tax revenue. Certainly it can not entirely be from user fees on the train, hell it'll cost about 2 grand to ride it if that's the case. You are correct though, every state budget is in the hopper right now. Another reason to hold off on things like this.


----------



## LtBk

I never understood the American belief that everything should be profitable.


----------



## FlyFish

LtBk said:


> I never understood the American belief that everything should be profitable.


So, how does something like this exist and operate in the world without being profitable? Someone has to pay. Who is that someone?


pssst. I already know the answer.....and therein lies the arguement.

:cheers:


----------



## E2rdEm

FlyFish said:


> people and companies profit from the use of the highway system and the airports. And people and companies profit from moving stuff by rail. They do not profit by moving people by rail.


Tell that to these *private* companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Hull_Trains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Express
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuovo_Trasporto_Viaggiatori
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg-Köln-Express

Sure, this is all in Europe. It is not related in any way to USA. But have you ever thought that there's something wrong with USA's economy that private rail operator is impossible in the USA?

Hers's the thing: Europen regulations are now focused on operating railways just like highways. The infrastructure is generally state-owned. Operators pay for using that infrastructure. For rail it's access fees, for roads it's electronic toll and to some (minor) extent fuel tax.

Meanwihile, in the US of A, a road carrier uses the infrastructure completely free. There are generally no tolls on Interstates, and the fuel tax is almost non-existent. At the same time, almost every piece of rail track is privately owned by the railway operator (!), who must take all the infrastucture costs - otherwise his business will crumble to dust.

So don't tell me that it's naturally impossible to profit from passenger rail. It's impossible only in America. :tongue4:



FlyFish said:


> Amtrak only hauls people and probably some very limited and select cargo like US mail. It's a money loser. Making the train faster won't change that.


To the contrary. Making the train faster shifts everyone who values their time - from other modes of transport to trains. Even more if it's hassle-free and downtown-to-downtown. Air connections are practicly killed by a HSR service over the route. Bus connections are getting limited, but they stay in business because they are generally cheaper. Car ridership goes down, but still has most of the market - because of the convenience (pack your family and things and drive directly to your destination).

That's how it works all over the world. Why do you think it *must* be different in the USA?


----------



## FlyFish

E2rdEm said:


> That's how it works all over the world. Why do you think it *must* be different in the USA?


I think you pretty much answered your own question about why it is different in your second and third paragraphs.


----------



## LtBk

Are you talking about DC streetcar?


----------



## Xusein

Why do people only talk about returns on investment when it comes to trains.


----------



## desertpunk

Xusein said:


> Why do people only talk about returns on investment when it comes to trains.


In my case, I'm talking about ridership and cost-efficiency which is different than an outright profit. If transit systems were truly profitable, the traction companies would never have gone bankrupt in the early 20th century and their systems absorbed by municipalities and transit authorities.

Just to turn the tables, why are trains somehow magically immune from the same economic considerations as airlines? Is there a public airline in the US? Why are the airlines able to manage themselves as private entities while passenger rail lines are automatically wards of the state?


----------



## Koen Acacia

desertpunk said:


> Right now, according to Bloomberg, a high speed rail trip from London to Copenhagen takes 16 HOURS. The same flight between the two capitals is only around 2 hours. We FLY between cities in the US for most trips over 300 miles. The drive is still cheaper though, and will be cheaper yet, when suitable alternatives to gas are fully developed.


HSR between New York and London also takes ages. HSR must really suck then.
Using this as an argument on the viability of high speed rail in the US you'd still have to ask yourself how many large cities in the US are separated by a sea.
In Europe, this is quite common: London-Copenhagen, Madrid-Rome, Athens-Istanbul are all routes that are only possible at extremely punitive costs. So, relying on these examples, HSR should be perfectly doable in the US and completely unfeasible in Europe.


----------



## Xusein

desertpunk said:


> In my case, I'm talking about ridership and cost-efficiency which is different than an outright profit. If transit systems were truly profitable, the traction companies would never have gone bankrupt in the early 20th century and their systems absorbed by municipalities and transit authorities.


True. But at the same length, our road system would probably be like the turnpike era if not expanded with no concern to profit by government. 



> Just to turn the tables, why are trains somehow magically immune from the same economic considerations as airlines? Is there a public airline in the US? Why are the airlines able to manage themselves as private entities while railroads are automatically wards of the state?


The airlines in this country, with some exceptions, are slowly falling apart and are resorting to mergers to sustain viability. 

The most profitable mode of transport in the US is freight rail which is 100% privatized. Granted in a free market, Amtrak itself would collapse with the exception of a few corridors, but let's not pretend that the states controlling the physical infrastructure does help in making it viable for them as well as prior deregulation back in the day.

Anyway, I'm not really into putting HSR in places like Florida or Wisconsin where it's a crap shoot. The NEC would amazing to have it but we have several states to worry about and their governments have different priorities.


----------



## desertpunk

Koen Acacia said:


> HSR between New York and London also takes ages. HSR must really suck then.
> Using this as an argument on the viability of high speed rail in the US you'd still have to ask yourself how many large cities in the US are separated by a sea.
> In Europe, this is quite common: London-Copenhagen, Madrid-Rome, Athens-Istanbul are all routes that are only possible at extremely punitive costs. So, relying on these examples, HSR should be perfectly doable in the US and completely unfeasible in Europe.


Supersonic aviation is doable as well but you don't see the airlines rushing to order SSTs from EADS or Boeing.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Xusein said:


> Why do people only talk about returns on investment when it comes to trains.


In the US it is probably because public transit collects fares while freeways only collects through indirect means such as taxes so the average consumer are not able to feel the impact directly.
Believe me, you'll probably see a very different reaction if DoT started placing toll booths and collected fare according to distance like Japan.


----------



## Xusein

Koen Acacia said:


> *HSR between New York and London also takes ages. HSR must really suck then.*
> Using this as an argument on the viability of high speed rail in the US you'd still have to ask yourself how many large cities in the US are separated by a sea.
> In Europe, this is quite common: London-Copenhagen, Madrid-Rome, Athens-Istanbul are all routes that are only possible at extremely punitive costs. So, relying on these examples, HSR should be perfectly doable in the US and completely unfeasible in Europe.


Touche. :lol:

This is the plan. We don't want HSR between NYC and LA or something. Air will always be the way when it comes to great distances and it's pointless to even argue against that. But who wants to take a plane from NYC to Boston when going through all the airport nonsense takes as long as the flight itself? It's all about small to medium distances.


----------



## slipperydog

desertpunk said:


> In my case, I'm talking about ridership and cost-efficiency which is different than an outright profit.


Exactly. We're talking about the marginal public benefit. The case for roads and airports being a public benefit is much stronger than rail for the vast majority of the country.



> Just to turn the tables, why are trains somehow magically immune from the same economic considerations as airlines? Is there a public airline in the US? Why are the airlines able to manage themselves as private entities while passenger rail lines are automatically wards of the state?


Well, airports do receive a hefty sum of public subsidies, but again, most people aren't talking ideologically about trains in and of themselves. At least I'm not. HSR in the northeast is perfectly acceptable, but Tampa-Orlando, Houston-Dallas raise far more questions than provide answers to warrant the significant investment of public subsidies.


----------



## desertpunk

Xusein said:


> True. But at the same length, our road system would probably be like the turnpike era if not expanded with no concern to profit by government.


How many entirely new highways built since 1990 AREN'T tollways?



> The airlines in this country, with some exceptions, are slowly falling apart and are resorting to mergers to sustain viability.


So why have they been raking in billions in profits since 2009? M&A is more about code-sharing than mere cost-cutting, something they have been doing _on their own since deregulation in 1978_. 



> The most profitable mode of transport in the US is freight rail which is 100% privatized. Granted in a free market, Amtrak itself would collapse with the exception of a few corridors, but let's not pretend that the states controlling the physical infrastructure does help in making it viable for them as well as prior deregulation back in the day.


Are you talking about airports built with bonds paid with landing fees and other fees? The airlines are paying for airports as are fliers, not the taxpayers, who simply indemnify the risk, ultimately. In the case of Amtrak, they simply are forced by their political bosses on Capitol Hill to run money-losing routes. If Amtrak was truly free of that arrangement, it would have far fewer routes and might actually make money and be able to participate in the debt markets to expand.


----------



## desertpunk

Xusein said:


> Touche. :lol:
> 
> This is the plan. We don't want HSR between NYC and LA or something. Air will always be the way when it comes to great distances and it's pointless to even argue against that. But who wants to take a plane from NYC to Boston when going through all the airport nonsense takes as long as the flight itself? It's all about small to medium distances.


Congratulations. NYC to Boston is the easiest, most relevant argument for HSR in this country anyone can make. But enough of the low-hanging fruit: how about Denver to Colorado Springs? Or Tulsa to OKC? Where do you draw the line on viability? THOSE are short distances. Don't those people deserve to avoid all the airport security hassles too?


----------



## Xusein

Those areas lack the density and transport history naturally. 

Like I said, it can only work in a few places. 



desertpunk said:


> How many entirely new highways built since 1990 AREN'T tollways?


:dunno: I was talking about altogether though.



> So why have they been raking in billions in profits since 2009? M&A is more about code-sharing than mere cost-cutting, something they have been doing _on their own since deregulation in 1978_.


Cost-cutting mostly. With the exception of Southwest, all the major airlines have rather low growth prospects. 



> Are you talking about airports built with bonds paid with landing fees and other fees? The airlines are paying for airports as are fliers, not the taxpayers, who simply indemnify the risk, ultimately. In the case of Amtrak, they simply are forced by their political bosses on Capitol Hill to run money-losing routes. If Amtrak was truly free of that arrangement, it would have far fewer routes and might actually make money and be able to participate in the debt markets to expand.


I honestly don't think Amtrak would last if it did. Privatization could work but fare hikes would probably be so big that even in the most profitable areas, ridership would take a hit.


----------



## desertpunk

Xusein said:


> :dunno: I was talking about altogether though.


You mentioned something about the "turnpike age". We ARE in the 'turnpike age' right now, thanks to overstretched state governments and private operators like Macquarie that have access to the bond markets.



> Cost-cutting mostly. With the exception of Southwest, all the major airlines have rather low growth prospects.


Southwest hedged jet fuel prices successfully. That's the difference. The others have learned those tricks and are now quite profitable. the falloff in demand since 9-11 is what's stunting the airlines more than anything else. 



> I honestly don't think Amtrak would last if it did. Privatization could work but fare hikes would probably be so big that even in the most profitable areas, ridership would take a hit.


Why is that? Amtrak already has seen ridership and profitability rise on its core routes. The fact that they waste so much money on useless routes has kept them from being able to effectively upgrade and market its product. You sell them something better than stale mediocrity and they will pay extra.


----------



## makita09

desertpunk said:


> Right now, according to Bloomberg, a high speed rail trip from London to Copenhagen takes 16 HOURS.


That's THE dumbest straw man I've ever read in relation to HSR.

:hammer:


----------



## desertpunk

makita09 said:


> That's THE dumbest straw man I've ever read in relation to HSR.
> 
> :hammer:


Is that an argument or are you just trolling? 




*Don't bother, I already know the answer.


----------



## Sopomon

desertpunk said:


> Is that an argument or are you just trolling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't bother, I already know the answer.


Fine, I'll explain his point for him, as you can't seem to comprehend. The fact is, there is *no* high speed service from London to Copenhagen at all. Secondly, there are high-speed tracks possibly about 30% of the route, the rest is on standard rail. Thirdly, there isn't a direct train either, there involves a lot of train changes.

But hey, what do I care? I don't live in the US, it's not my problem.


----------



## makita09

desertpunk said:


> Is that an argument or are you just trolling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't bother, I already know the answer.


Not only are you being personally defensive over a comment you quoted from a news agency which was a straw man but of their creation, you then followed suit creating another red herring by asking if my statement was an argument!

Of course not, a statement is not an argument! A question is not an answer, and a _lack_ of a high speed rail line (between London and Copenhagen) is not a high speed rail line. You know, something that isn't, well, isn't.

It is invaluable to all of those who follow these threads out of a genuine interest one way or the other that when the more vocal and vociferous posters (such as yourself) who deploy specious arguments from whatever source that the fallacies of those arguments are brought into the open.

Bloomberg's fail had already been explicated by previous poster, sorry if you didn't like my opinion on precisely how poor an argument it was. Now either you identify with Bloomberg on a perversely personal level, or you believed hook line and sinker what it is they had to say. Either way the only reason you are complaining about any of the resulting criticism towards it is because you don't like being wrong. Hence accusations of trolling etc etc yawn.


----------



## desertpunk

makita09 said:


> Not only are you being personally defensive over a comment you quoted from a news agency which was a straw man but of their creation, you then followed suit creating another red herring by asking if my statement was an argument!
> 
> Of course not, a statement is not an argument! A question is not an answer, and a _lack_ of a high speed rail line (between London and Copenhagen) is not a high speed rail line. You know, something that isn't, well, isn't.


Sure, if you admit your insult because you are the one here being personally OFFENSIVE.



> It is invaluable to all of those who follow these threads out of a genuine interest one way or the other that when the more vocal and vociferous posters (such as yourself) who deploy specious arguments from whatever source that the fallacies of those arguments are brought into the open.


I'm here because of trolls infesting this thread with off-topic political garbage. My curiosity was piqued...and whaddaya know?



> Bloomberg's fail had already been explicated by previous poster, sorry if you didn't like my opinion on precisely how poor an argument it was. Now either you identify with Bloomberg on a perversely personal level, or you believed hook line and sinker what it is they had to say. Either way the only reason you are complaining about any of the resulting criticism towards it is because you don't like being wrong. Hence accusations of trolling etc etc yawn.


What I cited was a trip using high speed and any available rail to reach Copenhagen Did I say the trip was entirely on a high speed line? Either way, it was to make the point that high speed rail does not reach every destination efficiently. To do so would cost an extrordinary sum. If a high speed rail line were built between New York and Chicago, a rail trip from New York to Denver could be accomplished faster but it couldn't possibly compete with flying because a portion of that trip, like the regular rail portion in Denmark as well as schedule differences could drag it out. You seem to believe that I'm anti-HSR when I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN THAT I SUPPORT IT FOR A FEW SELECT ROUTES. 

And yes, you were trolling with that insult. But ultimately I'm less interested in 'trips to Copenhagen' than in seeing my own country pursue a sensible and cost-efficient strategy for doing HSR. To suggest that it is the ultimate solution to energy issues/urban development issues/etc borders on a kind of ideology of doing these kinds of projects for their own sake without any regard to a full analysis of the costs and the return on those investments in the form of ridership and fare box recovery. Perhaps that's the fashion where you live but where I live we do the math!


----------



## Koen Acacia

desertpunk said:


> Sure, if you admit your insult because you are the one here being personally OFFENSIVE.


No, he wasn't. He was simply calling a spade a spade.



> What I cited was a trip using high speed and any available rail to reach Copenhagen *Did I say the trip was entirely on a high speed line?*


Yes, that's actually what you said when you wrote this:


> Right now, according to Bloomberg, *a high speed rail trip from London to Copenhagen* takes 16 HOURS. The same flight between the two capitals is only around 2 hours. We FLY between cities in the US for most trips over 300 miles. The drive is still cheaper though, and will be cheaper yet, when suitable alternatives to gas are fully developed.


----------



## makita09

desertpunk said:


> Sure, if you admit your insult because you are the one here being personally OFFENSIVE.


Personally offensive towards Bloomberg? If Bloomberg posts on here then I apologise for personally offending them. You get no apology, especially as you are still intent on peddling the red herring argument that they invented.

I shall explain in detail.



> I'm here because of trolls infesting this thread with off-topic political garbage. My curiosity was piqued...and whaddaya know?


What do ya know? You're implying I've trolled this thread with off-topic political garbage. Go on, explain.



> What I cited was a trip using high speed and any available rail to reach Copenhagen


No you didn't.



> Did I say the trip was entirely on a high speed line?


Yes.

To these last two points I present the evidence of "Right now, according to Bloomberg, a *high speed rail *trip from London to Copenhagen takes 16 HOURS. "

It doesn't say _partly _high speed rail, or any other qualification that you are now trying to insert. Unfortunately I can only respond to what you actually post, not what you _think_ you posted.

You may have qualified yourself later, but then my post was not replying to any of your later posts.



> Either way, it was to make the point that high speed rail does not reach every destination efficiently. To do so would cost an extrordinary sum.


Apart from this being blindingly obvious you used an incorrect example, which even if it wasn't incorrect it implies is that HSR is generally not as good as people are making out - because its only the same speed as conventional rail (because the figure you gave WAS for conventional rail), and not the point you are _now_ trying to make that rail doesn't go everywhere perfectly.



> If a high speed rail line were built between New York and Chicago, a rail trip from New York to Denver could be accomplished faster but it couldn't possibly compete with flying because a portion of that trip, like the regular rail portion in Denmark as well as schedule differences could drag it out. You seem to believe that I'm anti-HSR when I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN THAT I SUPPORT IT FOR A FEW SELECT ROUTES.


I don't disagree with that. How much easier would it have been had you posted this and not the nonsense that has caused quite a few other forumers to comment on its nonsensicle nature? I could come up with loads of silly arguments using the same structure as the copenhagen point you made, but other posters have done that and those were lost on you it seems. Either that or you find it very hard to admit there was a problem with it.



> And yes, you were trolling with that insult.


No it wasn't, it was a valid opinion on the lack of an argument. If you equate your person with the words you type that is not my issue, as I specifically did not say ANYTHING insulting about you, the person typing. The criticism is directed towards the argument and nothing else. You took it personally.

Until you plainly admit your argument was invalid I don't see why I should respond to your attempts to mask its invalidity with this poor attempt to corner me.



> But ultimately I'm less interested in 'trips to Copenhagen' than in seeing my own country pursue a sensible and cost-efficient strategy for doing HSR. To suggest that it is the ultimate solution to energy issues/urban development issues/etc borders on a kind of ideology of doing these kinds of projects for their own sake without any regard to a full analysis of the costs and the return on those investments in the form of ridership and fare box recovery. Perhaps that's the fashion where you live but where I live we do the math!


Fine, but are you here to moderate this debate or take part in it? Because if you are here to take part in it then you would have noticed the last few pages have been full of posters explaining how the finances, the maths, and whatever else do make sense, which is exactly what you are saying here hasn't happened. I'm not about to say one way or the other because I have not poured over the official data as I have done for European projects, and unlike some I am not prepared to proudly rant from a position of complete ignorance, but I do think it is fair to comment on underhand debating techniques such as using fallacious arguments which you, purposefully or otherwise have done.

I won't explain myself any further to you. I will comment on any further poor arguments that I see. I will try and be a little more helpful with those, if other forumers haven't tried and failed, however, this is how I always do things on here.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> In Western Europe, trains move anywhere from 3 to 16% of all passenger-km among all land transport. Not that much, apparently.


Overall that is correct. However, if you'd stop the trains where I live you'd have twice as many cars on the road during rush hour. The place would just stop functioning. 
Rail doesn't take that much cars of the road on average in Europe, but does make a significant contribution towards lowering the peak demand for roads.


----------



## Silly_Walks

Suburbanist said:


> In Western Europe, trains move anywhere from 3 to 16% of all passenger-km among all land transport. Not that much, apparently.


Ahhh the percentage game. But now let's see how this translates into practice.
Have you ever taken a train in Holland during rush hour? Those things are PACKED.
Otherwise all those people would be on the road, clogging the streets, polluting our lungs.

I prefer those commuters stay in their trains.


----------



## TampaMike

Cal_Escapee said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> Seriously. I am strongly for HSR. I also own a car which I drive primarily on intercity trips and I currently own stock in at least 3 major oil companies (Suncor, ENI and Petroleo Brasileiro).


sarcasm man, sarcasm.


----------



## LtBk

Silly_Walks said:


> Ahhh the percentage game. But now let's see how this translates into practice.
> Have you ever taken a train in Holland during rush hour? Those things are PACKED.
> Otherwise all those people would be on the road, clogging the streets, polluting our lungs.
> 
> I prefer those commuters stay in their trains.


He is talking about passenger km, which is amount of km each mode of transportation travels.


----------



## Suburbanist

sweet-d said:


> A Houston to Dallas HSR corridor could actually work out it you do realize that it's 12.7 million people(and growing) in there metro's combined. You could also add in San Antonio and Austin and the total amount of people with access to HSR would be 17.1 million. Come on that's one area where you can't say no to HSR. They both need it it could be one of the best HSR corridor's in the country. Now I do agree that a Tampa to Otlando could be a risk and there are some place where it would risky to use public funds for HSR. But Dallas to Houston isn't one of them. the only place that needs HSR more is Southern California to San Francisco.


I haven't taken a look on the specifics of that area, but the distances and population seem to work in favor of a HSR case. However, I fear a HSR-Texas Triangle project would start by assuming stations should be downtown in each city, which makes access to stations easy for the tiny fraction of people living and working in their inner area, and a nightmare for everybody else, while also increase tunneling costs a lot.

So, why don't they come up with a plan for major HSR stations near major highway interchanges, with massive parking lots and maybe even some light-rail connection to downtown - in other words, why don't they treat an HSR station like an airport in terms of localization. That would save construction costs and time a lot where they are most critical and spur greatest NIMBYsm: urbanized areas.



Cal_Escapee said:


> I don't think anyone particularly loves giant public companies but it is a fact that no private company wants to run passenger rail service so, if we are to have it, it will have to be governmental.


If there is a chance for profit, private operators will run services. That is my essential case: if the government is to subsidize anything, let it be ONLY the construction of infrastructure. Put the tracks, and let the state DOTs maintain them. Then, let PRIVATE operators decide which trains will be run, at which schedule, at which price, without any government interference. Take the example of Greyhound: of course a bus company would never make money to build roads, even in the "golden years" of bus service. However, government doesn't interfere with Greyhound dictating schedules, fares or the likes (at least not since 1974). 

Take the Northeast Corridor, for instance: since Amtrak brags about its profitability, why not keep Amtark maintaining only the the tracks, stations, signlaing and yards, and auctioning off all rolling stock and letting private operators run the actual trains? The idea of train conductors, train engineers and ticket clerks being public employees shouls annoy the American public (and the pulbic of other countries also).



> What puzzles me, actually, is why anybody is willing to run passenger air service. Are you aware that if you add up the income and outgo of all US airlines since the beginning of commercial air travel, you will find there has been a net loss? In other words, nobody is making any money running air service either (yet hope, apparently, springs eternal) in spite of the fact that governments build air terminals and fund them not just with fees paid by airlines but by renting space to all manner of businesses, charging for parking, and myriad other income streams to amortize the (municipal) bonds that are normally issued to actually build an airport.


That loss count only exists if you don't assume inflation. Moreover, there are reasons by which companies just don't give up on air service: there is an expectation of future opportunities available only for those that stay in service. Finally, not all airlines are created equal: Ryanair and Easyjet have been posting profits for years.

In another view, there will be some demand for air travel, even a smaller one, because it is fundamentally fast and the only feasible way for long-haul transport across oceans. Trains face competition from planes and cars. So not having any air service is far more problematic than not having any rail service. Here, in Europe, if by some reason they scrapped all high-speed lines, we'd just see the comeback of short-haul flights like Bruxelles-Paris, Milano-Bologna etc.

Am I saying high-speed trains are useless? Certainly not. But they are not something desperately needed either. It is an acessory infrastrcuture with a defined market where it can be competitive with success: journeys 150-350 miles long. 
If you look at it this way, air travel has been subsidized over the decades by the suckers willing to buy the stocks of money-losing airlines and hold them as the airline gradually goes broke (you do realize how many airlines have gone bankrupt, right?).[/QUOTE]


----------



## LtBk

I don't understand why pro-car people(not all) tend to have a grudge against railroads of all kinds.


----------



## Suburbanist

LtBk said:


> I don't understand why pro-car people(not all) tend to have a grudge against railroads of all kinds.


I don't have anything again railroads. They are technologically interesting and so (well, if you are not talking about crappy 40 years old stock and cabooses). However, most passenger train projects are not promoted as transportation projects as they should (case in which I'd be in peace with them), but as "game changers" meant to "shift development patterns" and "promote higher density living around stations".

As such, I'll automatically react to any transportation project that disguises such social engineering premises that Western cities must "change their development patterns" and that "people should stop thinking in terms of cars first" out of the sake of some feel-good _greenwashery_. 

But my main opposition it so have rail projects postponing or cancelling road projects.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Suburbanist said:


> That loss (by airlines in the history of commercial air service) count only exists if you don't assume inflation. Moreover, there are reasons by which companies just don't give up on air service: there is an expectation of future opportunities available only for those that stay in service. Finally, not all airlines are created equal: Ryanair and Easyjet have been posting profits for years.


Excuse me if I question your accounting. What I said was if you add up the revenue and costs of running airlines from the beginning,you get a net loss. I'm not sure why inflation would negate that fact but the number of bankrupt airlines suggests it's true by any accounting method.

Even over just the last decade, it isn't a pretty picture:









Source: http://chartingtheeconomy.com/?p=1541

Yes, a few airlines manage to run profitably serving a few selective routes and I suspect it might be possible to run a few rail services profitably the same way (say, New York to DC), but that would not give us either a national air system or a national rail system from which we benefit even if no one makes a profit. 

And that's what you don't seem to understand. The nation's productivity can benefit mightily from its transportation infrastructure even if no company can figure out how to make a profit providing it. In the end, that's why government builds roads, airports, train stations and so on. It's also, incidentally, why government subsidizes rural phone and internet service and other forms of infrastructure that just aren't possible to run at a profit. The benefits from these things, while real, may be too intangible to charge for directly (or to convince skeptics that they do exist).


----------



## Silly_Walks

LtBk said:


> He is talking about passenger km, which is amount of km each mode of transportation travels.


Yes, and i am talking about rush hour trains that are packed, completely full, stuffed.
I don't want those people out on the road in cars, making traffic jams worse. So the percentage may seem small, but it would make a big difference if all those people were on the road during rush hour.


----------



## TampaMike

Suburbanist said:


> I don't have anything again railroads. They are technologically interesting and so (well, if you are not talking about crappy 40 years old stock and cabooses). However, most passenger train projects are not promoted as transportation projects as they should (case in which I'd be in peace with them), but as "game changers" meant to "shift development patterns" and "promote higher density living around stations".
> 
> As such, I'll automatically react to any transportation project that disguises such social engineering premises that Western cities must "change their development patterns" and that "people should stop thinking in terms of cars first" out of the sake of some feel-good _greenwashery_.
> 
> But my main opposition it so have rail projects postponing or cancelling road projects.


Oh please, even if we stay with your call of "promoting", it's not like we're saying "Hey you, move from your homes with backyards and a driveway and live near these stations... or else." People like living in communities that allow you to have your own personal pool and have enough room to hold a barbeque and others like living in the city near a light rail/HSR station and having ammenities very close near by. Just like HSR and cars, people will favor for one or the other. 

We're not forcing people to change their way of life, not saying they need to, not manipulating their minds or any of that nonsense; HSR gives people another option like affordable housing give people that the ability to live in a downtown city without paying $400,000 for a 2-room condo. 

When you have politicians recieving thousands in dollars from oil companies and voting against mass transit projects like light rail and High Speed Rail, you have to question their motives. Is this because its not a good plan or is it that these oil companies are saying to say "no" to it? Thats my problem.


----------



## Suburbanist

TampaMike said:


> Oh please, even if we stay with your call of "promoting", it's not like we're saying "Hey you, move from your homes with backyards and a driveway and live near these stations... or else." People like living in communities that allow you to have your own personal pool and have enough room to hold a barbeque and others like living in the city near a light rail/HSR station and having ammenities very close near by. Just like HSR and cars, people will favor for one or the other.
> 
> We're not forcing people to change their way of life, not saying they need to, not manipulating their minds or any of that nonsense; HSR gives people another option like affordable housing give people that the ability to live in a downtown city without paying $400,000 for a 2-room condo.


I surely agree with the proposition you laid on your first paragraph. However, it is very common to see rail projects tried to re-zoning as to restrict and "direct" new developments and construction to "infill" areas near brand new train stations. 

In this sense, it is a completely different approach than opening up a region near a highway corridor to development and subdivision. Except in very specific cases, allowing new development along a highway corridors doesn't come with "restrictions" on development elsewhere, whereas many "transit-oriented" schemes designed to support rail projects assume not only the need to allow higher-density construction near train stations (akin to allow subdivision near a new Interstate or Turnpike), but also - and often - imposing restrictions to "compel" developers to build near transit corridors.

Roads can attract development like magnets, and most US downtown areas were severely depopulated of their middle-class taxpaying base without any need to restrict development there when new highways were opened on the cities' outskirts. On the contrary, most rail advocates are always seen the "need" to "tame" what they call "unsustainable" development that is "car dependent" - and this bother me a lot, all this negativity and the need to curtail other options (new freeway lanes, new subdivisions) to force people use rails.


----------



## TampaMike

Highway construction was a magnet back in the 60's, 70's, and a part of the 80's, but to say that it is now is unrealistic. I-4 near Ybor City down here in Tampa was redeveloped to make traffic easier to flow and there isn't any new developments near the exits. I-275 is getting redeveloped and there isn't any new developments planned near the exits there. You don't see companies moving to Tampa because of these highway projects because companies and corporations don't care of these developments like they did 40 years ago.

People have the rights to live in subdivisions all they want. But if you realize how much new subdivisions cost county taxpayers, you might reconsider the support of them. Not only utilities and drainage, but also new fire stations, police stations, road construction, schools, etc. The county and the city would save money if they focused on supporting more affordable housing together in a city instead of allowing new subdivisions be its own economic engine. It has been the way to go both here in Hillsborough County and the State of Florida and look where we stand now.

Like I said, people will continue to live in their suburban homes because of its pro's. Even with affordable housing and mass transit options, people will do so, no matter what. But if you don't have the options like affordable housing and mass transit for current and future residents to choose from, how can you say it won't work?


----------



## slipperydog

TampaMike said:


> Oh please, even if we stay with your call of "promoting", it's not like we're saying "Hey you, move from your homes with backyards and a driveway and live near these stations... or else." People like living in communities that allow you to have your own personal pool and have enough room to hold a barbeque and others like living in the city near *a light rail/HSR station *and having ammenities very close near by. Just like HSR and cars, people will favor for one or the other.
> 
> We're not forcing people to change their way of life, not saying they need to, not manipulating their minds or any of that nonsense; *HSR gives people another option *like affordable housing give people that the ability to live in a downtown city without paying $400,000 for a 2-room condo.


But is it a good, sensible option? Simply adding another option isn't always better. And you've made the common mistake in assuming that light rail and HSR are one and the same. Let's try to stay on the topic of this forum. INTRA-city light rail that connects suburbs to urban areas has a lot of merit. I am actually a fairly staunch supporter when it comes to intracity rail, but that's because it's mainly used for day commutes and encourages people not to clog up our roadways during rush hour. However, high-speed rail is primarily INTER-city, and there's a big difference there. Connecting Tampa to Orlando via high speed rail is pointless when a car can get an entire family over the same distance for a FRACTION of the cost and nearly the same time when you factor in getting to the station and waiting time. The numbers just don't add up in Florida. The northeast is a different matter.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Suburbanist said:


> In this sense, it is a completely different approach than opening up a region near a highway corridor to development and subdivision. Except in very specific cases, allowing new development along a highway corridors doesn't come with "restrictions" on development elsewhere, whereas many "transit-oriented" schemes designed to support rail projects assume not only the need to allow higher-density construction near train stations (akin to allow subdivision near a new Interstate or Turnpike), but also - and often - imposing restrictions to "compel" developers to build near transit corridors.


Transit oriented development creates the need/demand for high density construction along its hubs/stations. This is bcoz it is very convenient for people who use transit regularly to be able to live, work and perform other aspects of their daily life in the vicinity of transit facilities. If train station plans assume/anticipate the need more high density development in the vicinity then that is a good thing since it means more facilities for train travellers. However I don't think any train/transit project is calling for restricting development in neighbourhoods far away from from its location (just so that everyone has to stay near transit and is compelled to use it). That sounds more like a blown up conspiracy theory. 



Suburbanist said:


> Roads can attract development like magnets, and most US downtown areas were severely depopulated of their middle-class taxpaying base without any need to restrict development there when new highways were opened on the cities' outskirts. On the contrary, most rail advocates are always seen the "need" to "tame" what they call "unsustainable" development that is "car dependent" - and this bother me a lot, all this negativity and the need to curtail other options (new freeway lanes, new subdivisions) to force people use rails.


Actually many interstate highways around downtowns were build after bull-dozing poor and minority dominated neighbourhoods. If roads can attract development so can transit. And I don't think anybody wants to force people out of their cars. Instead the emphasis is to provide an alternative mode of transit which didn't exist. Nobody is assuming that every single person will like transit and stop using their car. However many people will learn the benefits of using transit and will voluntarily start using public transit.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Bullet train will boost Kern jobs, business
The Bakersfield Californian | Thursday, Mar 10 2011 11:00 PM 

Last Updated Thursday, Mar 10 2011 11:00 PM 

When California voters approved bonds in 2008 for a modern high speed rail system connecting northern and southern California, they may not have realized they were also creating a program that would stimulate Kern County's economy.

And that "stimulus" could benefit Kern County more than other parts of the state, according to Rob Ball of the Kern Council of Governments, or KernCOG. 

Speaking at a recent Kern Transportation Foundation meeting in Bakersfield, Ball noted that Kern County potentially stands to benefit more than other parts of the state as the system is built.

That's because almost a quarter of the system's route rolls through Kern, which has the most track mileage for the new system. The line will also cross the Tehachapis, requiring several tunnels.

Not only does Kern benefit from mileage, but the first 120-mile section of the line to be constructed is in Kern, linking Bakersfield with Fresno. Although this first segment of the state system has been derided by some as a "train to nowhere," it will link the San Joaquin Valley's two largest cities along what once was one of the nation's fastest rail passenger routes. 

This first section will be used initially to test equipment, and could host existing Amtrak California trains until the rest of the system is completed, Ball noted.

That could significantly speed up trains, which are currently limited to 79 mph because of numerous highway crossings.

When the high speed system is up and running, passengers traveling on a grade-separated right-of-way at speeds of up to 220 mph will zip from Bakersfield to Sacramento in under two hours, city center to city center, even in weather conditions that halt or slow highway and air traffic.

Ball said that the state's High Speed Rail Authority believes it can begin construction on the tracks between Bakersfield and Fresno next year. That would put people to work on the project and pump much-needed money into Kern's struggling economy.

As the High Speed Rail Authority moves toward building the new line, the chair of the state Assembly Select Committee on High Speed Rail is urging small businesses to get involved.

"We need to do everything in our power to ensure participation by small, emerging businesses in the largest infrastructure project in California's history," said Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston.

The High Speed Rail Authority is currently seeking "expressions of interest" from public and private groups and firms interested in participating in the design, construction, financing, core systems, operations, and maintenance of the 800-mile system.

Roelof Van Ark, the Authority's new CEO, said that information will be used to help shape the procurement process, "which will lead to the first official Request for Proposals at the end of this calendar year."

Construction of the line between Mojave and Bakersfield will require 12 to 18 tunnels through the Tehachapi Mountains to ensure the 3.5 percent grade for the line. 

"This tunneling project will be one of the largest in North America, rivaling the Channel Tunnel project connecting France and England, which employed 8,000 people for six years," said KernCOG's Ball.

"With over 110 miles of right of way needed to cross Kern, this county will have more construction within its borders than any other county in California, which could total more than $9 billion in construction investment in the region by 2020," Ball noted.

At his Kern Transportation Foundation presentation, Ball discussed plans to expand the current Bakersfield Amtrak station to handle high speed trains, which will boost downtown property values. Some European communities have seen a 43 percent increase in office space after HSR comes to town. 

The rest of the world is eating our economic lunch by building fast, modern transportation and related systems. Providing a modern high-speed rail passenger system will continue Kern County's international reputation for innovation.

Bill Deaver, a Mojave journalist and consultant, is chairman of the Kern Transportation Foundation, as well as the East Kern Economic Alliance and Edwards Community Alliance. He was a political appointee in the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Federal Railroad Administration, OSHA, and the Treasury Department during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

Source: http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/community/x2098053478/Bullet-train-will-boost-Kern-jobs-business


----------



## Busfotodotnl

Are all the projects still proposals or are some of them allready in the next phase? As a dutchman, i dont follow this project daily.


----------



## HARTride 2012

Cali & the NE is where true HSR can happen. YEAH BABY!


----------



## ruffaramboo

Florida loses $2.4 billion for high-speed trains
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312...5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNmbG9yaWRhbG9zZXM-



> By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press – Fri Mar 11, 7:03 pm ET
> WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has taken back the $2.4 billion allocated to Florida for high-speed trains and is inviting other states to apply for the money, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Friday.
> 
> The project, which would have connected Tampa and Orlando with high-speed trains, was rejected by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican. He said he didn't want to obligate the state to pay for what could be expensive operating costs for the line.
> 
> However, the Florida Department of Transportation on Wednesday released a study showing the line connecting Tampa to Orlando would have had an operating surplus in 2015, its first year of operation.
> 
> It's still possible for Florida supporters of the project to reapply for the funds without state help if they create a regional transit authority working in conjunction with Amtrak or another established transportation authority. However, they would have to work swiftly to meet the Transportation Department's April 4 deadline for applications, a very tight window for such a complex undertaking.
> 
> "Hope is alive for thousands of good-paying jobs and a modernized transportation system," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a supporter of the project, said in a statement.
> 
> Several states, including New York, Virginia, Vermont, Delaware and Rhode Island, have asked LaHood for Florida's rail funds. But the only project that would achieve the high speeds associated with bullet trains in Asia and Europe would be California's plan for trains traveling up to 220 mph between San Francisco and Los Angeles and between Sacramento and San Francisco.
> 
> "States across the country have been banging down our door for the opportunity to receive additional high-speed rail dollars and to deliver all of its economic benefits to their citizens," LaHood said in a statement.
> Scott's decision was challenged by supporters of the project, but last week the state Supreme Court upheld his right to reject the money.
> 
> Scott is the third Republican governor elected in November to kill rail projects approved by his predecessor. Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio also turned down funds previously agreed to by their Democratic predecessors. In Florida, the money had been accepted by Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist, who lost a Senate race last year.
> 
> President Barack Obama has sought to make a national network of high-speed trains a signature project of his administration. In his state of the union speech in January, Obama said he wants to provide 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed trains within 25 years.
> 
> However, the rejections by three governors and opposition to high-speed rail by House Republicans has left the program's future in doubt.


----------



## FlyFish

HARTride 2012 said:


> Cali & the NE is where true HSR can happen. YEAH BABY!


dittos


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Busfotodotnl said:


> Are all the projects still proposals or are some of them allready in the next phase? As a dutchman, i dont follow this project daily.


In 2008, California voters approve $10 billion in bonds to partially fund the HSR project connecting the northern (Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose) and southern (Los Angeles, San Diego) parts of the state. In total, this project is expected to cost something like $60 billion and it cannot happen without substantial federal assistance. California did get a couple of billion $ of the 2009 "stimulus" funds for this project but if it is to happen, that can be only a start.

Anyway, the available $12 billion or so is being spent on planning, design work and some right of way acquisition (although it is hoped most right of way can be on existing railroad and/or highway rights of way). 

In addition (from an anti-HSR blog), 



> The California High Speed Rail Authority (the “Authority”) announced on December 20, 2010 that with $616 million in newly acquired federal stimulus funds and associated state matching funds they now had $5.5 billion in available construction funds. The “train to nowhere” announced a few weeks earlier could now go somewhere…..from south of Madera to somewhere near Bakersfield. It might stretch, depending on final design, 120 miles in length.


Source: http://againstcaliforniahsr.com/burning-through-california-high-speed-rail-bonds/

In other words, construction may soon begin on the easiest to construct 120 miles of the 800 mile system (see post #2081 above). It is easiest to construct because it goes down the flat, sparsely populated Central Valley where there is little controversy about the route and land is available. Unfortunately, because this area is sparsely populated, there's not much need for HSR in this segment by itself (ignoring that it's just the beginning of the larger system) and that allows critics to do things like calling it the "train to nowhere".

If this is built, most likely there won't even be any attempt to use it for HSR until more of the system is built, however the tracks could be used for the existing train service between Oakland (and San Francisco) and Bakersfield (with a bus connection over the mountains to Los Angeles) and that would improve that service by eliminating the need to use tracks shared with freight trains.


----------



## FlyFish

mgk920 said:


> Although off-topic for this thread, I'm wondering if we will soon (if not already) be seeing one or more North American 'Class I' railroads seriously studying wholesale electrification of their systems with the latest crude oil price spike. There was a LOT of chatter in midwestern railfan circles that at least one Class I was doing that during the last spike in 2008.
> 
> Advantages:
> -Ability to draw tractive energy from whatever source is most economical at any given time and in any given location.
> -With far fewer moving parts, locomotives are much simpler and less expensive to maintain and live far longer service lives than diesels.
> 
> Disadvantages:
> -Startup costs (buying/refitting locomotives to use catenary, cost of stringing wires and building power support facilities, etc).
> -Cost of maintaining catenary wires.
> -NIMBY along some lines (those *UNSIGHTLY* wires!).
> 
> Mike


I read somewhere that electrifying a rail line is just about as expensive as building one from scratch. If this is even close to being true why on earth would American class I roads want to do this? To me that 's the same rationale as borrowing money to buy a brand new $40,000 electric car to replace your fully paid off gas burner just to save money at the pump every week. It makes no fiscal sense whatsoever.

I can see them looking at it for any new lines or line expansions they may be considering but not for a system-wide retro-fit.


----------



## makita09

In the UK its costed at about £1million per double-track km, whereas a new line is about ten times that. Costs would be lower in the US (or anywhere else for that matter - there's a lot of criticism about the high cost of construction in the UK from the Office of Rail Regulation). But I would have thought the difference between electrification and new build would be similar unless there are major obstacles in the US for some reason?


----------



## FlyFish

COuld be, I don't remember where I read that or what time period it referred to it just stuck with me. Even at 1/10th cost I would think that construction costs would take a heck of a long time to be re-couped through fuel savings. Frankly, with the cost of fuel oils in the US being lower in comp to Europe there may not be all that much fuel savings.

I did see a new line in Western NM last summer that was electrified. It ran from a coal mine in NM to a coal fired electric generator plant in Page, Arizona.


----------



## Nexis

FlyFish said:


> COuld be, I don't remember where I read that or what time period it referred to it just stuck with me. Even at 1/10th cost I would think that construction costs would take a heck of a long time to be re-couped through fuel savings. Frankly, with the cost of fuel oils in the US being lower in comp to Europe there may not be all that much fuel savings.
> 
> I did see a new line in Western NM last summer that was electrified. It ran from a coal mine in NM to a coal fired electric generator plant in Page, Arizona.


That line isn't new its been there since the 70s , theres also the Metra Electric network , South Shore line both with expansions on the way. The LIRR plans on electrifying all 700 miles of its system. Denver plans on having Electric commuter rail lines , Cal Trans will go electric. NJT plans on electrifying some lines and expanding alot.....Septa of course is all electric plans on expanding....alot hopefully. MBTA is the only NE agency that is not electrifying....but downsizing to DMUs on some lines.


----------



## FlyFish

Nexis said:


> That line isn't new its been there since the 70s , theres also the Metra Electric network , South Shore line both with expansions on the way. The LIRR plans on electrifying all 700 miles of its system. Denver plans on having Electric commuter rail lines , Cal Trans will go electric. NJT plans on electrifying some lines and expanding alot.....Septa of course is all electric plans on expanding....alot hopefully. MBTA is the only NE agency that is not electrifying....but downsizing to DMUs on some lines.


Interesting in that all mentioned are public transport, am I correct. I just don't see the class 1 frieght carriers doing this.

But, we're off topic. Apologies all.


----------



## Rachmaninov

Nexis said:


> *Most of the 2020 Projects below are funded by the Feds or the states...or by Revenue....
> *
> *Amtrak Northeastern Division
> *
> *Projects to be completed by 2020
> *
> Gateway Tunnel / Moynihan Station
> New Haven - Springfield Corridor
> Lackawanna line
> Lehigh line
> Norfolk line
> Concord line
> DMU trains > Downeaster , Vermonter
> Electrification of the Empire line & Lackawanna line
> Re-routed Vermont trains
> Cape Cod service
> New Shops
> Overhaul of the Northeast Corridor
> Newer Amfleet Cars
> City Sprinter locos
> Overhaul of Bridgeport , Stamford , Baltimore , Philly , Newark Stations
> Added Capacity to South Station , DC Union , NY Penn station , Springfield station , Hartford , Providence , Harrisburg
> Overhaul and Replacement of NEC wires , Bridges , Tunnels
> LED Signal Bulbs
> Concrete Ties on all lines
> LED Departure Boards @ All stations
> Connecticut River Bridge replacements
> Baltimore Tunnel Replacements
> Added Capacity along the NEC in NJ , CT , RI , MA
> Grade Separations @ Raritan Valley line , Jersey Avenue ,New Rochelle / New Haven line , Waterbury merge , Danbury line merge
> 
> 
> *Large Scale Rail Projects
> *
> *Project : Lackawanna line (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Number of lines : 1
> Stations : 5/6 (Intercity)
> Projected Ridership : 12,000
> Status : Under Construction in NJ
> 
> *Project : Lehigh line (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Number of lines : 1
> Stations : 7 (Intercity)
> Projected Ridership : 15,000
> Status : Awaiting Funding
> 
> *Project : Concord line (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Number of lines : 1
> Stations : 3
> Projected Ridership : 2,000
> Status : Awaiting Funding
> 
> *Project : Cape Cod line (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Number of lines : 1
> Stations : 7
> Projected Ridership : 14,000 (seasonal)
> Status : Awaiting Funding
> 
> *Project : Norfolk line
> *Number of lines : 1
> Stations : 8
> Projected Ridership : 5,000
> Status : Under Construction
> 
> *Project : New Haven - Springfield line (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Number of lines : 1
> Stations : 3 (Intercity)
> Projected Ridership : 9,000
> Status : Under Construction
> 
> *Current Amtrak NE System *
> 
> *Line : Northeast Regional (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Length : 664 mi
> Stations : 42
> Ridership : 25,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 45,000
> 
> *Line : Acela Express (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Length : 456 mi
> Stations : 14
> Ridership : 9,400 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 16,000
> 
> *Line : Downeaster (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Length : 116 mi
> Stations : 10
> Ridership : 1,300 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 6,300
> 
> *Line : Vermonter
> *Length : 611 mi
> Stations : 27
> Ridership : 240 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 3,000
> 
> *Line : Keystone (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
> *Length : 195 mi
> Stations : 19
> Ridership : 3,500 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 8,000
> 
> *Line : Pennsylvanian
> *Length : 444 mi
> Stations : 17
> Ridership : 557 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 5,000
> 
> *Line : Empire
> *Length : 460 mi
> Stations : 15
> Ridership : 2,500 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 5,800


Hey thanks for summing this up. Are there any figures as to what the projected speed for each of them is going to be?


----------



## Nexis

Rachmaninov said:


> Hey thanks for summing this up. Are there any figures as to what the projected speed for each of them is going to be?


I could guess , alot of lines below share with Regional Rail. Freight runs at night along those lines to minimize conflict. Regional Rail congestion is an issue on the NEC , Downeaster and Empire have Congestion issues which slow trains and cause them to be rerouted. Addition tracks and restored lines will help this. The Lackawanna line feeds into a system of 3 (6 lines by 2020) , with 480 trains a day and over 150,000 people daily....which is expected to grow by 220,000 by 2025. Once the full line is completed in 2025 , 30 trains per day for Intercity and local will ride on the Lackawanna. And a Estimated 6 rerouted Lehigh Intercity Trains per day. The good thing about the Lackawanna and Lehigh lines is there are alt routes they can use , the bad news is it adds 20-30 mins to the trip. The NEC trains cannot be rerouted most of the length , except in New England future plans call for 3 new ways to Boston. 

NEC > 165mph Max
Empire > 120mph max
Pennsylvanian / Keystone > 110mph max
Downeaster > 90mph max
Lackawanna > 110mph max
Norfolk line > 120mph max 
Vermonter > 120mph max
Lehigh > 110mph max
New Haven - Springfield > 110-130mph max
Cape Cod > 90-110mph max
Concord > 110mph max


----------



## sekelsenmat

High-speed rail: First phase could run to Merced after all
Authority plan to apply for money Florida rejected would expand construction project's 'backbone.'
By KEITH A. JONES
[email protected] 

High-speed rail may come to Merced sooner than expected, as the California High Speed Rail Authority will announce today it's asking for $1.2 billion in funding that was rejected by Florida.

If the request is approved, it would mean the first phase of track will run from Merced to Bakersfield. Also, instead of building a station just in downtown Fresno, stations will be built in Merced and Bakersfield. The authority is also looking at building a station in Tulare County.

"This is very good news for Merced," said Mayor Bill Spriggs on Sunday afternoon. "The City Council has always supported high-speed rail. We were disappointed when the Corcoran-to-Borden route was announced." 


"If we get a portion of Florida's money, we'll able to complete the entire backbone of the project," Jeff Barker, deputy director of the rail authority, told the Sun-Star Friday.

In December, after receiving federal money from canceled high-speed rail projects in Wisconsin and Ohio, the authority announced it was building the first leg from Shafter to Borden. That was quickly dubbed "the train to nowhere" by some critics and disappointed advocates.

The application deadline is April 4 for the $2.43 billion that Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott turned down. Barker said the state will provide a 30 percent match from state Proposition 1A funds that will bring the total to more than $1.7 billion.

"We already have $5.5 billion to start construction from Borden to Shafter," he said.

Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, who wrote Proposition 1A, which voters approved in November 2008, said "It's not a question of whether were going to get the money, but how much."

The staff will make its recommendation to the authority's board Wednesday.

"With the extra money we think we can do one of two things," Barker said: Extend the track to south of Bakersfield to at least Te-hachapi or build the track 39 miles beyond the triangle at Chowchilla toward Los Banos and San Jose.

Laying the "keel" of the high-speed rail in the Valley, Galgiani said, "gets us closer to getting private money on the table. It signals to the private investment community that we are serious."

Barker said, "We've gotten nearly 1,000 responses from business that they are interested in investing. Lots of the interest comes from small business in California. We were shocked to see that kind of response."

The first phase of high-speed rail will be just 220 miles of track. Construction will start in September 2012 and finish by 2017. The 800-mile system is scheduled to be completed by 2020. The trains will run at 220 mph.

The money for the first phase is only for construction. There will be no electrification or trains until later. Until the entire system is complete, Amtrak will be able to run at 120 mph between Bakersfield and Merced, Galgiani said. "That's an immediate benefit," she added.

Running on Burlington Northern Santa Fe track in the Valley, Amtrack can travel at just 79 mph and often has to pull onto sidings to wait for freight trains to pass.

"You have to keep in mind we are trying to build a statewide system," Barker said. "We haven't settled on the alignment of the tracks in the Valley. It depends on which one we choose if the route will be a little longer or a little shorter."

This development will bring about 38,000 jobs to Merced and Kern counties, Galgiani said. The government says every $1 billion spent on infrastructure means 20,000 jobs.

"These are going to be American jobs. We're not importing labor from overseas," Galgiani said. "Approximately 94 to 96 percent of the labor will be California workers. Our global partners will be sharing high-speed rail technology. California workers will lay track, build viaducts, bridges and do the tunneling."

A decision on the maintenance facility is still a ways off, Galgiani said. Merced County has offered the Castle Commerce Center as the site. Madera, Fresno, Kern and Orange counties have offered sites as well.

"This will put California economy on a fast track to recovery," she said. "We are in the process of developing the contracting policy for the High Speed Rail Authority."

Galgiani says she has legislation to implement the small business enterprise program that will put Valley businesses in the pipeline to compete for contracts.

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/03/28/1828719/high-speed-rail-first-phase-could.html



















Populations of counties in the line:

Merced County - 255.000
Madera County - 155.000 (no station)
Fresno County - 800.000
Kings County - 150.000 // Tulare County - 370.000 (potential station, the line passes on the border of both counties)
Kern County - 840.000 (Bakersfield station)

To the south, the next county would be:

Los Angeles County - 10 million (many stations)

Northwards, from Madera in the direction of São Francisco it would be:

San Francisco County - 800.000 or 3 millions if you county the whole urban connurbated area
San Mateo County - 700.000
Santa Clara County - 1.700.000

Norwards to Sacramento it would be:

Sacramento County - 1.400.000
San Joaquin County - 700.000 (Stockton station)
Stanislaus County - 500.000 (Modesto station)

And here go the existing Amtrak lines:


----------



## sekelsenmat

It seams to me that their chosen place to start is Sacramento-Bakersfield, correct? To me it seams a very wierd choice ... I would surely have started with Los Angeles-Bakersfield.


----------



## Silly_Walks

In LA it looks more like a metro.


----------



## Nexis

sekelsenmat said:


> It seams to me that their chosen place to start is Sacramento-Bakersfield, correct? To me it seams a very wierd choice ... I would surely have started with Los Angeles-Bakersfield.


Its flat , between 2 large cities that could use the benefits of HSR and its the cheapest segment...


----------



## sekelsenmat

Nexis said:


> Its flat , between 2 large cities that could use the benefits of HSR and its the cheapest segment...


Well, it connects Backersfield with 800.000 people to Sacramento, with a county population of 1,4 million, which IMHO is not really a lot. But, if it went to the opposite direction it would connect Backersfield 800.000 with Los Angeles 10 million.

Plus there already exists a train line which makes the route Sacramento-Backersfield while there is no train line between Backersfield and Los Angeles. I think that a new line there would already allow to put trains between Los Angeles and Sacramento and San Francisco, even if they are fast only in part of the line and then use the collected money to expand northwards. I seriously doubt Sacramento-Backersfield will be as profitable. The airport connection in Los Angeles would also be a major attraction of demand.

About costs I read that Sacramento-Backersfield will cost $11,4 billions, it would be unlikely for Los Angeles-Backersfield to cost more. Source: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/09/build-hsr-in-central-valley-first/

And in general, my biggest worry is building first a segment with no connection to either San Francisco nor Los Angeles.


----------



## nomarandlee

> http://www.chicagobusiness.com/sect...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
> 
> 
> *Group pushes Chicago/New York high-speed rail line*Posted by Greg H. at 3/28/2011 1:44 PM CDT on Chicago Business
> 
> An upstart advocacy group is trying to build support for a high-speed railroad line between Chicago and a destination that might attract some real business: New York City.
> 
> NYChicagoRR.org argues that, while Illinois and federal authorities are in the process of spending what may turn out to be more than $2 billion on 110 m.p.h. service to St. Louis, heading east is what really makes sense.
> 
> "This Midwest thing is just not sustainable. It doesn't work," says group founder Mike Lehman, who has worked in the transportation logistics business. "The only thing that makes sense is Chicago to New York."
> 
> *Mr. Lehman notes that a Windy City/Big Apple line would travel through a geographic area that is home to well over 100 million people*. It quite conceivably would hit such big cities as Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and would connect to the East Coast metroliner service, which has been extended as far west as Harrisburg, in central Pennsylvania.
> 
> Mr. Lehman's group is looking for corporate and foundation backing, as well as help from private individuals.
> 
> It's new and small, and not well connected to other rail groups here. *It has only a dream -- service to New York City at, perhaps, five hours,* assuming rates hit by truly high-speed lines in Europe and Asia -- and the vaguest cost estimate: $10 billion to $25 billion, which strikes me as pretty low.
> 
> But in terms of concept, he's absolutely right. Chicago/St. Louis has only limited potential -- at any speed. Population density between here and there is too low.
> 
> Chicago/New York could be completely different -- if someone wants to put real muscle and money behind it.


,,,


----------



## Nexis

sekelsenmat said:


> Well, it connects Backersfield with 800.000 people to Sacramento, with a county population of 1,4 million, which IMHO is not really a lot. But, if it went to the opposite direction it would connect Backersfield 800.000 with Los Angeles 10 million.
> 
> Plus there already exists a train line which makes the route Sacramento-Backersfield while there is no train line between Backersfield and Los Angeles. I think that a new line there would already allow to put trains between Los Angeles and Sacramento and San Francisco, even if they are fast only in part of the line and then use the collected money to expand northwards. I seriously doubt Sacramento-Backersfield will be as profitable. The airport connection in Los Angeles would also be a major attraction of demand.
> 
> About costs I read that Sacramento-Backersfield will cost $11,4 billions, it would be unlikely for Los Angeles-Backersfield to cost more. Source: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/09/build-hsr-in-central-valley-first/
> 
> And in general, my biggest worry is building first a segment with no connection to either San Francisco nor Los Angeles.


But to get to LA you need to Tunnel and go through Densely populated areas....unlike linking these 2 cities which is Easy. The Plan is to build outwards form here...


----------



## FlyFish

sekelsenmat said:


> Well, it connects Backersfield with 800.000 people to Sacramento, with a county population of 1,4 million, which IMHO is not really a lot. But, if it went to the opposite direction it would connect Backersfield 800.000 with Los Angeles 10 million.
> 
> Plus there already exists a train line which makes the route Sacramento-Backersfield while there is no train line between Backersfield and Los Angeles. I think that a new line there would already allow to put trains between Los Angeles and Sacramento and San Francisco, even if they are fast only in part of the line and then use the collected money to expand northwards. I seriously doubt Sacramento-Backersfield will be as profitable. The airport connection in Los Angeles would also be a major attraction of demand.
> 
> About costs I read that Sacramento-Backersfield will cost $11,4 billions, it would be unlikely for Los Angeles-Backersfield to cost more. Source: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/09/build-hsr-in-central-valley-first/
> 
> And in general, my biggest worry is building first a segment with no connection to either San Francisco nor Los Angeles.


Have to agree. They should start building the CA HSR in the place with the most people.....LA. You don't hear alot about the unholy traffic congestion between Bakersfield and Sacramento. Why? Because there isn't any. Just look ast Nexis' map up there. Build the first segment from LA and out in three directions. To Irvine one way, to Palmdale in another and to Riverside in the other. You've now tackled the most congested areas of the entire project, guaranteed full trains once it is running and shown everyone looking on that this thing can work, guaranteeing mooolah to keep buiilding. I know the first segments are easy to build but if those trains end up 30% full this won't be looked at as a success outside of the "we love HSR" community. It will be an easy target for a Congress or new President who will undoubtedly be running in 2012 on a platform to eliminate "wasteful" Government spending, which as we know, is all in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I'm trying to find the renderings of proposed Bakersfield station online... I can't find anywhere. Only one rendering I found in Bakersfield: cool suspension bridge over Kern River. Anyone has the rendering of proposed Bakersfield station?


----------



## G5man

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I'm trying to find the renderings of proposed Bakersfield station online... I can't find anywhere. Only one rendering I found in Bakersfield: cool suspension bridge over Kern River. Anyone has the rendering of proposed Bakersfield station?


I have not seen any posted ever. You could check the Library on the Authority's website at cahighspeedrail.ca.gov it sounds though like station designs through the Central Valley are in the conceptual phase more than anything.


----------



## sekelsenmat

This brings an interresting question: Do they plan to use the existing stations like is done in Europe or are they planning to build new stations in a different part of town? (aka, no easy interconection between the local Amtrak service and HSR)


----------



## G5man

sekelsenmat said:


> This brings an interresting question: Do they plan to use the existing stations like is done in Europe or are they planning to build new stations in a different part of town? (aka, no easy interconection between the local Amtrak service and HSR)


AFAIK, the stations along the line would be separated from other rails for FRA compliance but would be located right at current train stations. Notable exceptions would be Caltrain at Transbay Terminal and maybe tracksharing from Burbank to LA and Anahiem. Easy interconnection is built in but it will require going down or up to get to one or the other.


----------



## sekelsenmat

G5man said:


> AFAIK, the stations along the line would be separated from other rails for FRA compliance but would be located right at current train stations. Notable exceptions would be Caltrain at Transbay Terminal and maybe tracksharing from Burbank to LA and Anahiem. Easy interconnection is built in but it will require going down or up to get to one or the other.


Ok, quite good then! Having to take a bus to change stations would definetively be a big minus.


----------



## sekelsenmat

> Valley rail line could expand to Merced, Bakersfield
> 
> Money from Florida could put Merced and Bakersfield on track to be included in construction of California's first section of high-speed rail.
> 
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority, at a meeting today in Sacramento, is expected to apply to the Federal Railroad Administration for some of the $2.4 billion spurned last month by Florida's Republican governor, Rick Scott.
> 
> Officials from Merced and Bakersfield complained long and loud about being left off the initial construction route when it was unveiled in late 2010. A successful application for more federal money could go a long way to soothe that disappointment and anxiety.
> 
> In a national competition for the funds, it's far from certain whether California's application will prevail. But just half of the Florida money -- combined with $540 million in state funds from Prop. 1A approved by voters in 2008 -- "could allow the Authority to complete the entire backbone of this statewide system from Merced to Bakersfield," said Rachel Wall, the authority's press secretary.
> 
> The current plans call for starting construction late next year on a 120-mile stretch of tracks from north of Fresno to the northeast fringe of Bakersfield, with a station in downtown Fresno. Extra money from Florida would extend that section by about 60 miles and add stations in downtown Merced and downtown Bakersfield.
> 
> "We're extremely pleased with this recommendation," said Lee Boese Jr., co-chairman of the Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee. "We're almost frantic here because our unemployment is climbing. We need jobs."
> 
> "This is the tonic that the Obama administration has been promising," Boese added.
> 
> Merced Mayor Bill Spriggs said bringing the line into his city is a matter of providing a gateway to the entire North Valley.
> 
> "Our contention has always been that it really cuts out access to a significant number of potential riders" for tracks to fall short of Merced, Spriggs said.
> 
> California's application includes additional options if even more money is awarded: to either begin building a connecting line from the Chowchilla area west toward Pacheco Pass and San Jose, or building southeast from Bakersfield toward the Tehachapi Mountains and Palmdale.
> 
> If the authority board approves the application today, the question becomes: Will California get the money?
> 
> California is just one of several states competing for Florida's spoils. Its ultimate plans call for linking San Francisco, Los Angeles and other major urban centers with trains capable of hauling passengers at up to 220 mph on dedicated tracks that won't be shared with freight trains or slower passenger trains.
> 
> "What California has going for it is that it's the nation's only dedicated high-speed rail project that is under way," said Petra Todorovich, director of America 2050, a project of the New York-based Regional Plan Association.
> 
> "It's seen by the federal government as a demonstration project, and that's why the [Obama] administration is eager to support its progress."
> 
> The Florida money -- a combination of federal stimulus funds and railroad grants -- originally was intended to build a high-speed train system between Tampa and Orlando.
> 
> After Scott killed that project, however, "the Obama administration lost its signature demonstration project," Todorovich said. "So now the pressure moves to California to have something to show, to complete segments of its project."
> 
> But, she added, other parts of the country may also be able to make a case for the Florida money, including the Northeast Corridor connecting Boston, New York and Washington, D.C.
> 
> "The Northeast is the busiest passenger rail corridor in the country," said Todorovich. "Given that the Northeast has not received a sizable chunk of funding yet, and some criticism in Congress over that, we may see some of this money go there instead."
> 
> California already has received more federal money than any other state for high-speed rail.
> 
> Nearly $3 billion in stimulus money has been committed to begin construction in the Valley. When state Prop. 1A bond funds are added in, the state has about $5.5 billion available to build the first segment.












Link: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/03/29/2329511/valley-rail-line-could-expand.html


----------



## sekelsenmat

The previous news item that I posted was somewhat confusing. This one explains better how things are developing and the plan is not building Sacramento-Backersfield first. It is only Merced-Backersfield. I supposed they would next go to Sacramento because Merced is more to the north then the exit to San Francisco, so logically it would make no sense to build Merced first if you really want to connect LA to SF first. Anyway, it's not really clear which segment will be built next.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

^^ They are building what is easiest and cheapest, and the Central Valley is easiest and cheapest. But eventually--and I think that means next--they will have to explain how and when the Bay Area and the SoCal megalopolis are going to be linked up or else the political support from those areas will fade. The most politically and legally difficult stretch to build is probably San Jose to SF and through Orange County. The most expensive is probably across the mountains from the Central Valley into the LA basin. Therefore, to me it makes the most sense to hook up San Jose with the Merced-Bakersfield segment via Pacheco Pass. That is also consistent with the previously announced plan to build the SF to LA line first (before tying in Sacramento and San Diego).


----------



## sekelsenmat

I found cost estimates here:










www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CARRD_Capital_Cost_Estimates-v1-2.pdf


----------



## G5man

sekelsenmat said:


> I found cost estimates here:
> www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CARRD_Capital_Cost_Estimates-v1-2.pdf


These cost estimates are by an organization that has NIMBY tendancies. The link they provided to the source for how they got their capital costs did not provide how they came up with the figures and unit costs etc. 
If the Central Valley plan is amended to reduce the amount of ariel structures, that should significantly reduce the cost and bring the Central Valley segment to around $7 billion. If they are designing the structures for Amtrak standards, then the cost will be high, but if it designed for mostly at grade and for light weight HS trains, then the cost should be kept under control.


----------



## Nexis

High Speed Commuter Rail vs Fanner


----------



## Cirdan

Cal_Escapee said:


> ^^ They are building what is easiest and cheapest, and the Central Valley is easiest and cheapest. But eventually--and I think that means next--they will have to explain how and when the Bay Area and the SoCal megalopolis are going to be linked up or else the political support from those areas will fade. The most politically and legally difficult stretch to build is probably San Jose to SF and through Orange County. The most expensive is probably across the mountains from the Central Valley into the LA basin. Therefore, to me it makes the most sense to hook up San Jose with the Merced-Bakersfield segment via Pacheco Pass. That is also consistent with the previously announced plan to build the SF to LA line first (before tying in Sacramento and San Diego).


Afaik, the original plan was not to go all the way to Merced initially, instead just building the SF-LA route, which goes east into the pass a couple of miles before that. However Merced went on the barricades against that, I believe not that much because they want the trains to stop there, but more because they want the heavy maintenance facility, and if they'd have to wait until the Sacramento link gets build to get connected to the HSR network, it wouldn't be feasable to build that thing in Merced. The HSR guys didn't really fight that and just included them.


----------



## stingstingsting

Nexis said:


> High Speed Commuter Rail vs Fanner


How fast do you reckon it was going? At those speeds, with tall double decker coaches, low narrow platforms and no barriers, I'm pretty sure the vacuum effect must be really strong for people standing on the side. Do you know if there have been many accidents on the NEC where people have unfortunately fell onto the platform?

I infer that the stations are the a major limiting factor to increasing speeds on the NEC. Am I right?


----------



## Nexis

stingstingsting said:


> How fast do you reckon it was going? At those speeds, with tall double decker coaches, low narrow platforms and no barriers, I'm pretty sure the vacuum effect must be really strong for people standing on the side. Do you know if there have been many accidents on the NEC where people have unfortunately fell onto the platform?
> 
> I infer that the stations are the a major limiting factor to increasing speeds on the NEC. Am I right?


Its says 100mph , the max is 125mph. There are rarely accidents along the NEC but there are over 120+ suicides yearly.... Amtrak wants all NEC stations to be High Level platforms by 2020.


----------



## mgk920

China handles that high-speed train vs. intermediate station platform thing by building their platforms along sidings that parallel the main tracks. This permits express trains to safely blow through those stations at full speed while allowing local/regional trains to make their normal station stops.

Mike


----------



## G5man

The limits on NEC speeds come from various factors such as curvature, catenary, track condition and maintenance, along with trying to fit all the trains onto the tracks. As in France, with various speed trains on mixed use lines, you reduce the capacity of the line. I am not sure about the fitting all the trains on part but the curvature and catenary play high roles. Also come to think of it, with some of the bridges being very old, their are limits on bridges which are not at track speed which causes some time penalties.


----------



## Basincreek

FlyFish said:


> Have to agree. They should start building the CA HSR in the place with the most people.....LA. You don't hear alot about the unholy traffic congestion between Bakersfield and Sacramento. Why? Because there isn't any. Just look ast Nexis' map up there. Build the first segment from LA and out in three directions. To Irvine one way, to Palmdale in another and to Riverside in the other. You've now tackled the most congested areas of the entire project, guaranteed full trains once it is running and shown everyone looking on that this thing can work, guaranteeing mooolah to keep buiilding. I know the first segments are easy to build but if those trains end up 30% full this won't be looked at as a success outside of the "we love HSR" community. It will be an easy target for a Congress or new President who will undoubtedly be running in 2012 on a platform to eliminate "wasteful" Government spending, which as we know, is all in the eye of the beholder.


All the sections around LA are in the very preliminary stages of design. They require very complicated tunnels and so the engineering on them is quite complex. The section in the valley, on the other hand, is almost completely designed already. All they really have to do now is some minor refinements.



CrazyAboutCities said:


> I'm trying to find the renderings of proposed Bakersfield station online... I can't find anywhere. Only one rendering I found in Bakersfield: cool suspension bridge over Kern River. Anyone has the rendering of proposed Bakersfield station?


I don't think anyone has done a rendering yet. Probably there will be a design competition for the station designs. Bakersfield's will be the only aerial station in the valley so it might get a pretty neat one.


----------



## K_

mgk920 said:


> China handles that high-speed train vs. intermediate station platform thing by building their platforms along sidings that parallel the main tracks. This permits express trains to safely blow through those stations at full speed while allowing local/regional trains to make their normal station stops.


It's the same in Europe. But high speed means 200kph and more. In Europe it's not uncommon for trains to pass platforms at 160kph (100mph) or even 200 kph. The maximum is along the Berlin - Hamburg line, where trains pass at 230 kph. The solution there looks like this:








(Think this has been posted here already however)


----------



## FlyFish

Basincreek said:


> All the sections around LA are in the very preliminary stages of design. They require very complicated tunnels and so the engineering on them is quite complex. The section in the valley, on the other hand, is almost completely designed already. All they really have to do now is some minor refinements.


So, do the complex engineering and drill the complicated tunnels.......then build the easy part later when the train will have somewhere to go. LA isn't going to get less congested. The longer you wait the more complex it will all be. The Japanese didn't start their line in the middle of nowhere, they started where the people were. We're back to doing this just for the sake of doing it. Wait, get your money together, build it where the people are and watch the success. I really fear a line in the central valley will end up being just another monument to Government excess.


----------



## Cirdan

FlyFish said:


> So, do the complex engineering and drill the complicated tunnels.......then build the easy part later when the train will have somewhere to go. LA isn't going to get less congested. The longer you wait the more complex it will all be. The Japanese didn't start their line in the middle of nowhere, they started where the people were. We're back to doing this just for the sake of doing it. Wait, get your money together, build it where the people are and watch the success. I really fear a line in the central valley will end up being just another monument to Government excess.


First of all, the line they build is San Francisco-LA and not Fresno-Bakersfield, that's just the first segment. There is no single segment on the whole route that would be viable for HSR on its own. I would like to see a source for which segment of the Tokaido Shinkansen was the first to get constructed, I haven't found anything in a quick google search, but I'd think they didn't start in Tokyo or Osaka either. I know for certain that they started construction on the first French HSR line in the middle of nowhere and not in Paris or Lyon, not to mention that Fresno is actually about as big as Lyon.

Then, they like to have the high speed part of the route build early to be able to test trainsets. They can't do that in urban areas because the trains won't use their max speed there.

BTW, the part of the line I'd have focused on first is the Tehachapi pass... very much in the middle of nowhere and probably one of the more difficult and expensive parts to construct, but currently, the line that exists is the most used single-track freight line of the world... A new double track line would allow the San Joaqin to start in LA and bring massive improvements for the LA-northern California freight rail connections, so you could probably convince people to build it even without the rest of the HSR line (though arguing for all the tunnels and bridges needed for 200mph capacity would probably be difficult if it weren't build specifically for HSR  ).


----------



## KingNick

sekelsenmat said:


> I found cost estimates here:
> 
> www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CARRD_Capital_Cost_Estimates-v1-2.pdf


That looks way too expensive.


----------



## AlexNL

KingNick said:


> That looks way too expensive.


Compared to what?


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Cirdan said:


> First of all, the line they build is San Francisco-LA and not Fresno-Bakersfield, that's just the first segment. There is no single segment on the whole route that would be viable for HSR on its own. I would like to see a source for which segment of the Tokaido Shinkansen was the first to get constructed, I haven't found anything in a quick google search, but I'd think they didn't start in Tokyo or Osaka either.


The first part of the Tokaido was some where between Odawara and Samukawa, Kanagawa. It was built as a test track for the the Shinkansen project which was later incorporated into the Tokaido line much the same as the Yamanashi test track for Maglev in Yamanashi which is planned to be incorporated into the Chuo Shinkansen line. Recycle & Reuse.:lol:


----------



## Nexis




----------



## FlyFish

Cirdan said:


> BTW, the part of the line I'd have focused on first is the Tehachapi pass... very much in the middle of nowhere and probably one of the more difficult and expensive parts to construct, but currently, the line that exists is the most used single-track freight line of the world... A new double track line would allow the San Joaqin to start in LA and bring massive improvements for the LA-northern California freight rail connections, so you could probably convince people to build it even without the rest of the HSR line (though arguing for all the tunnels and bridges needed for 200mph capacity would probably be difficult if it weren't build specifically for HSR  ).


How cool would it be to see a HSR loop on the Tehachapi just like the famous frieght line there. It would be pretty neat to see a train zip around a closed loop like that at 150+ mph. Probably require seat belts for the passengers though.


----------



## mgk920

FlyFish said:


> How cool would it be to see a HSR loop on the Tehachapi just like the famous frieght line there. It would be pretty neat to see a train zip around a closed loop like that at 150+ mph. Probably require seat belts for the passengers though.


(hehehehe)

Actually, from what I am aware of, true high speed passenger trainsets aren't as picky about grades as are freight trains, so a loop won't be needed there.

OTOH, I'm wondering how long it will be before we see the tunnels on the freight line upgraded to double track....

(IMHO, if the USA ever converts to full 'open access' for railroads, that freight line would likely have to be upgraded to at least double track and FAST!)

Mike


----------



## Cirdan

mgk920 said:


> (hehehehe)
> 
> Actually, from what I am aware of, true high speed passenger trainsets aren't as picky about grades as are freight trains, so a loop won't be needed there.
> 
> OTOH, I'm wondering how long it will be before we see the tunnels on the freight line upgraded to double track....
> 
> (IMHO, if the USA ever converts to full 'open access' for railroads, that freight line would likely have to be upgraded to at least double track and FAST!)
> 
> Mike


High speed trains are much more picky about curve radius, though, so as funny as a HSR loop might be, it won't happen  They'll build more (or rather longer) tunnels and bridges instead.


----------



## FlyFish

Cirdan said:


> High speed trains are much more picky about curve radius, though, so as funny as a HSR loop might be, it won't happen  They'll build more (or rather longer) tunnels and bridges instead.


We know they'd never do it, just thinking how cool it would be to watch if they ever did.


----------



## manrush

It seems like HSR funding will be more difficult to come by in the future.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/04/10/the-new-congress-makes-its-claim-on-the-budget/


----------



## Nexis

manrush said:


> It seems like HSR funding will be more difficult to come by in the future.
> http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/04/10/the-new-congress-makes-its-claim-on-the-budget/


Yawns , Northeast remains unaffected by any budget crisis in Washington...


----------



## HARTride 2012

manrush said:


> It seems like HSR funding will be more difficult to come by in the future.
> http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/04/10/the-new-congress-makes-its-claim-on-the-budget/


If the GOP wins in 2012, whatever projects for HSR that have not yet been approved will be killed instantly. hno:

In fact, I won't be surprised if the tea party puts on enough pressure to DC to completely de fund public transit and a measure is passed to prevent any public transit projects from going forward unless they meet specific guidelines, like cutting down on auto commute times. I've heard that some vocal tea party members are trying to push just that.

On top of that, I won't be surprised if the GOP pass numerous legislation effectively banning HSR unless it drastically cuts down on auto commute times and is cost effective.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

^^ With a definition of "cost effective" that no project would ever satisfy.


----------



## Suburbanist

Gag Halfrunt said:


> ^^ With a definition of "cost effective" that no project would ever satisfy.


Projects whose operations could be entirely paid by fares would be a reasonable criteria. It would be something akin to public highways: the investment on the tracks, signaling etc. is considered a public good for the general welfare, while the purchase/lease, operation and maintenance of rolling stock and of ticket vending machines/counters.


----------



## CharlieP

FlyFish said:


> We know they'd never do it, just thinking how cool it would be to watch if they ever did.


A bit like this?


----------



## Herzarsen

*U.S. high-speed rail program hit by deep budget cuts*
By Steve Kastenbaum, CNN Radio correspondent
April 13, 2011 8:18 p.m. EDT


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

*
Battle over federal budget cuts leaves high-speed rail with no money for 2011
Amount cut from program is unclear, with reports of $1.4 billion to $4.4 billion 
Original plan called for $53 billion spent over 25 years to connect regional cities
Supporters say program would create jobs, boost economy; critics say it's too expensive
*
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama's plan for a national high-speed rail network suffered a serious setback as a result of the fight over budget cuts. No money will be allocated for high-speed rail projects for the remainder of 2011.

Supporters have pointed to the plan as a job creator and economy booster, while critics have expressed doubts about whether spending billions of dollars on high-speed rail is the best use of federal funds. 

The news came as a blow to high-speed rail advocates such as Petra Todorovich of the Regional Plan Association in New York. "Obviously, it's a disappointment for many of the states that were seeking funding from the high-speed rail program," Todorovich said, "and it's a loss of momentum as we scale up for the president's ambitious proposal."

As details of the budget compromise on Capitol Hill were made available to the public there was confusion over just how much money was being cut from the high-speed rail program. Some published reports put the figure at $2.9 billion, and at least one said it was as much as $4.4 billion.

But the U.S. Department of Transportation's figure is significantly lower. Federal Rail Administration officials claim that they lost what amounts to $1.4 billion in funds for high-speed rail.

The budget bill says the amount of money for "Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service shall be $0" for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. Another section of the bill rescinds $400 million from the funds that were already budgeted for high-speed rail in 2010.

The cuts will not affect projects already under way across the United States, according to DOT officials. Projects that have been awarded grants will keep their funding. But that's not to say that there aren't concerns about future funding.

"It's always worrisome when an important infrastructure initiative becomes politicized," Todorovich said. "It's a big setback."

Proponents of California's high-speed rail project are concerned about the cuts and whether they can depend on future funding for a line that will ultimately link Los Angeles with San Francisco. The first phase is moving forward in the state's Central Valley. 

Todorovich said that so far state officials have secured about $3 billion for a project that will cost about $50 billion. They were counting on federal dollars for the bulk of the remainder.

Obama's vision for a national high-speed rail network took some hits even before it became a part of budget negotiations in Congress. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood redirected high-speed rail funds away from Wisconsin and Ohio after both Republican governors said they would oppose projects in their states.

Most recently, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, also a Republican, rejected a plan to link Tampa and Orlando via a high-speed rail line that ultimately would have grown to include Miami and Jacksonville among its stops. As a result, Florida lost $2.4 billion in federal funding. Now, Scott is taking credit for inspiring Washington to cut the rail program, according to the Broward-Palm Beach New Times.

Twenty-four states submitted requests to the DOT for a portion of Florida's high-speed rail funds. The department was in the process of reallocating the money when the budget cuts were announced.

The Obama administration has proposed spending $53 billion over a quarter of a century on a national high-speed rail network. The president's goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed intercity trains by 2020.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis




----------



## Gadiri

*Why Does High Speed Rail = Rebuilding the US? www.RBTUS.com*








> For more information on the RBTUS action plan to create over 10 million jobs as well as exclusive news coverage about job creation in the U.S., please visit our website: www.rbtus.com.


----------



## Gadiri

*US TO INTRODUCE CHINA´S HIGH-SPEED RAIL CCTV News*








> *Chicago is on track to become the first American city to introduce China's high-speed railway system*. *Chinese companies are also expected to fund this billion-dollar project*.
> 
> That's the word from Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. He's on a two-week visit in China at the invitation of the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries.
> 
> Information provided by cctv.com Thank you http://www.cctv.com
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/keymastermind77?feature=mhum#p/a/f/1/Due3iUlaoX4


----------



## SimFox

^^
Lost in "creative" translation...

117km turned into 100. 30 min turned into 20!

And on top of this all is the O'Hara nonsense... The airport is about 30 km away from Chicago downtown. What sort of "Chinese High Speed" railway could be built there? It takes about same distance for the Beijing Tianjin train to accelerate to full speed (currently about 340km/h on that line).

Mayor was, prolly, just being polite... And hat in hand may be...


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> The airport is about 30 km away from Chicago downtown. What sort of "Chinese High Speed" railway could be built there?


Then again, in most places in the U.S., anything above 79mph can be considered "high speed rail"...


----------



## Gadiri

SimFox said:


> ^^
> Lost in "creative" translation...
> 
> 117km turned into 100. 30 min turned into 20!
> 
> And on top of this all is the O'Hara nonsense... *The airport is about 30 km away from Chicago downtown. What sort of "Chinese High Speed" railway could be built there?* It takes about same distance for the Beijing Tianjin train to accelerate to full speed (about 340km/h on that line).
> 
> Mayor was, prolly, just being polite... And hat in hand may be...


A chinese Maglev ?


----------



## Simfan34

Gadiri said:


> A chinese Maglev ?


Does China make functional maglevs? I thought they just bought the one from Germany and were working on independently developing their own.


----------



## hmmwv

Simfan34 said:


> Does China make functional maglevs? I thought they just bought the one from Germany and were working on independently developing their own.


Currently the only domestic Chinese maglev train is a medium speed (~120km/h) one which went on trial in 2009. http://pic.people.com.cn/GB/42592/9490856.html

In terms of high speed maglev, AVIC Chengdu Aircraft Corporation is license manufacturing the fairly mature TransRapid design.
http://mnc.people.com.cn/GB/126636/11325078.html


----------



## Simfan34

Oh, didn't know they had rights to the Transrapid.


----------



## cuartango

¿Is there any HSR project still on the way?

I always hear about projects but the construction never starts. :nuts:

You guys should learn about other countries like Spain or Japan. High Speed Lines are great.


----------



## sekelsenmat

cuartango said:


> ¿Is there any HSR project still on the way?


I think that the California line is the only real HSR project (V>=250km/h) moving forward. I just wish that they should rethink where they are starting and begin building Los Angeles - Backersfield first, considering that the federal money quell might dry up. Otherwise they will be stuck at least for some years (possibily decades) with a HSR line between sub-million cities, which means operational loss.


----------



## xXFallenXx

sekelsenmat said:


> I think that the California line is the only real HSR project (V>=250km/h) moving forward. I just wish that they should rethink where they are starting and begin building Los Angeles - Backersfield first, considering that the federal money quell might dry up. Otherwise they will be stuck at least for some years (possibily decades) with a HSR line between sub-million cities, which means operational loss.


LA-Bakersfield doesn't have the necessary EIR work done to start construction till far after the deadline to spend the federal funds California has been awarded. If they did that they would lose all federal funding. Not to mention the fact the LA-Bakersfield is the most expensive part of the system...and they _still_ would have a system that loses money.


----------



## cuartango

Thanks for the information!


----------



## HARTride 2012

sekelsenmat said:


> I think that the California line is the only real HSR project (V>=250km/h) moving forward. I just wish that they should rethink where they are starting and begin building Los Angeles - Backersfield first, considering that the federal money quell might dry up. Otherwise they will be stuck at least for some years (possibily decades) with a HSR line between sub-million cities, which means operational loss.


I don't even think Cali's project will get off the ground before 2012. And if the GOP manage to take over the White House and the Senate (which is very likely), then I'm sure that the GOP & the Tea Party will stop at nothing to make sure HSR is killed for the next 100 years.

I also don't doubt that the auto industry is secretly supporting the GOP's effort to kill HSR also. I'm sure that if we get a GOP president, he/she will have some sort of moritoroium passed that effectively bans HSR unless it can surpass auto & air travel times and contibute to ridiculous environmental standards.


----------



## Nexis

HARTride 2012 said:


> I don't even think Cali's project will get off the ground before 2012. And if the GOP manage to take over the White House and the Senate (which is very likely), then I'm sure that the GOP & the Tea Party will stop at nothing to make sure HSR is killed for the next 100 years.
> 
> I also don't doubt that the auto industry is secretly supporting the GOP's effort to kill HSR also. I'm sure that if we get a GOP president, he/she will have some sort of moritoroium passed that effectively bans HSR unless it can surpass auto & air travel times and contibute to ridiculous environmental standards.


The Northeast would get HSR , but the rest of the country wouldn't...if the GOP was in power..


----------



## HARTride 2012

^^
Eh, maybe. Just maybe.

But Cali sure won't. I guarantee their project will be effectively cancelled come 2012.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## mullen

you're really optimistic there aren't you. probably beacuse you live in florida and are looking at the future led by a dumbass governor. I lived in tampa and know your pain. So much potential in that metro and dreams of rail transit. maybe someday they'll get their act together. it must suck to see florida's rail money being distributed to other regions because of the ineptitude of one man. 

i would wager your predictions of republican takeover of the presidency come 2012 are wrong. but i certainly can sympathize with thinking tea party idiots rule. you live in florida and in spite of many well meaning people and plans, the politics there is just awful.


----------



## ajmstilt

HARTride 2012 said:


> ^^
> Eh, maybe. Just maybe.
> 
> But Cali sure won't. I guarantee their project will be effectively cancelled come 2012.


Let me offer a baseless internet guarantee: California's high speed rail system *will* be built.


----------



## kub86

HARTride 2012 said:


> ^^
> Eh, maybe. Just maybe.
> 
> But Cali sure won't. I guarantee their project will be effectively cancelled come 2012.


Hmm don't really think so, since with the $300m florida funds, they now have all the money to complete the first 113 mile phase in the central valley. I don't think they can spend that money on anything else.


----------



## diablo234

The Feds are giving Texas $15 million for preliminary work on a Houston-Dallas HSR Line.



> *Feds give $15 million for DFW-Houston high-speed rail corridor*
> Dallas Business Journal - by By Matt Joyce, Staff Writer
> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 5:42pm CDT
> http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2011/05/09/DFW-Houston-high-speed-rail.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_12+%28Industry+Travel+Industry%29
> 
> The U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Texas $15 million on Monday for preliminary work on a high-speed rail corridor that would link the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Houston.
> 
> The government announced that the “Core Express” project was among 22 projects across the country to receive part of $2 billion.
> 
> The Federal Railroad Administration said the money will help build a nationwide network that will connect 80 percent of Americans to high-speed rail in 25 years.
> 
> The $15 million awarded to Texas is for engineering and environmental work on the proposed line.


----------



## HARTride 2012

kub86 said:


> Hmm don't really think so, since with the $300m florida funds, they now have all the money to complete the first 113 mile phase in the central valley. I don't think they can spend that money on anything else.


Wow, we'll let's hope it gets built. I would love to ride that train someday.


----------



## FlyFish

I still do not see the logic in a little money here and a little money there. Why not pool all of this money in one spot and actually build something? Typical frickin Government logic. Spread it around so that all of these House members can crow about it and keep their jobs. Who cares if anything ever actually gets built, lets just make sure we scratch the right backs so they can scratch ours when the time comes. Talk about idiots! They should take the whole amount they conjured out of thin air and spend it either on the NEC or California, prove this concept will work and go from there. To bad this is all about politics and not at all about business or need.

They'll spend 10 billion dollars and all they'll have to show for it are well fed environmental lawyers and engineering firms. Surprisingly, or I guess NOT suprisingly, there will be no trains.....


----------



## 612bv3

*High-speed rail funds flow to California*

Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

California's planned high-speed-rail system, the target of plenty of recent criticism, got a boost and a vote of confidence Monday when the federal government awarded it another $300 million.

The federal funds, part of the $2 billion returned to the Department of Transportation after Florida decided not to build a high-speed train system, will allow the California High-Speed Rail Authority to construct another 20 miles of track in the San Joaquin Valley - and reach closer to the Bay Area.

Federal officials believe the money should be enough to extend the system north to the "Wye" near Chowchilla, the point where the tracks will split, heading west toward the Pacheco Pass and north to Merced.

"It's the gateway," said Rachel Wall, a spokeswoman for the authority. "It's unlocking that access to the Bay Area for us."

The authority plans to begin construction of an 800-mile statewide system, with trains running up to 220 mph, in fall 2012 in the Central Valley. Tracks will extend about 140 miles from Chowchilla south through Fresno to Bakersfield, at a cost of about $6.3 billion in federal and state funds. The first phase of the system, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, is projected to cost $43 billion.

Last month, after Florida declined the federal funds, California applied for up to $1.8 billion, which would have extended the tracks west toward the San Luis Reservoir and the site of the first tunnel on the connection through the Pacheco Pass to Gilroy. Or it could have been used to take the tracks south of Bakersfield about 15 miles, and build a huge viaduct lifting the train into the Tehachapi Mountains.

Federal officials chose to head toward the Bay Area but allotted only enough money to make it to Chowchilla. Still, authority officials said they were not disappointed.

"This is an additional award that was not expected," Wall said. Over the past 16 months, California has been awarded $3.5 billion in federal funds - more than any other state.

Caltrans also received $68 million for new rail cars and locomotives for the state-subsidized Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin and Pacific Surf-liner lines.

"No other state is as ready and able to lead the way in demonstrating the viability of high-speed rail," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at [email protected].

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/09/BANG1JE080.DTL#ixzz1LzyxcLoh


----------



## krulstaartje

Is it planned to run dual power (diesel/electric) services on a combination of current Amtrak routes and the new CA high speed line? You could run an Oakland - Bakersfield service and Sacramento - Bakersfield service following existing routes when the initial segment that has funding now gets operational.

Then as SF - LA gets operational by 2020 if we're lucky, use new high speed rail equipment on that route and re-route the high speed dual power equipment for Sacramento - LA and SF - San Diego.

If those extensions are built in true high speed by 2030 there's other connections you can make (Riverside, Pasadena, Santa Barbara, Victorville, etc) all on existing Amtrak routes and using part of the high speed tracks, if you have the dual power equipment.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Existing tracks are not fit for modern rolling stock. They are limited by FHA at 79 mph, and there are mountains passes in both ends that greatly reduces average speed.


----------



## slipperydog

> *What History Tells Us About High-Speed Rail*
> 
> By Rachel Stern, May 9, 2011
> 
> There are many parallels between North American trains of the late 19th century and those today, according to Stanford University historian Richard White. In writing the upcoming book, Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America, he examines how trains of the U.S., Mexico and Canada went bankrupt or entered into settlements with the government to repay them. Now he’s worried history will repeat itself with the California high-speed rail project.
> 
> In a Q&A at his Stanford office, he talked about the corrupt history of the rail, the types of public transit the government should be investing in and where a high-speed rail system can and should work.
> *
> Gilroy Patch:* Can you talk a little bit about how the lessons learned from the trancontinentals of the late 1800s can be applied to that of today’s rails being built?
> 
> *Richard White: *Sure. There’s a couple of ways you can approach this. What’s happening in the 1860s is the beginning of a government-corporate partnership, which, with rises and falls, persists to the present day. The transcontinental railroad depends on public subsidies; they depend on powerful lobbies to make sure that they have the political connections that they need; they become corporations that are resurrected over and over again, despite their financial and political failures. And by their very size and their very power, even though they’re not successful businesses, come to shape everything around them.
> 
> So, in that way, they’re very similar to a project like the California high-speed rail. At the beginning, the transcontinentals promised Americans everything. They were going to unite the country; they were going to save the West Coast through the Civil War; they were going to develop the interior; they were going to settle the continent. They were going to do all this at no cost to the American people.
> 
> Partially, the transcontinentals lied, and partially, these promises were beyond fulfillment by anybody. I think this ties into high-speed rail, because if everything high-speed rail said were true, there would be no reason to oppose it. *Supposedly, it’s going to pay off its costs; supposedly, it’s going to deliver us high-speed transportation within California with a much smaller carbon footprint than automobiles and airplanes; supposedly, Californians are going to flock to it in such high numbers that operating costs are going to be taken care of; supposedly, (besides the bonds Californians have floated for it), the rest was going to be paid for by federal subsidies. *
> 
> The problem is, as with the transcontinentals, _*there’s very good evidence than none of those things are true. *_
> 
> Patch: Governments such as China, and many companies, have said they want to help fund the high-speed rail project. Do you think that this will pan out?
> 
> White: I don’t think China is in a position to fund anything. The Washington Post just did a series on the Chinese high-speed rail, and virtually everything that I’m afraid is going to happen with the California high-speed rail has already happened in China. _*Their technology is defective; they have to lower the speed of the trains; the building of the roads has been way over costs, and there’s been a huge amount of corruption; they’re deeply in debt; and the ridership is far less than anybody estimated. What they have in China is a huge railroad bubble. *_So why we would expect to get Chinese advice and help is literally beyond me. Because what they have built is a system that embodies all the failures we fear for California.
> 
> All these companies are coming to high-speed rail, because they’re looking to make money off of huge public investments. *The financial help is inconsistent. They want contracts. They’re not going to give money unless it's a rebate, but rebates aren’t really contracts, because you take federal money and you give a portion back.*
> 
> Patch: You mentioned in a recent New York Times editorial that these trains can be successful in some parts of the country. What accounts for the contrast?
> 
> White: In places they’ve been successful, they’ve literally been able to pay their construction costs. Not necessarily their operating costs. That’s been in Tokyo, and then Paris and Lyon. Those routes are places where several things happen that don’t happen in California.* First of all, they connect to an existing rail system in which you get off the train and get on another train. They connect cities where people can take public transit to get to the trains. If you’ve ever been on French trains, you know how integrated the whole system is.* Even in France, there’s only one line that meets its operating costs.
> 
> I’m all for subsidizing urban infrastructure, and even rail infrastructure, in California. But we don’t ride subways; we don’t ride light rail. What we’re betting on is that we’re going to ride this railroad even when we’ve refused to ride all other local railroads, especially on the Peninsula.
> *
> The reason it will probably work for the Northeast corridor—and even there it will be expensive—is that people already ride trains. We simply don’t have any evidence that Californians are going to get on trains.
> 
> Let’s say in a city like Palo Alto, we wanted to ride high-speed rail. First we get in our cars. Then we’re going to drive up to San Francisco. And then we’re going to park our cars. We’re going to get on a high-speed rail. There’s going to be a limited number of stops if they ever get the thing into Los Angeles. You get off in Anaheim. You get off in downtown LA. You rent another car, and you go around. Basically, you’re still going to be driving a lot the whole trip.*
> 
> Recent *studies out of Cal-Berkeley show very little carbon savings*—under 1 percent, compared to if we simply left our cars and planes intact.
> 
> Patch: Do you think many people will switch over?
> 
> White: What they’re talking about is simply more people taking high-speed rail than currently take rails back and forth on the East Coast. You’re talking about every man, woman and child in California taking high-speed rail twice a year. *When you haven’t built something, you can claim anything you want for it, and that’s what they do. There’s absolutely no evidence.
> 
> In almost every case I know of, their projections [of ridership] have been far higher than the number of people who actually switch over. So I’m just very skeptical, and I think everyone should be skeptical when a project is going to cost this much. And the cost is constantly rising.
> *
> Patch: Is there any form of public transit in California that you feel could be successful?
> 
> White: If you want to get people out of cars, if you want to lower the carbon footprint, what you have to do is concentrate on most of the trips taken in California. Most are not between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Most are quite local. Anybody who’s lived in Los Angeles or lived in the Bay Area realizes we have some of the worst mass transit in the country. We should be working on local things that get people out of cars and make a far greater difference. This is more difficult to do. It’s also far less expensive. It’s also far less glamorous.
> 
> Patch: Historically speaking, what accounts for the East Coast having such a successful rail infrastructure, while the West Coast is lacking?
> 
> White: First, there’s a higher population density. There’s a strong correlation between the success of the high-speed rail and the population density.
> 
> The other one you have to go to quite specific historical developments. Los Angeles, for example, for awhile did have light rail within Los Angeles. But Henry Huntington’s lines were badly maintained, dangerous, angered many citizens and were very corrupt.
> 
> What you need is a public system where people will have confidence that it works all of the time. The places I’ve lived where they have good mass transit, you shouldn’t even have to look at a schedule; they just come. So you both need the density and a system which is reliably run. The private systems that have existed in Los Angeles and even San Francisco were not reliably run.
> 
> Patch: Unlike other countries, the U.S. doesn’t have much of an infrastructure for high-speed rail. So I’ve heard many cite it as an example of what we could be capable of.
> 
> White: Part of it is political. *I’m a Democrat, but it’s no surprise to me that these things are located in places where Democrats hope to gain votes. But, in fact, as an economic stimulus measure, this is not doing anybody any good. *And many of the jobs will be overseas. The reason the Japanese and the Chinese and the French are so interested is they’re going to build the trains. We’re not.
> 
> Patch: Especially in places such as Gilroy, where the train will make a stop, I’ve heard the argument made that local jobs will be created and more of a downtown area will be formed.
> 
> White: Well, think about this: Who’s gonna get on the train in Gilroy? [laughs] People in Gilroy might take a train to San Francisco, they might take it to Los Angeles, but as I understand it, you have to go at least 200 miles to make this really efficient, more efficient than cars.
> 
> Developers will develop around the train station, and they will certainly make money. That’s where you have a key constituency for this, and all the contractors who are going to build it. A lot of people—contractors, developers—see this as a gravy train.
> 
> Patch: What do you feel could be done to improve public transit specifically in Palo Alto and its surrounding communities?
> 
> White: Well, if you’re going to spend this much money, there’s a couple of things that you could do. You could improve Caltrain and extend BART. The reason BART is so expensive is because of land and other things. But if you really want effective public transit around the Bay Area, you’d use BART.
> 
> I would invest that money in light rail by the Caltrain station so you can get to other places in Palo Alto, or Mountain View or San Jose. But getting people to use light rail isn’t easy. San Jose has light rail but virtually nobody uses it. BART, people do ride. BART is also seen as a hopelessly expensive enterprise, but it’s pennies compared to this stuff.
> 
> Patch: It looks like Caltrain isn’t doing so well right now with talks about cutting a station and eliminating weekend service.
> 
> White: What you’ll do is strangle it, make it less convenient. There will be less people who ride it, more people in cars.
> 
> It’s not clear they have any viable route in Los Angeles, or certainly the Peninsula opposes it so much, it won’t go through here at all. It will just go into the Central Valley. How they’re going to get it into San Francisco is completely unclear.
> 
> The transcontinentals, the Chinese rail—all these things, I’m afraid, are examples of what’s going to happen.
> 
> Patch: There’s no learning from history, and people trying to redo their errors?
> 
> White: Well, it’s not so much you learn from history. It’s that transcontinentals set up a structure, a kind of federal subsidizing of corporations, which remains intact. Once you have that structure, you can apply it to all kinds of things. Even though here there will be a high-speed rail authority that will run it, money will run into private hands for private property. I’m not against infrastructure spending, I’m not against even public spending, but you have to look at these things very closely, and I’m afraid this would be a 21st century version of the transcontinental railroads.
> 
> Patch: And those railroads, I’m assuming, didn’t get the ridership they projected?
> 
> White: They were actually going to be freight railroads, and they had to end up subsidizing steamship companies to raise their rates and get things shipped to the East Coast so the railroads could compete with them.
> 
> Initially you didn’t need transcontinental railroads, but you needed them about 30 years after you built them. It’s perfectly conceivable to me that in 25 or 30 years, California might need high-speed rail. By that time, there will be new technology. You won’t have this massive debt that you’ll have trouble paying off. You build it when you need it, probably more cheaply and with a more efficient technology.
> 
> So why build it before you need it, with a technology that will almost certainly be replaced in 25 or 30 years? The railroads that really could compete in the late 19th century were those that waited, not those that built first.


http://gilroy.patch.com/articles/what-history-tells-us-about-high-speed-rail-2


----------



## G5man

White is completely out of touch. 

1) Not going to run on the Penninsula? Nobody wants it? Then why did 60% of voters voted yes for it then?

2) Does he know of the Buy America provisions and the fact that it is probably good to use some foreign expertise?

3) Isn't this the core of trying to get people out of their cars and onto mass-transit by providing a hub for mass transit in the cities served?

4) Doesn't he know that an ariel BART alignment costs more per mile? How does economic stimulus do anybody no good? It is sure a great thing for the construction and real estate sectors.

Either way, he uses reports and cited an op-ed with a negative opinion toward HSR. He also falsified information about operations profits. The two examples he cited paid back their capital costs! At least they did it in thirty years!


----------



## sekelsenmat

That entire text is truckload of garbage. He mixes plain lies and rants without providing a single serious source to back his statements. And we wouldn't find any anyway, because he is just saying crap.


----------



## Zero Gravity

I agree with you guys for the most part. He is saying quite a lot of crap indeed, i think.

But let's be honest here and take some of the more serious objections he has. For me particularly, that is, is the (partial) absence of mass transit in LA or SanFran really this glaring and could be the doom of CaliHSR? Or is he exaggerating?

just wondering about that..


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Mr. White should stick to studying history- he is not a railway analyst nor does he have experience in the high speed rail industry. Unfortunately, forces against HSR are adept at rounding up "experts" with respected credentials to attack HSR, even going as far as inducing nominally liberal academics and opinion makers to naysay, exploiting their weakness for urban development and transit to make it a urban rail vs. "hsr which only serves the rich" issue (which is a false dichotomy).



> is the (partial) absence of mass transit in LA or SanFran really this glaring and could be the doom of CaliHSR


Last time I checked, public transportation in SF was pretty good for a North American city, and Los Angeles is miles better than it was twenty years ago, and is still expanding its network. Granted it's not France (or Germany, which has even better rail links and urban transport), but public transport is not static, it will get better. Furthermore, the existence of an HSR system will spur more development of rail links- both in real terms and in the thinking of the general public, which outside of the Eastern Seaboard, tend to think of public transport as "just for the poor".


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Zero Gravity said:


> I agree with you guys for the most part. He is saying quite a lot of crap indeed, i think.
> 
> But let's be honest here and take some of the more serious objections he has. For me particularly, that is, is the (partial) absence of mass transit in LA or SanFran really this glaring and could be the doom of CaliHSR? Or is he exaggerating?
> 
> just wondering about that..


When the Tokaido Shinkansen inaugurated in 1964 there were only the Yamanote, Chuo, Ginza, Marunouchi, and partially opened Hibiya line within the whole Tokyo Metropolitan area. I haven't checked but I believe it was even less in Osaka. That is less than what LA has today.
Mass transit should expand with more demand and demand is created with more fluidity within the mass which is generated when traveler visits the city. With expansion of the system convenience is enhanced drawing more people to utilize the system. 
I really do not think you need to worry as long as there are plans to expand the present system.


----------



## sekelsenmat

k.k.jetcar said:


> Mr. White should stick to studying history- he is not a railway analyst nor does he have experience in the high speed rail industry. Unfortunately, forces against HSR are adept at rounding up "experts" with respected credentials to attack HSR, even going as far as inducing nominally liberal academics and opinion makers to naysay, exploiting their weakness for urban development and transit to make it a urban rail vs. "hsr which only serves the rich" issue (which is a false dichotomy).


Answer to that kind of critic is very simple:

1> There is a demand for moving people between LA and SF, including the corridor in between.
2> This demand is expected to grow a lot in the next decades.

Considering this scenario, there are only three actions which the government might take:

1> Do nothing and let the highway get congested, let the airports get congested, increasing fares and causing all kinds of problems. This solution is illogical: The world bank for example says that low infrastructure investment decreses economic growth.
2> Build more highways and airport lanes, the solution that ignores the existence of externalities
3> Build HSR

Saying that the money should go to urban transit is essentially opting for solution 1, which is the most illogical one. But one shouldn't be surprised that this kind of person suggested something illogical, because it is obvious from this argument (HSR is bad because it is for the rich) that the person that defends it is a brainwashed marxist ideologue.


----------



## Suburbanist

A solution to many infrastructure cost overruns would be a Constitutional Amendment to deal with NIMBY-ism, but I doubt it would garnish enough support. Most Americans probably agree NIMBYs overreact and unfairly extract advantages to themselves paid by everyone else, but the issue is too much of a hot potato that can backfire in the hands of whatever party proposes it.


----------



## slipperydog

SamuraiBlue said:


> Mass transit should expand with more demand and demand is created with more fluidity within the mass which is generated when traveler visits the city. With expansion of the system convenience is enhanced drawing more people to utilize the system.
> 
> I really do not think you need to worry as long as there are plans to expand the present system.


This post is essentially admitting that our cities have to upgrade their urban rail systems in order to make the system work. But that's the whole point. HSR is useless UNTIL you have this well-developed structure in place. HSR is the FINAL piece of the puzzle, not the first. And with LA so far behind right now, it won't be the "train to nowhere" that we're making fun of ten years from now, it will be the "train to somewhere, but when you get to that somewhere, you're stranded". LA's intracity rail "plans" right now are just that. Plans. Let's see some actual movement on that before we even think of cross-state high speed rail.

If you want to do high speed rail right in California, you should start by trashing the ridiculous "first phase" from Fresno to godknowswhere. Linking large urban centers by rail at this point is completely useless. High speed rail should first be flowing from the suburbs to the city. Link Alameda and Santa Clara counties to SF. Link Riverside and San Bernardino counties to LA. That's where it's needed, and that's where it could work.




sekelsenmat said:


> Answer to that kind of critic is very simple:
> 
> 1> There is a demand for moving people between LA and SF, including the corridor in between.


Of course there is demand, and that demand is being met comfortably by airlines. If interstate 5 was completely clogged and LA-SF flights were operating way over capacity, then maybe HSR proponents would have an argument. But that's hardly the case right now.



> 2> This demand is expected to grow a lot in the next decades.


Says who? Demand between SF and LA? Companies and jobs are moving out of California at a greater rate than ever before in the state's history. I see no evidence at this point that indicates that there is some widespread demand to pay a higher fare to get to your destination in double the time.


----------



## Suburbanist

slipperydog said:


> If you want to do high speed rail right in California, you should start by trashing the ridiculous "first phase" from Fresno to godknowswhere. Linking large urban centers by rail at this point is completely useless. High speed rail should first be flowing from the suburbs to the city. Link Alameda and Santa Clara counties to SF. Link Riverside and San Bernardino counties to LA. That's where it's needed, and that's where it could work.


The question is: those are among the most expensive sectors of the whole project, because they traverse urban areas and, in case of SF, a tectonic fault also. Extreme high speeds are not very useful on such services, and you could easily start reading people asking for a "more reasonable" 100-120mph (instead of up to 200mph) train line to be built.

Then, suppose those terminus are built: you will then see people arguing that spending yet another $ 10 bln. to upgrade the termini is not worth, that both termini can be left as they are with slower speeds.


----------



## slipperydog

Suburbanist said:


> The question is: those are among the most expensive sectors of the whole project, because they traverse urban areas and, in case of SF, a tectonic fault also.


Most expensive, but also most useful. And if those lines are too expensive to build right now, then just don't do it all. How hard is that? This throwing good money after bad that we see over and over again in California isn't just a silly joke anymore, it's become quite frightening and is spelling disaster for this state.



> Extreme high speeds are not very useful on such services, and you could easily start reading people asking for a "more reasonable" 100-120mph (instead of up to 200mph) train line to be built.


That would make perfect sense. There is no need to be hauling into downtown from the suburbs at 175-200 mph.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ In that case, the rest of the money could be used in widening of I-5 and US-101, which would be more sensible and way cheaper investments - but that is another story.


----------



## saintm

any construction photos papis?


----------



## G5man

saintm said:


> any construction photos papis?


 We haven't even broke ground except on the Transbay Terminal because of the stinking delays and NIMBYs yet to come. I'd personally love to railraod the NIMBYs and force them into binding arbitration and settlement to get this project going sooner. If you could do what they do in France and offer a bit more to avoid litigation, then eminent domain wouldn't be too bad. To me, if you do not like where you live, consider it a free ticket out.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

slipperydog said:


> Linking large urban centers by rail at this point is completely useless. High speed rail should first be flowing from the suburbs to the city. Link Alameda and Santa Clara counties to SF. Link Riverside and San Bernardino counties to LA. That's where it's needed, and that's where it could work.


There seems to be a definiton problem here. Internationally, high speed rail is indeed understood to mean lines linking large urban centres at speeds much higher than would be necessary on suburban lines. Wikpedia says:


> There are a number of different definitions for high-speed rail in use worldwide and there is no single standard; however, there are certain parameters that are unique to high-speed rail. UIC (International Union of Railways) and EC Directive 96/58 define high-speed rail as systems of rolling stock and infrastructure which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h (155 mph) on new tracks, or 200 km/h (124 mph) on existing tracks...
> 
> In the United States, high-speed rail is defined as having a speed above 110 mph (177 km/h) by the United States Federal Railroad dministration


The improved suburban networks that you're talking about would meet the US definition of high speed rail if they ran at at least 110 mph, but they would be too slow and too short to count as high speed rail as it's understood internationally.


----------



## slipperydog

Gag Halfrunt said:


> There seems to be a definiton problem here. Internationally, high speed rail is indeed understood to mean lines linking large urban centres at speeds much higher than would be necessary on suburban lines. Wikpedia says:
> 
> The improved suburban networks that you're talking about would meet the US definition of high speed rail if they ran at at least 110 mph, but they would be too slow and too short to count as high speed rail as it's understood internationally.


Thanks for the info, didn't know there was a difference between international/US. What we're talking about here is a "high speed" rail line that makes minimal stops from the suburbs to the inner city at about 110-125.


----------



## hoosier

slipperydog said:


> Most expensive, but also most useful. And if those lines are too expensive to build right now, then just don't do it all. How hard is that? This throwing good money after bad that we see over and over again in California isn't just a silly joke anymore, it's become quite frightening and is spelling disaster for this state.
> 
> 
> 
> That would make perfect sense. There is no need to be hauling into downtown from the suburbs at 175-200 mph.


Once again you show your ignorance. The Central Valley segment is the portion that will yield the biggest time savings and will be linked in the interim to existing intercity rail service. It is also located in area desperate for investment and jobs.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ In that case, the rest of the money could be used in widening of I-5 and US-101, which would be more sensible and way cheaper investments - but that is another story.


No it wouldn't. California tried the highway building orgy approach and it didn't work. Sprawl, pollution, and terrible congestion were all that resulted, which is why Los Angeles and the Bay Area are investing in mass transit above all else.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

hoosier said:


> No it wouldn't. California tried the highway building orgy approach and it didn't work. Sprawl, pollution, and terrible congestion were all that resulted, which is why Los Angeles and the Bay Area are investing in mass transit above all else.


Agreed. I grew up in southern California. Many people I knew in southern California used to think that widening freeways and roads are better solution to handle population growth and reduce congestion in long term. It didn't work at all but it made it worse. Glad State of California realized that and investing in mass transit.


----------



## slipperydog

hoosier said:


> Once again you show your ignorance. The Central Valley segment is the portion that will yield the biggest time savings and will be linked in the interim to existing intercity rail service. It is also located in area desperate for investment and jobs.


I simply disagree with you. Having lived in this state virtually my entire life, there is absolutely no need for rail in that corridor. I assume you're just a naturally angry person, but there is no need for insulting other posters. You should work on making your contributions more pleasant. It's a message board, after all. :cheers:



hoosier said:


> No it wouldn't. California tried the highway building orgy approach and it didn't work. *Sprawl, pollution, and terrible congestion *were all that resulted, which is why Los Angeles and the Bay Area are investing in mass transit above all else.


This is just wrong. High speed rail won't solve any of those problems. Intra-city urban transit will.


----------



## diablo234

slipperydog said:


> I simply disagree with you. Having lived in this state virtually my entire life, there is absolutely no need for rail in that corridor. I assume you're just a naturally angry person,


The Central Valley corridor is supposed to connect the Bay Area with LA, and I would say it is needed since there is no land at SFO and LAX for expansion. High Speed Rail is supposed to take the strain off of the airports as well.


----------



## slipperydog

diablo234 said:


> The Central Valley corridor is supposed to connect the Bay Area with LA, and I would say it is needed since there is no land at SFO and LAX for expansion. High Speed Rail is supposed to take the strain off of the airports as well.


I agree with your conclusion, but not your premise. If airports and flights were operating way over-capacity at LAX and SFO, HSR would be a welcome alternative. But demand is being met comfortably right now, hence why airfares have been so low for so long now. But by starting with first building the Central Valley segment, you're spending billions to build something that A) you don't need right now (or presumably the near future), and B) don't even have the funds to build the most vital segments, White's concerns are completely valid.

There is no single all-encompassing "truth" on this debate. It's simply a matter of opinion, and also understanding the culture and mindset of an area. Do you believe the "projections", or are you skeptical? Will people ride, or won't they? Is it really needed, or could we be better served using those funds elsewhere? These are simply different viewpoints, and with regards to high speed rail in California, I tend to come down on the side of the latter of those questions.


----------



## G5man

We cannot depend on cheap oil any longer. We know $4.00 per gallon is the threshold before people start looking for alternatives. Sure airfare is cheap now, but it becomes extremely cost prohibitive to run flights for short-hauls when oil creeps back up. This is a step towards independence from oil and airlines want to get rid of their short hauls to take more profitable routes in transcontinental flights.


----------



## Cirdan

slipperydog said:


> Whatever, you can keep bringing up politics, but I personally don't really care about the politics of it. But it should be done right. California is already a national laughingstock. *This train to nowhere would take it to another level.*


I'll make myself unpopular by commenting on this as a European:

The idea that they should have started a HSR line in an urban area sounds ridiculous to me. You need a test track. To test equipment at full speed. Unless you want untested bullet trains at 220 mph racing through LA, that means you start somewhere in the middle. That's standard procedure with these things, pretty much EVERY new HSR line (at least those that are first in a network) start with something like what American HSR critics dubbed as a "train to nowhere" in California - here in Germany, they hardly ever build the HSR tracks into urban areas at all and use existing lines instead (though that's definitely NOT something I'd recommend, even if it were possible in the US, which it is not, afaik)

Whether the central valley is a good idea to start, I don't know, I'd have pressed for the passes, where they'd benefit most even before the whole line is finished (though that might have taken too long to complete, too expensive for initial grants or not ready in time), but the alternative usually given - the urban areas - is simply not a good place to start a HSR line. Not if you want a HSR line instead of an overly expensive commuter and freight railway. And in Californias case, even that idea is bullcrap, since both throughout the peninsula (Caltrain) and the LA metro area (metrolink) already have or are planned to include 2 tracks for commuter rail in addition to the 2 HSR tracks, if the complete HSR line doesn't get finished, I don't see how the tracks in urban areas would be much more useful than those in the central valley in the event that the whole system does not get finished.


----------



## Suburbanist

Cirdan said:


> The idea that they should have started a HSR line in an urban area sounds ridiculous to me. You need a test track. To test equipment at full speed. Unless you want untested bullet trains at 220 mph racing through LA, that means you start somewhere in the middle. That's standard procedure with these things, pretty much EVERY new HSR line (at least those that are first in a network) start with something like what American HSR critics dubbed as a "train to nowhere" in California - here in Germany, they hardly ever build the HSR tracks into urban areas at all and use existing lines instead (though that's definitely NOT something I'd recommend, even if it were possible in the US, which it is not, afaik)


There are some NGOs in the Bay Area proposing that HSR, if built, run over an "improved" corridor on current ROW of Caltrain. As the bay is rather deep and has a tectonic fault running through it, the option (a tunnel under the bay) is rather implausible.

However, as you mentioned, mountain passes in both ends render any approach like Germany's unfeasible. Trains from LA to Bakersfield would have to negotiate a steep, curvy and freight-train-clogged railway that hasn't seen passenger service for more than 20 years (if I am not wrong).



> Whether the central valley is a good idea to start, I don't know, I'd have pressed for the passes, where they'd benefit most even before the whole line is finished (though that might have taken too long to complete, too expensive for initial grants or not ready in time), but the alternative usually given - the urban areas - is simply not a good place to start a HSR line. Not if you want a HSR line instead of an overly expensive commuter and freight railway. And in Californias case, even that idea is bullcrap, since both throughout the peninsula (Caltrain) and the LA metro area (metrolink) already have or are planned to include 2 tracks for commuter rail in addition to the 2 HSR tracks, if the complete HSR line doesn't get finished, I don't see how the tracks in urban areas would be much more useful than those in the central valley in the event that the whole system does not get finished.


The case is that the Valley is sparsely populated, and trains running through it, without good connectivity with both metropolis, don't stand a chance of attracting ridership. Valley-to-valley passenger traffic is not significant.


----------



## slipperydog

Cirdan said:


> To test equipment at full speed. Unless you want untested bullet trains at 220 mph racing through LA, that means you start somewhere in the middle.


That's the whole point. We don't need our trains to be going that fast, we need to upgrade our commuter rail and get more express/minimal stop trains into the cities. 110-125 would be more than fine.


----------



## Suburbanist

slipperydog said:


> That's the whole point. We don't need our trains to be going that fast, we need to upgrade our commuter rail and get more express/minimal stop trains into the cities. 110-125 would be more than fine.


Good luck trying to speed up the Tehachapi Pass line.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Cirdan said:


> The idea that they should have started a HSR line in an urban area sounds ridiculous to me. You need a test track. To test equipment at full speed. Unless you want untested bullet trains at 220 mph racing through LA, that means you start somewhere in the middle. That's standard procedure with these things, pretty much EVERY new HSR line (at least those that are first in a network) start with something like what American HSR critics dubbed as a "train to nowhere" in California - here in Germany, they hardly ever build the HSR tracks into urban areas at all and use existing lines instead (though that's definitely NOT something I'd recommend, even if it were possible in the US, which it is not, afaik)


Makes sense, you need to learn to walk before you start to run.
Maintenance crew and traffic operation is a complete new ball game compared to anything else presently operated in the States.

The section between Ayase and Odawara on the Tokaido Shinkansen route is known as the Model section (AKA Kamonomiya Model route) that was the original test site for the Shinkansen system before it was officially launched in 1964 testing various equipment and methods. It was completely incorporated into the Tokaido shinkansen route when launched.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> The case is that the Valley is sparsely populated,


There is a popular misconception that the Valley (even among many Californians) is some place with more tumbleweeds and Tombstone-like towns than metropolises, but look at these figures:

Fresno MSA: 1 million population
Bakersfield MSA: 827,000
Modesto MSA: 500,000
Visalia MSA: 400,000
Merced MSA: 241,000

Granted, it's not the northeast corridor, but it 's a decent place to start, especially as it's the midway point between the Bay Area and SoCal.


----------



## Cirdan

slipperydog said:


> That's the whole point. We don't need our trains to be going that fast, we need to upgrade our commuter rail and get more express/minimal stop trains into the cities. 110-125 would be more than fine.


Well, not living there, I wouldn't know about that, but your opinion on the necessity of HSR is obviously a minority opinion in California, looking at the various polls on that. It's certainly not an argument to start with HSR any different than they currently do.



> The case is that the Valley is sparsely populated, and trains running through it, without good connectivity with both metropolis, don't stand a chance of attracting ridership. Valley-to-valley passenger traffic is not significant.


They won't start HSR service between tinytown and tinierville, they'll start when the whole line is finished (maybe except for some test runs under operating conditions). Plus, with the possible exception of the mountain passes, in particular the Tehachapi, which could be used to extend San Joaquin to LA as well as take on freight rail, I'd be surprised if any segment is viable on its own, keeping in mind that (most) tracks in the Bay Area and Greater LA are planned as quadruple tracks with 2 tracks dedicated to commuter rail anyway.


----------



## Luli Pop

I this point I don't believe a HSR will ever be constructed in US.


----------



## Sopomon

Luli Pop said:


> I this point I don't believe a HSR will ever be constructed in US.


That's a pretty grand assumption to make.


----------



## FlyFish

Smooth Indian said:


> And why do you want to bring the military and rich people into this?


Just to be a smarty pants, no real reason. That's always the left's solution to Government financial shortfalls. 

I disagree that there will never be any HSR in the US. I'm hopefull that at some point common sense and need will win out over politics and greed and some improved rail service will be built in the NEC and in Central and Southern California. It may never be the true HSR like in Japan but some sort of faster passenger service will eventually be built.


----------



## slipperydog

Cirdan said:


> Well, not living there, I wouldn't know about that, but your opinion on the necessity of HSR is obviously a minority opinion in California, looking at the various polls on that. It's certainly not an argument to start with HSR any different than they currently do.


Which polls? Everyone I talk to that lives around here wants a better way to get to work without being stuck in traffic. Nobody cares about taking a train to San Francisco.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I found really neat video of proposed HSR in Australia but this video has many good points. Hope HSR in USA will become reality soon. I don't know how to post the video on here so here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ONzbPTgzpI&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Rapter

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I found really neat video of proposed HSR in Australia but this video has many good points. Hope HSR in USA will become reality soon. I don't know how to post the video on here so here is the link:


----------



## Cirdan

slipperydog said:


> Which polls? Everyone I talk to that lives around here wants a better way to get to work without being stuck in traffic. Nobody cares about taking a train to San Francisco.


First and foremost, Proposition 1a, which was close, but not only pro-HSR, but pro-making-10-bio-debts-for-HSR, in direct Democracy. That was 3 years ago, and the topic is obviously getting hotter, but while you can read about NIMBYs, the so-called "train to nowhere", possible mismanagement by the authority etc pp, but every actual poll I've seen still shows support, usually with better numbers than the prop vote:

70% pro state funding, 21% opposed, 73% pro fed funding, 18% opposed: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Ne...cleId/700/ctl/ReadCustom Default/Default.aspx
34% want HSR, 42% like it but have questions, 11% opposed: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34947561/High-Speed-Rail-Research-Memo
60% in favour, 33% opposed: (same source as above, with question phrased differently)
70% of the 21st district (SF Bay Peninsula) in favour http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/08/poll-shows-continued-support-for-hsr-on-the-peninsula/

Obviously, the results you get depend A LOT on how you ask the question, and some of those results are probably pretty skewed (the first one is Harris intiative, somehow related to financial times, I don't know where they fit in in left/right/democrat/republican/libertarian-and-whatnot-propaganda, the second and third come from the HSR authorities own poll, the last from a peninsula newspaper, unfortunately, the original source is down and I know just the second-hand one from the blatantly one-sided pro-HSR blog), but again, I've not seen anything more reliable than those that the opinion actually changed to oppose the HSR project since Prop 1a, which I take as solid evidence for support.


----------



## slipperydog

Cirdan said:


> Obviously, the results you get depend A LOT on how you ask the question


Exactly, polls are by and large pretty useless for these types of projects. Who knows who is being polled, what kind of background knowledge they have on transit, etc. They likely don't know anything about the route, the time, or the fare cost. Many of them are EXACTLY LIKE ME when I first heard about it. When I first heard about HSR in California, I said "Cool, that sounds great." Then once I started studying the finer details of it, I realized it was a pretty useless idea for THIS region, where there is little precedent for long-haul train use. You could phrase "pro-HSR/anti-HSR" questions a million ways. If you polled the average person here in LA and asked the following the questions, these would be your most common responses:

Q: "Should the federal government fund high speed rail in California?"
A: "Sure, why not."

Q: "How often do you travel to San Francisco?"
A: "Hardly ever."

Q: "Would you travel to San Francisco more with a high-speed rail line?"
A: "Maybe/Probably."

Q: "What if I told you the high-speed rail line would take longer and was more expensive than taking a plane?"
A: "Wait, what? Then what's the point?"

Most people here frankly don't care enough about transportation to the Bay Area to make the numbers work (it's not like San Diego or Vegas where people in LA frequently take weekend trips). To the vast majority of people here, San Francisco might as well be Seattle or Denver. And without doing a lot of research on the details of the project and having a good understanding of the success/failure history of HSR in other places, the average person being polled is completely clueless. When it comes down to it, we will still drive or fly. Drive if we're taking our whole family. Fly if we're going by ourselves on business.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Why not think about a Las Vegas - Los Angeles high-speed rail then? It has just one mountain ridge to cross, few communities in the desert to deal with, and so on.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Why not think about a Las Vegas - Los Angeles high-speed rail then? It has just one mountain ridge to cross, few communities in the desert to deal with, and so on.


Its about to break ground...


----------



## Cirdan

slipperydog said:


> Most people here frankly don't care enough about transportation to the Bay Area to make the numbers work (it's not like San Diego or Vegas where people in LA frequently take weekend trips). To the vast majority of people here, San Francisco might as well be Seattle or Denver. And without doing a lot of research on the details of the project and having a good understanding of the success/failure history of HSR in other places, the average person being polled is completely clueless. *When it comes down to it, we will still drive or fly. Drive if we're taking our whole family. Fly if we're going by ourselves on business.*


No, you won't. HSR WILL take a huge percentage away from the planes, and a much smaller one from the drivers, that's been experienced everywhere it got build in a comparable corridor, including the NE, where the Acela express takes much longer between NY and DC than CAHSR will take from LA to San Francisco and it still took a fair percentage of air travel. I'm also fairly certain I've seen a poll that confirms Californians will chose HSR over plane, though I'm too lazy to search for that now. 

And don't tell me you don't have the public transportation necessary for HSR, the Bay Area has one of the better networks in the States and in absolute numbers, even LAs network is fairly big and growing. As a comparison, Seville (which isn't much bigger than Fresno, by the way) opened its first metro line 17 years after HSR, and noone used the train between Seville and Madrid before 1992 either, but HSR was still a gigantic success. California and Spain are not the same, but with 2 cities that large, with that much air travel between them, HSR is going to get used, and they'd have to screw up royally for it not to have operating profits.

As for the money-should-go-to-commuter-rail argument: While I have my opinion on that, I think it's really none of my business to argue about how California and the US should spend its money.


----------



## FlyFish

Cirdan said:


> California and Spain are not the same, but with 2 cities that large, with that much air travel between them, HSR is going to get used, and they'd have to screw up royally for it not to have operating profits.


I agree with Slipperydog, about .5% of the people actually care, if even that many. if you ask the poll question correctly of course folks will say they support it, but who cares what a guy who lives in LA, works in LA and has never even been to SFC says? Thrt trouble is that if that guy is willing to take the poll his opinion is then used to indicate support for something he'll likely never even see, let alone use. Polls are useless. If you want to use this money for the benefit of the most LA and Bay Area people you will spend it on local infrastructure. Commuter rail and yes, heaven forbid, better highway access. Travel point to point is handled by the airlines, the local stuff is the mess.

As to what I quoted above. Someone do some labor and tell us just how many people fly between these cities every day. Not some consultant's projections, those are about as usefull as the poll numbers. I'm curious about what the pool of end to end potential customers is as of right now. Drivers from end to end really won't be reduced much IMO. if you can't afford to fly you won't be able to afford the train either.


----------



## Attus

In Europe the basic experience with HSR is that a majority(!) of air passangers did change to train while only a slight minority of car drivers changed to train. 
But we must consider the fact that HSR is basically a right choice for distances where people usually do not choose the car so that people that take a car surely have some special reason for it and will probably not change to any public vehicle any way. 
LA - SF is about 400 miles which is basically a very good choice for a HSR. A train having 4-5 stops could take this distance in 3-4 hours which is almost equal related to flight (if you check city to city travels, including transfers from and to the airport/train station and check in time). I assume this line could easily maintain 1-2 trains per hour whole day and hourly 1-2 additional trains in rush hours.


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> Not without amassing a bunch of debt in the process.
> 
> Your perception of the American "middle class" is warped. A family with the above mentioned possessions would be considered upper middle class if not wealthy.
> 
> Western Europe has comparable per capita income levels with much lower costs for healthcare and college education. The living standards in Europe are better than in America. This isn't 1979.


I don't want to fuel the off-topic debate, but while your assertions are in the right direction, you forget that taxes are much higher in Europe (the equivalent of sales taxes is around 15-23%, gas taxes are sky high) and that costs of many products and services are lower in US due to the presence, from food to transportation (2/3 of European families rely solely on car as their mean of commute and costs are much higher than in US), including all kinds of cool gadgets everyone loves.

So the math is not exactly that simples. It is certainly better to be poor in a rich Western European country (Belgium, UK, France, Germany, Sweden) than in US, because of safety nets, "free" health care, "cheap" higher education for your kids and so, but it is correct to say a middle class family on the upper 50% of income distribution can have access to much more stuff than their European counterparts. That the average built-up area (excluding lawns, porches and uncovered garages) of an UK residence is 78m², 101m² in Netherlands, 113m² in France, 89m² in Italy and 241m² in US should tell something...

In the specific case of transportation and HSR, even for Europeans, a carpool of 3 or 4 will almost always be cheaper, and usually way cheaper, than travelling by train.


----------



## LtBk

Suburbanist said:


> I don't want to fuel the off-topic debate, but while your assertions are in the right direction, you forget that taxes are much higher in Europe (the equivalent of sales taxes is around 15-23%, gas taxes are sky high) and that costs of many products and services are lower in US due to the presence, from food to transportation (2/3 of European families rely solely on car as their mean of commute and costs are much higher than in US), including all kinds of cool gadgets everyone loves.
> 
> So the math is not exactly that simples. It is certainly better to be poor in a rich Western European country (Belgium, UK, France, Germany, Sweden) than in US, because of safety nets, "free" health care, "cheap" higher education for your kids and so, but it is correct to say a middle class family on the upper 50% of income distribution can have access to much more stuff than their European counterparts. That the average built-up area (excluding lawns, porches and uncovered garages) of an UK residence is 78m², 101m² in Netherlands, 113m² in France, 89m² in Italy and 241m² in US should tell something...
> 
> In the specific case of transportation and HSR, even for Europeans, a carpool of 3 or 4 will almost always be cheaper, and usually way cheaper, than travelling by train.


What do you mean by Americans having access to more stuff than European stuff? You do life is just more that materialistic belongings, right?


----------



## foxmulder

Really sorry for slightly off topic posts but we are trying to figure out the need of high speed rail in USA so basic macroeconomics is somehow related to subject, IMHO  (Oh by the way, I am 100% "for" for the high speed rail in USA for certain corridors) 

There is no room for discussion at all for higher purchasing power (I am not using living standards term, some people turned out to be a little bit touchy... but still give or take they mean the same thing) of people in US compared to Europe. 

1) Almost everything is considerable cheaper in USA. 

2) For the same job (at least in my field for sure) people make more money in USA.

Merge 1) and 2); visit both places spend some time if you can and you will definitely see the difference easily. OR one can just check out PPP per capita and see the difference there. EU average is 2/3rd of USA. I believe this is more pronounced in middle class. 

And, yes I am writing about materialistic stuff because I am trying to be objective. If you want to be unbiased you need to analyze measurable things.


----------



## Suburbanist

LtBk said:


> What do you mean by Americans having access to more stuff than European stuff? You do life is just more that materialistic belongings, right?


Question is that "materialistic belongings" can be taxed, and taxes generate revenue to pay, among other stuff, for part of HSR costs - as no HSR projcto seems, as today, to be self-financing with private funds only.


----------



## Nexis

I'm so sick of this EU vs America crap on SSC its gotten to the point of being childish and annoying. Go start your own thread , if you want to compare the 2 countries.....


----------



## aquaticko

Well the connection between the "America v Europe" debate and HSR is clear, and essentially the argument boils down to whether the American way, which is less taxed and less "serviced" is better than the European way, which is more taxed and more "serviced" (e.g. HSR). It's not totally off-topic, as the initial poll question was whether or not the U.S. needs HSR. The answer to that question depends on which side of this argument you fall, which depends on how you interpret the phrase "standard of living", which HSR, as with just about any public works project, is intended to improve.


----------



## Sopomon

Nexis said:


> I'm so sick of this EU vs America crap on SSC its gotten to the point of being childish and annoying. Go start your own thread , if you want to compare the 2 countries.....


Who is in charge of maintaining the mainline tracks on the north east corridor?
I have seen a few videos and the tracks seem fairly lumpy, with quite a lot of lateral movement of the carriages, especially the Acela when passing Kingston RI


----------



## SamuraiBlue

aquaticko said:


> Well the connection between the "America v Europe" debate and HSR is clear, and essentially the argument boils down to whether the American way, which is less taxed and less "serviced" is better than the European way, which is more taxed and more "serviced" (e.g. HSR). It's not totally off-topic, as the initial poll question was whether or not the U.S. needs HSR. The answer to that question depends on which side of this argument you fall, which depends on how you interpret the phrase "standard of living", which HSR, as with just about any public works project, is intended to improve.


Not really that relevant as the US government want you to believe.
If they adjust the breakdown in federal spending budget by cutting military spending they would have more to spend in public infrastructure .


----------



## Kenwen

I think there is something else we shouldnt forget,not just infrastructure and mobility of the country,but the know how of the hsr.If USA keep on ignoring the HSR,which needs generation of expert to develop and maintain competitve advantage of the techology,maybe in ten or twenty years,bullet trains can reach speed like 800mph,and USA will have to buy them from EU,all the jobs and projects of such will have nothing to do with USA,USA is remarkable,because things like APPLE,Microsoft,Boeing and many high tech brands that lead the market. If government and politicians cannot convince the country to emphasis on High tech like they used to be,USA wont hold on to their position in the value chain.Is more to do with the can do spirit rather than anything else.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> If USA keep on ignoring the HSR,which needs generation of expert to develop and maintain competitve advantage of the techology,maybe in ten or twenty years,bullet trains can reach speed like 800mph,and USA will have to buy them from EU,


Unfortunately, the U.S. has already lost the knowhow it once had(back in the 50's and 60's) in railcar building- it goes without saying that current technology will be imported, not to mention advanced technologies like maglev. BTW, steel wheel on rail technology will max out at 300mph or so (maybe less). Above that it will be maglev. Also, Boeing has marvelous aircraft, but the trains they made were crap.


----------



## aquaticko

SamuraiBlue said:


> Not really that relevant as the US government want you to believe.
> If they adjust the breakdown in federal spending budget by cutting military spending they would have more to spend in public infrastructure .


Sure, but either way, it'd be something of an ideological shift; whether more taxes or a smaller military budget, it's not what the U.S. has done historically, and I think that that's what I was getting at before.


----------



## Nexis

Sopomon said:


> Who is in charge of maintaining the mainline tracks on the north east corridor?
> I have seen a few videos and the tracks seem fairly lumpy, with quite a lot of lateral movement of the carriages, especially the Acela when passing Kingston RI


Amtrak , Metro North , MBTA & NJT , there not lumpy its zoomed in so appears lumpy. Its in good condition except the construction areas....


----------



## mgk920

k.k.jetcar said:


> Unfortunately, the U.S. has already lost the knowhow it once had(back in the 50's and 60's) in railcar building- it goes without saying that current technology will be imported, not to mention advanced technologies like maglev. BTW, steel wheel on rail technology will max out at 300mph or so (maybe less). Above that it will be maglev. Also, Boeing has marvelous aircraft, but the trains they made were crap.


IMHO, the biggest impediment to increased rail use, both passenger and freight, here in North America (*NOT* just the USA) is the ownership structure of the rail system itself. I have no doubt that if NA's train operations were owned separately from the track infrastructure, there would be an overwhelming interest in the private sector to offer a wide variety of very innovative new and expanded services. As it stands now, 'market entry' is nearly impossible as the legacy operating companies will flatly refuse to allow anyone else onto their track, even if that legacy owner is completely uninterested in providing any improved services, and just try to build a new rail line by yourself - it's infinitely easier to just offer that new and improved service by road (trucks, buses) or even air (cargo and passenger airplanes).

:no:

Mike


----------



## Sopomon

k.k.jetcar said:


> Unfortunately, the U.S. has already lost the knowhow it once had(back in the 50's and 60's) in railcar building- it goes without saying that current technology will be imported, not to mention advanced technologies like maglev. BTW, steel wheel on rail technology will max out at 300mph or so (maybe less). Above that it will be maglev. Also, Boeing has marvelous aircraft, but the trains they made were crap.


Absolutely! Anyone who buys crom Colorado Railcar (now US railcar) for examlple, is really buting something from 20 years ago with very little technological advancement.


----------



## Nexis

Sopomon said:


> Absolutely! Anyone who buys crom Colorado Railcar (now US railcar) for examlple, is really buting something from 20 years ago with very little technological advancement.


NJT orders from Germany and Spain , MBTA gets there Diesel and cars from Montana and Quebec , NYC /NY gets there cars from Quebec , and Upstate by Bombardier , Septa gets there cars from Rotem , CT gets there cars from Kawasaki , MARC gets there cars from Kawasaki , Amtrak is getting there cars from Talgo , Alstom , the New Locos are from Siemens , most of the rolling stock is made by foreign companies. NJT refused to buy from US Railcar due to higher costs in production and shipping and of course there DMU's are backwards.


----------



## Sopomon

Nexis said:


> NJT orders from Germany and Spain , MBTA gets there Diesel and cars from Montana and Quebec , NYC /NY gets there cars from Quebec , and Upstate by Bombardier , Septa gets there cars from Rotem , CT gets there cars from Kawasaki , MARC gets there cars from Kawasaki , Amtrak is getting there cars from Talgo , Alstom , the New Locos are from Siemens , most of the rolling stock is made by foreign companies. NJT refused to buy from US Railcar due to higher costs in production and shipping and of course there DMU's are backwards.


Oh I didn't mean to imply there were that many that did, sorry


----------



## kayanathera

foxmulder said:


> Really sorry for slightly off topic posts but we are trying to figure out the need of high speed rail in USA so basic macroeconomics is somehow related to subject, IMHO  (Oh by the way, I am 100% "for" for the high speed rail in USA for certain corridors)
> 
> There is no room for discussion at all for higher purchasing power (I am not using living standards term, some people turned out to be a little bit touchy... but still give or take they mean the same thing) of people in US compared to Europe.
> 
> 1) *Almost everything is considerable cheaper in USA*. because US doesnt have a VAT and quality is non-existent starting with food for exemple(or what the americans call food)
> 
> 2) *For the same job (at least in my field for sure) people make more money in USA*.No they dont, they have the impression that they have more money but they have to pay themselves for things that in Europe are taken for granted
> 
> Merge 1) and 2); visit both places spend some time if you can and you will definitely see the difference easily. OR one can just check out PPP per capita and see the difference there. EU average is 2/3rd of USA. I believe this is more pronounced in middle class.
> 
> *And, yes I am writing about materialistic stuff because I am trying to be objective. If you want to be unbiased you need to analyze measurable things*.


 thats wrong, if you want to be unbiased you have to take in consideration all the factors.


----------



## desertpunk

*CurbedLA*



> Would Grapevine Bullet Train Route Make Bakersfield an LA Suburb?
> Tuesday, May 31, 2011, by Neal Broverman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority, which was recently told it has to break ground next year, is once again looking into getting trains from Bakersfield to Los Angeles via the steep Grapevine route. As mentioned, that route was previously discarded, but now the option has been revived as it could shave about nine minutes off travel times from LA to SF and save about a billion dollars in construction costs. According to California Watch, one initial worry about the Grapevine route was that it could turn Bakersfield into a commuter city of LA, with travel times of less than 50 minutes between the two cities (the current drive between the two downtowns is about two hours without major traffic). A route that diverts around the Grapevine and hits Palmdale was enticing to some in Bakersfield because it would add a stop and more time on the train between their city and LA, discouraging locals from working and spending money in LA. “I think [the worry] had to do with becoming a bedroom community out of Los Angeles and losing some identity and issues like that,” Ron Brummett, executive director of Kern Council of Governments, told California Watch. The High-Speed Rail Authority's feasibility report on the Grapevine route should be ready in about four months.


----------



## 33Hz

Promoting a route just because it takes longer?!?


----------



## nomarandlee

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...20-mph-bullet-trains-20110602,0,2330947.story
> 
> *Illinois to study 220 mph bullet trains*
> 
> By Jon Hilkevitch
> 
> Tribune reporter
> 
> 4:32 p.m. CDT, June 2, 2011
> The University of Illinois will lead a study examining the options to build tracks exclusively for 220 mph bullet trains operating initially between Chicago and Urbana-Champaign and eventually carrying passengers the length of the state in about two hours.
> 
> Gov. Pat Quinn announced the $1.25 million state-funded study today at a meeting in Chicago of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, whose leaders have questioned the benefits of the federal government and numerous states, including Illinois, investing in train service that tops out at 110 mph...........
> 
> The study, led by U. of I. railroad engineering professor Christopher Barkan with help from Steve Schlickman, director of the Urban Transportation Center at the U. of I. at Chicago, is expected to be completed in late 2012, officials said............


...


----------



## hoosier

mgk920 said:


> The $800+M that was planned to be spent on a 'medium speed' line upgrade and service restoration between Madison and Milwaukee, WI (a distance of about 100 km) was, IMHO, a total waste and would have set back progress on true high-speed service development in the midwestern USA by at least a generation.
> 
> Mike


You can't be serious. There never was going to be money available to build true high speed rail outside of a couple of corridors where it had been approved by voters (Florida and California).

Incremental upgrades to existing corridors to demonstrate the value of faster intercity rail before committing major funds to build entirely new lines from scratch was and still is a wise and prudent decision.

Walker is a right wing demagogue that already has a special place in Hell waiting for him.


----------



## hoosier

TheAnalyst said:


> Do we really want a nearly bankrupt state to build such a project? I think not.


No one is going bankrupt to build this project. Do some god damn research into how the CAHSR project is going to be financed before spouting off at the mouth like an idiot.


----------



## Suburbanist

Many of those "higher speed" project out of Chicago banked, for part of their alignment, on existing ROW from private railways, and rightfully so as the terrain there is mostly flat and many alignments are straight anyway.

Something that has changed fast, though, is the residual value of freight lines. In other words, the value of ROW increased as big private freight railways became more efficient and effective. The main lines out of West Coast port are busting with Asian exports to elsewhere in US east of the Rockies. They became very effective doing that, in what is a remarkable case for rail industry worldwide. This is positive as one would not want all those containers to be driven through I-80, I-40 and I-10.

The unintended consequence is that rail ROW value has skyrocket, as has the costs to take capacity down when you are making improvements. So BNSF, CSX and UP became far less cooperative as they are flush with cash and became lucrative again. This makes negotiations more difficult. They don't need small money to "rent" their ROW so that higher speed tracks can be routed. 

Indeed, Union Pacific has become outright hostile to Amtrak and all passenger-related operations. CSX (if I"m not wrong) recently asked Amtrak $720 million to allow operation of passenger trains between New Orleans and Miami on a daily basis. BNSF is holding Amtrak hostage with requests of "pay money or we are going to downgrade that track and you cannot run trains above 40mph anymore".

So I can see only more trouble on this high(er) speed projects that rely on collaboration with freight railways. Sometimes is on the small stuff - for instance, there are special FRA regulations for passenger trains running on the same tracks at the same time (like crossing or operating on the same sector) with trains of certain hazardous materials, that are a small part of rail cargo, but yet the freight railways said they will not agree to schedule such trains as to allow "higher speed" passenger operations in any case, as it is their tracks, and they run whatever train they want.


----------



## TheAnalyst

hoosier said:


> No one is going bankrupt to build this project. Do some god damn research into how the CAHSR project is going to be financed before spouting off at the mouth like an idiot.


Oh really? A project costing over $50 billion dollars (probably a lot more) to build and billions to maintain over the years sounds like an excellent idea for the most indebted state in the country. Additionally, it's been said more than once that their current funding scheme is very questionable. Also, let's start building from Borden to Corcoran, towns no one even in California knows where they are! 

There is a reason Florida rejected the $2 billion in federal money. Some people in this country care when their money is going down the drain (ie: federal money being used to build trains in California). I bet this has been brought up on this topic before, but we live in a car culture, so the ridership estimates CHSRA is counting on are just not going to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of HSR if it's done right, but what they are trying to do in California has failure written all over it.


----------



## TheAnalyst

hoosier said:


> You can't be serious. There never was going to be money available to build true high speed rail outside of a couple of corridors where it had been approved by voters (Florida and California).
> 
> Incremental upgrades to existing corridors to demonstrate the value of faster intercity rail before committing major funds to build entirely new lines from scratch was and still is a wise and prudent decision.


*You* can't be serious. What is the value in spending a couple of billion dollars to shave 20 minutes off a 3 hour trip on lines that already have low ridership?

If anything this will demonstrate the _lack of value_ in "high speed" rail.


----------



## aquaticko

TheAnalyst said:


> Oh really? A project costing over $50 billion dollars to build and billions to maintain over the years sounds like an excellent idea for the most indebted state in the country. Also, let's start building from Borden to Corcoran, towns no one even in California knows where they are!
> 
> There is a reason Florida rejected the $2 billion in federal money. Some people in this country care when their money is going down the drain (ie: federal money being used to build trains in California). I bet this has been brought up on this topic before, *but we live in a car culture*, so the ridership estimates CHSRA is counting on are just not going to happen.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of HSR if it's done right, but what they are trying to do in California has failure written all over it.


This is in reference to the bolded section above. We're not a car culture, not even a little, tiny bit. We're a "transportation" culture--what we care about is getting from place to place in as great comfort, with as little effort and money, as is possible. That is why vehicles like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry have long been two of the best selling automobiles in the country. They aren't "cars"; people don't own them because they _enjoy_ owning them, they own them because these cars have a reputation for being inexpensive to own and run, practical, and reliable, and owning a car is necessary for the vast majority of the population to participate in the economy. That is to say, they're appliances, owned for what do they, not what they are. As an automotive enthusiast who has spoken with many other auto enthusiats over the years, it's one thing we collectively bemoan about the way this country is set up. The fact that cars are required for getting almost anywhere for the vast majority of the population means that no one wants to think about them because they're there all the time. If we were truly a car culture, I think that we'd have more than a 7% takerate for new, manual transmission-equipped cars.

I'm willing to bet that many many people would very happily give up their cars if it didn't mean a serious imparement on their ability to live comfortably. HSR and other mass transit systems are supposed to make it possible to get around without cars. If what all this necessitates is simultaneously making mass transit more prolific and automobile ownership more expensive, I'd be all for it.


----------



## TheAnalyst

aquaticko said:


> I'm willing to bet that many many people would very happily give up their cars if it didn't mean a *serious imparement on their ability to live comfortably*. HSR and other mass transit systems are supposed to make it possible to get around without cars. If what all this necessitates is simultaneously making mass transit more prolific and automobile ownership more expensive, I'd be all for it.


And therein lies the problem. There's no way that is going to happen anytime soon. At least in most places I've been to in America it's very hard to get around using public transportation. And that is in spite of a large chunk of transportation funding going to mass transit, while it serves only a small (<5%) of the population. 

I highly doubt expanding/building a HSR network will make people magically abandon their cars.


----------



## Smooth Indian

TheAnalyst said:


> And therein lies the problem. There's no way that is going to happen anytime soon. At least in most places I've been to in America it's very hard to get around using public transportation. And that is in spite of a large chunk of transportation funding going to mass transit, while it serves only a small (<5%) of the population.
> 
> I highly doubt expanding/building a HSR network will make people magically abandon their cars.


Maybe not magical but it will be a start. I think it will be a gradual process. All the people certainly did not suddenly decide that they wanted to drive and own cars. The adoption of the automobile happened over decades. The adoption of HSR and other public transit options on a scale larger than today will also take time. But the first step has to be taken to start building an infrastructure/setup where people can make a choice or find it convenient to choose transit options. Otherwise we are stuck with the proverbial chicken and egg conundrum i.e. no transit hence no riders, no riders hence no transit.


----------



## Seaway

I find it interesting that the conservatives think the high speed rail is bad for taxpayers yet, they have no problem with the government funding huge new highway projects for a mode of transportation that has no future in the US(American auto manufacturers are investing heavily in Asia for Asian consumers rather than in North America) with rising gas prices and most Americans moving back into cities based on census numbers over the past twenty years. Time to start thinking longterm or we'll be scrambling to rebuild our rail network when it's already too late.


----------



## Suburbanist

Seaway said:


> I find it interesting that the conservatives think the high speed rail is bad for taxpayers yet, they have no problem with the government funding huge new highway projects


Highways are financed, not car operations themselves (I might open an exception for the Big Three 2008 bailout, which yielded US gov't a profit in the end). That is the main difference: in road transport, gov't finance only the road, vehicles are private. In air transport, gov't finance only the runway and terminals, airplanes are private. In rail transport, at least in US, they want gov't to not only build tracks and stations, but also to hire conductors and buy trains and, gosh, operate a restaurant car!!! It is a big difference. Rail investment support would grow if the quest were only to finance tracks, and letting private operators run trains for a small fee on gov't public railways. 



> *most *Americans moving back into cities based on census numbers over the past twenty years.


Do we read the same US Census Bureau reports? Because recent figures show that, on a national basis, CSAs classified as "suburbs" never held a higher share of total population. 



aquaticko said:


> This is in reference to the bolded section above. We're not a car culture, not even a little, tiny bit. We're a "transportation" culture--what we care about is getting from place to place in as great comfort, with as little effort and money, as is possible. That is why vehicles like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry have long been two of the best selling automobiles in the country. They aren't "cars"; people don't own them because they _enjoy_ owning them, they own them because these cars have a reputation for being inexpensive to own and run, practical, and reliable, and owning a car is necessary for the vast majority of the population to participate in the economy. That is to say, they're appliances, owned for what do they, not what they are. As an automotive enthusiast who has spoken with many other auto enthusiats over the years, it's one thing we collectively bemoan about the way this country is set up. The fact that cars are required for getting almost anywhere for the vast majority of the population means that no one wants to think about them because they're there all the time. If we were truly a car culture, I think that we'd have more than a 7% takerate for new, manual transmission-equipped cars.
> 
> I'm willing to bet that many many people would very happily give up their cars if it didn't mean a serious imparement on their ability to live comfortably. HSR and other mass transit systems are supposed to make it possible to get around without cars. If what all this necessitates is simultaneously making mass transit more prolific and automobile ownership more expensive, I'd be all for it.


I agree with the first part of your first paragraph. However, I'd say US is not a "car" culture, but an automobility culture. People use Honda Civics because they provide (as any other car, Hummers and Corvettes included) instantaneous, 24/7, broad and universal reach that no feasible transit system ever will (hard to think of any transit system that takes you within 10 minutes, no preparation required, no waiting time required, with trips to both central Manhattan or some isolated spot in the middle of Montana).

In Europe, where transit is at least pervasive, all countries of the Western part have more than 70% car share for total personal transportation (passenger-miles).


----------



## TheAnalyst

Suburbanist said:


> That is the main difference: in road transport, gov't finance only the road, vehicles are private. In air transport, gov't finance only the runway and terminals, airplanes are private. In rail transport, at least in US, they want gov't to not only build tracks and stations, but also to hire conductors and buy trains and, gosh, operate a restaurant car!!! It is a big difference.


To be fair, airports require a lot of personnel too. After all someone's got to man the control towers, run shuttles, refuel the planes, etc. And airport construction costs are very high too. Look no further than Guarulhos International, where hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent just to add one terminal.



> Rail investment support would grow if the quest were only to finance tracks, and *letting private operators run trains for a small* fee on gov't public railways.


Isn't that what's being proposed in some of these HSR projects in the States? Kinda like Florida's planned Orlando-Tampa line, where private investors were going to cover operational losses; if they were to happen?


----------



## aquaticko

Both of you (TheAnalyst, Suburbanist) make valid points, but essentially what it boils down to is that for decades, the automobile has been the sole feasible mode of transportation for the vast majority of the American population by virtue of demographics and development patterns. However, Smooth Indian said it right--if there ought to be a change, it's got to start at some point, and there's no reason that it couldn't start with incremental improvements to the rail infrastructure.

I still have a big problem, on a sort of philosophical level, that there's a major cost imposed upon all levels of American society in essentially requiring automobile ownership to be able to fully participate in the economy.


----------



## Suburbanist

aquaticko said:


> I still have a big problem, on a sort of philosophical level, that there's a major cost imposed upon all levels of American society in essentially requiring automobile ownership to be able to fully participate in the economy.


It is possible to discuss the economy of passenger transportation, but to argue philosophically against the de-facto requirement of car ownership is moot, in my opinion. People are already de-facto obliged to own a cell phone, to have e-mail and an internet connection, to have a bank account... You can survive without any of the aforementioned items, but your ability to participate in the economy and social life will be severely hampered if you lack any of those resources. The car is just another requirement of modern life in most US metro areas, the only difference being it costs two orders of magnitude more than the other items I mentioned.



TheAnalyst said:


> Isn't that what's being proposed in some of these HSR projects in the States? Kinda like Florida's planned Orlando-Tampa line, where private investors were going to cover operational losses; if they were to happen?


No. States DOTs or similar agencies would be on the hook for operational losses. In the case of projects like the railway to Madison, operational losses were already predicted from onset. Unless gas in US cost $ 7.00/gallon or more, that railway wouldn't attract sufficient ridership to pay for its operations.


----------



## Nexis

American is starting to get old , and many states are starting to get serious with there Transit plans. The population of ppl over 65 is supposed to triple by 2050 , we need HSR , Transit and Rail. Enough with these excuses , the time is to start now. New England , and the Cascadia range are leading the pack , the rest of the country has fallen behind. This generation also wants more transit and Rail options. Where there are good Transit connections and walkable cities , transit is fully taken advantage of. As for the HSR or Rail operating losses , there still half that of Road and Highway Maintaince costs... How do people on this board or a few people keep missing that?


----------



## G5man

True high-speed rail systems have shown profits from SNCF in France with 1 billion in net operating revenue, Russia has had 30% margins on operations as well. Interstates, let alone local arterials do not pay for themselves. The fact is the 25 and under generation of young professionals see the value of being close to work, entertainment, and shopping and would prefer not to pay for vehicle maintenace, insurance, gas, etc. Why keep the same transportation system for the next generation when it is vulnerable to gas price shocks, effecting every area of the economy? If we continue to depend on gasoline for transportation, the economic well being of the country which is in already bad shape could worsen since disposable income will go to everyday living versus vacations, property investment, etc. 

Now, latest news out of France, construction to begin in 1 years on the LGV Sud-Europe from Tours-Bordeaux, to be completed by 2017. Detroit-Chicago improvements might come sooner since NS decided to lower the speed of its ROW wanting Amtrak to pay for maintenance. The stretch of track that has been slowed down has been planned to be bought by the state of Michigan.


----------



## Suburbanist

G5man said:


> The fact is the 25 and under generation of young professionals see the value of being close to work, entertainment, and shopping and would prefer not to pay for vehicle maintenace, insurance, gas, etc. Why keep the same transportation system for the next generation when it is vulnerable to gas price shocks, effecting every area of the economy? If we continue to depend on gasoline for transportation, the economic well being of the country which is in already bad shape could worsen since disposable income will go to everyday living versus vacations, property investment, etc.


It is quite a preemptive and presumptive assumption to begin it. In all those countries where there are extensive HSR like France, Spain or Italy, people still drive cars a lot, and highways (mostly toll-roads) are expanding and getting more lanes, new alignments etc. 

So one should not frame the discussion as a rail x highway. HSR, where applicable, can be an efficient competitor to short haul flights and very long commute drives, for an upscale market now, maybe for median income market in couple decades. However, raid the road funds to build rail would be bad public policy and political suicide. After all, it would mean large scale introduction of tolls on heavily trafficked highways to pay for their maintenance, like it happens in Europe.



> Now, latest news out of France, construction to begin in 1 years on the LGV Sud-Europe from Tours-Bordeaux, to be completed by 2017. Detroit-Chicago improvements might come sooner since NS decided to lower the speed of its ROW wanting Amtrak to pay for maintenance. The stretch of track that has been slowed down has been planned to be bought by the state of Michigan.


I think Amtrak should divide itself in 3 different companies:

- one to manage tracks, signaling, dedicated stations and terminals and other infrastructure, which will charge trackage fees from whomever wants to use the tracks and would invest money buying off tracks from established railways (BNSF, CSX etc)

- one to operate competitive, commuter services, like in NEC, new HS projects.

- one to operate long-distance, slow train services, which would have to either become profitable or be shut down and terminated.


----------



## aquaticko

Suburbanist said:


> It is possible to discuss the economy of passenger transportation, but to argue philosophically against the de-facto requirement of car ownership is moot, in my opinion. People are already de-facto obliged to own a cell phone, to have e-mail and an internet connection, to have a bank account... You can survive without any of the aforementioned items, but your ability to participate in the economy and social life will be severely hampered if you lack any of those resources. The car is just another requirement of modern life in most US metro areas, the only difference being it costs two orders of magnitude more than the other items I mentioned.


In terms of cost, I think it's reasonable make a philosophical distinction between something that will cost you, oh, maybe one or two thousand dollars a year and having. You can't make blanket statements like that when the two subjects are, as you say, orders of magnitude apart.


----------



## G5man

Suburbanist said:


> It is quite a preemptive and presumptive assumption to begin it. In all those countries where there are extensive HSR like France, Spain or Italy, people still drive cars a lot, and highways (mostly toll-roads) are expanding and getting more lanes, new alignments etc.
> 
> So one should not frame the discussion as a rail x highway. HSR, where applicable, can be an efficient competitor to short haul flights and very long commute drives, for an upscale market now, maybe for median income market in couple decades. However, raid the road funds to build rail would be bad public policy and political suicide. After all, it would mean large scale introduction of tolls on heavily trafficked highways to pay for their maintenance, like it happens in Europe.


So it is not okay to make roads pay for themselves yet it is okay to say rail needs to cover 100% of its operations costs? That is an unfair double standard. The rail funds got raided after WWII for road funding, what about fair treatment? Either you take road funds or you impose a new tax, neither popular. However, once gas prices become too high, people want a way out.





> I think Amtrak should divide itself in 3 different companies:
> 
> - one to manage tracks, signaling, dedicated stations and terminals and other infrastructure, which will charge trackage fees from whomever wants to use the tracks and would invest money buying off tracks from established railways (BNSF, CSX etc)
> 
> - one to operate competitive, commuter services, like in NEC, new HS projects.
> 
> - one to operate long-distance, slow train services, which would have to either become profitable or be shut down and terminated.


If long distance trains are terminated because they are not profitable, then would you agree in tern to cut Essential Air service? Some of the communities served by the trains do not have any other mode of transportation.


----------



## Suburbanist

G5man said:


> So it is not okay to make roads pay for themselves yet it is okay to say rail needs to cover 100% of its operations costs? That is an unfair double standard. The rail funds got raided after WWII for road funding, what about fair treatment? Either you take road funds or you impose a new tax, neither popular. However, once gas prices become too high, people want a way out.


You are ignoring two fundamental issues, and stating wrong a third:

- there is a BIG, ENORMOUS difference between maintaining public railways with TRACKS AND STATIONS ONLY and operating train services. Is it that difficult to understand? It is like the difference between maintaining airports, ATC and owning and operating airplanes; or maintaining highways and operating trucks and buses!!! Why people can't get the difference between VEHICLES and INFRASTRUCTURE, and why do they always want to blend both when it comes to rail?

- there are no problems, in principle, with toll roads. I'm not against them, insofar fuel-specific taxes are 100% devoted to road maintenance and construction. The problem begins when you want to tax road vehicle use to build rail, that is unfair. Put up a car-mileage-based tax on train operations, freight and passenger alike, and use them to build railways. Or use fund from the general budget, if one can make a case for yet more spending in these lean times. Just don't touch road money that is collected under the form of gas taxes. Raise gas taxes if needed to pay for increased costs of construction, but don't divert money to other infrastructure!!!

- there had never been a "rail fund" diverted from roads in North America. The corporation that own(ed) most of the railways got some tax breaks and special loans here and there, but there had never been a systematic fund to operate trains, just the land-grant schemes and some other exclusive charters up to ~1910. 



> If long distance trains are terminated because they are not profitable, then would you agree in tern to cut Essential Air service? Some of the communities served by the trains do not have any other mode of transportation.


Essential Air Service should apply only to remote locations in Alleutian Islands and the likes of Alaska where there is no other way to reach them. As for Essential Air Service like in Wyoming, Idaho or UTah? Shut it down, no reason for it to exist.

There isn't a single town served by Amtrak trains that is also disconnected from the American network of paved roads. Not all of them have a nearby Interstate, some are pretty remote, but ALL have year-round access to the network of paved roads. Some towns in the route of the Empire Builder are rather remote, but are all reachable by car. Indeed, most long-distance routes of Amtrak are run over railways whose alignment are closely followed by US-routes, when not Interstates. It is the case of the Empire Builder (US-2), California Zephyr (I-70+I-80), Southwest Chief (I-35+I-40+I-15)


----------



## TheAnalyst

Suburbanist said:


> I'm not against them, insofar fuel-specific taxes are 100% devoted to road maintenance and construction.


That is not true. 

State gasoline taxes and most (but not all) of federal gas taxes were, in principle, meant to be used only for road maintenance. But in 1982, the "Mass Transit Account" was created, and *it* uses funds that come from gas taxes. This was just one of the many changes to the "users pay, users benefit" principle. Nowadays more than 25% of gas taxes are used for non-highway purposes.

Additionally, there's a proposal calling for the creation of a "transportation trust fund," replacing the highway trust fund, which would allow an even bigger chunk of gas taxes to go to mass transit. Still, this is not as bad as gas taxes in Europe, which are actually general purpose revenue. That's why there are more tolls roads in Europe, as they pay for the roads rather than gas taxes.



> The problem begins when you want to tax road vehicle use to build rail, that is unfair.


I don't see anything wrong with that.


----------



## Nexis

TheAnalyst said:


> That is not true.
> 
> State gasoline taxes and the most (but not all) of federal gas taxes were, in principle, meant to be used only for road maintenance. But in 1982, the "Mass Transit Account" was created, and *it* uses funds that come from gas taxes. This was just one of the many changes to the "users pay, users benefit" principle. Nowadays more than 25% of gas taxes are used for non-highway purposes.
> 
> Additionally, there's a proposal calling for the creation of a "*transportation trust fund*," replacing the highway trust fund, which would allow an even bigger chunk of gas taxes to go to mass transit. Still, this is not as bad as gas taxes in Europe, which are actually general purpose revenue. That's why there are more tolls roads in Europe, as they pay for the roads rather than gas taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with that.


All Northeastern states have this , but the fund is not stable. Raided for things other then Transport , which is now coming to bite us in the ass. Billions wasted on developments and education...taken from the Trust fund and Gas Taxes are too low to fund it in the first place.


----------



## FlyFish

Nexis said:


> All Northeastern states have this , but the fund is not stable. Raided for things other then Transport , which is now coming to bite us in the ass. Billions wasted on developments and education...taken from the Trust fund and Gas Taxes are too low to fund it in the first place.


Which is exactly why this notion of taxing gas more just to pay for rail is idiotic and I can't see why anyone with a brain who lives in the US, pays attention to what goes on and buys gasoline would support it. The currect revenue doesn't go for the roads as it is. Much of it is funnelled off. The new taxes will be the same. It won't be used for what you want it used for. It will be one more pot raided by politicians for whatever pet project they deem to be more important, just like they do with the gas taxes collected now. Some of you need to take off the rose colored glasses and see things as they are, not as you want them to be.

Raising gas taxes will accomplish one thing....it will make gas cost more.

You want your gas taxes to just pay for certain things, then convince your elected officials to privatize the whole thing. Set up a corporation to manage and oversee the nation's infrastructure. In a whiney voice..."But FlyFish, they'll just steal it so rich guys get richer". Maybe, but they'll steal less of it than the Government would. 

Take the Gov't out of the picture. Some of the best maintained roads and bridges in this country are those with private or semi-private tolling agencies where the money collected has no other legal option but to be used on the road it is collected. When the money falls into a state or God-forbid Federal pot it is gone.


----------



## Nexis

FlyFish said:


> Which is exactly why this notion of taxing gas more just to pay for rail is idiotic and I can't see why anyone with a brain who lives in the US and pay attention to what goes on and buys gasoline would support it. The currect revenue doesn't go for the roads as it is. Much of it is funnelled off. The new taxes will be the same. It won't be used for what you want it used for. It will be one more pot raided by politicians for whatever pet project they deem to be more important, just like they do with the gas taxes collected now. Some of you need to take off the rose colored glasses and see things as they are, not as you want them to be.
> 
> Raising gas taxes will accomplish one thing....it will make gas cost more.
> 
> You want your gas taxes to just pay for certain things, then convince your elected officials to privatize the whole thing. Set up a corporation to manage and oversee the nation's infrastructure. In a whiney voice..."But FlyFish, they'll just steal it so rich guys get richer". Maybe, but they'll steal less of it than the Government would.
> 
> Take the Gov't out of the picture. Some of the best maintained roads and bridges in this country are those with private or semi-private tolling agencies where the money collected has no other legal option but to be used on the road it is collected. When the money falls into a state or God-forbid Federal pot it is gone.


It doesn't go into Transit , its supposed to be 50/50 but the fund is used for pet projects.....calls for it to stop have yielded no results. Alot of ppl in the NE support the TTF , and are getting tired of the politicions raiding it. Ppl in this region have to put up with congested roads , lack of transit outside the Core , and the TTF gives them some hope for getting transit to the other areas.


----------



## Arnorian

Ideological bickering will be the death of USA.


----------



## FlyFish

Arnorian said:


> Ideological bickering will be the death of USA.


Actually, it is what sets us as different and in the end will be what saves us.


----------



## mgk920

FlyFish said:


> Actually, it is what sets us as different and in the end will be what saves us.


It may seem odd to outsiders, but the often partisan bickering that you are seeing in the USA now is absolutely *NOTHING* compared to the internal bickering in our nation's past, especially before the 20th century. Remember that we endured a bloody Civil War in the early 1860s that was the result of domestic issues that were left unresolved in the 1787 Constitution Convention and that that Constitution Convention itself nearly failed on numerous occasions before an agreement was finally hammered out - after the delegates were cloistered for over three months in a stuffy meeting hall during one of the hottest, most humid summers in the entire history of the City of Philadelphia, up to the present time (remember, there was no air conditioning and baths were rare back then).

Also, the guy pictured on our $10 note died from a gunshot wound suffered in a duel against a political opponent.

Yes, it was that nasty back then.



Thus, these long and often frustrating debates on issues like establishing and expanding a true high-speed intercity passenger rail network are just an integral part of our culture and historic roots.

:cheers1:

Mike


----------



## Arnorian

I didn't mean "political debate", which is useful and eventually ends, with one side accepting it has lost, and the debate moves on to another issue. I meant "ideological bickering", in which nothing is accomplished.

I don't see real HSR being built in the US any time soon, if ever.


----------



## minsamol

Arnorian said:


> Ideological bickering will be the death of USA.


Can you explain why??? hno:


----------



## Arnorian

Gap between the two parties is widening. Republicans are getting more extreme by the month, and can't backtrack. They will keep lowering taxes and abolishing element of the federal government until there's little left. Amtrak and EPA will be first, but infrastructure projects will be part of that too.


----------



## Nexis

Arnorian said:


> Gap between the two parties is widening. Republicans are getting more extreme by the month, and can't backtrack. They will keep lowering taxes and abolishing element of the federal government until there's little left. Amtrak and EPA will be first, but infrastructure projects will be part of that too.


Most states have ways of funding projects if the feds don't chip in.....so will be fine with projects that are under 2 Billion $$$. Amtrak is likely to dissapear they've been saying that for months , as for the EPA i don't think so. But enough with politics , go into the North American boards if you want to discussion that stuff. I'm tired of every Rail thread about the US turning into this garbage discussion. As for HSR , i don't anything solid will develop intill the 2020s , as for the Northeast alot of Intercity projects are underway , to upgrade up to 120mph for Electric and Diesel......those will be completed by 2020. Most ppl in the NE are tired of HSR , and prefer Regional & Urban Rail as promises to these 2 categories have been put aside for HSR. Republicans are more warm to regional and Intercity Rail atm then HSR , thus more projects will start and be completed.


----------



## FlyFish

Nexis said:


> Most states have ways of funding projects if the feds don't chip in.....so will be fine with projects that are under 2 Billion $$$. Amtrak is likely to dissapear they've been saying that for months , as for the EPA i don't think so. As for HSR , i don't anything solid will develop intill the 2020s , as for the Northeast alot of Intercity projects are underway , to upgrade up to 120mph for Electric and Diesel......those will be completed by 2020. Most ppl in the NE are tired of HSR , and prefer Regional & Urban Rail as promises to these 2 categories have been put aside for HSR. Republicans are more warm to regional and Intercity Rail atm then HSR , thus more projects will start and be completed.


Dittos


----------



## minsamol

Arnorian said:


> Gap between the two parties is widening. Republicans are getting more extreme by the month, and can't backtrack. They will keep lowering taxes and abolishing element of the federal government until there's little left. Amtrak and EPA will be first, but infrastructure projects will be part of that too.


They need to realize that the country needs to improve and build new infrastructure to compete with other countries in a globalized world.


----------



## Nexis

minsamol said:


> They need to realize that the country needs to improve and build new infrastructure to compete with other countries in a globalized world.


We do realize this , its the dumb stubborn politicians that don't and corrupt ones..... The NE is behind by 80 Billion $$$ in Subway , Regional Rail and Light Rail restorations and expansions we need to get this done before HSR is ever built in the NE. Regional Rail is very popular and theres alot of Support for it from the public and politicians. Subways and Light Rail is becoming very popular aswell , but ppl are not feeling the love for HSR yet. Although Intercity Rail is very popular for connecting regions with weak Air travel , a number of routes will be upgraded this decade.


----------



## FlyFish

Nexis is wise! We have a crumbling infrastructure here. I don't think anyone, even the politicians who are largely responsible for it, would deny that. That needs to be addressed before we venture into new infrastructure just because others have it.

We have an infrastucture need in this country but that need is not a new and better way to get from City to City. It is to get to work in a reasonible amount of time. People living in a suburb 15 to 20 miles from City X are much more concerned about having a way to get to work in less than an hour and a half than they are about the availability of a train to take them to City Y 250 miles away when they already have planes and cars to get them there. Regional rail, subways and improving the highways we already have is what we need to concentrate on at this point.

HSR will happen here, in SoCal likely. But we won't have a network like others have for at least another 50 years IMO.


----------



## G5man

FlyFish said:


> Nexis is wise! We have a crumbling infrastructure here. I don't think anyone, even the politicians who are largely responsible for it, would deny that. That needs to be addressed before we venture into new infrastructure just because others have it.
> 
> We have an infrastucture need in this country but that need is not a new and better way to get from City to City. It is to get to work in a reasonible amount of time. People living in a suburb 15 to 20 miles from City X are much more concerned about having a way to get to work in less than an hour and a half than they are about the availability of a train to take them to City Y 250 miles away when they already have planes and cars to get them there. Regional rail, subways and improving the highways we already have is what we need to concentrate on at this point.
> 
> HSR will happen here, in SoCal likely. But we won't have a network like others have for at least another 50 years IMO.


 I can agree with some of this such as the need for focusing on the metro areas. However, I wonder if having an intercity link would spur that development and the intercity rail stations become that city's transportation hub. What is going to start the development of the mass transit links? I would like to see some more of what Brisbane does which are called Quickways, basically it is dedicated BRT completely grade separated. It also allows for a one stop hop to downtown and other destinations. 

What I disagree on is not needing a new way to travel between cities. Is it really a good idea to base the future off a finite and uncertain source of energy? Is it a good idea to not have a backup? As we have seen with major airlines, when there is no backup system, it disrupts buisness. Except if the oil spigot was turned off, the United States would have a severe problem. Even with a fuel efficient car, a $1 per gallon increase would results in a $520 increase on spending for gas assuming 10 gallon tank, refilling once a week. For those with less fuel efficent cars driving long distances, it would impact those below the poverty line right in the gut. This country needs to do a few things

1) Pass a fix it first bill for transportation reauthorization, requiring states to rebuild their structurally defficient bridges and bring up their current transit systems, roads, etc. into a state of good repair.
2) Incentivize people to move into the city, taxes are much higher and since intericty transit with the exception of the Northeast isn't that great, the cost savings on transportation are not much. 
3) Improve transportation within cities, utilize complete streets policies to equalize all modes of transportation whether it be walking, biking, dedicated transit lanes, etc.
4) Rezone areas that should be high-capacity transportation corridors. This could help increase the effectiveness of public transportation into the future.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> It is quite a preemptive and presumptive assumption to begin it. In all those countries where there are extensive HSR like France, Spain or Italy, people still drive cars a lot, and highways (mostly toll-roads) are expanding and getting more lanes, new alignments etc.


Can't you just take a permanent vacation?

France and Spain have massively ambitious rail expansion proposals, many of which are actually under construction. Paris is going to get $30 BILLION in metro expansions, a new HSL will be built to Bordeaux (funding has been secured), and Spain's frenzied HSR construction is continuing as planned.

Those countries are correctly preparing themselves for a post oil world. But idiots like you prefer to bury your heads in the sand and promote more autocentrism.


----------



## hoosier

TheAnalyst said:


> Oh really? A project costing over $50 billion dollars (probably a lot more) to build and billions to maintain over the years sounds like an excellent idea for the most indebted state in the country. Additionally, it's been said more than once that their current funding scheme is very questionable. Also, let's start building from Borden to Corcoran, towns no one even in California knows where they are!
> 
> There is a reason Florida rejected the $2 billion in federal money. Some people in this country care when their money is going down the drain (ie: federal money being used to build trains in California). I bet this has been brought up on this topic before, but we live in a car culture, so the ridership estimates CHSRA is counting on are just not going to happen.


The more you post, the more painfully ignorant you reveal yourself to be.

CAHSR was AUTHORIZED BY THE VOTERS via referendum in 2008, the same year that large mass transit expansions were approved in San Jose and Los Angeles by overwhelming margins. Car culture my ass.

Nice of you to name just the beginning and ending point of the INITIAL segment of CAHSR, failing (intentionally perhaps) to mention that Fresno and Bakersfield- cities with a combined metro area population of almost 2 MILLION- will be connected by this segment.

The last paragraph of yours I quoted is a rambling, incoherent anti spending diatribe. Federal money is spent everywhere in the country. Donor states (the ones where people ride trains) subsidize the poor low density states (where people drive everywhere). 

Florida didn't reject the $2 billion for the Orlando-Tampa HSL because of spending concerns, Governor Scott wanted that money directed to wasteful road projects instead.

America is only a car culture because it has spent a ridiculous amount of money on roads and a bubble of cheap oil- which will soon burst- has allowed autocentric development to remain relatively cheap. The full costs of autocentrism have not been borne by the individual, and if they were- people would be clamoring for alternative transportation.


----------



## G5man

hoosier said:


> Can't you just take a permanent vacation?
> 
> France and Spain have massively ambitious rail expansion proposals, many of which are actually under construction. Paris is going to get $30 BILLION in metro expansions, a new HSL will be built to Bordeaux (funding has been secured), and Spain's frenzied HSR construction is continuing as planned.
> 
> Those countries are correctly preparing themselves for a post oil world. But idiots like you prefer to bury your heads in the sand and promote more autocentrism.


Spain and France, 50% for Spain's infrastructure package was going to rail. 80% for France was going to rail.


----------



## hoosier

FlyFish said:


> Which is exactly why this notion of taxing gas more just to pay for rail is idiotic and I can't see why anyone with a brain who lives in the US, pays attention to what goes on and buys gasoline would support it. The currect revenue doesn't go for the roads as it is. Much of it is funnelled off.


SOME of the gas tax funds are funneled off, but not MOST of them.

The Highway Trust Fund would not be solvent even if all of its funding went to roads alone.

The federal gas tax is too low. It hasn't been raised in almost twenty years. People need to bear the true cost of driving. If they did demand for mass transit would skyrocket.


----------



## Suburbanist

G5man said:


> Spain and France, 50% for Spain's infrastructure package was going to rail. 80% for France was going to rail.


Not really. Those are numbers from central budget for capital expenses on new infrastructure, and ignore:

(1) money spent by local/regional authorities

(2) money invested by the equivalent of private or PPP turnpike agencies, whose funds come not from the general budget

(3) maintenance of existing infrastructure, which is done under a different budget denomination.


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> The more you post, the more painfully ignorant you reveal yourself to be.


No need for personal offenses. We are discussing some (infrastructure) that is as lifeless and emotionless as it can be. It's concrete, steel and wires after all. No need to take those issues personally as if people were hurting you by not agreeing with your position. And this forum is not an advocacy site for like-minded people feed one another on repeated arguments over and over anyway.



> Florida didn't reject the $2 billion for the Orlando-Tampa HSL because of spending concerns, Governor Scott wanted that money directed to wasteful road projects instead.


From the beginning it was quite clear that money available to HSR programs would not be "divertable" for any other transportation project but HSR, which is/was a right political decision to avoid a raid on funds for the program. The main concern of Florida was about the fact that, after completed, there was no secured funding for the extension of HSR to Miami or JAcksonville, where it could boost sharply its ridership, and FL would be left on the hook for operational deficits on the train (on the train, not on the infrastructure capital expenses, note) that the Feds were not willing to cover. Those expenses could amount to $ 80-140 mln./year on the first years of operation, and there were no commitment that the extension to more populated areas would ensue soon.




> The full costs of autocentrism have not been borne by the individual, and if they were- people would be clamoring for alternative transportation.


Gas costs up to 3.4 times more in Europe (used to be 5 times more when gas was $ 1/gal.) than in US. That means smaller cars and less drive, but it didn't kill the "car culture" at all. All reliable data sources show that car accounts to more than 67% of all passenger*mile traveled in Europe in all Western Europe countries. 

This is just the latest excuse of people that want gas to be more expensive just to force drivers to use other transportation, even if oil is still relatively cheap. If oil starts costing $ 500/barrel, then people will drive far less and buy far more efficient-engine cars.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> Gas costs up to 3.4 times more in Europe (used to be 5 times more when gas was $ 1/gal.) than in US. That means smaller cars and less drive, but it didn't kill the "car culture" at all. All reliable data sources show that car accounts to more than 67% of all passenger*mile traveled in Europe in all Western Europe countries.
> 
> This is just the latest excuse of people that want gas to be more expensive just to force drivers to use other transportation, even if oil is still relatively cheap. If oil starts costing $ 500/barrel, then people will drive far less and buy far more efficient-engine cars.


Car users do not bear the full cost to maintain roads. A higher gas tax will help ensure they do.

Of course cars are going to consume the bulk of passenger miles traveled, because they are predominantly used for long distance travel in Europe. 
Mass transit is not used for a 70 km journey. And there are still far more roads than rail lines meaning the car is the only available option to get between certain cities. 

Thus your continual mention of this statistic in no way buttresses your argument that cars are significantly more popular than mass transit in Europe. Being forced to use a car doesn't make the car popular.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> The main concern of Florida was about the fact that, after completed, there was no secured funding for the extension of HSR to Miami or JAcksonville, where it could boost sharply its ridership, and FL would be left on the hook for operational deficits on the train (on the train, not on the infrastructure capital expenses, note) that the Feds were not willing to cover. Those expenses could amount to $ 80-140 mln./year on the first years of operation, and there were no commitment that the extension to more populated areas would ensue soon.


Again, either you intentionally ignore the fact that private entities were willing to cover the operational expenses of the Orlando-Tampa HSL because of their confidence in its profitability or you truly are clueless and ignorant.

The same people you mention as being opposed to the HSL because of a lack of federal commitment to fund its extension to Miami are the same people that opposed any funding for HSR in the first place!!!

This line was opposed on purely ideological grounds- no commie pinko train was going to be given the chance to eat into oil company profits. God loves oil and the car after all.


----------



## TheAnalyst

hoosier said:


> Nice of you to name just the beginning and ending point of the INITIAL segment of CAHSR, failing (intentionally perhaps) to mention that Fresno and Bakersfield- cities with a combined metro area population of almost 2 MILLION- will be connected by this segment.


First of all, Corcoran is 60 miles _north_ of Bakersfield. And 2 MILLION?! Wow! 

The newest Chinese HSR link goes from Shanghai to Beijing, which have a combined metro population of 30 million people, plus tens of millions more along its densely populated corridor. Even so, there are concerns about its profitability. The Tokaido Shinkansen, one of the very few profitable lines in the world, connects metro areas totaling 50 million people. 2 million is *nothing*.



> Florida didn't reject the $2 billion for the Orlando-Tampa HSL because of spending concerns, Governor Scott wanted that money directed to wasteful road projects instead.


Which would be far wiser than spending money on a line that nobody, besides an occasional tourist, would use. There is no advantage whatsoever in using HSR if you can drive there in under an hour. Add the time and cost it takes for you to drive to both stations (and back!) and you'll see it's an absurd idea.



> America is only a car culture because it has spent a ridiculous amount of money on roads and a bubble of cheap oil- which will soon burst- has allowed autocentric development to remain relatively cheap. The full costs of autocentrism have not been borne by the individual, and if they were- people would be clamoring for alternative transportation.


I will not disagree with you said here, but HSR is a link between cities. For it to work, you'd need decent public transportation on both ends - which we don't have. It is a lot more desirable to invest in mass transit in metro areas than HSR.


----------



## Suburbanist

TheAnalyst said:


> Which would be far wiser than spending money on a line that nobody, besides an occasional tourist, would use. There is no advantage whatsoever in using HSR if you can drive there in under an hour. Add the time and cost it takes for you to drive to both stations (and back!) and you'll see it's an absurd idea.
> 
> I will not disagree with you said here, but HSR is a link between cities. For it to work, you'd need decent public transportation on both ends - which we don't have. It is a lot more desirable to invest in mass transit in metro areas than HSR.


The last-mile problem was to be particularly problematic for the Tampa-Orlando HSR. On short distances, HSR only works if they are well connected to local transit networks. On medium and long distances (> 250-300mi), you can think of them as substitutes for air travel, because they cut long distances fast. So you can also think of facilities like HSR stations build near major Interestate interchanges, and offering car rentals easily there (like in almost all international airports). So people can then drive to a HSR station, take a train, disembark, rent a car and drive to his/her final destination, all together faster than driving 380mi, for instance.


----------



## G5man

TheAnalyst said:


> First of all, Corcoran is 60 miles _north_ of Bakersfield. And 2 MILLION?! Wow!
> 
> The newest Chinese HSR link goes from Shanghai to Beijing, which have a combined metro population of 30 million people, plus tens of millions more along its densely populated corridor. Even so, there are concerns about its profitability. The Tokaido Shinkansen, one of the very few profitable lines in the world, connects metro areas totaling 50 million people. 2 million is *nothing*.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be far wiser than spending money on a line that nobody, besides an occasional tourist, would use. There is no advantage whatsoever in using HSR if you can drive there in under an hour. Add the time and cost it takes for you to drive to both stations (and back!) and you'll see it's an absurd idea.
> 
> 
> 
> I will not disagree with you said here, but HSR is a link between cities. For it to work, you'd need decent public transportation on both ends - which we don't have. It is a lot more desirable to invest in mass transit in metro areas than HSR.


Old news, the initial construction segment is now going to Bakersfield. Again, what is the best way to spur mass transit development, HSR? Mass transit is an expensive proposition and it mostly benefits commuters. Again, most HSR lines are profitable. Tokaido Shinkansen and Paris-Lyon are considered the only profitable lines based off if captial costs are repaid. You probably need to wait 30-50 years for the HSR investment to pay off, but I have yet to hear of a statistic that the operations revenue of the Interstate Highway system has made a profit.


----------



## sekelsenmat

hoosier said:


> This line was opposed on purely ideological grounds- no commie pinko train was going to be given the chance to eat into oil company profits. God loves oil and the car after all.


Please leave God out of your ideological bickering, will you?

There are plenty of anti-HSR atheists (the atheist portion of the Libertarians for example) and also plenty of religious supporters of HSR.

Even more ridiculous is saying that to Suburbanist. AFAIK he is a secularist. Basically you just proved your ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## aquaticko

The entire argument seems to be that the U.S. is not structurally read for HSR, but though the point that we should focus on less capital-intensive developments to start is rational, I fail to see how upgrading tracks from 70mph to 90mph is going to capture the sort of attention that is necessary if we're going to actually refocus the American transportation system. HSR would obviously be a hugely expensive gamble as a PR move, and the cost of failure is all that much higher, but it's got to start somewhere. 

And I still have to wonder why exactly there's almost no discussion about carrier cars, the sort they use in the Channel Tunnel that you can simply drive on and off of. Wouldn't that completely elliminate the issue of transportation at the HSR destinations. I shouldn't say I just "wonder", I'm genuinely confused as to why carrier cars haven't entered this argument at all, to my knowledge.


----------



## Suburbanist

aquaticko said:


> The entire argument seems to be that the U.S. is not structurally read for HSR, but though the point that we should focus on less capital-intensive developments to start is rational, I fail to see how upgrading tracks from 70mph to 90mph is going to capture the sort of attention that is necessary if we're going to actually refocus the American transportation system. HSR would obviously be a hugely expensive gamble as a PR move, and the cost of failure is all that much higher, but it's got to start somewhere.


I think HSR could be good as a project in two circumstances:

(1) connecting the NEC, where local transit already exists

(2) connecting cities placed far away enough that it is a competitor to airplanes, mainly (thus downplaying the issue of last mile mobility as air passengers still need to negotiate that anyway), which makes me think of California, Texas triangle, and some lines branching off Chicago (not the perfect area, but the terrain helps a lot and reduces cost).



> And I still have to wonder why exactly there's almost no discussion about carrier cars, the sort they use in the Channel Tunnel that you can simply drive on and off of. Wouldn't that completely elliminate the issue of transportation at the HSR destinations. I shouldn't say I just "wonder", I'm genuinely confused as to why carrier cars haven't entered this argument at all, to my knowledge.


Rolling railway operations are expensive as hell. A modern, average American car weights almost 2 tons. They very long train consists also. Then, if you are trying to move all that thing at high-speeds, costs of transport will rise a lot. 

Large-scale train shuttles only flourish in Europe when they are used to transpose a physical barrier like the English Channel, or the Swiss Alps (in winter, on certain routes).


----------



## aquaticko

^^Ah, I see. Well I have to ask then, if you find HSR would be sensible in some parts of the U.S., why do you seem so against it? Or am I misperceiving your position?


----------



## Suburbanist

aquaticko said:


> ^^Ah, I see. Well I have to ask then, if you find HSR would be sensible in some parts of the U.S., why do you seem so against it? Or am I misperceiving your position?


HSR is a cool technology. The question - as with many other projects - is how much does it cost? How can it be financed and paid for by means other than extorting drivers and air passengers with yet more taxes?


----------



## aquaticko

Suburbanist said:


> HSR is a cool technology. The question - as with many other projects - is how much does it cost? How can it be financed and paid for by means other than extorting drivers and air passengers with yet more taxes?


You say that as if the cost of driving in this country is already astronomical, never mind that the current federal gas taxes constitute about 5% of the cost of a gallon of gas. It's absolutely necessary that the gas tax be raised *just* to keep up with current infrastructure needs, nevermind the fact that population continues to increase in most areas, so miles-traveled will as well, *and* the fact that as vehicle fuel economy mandates reduce the amount of gasoline consumed, revenue from that tax can only fall further and further behind necessary upkeep costs.

I know we're not arguing the necessity of a gas tax increase here, but you can't deny that the way the transportation budget is setup, rail is being ignored to an unreasonable standard, and that considering how little the whole situation makes sense, from almost any perspective, all options should be kept open, _including_ taxing gasoline to set up a general infrastructure. I'll agree that given the way this country is currently populated, choosing rail over road and air would have to be pretty much arbitrary, but accepting the inefficiencies of those methods of transportation against rail for what is essentially historical accident isn't a smart way to plan for the future.


----------



## Nexis

NJ is about to raise tolls to fund Rail and Road projects....and add more tolls....so take that drivers....:lol:


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> NJ is about to raise tolls to fund Rail and Road projects....and add more tolls....so take that drivers....:lol:


This is the problem with the mentality of "take that": in the medium/long term, it backfires politically. It happens with many politic issues, not only transportation. The most clear example: UAW using their leverage and saying Big Three "take that" in the 1970s, to the point they were decimated by outsourcing and painful re-negotiations.

In California, state governments back in the 1960s started increasing local entitlements and social programs - "take that, racist middle class families" -, only to have the budget process made crazy by the electoral reaction that followed later.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> This is the problem with the mentality of "take that": in the medium/long term, it backfires politically. It happens with many politic issues, not only transportation. The most clear example: UAW using their leverage and saying Big Three "take that" in the 1970s, to the point they were decimated by outsourcing and painful re-negotiations.
> 
> In California, state governments back in the 1960s started increasing local entitlements and social programs - "take that, racist middle class families" -, only to have the budget process made crazy by the electoral reaction that followed later.


Well you don't live in this region , and don't have to put up with the Growth and traffic congestion. It has alot of support because it funds our Transportation fund....


----------



## aquaticko

Suburbanist said:


> This is the problem with the mentality of "take that": in the medium/long term, it backfires politically. It happens with many politic issues, not only transportation. The most clear example: UAW using their leverage and saying Big Three "take that" in the 1970s, to the point they were decimated by outsourcing and painful re-negotiations.
> 
> In California, state governments back in the 1960s started increasing local entitlements and social programs - "take that, racist middle class families" -, only to have the budget process made crazy by the electoral reaction that followed later.


But the point is that essentially that is what's been going on since the middle of the 20th century for rail--funds that would have/could have/should have gone to rail investment were spent instead on highways and airways, to the near total dissolution of passenger rail transport in this country. It's not "take that", it's "bitch, you stole this, give it back". If you agree that HSR and rail transit are feasible, useful methods of mass transit in this country, then you've got to agree to a rebalancing of where state and federal funding goes. To the best of my knowledge (which is admittedly imperfect), not one country has or has ever had a railway system entirely operated by the private sector, and when constructing and operating a system as expensive as one in the U.S. would be, then the case for serious private investment is basically null; nonetheless, this seems to be what your meta-argument is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ My solution is simple. The government builds TRACKS, STATIONS and SIGNALS out of the budget, from whatever source, like it wold build a new freeway. You know, the stuff that stays in place. Then, it opens the public, open-access HSR to whatever private operator that pays to use it, according to the private operator schedule and wills.

Of course, there is a constrain capacity, so if more than one private operator wants to run a train at the same time on a public railway, the gov't puts that slot for auction and whomever pays more gains the right to run a train in specific date and time, say, up to 180 days ahead. Whomever pays less don't run a train and will be forced to adjust accordingly.

What I loath and fiercely oppose is government involvement with direct operation of vehicles and schedules, be them buses, trains, boats or airplanes. Unless, of coruse, we're talking of military, civil protection, rescue, FEMA stuff.


----------



## aquaticko

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ My solution is simple. The government builds TRACKS, STATIONS and SIGNALS out of the budget, from whatever source, like it wold build a new freeway. You know, the stuff that stays in place. Then, it opens the public, open-access HSR to whatever private operator that pays to use it, according to the private operator schedule and wills.
> 
> Of course, there is a constrain capacity, so if more than one private operator wants to run a train at the same time on a public railway, the gov't puts that slot for auction and whomever pays more gains the right to run a train in specific date and time, say, up to 180 days ahead. Whomever pays less don't run a train and will be forced to adjust accordingly.
> 
> What I loath and fiercely oppose is government involvement with direct operation of vehicles and schedules, be them buses, trains, boats or airplanes. Unless, of coruse, we're talking of military, civil protection, rescue, FEMA stuff.


As far as I know, only Japan has HSR service run by private companies; the rest are all essentially government owned. But fine, let the private sector operate the trains. I'm sure that'd win over the minds of a lot of conservatives in favor of developing a US HSR system.

But it still seems to me as though what you really oppose is finding some source of funding for the building of the necessary infrastructure. 

We all know that the budget and deficits are a major issue for a lot of people in government right now, so simply taking on more debt isn't going to be a very popular method of raising funding. However, taxing other forms of transit in order to fund construction is evidently a non-starter for you, too. At this point in time, raising funds off of existing passenger rail services would be unlikely to work, either, considering the still relatively-low overall number of rail users, and of course raising fair prices would only reduce the total number of passengers as well, thus weakening the apparent need for rail investment.

So I guess my question for you is, just how much do you actually support high-speed rail development in the U.S.?


----------



## desertpunk

I don't know how instructive this is but I just wanted to post it since it gives another side to the debate about HSR. The US has so many complicated processes to getting major things done that we wind up logjamming ourselves. If we still lived under 19th century legal and social conditions, HSR would have been running here decades ago.


----------



## hoosier

aquaticko said:


> So I guess my question for you is, just how much do you actually support high-speed rail development in the U.S.?


Look at his username. He is a road *****.


----------



## trainrover

TheAnalyst said:


> Put down the crack pipe.


My oh my! :squeals: is that suburban-speak?


----------



## diablo234

TheAnalyst said:


> Put down the crack pipe. Amtrak is heavily subsidized. They are not "profitable."


Neither is the highway system (which actually requires more funds to maintain and expand the highway system than rail) or air traffic control. In fact no transportation system is entirely "self supporting".


----------



## aquaticko

Not to mention the issue of induced demand, where more roads increases usage of them, which is to say that increasing roadway capacity is unlikely to reduce congestion. The only convincing argument I've heard against passenger rail expansion in the U.S. is a contemporary issue, not one endemic to the U.S. or its economy. Passenger rail may be an expense that is additional to those we currently have, but that's not really a good argument against it; transportation expenditures will continue to expand on the state and federal levels as long as population continues to expand, which it's supposed to do for the forseeable future. So why not develop transportation in a way which curtails sprawl, undoubtedly the least materially- and financially-efficient pattern of development, in the long-run if increased spending is inevitable regardless?


----------



## Suburbanist

aquaticko said:


> Not to mention the issue of induced demand, where more roads increases usage of them, which is to say that increasing roadway capacity is unlikely to reduce congestion. The only convincing argument I've heard against passenger rail expansion in the U.S. is a contemporary issue, not one endemic to the U.S. or its economy. Passenger rail may be an expense that is additional to those we currently have, but that's not really a good argument against it; transportation expenditures will continue to expand on the state and federal levels as long as population continues to expand, which it's supposed to do for the forseeable future. So why not develop transportation in a way which curtails sprawl, undoubtedly the least materially- and financially-efficient pattern of development, in the long-run if increased spending is inevitable regardless?


Cut out the fantasy! Induced demand is a mantra overused, over-believed and repeated well beyond its (limited) implications. It is the transportation version of trickle-down (voodoo) economics - on steroids -: makes a nice slogan, producing effects taken by totally different reasons!

There might be many reasons to put, or not to put, high speed rail projects forward. If its operation is not profitable, one could argue that fast rail travel will cause induced demand, putting a further strain on public budgets.

That is really not a good point to exert in defense or objection of long-distance rail travel.

As for sprawl: high-speed long-distance travel irrelevant in promoting or deterring sprawl on real estate market grounds. It is mostly irrelevant to urban trends, as are their main competitors, airports.


----------



## aquaticko

Suburbanist said:


> Cut out the fantasy! Induced demand is a mantra overused, over-believed and repeated well beyond its (limited) implications. It is the transportation version of trickle-down (voodoo) economics - on steroids -: makes a nice slogan, producing effects taken by totally different reasons!


Oh all-knowing Suburbanist, please tell me what the true meaning of these things that cause the pseudo-phenomenon of "induced demand" is.



> There might be many reasons to put, or not to put, high speed rail projects forward. If its operation is not profitable, one could argue that fast rail travel will cause induced demand, putting a further strain on public budgets.
> 
> That is really not a good point to exert in defense or objection of long-distance rail travel.


Profit is your favorite word, isn't it? Please, name for me one instance in which any method of passenger transportation, specifically the construction, operation, and maintainance of the infrastructure that allows it, has been profitable.



> As for sprawl: high-speed long-distance travel irrelevant in promoting or deterring sprawl on real estate market grounds. It is mostly irrelevant to urban trends, as are their main competitors, airports.


This doesn't even follow logically. If it's possible that I live in a major, well-developed metropolitan area that facilitates my not having to pay all the expenses necessary to own, maintain, and use a car, nevermind being able to avoid the inherently-dangerous operation of one, why would I then leave said area for somewhere without this infrastructure? Note, I said that my argument involves *logic*, something that I know the pro-sprawl argument often eschews in favor of pure pathos.

Must I always have a point-by-point argument with you?


----------



## mgk920

^^
For the past decade, the Dutch have been busy playing a *VERY EXPENSIVE* game of catch-up from several prior decades of basing their transport policy on the fallacy of 'induced demand' highway traffic modeling.

hno:

Mike


----------



## strandeed

Induced demand is a fallacy 

Road use will increase along with population and wealth.

Building more roads does not "generate" more cars...


----------



## Snowguy716

There is no such thing as "induced demand"... only pent up demand. If road usage increases, inhibiting congestion relief, when they are expanded, it is because the congestion is artificially reducing overall road usage. You can build your way out of congestion if you are smart and make massive investments... but we don't want to do that in today's "a nickel rise in the gas tax is the end of our way of life" (according to the MN GOP).

We need to attack this from both sides. We need to make cars smarter so that we can drive closer together, thus increasing road capacity. We need to make smart freeway investments that remove bottlenecks and ensure traffic flow even if it's slow (like variable speed limits). Also, in areas with HOV lanes, it is prudent to convert them to HOTs... though I am not in favor of creating toll lanes just for the sake of generating revenue.

High speed rail can be profitable in certain parts of the U.S... but only if you make the trains run frequently enough to make it worthwhile. Amtrak's biggest problem is that it runs many long distance trains only once a day. They get stuck in a rut because people say no to increasing service because "it's not profitable"... but a prime reason it's not profitable is because of infrequent service.

But we shouldn't fool ourselves. Dressing up diesel trains to run at 110mph is not "high speed rail". High speed rail would run at least 150mph for large stretches of the journey. There's no reason all Amtrak trains shouldn't be running 110mph right now, except for our ancient and ridiculous FRA regulations.


----------



## G5man

strandeed said:


> Induced demand is a fallacy
> 
> Road use will increase along with population and wealth.
> 
> Building more roads does not "generate" more cars...


http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137708751/more-roads-may-pave-way-to-more-traffic That should buck the 3rd claim.

Also check this from your local library sometime. There are numbers for before and after the AVE, it shows that 600k more people travelled between Seville and Madrid. If HSR ridership continued to grow, then how is it pent up? I say it is induced.


Coto-Millán, P., V. Inglada, and B. Rey. "Effects of network economies in high-speed rail: the Spanish case. " The Annals of Regional Science 41.4 (2007): 911-925. Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 12 Aug. 2010.


----------



## strandeed

Because a road is built/widened people don't suddenly go out and buy a car.

Road use will increase naturally along with population, and a particularly well designed and capacious road will attract more people looking for the quickest/best route from point A point B

Perhaps that is what you are referring to?


----------



## aquaticko

^^That's not what induced demand is, necessarily. It's a simple fact that I think we can all agree on, one not just applying to this argument: the more available a good becomes, the more of it is likely to be consumed. This applies particularly well to roads, when if you already own a car, you assume the cost of gas in ownership, so why not use your car when the price of using the road generally almost nil?

Yes, road use will tend to increase with population in wealth, but so will use of all forms of transportation, given that they're all equally-well developed. It's as if we have some sort of data distortion in the U.S. because here, they're not.


----------



## strandeed

Flawed logic... 

People will use their car regardless as it is expensive to keep it sitting there.

Insurance, tax and depreciation mean that it is more cost-effective to actually use your car, since you are paying to own it anyhow

People will NOT use their cars more, if more roads are built.


----------



## XAN_

strandeed said:


> People will NOT use their cars more, if more roads are built.


Well, people may use their car more, if there was congestion, wich drove some of them to alternate, congestion-free modes of transportation (BRT. LRT, subway, railway...)

If there was no such alternative modes of transportation, grows won't be that prominent - e.g. everyone is already using the damned car, so someone only will use car 16 times/week instead 14, instead of rapid grow like 2 or 3 times.


----------



## Suburbanist

*On transportation supply and demand*

Transportation, like any other service that can be bought for money, is subject to laws of supply and demand.

The fallacy of the "induced demand" argument is that it ignores the fact altogether, treating transportation, in general or in any specific mode, as something inherently bad that needs to be restricted/limited.

For a given cost (here taken not only as the direct cost of use, but all its modifiers like comfort, travel time, availability and predictability, perceived safety - things that you can model mathematically), there will be a certain demand for transport. Take an extreme example: if Concorde-like supersonic jets were available for $ 100 round-trip (fares included) to Australia, there would be much more people wanting to travel from US to Australia? But would it be induced demand? No! There is a wide spectrum of demand for transportation, according to the options (supply) offered.

When you build any infrastructure (like high speed rail) and more people travel between two points, it is not that the new project "induced" demand: it merely made viable journeys that otherwise wouldn't happen because there were no infrastructure in place!

This applies to ALL modes of transportation. If you built new highways and they were soon congested, what is actually happening there is that demand is so hindered by high costs of transportation (in the form of time lost in congestion) that once you increases capacity, a greater number of people are able to, even precariously, take advantage of increase capacity. If you built new high-speed lines and they suddenly increased the total movements between its initial and end points more than it subtracted from other modes of transportation, what is happening is that the offer of a new faster service, at a given cost, is being able to supply the market with lower cost transportation (again, taking cost as a comprehensive measure including how people value time, comfort, stand-by availability etc etc).

Of course, all these factors are in play simultaneously and they interact all the time, making it tricky to segregate and isolate them.

What doesn't make sense, any sense, is to single out one particular mode of transportation (car) and assume it and its users are like freak automats that will use new infrastructure aimlessly just because it is there. Even more wicked, tantamount to economic witchcraft, is to be "marveled" that things like "taking down freeway capacity actually reduces traffic". This would be like saying that if Amtrak took down its Acela Express service, ridership on rails from NYC to Washington, DC would "plummet" instead of clogging all the regional services; or like saying that if transatlantic air service stopped, cruise liners in the area would not be busting with people overflowing their decks.

So what leaves me angry at activists disguised as "technicians" is that they want to promote certain modes of transportation at the artificial expense of others in the forms of things like lowering speed limits on highways to make trains more competitive, introduce aviation taxes and airport operational limitations that go beyond technical justification to "shift passengers to rail" and the like. This is the equivalent of artificially increasing the cost of other modes of transportation (directly or indirectly) to make other more competitive, and such measures are inherently wrong.

Of course, the trickiest part of the whole debate is that transportation infrastructure is usually a costly enterprise to build, and one that takes lengthy construction time to be completed. Hence, its capital and operational costs can't escape political, defense and electoral choices. The problem is to introduce bogus, flawed economic factors to conceal them. My favorite pick to bash is the worn-out "externality" argument.


----------



## aquaticko

More point-by-point-y-ness, although you've made my job easier by making the same mistake for most of your points:



Suburbanist said:


> Transportation, like any other service that can be bought for money, is subject to laws of supply and demand.
> 
> The fallacy of the "induced demand" argument is that it ignores the fact altogether, treating transportation, in general or in any specific mode, as something inherently bad that needs to be restricted/limited.
> 
> For a given cost (here taken not only as the direct cost of use, but all its modifiers like comfort, travel time, availability and predictability, perceived safety - things that you can model mathematically), there will be a certain demand for transport. Take an extreme example: if Concorde-like supersonic jets were available for $ 100 round-trip (fares included) to Australia, there would be much more people wanting to travel from US to Australia? But would it be induced demand? No! There is a wide spectrum of demand for transportation, according to the options (supply) offered.
> 
> When you build any infrastructure (like high speed rail) and more people travel between two points, it is not that the new project "induced" demand: *it merely made viable journeys that otherwise wouldn't happen because there were no infrastructure in place!*


Your argument makes no evaluation of the necessity of these journeys, which _is_ subject to evaluation, and no acceptance of the fact that even in a totally laissez-faire economic system (which no country has), acting to increase supply has a corresponding effect of "increasing" (inducing) demand by making a good/service available to those for whom it isn't always necessary. The phrase of yours I've bolded says this *explicitly*: extensive transportation infrastructure allows journeys that otherwise needn't necessarily have occured.



> This applies to ALL modes of transportation. If you built new highways and they were soon congested, what is actually happening there is that demand is so hindered by high costs of transportation (in the form of time lost in congestion) that once you increases capacity, a greater number of people are able to, even precariously, take advantage of increase capacity. If you built new high-speed lines and they suddenly increased the total movements between its initial and end points more than it subtracted from other modes of transportation, what is happening is that the offer of a new faster service, at a given cost, is being able to supply the market with lower cost transportation (again, taking cost as a comprehensive measure including how people value time, comfort, stand-by availability etc etc).


Again, you in no way account for whether or not this "demand" is of actual economic value. The reason why I'm for mass transit and against automotive "mass transit" is the consumption of resources--fiscal, economic, material, etc.--of using automobiles as a means to move everyone around is *significantly* greater than that of using trains and buses, and the ROI is bare minimum not appreciably greater, if not significantly less by simple virtue of the fact that automobile ownership in the U.S. is a type of mass consumption. If you think that in order for mass transit, specifically high speed rail, to be truly usable in the U.S. we'd need much greater population density or greater specific concentration, you'd find no argument from me, but I see no reason to wait for this to happen instead of preparing for the possible eventuality, specifically when it can be _made_ to happen, as you say it can in the quoted section after the next.



> Of course, all these factors are in play simultaneously and they interact all the time, making it tricky to segregate and isolate them.


And yet we have numerous regulatory agencies that do just that, nevermind the network of lobbyists, marketers, engineers, planners, and politicians who do the same for a living.



> What doesn't make sense, any sense, is to single out one particular mode of transportation (car) and assume it and its users are like freak automats that will use new infrastructure aimlessly just because it is there. Even more wicked, tantamount to economic witchcraft, is to be "marveled" that things like "taking down freeway capacity actually reduces traffic". This would be like saying that if Amtrak took down its Acela Express service, ridership on rails from NYC to Washington, DC would "plummet" instead of clogging all the regional services; or like saying that if transatlantic air service stopped, cruise liners in the area would not be busting with people overflowing their decks. (_This the part that reinforces what I said two responses ago._)
> 
> So what leaves me angry at activists disguised as "technicians" is that they want to promote certain modes of transportation at the artificial expense of others in the forms of things like lowering speed limits on highways to make trains more competitive, introduce aviation taxes and airport operational limitations that go beyond technical justification to "shift passengers to rail" and the like. This is the equivalent of artificially increasing the cost of other modes of transportation (directly or indirectly) to make other more competitive, and such measures are inherently wrong.


You act as those cars have been constantly victimized by U.S. politicians and urban planners everywhere. On the contrary, we have gas taxes which are low by most countries' standards and the largest interstate highway system in the world specifically because the automobile has been considered the *sole viable means of transportation for decades*. I'm not seeking to give trains an unfair leg up; I'm trying to level the playing field. If you continue to deny that our transportation policy has been unjustifiably tilted to the car, I'll just give up on this whole discussion and try to politely ignore any of your future posts.



> Of course, the trickiest part of the whole debate is that transportation infrastructure is usually a costly enterprise to build, and one that takes lengthy construction time to be completed. Hence, its capital and operational costs can't escape political, defense and electoral choices. The problem is to introduce bogus, flawed economic factors to conceal them. My favorite pick to bash is the worn-out "externality" argument.


I'm sorry, but what??? In what school of economics have you been taught that ignores externalities? I've never heard of one, nor have I ever heard any reason to convince me that externalities don't exist, nevermind that you can find them logically in most situations, economic or otherwise. Hell, I've never even heard _that_ they don't exist; that's like saying there's no such thing as unintended consequences. Please again sir, I ask you to enlighten me.


----------



## Suburbanist

aquaticko said:


> extensive transportation infrastructure allows journeys that otherwise needn't necessarily have occured.


But, then, we can enter a dead spiral of ever-raised bar.

Suppose US in the aftermath of Civil War: there were no fast connection between East and West coasts. The fastest way for a written message to get from California to Chicago was via the Pony Express. By that time, shipping between two coasts took weeks and weeks, as they required a trip around MAgellan Strait or Drake Passage on Argentina!

Then, they built the first continental railroad, completing work in 1984 in Utah. Gosh! How many _journeys that otherwise needn't necessarily have occurred_ have it enabled? What about the 5 other major transcontinental rail links? They opened vast areas of US to easy transportation! NY-SFO in "mere" 68 hours with the fastest express services of the day.

I am absolutely sure that, in the process, transcontinental railways displaced almost all West Coast-East Coast shipping, at least until Panama Canal opened in the 1910s.

*My point is: CA-HSR (or other projects) will likely make viable journeys that otherwise wouldn't, and it is quite patronizing to argue that certain journeys are worth doing, others not! In a free economy, the agent (passenger, cargo shipper) decides whether a certain trip is worth its cost*. 




> I'm sorry, but what??? In what school of economics have you been taught that ignores externalities? I've never heard of one, nor have I ever heard any reason to convince me that externalities don't exist, nevermind that you can find them logically in most situations, economic or otherwise. Hell, I've never even heard _that_ they don't exist; that's like saying there's no such thing as unintended consequences. Please again sir, I ask you to enlighten me.


It is not that they don't exist, it is that most of them are not easy to monetize and, more importantly, their mitigation many times doesn't produce taxes to sustain the expenses needed to "fight" them. Finally, some externalities are tied to personal rights and personal entitlement and shall not be addresses at all (bizarre example: marrying someone with a fixed workplace 70 miles away from your fixed workplace will certainly produce most "resource use": should such marriages be banned because of the commute they will generate?).


----------



## Smooth Indian

It is amazing how this thread becomes debating contest:nuts: !! Anyways!!!
Suburbanist is trying to debunk the "induced demand" theory which actually is accepted in the economics world. He somehow feels that development of highways is somehow stunted bcoz politicians/transport experts/economist follow this theory and decide to defund highways or make them more expensive vis-a-vis other modes especially railways. I don't see any such example in the US. Have gas taxes been raised recently? Have the airline taxes been increased (atleast till this day)? Have they started tolling otherwise untolled highways? Has the toll in any highway been increased to fund public transit projects? Nothing so far IMK.
But somehow it is been projected that public transit/HSR/railroad projects are being planned at the expense of highway developments which will be preferred by the general public. 
I think the general public prefers whatever is convenient and affordable. People have preferred cars and planes because those were the options increasingly available and convenient to them. Now why cars or planes were more available and convenient is not always an inherent quality of these modes. These modes were also made more available and convenient by public policy. How many public dollars have gone to highway & airport developments in the last several decades as against in railroads. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what the proportion might be. Now successive generations have grown up with the car as the dominant commuting mode and the plane/car combo as a long distance combo. Hence there is a perception that americans prefer the car bcoz of its inherent benefits. 
Why many of our friends here support HSR is because it often provides for a more than credible option on many intercity trips. Also railroad being more energy efficient and energy flexible as compared to road and air travel it is good from the whole energy dependence/environment point of view that more and more people utilize railroads for travelling. And there is nothing wrong in having policies which promote something which is in the greater good of the society.


----------



## aquaticko

Suburbanist said:


> But, then, we can enter a dead spiral of ever-raised bar.
> 
> Suppose US in the aftermath of Civil War: there were no fast connection between East and West coasts. The fastest way for a written message to get from California to Chicago was via the Pony Express. By that time, shipping between two coasts took weeks and weeks, as they required a trip around MAgellan Strait or Drake Passage on Argentina!
> 
> Then, they built the first continental railroad, completing work in 1984 in Utah. Gosh! How many _journeys that otherwise needn't necessarily have occurred_ have it enabled? What about the 5 other major transcontinental rail links? They opened vast areas of US to easy transportation! NY-SFO in "mere" 68 hours with the fastest express services of the day.
> 
> I am absolutely sure that, in the process, transcontinental railways displaced almost all West Coast-East Coast shipping, at least until Panama Canal opened in the 1910s.
> 
> *My point is: CA-HSR (or other projects) will likely make viable journeys that otherwise wouldn't, and it is quite patronizing to argue that certain journeys are worth doing, others not! In a free economy, the agent (passenger, cargo shipper) decides whether a certain trip is worth its cost*.


Yet that is exactly what has been done by transportation policy in the U.S.; that is what such policy is _for_, and I'm sure I don't need to remind you that neither the U.S. nor anywhere else is a truly "free" economy. I suppose this conclusion only brings us back to the argument of whether or not HSR is actually economically useful in the U.S., which seems like a debate that never ends.

Although really, I should say that you're missing my point. The idea isn't _necessarily_ for the government to evaluate which transactions (transportation or otherwise) are economically useful, but for the government to ensure that only the most useful and efficient transactions are easy to do. Again, with the proviso of ensuring the correct population distribution patterns, mass transit (HSR included) is universally more efficient than automotive transportation.



> It is not that they don't exist, it is that most of them are not easy to monetize and, more importantly, their mitigation many times doesn't produce taxes to sustain the expenses needed to "fight" them. Finally, some externalities are tied to personal rights and personal entitlement and shall not be addresses at all (bizarre example: marrying someone with a fixed workplace 70 miles away from your fixed workplace will certainly produce most "resource use": should such marriages be banned because of the commute they will generate?).


I don't think it's necessary that they be "banned', but I do think that that sort of inconvenience is a barrier to a relationship. Not to mention, from a purely practical standpoint, if these people work far away from each other, how did they come to meet one another unless they live far away from their jobs in the first place? The idea of urbanization is to put as many people as is feasible together so that such things needn't be a concern; deal with the externalities by structurally eliminating them and this sort of situation won't occur.

And I guess that this argument is revealing a more fundamental divide between us: you think that personal rights exist without the state and so must be respected by the state; I don't think they do and I don't think that must, although a good government will try its best to respect them, provided doing so doesn't get in the way of national interests.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


>


^^ advance to *0'34"*​


----------



## sweet-d

All I can say about that is WTF!! That is insanely expensive.


----------



## aquaticko

^^Considering the size of California's economy (nearly 2 trillion USD), and the fact that this project could serve the vast majority of the state's 37 million people, it's actually not that expensive. If California hadn't passed a stupid balanced budget amendment, it wouldn't have any problem attracting financing for this project, and I'd be willing to say that a lot of its other problems would go away, as well. California could, for all intents and purposes, be its own country; I wish it would act like it....


----------



## trainrover

desertpunk said:


> 4749698


I'm sad to say that what with all that flash (monorail, etc., etc.), I don't see this link being established  There's nothing visionary about this production, it's merely postulating. It altogether looks so costly to begin with that it wouldn't be logical to have chug-chug commuters and HSTs sharing track. Curiously, how would encroachment by desert sands be mitigated along that absurdly circuitous route, never mind infiltration endured by the stock itself whipping on by?


----------



## Suburbanist

trainrover said:


> Curiously, how would encroachment by desert sands be mitigated along that absurdly circuitous route, never mind infiltration endured by the stock itself whipping on by?


Part of the route is due to geography. You want to cross a major tectonic fault as perpendicular as possible with an HSR, instead of running over it (= more expensive construction).

The Mojave desert is not the Sahara or Gobi deserts with plenty of sand flowing around. It's really no bigger deal than HSR Sevilla-Madrid, operating since 1992?


----------



## hmmwv

sweet-d said:


> All I can say about that is WTF!! That is insanely expensive.


California's GDP is about 1/3 of China's, so it's not asking too much to spend $98B on such an important infrastructure project.


----------



## Suburbanist

hmmwv said:


> California's GDP is about 1/3 of China's, so it's not asking too much to spend $98B on such an important infrastructure project.


The question is that California is in severe fiscal restraint, not because it is all that bad economy-wise, but because the population took an extreme anti-tax position on ballot initiatives and so.


----------



## aquaticko

^^Yes, but the problem is that California, because it, like most states, has passed a balanced budget initiative, can't take on the sort of long-term debt that'd seriously aid the start of large infrastructure project like this one. Of course, you're right, though; Californians, like most Americans, want services without paying for them.


----------



## mgk920

aquaticko said:


> ^^Yes, but the problem is that California, because it, like most states, has passed a balanced budget initiative, can't take on the sort of long-term debt that'd seriously aid the start of large infrastructure project like this one. Of course, you're right, though; Californians, like most Americans, want services without paying for them.


The balanced-budget thing is for normal operating expenses, not infrastructure upgrades, right? The state is simply overspending its resources on a day-to-day basis, mainly on over-the-top state and local government employee salaries and benefits, especially retirement benefits. Increasing tax rates to try to cover those daily expenses has already been tried, but did not work and only served to chase taxable economic activity out of the state. It's a very similar situation to what we are now seeing in Greece.

Mike


----------



## desertpunk

*DallasObserver*



> Read TxDOT's Rationale For Need For High Speed Rail Between Houston, DFW (Or ... Not?)
> By Robert WilonskyFri., Nov. 4 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday we noted that the Texas Department of Transportation is looking for a firm to ID would-be routes for a high-speed rail line between Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, using $15 million in Federal Railway Administration High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program funds awarded over the summer. Shortly after that, this landed in the Unfair Park in-box courtesy an interested party out of Houston: TxDOT's summary of the project, which was sent to the feds earlier this year.
> 
> Full of maps and charts, it's the best sum-up I've seen yet about where TxDOT thinks the rail would run and why. And it even mentions Southwest Airlines, which, as many Friends of Unfair Park pointed out earlier this week, has long opposed high-speed rail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although not mentioned in the TxDOT research project, even with over 100 flights daily, air travel between Dallas and Houston has experienced a decline in passengers of over 36% since 1990, according to a published report by the Dallas Morning News on January 9, 2011. The major contributing reasons for this decline were heightened security at the airports, rising cost in airfares, and a change in marketing geared toward an emphasis on longer flights, which may make core express service more appealing. Southwest Airlines, once an opponent of a HSR project, has seen a decline in annual passengers between Dallas Love Field and Houston Hobby Airport from 1.5M passengers in 1990 to 1.0M in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> But, says the sender of this doc, the most intriguing revelations made in the doc are the figures found on Page 24: the potential cost of the project (around $4 billion for close to 250 miles of track) and the time it's guesstimated it would take to travel from Dallas to Houston (between 190 and 200 minutes). Says the man who dispatched the doc: "This is 15 million dollars that will be absolutely wasted." Read the whole thing after the jump.
> 
> TXDOT Overview of HSR
> 
> ----
Click to expand...


----------



## PJeka

*Northeast Megalopolis Maglev Train*


----------



## trainrover

I believe this mode of HSR will be the type that America's more likely to see, I really do ... this media production's the (more) convincing one thus far on this here page, by the way.


----------



## aquaticko

According to this, California's been giving money to less-heavily taxed states for two and a half decades via the federal government, to the tune of about 80 billion USD over that time period. I believe California is owed a HSR system.


----------



## Woonsocket54

When I saw "Northeast Megalopolis Maglev Train" I thought I was looking at the China CRH page. Anyway, a maglev between Beijing and Harbin is way more likely than anything of such sort in the US. That's the sad truth.


----------



## desertpunk

*Transport Politic*



> High Costs Threaten California’s High-Speed Rail Project, But the Wider Context Must be Understood
> November 3rd, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the long run, California’s fast train project remains within an acceptable range of costs, despite recent increases.*
> 
> The release of the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s revised business plan on Tuesday underlined concerns about the future viability of the nation’s biggest proposed transportation project: Not only would its completion have to be delayed significantly — to 2033 or later — but projected costs have risen dramatically, to $98 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars. In a political environment where making a large long-term commitment to anything other than the military is almost impossible, the increasing costs required to pay for the program put in doubt its future. This fast train project designed to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2h40 is not dead, but its completion is less likely now than it was last week.
> 
> The steadily rising nature of the public expenditures that would be required to build the project as now designed have been roundly criticized in some quarters, and it is true that the project’s increasing reliance on very heavy and expensive infrastructures like viaducts and tunnels may be unnecessary by international standards. But the project’s per-mile costs — even with the cost increase — are not hugely different from those in other developed countries for rail systems offering speeds of up to 220 mph.
> 
> Yet the broader issue is how the project’s price compares to that of existing public sector transportation investments and the economy as a whole, and as the chart above demonstrates, its ostensibly enormous price is, well, relatively small.
> 
> Between now and 2033, the rail project would cost between $65 and $75 billion (in 2010 dollars). Over the same period, Caltrans, California’s Department of Transportation, can be expected to spend at least $286 billion (also in 2010 dollars), mostly on roads projects, assuming that its current annual budget of about $13 billion (including federal and state outlays) stays intact. In truth, considering that there is considerable support for increasing infrastructure spending in general, that figure is likely to go up considerably.
> 
> Compare those figures to the state’s GDP, which is estimated at about $1.9 trillion a year. Over the course of twenty-two years, the state will produce $42 trillion in output (again, in 2010 dollars) — assuming no growth in the economy, despite the fact that California’s population is expected to grow by seven to seventeen million people by 2040.
> 
> This very conservative* estimate, then, suggests that a high-cost rail project would not only represent only 0.18% of a heavily depressed state economy over 22 years, but also that it would only account for 21% of the broader state transportation budget, which would remain mostly focused on highway construction and maintenance, as in the status quo. On average, the U.S. invested between 2.5 and 3% of its GDP on publicly sponsored infrastructure between the 1950s and 1990s. The full cost of the California project thus comes to appear far less dramatic.
> 
> The project becomes even less problematic considering it is, like almost every high-speed rail project, expected to be operationally profitable, and that its benefits to the society will be larger than its costs. The analysis done by the authority, based on decreased travel times, lower use of fuel, reduction in pollution, increases in productivity and reliability, and a decline in traffic accidents, suggests a decent benefits-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.8. This does not include other benefits, such as the ability to avoid building hundreds of lane-miles of new highways and expanded airports to accommodate the mobility needs of millions of new California residents.
> 
> Nor is such a significant investment in one project out of the international norm. The Grand Paris Express, designed to connect the suburbs of the French capital with a circumferential rail network, will cost about $40 billion to build (including ancillary improvements in the existing system). This alone will represent about 0.4% of the Paris region’s GDP between now and 2025. Both the Paris and California projects will contribute massively to the economic growth of the regions in which they are being built.
> 
> The question, then, is two-fold: First, what level of investment should the country make in its transportation system? Second, are other transportation projects more valuable than the California rail project?
> 
> [...]
> 
> Read more: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...ect-but-the-wider-context-must-be-understood/


----------



## makita09

trainrover said:


> it wouldn't be logical to have chug-chug commuters and HSTs sharing track


Where does the video show HSR and local trains sharing track? It shows them sharing a station, which is not the same thing.


----------



## trainrover

0'4", otherwise, you must be seeing the production promoting demoted single-tracking services ... and yes, it is the same thing


----------



## Suburbanist

aquaticko said:


> According to this, California's been giving money to less-heavily taxed states for two and a half decades via the federal government, to the tune of about 80 billion USD over that time period. I believe California is owed a HSR system.


This is the same reason of, for instance, people from Manhattan arguing they are "giving out money" to the outer boroughs since 1892 and claiming they are owed 5 new subways, 2 new highways and a new elongated Central Park in some are reclaimed in the East River.


----------



## aquaticko

^^But here we're not talking about a small area. Manhattan residents, whether they know it or not, benefit from outer borough activity. Not to say, similarly, that California doesn't benefit from its interaction with other states, but lets be honest, 80 billion dollars is a lot of money, and its economy far outstrips those of the surrounding states, individually or combined. And much though it'd be a small dent in California's budget issues (and really, if it magically got the money from the fed, it should probably go places other than HSR), it might help to ease some of the worries about fiscal stability and strength...hence, making the whole HSR project seem more plausible.

I suppose my real frustration with California is that it could very well be its own country, in terms of economy, population, "national" branding, and culture, is a major destination for FDI, and has the sort of demographics that could easily justify a HSR system of the scale it wants. Yet local opposition, either to construction (local-level) or the raising of necessary funding (state-level), is holding it back. Basically, the problems are political, not economic; I think that's a shame. 

Anywho, to prevent this from becoming a 'California | High Speed Rail' thread, here's this. I haven't seen it anywhere on here, but it doesn't seem to be much, it's about a month old, and it's from the FRA, so there's not exactly a lot of analysis going on. The Chicago hub does seem to be moving the most aggressively out of the three areas that maintain any prospect of actually occuring (I'm thinking the NEC, CAHSR, and the Midwest).


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Do you think CAlifornia has zero benefit from the costumer markets is other US states, from the 50 years during which college graduates from other states have flocked there to work on high-tech stuff, all the services provided by the feds etc?


----------



## desertpunk

aquaticko said:


> Anywho, to prevent this from becoming a 'California | High Speed Rail' thread, here's this. I haven't seen it anywhere on here, but it doesn't seem to be much, it's about a month old, and it's from the FRA, so there's not exactly a lot of analysis going on. The Chicago hub does seem to be moving the most aggressively out of the three areas that maintain any prospect of actually occuring (I'm thinking the NEC, CAHSR, and the Midwest).


Check this: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=85134755&postcount=107


----------



## Nexis

krnboy1009 said:


> Adding tracks?


Pole replacement for higher speeds (160mph) and sound walls....


----------



## sweet-d

yeah i kinda assumed this would take a very long time ior get delayed when I heard the $90 billion price tag.


----------



## mgk920

sweet-d said:


> yeah i kinda assumed this would take a very long time ior get delayed when I heard the $90 billion price tag.


A huge problem here in the USA for any kind of major public infrastructure construction projects are prevailing wage laws and other union influences that nearly always have an effect of sending costs exploding out of control and that California is a major 'deep-blue' union-entrenched state. Add that to ROW-acquisition, environmental rules, regulations and mitigations, NIMBY, etc, and the 'sky's the limit'....

hno:

China, OTOH, does not have to worry about those sorts of things.

Mike


----------



## trainrover

I disagree ... t'is the directors and managers who are positioned at feeling plucky taking their cuts; unions' clout, influence is just about extinguished, already for quite a while now ... (do remind yourself that) it was union action that brought about safety regulations, which in themselves seem to be being chipped away too nowadays ... sounds quite dashing, eh? 

BTW:


trainrover said:


> quantifying Montreal's weekly destinations by air


----------



## Arnorian

mgk920 said:


> A huge problem here in the USA for any kind of major public infrastructure construction projects are prevailing wage laws and other union influences that nearly always have an effect of sending costs exploding out of control and that California is a major 'deep-blue' union-entrenched state. Add that to ROW-acquisition, environmental rules, regulations and mitigations, NIMBY, etc, and the 'sky's the limit'....
> 
> hno:
> 
> China, OTOH, does not have to worry about those sorts of things.
> 
> Mike


How do you explain new HSR being built constantly in Spain and France, where wages are higher, unions are more powerful, and environmental regulations are even stricter?


----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


> One of Quebec's Delegates General has just been interviewed by CBC Radio, and who, rambling, just reported successful progress at petitioning American authorities for HSR to Montreal, altogether *in* the midst of (sandwiched into) his reporting/answering on the (favourable) statuses of some dockets on intercultural and educational affairs :sly:


:hahano:


----------



## sweet-d

Arnorian said:


> How do you explain new HSR being built constantly in Spain and France, where wages are higher, unions are more powerful, and environmental regulations are even stricter?


do spain and france have a crazy environmental review process like the US.


----------



## Silly_Walks

sweet-d said:


> do spain and france have a crazy environmental review process like the US.


I dunno about those countries, but here in The Netherlands we have the craziest environmental review policies, plus people protesting against the innocent murder of a bit of agricultural land ("nature"), and even we managed to make a tiny little stretch of dedicated 300 km/h high speed rail.

Plus we have strong unions, labor laws, and rampant fraud in the building sector... so that should not be an excuse 

Build that stuff already.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

In the US they have "NiMBY"s as well as "NWiMTaM" or Not With My Tax Money where if there is no DIRECT benefit to them they will disagree.

In other words they have individualism in overdrive to the level of selfishism.


----------



## Arnorian

SamuraiBlue said:


> In the US they have "NiMBY"s as well as "NWiMTaM" or Not With My Tax Money where if there is no DIRECT benefit to them they will disagree.
> 
> In other words they have individualism in overdrive to the level of selfishism.


:mad2:
Ayn Rand's bones should be dug up and placed in public urinals across the world.


----------



## hmmwv

mgk920 said:


> A huge problem here in the USA for any kind of major public infrastructure construction projects are prevailing wage laws and other union influences that nearly always have an effect of sending costs exploding out of control and that California is a major 'deep-blue' union-entrenched state. Add that to ROW-acquisition, environmental rules, regulations and mitigations, NIMBY, etc, and the 'sky's the limit'....
> 
> hno:
> 
> China, OTOH, does not have to worry about those sorts of things.
> 
> Mike


You are right about labor cost, railway construction is fairly labor intense so union wage will make a huge difference. Regarding China, I think besides lower labor cost they also benefit from the construction method and easily accessible material. The economics of scale plays a huge role. A lot of equipment, tools, and parts are sourced locally so it saves both money and time. Most new HSR construction there are 70-80% viaduct, so they built massive strategically placed girder yards and manufacturing them assembly line style. Viaduct translates to smaller construction footprint, less land acquisition cost (a major headache in China right now), no interruption of existing infrastructure, less disruption of local residents and the environment. Actually environmental regulation has slowly become a problem in China too, the Bureau of Environmental Protection halted construction of a HSR line last year because it didn't pass the environmental impact study.


----------



## trainrover

If HSR were to appear in California, how would the route be fenced off alongside its trunks right through wilderness, e.g., wouldn't wildlife eventually gnaw their way through it? :?

:dunno: $90B might sound right (while the Keystone-pipeline estimate pegged at $7B strikes me far too low).


----------



## urbanfan89

trainrover said:


> If HSR were to appear in California, how would the route be fenced off alongside its trunks right through wilderness, e.g., wouldn't wildlife eventually gnaw their way through it? :?
> 
> :dunno: $90B might sound right (while the Keystone-pipeline estimate pegged at $7B strikes me far too low).


I think that's a red herring, seeing that it's been resolved in many parts of the world: http://maps.google.com/?ll=48.127171,3.429923&spn=0.02601,0.065188&t=k&z=15&vpsrc=6


----------



## trainrover

What resolution must you be proposing outta "that"?


----------



## trainrover

_Acelaesqueness_ :hahano:



trainrover said:


> *Seen at 1'01" & 1'30", level crossing for pedestrian in a 100MPH zone hno:*


----------



## hmmwv

Stronger fence and regular inspections should be able to keep animals at bay. The only permanent solution is to use viaducts but that's probably impractical for CAHSR.


----------



## hmmwv

trainrover said:


> _Acelaesqueness_ :hahano:


Is it actually going at 100MPH? The video made it feel slower, probably around 70-80MPH.


----------



## aquaticko

trainrover said:


> _Acelaesqueness_ :hahano:


Ugh, what's the deal with all us Anglo-Saxon countries thinking we're "too good" for HSR? The U.S., Australia, Canada, the U.K...what gives? None of the places in the world I could live in without having to learn another language has true high speed service! Makes me wish I'd been born a continental European or something....hno::nuts::lol:


----------



## krnboy1009

UK kinda has HSR in Eurostar...I dont know if they run faster than 200KmPH in UK.


----------



## Silly_Walks

aquaticko said:


> Ugh, what's the deal with all us Anglo-Saxon countries thinking we're "too good" for HSR? The U.S., Australia, Canada, the U.K...what gives? None of the places in the world I could live in without having to learn another language has true high speed service! Makes me wish I'd been born a continental European or something....hno::nuts::lol:


You can get by fine in The Netherlands with English...

Plus it's the closest national language to English, so it shouldn't be that hard to learn :cheers:


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Building a high-speed rail network that will ultimately link Los Angeles with Chicago seems highly unlikely. Denver and Salt Lake City, for instance, are too far apart from anywhere else to have high-speed rail, and so are Tucson and Phoenix except in relate to each other.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Building a high-speed rail network that will ultimately link Los Angeles with Chicago seems highly unlikely. Denver and Salt Lake City, for instance, are too far apart from anywhere else to have high-speed rail, and so are Tucson and Phoenix except in relate to each other.


That was my point...it makes sense to operate the two (i.e. the state networks/commuter real on one hand and the national network in the other). That would let them prioritize the must viable routes first. And allow the others to happen as they may.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Silly_Walks

Nexis said:


>


Wrong thread i think.


----------



## Vicvin86




----------



## Silly_Walks

Vicvin86 said:


>


This should be in the train races thread.

Nothing to do with HSR.


----------



## hmmwv

Well Acela is technically HSR so the video should stay.


----------



## trainrover

Some early morning recently, NPR broadcast a clip of CA governor's recent speech somewhere in his state, vowing HSR there is going to be adopted after all.

I've been thinking lately that conventional HSR might not be the better mode, and finding myself more and more suspecting magnetic levitation to be far more viable. I also reckon that future advancements and improvements in this new mode of HSR could be devised into the infrastructure in anticipation of future upgrades, for *surely* increased velocities would eventually be possible. Wouldn't it instead be far easier to drive pilings into the ground than levelling and fussing with a surface-based ROW? What about bird strikes on levitated stock, for instance?

Ultimately, what overall does America wish to commit? :?


----------



## aquaticko

Even accepting that ROW and other land-based concerns make traditional HSR more expensive in California than it would be otherwise, I'd still tend to think that maglev would be even more expensive still. Of course, presenting that option ignores the fact that traditional HSR can be built on totally elevated tracks. If memory serves, a lot of the Beijing-Shanghai HSR line is built on viaducts.

And while I suppose that maglev-level speeds of say 300mph would make it more marketable, the extra cost of such a high speed line would be absolutely prohibitive. This seems especially true when either way, we're introducing a new form of transportation with an unproven ridership base. Though that's an argument used against public transit all across the country, one I don't think is particularly valid.


----------



## Silly_Walks

The Shanghai Maglev is extremely shakey at 431 km/h. The Beijing-Tianjin HSR at 334 km/h was far more smooth.


----------



## hmmwv

trainrover said:


> Some early morning recently, NPR broadcast a clip of CA governor's recent speech somewhere in his state, vowing HSR there is going to be adopted after all.
> 
> I've been thinking lately that conventional HSR might not be the better mode, and finding myself more and more suspecting magnetic levitation to be far more viable. I also reckon that future advancements and improvements in this new mode of HSR could be devised into the infrastructure in anticipation of future upgrades, for *surely* increased velocities would eventually be possible. Wouldn't it instead be far easier to drive pilings into the ground than levelling and fussing with a surface-based ROW? What about bird strikes on levitated stock, for instance?
> 
> Ultimately, what overall does America wish to commit? :?


A full viaduct based HSR line is ideal, but the cost may be too high to be built here. Given the financial CAHSR faces I don't think maglev is even remotely feasible in the next decade or so. Regarding bird strikes I don't think it's a huge issue at all, all of the 300+km/h HSR trains are designed to withstand a bird strike on the nose. I've seen many CRH and TGV trains with a bloody nose.:bash:


----------



## Suburbanist

Magnetic levitation would, on itself, draw more or less passengers AFAIK. It is just a different traction method, with some - but not much - repercussions on the traveler experience - like the "shakey" feeling because of lack of mechanical traction, akin to that of an airbone airplane.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

trainrover said:


> Some early morning recently, NPR broadcast a clip of CA governor's recent speech somewhere in his state, vowing HSR there is going to be adopted after all.
> 
> I've been thinking lately that conventional HSR might not be the better mode, and finding myself more and more suspecting magnetic levitation to be far more viable. I also reckon that future advancements and improvements in this new mode of HSR could be devised into the infrastructure in anticipation of future upgrades, for *surely* increased velocities would eventually be possible. Wouldn't it instead be far easier to drive pilings into the ground than levelling and fussing with a surface-based ROW? What about bird strikes on levitated stock, for instance?
> 
> Ultimately, what overall does America wish to commit? :?


Maglev is not feasible for California HSR because the HSR service is expected to share infrastructure (i.e. yards, station platforms); using maglev wouldn't work here because obviously magnetic levitation and steel-on-steel technology aren't very compatible. Second, people have already talked about costs. 

I'm not sure about this, but please feel free to prove me wrong, but I think that when Obama set aside funds for high speed rail, I think they were meant specifically for steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains in excess of 100 mph; in that event, California's $3 billion of federal funding would be void. 

Lastly, I want to point out that maglev technology is still in an infantile stage of development. There is only one service in the world and the market does not feel that it is ready for such kinds of investment. 

I also think that it'll be a miracle if California even gets to build a traditional steel-on-steel HSR system, given the state of affairs as it is now. People talk about how California should emulate Spain's success, but Spain's AVE network was built 1) with united political support 2) when there were significant cash reserves to finance it. Although I fully support high speed rail I must question the way CHSRA is running things. I'd be equally tipsy as the Republicans if they wanted to start construction when they have only $6 billion when the project is expected to cost $98 billion. 

However, what irks me the most about this whole HSR debate in America is how the critics constantly deride it as some sort of "fantasy choo choo". It's immature.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Silver Swordsman said:


> Maglev is not feasible for California HSR because the HSR service is expected to share infrastructure (i.e. yards, station platforms); using maglev wouldn't work here because obviously magnetic levitation and steel-on-steel technology aren't very compatible. Second, people have already talked about costs.


With the JR Central maglev method, with a little renovation covering the tracks with tarmac the same way you do at same level crossing both station platforms and yards can be shared since under 100Km/h the JR central system runs on tire.
Construction cost was underestimated for steel on steel technology and overestimated for maglev so another analysis should be done and discussed. 

As for the market thinking it is not ready, you'll also need to take into consideration the time gap these kind of projects are considered and actually put into construction. JR Central had already placed commitment to the system announcing Chuo-Shinkansen utilizing the maglev technology a year ago but will not go on line till 2027. Vietnam, Malaysia and possibly Australia may consider the technology depending on when they actually fix their plan.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

SamuraiBlue said:


> With the JR Central maglev method, with a little renovation covering the tracks with tarmac the same way you do at same level crossing both station platforms and yards can be shared since under 100Km/h the JR central system runs on tire.
> Construction cost was underestimated for steel on steel technology and overestimated for maglev so another analysis should be done and discussed.
> 
> As for the market thinking it is not ready, you'll also need to take into consideration the time gap these kind of projects are considered and actually put into construction. JR Central had already placed commitment to the system announcing Chuo-Shinkansen utilizing the maglev technology a year ago but will not go on line till 2027. Vietnam, Malaysia and possibly Australia may consider the technology depending on when they actually fix their plan.


No matter what kind of re-evaluation, the results still are: maglev is much more expensive than wheeled HSR. Since the primary bickering about CHSR is already about cost, and since most Americans obviously have never even experienced HSR, I do not think that maglev is a feasible option. 

If Japan has the guts to do it, kudos to them. But I do not think that it would be wise for America, who has not significantly invested in rail for over 50 years, to suddenly try and jump ahead of the game and go maglev. We're all criticizing to a degree how China's attempt to internalize and absorb 40 years of technological development in less than five, I don't see why America should follow that same path. 

They want to do a test stretch in Florida? Fine (Too bad Rick Scott killed it). But build an 800 km maglev line when the only other operational line is merely 20 km long? I don't think so. Even China started its HSR program with a short line (Beijing - Tianjin); and America is going to jumpstart maglev technology with a line from SF to LA? 

It's impractical.


----------



## trainrover

aquaticko said:


> maglev would be even more expensive still





SamuraiBlue said:


> market thinking


Regulatory action(s), measure(s) would fix that *easily* ... lord knows the world *needs* some ...





Silly_Walks said:


> The Shanghai Maglev is extremely shakey at 431 km/h


So were sputniks (and all?)





hmmwv said:


> Regarding bird strikes I don't think it's a huge issue at all, all of the 300+km/h HSR trains are designed to withstand a bird strike on the nose. I've seen many CRH and TGV trains with a bloody nose.


Infiltration into the magnetic 'mechanics' by biologic debris is more what I had in mind.





Silver Swordsman said:


> magnetic levitation and steel-on-steel technology aren't very compatible


_Hallelujah!_ since the speeds themselves aren't inherently compatible.





Silver Swordsman said:


> magnetic levitation and steel-on-steel technology aren't very compatible people have already talked about costs


...while atogether shunning those that risk being incurred onto the commercial aviation sector, probably 






Silver Swordsman said:


> It's impractical


...for the time being; thus, I put this out there again:


trainrover said:


> Ultimately, what overall does America wish to commit? :?



Maybe the durability of high-stressed, carbon, plastic rails devised in the future might surpass today's quality of high-tensile(?) steel, yet I don't see conventional HSR possessing any room for future improvements; it's as though its potential has already reached its maximum. However, maglev strikes me as more promising :runaway:


----------



## hmmwv

You are making the (big) assumption that America is planning for the future. We can barely get a project that means today's demand going, let along having the vision for future infrastructure technology.


----------



## trainrover

I am, just by asking what it *wishes*? Of course you Americans can get large projects going, it's the commitment that appears to be lacking. I question one's (your) usage of "we", mind you (e.g., _must_ we own our respective powerbrokers' ignorance?).


----------



## hmmwv

We Americans have our wishes and commitment set on more manly projects such as space station and aircraft carriers, public transportation is considering a thing for commies and sissies. Jokes aside, the current political infighting is sucking the lifeblood out of this country, politicians only worry about their office and nobody gives a damn about what's good for the US ten years down the road. Infrastructure investment is not something that can bring immediate and measurable benefit to our elected officials, thus it can only be used as political ammunition to attack opponents. I was hoping that there will be a Sputnik moment in our generation to ignite the interest and commitment in this area, but I'm not holding my breath for it.


----------



## trainrover

America's *not* the only country suffering ... it's out with the nation state and in with the corporate one, as far as I can tell


----------



## -Corey-

Till 2034, wtf, why? I thought they were going to.open the first line before 2020 :hammer:


----------



## k.k.jetcar

-Corey- said:


> Till 2034, wtf, why? I thought they were going to.open the first line before 2020 :hammer:


you may find this enlightening (talking about urban transit, but can apply to intercity projects also):
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/should_it_take_decades_to_build_a_subway/



> CA HSR should probably use low floor like they do with Caltrain and other passenger rail services (aside from metro systems).


Caltrain will be electrified, ideally the Caltrain trainsets will be high level boarding, which allows _shorter dwell times_ and _easy ADA compliance_. HSR trainsets with high-level boarding have the same advantages. Of course, you can build trainsets that have dual capability, like Korail's Nooriro trains.











*notice in the second video that the station has mixed low and high level platforms, which is common particularly in the Seoul metropolitan area. It seems this workable system is impossible (at this moment) in at least the Bay Area due to stupid FRA regulations re. platform clearance for switchmen hanging off freight cars(!). Of course, the best solution would be to end UP's marginal freight operations on the SF Peninsula,but that's another story...


----------



## hmmwv

k.k.jetcar said:


> you may find this enlightening (talking about urban transit, but can apply to intercity projects also):
> http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/should_it_take_decades_to_build_a_subway/


It's so depressing reading all these problems our public transit projects have to endure. It's retarded that CAHSR may not come online until 2034, probably right after the Afghanistan's first HSR is completed.


----------



## aquaticko

I think that article k.k.jetcar linked to puts all pretty plainly, and it shows that there are both good and bad reasons for why things take so long to build here. But I still tend to believe that the single most damning of those items Salon pointed out is how driver-centric our country is. That makes the motivation for fixing all of those other problems that much less. If that changed, there'd be a much bigger incentive to change all the others.


----------



## Jay

It will come before that... too many things can happen in 22 years...It would be great if SF could start in 3 years as well as the previous article said.


----------



## iamawesomezero

Love it


----------



## trainrover

Maybe Korail stock emits *far* less brake dust than N American stock do ... e.g., Montreal's double-deckers noxious brake fumes make me gag when either boarding or getting off at our low-level platforms, I'm certain I'd not choke were all the platforms high level


----------



## FM 2258

k.k.jetcar said:


> It's a push-pull operation. The passenger car has a cab for the driver. Standard operating practice on US commuter lines.


I see, the video wasn't clear enough to see the driver. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Nexis

We use Push - Pulls for alot of our moves....the train here is going 85mph...


----------



## trainrover

_"... remain behind yellow line."_ ​


----------



## Sopomon

trainrover said:


> _"... remain behind yellow line."_ ​


A couple of my favourite videos, those.


----------



## FM 2258

^^ Those are some pretty nice videos.


----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


>


Same station, different season


----------



## Sopomon

^^

God the whole thing's rocking and rolling all over the shop, I'm surprised it's allowed to run at 150 on that section, it looks dangerous as all hell...


----------



## aquaticko

Somehow, it seems significantly slower than other high speed trains. I know it runs about 30mph slower than HSR in other countries, and that the train itself is shorter, but it feels like it's going closer to 100mph than 150mph.


----------



## Think

It takes 4 seconds to pass it length, so it's really closer to 100 mph than 150 mph.

It could be dangerous to pass an open platform at 150 mph.


----------



## FlyFish

aquaticko said:


> Somehow, it seems significantly slower than other high speed trains. I know it runs about 30mph slower than HSR in other countries, and that the train itself is shorter, but it feels like it's going closer to 100mph than 150mph.


I can tell you from experience the rocking makes napping easier. 

It's what we have, and on that route it is always full and I'm certain by itself operates at a huge surplus. As slow as it may be compared to the super trains all of you non-backward utopian country residents use it is the fastest way to get from downtown DC to downtown Philadelphia, the fastest way from downtown Phil to downtown NYC, fastest from downtown NYC to downtown Boston, probably the fastest way to get from DC to downtown NYC etc. The only way to get to and from those places faster would be Star Trek beaming. 

The Acela IS our high speed rail, and as someone who was in a former life a weekly rider, it is tremendous! But it's not tremendous enough to warrant a 10 billion dollar (or whatever it would need to be) borrowed investment to make it 50MPH faster when 9 out of 10 bridges the other 99.999% of the poulation drive on are falling apart. We have bigger infrastructure problems here.

I was just in Southern California a few weeks ago and I drove on your roads. If you folks out there have 40 billion to throw around on infrastructure HSR should NOT be your priority! JMHO of course and as always YMMV.


----------



## manrush

^^
Motorists have already been catered to enough in this country. I'm sure they can wait like grownups while others get their turn.


----------



## FlyFish

manrush said:


> ^^
> Motorists have already been catered to enough in this country. I'm sure they can wait like grownups while others get their turn.


So, you are saying that 99.99% should wait until the .01% get something they don't really need?

Got it!


----------



## hammersklavier

There is a difference between "structurally deficient" and "functionally obsolete".

Structurally deficient means it's falling down. By all means, replace these immediately.

Functionally obsolete means our traffic engineers can't believe it's handling the traffic it is. As long as such structures are properly maintained, however, there's no good reason to replace it. Replacing a "functionally obsolete" span _is_ catering to drivers. It's the definition of it, almost.

The Tappan Zee Bridge and the Pulaski Skyway are two excellent examples of "functionally obsolete" spans in the New York area, to give you an idea.


----------



## Sopomon

It' really impressive to see trains out in *Michigan* of all places finally running at some half decent speeds, where else are there plans for projects like this?


----------



## pi_malejana

Nexis said:


> 100mph


is that door open on 0:10??


----------



## eminencia

^^ Looks like it is.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Hope in American railways... somewhat restored. 

*Sees open door at 100 mph. Nevermind.


----------



## Nexis

90mph....






90-100mph


----------



## Think

^^Are you sure of these speeds, or it's only the consideration of the Youtube users? Speed is so easy to calculate counting the time that the train take to pass and dividing by it the length of the train.

I have my doubts with the last video.


----------



## trainrover

All those speeds strike me as exaggerated.


----------



## Nexis

Thats the max track speed , expresses and Amtrak hit it as you can see most of the trains do. Some seem slower , but rail fanners are not going to lie about speed. Speed barely gets u views on yt , unlike new trains and lines.


----------



## trainrover

I doubt N American exaggeration has ever been a secret


----------



## FM 2258

Stainless said:


> I cycle over 30 mins each way to work and don't find it a massive hassle, there are shower facilities at work and lockers. If the facilities are there people will use them. It keeps me very fit, but I imagine Austin is quite a different climate though!


Yes, Austin can get really hot during spring and summer and the building I work in does not have showers. 

I'm glad to see the line between Chicago and Detroit is getting a speed upgrade. Now if we can start electrifying our railroads that will even be more awesome. Most trains are diesel-electric, I wonder what it would take to convert them to -electric.


----------



## trainrover

once upon a time, catenary was virtually invisible :uh:​


----------



## FlyFish

FM 2258 said:


> Yes, Austin can get really hot during spring and summer and the building I work in does not have showers.
> 
> I'm glad to see the line between Chicago and Detroit is getting a speed upgrade. Now if we can start electrifying our railroads that will even be more awesome. Most trains are diesel-electric, I wonder what it would take to convert them to -electric.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## trainrover

Hark! HSTs actually going _clickety-clack_ 





X2000 @ 5'24" & 6'44"; ICE @ 7'25"​


----------



## trainrover

(playback glitch temporary)​


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *High-speed rail plan slashes costs to calm critics*
> Michael Cabanatuan
> Sunday, April 1, 2012
> 
> State transportation officials have slashed the price tag for California's controversial high-speed rail project by $30 billion and expanded the first stretch of track to run from Merced in the Central Valley south to the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles.
> 
> The California High Speed Rail Authority's revised business plan, which will be released Monday in Fresno, calls for those dramatic changes as the agency prepares to ask the Legislature to use $2.7 billion in state high-speed rail bonds to start construction by early next year.
> 
> The drastic revision, which puts the proposed cost of the system at $68.4 billion instead of the $98.5 billion estimated in November, intends to cool opposition to the project . . . . It relies heavily on what officials have called a "blended approach" that uses existing commuter rail lines - including Caltrain - in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
> 
> That shift, authority board members said Saturday, is largely responsible for the cost savings because it eliminates the need to build separate tracks for high-speed rail through dense metropolitan areas . . . .
> 
> Gov. Jerry Brown's office has made the rail project eligible to use anticipated cap-and-trade revenues, which will be used as a backstop if other revenues don't come in when needed.
> 
> For the Bay Area, the new business plan means the authority will pay about half the $1.5 billion cost of electrifying the Caltrain system from San Jose to San Francisco. The long-planned electrification project, which will speed commuter trains and allow high-speed trains to share the tracks, could be completed by 2019. But the business plan's decision to head to Los Angeles first means high-speed trains won't arrive in the Bay Area until 2026 at the earliest . . . .
> 
> Under the new plan, construction still will start with the 130-mile Central Valley stretch, then continue north to Merced and south to Palmdale, crossing the Tehachapis with a series of tunnels and viaducts. It could reach both destinations by 2020. Extending the line to Burbank will take two more years.
> 
> . . . the updated plan also calls for the authority to invest in improvements that include advanced signaling systems and elimination of street-level railroad crossings on the Altamont Commuter Express and Amtrak San Joaquin trains, which would allow them to increase speeds and haul passengers to Merced faster . . . .


Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/31/BA2F1NT19T.DTL


----------



## Sunfuns

Probably someone up thread already commented on this (no time to read 144 pages), but being fairly familiar with HSR projects in Europe, I am amazed both about the unnaturally high price tag for this Californian scheme and even more about the choice of the first stretch. Merced to Bakersfield and no San Francisco till late 20-ties at best??? That's just brain-dead... Who is going to use that? HSR works best when connecting large cities with already a heavy traffic between them (Paris-Lyon-Marseille, Madrid-Barcelona, Paris-London etc)...

If I was a Californian official in charge of this and without enough money to go from LA to San Franciso (although 60 billion ought to be enough) then I would build LA-San Diego first. Two large cities, probably enough existing traffic between them and much closer. A well built HSR (paralleling I-5) would reach one city from the other in about 50 min with a single stop in Anaheim. Would be an excellent demonstration project for HSR in USA. I believe it takes at least 2 h to drive this route. Asking Californian government to be smart with taxpayers money is asking too much, I guess.


----------



## aquaticko

^^If memory serves, part of the reason for the start of construction in the middle of the state is time. Some part of the legislation that is giving California enough money to build the system requires that construction starts before a certain date, and the environmental review process can obviously go much quicker in the relatively low-density Central Valley than it can in either the Bay Area or LA. Another potential problem is that instead of building brand new tracks for HSR in San Francisco, they've decided to upgrade the current Caltrain tracks; again, part of the legislation required a completely new system. There's actually been concerns that this may make the recent changes by the CAHSRA illegal. 

All this info is from a link or two posted on Transportation Nation, but I can't find them right now. I may also be mis-remembering things, if anyone wants to correct me.


----------



## trainrover

Foolish how America's HSR discussions skirt restructuring its passé civil aviation practices ...


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

aquaticko said:


> All this info is from a link or two posted on Transportation Nation, but I can't find them right now. I may also be mis-remembering things, if anyone wants to correct me.


The California High Speed Rail Blog should tell you everything you want to know.


----------



## trainrover

hno:






See what I mean? Private enterprise not daring to tread on civil aviators' toes throughout their promo while harping on about petrol coupled to visual streams of automobile traffic, and summing up by advising viewers to write to their elected politicians.

One 'American' dream that'll never come to be  (What's this "electrified trains", "electified trains" business? hno


----------



## trainrover

Queer how some clergyman gets in on the Act














"segregation" ... "jobs beyond the airport"


----------



## trainrover

Hark! me thinks Hollywood'd also like to have a go














"..uh.." ... "..uh.." ... "..uhh.." ... "..uh.."


----------



## trainrover

"...200MPH..."



indaco1 said:


>


----------



## hmmwv

About 4135mm gauge?


----------



## trainrover

I can't tell whether it be the pipe or the dream you must be gauging.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Sunfuns said:


> Probably someone up thread already commented on this (no time to read 144 pages), but being fairly familiar with HSR projects in Europe, I am amazed both about the unnaturally high price tag for this Californian scheme and even more about the choice of the first stretch. Merced to Bakersfield and no San Francisco till late 20-ties at best??? That's just brain-dead... Who is going to use that? HSR works best when connecting large cities with already a heavy traffic between them (Paris-Lyon-Marseille, Madrid-Barcelona, Paris-London etc)...
> 
> If I was a Californian official in charge of this and without enough money to go from LA to San Franciso (although 60 billion ought to be enough) then I would build LA-San Diego first. Two large cities, probably enough existing traffic between them and much closer. A well built HSR (paralleling I-5) would reach one city from the other in about 50 min with a single stop in Anaheim. Would be an excellent demonstration project for HSR in USA. I believe it takes at least 2 h to drive this route. Asking Californian government to be smart with taxpayers money is asking too much, I guess.


As someone in Europe, there may be several things you aren't aware of. First, you may know but I don't how many European HSR projects cross 2 mountain ranges like this one does. In both cases it will require extensive tunneling. That is much of the reason for the cost.

Here is a topographic map of California. 









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_California

As you can see, one range must be crossed going from the Central Valley into the Bay Area and another (actually 2) going from the Valley into the Los Angeles basin.

As for the reason to start in the Central Valley, it is because that is the longest stretch that is both flat and rural so that costs per mile are low (meaning more miles can be built with the available money) and the project will be relatively free of the legal entanglements it is experiencing in urban areas.

That is one reason for the new plan near San Francisco. Formerly, the plan was to build new dedicated tracks in the right of way of CalTrain, the commuter line between San Francisco and San Jose. But that means building new tracks through one small, very wealthy town after another, each of which have filed suit to stop it on the basis it will be noisy or otherwise problematic for them. By using the existing CalTrain tracks, these suits may be largely avoided or mooted.

A similar situation pertains between Los Angeles and San Diego. My understanding is that lawsuits have also been filed in Orange County and other parts of that route.

By the way, as for the drive time from Anaheim to San Diego: I did it once. It took 7 hours on a Friday evening due to traffic. In the absence of any traffic (which never happens) it might take 2 hours.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

trainrover said:


> Foolish how America's HSR discussions skirt restructuring its passé civil aviation practices ...


The relevance?


----------



## hmmwv

CAHSR is a mess, if Washington State isn't so broke the line between Seattle and Portland would be relatively easy to build. Judging from the traffic on I-5 there is certainly enough potential riders, and both cities, especially Portland has a very extensive public transportation network to facilitate the last mile transport.


----------



## aquaticko

Yeah, I keep looking for more information on the Cascades HSR project, but I don't think much has happened since it was proposed years ago, nothing more than very minor speed increases, anyhow.


----------



## trainrover

Shifting sand would be more obstructive than exaggerated hilliness ... no matter how --uhm-- ambassadorial, no passé argument could ever belie either Japan's or China's feat at laying HSR through craggy territory ...


----------



## hmmwv

Long viaducts made of prefabricated girders is pretty cheap to build nowadays, the process is heavily mechanized and the girders are built at plants in assembly line style. It'll solve the curious animal problem too.


----------



## trainrover

Makes sense ... or should I say, would make sense ...


----------



## aquaticko

Wealthy NIMBY's always win.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

trainrover said:


> Shifting sand would be more obstructive than exaggerated hilliness ... no matter how --uhm-- ambassadorial, no passé argument could ever belie either Japan's or China's feat at laying HSR through craggy territory ...


The issue is not being able to do it. The issue that was asked about was the cost. China, of course, has low cost labor (and seems to have done a slap-dash job judging by the problems they are having on the lines they have built). Japan has accomplished what it has in reference to infrastructure by accumulating a national debt that makes ours seem inconsequential.

Each country approaches these matters differently, but there are pros and cons of each approach. CA will muddle through. HSR will get built because it makes so much sense. The fact is that air capacity at airports serving travelers between the northern and southern halves of the state are near capacity and expansion is near impossible. CA HSR is not a matter of if but of when.


----------



## Sunfuns

To Cal_Escapee:

Thanks for an answer. Actually I am not completely unfamiliar with the west coast of USA. Lived in Oregon for 2 years and have been in California several times as well. I know it's quite hilly, but HSR in Italy and Spain are also going through hilly areas. 

Anyway the argument about being easier to build in central valley is of course valid, but the question what arises is why build it at all if not possible to do it properly? There is a high risk of money and/or political will running out and the proverbial white elephant being left on the ground... 

There are no true HSR lines in USA at the moment. To convince the public and lawmakers of future suitability of such schemes it is vital that the first one to be built is of the best possible quality both in terms of passenger numbers and costs. France started with Paris-Lyon, Italy with Rome-Naples, Spain with Madrid-Seville, Japan with Tokyo-Osaka. US also ought to start with a line of similar importance. Perhaps California is not the place to start at all and it would make more sense to start somewhere else with an easier geography? Chicago-Detroit or Houston-Dallas perhaps? 

P.S. That 2 hour driving time was just from Google maps, since I've never driven south of LA myself.


----------



## G5man

Cascades is waiting on the Port Defiance bypass project in order to allow up to six trains a day. The project is going slowly though and I agree that it needs to be significantly sped up. These improvements shouldn't take so much time.


----------



## Jay

*



"Should the US improve it's HSR network?"

Click to expand...

*
Is there even one to improve? How about the US builds a HSR network first, then improves it :lol:


----------



## hmmwv

Cal_Escapee said:


> The issue is not being able to do it. The issue that was asked about was the cost. China, of course, has low cost labor (and seems to have done a slap-dash job judging by the problems they are having on the lines they have built). Japan has accomplished what it has in reference to infrastructure by accumulating a national debt that makes ours seem inconsequential.
> 
> Each country approaches these matters differently, but there are pros and cons of each approach. CA will muddle through. HSR will get built because it makes so much sense. The fact is that air capacity at airports serving travelers between the northern and southern halves of the state are near capacity and expansion is near impossible. CA HSR is not a matter of if but of when.


Chinese HSR is neither cheap nor poorly built, it's slightly cheaper mainly due to scale effect, and there is a perception of problems because it's a highly scrutinized topic and also due to the sheer size of the system. I'd argue the CRH system is one of the highest quality railway systems in the world. For CAHSR I agree that it's a necessity for CA but cost is everything, that's why I have suggested to build the line entirely on viaduct, it's probably the only way to utilize assembly line style offsite fabrication and minimize labor usage. Also they need to build the line in one shot (I know, naive) so materials etc can be purchased in larger bulk to lavage a better price. 



Sunfuns said:


> To Cal_Escapee:
> 
> Thanks for an answer. Actually I am not completely unfamiliar with the west coast of USA. Lived in Oregon for 2 years and have been in California several times as well. I know it's quite hilly, but HSR in Italy and Spain are also going through hilly areas.
> 
> Anyway the argument about being easier to build in central valley is of course valid, but the question what arises is why build it at all if not possible to do it properly? There is a high risk of money and/or political will running out and the proverbial white elephant being left on the ground...
> 
> There are no true HSR lines in USA at the moment. To convince the public and lawmakers of future suitability of such schemes it is vital that the first one to be built is of the best possible quality both in terms of passenger numbers and costs. France started with Paris-Lyon, Italy with Rome-Naples, Spain with Madrid-Seville, Japan with Tokyo-Osaka. US also ought to start with a line of similar importance. Perhaps California is not the place to start at all and it would make more sense to start somewhere else with an easier geography? Chicago-Detroit or Houston-Dallas perhaps?
> 
> P.S. That 2 hour driving time was just from Google maps, since I've never driven south of LA myself.


The hills of Western Washington isn't bad at all, at least compare to terrains in Europe and Asia. The current line parallel with I-5 is a good start for a dedicated HSR line. I'd prefer just upgrade the existing line to accommodate 125mph trains, but it seems that the consent is that freight operators are making it too difficult to accomplish. I agree with you that HSR here should start with two large cities that can be easily connected, I too think Houston-Dallas is a good choice, I'm not sure Detroit is economically strong enough to support the ridership.



G5man said:


> Cascades is waiting on the Port Defiance bypass project in order to allow up to six trains a day. The project is going slowly though and I agree that it needs to be significantly sped up. These improvements shouldn't take so much time.


WSDOT is completely useless regarding projects around the Tacoma area, just look at how long did it take them to fix the I-5 curve just before the Dome.


----------



## trainrover

hmmwv said:


> it seems that the consent is that freight operators are making it too difficult to accomplish


Adjusted regulations, legislation would resolve such stalemate ...





Cal_Escapee said:


> The fact is that air capacity at airports serving travelers between the northern and southern halves of the state are near capacity


I bet that fact is more dynamic than you think, such that those CA capacities were exceeded some time ago ... major N American airports seem to be in perpetual states of expansion.


----------



## krnboy1009

Or nationalizing the entire tracks on the basis the it was the fed gov who originally built the entire system.


----------



## Suburbanist

krnboy1009 said:


> Or nationalizing the entire tracks on the basis the it was the fed gov who originally built the entire system.


The gov't gave land grants for the transcontinental railways, and, in any case, the costs of nationalizing the railways would like be equivalent of purchasing all their stocks on the market. US$ 28 bln. for UP alone...


----------



## hmmwv

Nationalizing the railway is political suicide for any administration.


----------



## krnboy1009

It would be. 

But the fed gov does own NE Corridor.


----------



## FlyFish

hmmwv said:


> Nationalizing the railway is political suicide for any administration.


Not to mention illegal


----------



## trainrover

Well then! I guess the next entrepreneurial step is the revocation of passenger rail from the corresponding US federal regulator's jurisdiction ...


----------



## Suburbanist

krnboy1009 said:


> It would be.
> 
> But the fed gov does own NE Corridor.


Different scenario.

Penn. RR had just went bankrupt together with other regional railways. Amtrak "landed" the NE corridor for peanuts, as services were bad and short-haul freight traffic had collapsed.


----------



## mhays

hmmwv said:


> ...that's why I have suggested to build the line entirely on viaduct, it's probably the only way to utilize assembly line style offsite fabrication and minimize labor usage. Also they need to build the line in one shot (I know, naive) so materials etc can be purchased in larger bulk to lavage a better price.


Maybe, maybe not. That volume of concrete and rebar (assuming a concrete structure) might be too much for the supply chain to handle, and cause prices to spike.

Further, if the contracts are really massive, you're reducing competition.


----------



## hmmwv

mhays said:


> Maybe, maybe not. That volume of concrete and rebar (assuming a concrete structure) might be too much for the supply chain to handle, and cause prices to spike.
> 
> Further, if the contracts are really massive, you're reducing competition.


The US may not be as much a manufacturing powerhouse as before, but it's still one of the most powerful industrial nation in the world, we will have no problem supplying the concrete and rebar to fabricate the girders. For a project of this scale I doubt any single entity can monopolize the whole contract, so there should be plenty competition.


----------



## mgk920

hmmwv said:


> Nationalizing the railway is political suicide for any administration.


Howabout having a 'third party' (public or private) own, maintain and dispatch the mainline track infrastructure, while any entity who wants to can run their trains on it, just like how roads, civil aviation and so forth already operate?

Mike


----------



## mhays

hmmwv said:


> The US may not be as much a manufacturing powerhouse as before, but it's still one of the most powerful industrial nation in the world, we will have no problem supplying the concrete and rebar to fabricate the girders. For a project of this scale I doubt any single entity can monopolize the whole contract, so there should be plenty competition.


I'm not getting your logic. Speaking as a construction guy.


----------



## hmmwv

mhays said:


> I'm not getting your logic. Speaking as a construction guy.


Which part?


----------



## trainrover

I think your suggestion be more a matter of assembly than construction ...


----------



## Tommy Boy

COME ON AMERICA WAKE UP YOU ARE THE 3RD BIGGEST COUNTRY BOTH IN POPULATION AND AREA. YOU NEED HSR IT WOULD BE AN REVOLUTION BOOST FOR THE NATION. 

LOOK AT EUROPE, CHINA AND JAPAN JUST WOW FEELING TO TRAVEL 220 - 300 MPH BETWEEN CITIES. 

IMAGINE NEW YORK - LA IN A BULLET TRAIN 300 MPH FROM/TO CITY CENTER CITY CENTER. BEATS AIRPLAINE EVERYDAY A WEEK, i KNOW.

SHUT UP AND GET TO WORK

USA LOVER


----------



## Suburbanist

Tommy Boy said:


> IMAGINE NEW YORK - LA IN A BULLET TRAIN 300 MPH FROM/TO CITY CENTER CITY CENTER. BEATS AIRPLAINE EVERYDAY A WEEK, i KNOW.
> 
> SHUT UP AND GET TO WORK
> 
> USA LOVER


Do you realize a 300 km/h (since there isn't 300 mph trains in commercial operation anywhere) LAX-NYC train would take, even if economically feasible to build, 16 hours to complete such trip???


----------



## Sopomon

Suburbanist said:


> Do you realize a 300 km/h (since there isn't 300 mph trains in commercial operation anywhere) LAX-NYC train would take, even if economically feasible to build, 16 hours to complete such trip???


Shh, let the boy dream


----------



## mgk920

Agreed, a LOT of Europeans have no idea of just how truly *VAST* the USA is. 

Despite there now being an estimated population of about 312M in the USA, there are many, many places where one can go here and be totally *alone*, with nobody else anywhere nearby.

From what I am aware of, the longest non-stop run on China's HSR network is equal to a short bit less than the distance between Chicago and NYC - with a scheduled 'door close-door open' time of about 3.5 hours.

Los Angeles is nearly four times that distance beyond Chicago.

Mike


----------



## gramercy

kunming-harbin will be comparable to a ny-la...


----------



## hmmwv

mgk920 said:


> Agreed, a LOT of Europeans have no idea of just how truly *VAST* the USA is.
> 
> Despite there now being an estimated population of about 312M in the USA, there are many, many places where one can go here and be totally *alone*, with nobody else anywhere nearby.
> 
> From what I am aware of, the longest non-stop run on China's HSR network is equal to a short bit less than the distance between Chicago and NYC - with a scheduled 'door close-door open' time of about 3.5 hours.
> 
> Los Angeles is nearly four times that distance beyond Chicago.
> 
> Mike


I agree that for a distance such as NYC - LA there really isn't any market for HSR, it simply cannot compete with airlines. However for argument's sake a NYC - LA train won't be a non-stop one, it'll have to stop at various cities along the way. Distance between stops will likely to be less than the Beijing-Nanjing non-stop train (1018km, 631miles). Theoretically speaking, by the end of next year or early 2014 the longest high speed train ride in China will be the Urumqi to Shenzhen train, with a total travel distance of about 4400km (2730miles). Such long train ride is feasible or even desirable in China during the Chinese New Year rush, but completely impractical in the United States.


----------



## Suburbanist

hmmwv said:


> I agree that for a distance such as NYC - LA there really isn't any market for HSR, it simply cannot compete with airlines. However for argument's sake a NYC - LA train won't be a non-stop one, it'll have to stop at various cities along the way. Distance between stops will likely to be less than the Beijing-Nanjing non-stop train (1018km, 631miles). Theoretically speaking, by the end of next year or early 2014 the longest high speed train ride in China will be the Urumqi to Shenzhen train, with a total travel distance of about 4400km (2730miles). Such long train ride is feasible or even desirable in China during the Chinese New Year rush, but completely impractical in the United States.


There is almost nothing between Denver and West Coast to generate a solid demand for HST. Well, there is Salt Lake City - but the Rockies in between.

If you south, even El Paso is WAY too far from DFW to justify a link. Then hundreds of miles to Albuquerque, a middle-sized metropolis separated by more large swaths of nothing till Tucson or Phoenix.

I think, unless a huge internal migration to the area happens, a HST linking cities on the Midwest to West Coast is as unfeasible as a 6-lane highway Boise (MT) - Wasilla (AK)


----------



## Sunfuns

Some areas will "always" be ruled by cars (or donkeys if and when civilization fails) for short distances and airplanes for the large ones. I was on vacation in Montana and Wyoming last summer - a perfect example of such a place. USA has many more of those...

And there is really no problem with that. Plenty of other places still on this planet where trains in general and HSR in particular would be a valuable and economically feasible addition.


----------



## Sunfuns

USA alone has at least a dozen potentially viable routes with large cities 1-4h from each other (100-600 miles). Just from a top of my head: LA-Las Vegas, San Diego-LA, LA-San Francisco, LA-Phoenix, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington, Detroit-Chicago, Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami, Houston-San Antonio-Dallas. Maybe some more in the Midwest, but I don't know how big those other cities are (other than Chicago or Detroit). 

And by the way while it's true that USA in general is sparsely populated, there are some key areas which have population densities on par or greater than most European countries.


----------



## hmmwv

^^^ But with NEC's track speed limitation due to restricted space, Florida's hate on publicly funded HSR, and California's difficulties in building the line linking cities that can actually take advantage of HSR, there is not much left for the hope of HSR in America. Portland-Seattle-Vancouver is not gonna happen but no one has the money and the boarder crossing is a bottleneck. Detroit-Chicago will be perfectly happy with their new faster service. Houston-Dallas is probably the only other feasible choice but it's a long shot since this is Taxes we are talking about.


----------



## mgk920

Sunfuns said:


> USA alone has at least a dozen potentially viable routes with large cities 1-4h from each other (100-600 miles). Just from a top of my head: LA-Las Vegas, San Diego-LA, LA-San Francisco, LA-Phoenix, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington, Detroit-Chicago, Jacksonville-Orlando-Miami, Houston-San Antonio-Dallas. Maybe some more in the Midwest, but I don't know how big those other cities are (other than Chicago or Detroit).
> 
> And by the way while it's true that USA in general is sparsely populated, there are some key areas which have population densities on par or greater than most European countries.


Heck, IMHO, Chicago-Milwaukee-Green Bay (via Appleton) would very likely work 'above the rail' as a 'conventional/enhanced speed restored-service' route (*NO* true HSR), but the startup costs and who would pay them are the killer here.

Mike


----------



## Bannor

The politics is USA's biggest problem with HSR. But it is deffinately worth it on a dousin of locations if you consider future growth. What america has that the old world lacks is a future trend of population growth stretching at least a century into the future. A hundread years from now the population in USA will be at over 600 million, and then you will all think of the opportunity you had to make an hsr line when you had the chance, when land sales was cheaper, when you could bring in foreign labor and when you needed to employ people after a financial crack.

It is just ashame that american politicians deem anything said by a politician of the opposing party as bad, although it would be considered "good" if your own side came up with the idea. What is important in USA is to throw dirt at the other party's politicians, and they only see towards the next election. If one party backs up the HSR network, it won't pass because it needs support from state governemnts too, and the states that are run by the opposing party will vote it down because the party leading washington is their opponents. It is nothing but a childish bickering ruining a once great country. The system is tearing USA down. It is ashame that the same can be said about Europe.


----------



## aquaticko

I think you're too pessimistic, hmmwv. California _is_ progressing, albeit slowly and haltingly. The NEC will, assuming that ridership trends continue, require further investment, and it's highly likely that this will involve speed improvements at some point. The Chicago Hub is already seeing a bunch of investment already. Basically, assuming things continue as they are, trains are _bound_ to rebound. Most people my age (early 20's) are used to much more frequent use of public transportation than older people are.


----------



## phoenixboi08

The point is rail corridors between key cities, THEN build links between these corridors to form a cross country stretch (remember, they can alter time tables so that not EVERY train stops at EVERY station).


----------



## Nexis

*California High Speed Rail Network
*Size : 800+ Mi (1,300kms)
Number of lines : 6
Stations : 25+
Projected Ridership : 95 Million a Year or 260,730 Daily
Top Speed : 220mph (350Km/h)
Cost : 68.5 Billion $

*Midwest High Speed Rail Network
*Size : 700 Mi+ (1,296Kms)
Stations : 76+ (Feeders factored in)
Lines : 6+ with 7 Feeders
Projected Ridership : 43 Million a year or 120,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 58 Billion $

*Northeastern High Speed Network 
*Size : 1940 Mi+ (3,592kms)
Lines : 4+ with 6 Feeders
Stations : 90+ (Feeders factored in)
Projected Ridership : 127 Million a year or 350,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
Cost : 120 Billion $ 

*Taken from MWHSR , CAHSR and AMtrak Next gen sources*


----------



## krnboy1009

All sections of NEC needs at least 4 tracks, 5 or 6 if its a busy commuter rail section.


----------



## Nexis

krnboy1009 said:


> All sections of NEC needs at least 4 tracks, 5 or 6 if its a busy commuter rail section.


Plans call for New HSR ROW in New England and New HSR routes / bypasses through Newark , Philly , Wilmington and Baltimore.... As well as Grade Separating all the Interlocks and added tracks to allow NJT , MNRR , MBTA , and MARC to add more lines that feed into the NEC.


----------



## krnboy1009

Whats the point if it wont stop in any of those stations?


----------



## Nexis

krnboy1009 said:


> Whats the point if it wont stop in any of those stations?


Well only the Super Express will bypass most of the stations only service the Large Cities , the semi Express and Shore line express will stop at the Airports and cities like Newark , Hartford , Wilmington , etc....


----------



## Sunfuns

HSR is not supposed to stop very often. For example a train from Basel where I live to Paris (ca 350 miles) takes 3 h 5 min and has only two stops. 

A fast train from New York to Washington DC probably ought to stop only in Philadelphia and Baltimore. Smaller stops are for regional and commuter trains.


----------



## Nexis

*Current / Proposed , Planned , Under Construction Stations
*
*Next Gen High Speed Rail Northeast 
*
*Next Gen Super Express (Max : 220mph : Average : 190mph)
*Washington DC Union Station
_Philadelphia Market East Station_ 
New York Penn Station
_New York Grand Central_
Boston Back Bay Station
Boston South Station

*Next Gen Express (Max : 220mph : Average : 180mph)
*Washington DC Union Station
BWI Airport Station
_Baltimore Charles Center
Wilmington HSR Station
Philadelphia In't Airport 
Philadelphia Market East_
Trenton Transit Center
Newark Liberty Airport
Newark Penn Station
New York Penn Station
_Grand Central Station
White Plains HSR Station 
Danbury HSR
Waterbury HSR Station_
Hartford Union Station
_Tolland (UConn)
Worcester HSR Station
Metro West HSR Station_
Back Bay Station
South Station

*Next Gen Shoreline Express (Max : 160mph : Average : 130mph)
*Washington DC Union Station
BWI Airport Station
Baltimore Penn Station
_Wilmington HSR Station _
Philadelphia 30th Street
Newark Penn Station
New York Penn Station
Stamford Station
New Haven Union Station
Providence Union Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Boston South Station

*Next Gen Long Island Express (Max : 160mph : Average : 130mph)*
Washington DC Union Station
BWI Airport Station
_Baltimore Charles Center
Wilmington HSR Station 
Philadelphia In't Airport 
Philadelphia Market East_
Newark Liberty In't Airport
Newark Penn Station
New York Penn Station
Jamaica - JFK Airport Station
_Nassau Hub
Farmingdale - Route 110
Ronkonkoma - Mac Arthur Airport
Terryville (SUNY Stony Brook)_
New Haven Union Station
_Meriden Station_
Hartford Union Station 
_Tolland (UConn)
Worcester HSR Station
Metro West HSR Station_
Back Bay Station
South Station


*Intercity Amtrak , Entire system will be Electrified Eventually 
*
*Max : 125mph : Average : 100mph
*
*Northeast Regional - Main line
*Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
Westerly (Limited)
Mystic (Limited)
New London
Old Saybrook (Limited)
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark 
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen 
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Woodbridge
Quantico 
Fredricksburg
Ashland
Richmond Staples Mill Road
Richmond Main Street
Williamsburg
Newport News

*Northeast Regional - Springfield Shuttle
*Springfield
_Windsor Locks (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
Windsor (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)_
Hartford
_Berlin (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
Meriden (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)
Wallingford (shifted to commuter rail in 2018)_
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport
Metropark
New Brunswick
Princeton JCT
Trenton
Cornwells Heights
North Philadelphia
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station

*Northeast Regional - Lynchburg Branch
*Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
Westerly 
Mystic
New London
Old Saybrook
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport
Metropark
New Brunswick
Princeton JCT
Trenton
Cornwells Heights
North Philadelphia
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Burke Centre
Manassas
Culpepper
Charlottesville
Lynchburg
_Roanoke
Bristol_

*Vermonter *
St. Albans
Burlington-Essex Junction
Waterbury-Stowe
Montpelier-Barre
Randolph
White River Junction
Windsor-Mt. Ascutney
Claremont
Bellows Falls
Brattleboro
_Greenfield
Northampton
Holyoke_
Springfield
Windsor Locks
Windsor
Hartford
Berlin
Meriden
Wallingford
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Metropark (weekends only)
Trenton
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station

*Keystone Service
*New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark 
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
_West Philadelphia_
Ardmore
Paoli
Exton
Downingtown
Coatesville
Parkersburg
_Atglen_
Lancaster 
Mount Joy
Elizabethtown
Middletown 
Harrisburg

*Pennsylvanian*
New York Penn Station
Newark Penn station
Trenton
30th Street Station
Ardmore (train 44 only)
Paoli
Exton (trains 42 & 44 only)
Downingtown (train 44 only)
Lancaster 
Mount Joy
Elizabethtown
Middletown 
Harrisburg
Lewistown
Huntingdon
Tyrone
Altoona
Johnstown
Latrobe
Greensburg
Pittsburgh

*Empire Service
*New York Penn station
Yonkers
Croton Harmon
Poughkeepsie
Rhinecliff-Kingston
Hudson
Albany-Rensselaer
Schenectady
Amsterdam
Utica
Rome
Syracuse 
Rochester
Buffalo-Depew
Buffalo-Exchange St.
Niagara Falls

*Downeaster Service
*Boston North Station
Woburn
Haverhill
Exeter
Durham
Dover
Wells
Saco-Biddeford
Old Orchard Beach
Portland
_Freeport
Brunswick_

*Proposed / Planned lines
*
*Lackawanna line
*New York Penn Station
Newark Board Street Station
Summit
Dover
_Delaware Water Gap
East Stroudsburg
Analomink
Pocono Mountain
Tobyhanna
Scranton
Binghamton_

*Cape Cod Service
*New York Penn station
New Rochelle
Stamford
Bridgeport
New Haven
New London
Westerly
Kingston
Providence
_Pawtucket
Taunton
Buzzards Bay
Barnstable_

*Norfolk Service (Opens DEC 2012)
*Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
New London
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark 
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen 
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Woodbridge
Quantico 
Fredricksburg
Ashland
Richmond Staples Mill Road
Richmond Main Street
_Chester
Petersburg
Suffolk
Norfolk_

*Lehigh Line
*New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
_Easton
Bethlehem
Allentown
Emmaus
Macungie
Lyons-Kutztown
Fleetwood
Reading
Wyomissing (Could be shifted to Regional Rail after Reading line restored)
Lebanon
Hershey
Harrisburg_

*Northwest Service 
*Harrisburg 
_New Cumberland
York
Riestertown 
Owing Mills_
Baltimore Penn Station


----------



## hmmwv

Nexis said:


> *California High Speed Rail Network
> *Size : 800+ Mi (1,300kms)
> Number of lines : 6
> Stations : 25+
> Projected Ridership : 95 Million a Year or 260,730 Daily
> Top Speed : 220mph (350Km/h)
> Cost : 68.5 Billion $
> 
> *Midwest High Speed Rail Network
> *Size : 700 Mi+ (1,296Kms)
> Stations : 76+ (Feeders factored in)
> Lines : 6+ with 7 Feeders
> Projected Ridership : 43 Million a year or 120,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
> Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
> Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
> Cost : 58 Billion $
> 
> *Northeastern High Speed Network
> *Size : 1940 Mi+ (3,592kms)
> Lines : 4+ with 6 Feeders
> Stations : 90+ (Feeders factored in)
> Projected Ridership : 127 Million a year or 350,000 daily (Feeders factored in)
> Top Speed on Trunk lines : 220mph (350Km/h)
> Top Speed on Secondary / Feeder lines : 125mph (201Km/h)
> Cost : 120 Billion $
> 
> *Taken from MWHSR , CAHSR and AMtrak Next gen sources*


What's the guesstimated time frame for those projects? I do find the cost estimation quite reasonable though.


BTW don't forget Thursday is national train day.


----------



## Nexis

hmmwv said:


> What's the guesstimated time frame for those projects? I do find the cost estimation quite reasonable though.
> 
> 
> BTW don't forget Thursday is national train day.


2050.....very reasonable time frame and NTD is the first Saturday in May.


----------



## hmmwv

Oops got the month wrong. I think 2050 is very reasonable, if the economy improves it may be completed even quicker.


----------



## Sunfuns

Anything further than 20-25 years in future is a pure speculation. I usually don't take it seriously. Too many things can and will change...


----------



## Nexis

*Secaucus JCT - MAS - 90mph / 2030 : 120mph
*


DSCN3672 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN3669 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr




*Rahway - MAS 135mph / 2030 : 190mph*


DSCN3711 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN3692 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN3690 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


DSCN3686 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

*Metuchen - MAS 135mph / 2030 : 200mph*


----------



## krnboy1009

Now I know NEC is a very busy passenger rail corridor, but 6 tracks seems a bit excessive. Have never seen more than 2 trains going side by side in one direction.


----------



## Nexis

krnboy1009 said:


> Now I know NEC is a very busy passenger rail corridor, but 6 tracks seems a bit excessive. Have never seen more than 2 trains going side by side in one direction.



During rush hr , you can see up to 4 trains heading in one direction or a 6 train meet... The 6 tracks there are for the North Jersey Coast line merge which is why theres a tunnel seen in one of the pictures.... The 6 track section runs from the Merge in Rahway to Elizabeth , then it goes down to 4 tracks....Amtrak wants it extended up to Newark Airport where it again grows to 6 tracks. Then in Newark its 6 Tracks till Penn Station , Penn Station has 8 tracks if you factor in the PATH and 12 tracks with the LRT....it will be increased to 18 tracks when the streetcar is added... Another 4th track from Newark Penn to Kearny JCT will be built later this decade and from Kearny JCT to Penn Station NY it will be 5-6 tracks by 2030 with 4 tracks running under the Hudson... From NY Penn station to CT it will be 3-5 tracks up from 2 tracks currently. Theres no need for extra tracks in PA , although the HSR plans call for flyovers to be built in North Philly to allow for 220mph service in the future , some sections in PA are up to 8 tracks.... The PRR really overbuilt there lines , there are some sections of the Keystone line that are 9 tracks , but only 4 in use although 2 more will come back online. They did seem to leave alot of room for future yards... Amtrak , NJT and Septa are eyeing 14 massive sites that used to be 5-9 track raceways for future yards... This will allow them to sell there current yards for redevelopment space and build brand new state of the art yards.... Amtrak needs 4 more yards for all the future expansions and HSR equipment , NJT needs 25 with all the new expansions...a few will be built along the corridor and Septa needs 6 since it will sell its center city yard...


----------



## krnboy1009

Failed to note that other branches of NJT commuter rail goes through that part of the NEC and diverge somewhere south. And rush hour part.

Have never really ridden NJT or Amtrak during rush hour.


----------



## bagus70

What is currently the maximum speed of Acela (in metric)? And is there any plan to extend or its network, or introduce high speed service on west coast?


----------



## Sopomon

bagus70 said:


> What is currently the maximum speed of Acela (in metric)? And is there any plan to extend or its network, or introduce high speed service on west coast?


About 240 km/h.

There are some really early stage proposals to upgrade the NEC, but I don't think the Acela's route will be lengthened.

California HSR is supposed to be groundbreaking in the next couple of years.


----------



## writing90

All Images very nice.I love them.
__________________
Halong bay tours*Bien Ngoc cruise*Birmingham hotels best rates


----------



## Nexis

Sopomon said:


> About 240 km/h.
> 
> There are some really early stage proposals to upgrade the NEC, but I don't think the Acela's route will be lengthened.
> 
> California HSR is supposed to be groundbreaking in the next couple of years.


The Next Gen NEC will add 260 miles by 2050....which means the Acela or Next Gen Acela will have a longer route...and faster up to 220mph....in New England on its own ROW and 180-200mph along the upgraded NEC.


----------



## Sopomon

Nexis said:


> The Next Gen NEC will add 260 miles by 2050....which means the Acela or Next Gen Acela will have a longer route...and faster up to 220mph....in New England on its own ROW and 180-200mph along the upgraded NEC.


If that ever gets approved by congress. The politicking over HSR and rail projects in general is immensely frustrating.


----------



## hmmwv

Nexis said:


> The Next Gen NEC will add 260 miles by 2050....which means the Acela or Next Gen Acela will have a longer route...and faster up to 220mph....in New England on its own ROW and 180-200mph along the upgraded NEC.


That would be so nice, having ridden 220mph trains several times and I have to say you can really tell the difference between that and a regular 125mph train.


----------



## Nexis

Sopomon said:


> If that ever gets approved by congress. The politicking over HSR and rail projects in general is immensely frustrating.



The goal is 2050 , so i do see it getting built....


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *Administration Unveils High-Speed Rail-Car Push*
> April 20, 2012, 11:21 p.m. ET
> 
> The U.S. government on Friday unveiled a fresh effort to kick-start its high-speed railroad project, unveiling a proposal to fund and build new passenger cars for the states that are progressing with the project.
> 
> The Department of Transportation said it was looking to buy around 130 new rail cars that would be operated in up to seven states that have signed up to pursue high-speed rail lines run by government-owned rail operator Amtrak, with two-thirds of them used in the Midwest and the rest in California.
> 
> The department plans to award the $551 million rail-car contract in October—initial bids are due next month—stipulating that all assembly, parts and materials have to be made in the U.S. . . . .


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702303513404577356291109492930.html?mod=ITP_pageone_2


----------



## aquaticko

Nexis said:


> The goal is 2050 , so i do see it getting built....


The goal is 2050 assuming it starts within the next few years. Much though I want it to happen, and it needs to/should, I've not got my hopes up.


----------



## Nexis

aquaticko said:


> The goal is 2050 assuming it starts within the next few years. Much though I want it to happen, and it needs to/should, I've not got my hopes up.


Amtrak has it in Phases , the big stuff won't get built intill the late 2030s-2040s...but the small Capacity and Current NEC upgrades should be done by 2030. The 2030 Plans shave off an hour between Boston and DC , the Next Gen plan reduces that to just 2 and a half hours. Alot of Northeastern Rail expansions have a goal of 2030 for the Major routes and the system have been prepping for that with capacity and system upgrades... The 2030 plans are easy to do , and are around the NYC region , and Baltimore...


----------



## webeagle12

aquaticko said:


> The goal is 2050 assuming it starts within the next few years. Much though I want it to happen, and it needs to/should, I've not got my hopes up.


add another 150 years of lawsuits....


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *High-speed rail sets Valley route, gets $1 billion offer*
> By Tim Sheehan - The Fresno Bee
> Friday, May. 04, 2012 | 12:32 AM
> 
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority took a key step toward developing its proposed passenger-train system Thursday, certifying environmental reports and formally approving the first portion of the line between Merced and Fresno.
> 
> Skeptics remain even as the authority pushes forward on building as soon as this year. But Thursday, a new booster stepped forward -- Madera real-estate developer Ed McIntyre, who said that he and partners are ready to spend $1 billion developing a maintenance yard and more if the authority puts it on their property in Madera.
> 
> McIntyre told the board before its vote that his group believes high-speed rail pencils out as a money-maker. In his group's case, he said, they're certain they can secure financing and recoup their investment through a lease-buy deal with the authority.
> 
> Thursday's votes at the authority's board meeting in Fresno locks in the route choice -- a hybrid line that follows portions of two different rail lines through the San Joaquin Valley -- and clears the way for the authority to award construction contracts after bids are received later this year.
> 
> It also allows the agency to start negotiating with property owners along the route for buying rights of way and determining other types of compensation for potential losses . . . .
> 
> The federal government has pledged about $3.3 billion to California to start building a 120-mile stretch from Madera to Bakersfield -- part of the 520-mile system that would connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. But that money depends on the state putting up $2.7 billion from Proposition 1A, a bond measure approved by voters in 2008.
> 
> "If the Legislature doesn't authorize the issuance of $2.7 billion, we have more than a casual difficulty in how to move the project forward because it puts in jeopardy the money from the feds," Richards said Thursday . . . .


Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/05/03/2823680/hsr-board-sets-valley-route.html#storylink=cpy


----------



## Heludin

When I was in California there was much especulation about the funds and all that is required to make it happen, but it was only that................China already beat us on that.


----------



## aquaticko

Just considering the sheer momentum behind the project at this moment, California seems the most likely to happen out of all the genuine HSR projects in the U.S., though that probably says more about how ridiculously hard it's been to progress than anything else.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

aquaticko said:


> Just considering the sheer momentum behind the project at this moment, California seems the most likely to happen out of all the genuine HSR projects in the U.S., though that probably says more about how ridiculously hard it's been to progress than anything else.


This is really going to be up to the Central Valley folks described in the article. That is the heart of Republican California and if it is to be blocked, they'd be doing it. That's why, I think, they are to be the first to see dirt fly even though some mock it as the "railroad to nowhere." So I'm glad to see it has some enthusiastic support out there.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ How dynamic of an economic center is Chowchilla (how is that even pronounced lol)? I know Fresno is a fast decaying area, though it has an university.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Chowchilla is the proposed area for a junction, which with high speed rail takes up some space. I would think the size its economy is a minor consideration.



> I know Fresno is a fast decaying area,


http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2011/Fresno.pdf


----------



## desertpunk

Dallas Star found some hopeful news:



> *$10 Billion Bullet Train on Track in Texas*
> Thursday, 10 May 2012 09:46 AM
> 
> By Robert Engler
> 
> An international investment group plans to put up $10 billion to build a 220-mph bullet train connecting Dallas and Houston, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
> 
> The investors, led by Central Japan Railway Co., say they will not seek any state or federal funds to operate the high-speed rail line, which could be running by 2020, the Star-Telegram reported Wednesday.
> 
> Instead, the group plans to recover its investment through rider fares, which would be competitive with the cost of air travel between the two cities.
> “It is a highly capital-intensive project, but we believe it is commercially viable,” said former Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, one of several Texans in the group and president of Texas Central Railway, a Japanese-U.S. partnership.
> 
> The Dallas-to-Houston, high-speed line would be the first in the United States capable of the triple-digit speeds that trains in Europe and Asia reach.
> Amtrak’s Acela, the fastest passenger train in the United States, reaches a maximum speed of 68 mph on its route between New York City and Washington, D.C.


http://www.newsmax.com/US/rail-high-speed-texas/2012/05/10/id/438609


----------



## webeagle12

desertpunk said:


> Dallas Star found some hopeful news:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newsmax.com/US/rail-high-speed-texas/2012/05/10/id/438609


Lawsuits coming in 5 4 3.....


----------



## yankeesfan1000

Nexis said:


> Well the Midwest plan calls for lines to operate next to existing Commuter or Heavy Rail or Freight lines usually with a buffer but never shared even in Chicago. The Tracks would be separate , the New Union Station will be various levels for HSR , Subways , Busway , and Taxis all underground. The lines that are being upgraded now are considered the feeder network for the trunk lines. I'm not sure if these feeder corridors will all be Amtrak operated , some will , but some will be state operated.


I think you're probably the best person to ask about this. But the first phases of the Northeast plan call for just upgrading existing tracks correct?

Assuming that that is true, when do you think we'll see a HSR network in the Northeast that's built from the ground up to be true HSR? So a separate track for 150-200+ mph whatever the speed is.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Does anyone have news about the California HSR? I googled a lot but the topic seams to have been taken over by articles either talking only theoretically about it or articles only trying to bash it ...

I would like to know if they are already doing anything concrete. Do they already have bought land? The original construction start prediction was september 2012, and that's coming close ... so they should already have bought the land and be in contact with construction companies... any idea which ones will that be?


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ The CA State Assembly is going to vote it soon, I think.

And by "construction start" it means "putting contracts out", but that is usually a quick process in US.


----------



## Don31

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The CA State Assembly is going to vote it soon, I think.
> 
> And by "construction start" it means "putting contracts out", but that is usually a quick process in US.


From the time the RFP is issued untill a contract is signed is typically about 4 or 5 months, depending on the job's complexity.


----------



## Nexis

yankeesfan1000 said:


> I think you're probably the best person to ask about this. But the first phases of the Northeast plan call for just upgrading existing tracks correct?
> 
> Assuming that that is true, when do you think we'll see a HSR network in the Northeast that's built from the ground up to be true HSR? So a separate track for 150-200+ mph whatever the speed is.



First upgrading the tracks and wires which is mostly done , except parts of PA , NJ , DE and MD. Then the signals.....and then some projects like the Gateway Project and Baltimore Tunnel replacement which should be done by 2025....

Then private should come in build the New England NEC which is still disputed...and badly planned in that it bypasses UCONN & Worcester and heads for a small town called Woonsocket then merges into the overcapacity Providence line. What many people think it should do and Amtrak studied this it was cheaper to go this route but RI complained of being left out so they threw in Woonsocket. In truth Rhode Island gets an upgraded Shoreline NEC and a regional rail network which by 2030 would reach Worcester so its not like there left out... Hopefully they change there minds on the New England segment , the Worcester / MetroWest alignment is cheaper since it rides the Interstate Median or ROW except a 15 mi section were it curves...from I-84 to I-90. Worcester is one of the largest cities in New England and deserves more then the planned Mini HSR that would run between Albany and Boston with connections to New Haven via Springfield. The New England NEC will be completely Train separated between Mount Vernon ,NY and just near Boston , about 240 miles....from GCT to Mount Vernon it would share 4 - 6 tracks with Metro North and from Framingham to Boston 3-5 MBTA Commuter Rail tracks... The New NEC operating on its own tracks will hit 220mph+. The route mainly runs next to Interstates the entire way , I-684 , I-84 , I-90....

Now for the Southern NEC , Amtrak plans on building a New HSR track next to the Existing NEC , how this will be possible in NJ idk know. PA , DE , MD are easily...decent amount of room. In NJ there are sections where the NEC is 6 tracks that can easily be extended , its mostly 4 tracks...the Problem areas are from Rahway to New Brunswick where its 4 tracks and no room to Expand. From New Brunswick to Philly you can add or reactivate the abandoned tracks to create a 6 track segment. And From Linden to Newark with some minor improvements like Straightening the NEC at Elizabeth and extending the 6 tracks from Linden to Newark would although for 180mph speeds... So from Philly to Newark Trains would be going 160-180mph..... In Newark trains would slow to 90mph , and curse through the station which is unlikely. A Newark Bypass between the Airport and Portal Bridge would allow Trains to bypass at 130mph at least to the Portal Bridge were it would drop to 100mph to NYC. The Existing NEC in Newark will be grade separated where the Raritan Valley line Merges with the NEC to allow inbound trains to cross over 5 tracks without causing a bottleneck and this with allow for more Western NJT trains and future Amtrak Lehigh trains to be added without causing a bottleneck. From Newark to Kearny the NEC will be 5 tracked , Amtrak getting 2 tracks and NJT 3 tracks. Kearny JCT / Waterfront Connection will be replaced allowing Amtrak to sail through without dealing with NJT , NJT would get 4 Flyovers to connect the Hoboken Network to the NEC instead of the 1 ramp it has now and 2 replaced ramps to connect to the NEC Portal Approach...from the Morristown line and add a switch for Future Kingsland Branch service. Amtrak would merge with the Newark Bypass HSL just north of Kearny JCT.. The Portal Bridges would be replaced with 2 bridges one 3 track bridge for NJT and 2 tracks for Amtrak. The New Tunnels would have a max speed limit of 90-100mph....

From NY Penn Station there would be an underground interchange built most likely grade separated to allow the New NEC to break off and head North to GCT while the existing NEC would head east to Long Island. The New Interchange would be attached to the end of New Penn Station South... Heading East the NEC would exit the East River in Sunnyside , and would be Train separated from the Long Island Railroad and NJT by using New Tracks and a Interchange Under Construction. Metro North would share tracks with them as part of Hell Gate service... From Harold Interlocking to the Hell Gate Bridge the line would be 3 tracked , and Constant Tension Catenary put in to allow speeds up to 125mph...which is underway as we speak end of decade target goal for the whole Hell Gate line upgrade. From the Hell Gate Bridge to New Rochelle JCT , the line would be overhauled , and upgraded to 125mph....Constant Tension , 4 tracked , and 4-7 stations restored as part of Metro North's Hell Gate line. New Rochelle Interlocks will be grade separated to allow Amtrak to sail through @ 125mph without dealing with slow New Haven line trains. From New Rochelle to Norwalk the Wires are almost done being replaced along with Tracks to handle up to 125mph... The Danbury line will have to grade separated to reduce Congestion and allow for the MNRR to add more trains to that Branch. Several Bridges in CT will need to be replaced at the expensive of CT who owns this part of the NEC and by 2030...2 are being replaced although there in Eastern CT along the new NEC... In Bridgeport the Curves need to be Straightened to allow trains to maintain 125mph....current limit is 80mph. From Just East of Bridgeport to New Haven a 4th and 5th track are being re-installed to add capacity... There are plans to create a 4 track section from New Haven Union Station to Springfield line or Knowledge corridor Interchange to free up Capacity although for faster trains.

From Trenton to Philly the NEC will be 6 tracked continuing south from Newark. There is room for 6 tracking in alot of places....the original NEC was 6 to 10 tracks in parts PA and the feeder lines were the same. PA was like Chicagoland when it came to Rail... From Trenton to North Philly the NEC will be 6 tracked , at North Philly near the area where NJT AC line meets the New NEC will split and enter a 19 mile long Tunnel under Philly , with 2 stations one being Market East in the Heart of Philly and the Next would be Philly Airport. Both would be connected to the Regional Rail , Trolley and Subway network in Philly... After the Airport the New NEC would merge back into the NEC and 6 tracking would continue south to just north of Wilmington where it would break off and bypass Wilmington with a Wilmington South station in the Industrial area or future New Downtown. The Reason bypassing Wilmington is it sits on a S curve that limits speed to 70mph....and its only double tracked with very little wiggle room. After the Wilmington Station the line would merge back into the NEC , and from there to MD the NEC would be 6 tracked. A Grade Separation is needed near Newark,DE to allow future Amtrak Downstate service to Ocean City to cross over the NEC. A Loop track is also needed in Newark to allow Septa and Future MARC trains to turn around without disrupting the NEC. Same will be needed for Septa in Trenton. 

Once in MD , 2 Bridges will need to be 5 tracked and replaced , 3 tracks for Regional service and MARC and 2 tracks for Amtrak. The MD part of the NEC only needs to be 5 tracked due to less Traffic. When the NEC reaches East Baltimore the New NEC will split and enter a Tunnel which will continue under Baltimore stopping at Charles Center or Downtown Baltimore with connections to Subway , Light Rail and Future streetcar along Bus.... The Existing NEC will be overhauled and the Baltimore Tunnels replaced to speed up service and add capacity... A Grade Separated Interchange will be built just South of Baltimore Penn Station to allow future Warminster MARC service and Amtrak Northwest service to enter and exit the NEC smoothly... The New NEC would emerge in West Baltimore and Merge back into the Existing NEC which would be 5 tracked down to DC. 2 Center Tracks for HSR only , the rest for Amtrak and MARC...the speed limit would be 160-180mph...

*Thats just the Trunk line NEC....I will explain on detail the feeders...and regional rail trunks which all play a role in the NEC.*


----------



## Cal_Escapee

^^The "Northeast Megalopolis" is 400 miles or so long (Boston to DC), just about the same as the San Diego to San Francisco "megalopolis" would be (with 60.4 million people) if they considered it such. Instead they separate it into Northern and Southern CA. When it comes to HSR, since the whole point is to link the 2 urban parts of the state as one, looking at east and west coast (and Great Lakes) magalopoli would make more sense.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

sekelsenmat said:


> Does anyone have news about the California HSR? I googled a lot but the topic seams to have been taken over by articles either talking only theoretically about it or articles only trying to bash it ...
> 
> I would like to know if they are already doing anything concrete. Do they already have bought land? The original construction start prediction was september 2012, and that's coming close ... so they should already have bought the land and be in contact with construction companies... any idea which ones will that be?


The best place to keep up, day to day, with this is http://www.cahsrblog.com/

According to them, the legislature should take up the HSR funding shortly since they finalized the budget yesterday (still has to be voted on next week, though).

The route is finalized and they could be pouring concrete in the Central Valley within months if the legislature releases the money (the $10 billion bond money approved by voters). A recent change was to run HSR on existing tracks in some dense urban areas like between san Francisco and San Jose. In that corridor, CalTrain will be electrified and there may be other upgrades like eliminating some grade crossings but there's no need to acquire new land.


----------



## Don31

Nexis said:


> And From Linden to Newark with some minor improvements like Straightening the NEC at Elizabeth and extending the 6 tracks from Linden to Newark


Those are not minor improvements, they're pretty major actually.

I agree with alot of what your saying here, but just because its on Amtrak's wish list doesn't mean its gonna happen.


----------



## XAN_

Well, isn't 6 tracks sounds **** an overkill to me? I don't really know the local circumstances, but even busiest european coridors are mosttly not wider than 4 track.


----------



## Nexis

Don31 said:


> Those are not minor improvements, they're pretty major actually.
> 
> I agree with alot of what your saying here, but just because its on Amtrak's wish list doesn't mean its gonna happen.


Thats minor , CT is doing and so is PA for around 80-100 Million $... that's feasible...


----------



## Nexis

XAN_ said:


> Well, isn't 6 tracks sounds **** an overkill to me? I don't really know the local circumstances, but even busiest european coridors are mosttly not wider than 4 track.


2 for True High Speed Rail , 2 for Regional Express and 2 for Commuter Rail....HSR would be built along side the NEC somehow...


----------



## makita09

phoenixboi08 said:


> My point was/is solely: there was no [decreasing] interest in rail = no investment in rail. Rail is more attractive now (over the last 15-20 years) = more investment and interest going forward.
> 
> If China had industrialized 200+ years ago, they would not have been investing heavily in rail, it would have been highways and other projects. That was the only point I ever tried to make: the comparison is a little non-nonsensical; it's not so much a difference in priorities as it is a difference of contexts.
> 
> And the data I've seen always shows a sharp decline in investment in infrastructure over time, as saturation occurs (you can only build so many highways, bridges, dams, power grids, etc). That trends can be reversed - i.e. you can increase spending - but eventually will peak again as you complete goals/initiatives/upgrades/etc. You don't just spend infinitely on this stuff...


I still don't see a coherent point, sorry.


----------



## sekelsenmat

phoenixboi08 said:


> If China had industrialized 200+ years ago, they would not have been investing heavily in rail, it would have been highways and other projects. That was the only point I ever tried to make: the comparison is a little non-nonsensical; it's not so much a difference in priorities as it is a difference of contexts.


I don't think so as England which started the industrialization invests a lot in rail.



> And the data I've seen always shows a sharp decline in investment in infrastructure over time, as saturation occurs (you can only build so many highways, bridges, dams, power grids, etc). That trends can be reversed - i.e. you can increase spending - but eventually will peak again as you complete goals/initiatives/upgrades/etc. You don't just spend infinitely on this stuff...


This is wrong, it is only valid if the country invested in the infrastructure through irresponsable and unsustainable debt, like Portugal, Greece, etc. Then after some time there is no money to build new things as the country is over-invested and existing infra-structure cannot pay for itself. Portugal has too many highways for example.

If the country did it's homework well, the investment in infra-structure will at least remain at the same % of the GDP, which means it will grow at the same rate as the GDP grows.

Please read here: http://www.erf.be/images/stories/Statistics/2011/ERF-2011-STATS.pdf

4.1 Investment in inland transport infrastructure 1995-2009
as a percentage of GDP, at current prices

The transport investment for the developed europe stayed at the same 0,8% of GDP, which means it grew a lot, since the GDP grew a lot.

In eastern europe it grew to 2% of the GDP. Only in USA it is very small and in Japan it decreesed (but it was very high before, so it just going back to a more normal level)


----------



## Nexis

*Northeastern Regional / Intercity Rail Network*


The New Haven - Springfield - Brattleboro Corridor is being upgraded to handle speeds of 125mph and will be completely double tracked from New Haven to Vermont which is about 119.08 Miles. The line will stay Diesel for now , but room will be left to Electrify in the future. The Upgrade will also reroute the Vermonter onto a New Route adding 4 new stations and shaving 45-70mins... The line will be rebranded as the Knowledge Corridor and run 10-12 round trip trains between DC/NY to Brattleboro and Interior Vermont. Hartford Union Station could be moved when I-84 is rebuilt as a Tunnel or covered through Downtown Hartford. If this were to happen the station would get 2 Island Platform's and 4 Tracks which would service Boston - NY HSR Trains and Knowledge Corridor trains. Springfield Station would also be rebuilt , although there isn't enough funding to do the master plan yet. New Haven Union Station would receive a European style shield above the platform area. The Projected Ridership for the Commuter and Intercity Rail by 2030 is 64,700....I think that warrants Electrification...which is only expected to cost 150 Million more onto of the 270 Million cost of Upgrading this feeder line. 

The Downeaster is being extended 2 stations in Maine , with Maine launching studies to extend it as far North as Bangor. This line will also be upgraded and more sidings added to allow speeds up to 125mph south of Old Orchard Beach via Electrified trains in Push-Pull set. There is no target date for the Speed Increasing projects although the first Extensions to Brunswick,ME should in the Fall of this year. The line will enhancements and Future Commuter Rail and Streetcar feeders in Portland and Massachusetts will see between 6,800 people a day by 2030. 

Hudson Valley Empire Service , Will be upgraded to support Speeds of at least 110-125mph , from Schenectady to New York Penn Station. All of the 159 miles between Schenectady and NY will be double tracked and concrete tracks laid to handle the increased speeds. All Stations will receive High Level Platforms and a New Station hall , Schenectady , Hudson & Rhinecliff–Kingston will be upgraded by 2025. A Swing Bridge between Manhattan and The Bronx will have to be replaced to handle all extra trains. New Equipment is being looked into for the faster service whether that is DMUs or the line is Electrified and its push-pulls that haul passengers up and down the line. Projected Ridership with Enhancements and including Hudson line riders by 2030 will be 95,300. 

Lackawanna line will run from NewYork Penn or Hoboken Terminal to Binghamton about 195 miles. With 14 stations , a key part of line which will reconnect it to PA is under Construction. Phase 1 will open by 2013 , Phase 2 into PA could be completed by 2019 depending on funding. Once in PA , 70 miles of second track will need to be restored and space made for future Electrification... The Commuter Rail portion will run from New York Penn or Hoboken to Analomink,PA. Amtrak would pick up the rest of the 7 stations which are further apart and in less populated areas to support commuter rail.... The Top speed of this line even with upgrades would be 90mph... The Cost of this line is expected to be between 500-800 Million $ , most of which is the cost of restoring 2 Long viaducts in NJ to handle trains once again. Projected Ridership of the Lackawanna Intercity and Commuter Rail services by 2030 is expected to be 35,600. This line would connect the popular Pocono Ski Resorts and Gateway Parks of the NYC region.... Seeing how this line was dead a few years and all the sudden is under construction gives me hope for other lines.

Lehigh line would run from New York Penn or Hoboken Terminal to Harrisburg via Allentown and Reading,PA. This line would be 168 miles long , and have 11 stations. Of the 168 miles , 70 miles needs double tracking to allow Amtrak , Commuter rail and Freight to all move smoothly...and in some areas of NJ 4 tracking is needed. This line would be Diesel....and have a top speed of 110mph. The Commuter Rail portion of the route would be operated by NJT and is an Extension of Raritan Valley line from High Bridge,NJ to Allentown,PA. The Lehigh Service would connect over 9 Colleges and Universities , Service a population of 1.5 Million and link together numerous Tourist traps between Harrisburg and NY/Hoboken. Projected Ridership for the Intercity & Commuter Rail services is expected to be 54,900. In Reading the line would connect to the future Reading line for Service south to Norristown and Philly and in Harrisburg to numerous Commuter rail lines to Lancaster , York and Carlisle,PA.

Keystone Corridors runs between Philadelphia and Harrisburg , its 104 miles long with 20 stations. 8 stations will be replaced or upgraded to include high level platforms , heated and A/C waiting area and some stations will have cafes and other leased space. The Wires along the Keystone line will be replaced by 2020 with constant tension to allow speeds up 125mph. 3 Grade Crossings will be separated later this decade. From Lancaster to Harrisburg a new Commuter Rail service will share the tracks which plans call for 2 tracks to be restored in some areas to allow for Amtrak and Commuter Rail service to pass by without any issues. Another station will be added between the 26 mi gap between Parkersburg and Lancaster to service the Amish Country which is a huge Tourism trap in that part of PA. Another Station is being considered in West Philadelphia and would have Trolley / Tram Connections. Commuter Rail Service which runs from Philadelphia to Thorndale,PA will be restored to Parkersburg when the New Switches to allow train turning is put in. A New Amtrak and Septa yard will be built in Thorndale in a former Freight yard. Downingtown will see its station move 400 ft to the East and the US 30 Underpass replaced to allow trucks and buses under. The New Station will have a Bus Terminal , Waiting Areas , and High Level platforms. In Philadelphia a Flyover that carries commuter rail service will have to replaced along with upgrades to the Zoo Interchange to allow trains to move faster and without conflicting... All Sub Stations will also be replaced , half of the keystone Corridor is already upgraded. Projected Ridership combining the Intercity and Commuter Rail Services is expected to be 110,000 by 2030.

Downstate Corridor service would run from New York Penn Station to Ocean City,MD , this line would be 122 miles along mostly straight track which would be replaced. This service would 12 stations. Trains would run up to 125mph on this corridor and connect the high population areas to the popular Coastal Gateway areas of Delaware and Maryland... There would be no commuter service on this line just Intercity Rail service. The line would merge onto the NEC in Newark,DE and service other cities and towns in Northern Delaware like Churchman's crossing , Wilmington and Claymont before heading to Philadelphia , Trenton , Newark and New York. Projected Ridership of this line would be 9,400 with seasonal ups and downs.

Northwest line will run for 86 miles between Baltimore and Harrisburg and have 8 stations. The line would service the I-83 corridor and the numerous historic sites and towns in between. The line would also connect into MARC service in Baltimore and with Commuter Rail service in Harrisburg and York. The line would have a top speed of 90mph and could be Diesel or Electric... Projected Ridership on this line combined with future commuter Rail ridership would be 13,000.

Virginia Regional Service , will be Upgraded to Speeds of 125mph and Electrified. The System will one day cover all of Virginia with 610 miles of track , with 10-15 round trips per day along the Main Trunk between DC and Richmond. Richmond to Newport News and Norfolk will see between 10-12 trains a day when the full build is completed. Richmond to Norfolk service is expected to start in December. Regional Service will be extended sometime later this decade from Lynchburg to Roanoke,VA. And all stations will be High level platformed to allow faster boarding and ADA accessibility... The Network currently connects various cities and towns in Virginia and is expected to grow to 120,800 daily riders by 2030 factoring Commuter Rail in Northern Virginia and Norfolk which will be running by then along the Norfolk branch. 

*Misc Northeastern system upgrades and mini projects to be done by 2030
*

-All Substations to be replaced 
-Voltage on the entire Northeastern network to be brought up to 25 kV AC ,60 Hz
-Newark Penn Station Roof , Platform replacement
-Newark Penn Station platform extension to accomendate 22 cars
-European Style Train shield to cover the Platforms at New Haven Union Station 
-South Station 5 Track Expansion and Train Shield
-Baltimore Penn Station Platform and train shield replacement 
-All Lower Empire Service stations to be High Level platformed and expanded
-All Downeaster Corridors stations to be High Level platformed and expanded
-Downingtown Station will be moved to make way for a redevelopment and replaced
-Coatesville Station will be replaced as part of the long term Coatesville Plans
-Parkersburg Station will be upgraded to ADA compliance and expanded to handle Septa Service
-All Keystone Service stations will be high level platformed and expanded
-The Beast or Dock Bridges repainting
-New LED Signals to the Entire Northeastern Network
-50 New Acela Cars
-70 New Cities Sprinter Locomotives to replace HHP-8 and AME7 locos operating along the NEC and Keystone corridors
-60 New Amfleet cars for Regional Service not including the New cars for the new feeder lines
-Constant Catenary along the Keystone Corridor
-High Level Platforms to all Septa Stations along Amtrak corridors
-High Level Platforms to all MBTA Stations along Amtrak corridors
-High Level Platforms to all MARC Stations along Amtrak Corridors


----------



## phoenixboi08

makita09 said:


> I still don't see a coherent point, sorry.


Rail wasn't as attractive.

You invest in infrastructure because there's demand for it. Once you build it, that demand goes down, so investment goes down until that demand 1) increases again or 2) moves to something else. It doesn't just infinitely increase...


----------



## sekelsenmat

phoenixboi08 said:


> You invest in infrastructure because there's demand for it. Once you build it, that demand goes down, so investment goes down until that demand 1) increases again or 2) moves to something else. It doesn't just infinitely increase...


This is a vague and general statement which doesn't even account to many things like demand induced by offer and modal shift. But let's stick to the topic of the thread: Would there be demand for HSR in the United States in the proposed routes? I think that the answer is a resounding yes.


----------



## Suburbanist

It is hard to talk of demand upon service offer if one ignores the costs of the potential service.

Of course if Amtrak put a train tomorrow even at Acela current speeds costing $ 9.95 for a Boston-Washington trip it would be full all day long. But that is not financially sustainable...


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> It is hard to talk of demand upon service offer if one ignores the costs of the potential service.
> 
> Of course if Amtrak put a train tomorrow even at Acela current speeds costing $ 9.95 for a Boston-Washington trip it would be full all day long. But that is not financially sustainable...



With the amount of people who would quickly jump at that fare from the Airlines and Cars it would become profitable.. But non of those services will even have fares below 15$....and of course HSR / Feeder is for long distance commuting , commuter rail covers the rest. Most Services that operate in the Northeast via Amtrak are funded by the states and amount to 2-5% of the annual transportation budget and there the only thing that generates a cash flow. Were talking about budgets between 1-3 Billion for mostly roads and maybe 150 Million for Rail. Its not a fair budget and yet Rail still brings in more $$$. But then again who said the fares for the New Acela would even drop ? You seem to go off in all sorts of weird directions. The Revenue that the Final Network will generate is estimated to be 4.5 Billion a year.... * Its amazing you never bring up these issues when it comes to roads , but when its Rail its always has to operate on profit or else it shouldn't be built... You sir are a hypocrite... *


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> With the amount of people who would quickly jump at that fare from the Airlines and Cars it would become profitable..


I doubt the marginal costs per passenger would be so low as $9 per one-way Boston-Washington trip. Impossible.



> But then again who said the fares for the New Acela would even drop ? You seem to go off in all sorts of weird directions.


I didn't say. I was making the general case that you can't talk about demand for new transportation infrastructure without factoring in the costs. Whatever the mode (rail, road, air).



> * Its amazing you never bring up these issues when it comes to roads , but when its Rail its always has to operate on profit or else it shouldn't be built... You sir are a hypocrite... *


Well, I could make the case but cars already pay their way. I mean: cars are private and owners pay insurance, gas and lease/loan.

To make a proper comparison we must separate the infrastructure from the vehicles.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> I doubt the marginal costs per passenger would be so low as $9 per one-way Boston-Washington trip. Impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say. I was making the general case that you can't talk about demand for new transportation infrastructure without factoring in the costs. Whatever the mode (rail, road, air).
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I could make the case but cars already pay their way. I mean: cars are private and owners pay insurance, gas and lease/loan.
> 
> To make a proper comparison we must separate the infrastructure from the vehicles.


All those projects have been deemed feasible and are under 400 Million $$ which in many cases the Highways next to them receive billions for widenings and expansions. The Cost between Boston and NY will be between 180-200$ depending on class...other routes will go between 15-100$. Gas Taxes do not cover half the costs of roads in this country , while Rail often covers half of the costs....amazing isn't it.... When building new Rail lines , they often use the Economy growth and spin off to deem if its feasible or not and all of those projects have been deemed feasible and have alot of local and regional support.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Suburbanist said:


> To make a proper comparison we must separate the infrastructure from the vehicles.


Very well. Let's tear up ALL the highways and roads and see how cars perform. (Hint: Unless you're driving a gas-guzzling off-road vehicle, it's not going to be pretty.)

The thing is, vehicles ARE tied to infrastructure. Nowhere in other parts of the world are cars so universally endorsed as the USA. In Taiwan, while there is good road infrastructure, it's impossible to cram all 20 million who live on the island onto them. I just don't see how a country of 300 million with a deficit of $16 trillion upwards could afford to do the same.


----------



## Nexis

*The Enhanced Station by Station guide...for Feeder lines 80-125mph
*
*Eastern Pennsylvania Network 
*
*Keystone Service
*New York Penn Station < Connections to 1,2,3 & A,C,E Subways , LIRR Amtrak, and NJT >
Newark Penn Station < Connections to Amtrak Services ,PATH , Taxis , Intercity Buses , Newark Light Rail , NJT Raritan Valley line , North Jersey Coast line and Northeast Corridor : Future , MOM Rail Network , West Trenton line and Western Jersey Rail Network >
Metropark < Connections to NJT Northeast Corridor , Bus and Taxis service >
New Brunswick (Late Night) < Connections to NJT Northeast Corridor , Bus and Taxis service >
Princeton JCT (Late Night)< Connections to NJT Northeast Corridor , Bus and Taxis service >
Trenton Transit Center < Connections to Amtrak Services , RiverLINE Light Rail ,NJT Northeast Corridor , Taxis and Buses >
Cornwall Heights < Connections to Septa Trenton line >
North Philadelphia < Connections to Septa Broad Street Subway , Chestnut Hill West line and Trenton line> 
Philadelphia 30th Street Station < Connections to all Septa Regional Rail & Amtrak, Market-Frankford EL , Trolleys (Trams) , Bus and Taxis service >
Proposed : West Philadelphia < Connections to Septa Thorndale line , 36 Trolley (Tram) and Buses >
Ardmore < Connections to Septa Thorndale line and Bus Service
Paoli < Connections to Septa Thorndale line and Bus service , Future : Greenline Light Rail >
Exton < Connections to Septa Thorndale line and Septa Bus Service >
Downingtown < Connections to Septa Thorndale line and Local Bus Service >
Coatesville < Connections to Future , Septa Parkersburg / Thorndale line >
Parkersburg < Connections to Future , Septa Parkersburg / Thorndale line>
Proposed : Atglen Station
Lancaster < Connections to Red Rose Transit and Taxis , Future : Lancaster Streetcar network , Corridor One Commuter Rail >
Mount Joy < Connections to Red Rose Transit : Future , Corridor One Commuter Rail > 
Elizabethtown < Connections to Red Rose Transit : Future , Corridor One Commuter Rail >
Middletown < Connections to CAT Buses , Future : Corridor One Commuter Rail)
Harrisburg < Connections to Amtrak Pennsyviana , CAT Transit , and Taxis , Future : Harrisburg Streetcar , Corridor One Commuter Rail , York & Carlisle Commuter Rail lines , Amtrak Lehigh and Northwest Service >

*Lehigh Service 
*Hoboken Terminal < Connections to NJT Regional Rail , Hudson Bergen Light Rail , PATH and Ferries >
Newark Penn Station < Connections to Amtrak Services ,PATH , Taxis , Intercity Buses , Newark Light Rail , NJT Raritan Valley line , North Jersey Coast line and Northeast Corridor : Future , MOM Rail Network , West Trenton line and Western Jersey Rail Network >
Proposed : Easton < Connections to LANTA Buses >
Proposed : Bethlehem < Connections to LANTA Buses >
Proposed : Allentown < Connections to LANTA Buses , Future : Allentown BRT and LRT network >
Proposed : Emmaus 
Proposed : Macungie
Proposed : Lyons-Kutztown University 
Proposed : Reading < Connections to BARTA Buses , Future : Septa Reading line and Reading Streetcar network > 
West Wyomissing < Connections to BARTA Buses , Future : Septa Reading line and Reading Streetcar network >
Proposed : Lebanon 
Proposed : Hershey < Connections to Hershey Transit >
Harrisburg < Connections to Amtrak Pennsyviana , Keystone , CAT Transit , and Taxis , Future : Harrisburg Streetcar , Corridor One Commuter Rail , York & Carlisle Commuter Rail lines , Amtrak Northwest Service >

*Lackawanna line
*New York Penn Station < Connections to 1,2,3 & A,C,E Subways , LIRR Amtrak, and NJT Regional Rail >
Newark Broad Street < Connections to Morris & Essex Rail Network , NJT Bus , Newark Light Rail and Taxis Service
Dover < Connections to Morris & Essex Rail Network and NJT Buses >
Proposed : East Stroudsburg  < Connections to Morris & Essex Rail Network >
Proposed : Analomink
Proposed : Pocono Mountain
Proposed : Tobyhanna 
Proposed : Scranton < Connections to Colts buses , Future : Wyoming Valley LRT and BRT >
Proposed : Clarks Summit 
Proposed : Binghamton < Connections to Broome County Transit , Future : Binghamton BRT > 
Proposed : Endicott

*Next up : New England network
*


----------



## Fan Railer

If you're going to go up to binghampton, you might as well connect to Saracuse.


----------



## Nexis

Fan Railer said:


> If you're going to go up to binghampton, you might as well connect to Saracuse.


The Amtrak plans don't seem to call for that...and NY doesn't have statewide plan like neighboring states just regional plans.


----------



## Don31

Nexis said:


> Thats minor , CT is doing and so is PA for around 80-100 Million $... that's feasible...



You're wrong about Elizabeth, int not just about money. To straighten out that curve you'd impact the county jail, the new parking garage and a new county college building. You would also have to close and de-map a city street, bringing the ROW within 20 feet of people's front yards. No way would it fly politically.

And all this other stuff that you posted, in theory it sounds great, but no funding has been set aside for any of it. Just because they are in Amtrak's long range plan doesn't mean they're gonna happen. Given the anti-rail climate in Washington these days, these proposals are a very long way off, if ever.


----------



## Don31

Suburbanist said:


> To make a proper comparison we must separate the infrastructure from the vehicles.


Wrong. They are all one system. One doesn't work without the other.


----------



## Nexis

Don31 said:


> You're wrong about Elizabeth, int not just about money. To straighten out that curve you'd impact the county jail, the new parking garage and a new county college building. You would also have to close and de-map a city street, bringing the ROW within 20 feet of people's front yards. No way would it fly politically.
> 
> And all this other stuff that you posted, in theory it sounds great, but no funding has been set aside for any of it. Just because they are in Amtrak's long range plan doesn't mean they're gonna happen. Given the anti-rail climate in Washington these days, these proposals are a very long way off, if ever.


Hmm...it looks pretty easy. I could be wrong but the County College was told be Amtrak that they needed that space down the road and they built it anyway...so if that's true then taking the land and paying less to the College would be easy. As for adding a track along the Straight section its not that hard , you could narrow the streets and build a new track. Of Course adding Tracks is and Straightening is easy compared to the complexity of rebuilding the Elizabeth station.. 

As for the Proposals , the Lackawanna line has suddenly awaken from its Sleep , the New Haven - Springfield - Brattleboro is Under Construction , Downeaster Extension is Under Construction... As for the Anti-Rail in DC Crowd...it never really affects the Northeast. Even under the Bush years we still got alot of projects done...about 35 Billion $ worth... It looked back through the years and under republican power , the Northeast gets more and under Democrat power it gets less. Its usually spread more evenly throughout the US... And seeing how projects like the Lackawanna suddenly awaken during the end of the bush era...it gives me hope. During the Bush Era alot of smaller projects below 400 Million like listed on the Previous Page were built... As for most of these projects while it looks gloomy now i have a funny feeling that the 2020s will be the next Rail Boom in this country.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Nexis said:


> It looked back through the years and under republican power , the Northeast gets more and under Democrat power it gets less. Its usually spread more evenly throughout the US... And seeing how projects like the Lackawanna suddenly awaken during the end of the bush era...it gives me hope. During the Bush Era alot of smaller projects below 400 Million like listed on the Prev Page were built...


Indeed, but you have to take into account that the Republican Party has 2 very different groups of thinking that in most countries would be in separate parties:

1> Traditional Conservatives -> Socially conservative and in favor of a reasonable amount of government sponsored projects in all areas (rail included). Examples: Mike Huckabee, Bush, etc
2> Libertarians -> Opposed to government expending on anything except defence and highways. Examples: Scott Walker, Rick Scott, etc

While you can say that rail fares well under a government of the group #1, just like it fares very well under any conservative government in Europe, I would not be so sure about group #2. I wonder which group will have more influence under a Mitt Romney government


----------



## Nexis

*New England & Hudson Valley Network *

*Lower Empire Service *
New York Penn Station < Connections to 1,2,3 & A,C,E Subways , Long Island Railroad , Amtrak , Taxis, and NJT Regional Rail , Future : Metro North >
Yonkers < Connections to MNRR Hudson line , Taxis ,Beeline Bus service , and Ferry Service , Future : Yonker Streetcar system >
Croton - Harmon < Connections to MNRR Hudson line , Beeline Buses and Amtrak services >
Poughkeepsie < Connections to MNRR Hudson line ,Taxis , Amtrak services & Ulster County Buses >
Rhinecliff-Kingston 
Hudson
Albany–Rensselaer < Connections to CDTA Buses , Taxis , Megabus and Amtrak Services , Future : Albany BRT Network >
Schenectady

*New Haven - Springfield - Brattleboro Corridor *
New Haven Union Station  < Connections to MNRR New Haven line , Shore line East , Amtrak Services , CT Transit Buses , and Taxis ,Future : New Haven Streetcars & 
Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail
Wallingford < Connections to CT Transit Buses Future : Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail>
Meridan < Connections to CT Transit Buses and Middletown Buses , Future : Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail>
Berlin < Connections to Future : Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail >
Hartford Union Station < Connections to Amtrak Services , CT Transit Buses , and Taxis , Future : Next Gen High Speed Rail , Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail , 
New Britian - Hartford Busway and Hartford Streetcar Network >
Windsor  < Connections to CT Transit Buses , Future :Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail >
Windsor Locks < Connections to ,Future : Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail > 
Springfield Union Station < Connections to Amtrak Services , Taxis, PVTA Buses , Future : Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail , Springfield Interurban network and Cross New England Rail line >
Proposed : Holyoke
Proposed : Northampton
Proposed : Greenfield < Connections to , Future : MBTA Greenfield / Fitchburg line 
Brattleboro

*Cross England line*
Boston South Station < Connections to MBTA Regional Rail , Red line , Silver Line , Taxis and Buses , Greyhound , Megabus and Amtrak services , Future : Next Gen High Speed Rail>
Boston Back Bay Station  < Connections to MBTA Regional Rail , Orange line and Buses,Taxis , Amtrak services , Future : Next Gen High Speed Rail>
Framingham < Connections to MWRTA Buses & MBTA Worcester line >
Worcester Union Station < Connections to MBTA Worcester line ,Taxis, WRTA Buses , Greyhound Buses , Peter Pan Buses , Future : Next Gen High Speed Rail >
Springfield < Connections to Amtrak Services , PVTA Buses , Future : Knowledge Corridor Commuter Rail , & Springfield Interurban network>
Pittsfield < Connections to BRTA Buses , Peterpan Buses , Future : Pittsfield line >
Albany–Rensselaer < Connections to CDTA Buses , Megabus and Amtrak Services , Future : Albany Metro BRT Network >

*Downeaster *
Boston North Station < Connections to MBTA Regional Rail , Green line , Orange line , and Buses / Taxis 
Woburn  < Connections to MBTA Lowell line >
Haverhill < Connections to MBTA Haverhill line & MRVTA Buses>
Exeter 
Durham - University of New Hampshire < Connections to Wildcat Transit, Taxis and UNH Shuttle >
Dover
Wells
Saco
Old Orchard Beach
Portland < Connections to Greater Portland Metro Bus & Taxis , Future : Portland Streetcar system >
Under Construction : Freeport
Under Construction : Brunswick


----------



## Nexis

sekelsenmat said:


> Indeed, but you have to take into account that the Republican Party has 2 very different groups of thinking that in most countries would be in separate parties:
> 
> 1> Traditional Conservatives -> Socially conservative and in favor of a reasonable amount of government sponsored projects in all areas (rail included). Examples: Mike Huckabee, Bush, etc
> 2> Libertarians -> Opposed to government expending on anything except defence and highways. Examples: Scott Walker, Rick Scott, etc
> 
> While you can say that rail fares well under a government of the group #1, just like it fares very well under any conservative government in Europe, I would not be so sure about group #2. I wonder which group will have more influence under a Mitt Romney government


Hmmm , Romney flip flops so who knows.... Hopefully he'll pump more into the Northeast , of course that means he'll starve everyone else...hno::lol:


----------



## yankeesfan1000

^^

Bit late, but thanks for the answer on the previous page Nexis.


----------



## lkstrknb

This is a quick video of an Amtrak trip I took recently.

110mph running, not quite high speed, but pretty close.


----------



## Nexis

*Mid Atlantic Network *

*Downstate Corridor*
New York Penn Station < Connections to 1,2,3 & A,C,E Subways , Long Island Railroad , Amtrak , Taxis, and NJT Regional Rail , Future : Metro North >
Newark Penn Station < Connections to Amtrak Services ,PATH , Taxis , Intercity Buses , Newark Light Rail , NJT Raritan Valley line , North Jersey Coast line and Northeast Corridor : Future , MOM Rail Network , West Trenton line and Western Jersey Rail Network >
Trenton Transit Center < Connections to Amtrak Services , RiverLINE Light Rail ,NJT Northeast Corridor , Taxis and Buses >
Philadelphia 30th Street Station < Connections to all Septa Regional Rail & Amtrak, Market-Frankford EL , Trolleys (Trams) , Bus and Taxis service >
Wilmington < Connections to Septa Newark / Wilmington line Dart First state Buses , Thurway Motorcoach , Future : Wilmington Streetcar network >
Newark < Connections to Septa Newark / Wilmington line , Dart First State Buses , Future : MARC Penn line 
Proposed : Glasgow 
Proposed : Middletown
Proposed : Clayton
Proposed : Dover < Connections to Dart First State Kent & Greyhound lines >
Proposed : Milford 
Proposed : Georgetown 
Proposed : Ocean City < Connections to Ocean City Transit >

*Northwest line*
Baltimore Penn Station < Connections to Taxis, MTA Buses , MTA Light Rail and MARC Penn line , Future : MARC Warminster line , MTA Yellow line and Baltimore Streetcar > 
Proposed : Owing Mills < Connections to Taxis , MTA Buses , Green line , Future : MARC Warminster line >
Proposed : Riestertown < Connections to , Future : MARC Warminster line >
Proposed : York < Connections to Rabbit Transit , Future : York Streetcar Network > 
Proposed : New Cumberland < Connections to CAT Buses , Future : Corridor Two Commuter Rail 
Harrisburg Connections to CAT Buses , Amtrak Pennsylvanian and Keystone , and Taxis , Future : Harrisburg Streetcar Network , Corridor One and Two Commuter Rail , and 
Amtrak Lehigh Service


----------



## cassini83

lkstrknb said:


> This is a quick video of an Amtrak trip I took recently.
> 
> 110mph running, not quite high speed, but pretty close.


Great video! Thanks for sharing! I'll have to go up to Michigan one day and check them out. Do you know if in general they manage to stick to the timetables?


----------



## Don31

Nexis said:


> Hmm...it looks pretty easy. I could be wrong but the County College was told be Amtrak that they needed that space down the road and they built it anyway...so if that's true then taking the land and paying less to the College would be easy. As for adding a track along the Straight section its not that hard , you could narrow the streets and build a new track. Of Course adding Tracks is and Straightening is easy compared to the complexity of rebuilding the Elizabeth station..
> 
> As for the Proposals , the Lackawanna line has suddenly awaken from its Sleep , the New Haven - Springfield - Brattleboro is Under Construction , Downeaster Extension is Under Construction... As for the Anti-Rail in DC Crowd...it never really affects the Northeast. Even under the Bush years we still got alot of projects done...about 35 Billion $ worth... It looked back through the years and under republican power , the Northeast gets more and under Democrat power it gets less. Its usually spread more evenly throughout the US... And seeing how projects like the Lackawanna suddenly awaken during the end of the bush era...it gives me hope. During the Bush Era alot of smaller projects below 400 Million like listed on the Previous Page were built... As for most of these projects while it looks gloomy now i have a funny feeling that the 2020s will be the next Rail Boom in this country.



Nothing is as easy as it seems. I'm not sure about the college being told anything. Amtrak would have had to file a Right-of-Way Preservation Map (I'm not even sure they can do that, only NJDOT can I think). You're right, adding a track isn't that difficult from an engineering standpoint, but you can't operate in a vacuum. Like it or not, politics plays a big role in everything, so narrowing those streets might no be that easy. And then there's the county jail....


As for you being hopeful, I'm hopeful too.....


----------



## Don31

Nice video, thanks.


----------



## Fan Railer

Nexis said:


> Hmmm , Romney flip flops so who knows.... Hopefully he'll pump more into the Northeast , of course that means he'll starve everyone else...hno::lol:


Let's see him beat Obama first  :nuts:


----------



## lkstrknb

cassini83 said:


> Great video! Thanks for sharing! I'll have to go up to Michigan one day and check them out. Do you know if in general they manage to stick to the timetables?


This is my first time riding the whole line all the way to Pontiac, so I don't know if they stay on time all the time or not. I know their have been 30 minute or 1 hour delays due to track work recently.

In my experience, the ride into Chicago starts out on time, but as you enter the Chicagoland area, you creep along at 10 miles an hour for 5-10 miles making you arrive late. In this case, we arrived 1/2 hour late.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *High-speed rail: Bay Area legislators' support key*
> Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists
> Updated 07:08 a.m., Monday, July 2, 2012
> 
> When California's high-speed rail plan comes up for the big vote this week in Sacramento, there will be a lot more at stake for the Bay Area than just bullet trains to Los Angeles.
> 
> In a move some see as an attempt to round up badly needed "yes" votes for the project, Gov. Jerry Brown and state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, are insisting on an "all or nothing" vote on both the $68 billion rail line and millions of dollars for local "connectivity" projects.
> 
> In the Bay Area, those connections include:
> 
> -- $140 million for new BART cars.
> 
> -- $105 million to modernize Caltrain.
> 
> -- $61 million for San Francisco's Central Subway.
> 
> -- $46.5 million to improve the tracks on the Capital Corridor commute line between Oakland and San Jose.
> 
> High-speed rail needs 21 votes in the state Senate to get the green light to start spending voter-approved bonds in a major way.
> 
> So far, however, insiders say it's falling short by at least six votes . . . .


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...-Bay-Area-legislators-support-key-3677809.php


----------



## G5man

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/07/senate-high-speed-rail.html The State Senate has approved funding for high-speed rail.


----------



## desertpunk

Simfan34 said:


> That would be awesome! Of course, that won't happen,


Given the present uncertainty about HSR funding maybe this picture is more appropriate: 









http://observer.com/2012/07/inside-...plans-are-a-throwback-to-the-old-post-office/


At $150 billion, the Amtrak proposal isn't cheap but it's doable. If a new fiscal stimulus bill hits congress, both sides have signalled that infrastructure should take priority over public employee salaries, which was the bulk of the Obama stimulus.









http://observer.com/2012/07/inside-...plans-are-a-throwback-to-the-old-post-office/









http://observer.com/2012/07/inside-...plans-are-a-throwback-to-the-old-post-office/



By 2035, HSR will be needed for many more corridors:









http://observer.com/2012/07/inside-...plans-are-a-throwback-to-the-old-post-office/

.


----------



## Woonsocket54

What station is HSR going to use in Baltimore if not Penn Station?


----------



## Don31

Woonsocket54 said:


> What station is HSR going to use in Baltimore if not Penn Station?


According to the map below, HSR (Super Express) isn't proposed to stop at Baltimore, only Express.


----------



## Nexis

Woonsocket54 said:


> What station is HSR going to use in Baltimore if not Penn Station?


Charles Center...


----------



## Woonsocket54

It also looks like Express and Shoreline Express will stop in Wilmington, but not at Joe Biden Station. Where is the other Wilmington Station?

Wherever the Wilmington HSR station is, they'll need to connect it to Septa and downtown or otherwise it's kind of pointless.


----------



## Tommy Boy

Woonsocket54 said:


> Amtrak's NextGen high speed rail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://transportationnation.org/201...-savvy-amtrak-updates-high-speed-rail-vision/



YES YES YES.

Now we talking my language. Welcome Amtrak and America to the future. This is what America needs HSR across whole America. I hope every state has HSR in the year 2050. Canada and Mexico also and also rest of Latin America and South America that would prosper the whole continent


----------



## Nexis

Woonsocket54 said:


> It also looks like Express and Shoreline Express will stop in Wilmington, but not at Joe Biden Station. Where is the other Wilmington Station?
> 
> Wherever the Wilmington HSR station is, they'll need to connect it to Septa and downtown or otherwise it's kind of pointless.


Wilmington HSR will be on the outskirts on a straighter route , about 0.6 mi from the Current Wilmington Station in a Industrial area which will be transformed into a huge Dense Development tied to Downtown Wilmington by a streetcar and LRT system. The Old Wilmington Station will still serve Regional and Commuter and the Future Delaware Downstate line to Ocean City. Aswell as a line up into PA....


----------



## Sopomon

Looking good, let's just hope it doesn't weigh 12492345075358987345 tons due to FRA regulations...


----------



## k.k.jetcar

^^
Yeah, I hear you. I know its just a artist's concept, but those heavy commonwealth bogies with the massive cast steel equalizer bars just won't cut it at very high speeds.


----------



## krnboy1009

Nexis said:


> Wilmington HSR will be on the outskirts on a straighter route , about 0.6 mi from the Current Wilmington Station in a Industrial area which will be transformed into a huge Dense Development tied to Downtown Wilmington by a streetcar and LRT system. The Old Wilmington Station will still serve Regional and Commuter and the Future Delaware Downstate line to Ocean City. Aswell as a line up into PA....


Sounds like a HUGE waste of money.


----------



## Don31

krnboy1009 said:


> Sounds like a HUGE waste of money.


Only if it happens. Just because its written in someones plan doesn't mean its gonna happen.


----------



## krnboy1009

True.

Building ANOTHER train stations when theres one good enough already in a small city is a waste of money.


----------



## Don31

krnboy1009 said:


> True.
> 
> Building ANOTHER train stations when theres one good enough already in a small city is a waste of money.


Agreed. I'm interesteed in seeing where any funding will come from for the huge dense development; the real estate maket is still kinda flat.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Nexis said:


> Wilmington HSR will be on the outskirts on a straighter route , about 0.6 mi from the Current Wilmington Station in a Industrial area which will be transformed into a huge Dense Development tied to Downtown Wilmington by a streetcar and LRT system. The Old Wilmington Station will still serve Regional and Commuter and the Future Delaware Downstate line to Ocean City. Aswell as a line up into PA....


Did you make this up?

I mean the part about 0.6 miles. I understand Delaware is studying building a downstate line.


----------



## desertpunk

*High-Speed Rail Proposal From France-based SNCF Rebuffed By Calif.*












> Los Angeles Times 7/09/2012
> 
> By Ralph Vartabedian
> 
> As state officials accelerated their effort to design a high-speed rail system in 2010, they were approached by the renowned French national railway with a suggestion: The project could use the help of an experienced bullet train operator.
> 
> Until the end of last year, SNCF, the developer of one of the world's most successful high-speed rail systems, proposed that the state use competitive bidding to partner with it or another foreign operator rather than rely on construction engineers to design a sophisticated network for 200-mph trains. The approach, the French company said, would help the California High-Speed Rail Authority identify a profitable route, hold down building costs, develop realistic ridership forecasts and attract private investors -- a requirement of a $9-billion bond measure approved by voters in 2008.
> 
> But SNCF couldn't get its ideas -- including considering a more direct north-south route along the Central Valley's Interstate 5 corridor -- out of the station. Instead, the rail authority continued to concentrate planning in the hands of Parsons Brinckerhoff, a giant New York City-based engineering and construction management firm. Although they have occasionally consulted with high-speed railways, officials decided that hiring an experienced operator and seeking private investors would have to wait until after the $68-billion system was partly built. Last week, the state Senate approved -- by a single vote -- $8 billion to get construction underway. *"It's like California is trying to design and build a Boeing 747 instead of going out and buying one," said Dan McNamara, a civil engineer who worked for SNCF's U.S. affiliate. "There are lots of questions about the Parsons Brinckerhoff plan. The capital costs are way too high, and the route has been politically gerrymandered."*
> 
> Under the authority's management, cost and ridership estimates have fluctuated wildly. The project's ability to lure private investors remains uncertain, the route through the eastern Central Valley has ignited a legal war with the agricultural industry and some experienced operators, such as the Central Japan Railway Co., have lost interest in the project. The Japanese firm, which runs the famous Shinkansen bullet train, turned its attention elsewhere when the authority decided to save money by sharing track in major urban areas with freight and passenger trains.
> 
> Dan Richard, chairman of the rail authority board, declined to answer specific questions about SNCF's proposal or critiques of the project. In a statement, however, he dismissed the railway's ideas. "Our business plan is predicated on having private operations after the initial system is built," Richard said. "Turning the design of the system over to a private operator would have been a bad financial move for California taxpayers. SNCF's proposal was self-serving and not in the public interest."


----

*Challenges Remain for Calif. High-Speed Rail Plan*



> 07/10/2012
> 
> Associated Press/AP Online
> 
> By HANNAH DREIER
> 
> SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California lawmakers may have given their OK to what could be the nation's first high-speed rail line, but the project is still a ways from leaving the station. Even with prominent supporters such as President Barack Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown, bullet train backers must still overcome a number of challenges, including environmental concerns, clashes with local leaders over land use, a $68 billion overall price tag with no funding guarantees, and an increasingly disenchanted public.
> 
> Supporters applauded Friday when the state Legislature narrowly approved $4.5 billion in state funds for rail improvements and to begin construction of the first segment of high-speed track in the agricultural Central Valley. The move enabled the state to tap $3.2 billion in federal bond money. Critics, however, are redoubling their efforts to derail the project that could eventually link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains traveling up to 220 mph.
> 
> Among those gearing up for a fight are the farmers whose land lies in the path of the massive infrastructure project. The Madera and Merced county farm bureaus have filed a lawsuit to halt the project on grounds that the state has not done enough environmental vetting. The plaintiffs say the train would render 1,500 acres of fertile land unfarmable and disrupt 500 agricultural businesses. More suits are expected in the coming months. "We are going to protect our property," said Frank Oliveira, a farmer who has been active in opposing the plan.
> 
> Brown, a Democrat, has made the project a touchstone of his administration. "It's a job creator and thank God we got it," he told reporters Monday at an event with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood at the Port of Oakland. Brown initially tried to prevent courts from using the state's complex environmental law to stop construction but backed down under pressure as he sought to win lawmakers' approval.
> 
> Some observers say the state might avoid an injunction delaying the project because courts often give public agencies the benefit of the doubt in environmental complaints. However, California has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the country, and even if the lawsuits are thrown out, construction could be bogged down for years by the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
> 
> Funding is another potential line of attack against the state's largest-ever construction project. California voters approved $10 billion in bonds for the project in 2008 and Friday's vote assured that the state will be able to collect $3.2 billion in federal money that could have been rescinded if lawmakers failed to act. That leaves $55 billion still needed to finish the line, assuming it doesn't go over budget. The cost is lower than the California High-Speed Rail Authority's initial $98 billion estimate.
> 
> LaHood on Monday praised Democratic lawmakers for approving the project, despite intense political pressure. He said it reinforces California's position as a leader in high-speed rail and added that politicians initially didn't know where all the money would come from for the interstate highway system, but they forged ahead anyway. "Fifty years later, we have the best road system in America built with federal, state and private dollars, and that is the direction for high-speed rail," he said.
> 
> Congressional Republicans have said they will block any further funding for the bullet train, and investors have not flocked to the project as hoped. California voters also appear less willing to support additional funding. A Field Poll in December found the 2008 rail bond would fail if put to a vote today.
> 
> The administration's latest business plan relies on private investment and industrial fees from California's cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "The money is there," Brown said. "We have the capability in California in a $2 trillion annual economy to finance this thing." Lawmakers' approval of the plan last week was a political win for Brown, who has emerged as high-speed rail's most visible cheerleader and staked his future on the project.
> 
> [...]


----------



## Nexis

Woonsocket54 said:


> Did you make this up?
> 
> I mean the part about 0.6 miles. I understand Delaware is studying building a downstate line.



No , the Wilmington Bypass will save bypass the 2 tight curves of Wilmington....and it follows an Industrial line...


----------



## Nexis

krnboy1009 said:


> Sounds like a HUGE waste of money.


What the Wilmington HSR bypass , it follows a Freight line and would run through a non populated area which is cheaper... If you mean the Downstate line , its just restoring old Freight tracks which isn't that expensive. If you mean the LRT and Streetcar network thats still a floating proposal....Streetcars are pretty cheap...idk how much LRT would go.


----------



## gramercy

look, according to the PDF, they "plan" to have all of 40 HST-sets by 2040

now come the f. on!!!, 40 trainsets? in a country with 400++ million by 2040? 40 trainsets??? 

this is a JOKE, a sad one


----------



## Nexis

gramercy said:


> look, according to the PDF, they "plan" to have all of 40 HST-sets by 2040
> 
> now come the f. on!!!, 40 trainsets? in a country with 400++ million by 2040? 40 trainsets???
> 
> this is a JOKE, a sad one


The region only has 57 Million and will have like 78 Million by 2040....and 40 HST , there will be close to 120 Intercity sets...


----------



## Don31

As I've said before, these projections are way too optimistic; and no funding is forthcoming for any of it.


----------



## Spam King

Thread #47582659 on this topic


----------



## 437.001

I think perhaps air/oil companies would like to start a High Speed Rail company.


----------



## 33Hz

Smooth Indian said:


> Sure but they also withdrew a fully capable electric car allegedly to satiate oil companies. I think the Volt was introduced after repeated bailouts and a bankprutcy proceeding followed by an uproar about GMs style of functioning and its product line. The fact that the govt held a major stake in the company also played its part since the govt was for insisting on making more environmentally friendly cars.


Actually the Volt prototype was first shown in 2007, well before any bankruptcy stuff. It was developed under the advanced vehicle manufacturing program signed into law by Bush, seperate from the bailouts that followed. Perhaps GM Execs realised that they withdrew the loss making EV1 too early, as Toyota suddenly started selling a lot of Priuses in markets like California. The Volt beats the Prius hands down in real fuel economy and drivability in my experience.


----------



## Smooth Indian

33Hz said:


> Actually the Volt prototype was first shown in 2007, well before any bankruptcy stuff. It was developed under the advanced vehicle manufacturing program signed into law by Bush, seperate from the bailouts that followed. Perhaps GM Execs realised that they withdrew the loss making EV1 too early, as Toyota suddenly started selling a lot of Priuses in markets like California. The Volt beats the Prius hands down in real fuel economy and drivability in my experience.


Back in the 90s the EV had caught the fancy of people in areas it was introduced and still it was scraped. Even the volt could have gone the way of the EV if the govt (bush and later obama) had not cajoled/forced GM into actually bringing it to the market. Rising gas prices and some public disenchantment also played their role. 
The point that Stainless made and I agree upon is that GM would tried to stretch the status quo and avoid change until it was absolutely forced to do so. Even when it had the resources and ability to bring more favorable products to the market.


----------



## XAN_

Well, electric personal vehicles surely solve the pollution problems (especially local pollution), but they don't solve the congestion problems.


----------



## CNB30

XAN_ said:


> Well, electric personal vehicles surely solve the pollution problems (especially local pollution), but they don't solve the congestion problems.


Exactly, there are many more problems with cars.:llama:


----------



## phoenixboi08

XAN_ said:


> Well, electric personal vehicles surely solve the pollution problems (especially local pollution), but they don't solve the congestion problems.


That's what I've been thinking about lately (after watching some videos and reading up on Tesla's new models...). I think we're about at the tipping point where we have the technology to make intercity travel with EVs a reality, but what will that mean for public transport? Though, I guess it will still be another decade before it's all as affordable as a basic combustion-engine vehicle.


----------



## aquaticko

^^The cars are probably within a decade of being ready, but the infrastructure will take time, and in that time, investment. A lack of willingness to invest in any kind of transportation infrastructure seems to be a serious problem in way too many localities.

Not to mention, until cars can drive autonomously, and in a fool-proof way, they will always be less safe than trains. Though of course I have to concede that we're nearly there with that, too.


----------



## Chicagoago

It would work in select regions, but the US is far too large and the population centered in certain areas to go blanket the country like Europe has.

From New York to Chicago it would work with tens of millions of people in the area. The distance is roughly the same as it is going from London to Rome or Berlin to Rome.

From Chicago over to San Fran/Los Angeles though is around 3,400KM and not many people at all. That's like taking a train from Madrid to St. Petersburg, Russia and having it go through low population areas of deserts and high mountains. People would much rather just fly.

I talk to Europeans sometimes and I feel like many don't realize just how large the USA really is.

Miami to Seattle is 5,300KM - like going from Paris to Tehran.

New York to Los Angeles is 4,500KM - like going from Gibraltar to Moscow.


----------



## 33Hz

Not sure what you mean about the cars being within a decade of being ready...


----------



## Sopomon

^^ I don't think anyone is deluded enough to propose a transcontinental HSR system in the US


----------



## Neb81

Sopomon said:


> ^^ I don't think anyone is deluded enough to propose a transcontinental HSR system in the US


I agree. I've seen a lot of Americans dismissing HSR out of hand, imaginging that people are advocating building a direct link from Miami to Seattle or from San Diego to Anchorage or something like that. There is obviously no point in this, just as in Europe we don't run direct HSR services from Malaga to Arkhangelsk.

I threw together this in about half an hour which gives a very rough idea of the sort of thing I think might just happen if there was a HUGE shift in transport policy within the US government. 

http://goo.gl/maps/9f8CY

In case it's not clear:
RED routes would be (IMHO) the most likely candidates
YELLOW routes would be moderately feasible
GREEN routes would be unlikely unless the US embraced a European style transport policy with great fervour and determination. 

It should be borne in mind, that HSR is just one part of the jigsaw. The reason even the NEC/Acela ins't as widely embraced in the US as it would be in Europe isn't so much distance or population (the NEC covers distances and populations comparable to the more populous areas of Europe, and far more so than areas such as Spain) but connections. European cities have far better connections for onward travel from the HSR terminus, i.e. commuter rail, regional rail, bus, tram, metro etc. 

If HSR is to be successful in the US, it will need more than new lines, regulations in rolling stock. It would need a massive change in not only urban, but most crucially sub-urban and regional public transport, particularly commuter and regional rail.


----------



## miami305

NEVER! unfortunately...I miss Europe...


----------



## Nexis

Neb81 said:


> I agree. I've seen a lot of Americans dismissing HSR out of hand, imaginging that people are advocating building a direct link from Miami to Seattle or from San Diego to Anchorage or something like that. There is obviously no point in this, just as in Europe we don't run direct HSR services from Malaga to Arkhangelsk.
> 
> I threw together this in about half an hour which gives a very rough idea of the sort of thing I think might just happen if there was a HUGE shift in transport policy within the US government.
> 
> http://goo.gl/maps/9f8CY
> 
> In case it's not clear:
> RED routes would be (IMHO) the most likely candidates
> YELLOW routes would be moderately feasible
> GREEN routes would be unlikely unless the US embraced a European style transport policy with great fervour and determination.
> 
> It should be borne in mind, that HSR is just one part of the jigsaw. The reason even the NEC/Acela ins't as widely embraced in the US as it would be in Europe isn't so much distance or population (the NEC covers distances and populations comparable to the more populous areas of Europe, and far more so than areas such as Spain) but connections. European cities have far better connections for onward travel from the HSR terminus, i.e. commuter rail, regional rail, bus, tram, metro etc.
> 
> If HSR is to be successful in the US, it will need more than new lines, regulations in rolling stock. It would need a massive change in not only urban, but most crucially sub-urban and regional public transport, particularly commuter and regional rail.


IL , and MN are very aggressive with their Rail Projects so I do see the Midwestern being built by 2035....at least most of it. MI , IN , and MO are moving somewhat slowly as well. Their system will mostly have lines between 80-124mph , and 5 lines of 220mph. Then you have the Northeast which will restore its regional and intercity Rail network mostly by 2035... The Rail is also embraced and ingrated into daily life in the Midwest and Northeast , so its an easier sell here then the West Coast or South.


----------



## kingsdl76

The only thing close to true high speed rail in this country is the Acela - Which also happens , in my opinion, to be in the best suited region of the US for true high speed rail - the BoshWash corridor. Who knows what the future holds!.. would love to see it realized in my lifetime though!


----------



## aquaticko

33Hz said:


> Not sure what you mean about the cars being within a decade of being ready...


Because battery technology is so essential in a lot of different fields, it's advancing quickly, and we're frequently seeing capacity doublings every other year or so from the most advanced chemistries. Considering that we're already at 100 miles per charge for most of the electric cars, it'll be about 5 more years for range comparable to most petroleum-powered cars. Toss in the extra five years for improving longevity and charging flexibility, and we're good to go. There's a lot of pressure on battery technology to advance quickly, and so it's beginning to.

Anyway, this is all OT.


----------



## Ocean Railroader

The closet thing to high speed rail I have seen is that Desert Xpress or XpressWest high speed rail project from California to Las Vegas in that it seems to be going though the most smoothy granted it could get shot down like a deer at any moment. The California high speed rail project most likely will go belly up by the end of the year.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

I personally see no difference between 100,000 human-driven cars stuck on a freeway during rush hour and 100,000 computer-operated cars stuck on a freeway during rush hour. 

Interstate freeways are approaching/already past capacity and new infrastructure is needed.


EDIT: That Americans think that this is a viable solution for the future (30+ years ahead) is saddening.


----------



## 33Hz

So I guess the car in my garage that has cut my petrol usage by 90% is a figment of my imagination then 

We don't need some wonder battery to make massive savings today. A modest battery and small engine to take the car past 50 miles means 98% of journeys can be electric with no compromise on range.

As for infrastructure - http://zap-map.com/


Sorry for the OT. Perhaps to get it back on, 50 miles is enough to get to the nearest rail station in many cases, so your whole trip can be electric.


----------



## aquaticko

Silver Swordsman said:


> I personally see no difference between 100,000 human-driven cars stuck on a freeway during rush hour and 100,000 computer-operated cars stuck on a freeway during rush hour.
> 
> Interstate freeways are approaching/already past capacity and new infrastructure is needed.
> 
> 
> EDIT: That Americans think that this is a viable solution for the future (30+ years ahead) is saddening.


Ideally, automated driving will make traffic history by allowing driving that's too dangerous for humans to do. See this. It's terrifying, but you'll notice that no cars stop at intersections so that there is no wasted time, and none crash. That alone is a huge advancement, considering that cars are the only method of transit that has to stop frequently between destinations.



> We don't need some wonder battery to make massive savings today. A modest battery and small engine to take the car past 50 miles means 98% of journeys can be electric with no compromise on range.


You're right; I was just arguing from the point of view of using no oil at all.

And I agree--as long as we can put a high speed train station relatively close to all major population centers, we're be all set.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ The problem with your reasoning is two-fold:

(1) US is far less densely populated than Poland. It is one of the LEAST populated countries on Earth, indeed.

(2) Even if you paid nothing for your annual transportation card, that would obviously not cover the costs of the service, which would then have to be paid by taxes collected on all people. Somebody is paying taxes to fund your heavy use of the transportation system if it is "so cheap".

Finally, I severely dispute the assertion that public transport is convenient to go anywhere. I bet more than 70% of the land area of your country (you know, a country is not only limited to cities) is inaccessible in a fast manner by transit. Covering even 20% of US land area with convenient and fast transit is yet a more absurd proposition (light rail Anchorage-Fairbanks-Prudhoe Bay anyone?).


----------



## aquaticko

^^But we've all been over this many times before. Yes, the U.S. as a whole is not at all densely populated. However, if you exclude the portion of the country between the Mississippi River and the west coast (and Alaska) it's about as densely populated as western Europe, where the high speed rail system thrives. And just like western Europe, even within that area, there are regions in which most of the population lives that are perfectly suited to HSR, like the NEC, Piedmont corridor, Chicago Hub, the area from Portland, OR to Seattle to Vancouver, the state of California as a whole, etc. If you're going to complain about the manner in which public transportation is paid for even by those who don't use it, ask anyone in New York City how they feel about the NY State Thruway system and the costs it imposes on the state's transportatio budget.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Silver Swordsman said:


> The faster the speed, the more changes it will require. Most of Amtrak's high speed projects (sponsored by state governments) simply consist of replacing wooden ties with concrete sleepers, improving gate crossings, and increase superelevation. These (moderate) improvements bring operational speeds up to 100mph, and has proved to be effective.
> 
> However, if they are going for true HSR (150+mph), current infrastructure simply isn't up to par. You just have to build a completely new system (or at most have a blended approach near cities like CA's).
> 
> It's slowly happening already.  A few years back, Amtrak's share in the NEC competition with air traffic was 46%. This year, thanks to the TSA and price hikes, the train now has 75%. The NEC is the only line in the USA that works because 1. Trains are fast enough to compete with airlines. 2. They are substantially cheaper. 3. They are way more comfortable and convenient.


I guess that's my issue. I feel as if they're jumping the gun...I get that HSR will require new infrastructure, but I just believe it makes more sense to improve (and in many cases) restore links to the rest of the network as a short term goal (to increase ridership and give people a "stake" in rail services) while focusing the first HSR upgrades in the NEC. The rest of the country isn't as dense as the NE, true, but I think the real point is the frequency of intercity travel in that area. For instance, 

I live 
144mi (3 hour drive) from New Orleans
258mi (4 hour drive) from Birmingham
329mi (5 hour drive) from Atlanta
400mi (7 hour drive) from Memphis
446mi (7 hour drive) from Nashville
468mi (8 hour drive) from Houston * comparable to 448mi (8 hour drive) from Boston-D.C.

680mi (11 hour drive) from St Louis
733mi (12 hour drive) from Indianapolis
900mi (15 hour drive) from Chicago

However, I rarely go to Chicago or St. Louis...Actually, I've never gone (the long drive/airfare is probably why). Maybe the only city I frequent is Atlanta. You could halve ALL of those travel times, with ticket fares half of what it would be to fly, yet I would still only ever visit Chicago once in a while for tourism. 

This is why I think Amtrack should focus, at the very least, on profitable inter-city corridors. For example, my city is about 250,000 people (about 500,000 total in the MSA), yet a reasonable connection to Houston via New Orleans and Atlanta via Birmingham would be profitable. In other words, enough people would travel between the cities in question.

To be honest, I think there are very few inter-regional corridors where a HSR line would be highly profitable (revenue exceeds maintenance) and those areas are places, based only on what I have observed, like the NEC and the Midwest (Great Lakes region). I don't necessarily need to be able to travel to Atlanta at 200mi per hour. Though, I think 100mph is the bare minimum, which is pushing (I'm certain it's probably beyond) the limits of the current stock.

a 100mph train would get me to Atlanta in 3h30min + wait times and other stops (so I guess we could say 4h)

In the long term, trains around 150mph would get me to Atlanta in 2h (2h 30min with the wait times factored in). A 220mph high speed train from Atlanta to Chicago would take 3h30min (again, let's just assume 4h). In other words, my city to Chicago via Atlanta in 6h30min. That's less than half the time via car. And though it's longer than it would take by plane (4h30min), it would inevitably be cheaper (round trip airfare of about $430-500).

From what I can muster, the best strategy is to facilitate inter-region travel into regional hubs and have HSR play the role of intra-regional travel via these hubs - possibly through other large cities along the path









(i.e. take advantage of existing travel patterns and exploit them)

I guess my overall point is that there are parts of Amtracks network that can't be made profitable at this point in time, but there are large segments of it (which I believe to be the greater majority) that could, at the very least, not run at a deficit. I think an approach in which they did these things in the short term while simultaneously focusing on HSR improvements in the NEC and a long term goal of connecting these improved corridors would make more sense.

I just think the talk of HSR leaves out the role of "fast" [slower] trains...both are an essential part of a functioning network.

*Then again, I keep coming up against the role that the freight companies play in this...I've been searching for a map comparing the nationally owned rail vs. the privately owned rail...Until I see this, it's all just an exercise in critical thinking really.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ The argument seskelemat was making is that the intercontinental Amtrak routes are a good thing that should be expanded to provide national access. It is a mentality that dominates many people in regard of rail transport in North America: having some service, any service, at 500 stations (no matter how slow, crap, costly, unreliable and/or useless) is more important than investing money where high-speed rail can be more efficiently deployed and abandoning this leisure rides through the Rockies or along the Pacific Coast.

A handful of isolated systems such as CAHSR, the NEC, the Texas Triangle/Y and the Chicago hub could be indeed good propositions. Some of them (Texas and Chicago hub) even have favorable terrain and lots of farmland to be built over.

However, there is this vision that if you can't take a high speed in Bangor, Maine and arrive in San Diego, California, then US high-speed rail infrastructure would still be "inadequate".

Using existing infrastructure has a major hurdle: freight railways. It is not exactly a hurdle but an unintended consequence of their success: they have their lines busy and optimized for freight traffic (which is slower, usually not timetabled and allows for a downgrade of track quality to drastically reduce maintenance costs). The fees freight railways are demanding in tentative studies for low-speed traditional trains (up to 79 mph) are becoming extremely high or, in some cases, the railways don't have spare capacity anymore.

Two examples: CSX wanted US$ 680 millions from Amtrak to allow it restore service on the New Orleans-Jacksonville sector (Sunset Limited), as the 2005 hurricanes damaged the tracks and CSX opted for repairing them on the cheap for low speed freight (which is perfectly legal in US given its complete ownership and control of tracks). A committee that was drawing studies for a Salt Lake City - Denver and some extension Denver - Casper got a hefty estimation from UP on the order of US$ 400 million for upgrades, new passing loops and other structures, as the route is busy with West Coast - central US freight trains.

Even in sectors where some rail tracks are seldom used for freight, there are liability issues. That affected some plans for one of the "improved" lines out of Chicago, I don't remember exactly all. Fact is: a single major passenger train crash happening as a result of a collision with a nearby freight train on a separate track within the same ROW can easily bring up a billion-magnitude lawsuit, and freight railway's CFO should be rightfully aware of that and demand insurance policies. 

It is not exactly high-speed rail, but hefty insurance policies of US$ 800 million is what essentially killed the rebirth of Ski Train in Colorado, for instance, even when the business case for the rest of the project was sound. Insurers demanded high premiums and the Ski Train couldn't possibly pay them.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The argument seskelemat was making is that the intercontinental Amtrak routes are a good thing that should be expanded to provide national access. It is a mentality that dominates many people in regard of rail transport in North America: having some service, any service, at 500 stations (no matter how slow, crap, costly, unreliable and/or useless) is more important than investing money where high-speed rail can be more efficiently deployed and abandoning this leisure rides through the Rockies or along the Pacific Coast.


I hope you are not serious that the mere 1 billion per year in help for Amtrak could build a high-speed rail in the USA =D This just goes beyond ridiculous.

From wikipedia: In the last year of 2010, China committed investment of CN¥709.1 billion (US$107.9 billion) in railway construction.

So the operational help is less then 1% of the chinese railway building.

Please ... the tiny operational help for Amtrak is not at all the cause for lack of High Speed investment. You mixing completely unrelated things. I simply defended that the national rail is important, I didn't say that investing in High Speed Rail is not important. The USA should do both at the same time. Just like Spain, France, England, China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Turkey, etc, invest in *both* a national rail network and also in High Speed Rail. The High Speed Rail investment necessary for the USA should be at least 10 billions per year. And the tiny fraction of operational help for Amtrak hardly makes a difference here.

My whole point was solely: The government should not take money from Amtrak operation help. If money is necessary for high-speed rail, it can be obtained elsewhere and what is at the moment for Amtrak help is peanuts in comparison to the needed funds for HSR.


----------



## makita09

^^ The US does fund rail and high speed rail on a huge scale...in China! /flippant



Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The problem with your reasoning is two-fold:
> 
> (1) US is far less densely populated than Poland. It is one of the LEAST populated countries on Earth, indeed.
> 
> (2) Even if you paid nothing for your annual transportation card, that would obviously not cover the costs of the service, which would then have to be paid by taxes collected on all people. Somebody is paying taxes to fund your heavy use of the transportation system if it is "so cheap".


(2) Again there's the argument of socialised funding of the highway network in the US, but I agree public transport funding is part of the reason why it is so cheap for Poland. But, I'd venture that if we created a hypothetical cost for public transport in Poland that matched the cost of providing the service, it would still be cheaper than buying a car and driving it about. For example, a year's unlimited travel around my city is about £300 - and that is a private bus company operating with no subsidies (and making a phat profit - best bus company in the UK btw, they even nabbed the buses.co.uk domain name long ago which shows some nous)

(1) The density argument I always feel is a little over-simplified with the US. Yes its very low density, but a high proportion of the population live in urban areas - which are dense. Perhaps not as dense as European cities, but they are laid out better with faster and more efficient roads, so I imagine _if_ the general populace got their heads around it a $300 all year pass for unlimited travel on frequent bus services would be plausible, and without subsidy. I'd say there are other factors that will get in the way of this, its not down to density. Then there's travel _between_ cities, and this again is not so different than in Europe, apart from there's less use in stopping in between, which frankly is only a good thing for most of the passengers. So whilst the US is more rarified, I don't think the density argument is a sufficient one. I think that other factors are important, such as the resistance to walking (culture, road/sidewalk design, etc) which is a necessary part of public transport.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> (2) Even if you paid nothing for your annual transportation card, that would obviously not cover the costs of the service, which would then have to be paid by taxes collected on all people. Somebody is paying taxes to fund your heavy use of the transportation system if it is "so cheap".


I could not find the raw data for Wroclaw.... but, I found good data from a city relatively similar in size and public transport: Poznan. And guess what? It has a decent operational profit in public transportation!

http://www.mpk.poznan.pl/images/stories/o_mpk/raporty/raport-roczny-2011.pdf

MPK Poznan has 19 lines of light rail, and +/-40 of buses and it had an income of 370 million zl in 2011 which generated a profit of 16 million zl. It even had to pay 3,7 million zl in income tax because of the profits! So it had a final profit of 12 million zl in 2011.

It is true that this ignores 275 million zl in investments (Actually Poland only pays half of this sum, EU pays the other half) made as lost funds by the government to buy new trams, new buses and build new right of way and do modernization works, but nevertheless we can't ignore that MPK Poznan has operational profit =)

And when it comes to passenger long distance rail, PKP Intercity was also profitable in 2011, although it does not do regional rail, only long distance (stops are every 50km aprox.). So no, passenger rail is not necessarely a sinonim to deficit. I think that Amtrak has deficits in the USA because most people are living in suburbs as opposed to central/more dense locations. This mean that less people live conveniently close to the rail stations and dimishes the efficiency.

Again, of course this ignores the 5 billion in investments made in the railway infra-structure as a whole (includes both rail line modernization and station rebuilding). Of those 5 billion, the EU pays 2,5 billion, the government pays 1,8 billions and the PLK (Railway lines company) pays 0,7 billions.

So the total cost for city rail investments (140 million zl) + general railway investment (but this covers cargo too!!) 1,8 billion zl total aprox + operational deficit for regional rail of the region (aprox. 100 million zl, varies per region) = 2 billion zl (0,6 billion dollars). If we imagine that 20 million people are working from a total population of 37 millions (excluding children, unemployed, redired people, etc), the cost per tax payer is 100 zl per year = 30 dollars per year.

Oh, yes, we are destroying the wallets of car owners because we are taking from them 30 dollars per year =D


----------



## Suburbanist

The problem with current Amtrak subsidies is also two-fold.

It essentially milks the NEC to pay for the "leisure routes" (some regional operations in OK and CA are a joint-venture with the states).

The routes with the lowest farebox recover ratio are, what a shocker, the transcontinental ones.

It is estimated each equivalent-trip Chicago-Los Angeles gets US$ 260 in direct subsidies from the federal government. That should be unacceptable, since none of the cities serves are isolated or without good, at least, road connections if not an Interstate and maybe complemented by a nearby airport.

So, even at current stage, it would be better if Amtrak stopped operating these long-distance routes altogether and used the money to improve the NEC. Without the long-distance routes and having shelled out the non-recovered costs of regional routes like the San Joaquin services to states concerned, Amtrak would be profitable and could issue bons to accelerate even more its investments on NEC. Even a one-time US$ 20 billion bond issue (against future revenue) would do wonders to improve the situation on the NEC.


----------



## Suburbanist

sekelsenmat said:


> And when it comes to passenger long distance rail, PKP Intercity was also profitable in 2011. So no, passenger rail is not necessarely a sinonim to deficit. I think that Amtrak has deficits in the USA because most people are living in suburbs as opposed to central/more dense locations. This mean that less people live conveniently close to the rail stations and dimishes the efficiency.


Trains in US are SLOW outside the NEC. Slower than driving. And Poland, which is off topic here, is only now catching up with highway construction though it has been impressive on that front.

Seriously, take a look at Amtrak schedules and look how long does train takes between cities. 

Also, 1-per-day services are not a good proposition for shorter distances (and longer distances are best traveled flying).


----------



## E2rdEm

sekelsenmat said:


> we can't ignore that MPK Poznan has operational profit =)


You're kidding, right?
MPK Poznań is only a carrier company. The service is paid for by the city of Poznań, in part by ticket revenues. The city (it's department called ZTM) issues tickets, which are an income of the city, like taxes. ZTM pays to MPK for providing certain level of service, defined in a long-term agreement. The MPK's profit can't tell you anything about ticket sales an profitabilty of the whole thing.



sekelsenmat said:


> And when it comes to passenger long distance rail, PKP Intercity was also profitable in 2011


This is another model. PKP Intercity (the carrier company) issues tickets. But the ticket revenue does not cover the operational costs. There's an agreement with the state, that each year the company will get 240 million zł subsidy. Knowing that, the company must plan its operations (within boundaries of minimal service requirements defined by this agreement) to turn a profit.

On the other hand, railways pay the access fees for using the tracks - I suppose Amtrak also does. The difference is that tracks in Poland are state-owned, while Amtrak pays to CSX, BNSF and other private companies. Well, at least in case of Poland, the state has means to force the track quality suitable for passenger operations at 75 to 100 mph...


Yes. it all seems totally offtopic - sorry. But it's to say that public transportation of decent quality requires subsidies. The subsidies are not that much, considering that part (if not all) of that subsidy goes to maintaining the infrastracture (railways pay for using the track, while private cars don't pay for using the road) - but that's another issue. debated in this thread many times.


----------



## Suburbanist

Amtrak owns most of the NEC.


----------



## E2rdEm

^^ Sure, but:
1) It doesn't own other thousands of miles it operates on. I assume Amtrak pays for using them then.
2) Owning the track means maintaining it. And paying for that.
So it doesn't really matter. They pay for the infrastructure either way.


----------



## saintm

Any under construction?


----------



## sekelsenmat

E2rdEm said:


> You're kidding, right?
> MPK Poznań is only a carrier company. The service is paid for by the city of Poznań, in part by ticket revenues. The city (it's department called ZTM) issues tickets, which are an income of the city, like taxes. ZTM pays to MPK for providing certain level of service, defined in a long-term agreement. The MPK's profit can't tell you anything about ticket sales an profitabilty of the whole thing.


You are wrong. Read the Raport Roczny. It clearly states the amount of money from tickets and that is not income to the city, it is income to the company. Read the city budget and you will not find that amount there. I have never heard of a system like that in which tickets would go directly to the city budget. Please make sure you read the related budgets before saying that I am kidding. And yes, the income of tickets+financial income (no idea what they ment, looks like they have some cash in the bank giving interrest) *does* cover the operational costs.

And about PKP Intercity, it was profitable up to now this year. Maybe you are not updated, or maybe this money is help to buy trains. But all articles I can find claim it is profitable in 2012.


----------



## sekelsenmat

saintm said:


> Any under construction?


HSR in the USA? No. Nothing is being constructed at the moment. That's why we talk so much about other stuff =D


----------



## Suburbanist

E2rdEm said:


> ^^ Sure, but:
> 1) It doesn't own other thousands of miles it operates on. I assume Amtrak pays for using them then.
> 2) Owning the track means maintaining it. And paying for that.
> So it doesn't really matter. They pay for the infrastructure either way.


It depends. 

Freight railways optimize their tracks for freight, which renders them less suitable for passenger service, whereas many European infrastructure operatores are not cargo-friendly and thus don't allow common things in US like 1.5 mile-long trains, ultra-heavy coal trains etc.


----------



## E2rdEm

sekelsenmat said:


> Read the Raport Roczny. It clearly states the amount of money from tickets


Where? "net revenues from sales *and equivalent*" is supposed to be ticket sales iyo? Bzzzz.... wrong.

EOT. If you want to continue this offtopic -> PM.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Here's another good read. The info-graphics are especially useful.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis




----------



## Silver Swordsman

You know, I actually find it funny that this thread was a hubbub of activity when high speed rail was getting shredded to bits by the news, and now when the decision's finalized, it's all dead and quiet in here. 

*lol.


----------



## RegentHouse

What I find to be the biggest problem other than economy is the government's stupidity. If the United States wants world class public transportation, little individual HSR lines by state is silly and a waste of money. Whenever this endeavor is undertaken, the first line should be NYC to Chicago. Of course, that will happen if and when the economy improves. Also, it can only be done by large corporations with assurrance given by the government, akin to how the original railroads were.


----------



## China Hand

RegentHouse said:


> What I find to be the biggest problem other than economy is the government's stupidity. If the United States wants world class public transportation, little individual HSR lines by state is silly and a waste of money. Whenever this endeavor is undertaken, the first line should be NYC to Chicago. Of course, that will happen if and when the economy improves. Also, it can only be done by large corporations with assurrance given by the government, akin to how the original railroads were.


It's not about what the US Government wants, it is about what the people want and what they are willing to pay for and they do not want it. Corporations won't make money on it even using the current China model and here is the proof:

Costs are exploding in the CA HSR endeavor just as predicted, and this higher cost means it makes no sense as California has to issue so much new debt that its residents must pay for it in higher taxes.

From HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/california-high-speed-rail_n_1566807.html



> California High Speed Rail Doesn't Have The Support Of Majority Of Californians: Poll


From Sacramento Mercury News:


> High-speed rail price tag soars again, this time on pace to ...
> Cost for full project on pace to surpass $60 billion, nearly twice what voters approved.





RegentHouse said:


> NYC to Chicago


Well, I have driven to Chicago, crossing the state of Indiana in under 2 hours by car. I have driven across North America 6 times, lived in LA and Chicago and New York and DC, and what you want is fiction, fantasy, not reality based. People do NOT drive where you think those lines should be built. They drive all over, not just along those major megacities and where a HSR route would be built.

Again and again you all assume that USA megacities have the traffic where you believe and think and want it to be, but it's just not there. You keep looking at HSR in other nations and assuming the same behaviour in the USA and North America, and this assumption is a grievous error.

If the USA had the cash to follow the China model, they could put in HSR NYC to Chicago, .073¢ per km. That's heavily subsidised in China, hundred's of billlions (USD equiv) in money spent.

That's a great theoretical idea, except for that pesky thing called 'reality'.

The cost of a flight 1149km from NYC to Chicago is from $78 to $220 USD one way [Kayak.com, all airports]. That's 0.068 ¢ per km for the bargain fare, already cheaper than the currently heavily subsidised CRH fare in China, using the current forex cross of 6.35 CNY to USD.

The cost to build per km in China is from 30m Yuan to 200m Yuan per km.

$4.72 to $31.49 million USD per km with most CRH lines around 90m Yuan or $14.17 million USD per km.

That's an impossible figure to attain a buildout in the USA and China's economy is 80% of the USA's.

Absolutely impossible and to claim otherwise is delusional.

In the USA Cali HSR is already at 68Bn and that figure will triple by the time it is built.

Air distance is 600km, the HSR line will be 1300km, the estimated cost began at $35bn, now it is at $68 to $98bn and exploding higher as critics said it would. The first segment will be about 300km.

This is a cost of anything from $116 million USD km to $75 million USD per km, and the price tag is assured to double or triple.

So in the USA you have HSR that costs 10X or more to build per km, USA airfares per km that are already HALF of current Chinese airfares and less than the currently heavily subsidised CRH rail fares, and an area 3 times to cover as most people in China live in the eastern third of the nation where the CRH is and in the USA they are spread from coast to coast.


----------



## Sunfuns

To China Hand:

Despite your ravings I'm sure HSR would work well in certain areas of US. Absolutely no reason to think that people wouldn't use it if it took twice as fast as driving and similar price as flying. Do you really think people in Europe travel mostly from one city center to another? Our airlines tend to be cheaper than yours as well. And before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about - I have lived there for 8 years and now the country reasonably well. 

What I do have trouble understanding is why the construction costs in California are so abnormally high. Never mind China with it's cheap labor - it's also several times more expensive per km as in Western Europe where labor costs are similar...


----------



## XAN_

RegentHouse said:


> What I find to be the biggest problem other than economy is the government's stupidity. If the United States wants world class public transportation, little individual HSR lines by state is silly and a waste of money. Whenever this endeavor is undertaken, the first line should be NYC to Chicago. Of course, that will happen if and when the economy improves. Also, it can only be done by large corporations with assurrance given by the government, akin to how the original railroads were.


Well, building smaller HSR systems, showing the public the benefits of HSR and getting support for connection lines seems to be good idea.


----------



## China Hand

Sunfuns said:


> To China Hand:
> 
> Despite your ravings I'm sure HSR would work well in certain areas of US.


If you wish to ignore political reality, fiscal reality and the will of the people, then yes it would work well.

I must conclude that most of you are delusional, that facts and money and what people want is irrelevant. That you think it is best, therefore it must be so.

You all seem incapable of understanding the differences between Europe and the USA with regards to commute length and where people travel and the density of the USA vs. Europe.



> Absolutely no reason to think that people wouldn't use it if it took t/wice as fast as driving and similar price as flying. Do you really think people in Europe travel mostly from one city center to another?


You are wrong. People will not and do not use rail in the USA as you believe they do, would and should. Southern California has a non-HSR for Los Angeles, and a subway. Few use it because it does not take people to where they need to go. The freeways are still jammed with people one to a car, because autos are still cheaper, faster, save time, save money and more convenient. Autos also allow personal freedom and mobility, two concepts essential to Americans.

Even when presented with facts, finances and a map of Europe superimposed upon North America, you still refuse to comprehend.

Europe and the Western Hemisphere are different. The same solutions do not apply. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

I have never met a non-North American who understands how large the USA or Western Hemisphere is and what that means on so many levels.

This thread has merely confirmed this observation.

One last anecdote:
I worked with a guy who had a commute before 7am that was wider than the nation of Denmark (100+kms). Then after he arrived at the office he drove a distance 60% the length of Denmark to the job site. 175 kms more.

All before 9am. All just for his one way, morning commute to the job site.
Then he had to go back home at night. That was a drive of about 200km as he could drive another, more direct route and did not have to go to the office.

He had many others on the road doing the same commute with him.

As I wrote, you simply do not seem capable of understanding.



> What I do have trouble understanding is why the construction costs in California are so abnormally high.


It's called reality.

Labour is more expensive in the USA and labour unions have total control of projects like this across the USA. They use them as ways to get billions from the taxpayer via government programs, and use them to enrich themselves and their members at very very high labour rates. $50 to $75 per hour USD for common construction labour.

Since this dynamic will never change because the unions in the USA have all political parties bought, paid for, and on their side, the costs will never drop and thus HSR is not possible in the USA.

Politicians vote for union projects that send billions to unions.
Unions donated millions to politicians.
Polticians then vote for union projects and on and on...



> Well, building smaller HSR systems, showing the public the benefits of HSR and getting support for connection lines seems to be good idea.


Most Americans don't want someone to spend their money by force [taxes] to show them something that they should like and want, when they do not like it nor want it.


----------



## Sunfuns

Just because you don't want them doesn't mean all Americans (or even most) don't want them. In several states people voted in referendums that they do want it. Of course they would prefer not to pay for it (or any infrastructure really)... 

As for union labor it's for you all to change it. France, for example, is heavily unionized and still achieves reasonable construction costs for their HSR lines (ca 20 million euros per km on flat land). 

You just build just one puny HSR and then we can discuss whether people use it or not! Otherwise it's all way too subjective. Entire US is not like Los Angeles. I know many well off people who live in NYC and use trains/subway extensively. Some don't even have their own cars.

P.S. Have you actually lived in Europe? You don't seem to understand conditions here very well...


----------



## phoenixboi08

Building a trans-continental HSR line would be ludicrous**, but building shorter intercity lines is sensible, and has much precedent. I think the assumption that the population is very widely dispersed is based upon the evaluation of urban centers, which I guess does make sense, but ignores the broader picture.

Most of the US population lives in cities that are smaller than 500,000 or so. For example, if you've ever look at a list of the top 10 cities by population, you'll see NYC at about 8 million, and next city, LA, is a distant second at 3,792,621.* 

However, lets explore this perception more fully. If you were to tally the population of the top 10 cities, it would be approximately 24,513,008 people.* That means that 7.9% of the total population of 308,745,538* lives in one of the top 10 urban areas. But to further illustrate what I am getting at, let's include the top 20: 32,020,252.* You'll see that we've only moved slightly to capture 10% of the total population (I could continue and include the top 30, but I think you get the point). 

What is a much more telling figure, is the share of the population residing in California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and New York (the top 5 states by population - a total of 113,409,561 people*). This is 37% of the population that live in one of these five states. If you begin adding the Midwestern states (Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, ect you will easily break 50%) In addition, 13 of the top 20 cities (65%) are within these five states 









_Most of the population lives east of the Mississppi_

While it is true that there aren't a huge cluster of large urban centers (as we see EU and much of Asia), the basic model of HSR - a means to connect large urban centers - is what we should most be concerned with. 

If you honestly think EVERY city is going to be connected by 380km/h trains, you're in for disappointment. But they don't need to be, a significant portion of the population lives near these major urban areas. The key in my mind, is to focus on intra-state lines feeding traffic into large urban centers in the short term and inter-state (i.e. HSR lines) lines connecting these large urban centers in the long term.

*2010 Census

**in the near future


----------



## China Hand

Sunfuns said:


> Just because you don't want them doesn't mean all Americans (or even most) don't want them. In several states people voted in referendums that they do want it. Of course they would prefer not to pay for it (or any infrastructure really)...


This isn't my opinion alone. Most Americans do not want this.

Perhaps you should revisit those who voted for it in California.
They are now not in favour, due to massively rising costs.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/02/local/la-me-0603-bullet-poll-20120604



> Voters have turned against California bullet train, poll shows
> A strong majority of voters is against the bullet train project just as Gov. Brown is pressuring the Legislature to green-light the start of construction, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll finds.
> June 02, 2012|By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times


http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/cracks-appear-in-california-state-senate



> Cracks Appear in California State Senate as High-Speed Rail Vote Approaches Station


In California the increasing costs are having voters change their minds once they see the real cost, the trebling from $35Bn to $98Bn and beyond to who knows how much. That's 500bn to 1000bn Yuan. For just one line. In one state.

Building a USA large scale network would cost trillions in USD, and there simply is not enough money on the planet to buy USA debt to fund such a program.

But why look at reality or how to pay for it? Clearly most here do not care about such trivialities.


----------



## Sunfuns

How about looking for ways to build it in line with costs and methods well established elsewhere instead of trying to come up with some golden plated system? 20-30 Bn $ is all it should take to build LA-San Francisco. Not that it's necessarily the best place to start...

And by the way I agree with Californian voters - for 95 Bn it's probably not worth it any more.


----------



## CNB30

I hope china hand had the brains to actually look ar the poll and see the overwhelming yes majourity. No matter what the costs are, we need light and highspeed rail to promote density and end the dammed sprawl. This is 2012 for christs sake!!! 

Screw the economics I WANT A BULLET TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## phoenixboi08

China Hand said:


> This isn't my opinion alone. Most Americans do not want this.
> 
> Perhaps you should revisit those who voted for it in California.
> They are now not in favour, due to massively rising costs.
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/02/local/la-me-0603-bullet-poll-20120604
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/cracks-appear-in-california-state-senate
> 
> In California the increasing costs are having voters change their minds once they see the real cost, the trebling from $35Bn to $98Bn and beyond to who knows how much. That's 500bn to 1000bn Yuan. For just one line. In one state.
> 
> Building a USA large scale network would cost trillions in USD, and there simply is not enough money on the planet to buy USA debt to fund such a program.
> 
> But why look at reality or how to pay for it? Clearly most here do not care about such trivialities.





Sunfuns said:


> How about looking for ways to build it in line with costs and methods well established elsewhere instead of trying to come up with some golden plated system? 20-30 Bn $ is all it should take to build LA-San Francisco. Not that it's necessarily the best place to start...
> 
> And by the way I agree with Californian voters - for 95 Bn it's probably not worth it any more.



But isn't there a trade off, you think? (if it creates the number of jobs they're saying it will)

Also, I think the polls are indicating dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the project rather than the general idea of it; as they should, considering they're footing the bill. I have since fallen out of favor with the CAHSR initiative. It just seems they're not being very diligent in trying to minimize costs. I've also yet to find any justification for the increase in the projected costs (I assume it's terrain related/having to lay dedicated track).
However, the idea of 90bn in costs over 15 years isn't nearly as worrying as estimated fares being $120 one-way....I find that troubling, and if that's the case, I'm not convinced it will capture much of the air traffic on that route, which is the entire basis of justifying it as a viable alternative.


----------



## China Hand

phoenixboi08 said:


> The key in my mind, is to focus on intra-state lines feeding traffic into large urban centers in the short term and inter-state (i.e. HSR lines) lines connecting these large urban centers in the long term.


I have repeatedly posted support for why this argument is flawed.

You believe that there is a large amount of traffic from one large urban center to another that can be served by HSR and the fact is that most drivers on large USA Interstates use them as a commuter road.

Once someone gets to Los Angeles from Fresno, they go to one of hundreds of destinations and many of these are 100 miles in all directions. NSE and W.

Let's work a scenario.

Someone needs to get from Fresno to Canoga Park.

They take the HSR at 300kph from Fresno to San Fernando in the SF Valley.
The drive would take 212 miles, 3 h 37 minutes by Google Maps and directions. I can tell you from personal experience that someone driving that route would be traveling at 80 to 90 mph, 130 kph, in the fast lane. I have personally done this myself. So instead of 3 h 37m it is closer to 2h 45m. But let's give the HSR a head start and use the longer time. So that's from your door in Fresno to parking the car at Canoga Park High School. 3h 37m.

20 mpg for your truck, 10.5 gallons of fuel, $4.00 a gallon, around $42 USD.

3h 37M
$42 USD

Now let's do this by train.

You leave your front door and walk 5 minutes to a bus and take it to the train. 15 minutes later you are at the station. Assuming, and this is a big 'if' that you get there and spend only 5 minutes to buy a ticket, step on the platform and get the next train the instant it arrives, you only took 25 minutes your front door to the HSR station. 

It is 200 miles, 322km to San Fernando. At 300 kph and an avg speed of 255kph (in China avg speed is usually 85% of top speed). you will arrive in 1h 16m. So far so good. 1h 41m time used.

Now you must take a bus from SF to Canoga Park. You *could* take a taxi, but taxi's in Los Angeles are very very expensive and the one taxi ride could easily cost you $100 USD.

Again, from personal experience living in Los Angeles and driving there, taking the bus there, taking a taxi there, driving to the airports there, taking the Metrolink and subway and public transportation, this trip will be at LEAST one hour if not much much longer as the buses are infrequent with poor coverage. The good part is that the bus will cost you $2 at most.

Let's say 1h 15 minutes, but I know, as fact, that there are NO buses going E to W across the valley to Canoga Park from the town of San Fernando and you will have to transfer and THAT will add up to 1 hour to the trip.

But I will be easy on HSR. 1h 15m.

Total time is now 1h 16m (the actual train trip), 25 getting to the station and 1h 15 minutes getting from the HSR station nearest Canoga Park to your destination. 

Total time:
2h 56minutes.
Cost at 7¢ per km is $22.54

But, again from personal experience, that price point is unrealistic. Current Metrolink fares are 33 miles or 53 kms and $9.25 from Union Station to Chatsworth, the station nearest.

That is a cost per km of 17.5¢ for slow rail.

It is thus likely that the ticket cost from Fresno will be closer to $55 USD or more at 17.5¢ per km.

If posting such well-researched arguments makes me an 'anti-rail biggot' (sic) as sekelsenmat posted in another thread, then perhaps you all should ask if your opinions are based upon facts and reality, or something else.



sekelsenmat said:


> ^^ !?!? When did Skyscraper city got dominated by anti-rail biggots?


----------



## Sunfuns

How about this argument - you build a dedicated line like this from NYC to Washington DC with stops in Philadelphia and Baltimore. That's about 230 miles so assuming a conservative 140 mph average it would take about 1h 40 min (maybe a bit faster for a non stop express). A drive from downtown to downtown is at least 4 h + I wouldn't really advise driving in Manhattan. Both cities have excellent subways and suburban train/bus systems and there are at least 20 million people living along this corridor. Still don't think folks would use such a system? I bet folks not only would use it a lot, but there could be 20 trains a day on the route and it would be highly profitable.


----------



## phoenixboi08

China Hand said:


> I have repeatedly posted support for why this argument is flawed.
> 
> You believe that there is a large amount of traffic from one large urban center to another that can be served by HSR and the fact is that most drivers on large USA Interstates use them as a commuter road.


Not quite. I understand your point and agree. This is why I think those kinds of lines (inter-city HSR) should occur only after constructing initial links between cities that constitute the greater share of regional air traffic (obviously the NE, Chicago/Great Lakes region, etc).*

I think we're talking about 2 different things though. To be clear, I was advocating for the connection of cities like SF-LA, Houston-Dallas, etc before attempting connections like LA-Chicago. I think you are talking about the first scenario in general not being favorable?

Also, I didn't know they were only constructing one station in LA. Isn't that odd? 

Anyways, I don't think it's constructive to reduce the conversation down to naysayers vs. the-people-who-want-it-no-matter-what. Overwhelmingly, there's a vast difference in personal preferences and anecdotes that can be offered as to why such a system is/isn't viable. I think the most important point, however, is that this project is ill-managed. Which you have pointed out, and I'm glad you did. I mean, I knew things were rocky, but I didn't know they were this "uncertain."I'm feeling much more pessimistic now about the CAHSR... I understand why they're starting in the central valley, but why not just begin the system as two "commuter lines" from opposite ends and join them later (i.e. Merced-SF and Bakersfield-LA)? Or even a San Diego-LA segment. Honestly, I think we need to learn to crawl before we even try to run. If we learn anything from this going forward, it should be that incremental development is much more favorable.

Parsons Brinckerhoff seems to have a long history of significant cost overruns. Also, it's pretty clear the "blended approach" is not the way to go....










*there was a very useful map illustrating the volume of regional air-traffic but I can't find it.


----------



## Silly_Walks

China Hand said:


> Once someone gets to Los Angeles from Fresno, they go to one of hundreds of destinations and many of these are 100 miles in all directions. NSE and W.



This is the same in Europe. Yet they have HSR. There's an underlying network of other forms of public transportation to take you to/from stations and your destination.
The same would work when connecting US cities that have proper metro/lightrail/bus networks.

Your examples are all of people who are better off driving, but the truth is that for many people, every minute traveled by car is a minute wasted, while every minute on the train can be used to keep working. Of course this doesn't apply to construction workers, etc., but in Europe they also tend to drive more than office workers.

They're not so different, the US and Europe.


----------



## LtBk

> If you wish to ignore political reality, fiscal reality and the will of the people, then yes it would work well.
> 
> I must conclude that most of you are delusional, that facts and money and what people want is irrelevant. That you think it is best, therefore it must be so.
> 
> You all seem incapable of understanding the differences between Europe and the USA with regards to commute length and where people travel and the density of the USA vs. Europe.


Umm, the Northeast USA will disagree with you.


----------



## XAN_

China Hand said:


> If you wish to ignore political reality, fiscal reality and the will of the people, then yes it would work well.
> 
> I must conclude that most of you are delusional, that facts and money and what people want is irrelevant. That you think it is best, therefore it must be so.
> 
> You all seem incapable of understanding the differences between Europe and the USA with regards to commute length and where people travel and the density of the USA vs. Europe.
> 
> Most Americans don't want someone to spend their money by force [taxes] to show them something that they should like and want, when they do not like it nor want it.


Well, wile most of the USA aren't feasable for HSR, but there still areas such as Bay and North-East, in wich it feets perfectly...

Considering the will of people... Are you aware of prisoners dilema? It's a model for a lot of IRL process. Switching to car instead of means of mass. transit may be "win" for each individual at the moment, but in the long run it's "loose" to the entire society - and thus to every member of the society.


----------



## CNB30

Why arent people talking about HSR going from Boston- providence- NYC- phili- baltimore- DC-richmond- norfolk- thats a cash cow waiting to happen. The Northeast is much denser and where everybodytakes the train allready, not in the midwest or wherever.


----------



## G5man

CNB30 said:


> Why arent people talking about HSR going from Boston- providence- NYC- phili- baltimore- DC-richmond- norfolk- thats a cash cow waiting to happen. The Northeast is much denser and where everybodytakes the train allready, not in the midwest or wherever.


Amtrak is letting Parsons do all the talking without conducting its own analysis it seems. If their project manager is doing their job, I would start doing some value engineering by cutting out unecessary concrete and digging. Also, it might help given the long-term timeframe to establish some political cooperation to make this project even cheaper. I would rather continue Richmond down the Atlantic Coast to Miami via Atlanta in order to pick up a nice connection to the Piedmont region and continue to reduce air traffic out of the valuable slots of NYC and Reagan Airports.


----------



## Sopomon

Nexis said:


> *An Westbound 135mph Acela Express Roaring through Trenton & Rush Hour Photos
> *


That's more around 115, 202 metres in 3.9 seconds.

Is that on one of the fastest stretches?


----------



## krnboy1009

I think it does 120 MPH somewhere a bit north of DC.


----------



## Nexis

Sopomon said:


> That's more around 115, 202 metres in 3.9 seconds.
> 
> Is that on one of the fastest stretches?


Maybe 120.....its in the 135mph zone , they were doing upgrades in the area...so speed often gets lowered...its being upgraded to 160mph , then once the Gateway and Elizabeth upgrades are done by 2025 , 190mph from New York to North Philly....


----------



## FM 2258

^^

Can't wait for them to get 190mph from Boston to Washington. What is it that the need to do to get 190mph from New York to North Philadelphia? Smooth out turns, upgrade overhead wires, replace track? :cheers:


----------



## phoenixboi08

I was reading about the differences between the Japanese and German Maglev technologies, and Japan's innovations are kind of interesting...
They use a train that has wheels, but once it reaches a specific speed, it switches to the semiconductors and magnets. I think this could bode well for the development of Maglev corridors in small areas, where such a train set could simply "switch" modes depending on the track.

Though, wouldn't this still be really expensive (having trains with both overhead systems for catenaries, and the magnetic components).


----------



## Don31

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> Can't wait for them to get 190mph from Boston to Washington. What is it that the need to do to get 190mph from New York to North Philadelphia? Smooth out turns, upgrade overhead wires, replace track? :cheers:


That's exactly whats needed. Its easier said than done though.


----------



## CNB30

Don31 said:


> That's exactly whats needed. Its easier said than done though.


they better bring it down through Richmond and Norfolk, as planned :gaah:


----------



## trainrover

I highly doubt 190MPH service will ever near Boston let alone Long Island Sound ... on the ground...


----------



## Homem

We all knows that High Speed Rail projects (250 km/hour and more) in the USA are DEAD.


----------



## CNB30

Homem said:


> We all knows that High Speed Rail projects (250 km/hour and more) in the USA are DEAD.


how come there are plans to build one from san fran to la are all ready :lol:


----------



## Nexis

Homem said:


> We all knows that High Speed Rail projects (250 km/hour and more) in the USA are DEAD.


There not , as I pointed out there are alot of upgrades underway as we speak...in Northeast.


----------



## Nexis

CNB30 said:


> they better bring it down through Richmond and Norfolk, as planned :gaah:


Richmond isn't getting faster service but 125mph service which is fine.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

phoenixboi08 said:


> I was reading about the differences between the Japanese and German Maglev technologies, and Japan's innovations are kind of interesting...
> They use a train that has wheels, but once it reaches a specific speed, it switches to the semiconductors and magnets. I think this could bode well for the development of Maglev corridors in small areas, where such a train set could simply "switch" modes depending on the track.
> 
> Though, wouldn't this still be really expensive (having trains with both overhead systems for catenaries, and the magnetic components).


I don't think maglev - conventional setups are viable for the Northeast or the USA because the trains are so heavy. I would also like to point out that the JR maglev uses EMU bogies (each car is powered) rather than having a powerhead at each end; overall this makes the train lighter. 

And obviously, with more weight, operating costs are just going to be higher.


----------



## Don31

Homem said:


> We all knows that High Speed Rail projects (250 km/hour and more) in the USA are DEAD.


Wrong.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Silver Swordsman said:


> I don't think maglev - conventional setups are viable for the Northeast or the USA because the trains are so heavy. I would also like to point out that the JR maglev uses EMU bogies (each car is powered) rather than having a powerhead at each end; overall this makes the train lighter.
> 
> And obviously, with more weight, operating costs are just going to be higher.


Gotcha. I was just wondering if that's their modus operandi: the biggest problem is that maglev connections make sense in some areas but a large line is 1) too expensive and 2) is incompatible with existing rail infrastructure. Seems such an approach would provide a really good solution. 

In other words, a maglev line between two cities, such as the proposed Baltimore-BWI-D.C. one, could operate in conjunction with the rest of the conventional rail infrastructure. To be honest however, I think maglev won't make sense unless it gets significantly faster. I remember reading that one of the proposed inter-city maglev lines in China, between Shanghai and Hangzhou, would have only been 15 minutes faster than a conventional HSR line.

But thanks for highlighting that about the JR. I was under the impression that was something all [high speed] trains had adopted.


----------



## yaohua2000

phoenixboi08 said:


> I remember reading that one of the proposed inter-city maglev lines in China, between Shanghai and Hangzhou, would have only been 15 minutes faster than a conventional HSR line.


The proposed SH-HZ maglev was planned to run at 450 km/h or 27 minutes single trip time.

The SH-HZ CRH train, once all completed (that's when Hangzhou East Station opens), at 350 km/h, single trip time was planned to be 38 minutes.

Difference = 11 minutes

But for longer route, like Beijing to Shanghai, the difference can be up to 2 hours (2.5 hrs v.s. 4.5 hrs).


----------



## trainrover

phoenixboi08 said:


> I think maglev won't make sense unless it gets significantly faster.


I myself suspect it will become faster, which is one of the reasons why I think it be the choice mode of HSR. The other reason is that elevating HSR might be more logical at skirting wildlife. By the time the USA commits to HSR, I suspect maglev will have become viable :|


----------



## hmmwv

trainrover said:


> I myself suspect it will become faster, which is one of the reasons why I think it be the choice mode of HSR. The other reason is that elevating HSR might be more logical at skirting wildlife. By the time the USA commits to HSR, I suspect maglev will have become viable :|


Well, from the documentary "Hunger Games" a future US maglev train will only go at 200mph.


----------



## XAN_

hmmwv said:


> Well, from the documentary "Hunger Games" a future US maglev train will only go at 200mph.


Well Hunger Games are unrealistic piece of .... The society as described in it will never need HS land transportation - car+plain would be the only viable transportation options. HSR require multiple moderately distant big and flourishing cities, like North-East agglomeration, SF+LA, etc.


----------



## aquaticko

The wikipedia article on maglevs indicates that the wheels on the JR maglev are only there for low-speed running, as the magnetic fields from the train and track require a speed difference to cause levitation, or something along those lines. This seems to say to me that we won't be having the L0 going from the Chuo Shinkansen to the Sanyo Shinkansen in one fell swoop. 

But that's all Japanese HSR stuff; this thread is about 'Murican HSR, which travels at an amazing 110mph right now!!


----------



## aquaticko

China Hand said:


> You aren't posting facts you are posting opinions and your presumed objective knowledge is wrong because I lived there and you didn't and what you say is factually incorrect.
> 
> The fact is that all of you in favour of HSR in California and the NE Corridor of the USA have zero experience with those locations. You haven't driven them, you don't know the traffic patterns and behaviours, you have never spoken to anyone who drives those routes.
> 
> You are living in an academic fantasy land that ignores all that informs you why HSR does not exist in the USA.
> 
> *You have no idea what you are talking about* other than what you have read in a book or on a website.
> 
> Well, USA traffic patterns differ from what you learned in a book or 500 level course.


I'm from Manchester, NH. I need to drive a car daily to get anywhere. I drove from my home here to my cousin's wedding near Buffalo, NY last month, drive down to Boston about every other weekend, and try to take the train to New York City from Boston twice a year. I also went to university in Boston and used both public transportation and a car to get around the city and the Northeast megalopolis. I'll admit I've never been to California, but the rest is clearly nothing more than you talking out of your ass, not that that's any different from the norm.

And I've not ignored what makes HSR difficult now. I readily concede that at present, it's not a perfect fit for almost anywhere in the country. But as SilverSwordsman pointed out, _it fits well enough_, and as we saw with the car, development patterns change in response to transportation availability (among other things, of course). _You_ are the one who is ignoring reality, attempting to dismantle anything that goes against your broader worldview; the two of us have already discussed _that_ as far as seems likely to be productive to do so. I find it particularly interesting that the tropes you used to argue with me then are the same as you do now, clear evidence that _you_ are arguing ideology, not facts.

_If you are not going to attempt to be balanced and impartial, *please* do not try to contribute._

Now, I am going to try earnestly to ignore any further posts you have in this thread. I strongly suggest that everyone else do the same.


----------



## phat11

Romney Promises to Revive Stealth Jet, But It Won’t Happen
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised that if elected, he would restart production of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. “I would add more F-22s,” the former Massachusetts governor said in Virginia on Saturday. Don’t buy it.

The plan, if you can call it that, is totally possible. But just because a Raptor resurrection is possible doesn’t mean it’s realistic — let alone a good idea.

It’s actually easier to return the F-22 to production than it is to restart most discontinued warplanes. Lockheed and the Air Force carefully preserved all the tooling and blueprints to make the radar-evading jet. Usually, warplane manufacturers usually dismantle the bulky factory tooling once production wraps on a particular model. Still, reviving the F-22 would cost billions before a single new jet even entered production. It would also upend the Air Force’s carefully laid plans for producing new drones, tankers, bombers and — oh yeah — the cheaper and arguably more capable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

It’s not clear how serious Romney is about his proposed Raptor re-start. According to Time, Romney mentioned the idea at a rally in the “rather modest” Military Aviation Museum outside Virginia Beach. “Perhaps he was just channeling the good vibes he was getting from all the museum pieces,” Time quipped.

Building more Raptors is not impossible. As production of the last of 196 F-22s ended at Lockheed’s Marietta, Georgia plant in December, the company packed all the specialized machinery — 30,000 items in all — into air-conditioned shipping containers and sent them to the U.S. Army’s Sierra depot in northern California for long-term storage. To preserve production techniques, Lockheed photographed and videotaped workers at their stations and transcribed worker testimony, programming the resulting information into 80 iPad-like devices encompassing all aspects of Raptor assembly.


Officially, the Air Force wants F-22 production materials preserved so it can make new spare parts for the existing stealth fleet. In past years the flying branch had fought for more Raptors — 243, to be exact — but in 2009 former Defense Secretary Robert Gates held the line at 187 plus nine prototypes — and President Barack Obama signed off on the lower number. “There’s no chance of revisiting that decision,” Gen. Norton Schwartz, the recently retired Air Force chief of staff, said in July.

What would it take to bring back the F-22? “In a national emergency, I would say anything is possible,” Schwartz said. Lockheed could retrieve the shipping containers, set up a new factory somewhere (the old F-22 assembly plant is now building cargo planes) and bring back Raptor workers, most of whom are still with the company.

In 2010 the think-tank RAND estimated it would cost an extra $90 million per plane, on top of the existing $137 million price tag per plane, to restart production and build 75 more Raptors following a two-year shut-down. But Romney’s F-22 v2.0 would begin assembly in 2013 at the earliest, meaning the restart would be at least a year later than RAND’s model and costs would surely be higher. The Air Force bought most of its Raptors in annual lots of around 20 jets. If a Romney administration bought a batch in each of its four years, the total cost for up to 80 new F-22s could top $20 billion.

That might seem like a lot, but Romney’s F-22 numbers do add up … in the abstract. The candidate has proposed spending 4 percent of U.S. gross domestic product on the military, which amounts to adding at least $100 billion a year to the Pentagon’s current $500-billion-plus budget. Romney’s defense plans involve adding another 100,000 active-duty troops, requiring some $25 billion annually; and an boosting Navy shipbuilding by six new ships a year, costing probably $8 billion combined annually. More Raptors could easily fit within the remaining $65 billion per year Romney said he would add to Pentagon coffers, with plenty of money left over to staff and operate the new F-22 squadrons.

The problem is, the Romney budget scheme is itself looks like wishful thinking, particularly in light of the candidate’s pledge to reduce taxes below today’s modern lows and still erase a trillion-dollar annual budget deficit. “If you pursue this, how are you going to balance the budget?” Lawrence Korb, a defense wonk at the liberal Center for American Progress, said of the Romney defense plan.

In the real world, it’s unlikely Romney’s grand budget scheme would receive congressional backing. A Romney administration could probably boost defense spending somewhat, but $100 billion per year seems like an unrealistic figure. In that case, F-22s seem a lot less affordable — unless Romney is prepared to revise the Air Force’s stated priorities.

Of all the hardware the Air Force is buying, at a cost of around $40 billion a year, the most urgent is the new KC-46 tanker, followed by the F-35; drones; a new stealth bomber; and satellites, according to the flying branch. The tanker is already running over budget, the F-35 has run out of cash reserves and the bomber is at serious risk of a multi-billion-dollar cost overrun. Drones and satellites have budgetary problems, too. There’s not a lot of room to slip in $5 billion a year in F-22s without jeopardizing other production lines.

It’s not clear the Air Force would want to displace its current in-production fighter, the F-35, with the revived F-22. For all its stealth, speed and agility, the F-22 has drawbacks. For one, it might still be choking its pilots owing to apparent faults in the pilots’ vests or the jet’s oxygen system. Moreover, the Raptor lacks modern datalinks for securely swapping information with any other aircraft besides another F-22 — a weakness that forced the Raptor to sit out the Libya war. The F-35 has none of those flaws, though it has plenty of of problems of its own.

Most importantly, at $110 million per copy the F-35 — even though it’s the most expensive weapon program in human history – is cheaper on a unit basis than the F-22. And the Air Force is gearing up to buy many, many more of them: 1,763, enough to replace all of today’s aged F-15s and F-16s. The F-35 “is our future,” Lt. Col. Lee Kloos, commander of the first F-35 training squadron, remarked on Tuesday.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/romney-more-f-22s/


Hey Romney instead to throw out the statement that a stealth aircraft can be consolidated to create a high-speed train, the American people are better than me. China's high-speed rail than the U.S. move closer to a million times.


Americans must choose between orders combat aircraft to the job only for a time, but the fighters are not generating economic returns nothing, but will increase the cost of the blank, or to establish a high-speed train. create more permanent. And long-term economic benefits to America to choose which one that Romney has made ​​few arms dealers are conducive not only to the American people.








or


----------



## trainrover

I suspect that fecal smear needn't be reminded of its claims ... besides quoting its --uhm-- snippets anulls its subscription to my Ignore List ... well, partially at least :|


----------



## Silly_Walks

Phat11 seems to be a Google Translate poster


----------



## phoenixboi08

Needless to say that HSR is meant for connecting large population centers (not everything in between them)...

To ask whether HSR is "viable" here is a bit odd. The point is constructing a network that works. The US is similar to China is population density and distribution (if you've ever overlayed maps of China over that of the US, you'd clearly see that). 

The only thing I'm worried about is it seems people aren't adding the caveat that HSR needs to work in concert with conventional rail. Which is why I believe a better approach would have been to improve existing infrastructure and services, while focusing on key HSR corridors - Piedmont, Keystone, California, and NEC and move from there.

People will naturally shift modes based upon economic indicators (i.e. what is cheapest). No one WANTS to drive long distance, that's ridiculous. I live 2 hours from New Orleans. If I could get there by train, even if that train weren't HSR, I'd still take it. 

*Also, there are other dense regions, not just the NEC...


----------



## trainrover

It's far from being ridiculous, what about the mostly-American road-trip phenomenon..."


----------



## G5man

phoenixboi08 said:


> Needless to say that HSR is meant for connecting large population centers (not everything in between them)...
> 
> To ask whether HSR is "viable" here is a bit odd. The point is constructing a network that works. The US is similar to China is population density and distribution (if you've ever overlayed maps of China over that of the US, you'd clearly see that).
> 
> The only thing I'm worried about is it seems people aren't adding the caveat that HSR needs to work in concert with conventional rail. Which is why I believe a better approach would have been to improve existing infrastructure and services, while focusing on key HSR corridors - Piedmont, Keystone, California, and NEC and move from there.
> 
> People will naturally shift modes based upon economic indicators (i.e. what is cheapest). No one WANTS to drive long distance, that's ridiculous. I live 2 hours from New Orleans. If I could get there by train, even if that train weren't HSR, I'd still take it.
> 
> *Also, there are other dense regions, not just the NEC...


 That has been the big question. Go from top down in development or bottom up approach? We drive only because it is the most convenient option. People will choose the option that is the most convenient for them. It is why so many commuters choose to use a vehicle is because of a system incentivized to it. The fact is, cheap oil is not going to last forever so we need to improve all of our options for travel that are not oil based. If we build the most successful systems first, that should lead to more people coming up saying "I want this in my town" rather than the NIMBYs.


----------



## FM 2258

trainrover said:


> It's far from being ridiculous, what about the mostly-American road-trip phenomenon..."


I love driving long distances but hell if I could have the option of taking a 217 mph train from Austin to Houston, that would be awesome. Paying for gas even for my little 2004 Sentra is annoying. I love to speed so having to watch out for police kinda sucks. Trains have no traffic to deal with if they're on a dedicated line. I feel there is some other agenda going on that the government doesn't want us to know about. Higher gas prices for me has taken a lot of joy I use to have with driving. I love our Interstate system but we need more alternatives. 

In the past 6 years I've visited 11 different countries and more and more I feel, what the **** is going on with the United States? Other countries seem to have their stuff together with respect to public transportation including Jamaica.


----------



## particlez

The US, like most every other place would benefit from HSR. Polling has consistently indicated that the public is supportive of HSR, yet it's constantly being held back. There are a never-ending number of quibbles:

-Fears about the dreaded useless line between Ogdenville and North Haverbrook
-Fears that any central planning is inherently inefficient and leads to socialism 
-Fears that no one would choose to take HSR over those awesome short haul flights

One by one, the objections can be refuted. Unless the planners are utterly insane and inept and corrupt, no one is proposing lines from nowhere to nowhere. Planning of one sort or another has ALWAYS been done. Don't let the Von Hayek inspired libertarian/neoliberal monetarists divert you with half-baked ideology that ignores empirical evidence. Last week I flew between LAX and SFO. It was hell. Getting to the airport, passing security, being delayed, flying into SFO, waiting for luggage. And then there's the commute to and from the airports. Going from Union Station to that thing in the Embarcardero would be a godsend.

So you wonder about the people/organizations who raise objections to HSR. Vested interests are quick to maintain their own territory and block out potential competitors. Airlines? Oil companies? The FIRE industries and the various monopolies and cartels who wield the most financial and political power? 

Then there's the financial argument. If building practical infrastructure is seen as wasteful, could they explain the previous investment in the interstate system, public education, water, electricity, and sewer grids? Would their libertarian utopia be devoid of these wasteful trappings? While we're on the subject, if HSR is unnecessary of wasteful, why is money spent on quantitative easing and the military?


----------



## phoenixboi08

trainrover said:


> It's far from being ridiculous, what about the mostly-American road-trip phenomenon..."


A road trip is one thing....but if I could easily get from where I live to nearby cities (Atlanta, New Orleans, etc) in far less time than driving, I would go more often.

I would love to visit Chicago and other cities 500mi>700mi but it's too expensive to fly and I wouldn't want to drive that far. It's one thing when it's a leisure, family trip, but when it's just getting from point A to point B (like traveling between home and university) I believe most people would say driving is a nuisance.


----------



## Suburbanist

particlez said:


> The US, like most every other place would benefit from HSR. Polling has consistently indicated that the public is supportive of HSR, yet it's constantly being held back. There are a never-ending number of quibbles:
> 
> -Fears about the dreaded useless line between Ogdenville and North Haverbrook
> -Fears that any central planning is inherently inefficient and leads to socialism
> -Fears that no one would choose to take HSR over those awesome short haul flights


I think there is a difference between "supporting" an infrastructure project, like HSR, and be actually willing to pay for it. I bet most Americans would be totally in favor or HSR, subways, ultrahighspeed fiber Internet - if it would be built entirely with private money. 

I'm not saying that if it couldn't be built with private money it shouldn't be built, but that between "supporting" the idea of HSR and be willing to pay for it with extra taxes there is a growing distance.


----------



## trainrover

You wrote ridiculous...


----------



## aquaticko

No, he's quite right. The disconnect between what most Americans want and what most will pay for is, frankly, stupid. People don't understand that even without increasing services, taxes will have to increase to account for the increasing age of basic infrastructure. In my view, it seems like if taxes are going to be raised anyway, why not forget all about trying to reduce them and instead try to find a happy medium between what you want and what you'll pay for. It seems like lowering taxes is rarely the solution to anything (gasp!).


----------



## trainrover

It wrote ridiculous...pay attention...besides, this poll closed ages ago...talk yourselves blue in the face for all I care...many of you remind me of those dogs going mad at chasing their own tails around in circles, non-stop...


----------



## particlez

Suburbanist said:


> I think there is a difference between "supporting" an infrastructure project, like HSR, and be actually willing to pay for it. I bet most Americans would be totally in favor or HSR, subways, ultrahighspeed fiber Internet - if it would be built entirely with private money.
> 
> I'm not saying that if it couldn't be built with private money it shouldn't be built, but that between "supporting" the idea of HSR and be willing to pay for it with extra taxes there is a growing distance.


Did private money fund the airports, and the roads? Why would the private enterprise air carriers receive bailout funds? 

If you're going to shill for simplistic ideology, at least present a better argument. Unless you want the US to regress into some sort of third world feudalism, your argument does not make sense.


----------



## XAN_

Well, Suburbanist is right, people just doesn't understand how this world works.

But that doesn't mean that everyone should just follow the thought of an average citizen. As a good friend of mine states: "No one discuss work-mode of nuclear reactor on a referendum - there are the specialist for that. Same goes for transport planning"


----------



## KingNick

At least they are now investing some 300 billion Dollars in renewing their nuclear arsenal to fight the Russians back in the 80s.


----------



## Suburbanist

particlez said:


> Did private money fund the airports, and the roads? Why would the private enterprise air carriers receive bailout funds?
> 
> If you're going to shill for simplistic ideology, at least present a better argument. Unless you want the US to regress into some sort of third world feudalism, your argument does not make sense.


I didn't say HSR shouldn't be built because private money alone can't do it! I actually support government involvement in building tracks and stations (but not operating trains directly) like I support government building highways or airports (but not operating buses or airplanes directly).

What I said was that the current political climate in US is just an anti-tax hysteria. A hysteria that was absent when most highway construction took place in the 1940s-1970s for instance.


----------



## gramercy

The political climate will indeed have to change for things to change. The republican party has essentially moved into a mental asylum while the democratic party has become the republican party of the 70s and 80s: somewhat sane but mostly corrupt.


----------



## Woonsocket54

gramercy said:


> The republican party has essentially moved into a mental asylum


I remember when Aaron Sorkin said that; it must have been in one of those few periods when he wasn't high on 'shrooms.


----------



## FM 2258

Sopomon said:


> Try selling that to the electorate


Yeah, probably won't work


----------



## Suburbanist

The Chinese are usually industrial cheater, they stole CRH from Siemens. Actually I wished Siemens sued the Chinese to not allow any major country to import that pirated train.

In any case, the Chinese are crap at building infrastructure. They are not more capable because they are Chinese. It is only because laws are lax on China, they can pay slave wages, and use shoddy concrete, and ignore any restrictions or obligations like paying fairly for eminent domain.

If you could theoretically give full authority to CAHSR to build anywhere it wanted paying token values and hiring poor laborers at US$ 10/day, it could get it build cheap and fast.


----------



## FM 2258

Suburbanist said:


> The Chinese are usually industrial cheater, they stole CRH from Siemens. Actually I wished Siemens sued the Chinese to not allow any major country to import that pirated train.
> 
> In any case, the Chinese are crap at building infrastructure. They are not more capable because they are Chinese. It is only because laws are lax on China, they can pay slave wages, and use shoddy concrete, and ignore any restrictions or obligations like paying fairly for eminent domain.
> 
> If you could theoretically give full authority to CAHSR to build anywhere it wanted paying token values and hiring poor laborers at US$ 10/day, it could get it build cheap and fast.


I had the idea that the CRH system was built to standards much better than other types of projects in China. I hope high quality concrete was used because a lot of the network seems to be on concrete bridges. 

As for the trains I thought business for technology transfer and aid was done legitimately.


----------



## Nexis

*Rahway Raceway in the Early Evening​*





I have a thing for PRR signals


141 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


146 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


----------



## k.k.jetcar

^^
At first glance I thought they were ex-B&O cpl signals, but apparently they are PRR position light signals modified by Amtrak with color lenses.


----------



## aquaticko

FM 2258 said:


> I had the idea that the CRH system was built to standards much better than other types of projects in China. I hope high quality concrete was used because a lot of the network seems to be on concrete bridges.
> 
> As for the trains I thought business for technology transfer and aid was done legitimately.


As far as I know, that's true in both cases. Suburbanist is just being weird here.

In addition to cheaper labor and potentially material costs, China doesn't have two things which make construction cheaper and faster: America's intensive environmental review processes and a public which doesn't feel it has (nor does it actually have) the ability to obstruct a project just because they don't like it.


----------



## phoenixboi08

^^^ This and the fact that anything that is a "national project" is streamlined and steam-rolled through. Obstructionists exist in China, and if they really want to stop something, they WILL (i.e. Shanghai-Hangzhou Maglev). What's the determining factor in their success is how important the project is to national development (also, people realize that traveling by trains is cheaper than flying - in most cases - and see it as a good thing; increased mobility). 

Also, what many people just don't get, is that development can be done so cheaply in China because the government can conscript land far more easily and has more options in financing (i.e. state owned banks giving low interest loans to favored projects/developers). 

For instance, one scheme that has worked brilliantly, is providing loans to local governments to build infrastructure with the local governments then leasing surrounding plots of land to developers, turning pretty profit. That's why a lot of the new stations seem to be "in the middle of nowhere," with dozens of apartment complexes and things nearby.

Ultimately, the difference is that people don't seem to take much issue with the idea of government doing "business" there. Here, it seems to be incomprehensible (but this is an entirely different debate).


----------



## Fan Railer

aquaticko said:


> As far as I know, that's true in both cases. Suburbanist is just being weird here.
> 
> In addition to cheaper labor and potentially material costs, China doesn't have two things which make construction cheaper and faster: America's intensive environmental review processes and a public which doesn't feel it has (nor does it actually have) the ability to obstruct a project just because they don't like it.


I will go as far to saying that the only company that has an issue with CRH is Kawasaki. Bombardier is still working with the MOR, and Siemens is still a components supplier afaik.


----------



## Sopomon

aquaticko said:


> As far as I know, that's true in both cases. Suburbanist is just being weird here.
> 
> In addition to cheaper labor and potentially material costs, China doesn't have two things which make construction cheaper and faster: America's intensive environmental review processes and a public which doesn't feel it has (nor does it actually have) the ability to obstruct a project just because they don't like it.


I think, though, what the point that he and the ex-HyperMiler were trying to make is that it appears a lot of the technology used in 'native' trains is from these foreign companies. If they were to try to sell such technology abroad, these companies would likely sue. It's an argument that's only provable or dismissable if the MOR were to open up the insides of the CRH. Given that will almost never happen, the question of whether or not its truly Chinese remains hanging. With their track record, its dubious.


----------



## CNB30

Nexis said:


>


They were testing out the speeds on trains a while ago, specifically in New Jersey


----------



## hmmwv

Sopomon said:


> I think, though, what the point that he and the ex-HyperMiler were trying to make is that it appears a lot of the technology used in 'native' trains is from these foreign companies. If they were to try to sell such technology abroad, these companies would likely sue. It's an argument that's only provable or dismissable if the MOR were to open up the insides of the CRH. Given that will almost never happen, the question of whether or not its truly Chinese remains hanging. With their track record, its dubious.


AFAIK all those companies (Kawasaki, Hitachi, Siemens, Bombardier, and Alstom) are still happily doing business with MOR as system integrator or component supplier. If you open up a domestically made CRH train you will likely find components from those aforementioned companies, and they are purchased legitimately. I don't think any of them will ever sue CSR/CNR for anything.

Now back to topic, are there any results published about the Acela's 170mph tests? In the video Jim mentioned sometimes the train seems to be running at speed greater than 170mph, it'd be interesting to see the actual maximum speed achieved.


----------



## Sunfuns

The North Eastern route served by Acela really is the route where high speed rail in US makes most sense. If it only could be made as fast and reliable as Shinkansen, TGV, AVE or similar systems... 

Given the current technology the ideal version would be Boston-Washington DC in 4 1/2 h with stops in New York and Philadelphia (all trains) and a bit longer for trains also stopping in Hartford, New Haven and Baltimore. It would cost a lot to build it properly, but probably not any more than currently proposed in California.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

If you check the Japan Highspeed rail thread, JR Tokai in affiliations with JR West, JR Kyushu and Taiwan High speed rail are teaming up into promoting the JR Maglev system to the NEC which will connect NY and DC within an hour.


----------



## Sunfuns

SamuraiBlue said:


> If you check the Japan Highspeed rail thread, JR Tokai in affiliations with JR West, JR Kyushu and Taiwan High speed rail are teaming up into promoting the JR Maglev system to the NEC which will connect NY and DC within an hour.


Sounds appealing in theory, but I fear that in reality the technology is still too unproven, the overall costs too high and interoperability with existing systems zero. Otherwise how come Japanese (or Germans) are not racing forward with constructing such lines in their own countries?


----------



## Sopomon

hmmwv said:


> AFAIK all those companies (Kawasaki, Hitachi, Siemens, Bombardier, and Alstom) are still happily doing business with MOR as system integrator or component supplier. If you open up a domestically made CRH train you will likely find components from those aforementioned companies, and they are purchased legitimately. I don't think any of them will ever sue CSR/CNR for anything.
> 
> Now back to topic, are there any results published about the Acela's 170mph tests? In the video Jim mentioned sometimes the train seems to be running at speed greater than 170mph, it'd be interesting to see the actual maximum speed achieved.


No, they wouldn't sue now. Imagine if they wanted to export the 380B? What if Siemens was going for that contract too? How would Siemens feel if CNR/CSR won with the CRH380B?

Just a thought.


----------



## Silly_Walks

Sunfuns said:


> Otherwise how come Japanese (or Germans) are not racing forward with constructing such lines in their own countries?


Japan is building such a line.


----------



## Nexis

Silly_Walks said:


> Japan is building such a line.


It won't fully open till 2040.....so whats the point of building a line here if you can't build it quicky over there...


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Nexis said:


> It won't fully open till 2040.....so whats the point of building a line here if you can't build it quicky over there...


The Chuo Shinkansen (JRMaglev line) from Tokyo to Nagoya is scheduled to open in 2027 the extension to Osaka is scheduled to open in 2045.
The extension for the test course which will become part of the Chuo Shinkansen line is scheduled to open next year.
Even if the US decided to construct a new line in the NEC it will probably not open till the middle of this century due to various red taps and other bureaucratic speed bumps.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

SamuraiBlue said:


> The Chuo Shinkansen (JRMaglev line) from Tokyo to Nagoya is scheduled to open in 2027 the extension to Osaka is scheduled to open in 2045.
> The extension for the test course which will become part of the Chuo Shinkansen line is scheduled to open next year.
> Even if the US decided to construct a new line in the NEC it will probably not open till the middle of this century due to various red taps and other bureaucratic speed bumps.


Between high speed rail and maglev, the bureacratic nightmare is only a matter of scale. 30million per mile or 60million per mile? 2:40 or 90minutes? 

To be honest though, I have a feeling the anti-HSR hysteria is dying down. Illinois did their tests, and aside from a few colorful slogans from Kings County, CA, ("To all HSR supporters: Eat sh** and die."), we're seeing a transition from partisan debates to a more quiet preparation for real-life implementation. 

I will, however, remain skeptical that CHSR will be able to deliver a 220 mph service in the first year: I feel they'll very likely start off at 186mph/300km/h, gradually work up to 200mph/320km/h, and then finally hit 220 mph/350km/h around a decade after it opens. While the media will probably have a field day over this, I feel that it's irrelevant. Taiwan HSR was designed to have an end-to-end travel time of 90 minutes; in real life it takes 2 hours, a bit more if stopping at all stations; but it doesn't deter riders. 20 extra minutes spent on the train is insignificant unless you're late for a meeting, which means you should have booked the train that left ten minutes before.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Sunfuns said:


> Sounds appealing in theory, but I fear that in reality the technology is still too unproven, the overall costs too high and interoperability with existing systems zero.


Operators do not want interoperability since it costs them too much.
Here is the reason why. An operator owning a limited number of HST would want to maximize usage of his limited HST fleet so they would want it to be on the fast lane as much as possible to carry more passengers within a given time frame. Therefore the operator would not want to send his shiny new HST fleet down a slow track that can only carry a reduced amount of passenger within the same time frame as a fast lane plus if you send it down the slow lane it may also get caught in traffic bogged down by freight losing more potential passengers.
On top 2~5% of the fleet will be in maintenance at any given moment and HST would have an 20~30% premium on it's price tag compared to a conventional train. So interoperability is meaningless even if such function exists since the operator would not send it down a slow lane in the first place due to economy.


----------



## K_

SamuraiBlue said:


> Operators do not want interoperability since it costs them too much.
> Here is the reason why. An operator owning a limited number of HST would want to maximize usage of his limited HST fleet so they would want it to be on the fast lane as much as possible to carry more passengers within a given time frame. Therefore the operator would not want to send his shiny new HST fleet down a slow track that can only carry a reduced amount of passenger within the same time frame as a fast lane plus if you send it down the slow lane it may also get caught in traffic bogged down by freight losing more potential passengers.
> On top 2~5% of the fleet will be in maintenance at any given moment and HST would have an 20~30% premium on it's price tag compared to a conventional train. So interoperability is meaningless even if such function exists since the operator would not send it down a slow lane in the first place due to economy.


Most operators of high speed trains do run them on slow lines too. Because, contrary to what you assert, it actually allows them to make more money...


----------



## SamuraiBlue

K_ said:


> Most operators of high speed trains do run them on slow lines too. Because, contrary to what you assert, it actually allows them to make more money...


That is a political issue in which a big wig promises their constituents that high speed rail will come to their station if they vote for them.
Populism at it's worst.
The big wig politician holds the cards to approve or reject of a new line so the operators have no other way then to comply but at the end it drains profitability constraining them to subsidies making them vulnerable to conforming to more demands by the big wigs creating a vicious cycle.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

SamuraiBlue said:


> That is a political issue in which a big wig promises their constituents that high speed rail will come to their station if they vote for them.
> Populism at it's worst.
> The big wig politician holds the cards to approve or reject of a new line so the operators have no other way then to comply but at the end it drains profitability constraining them to subsidies making them vulnerable to conforming to more demands by the big wigs creating a vicious cycle.


It doesn't explain why Germany and China runs ICE and CRH2 trainsets on conventional lines.


----------



## Sopomon

Silver Swordsman said:


> It doesn't explain why Germany and China runs ICE and CRH2 trainsets on conventional lines.


As does France and Turkey


----------



## -Liberty-

Speaking about Populism..


Obama promised a lot of infrastructures to revive the american economy,
but nothing happened, congratulations.


----------



## Sunfuns

SamuraiBlue said:


> That is a political issue in which a big wig promises their constituents that high speed rail will come to their station if they vote for them.
> Populism at it's worst.
> The big wig politician holds the cards to approve or reject of a new line so the operators have no other way then to comply but at the end it drains profitability constraining them to subsidies making them vulnerable to conforming to more demands by the big wigs creating a vicious cycle.


Operators are not building and paying for high speed lines (at least not in Europe). Government is the major investor so it's only natural that it also has some say where exactly it's going to go.


----------



## Silly_Walks

-Liberty- said:


> Speaking about Populism..
> 
> 
> Obama promised a lot of infrastructures to revive the american economy,
> but nothing happened, congratulations.


If you had followed politics for at least the last 4 years, in stead of listening to talking points a few weeks before the election, you would know that most initiatives have been shut down by republicans (just look up what happened in Wisconsin, to name one example). Furthermore, improvements on the NEC ARE taking place.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

-Liberty- said:


> Speaking about Populism..
> 
> 
> Obama promised a lot of infrastructures to revive the american economy,
> but nothing happened, congratulations.


This is exactly what irks me about the American public when they try to burn Obama for "not following through with his promises."

"Obama is a bad president because he didn't keep his promises; you should vote for me because I was the one who stopped him from keeping his promises." 

:no:


----------



## trainrover

Sunfuns said:


> the technology is still too unproven


Blame the lack of genuine commitment to maglev R&D.


----------



## CNB30

Now that Obama has another term, we will probably be able to see more funding for high speed rail lines


----------



## G5man

Not exactly, the House is still majority Republican. Unless you can convince some to cross the aisle, that will not happen. Realistically, a Transportation Bill would have to have some sort of hidden rider in it to get it past the House.


----------



## Bla55ir

There were plans of building a high speed train network in some areas such as California but never went to effect.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Bla55ir said:


> There were plans of building a high speed train network in some areas such as California but never went to effect.


What are you talking about? California's high speed rail system is in the final stages of planning and will start contract bids and construction next year. It's still very relevant. In areas all around the US, planners are starting to look at high speed rail as a feasible option, from Colorado to Virginia, to even hardcore Republican stronghold, Texas.

My only question regarding CHSR is whether they will bring in foreign expertise or whether they will try to make it "homegrown". In my opinion they should go with foreign tech to save costs.


----------



## M-NL

CHSR should do the same as China has done. Bring in foreign expertise to get the show on the road and switch to "homegrown" once you have gattered sufficient knowledge.

It would be stupid for them to reinvent the wheel and start of homegrown, but knowing a lot of Americans are oposed to anything foreign, they're crazy enough to do that.

In this case you also have the third option: Only import the knowhow and built it yourself.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ The problem with costs in California are related to bureaucracy, endless alignment discussions, NIMBYs etc.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The problem with costs in California are related to bureaucracy, endless alignment discussions, NIMBYs etc.


Legitimate problems in America's colorful system, but it doesn't make the question I raised go away. 

M-NL, I haven't thought of that, and I suppose that it is feasible. America has many foreign train factories in the US to comply with "Made in USA" regulations for such projects. In that case, JR definitely has a lead, although I have a feeling since there are also several European companies with US holdings, CHSR will very likely try to run both European AND Japanese trains instead of going for a pure system.


----------



## Zero Gravity

Silver Swordsman said:


> Legitimate problems in America's colorful system, but it doesn't make the question I raised go away.
> 
> M-NL, I haven't thought of that, and I suppose that it is feasible. America has many foreign train factories in the US to comply with "Made in USA" regulations for such projects. In that case, JR definitely has a lead, although I have a feeling since there are also several European companies with US holdings, CHSR will very likely try to run both European AND Japanese trains instead of going for a pure system.


If they choose to go with the Japense I hope they stick with international or "european" standards like taiwan. I think that pays of longtorm since you are more flexible (bigger tunnel=smaller train nose, tracks bidirectional etc.)


----------



## mgk920

G5man said:


> Not exactly, the House is still majority Republican. Unless you can convince some to cross the aisle, that will not happen. Realistically, a Transportation Bill would have to have some sort of hidden rider in it to get it past the House.


Also, the financial situation of the USA's federal and many state governments is such that there is no way any of that will be paid for for a long time to come. The federal situation is nearly proportionally on the scale of Greece - with spending on social 'entitlement' programs going through the roof and much, much more on the way.

:no:

And then there is this anti-energy orgy that is just beginning at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that will make it very expensive, if not impossible, to power whatever might be built.

:gaah:

Mike


----------



## aquaticko

^^I just hope that the global anti-nuclear surge doesn't spread here; it's the last thing we need....

But frankly, I think it would totally justifiable to do this entire project using pure deficit spending. An economy California's size shouldn't be panicking over spending ~100 billion over 2-3 decades; that's a tiny percentage of the state's GDP. Especially considering that California has been a net giver to federal tax revenue for a good while now.

Never even mind the federal debt situation. _That_ is not actually a problem. But I don't want to start that discussion again. Just my two cents.


----------



## CNB30

I heard that work will begin sometime in the next year.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^CAHSR will use a proprietary system developed by Caltrans. That was the initial idea at least.


----------



## aquablue

phat100cai said:


> Dear, friend!
> Highspeed rail track built will cut through much farming land, and the government must buy this land to settle it down with farmer. At this point, the Cali state is badly in the need to balance the budget, and many social programs is cut or reduced. Also, the whole country is currently in debt of trilllllllllion of dollars of billlllion of dollars of interest annually. With this financing status, Are you wisely enough to persuade me to support building this luxury transportation? Where should we go to dig enough money to build this kind of luxury transportation.
> My friend! We can't afford it. Let's pay off the debt first for our country and balance the budget of Cali state- refund those social program, which have been on cut or under-funded recently- maintaining or repairing our current road, highway, or rail-track to better condition because most of this infrastructure has more than 50-60 yrs. This is more practical and realistic.


What a joke. :lol: Luxury transportation? You have no idea what you are talking about. What a backward way of thinking. I suppose you can't look beyond next week?


----------



## Silly_Walks

Suburbanist said:


> ^^CAHSR will use a proprietary system developed by Caltrans. That was the initial idea at least.


Won't that just make it needlessly complicated and expensive?


----------



## Suburbanist

Silly_Walks said:


> Won't that just make it needlessly complicated and expensive?


Yes, but developing a domestic (American) protocol instead of importing something from Europe or JApan was part (albeit minor) of the conception of CAHSR.

Their system is called CBOSS (Communications-Based Overlay Signal System) and Caltrans is expecting to have it fully functional for first deployment in 2015. It is going to be compatible with PTC systems developed for freight railways.


----------



## hammersklavier

phat100cai said:


> Dear, friend!
> Highspeed rail track built will cut through much farming land, and the government must buy this land to settle it down with farmer. At this point, the Cali state is badly in the need to balance the budget, and many social programs is cut or reduced. Also, the whole country is currently in debt of trilllllllllion of dollars of billlllion of dollars of interest annually. With this financing status, Are you wisely enough to persuade me to support building this luxury transportation? Where should we go to dig enough money to build this kind of luxury transportation.


...And highways? ...Isn't that how I-5 was built?

A few facts short of an argument, this is.

*Suburbanist:* I agree on your comment about switches a couple of pages back, although IMO at least in the NEC obsolete catenary is a more pressing problem. But if you take a look at the discussions around Transbay's throat layout, you'll note that one of the major gripes is that it's being designed to be much longer than needed...because there aren't any curved switches.


Silly_Walks said:


> Won't that just make it needlessly complicated and expensive?


Yes.

Worse, CBOSS _won't_ actually be HSR-compatible (i.e. seamlessly integrated into whatever signaling system CAHSR decides upon for its main line). Why they can't just start with ERTMS and expand as needed to fit the conditions is beyond me.


----------



## hans280

hmmwv said:


> I just think crash avoidance is the way to go, look at Japan, they have the safest HSR system in the world and they mainly focus on crash avoidance. HSR crashes at high speed is like plane crashes, casualty is unavoidable, so better spend the resources to prevent them from happening in the first place.


I agree, but the Japanese system is pretty unique: it's based on a TOTAL separation of Shinkansen and other lines. No HS train ever uses a line also hosting freight or commuter rail. Somehow I don't see this happen in the US. Even in Spain - where the AVE trains have a different gauge width - they have found ways of prolonging HS services into the legacy network.


----------



## SiMclaren

hans280 said:


> I agree, but the Japanese system is pretty unique: it's based on a TOTAL separation of Shinkansen and other lines. No HS train ever uses a line also hosting freight or commuter rail. Somehow I don't see this happen in the US. Even in Spain - where the AVE trains have a different gauge width - they have found ways of prolonging HS services into the legacy network.


And the Mini Shinkansen? It doesn't runs on conventional lines?


----------



## makita09

^^ Mini Shinkansen isn't HSR and therefore not the subject of the point.


----------



## hoosier

mgk920 said:


> Also, the financial situation of the USA's federal and many state governments is such that there is no way any of that will be paid for for a long time to come. The federal situation is nearly proportionally on the scale of Greece - with spending on social 'entitlement' programs going through the roof and much, much more on the way.
> 
> :no:
> 
> And then there is this anti-energy orgy that is just beginning at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that will make it very expensive, if not impossible, to power whatever might be built.
> 
> :gaah:
> 
> Mike


This entire post is garbage. The US is NOTHING like Greece and never will be. How dare you so recklessly compare America to Greece. Spending on entitlement programs has not gone through the roof. Defense and homeland security spending certainly have though.

Ah yes, the evil EPA. Who cares about clean air, soil, and water. The FREEEEE MARKET will take care of that. Yeah right.


----------



## Spam King

hoosier said:


> This entire post is garbage. The US is NOTHING like Greece and never will be. How dare you so recklessly compare America to Greece. Spending on entitlement programs has not gone through the roof. Defense and homeland security spending certainly have though.


Unfunded liabilities for entitlements are estimated at $100 trillion to over $200 trillion. Military spending has grown too much in the past 10 years, but still only makes up 19% of spending, whereas SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement and welfare programs make up 45% of the budget (Well actually the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1300 days, so I should say spending instead). The CBO's projects that at current growth rates Medicare and Medicaid alone will consume raise 19.3 percent of GDP by mid-century.



hoosier said:


> Ah yes, the evil EPA. Who cares about clean air, soil, and water. The FREEEEE MARKET will take care of that. Yeah right.


What free market? The US hasn't had anything close to resembling a free market in over a century.


----------



## Silly_Walks

Spam King said:


> Unfunded liabilities for entitlements are estimated at $100 trillion to over $200 trillion. Military spending has grown too much in the past 10 years, but still only makes up 19% of spending, whereas SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement and welfare programs make up 45% of the budget (Well actually the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1300 days, so I should say spending instead). The CBO's projects that at current growth rates Medicare and Medicaid alone will consume raise 19.3 percent of GDP by mid-century.
> 
> 
> 
> What free market? The US hasn't had anything close to resembling a free market in over a century.


"Taxation is theft".


Go tell that to people in countries that have no, or little, taxation. Those countries look like shit.


----------



## Spam King

Silly_Walks said:


> "Taxation is theft".
> 
> 
> Go tell that to people in countries that have no, or little, taxation. Those countries look like shit.


Nice use of the red herring fallacy. It isn't even true, though.


----------



## Fan Railer

Spam King said:


> Nice use of the red herring fallacy. It isn't even true, though.


Prove it.


----------



## aquablue

The NEC is the area of the country that really need proper HSR, not California. It is there that the US government should have planned its first true HSR line as it has the highest probability of success and least chance to allow rural America and teaparty types to label it as a boondoggle and cause a big fuss over the waste of tax-payers dollars. I laughed when Obama tried to give Florida the $$ for the first HSR rail while ignoring the most densely populated region of the country. I just don't think he and his fellows know what the hell they are doing when it comes to rail.

Given the Acela ridership levels it is a no-brainer. The current Amtrak plan is ridiculously stupid with a time line that is far too long and far too expensive. I can't understand why the NEC plan has no funding and California does. It is just preposterous when the NEC has the best history of medium speed rail in the US and is a proven success story. If California is a flop it will doom HSR everywhere in this country for eons.

Actually, instead of reverting to steel-wheel technology, the government should copy Japan and just build a maglev line. Why invest in technology that is going to be obsolete soon? If Japan's line is successful, you can bet that Europe and China will start converting some lines to Maglev to gain the extra speed. With a blank slate, we should just leapfrog this HSR phase that we have basically missed out on, leapfrog most other countries and invest in the future, not the past. It will cost us more when we realize that we need to upgrade our trains to maglev someday when HSR will be considered pokey.

Again, the NEC is the place for HSR of any kind, Californians are too in love with their cars, so much so that it has become a cultural thing. Look at LA for example!


----------



## Suburbanist

You can't convert a line to maglev, you need to completely rebuild it.


----------



## aquablue

Suburbanist said:


> You can't convert a line to maglev, you need to completely rebuild it.


Right. I meant, rebuild the original right-of-way into maglev.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

aquablue said:


> Right. I meant, rebuild the original right-of-way into maglev.


I would think that building a maglev line in the NEC would involve much more than just converting the existing line- there are many curves on the existing route that would have to be bypassed. And what about the low speed conventional rail commuter services that also use the route? Likely a completely new route that roughly parallels the existing alignment would have to be built, at tremendous expense, as real estate is expensive there.


----------



## aquaticko

Yes, the initial reason for not building in the NEC HSR first was expense. The NextGen plan that Amtrak put out a few months ago detailed a new route, and put the whole thing at something like $150 billion, which could easily increase on the scale of California's, so it could end up near $300 billion (though that does seem extraordinarily expensive, even if this is the U.S.). The California project is supposed to be a budgetary toe in the water, with the hope that, if it is successful, it will seem way too plainly obvious that the northeast needs it.


----------



## Nexis

aquaticko said:


> Yes, the initial reason for not building in the NEC HSR first was expense. The NextGen plan that Amtrak put out a few months ago detailed a new route, and put the whole thing at something like $150 billion, which could easily increase on the scale of California's, so it could end up near $300 billion (though that does seem extraordinarily expensive, even if this is the U.S.). The California project is supposed to be a budgetary toe in the water, with the hope that, if it is successful, it will seem way too plainly obvious that the northeast needs it.


Its 2 main routes , the current NEC and the NEW NEC , then 4 mini high speed lines which is between 90-125mph , 6 new or upgraded services like the Lackawanna line or the Downstate delaware line so of which will be done by the state , the Electrification will be done by Amtrak. Then there are the Connector projects like the North - South Tunnel in Boston and the Kearny JCT upgrade in New Jersey and maybe Grand Central service. When you add it up its about 2151 miles of High Speed & Intercity Rail lines....the New England projects are the cheapest , along with Delaware , Pennsylvania and Maryland... About 60 billion is needed in and around NYC and Boston..., DC needs about 8 billion.... Pennsylvania needs about 5 billion , Delaware needs about 1 billion , mostly done by the state , same with Rhode Island both should be done by 2020.... 

Connecticut needs about 20 billion between the upgrades to the current NEC which isn't all that much aside from a few bridges that need to be replacing and adding a 3rd track East of New Haven that should be done by 2020.... 
The Knowledge Corridor Phase 1 which brings speeds up to 110mph is underway and should open by 2015 , Phase 2 would be electrification and adding a 3rd track along with more stations speed increased to 125mph... That is only expected to cost an extra 200 million to do , but they need to wait for the I-84 Upgrades in Hartford to really make that mini HSR. The New NEC would cut across CT following I-84 , at a cost of 11 billion...who knows when that will happen. The NIMBYS are already lining up , however if you add commuter rail service along the corridor you might be able to silence them... While 4 tracking is a pain it be worth it , that corridor badly needs commuter rail...

Massucheets upgrades will be 4 tracking from Providence to Boston , a New North-South Tunnel and Expanding South Station. The East-West Corridor will be 3-4 tracks and Electrified along with a connector restored for Cape Cod seasonal service...

By 2025 if everything goes as planned we will have already spent 45-70 billion of that plan....New Hampshire just went blue again so expect the Downeaster to see double tracking through that state and a few other lines and projects. Same with Vermont 3 new or Upgraded services are planned by 2020 thats about 2 billion in projects.


----------



## aquablue

aquaticko said:


> Yes, the initial reason for not building in the NEC HSR first was expense. The NextGen plan that Amtrak put out a few months ago detailed a new route, and put the whole thing at something like $150 billion, which could easily increase on the scale of California's, so it could end up near $300 billion (though that does seem extraordinarily expensive, even if this is the U.S.). The California project is supposed to be a budgetary toe in the water, with the hope that, if it is successful, it will seem way too plainly obvious that the northeast needs it.


that's ridiculous. Of course it will be successful, we don't need to wait decades for the Cali system to find out. Amtrak has a huge market share on the NYC to wash, route and turns a profit. How much more evidence do u need that the people would ride hsr on the nec? It is far more of a sure thing than the Cali system in terms of ridership. It is also far denser a route and connects more cities that have decent transit systems to ferry people around. NEC, despite its added expense, seems to me the better place to build the first line by far. I wish politicians would start seeing sense in this country!!

Spreading the hsr money all over the country was a mistake. All the cash should have gone into one line. Talk about spreading yourself to thin and then having little to show for it!!


----------



## FM 2258

aquablue said:


> Looks like an Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh line would be a good idea. Also, San Antonio-Austin-DFW. 125mph hour tilting trains on upgraded lines would be good in these areas as a first step. Electrification would help achieve a good service.


Lines in Texas will work great. I'm tired of having my car as the only option. I love driving but I want more options. Flying within Texas is too expensive to justify the cost. If airlines had a cheap walk up fare from Austin to Dallas or Houston that would be great, since they don't provide that HSR is the next best option.


----------



## 33Hz

^ overseas investors have tried to do it multiple times, including Texas, and both times the political system still killed it.


----------



## Nexis

33Hz said:


> ^ overseas investors have tried to do it multiple times, including Texas, and both times the political system still killed it.


They should try the Northwest or New England easier to build in those regions...


----------



## CNB30

^^ hopefully the Acela express will be upgraded for that.


----------



## 33Hz

Well, Amtrak is ordering another generation of 'normal' Acelas, saying that the HSR isn't expected until 2045 at the earliest.

For what could have been: http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/usa.html


----------



## phoenixboi08

33Hz said:


> Well, Amtrak is ordering another generation of 'normal' Acelas, saying that the HSR isn't expected until 2045 at the earliest.
> 
> For what could have been: http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/usa.html


Just to clarify, I thought they announced they *weren't* doing that?
Or is that what the announcement meant?

i.e. I thought those 40 new cars they decided not to buy would have been an acquirement of new stock, but they decided to order the newer gen train sets instead?


----------



## 33Hz

Yeah they are ordering new gen trains, but they will not be 350+ km/h HSR.


----------



## Nexis

33Hz said:


> Yeah they are ordering new gen trains, but they will not be 350+ km/h HSR.


by 2020 for next gen cars , the whole NEC network will be completed by 2045 , some of the most used lines will open by 2030.


----------



## BruinsFan

HSR should be implemented in the BOS-WASH corridor, Florida, areas of Texas, and areas of California (and maybe Chicago-St Louis). Only areas that could support it in my opinion


----------



## aquablue

BruinsFan said:


> HSR should be implemented in the BOS-WASH corridor, Florida, areas of Texas, and areas of California (and maybe Chicago-St Louis). Only areas that could support it in my opinion


I think the SE could support a medium speed rail tilting train type service, that corridor between Charlotte and Atlanta is growing fast.. Then extend that up to Raleigh and eventually DC.

Florida is getting a regular diesel medium speed privately run service soon but on freight tracks. I doubt they will get HSR anytime soon after what happened last


----------



## 33Hz

Nexis said:


> by 2020 for next gen cars , the whole NEC network will be completed by 2045 , some of the most used lines will open by 2030.


So could we see an order of trains with tilt and very high speed capability to plug the gap while the route is upgraded?


----------



## hmmwv

If we can time travel and jump to 2023 chances are this discussion is still going as nothing would have happened.


----------



## Sunfuns

hmmwv said:


> If we can time travel and jump to 2023 chances are this discussion is still going as nothing would have happened.


:yes:


----------



## aquablue

Sunfuns said:


> :yes:


You debbie downers, cynics and pessimist will all be proven wrong anyway, think what you want.:cheers:


----------



## Sunfuns

aquablue said:


> You debbie downers, cynics and pessimist will all be proven wrong anyway, think what you want.:cheers:


One of the rare cases I'd be happy to be proven wrong... Let us know when the first rail is laid. :cheers:

If you are really quick about it, it could still be the first stretch in the Western hemisphere


----------



## China Hand

aquaticko said:


> Jobs aren't scarce. It's got an unemployment rate of just under 10%, higher than the national average, but not by much, and it's dropping.


Numbers Lie and the US Gov has been moving the numbers around for 10 years or more. The labour force participation rate is lower than it has been since 1960 or so and I hear nothing but bad news. 

Real UE is more like 18% when those who have given up, early retired, take SSDI and other cohorts are added in.

Median income has dropped 5 years running. Yes, people have jobs. Part time jobs that pay $10 an hour 19 to 23 hours a week with no benefits when they used to have a job that paid $60k a year with full medical.



> There is something incorrect about it. Name for me another trillion dollar economy which is required to have a balanced budget at the end of every fiscal year. Nevermind the fact that California is a net donor state in terms of redistribution of federal tax dollars. Nevermind that no one in their right mind would allow or cause the state to go broke considering the value it has to the national and global economy.
> 
> The U.S. has the sort of fiscal and monetary union and attitude about that which would save the Euro quickly, if it weren't for the Austrians in the ECB and those like you who keep egging them on.


All economies that borrow like this eventually have a day of reckoning.

You believe that monetary easing can avoid hardship.

I know this is folly.

Standards of living will drop. It's just a matter of how.

It does not matter if you enact austerity (EU), avoid reality (USA), ease and intervene for 23 years (JCB), inflate it away, or take your medicine and get through the pain (Iceland).

The pain must be felt, assets written down, standards of living contract.

The excess amount above the curve/trend-line, must always be balanced by an amount under the curve/trend-line. The areas, when a credit bubble (not a Recession due to over capacity) occurs, must balance.

Or you get what we have today.

Iceland would be best. Tell the banks to book the losses, take the stimulus money and set up a dozen new USA chartered banks to keep the money and credit supply growing, jail everyone and make sure this does not happen again. Or *until we forget this lesson the next time as we did in 2001-2008 when everyone from 1929 was dead or too old and, just like you, we all thought we knew better now*, have more tools at our disposal, can financially innovate, etc. Pain? You betcha. But after wards the economy will be on much stronger footing, free of crippling debt payments.

You cannot spend more than you make. Eventually you must live within your means.

Your education indoctrinated you that this idea is outdated.

Reality is going to show you that your education was wrong.



> Look, I don't want to get into this, because I've tried to explain to you basic macroeconomics before, and you explicitly refused to listen. I suggest a mod delete these two specific posts, if possible.


No, what you are doing is attempting to convince me that MMT and Keynesianism are sound policies, and they are not.

Keynesianism was supposed to be based upon:

1) Save surplus when the times are good to
2) Spend them down and stimulate the economy when the times are bad.

China does this. This is very good and why China is doing ok.

The USA just skipped over the 'save the surplus' part and went directly to 'spend' and debt and print and inflate. This is bad.

I get it. You majored in Econ and you think you know what's going on because you went to a school that supported Keynesianism and MMT.

You are about to get a brutal education in the real world that will reveal to you that your education was vastly over priced and, to put it bluntly, wrong.

Back to trains...


----------



## XAN_

China Hand, but what if current crisis caused not only by some rampant economists and bankers, but also by high oil prices and slowdown of oil extraction?


----------



## Suburbanist

Gotta love the foreign US-haters "lecturing" American forumers using the imperative modal.


----------



## Nexis

> *Amtrak Seeks Safety Changes to Allow U.S. Bullet Trains​*
> Amtrak will recommend new U.S. rail- safety regulations to allow it to replace its Acela trains in the Northeast U.S. with lighter, faster equipment, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said.
> U.S. crashworthiness standards force Amtrak to use trains that have locomotives on both ends and are slower and heavier than bullet trains used in Europe and Asia, Boardman said in an interview. Those standards reflect that U.S. passenger trains often share tracks with freight railroads rather than operating on their own lines.
> Existing standards apply to trains traveling as much as 150 miles per hour (241 kilometers per hour). Writing new rules that relax railcar structural-strength requirements for faster trains “would allow for less use of fuel, quicker acceleration, a different performance profile,” Boardman, 64, said. “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here.”
> Amtrak last month announced it would seek bids to replace its 12-year-old fleet of 20 Acela trains operating between Washington and Boston instead of adding two cars to each train, a plan its inspector general questioned as too expensive. The Acela carried about 3.4 million passengers and produced about a fourth of Amtrak’s $2 billion in ticket revenue for the year ended Sept. 30.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-02/amtrak-seeks-safety-changes-to-allow-u-s-bullet-trains.html


----------



## aquaticko

The strange thing about you, China Hand, and others who follow Austrian economics, is that in fact what you say follows logically from your premises, but when the evidence contradicts your premises, you simply try to discredit it and consequently refuse to change your views. You stop using logic whenever it doesn't tell you what you want. Dogmatism at its finest.

I'm not going to attempt to have a discussion with someone like that. And I *highly* recommend that, at least on macroeconomics, others refrain from engaging as well.

On Nexis' post, I can't honestly see this happening, reasonable though the demand is, until we do in fact get some passenger-dedicated rails. It is good that Amtrak is pushing something like this though. The organization as a whole really ought to stick up more for its own interests.


----------



## yankeesfan1000

Nice to hear Gateway is slowly creeping forward. Hopefully we can see full blown construction in a year or two.


----------



## Nexis

yankeesfan1000 said:


> Nice to hear Gateway is slowly creeping forward. Hopefully we can see full blown construction in a year or two.


They started clearing and prepping the sites in NJ...


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *California high-speed rail official discusses project during San Francisco visit*
> By: Bay City News | 01/10/13 8:05 PM
> 
> Ben Tripousis, regional director for Northern California, told a packed auditorium at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association that the under-three-hour trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles could be a reality by 2029, but that a host of political, financial and logistical obstacles must be overcome before high-speed trains reach the Bay Area . . . .
> 
> One of the keys to making the 800-mile system a reality is moving ahead with early investments in local transportation corridors that will eventually accommodate high-speed trains, Tripousis said.
> 
> “Here in the Bay Area, our focus is largely on the electrification of Caltrain,” he said.
> 
> *As part of the $8 billion high-speed rail funding plan approved by the state Legislature in July, more than $700 million was committed to the electrification of Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose.* Additional investments were committed to other Bay Area agencies, including BART, which is slated to receive $145 million, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which will receive $61 million . . . .
> 
> High-speed rail also is expected to stimulate the region’s economic growth by allowing San Francisco International Airport to concentrate on expanding long-distance and international airline service, instead of continuing to be bogged down by north-south regional flights, Gillett said.
> 
> “We are reaching our limits in the air,” she said.
> 
> *Construction on the first operating phase of the rail system — a 130-mile stretch between the Central Valley cities of Madera and Bakersfield — is expected to start in July.*


http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tra...-official-discusses-project-during-san-franci

For those unfamiliar with the project, lawsuits have virtually blocked consideration of new parallel tracks for HSR only between San Francisco and San Jose so HSR trains will eventually run on the CalTrain tracks. That means that electrification of calTrain is an essential part of building out HSR.

The other point here is that San Francisco International Airport is near capacity and that it uses too much of its capacity on trips to and from Southern California. That makes development of HSR inevitable IMHO. SFO cannot be meaningfully expanded for environmental reasons. HSR is the only way to provide efficient new NorCal-SoCal service as the state's population grows.


----------



## Suburbanist

Will they not build 2 additional tracks on Caltrains ROW?


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> Will they not build 2 additional tracks on Caltrains ROW?


__


Cal_Escapee said:


> For those unfamiliar with the project, lawsuits have virtually blocked consideration of new parallel tracks for HSR only between San Francisco and San Jose...


----------



## aquablue

phoenixboi08 said:


> __


Why?


----------



## XAN_

Suburbanist said:


> Will they not build 2 additional tracks on Caltrains ROW?


Well, they plan to do this in several steps - first the most critical streches, then - other.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6bMoADk62...Rvh4/s1600/caltrain_study_overtake_figure.png


----------



## aquaticko

The "why" is a bunch of wealthy peninsula NIMBY's.


----------



## aquablue

Ah. Thanks. I should've known.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Any arguments in particular that they're giving?
(i.e. land valuation or something?)


----------



## aquaticko

The CAHSRBlog is where I get most of my information about the issue.


----------



## Suburbanist

I still think they could push some elevated tracks over current Caltrain HSR


----------



## phoenixboi08

I read this report a while back, and saw these graphic illustrations of the air/highway congestion between key city pairings. Ever since, I'd been trying to find them again.

Long story short, I stumbled across that report (High Speed Rail in America 2050) and thought I'd post those graphics here.












Overall scoring of different corridors (based upon such criteria as potential passengers)








Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Northeast









Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Great Lakes Region









Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in Florida









Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Piedmont-Atlantic Region









Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Southwest









Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Mountain West









Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in Cascadia









One important trend I gleaned from this was, if you hadn't noticed, the California-Southwest, Northeast, Florida, and Great Lakes Megaregions all have heavy air congestion (which appears to be more chronic than highway congestion in many of these regions as a _whole_ - certain cities in these regions have road congestion, but the over-arching theme is maxed-out capacity of airports serving them). 

So it just made me wonder if pushing this as an alternative to driving makes sense. Seems like they should be gunning to devour as much air share as possible, and they should also consider working with airport authorities to do so. In the long run, it'd free up resources for these key hubs to focus more energy on international/long-haul-domestic routes.


----------



## aquaticko

I would imagine that the intended goal is different for each region. At least in California, displacing SF-to-LA air travel is one of the primary drivers for the HSR project. But in the NEC it could easily displace car and air, while in the midwest, northwest, southeast, and likely Florida, I'd imagine it'd be displacing car travel, though I'm not really familiar with transportation patterns in terms of modal share for those areas.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

aquaticko said:


> I would imagine that the intended goal is different for each region. At least in California, displacing SF-to-LA air travel is one of the primary drivers for the HSR project. But in the NEC it could easily displace car and air, while in the midwest, northwest, southeast, and likely Florida, I'd imagine it'd be displacing car travel, though I'm not really familiar with transportation patterns in terms of modal share for those areas.


I can imagine that domestic air travel (SF to LA) would die out within a year of CHSR's opening. HSR simply holds the advantage here. Automobile traffic is another story, which depends on how the city is structured, and how available (convenient) the HSR service is to the general public. If it is well-connected by reliable bus and mass transit networks, then automobile will drop. Until then, intercity road trips may drop, but will be offset by a spike in intracity traffic. 

Fair trade.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ High-speed rail hasn't killed air traffic in other busy routes like London-Paris or Barcelona-Madrid. 

There is always the issue of connecting flights. People flying to SFO via LAX or vice-versa will likely keep using airplanes because they area already at the airport. Since LAX is a major international hub, I'd exepct a sizeable number of flights on that route to be kept.


----------



## Sunfuns

^^ That's particularly the case if one airport is significantly bigger than the other. Also for some people not going directly to LA or San Franciso flying with its easy access to road network will still make sense. Of course there would be less flights than today.


----------



## Starfish PRime

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ High-speed rail hasn't killed air traffic in other busy routes like London-Paris or Barcelona-Madrid.
> 
> There is always the issue of connecting flights. People flying to SFO via LAX or vice-versa will likely keep using airplanes because they area already at the airport. Since LAX is a major international hub, I'd exepct a sizeable number of flights on that route to be kept.


Keep in mind that airports can have rail stations serving HS trains.


----------



## Sunfuns

High speed rail share relative to air (effect to road traffic is limited) can be estimated by this formula:










s - rail share, t - time in minutes

So with a rather optimistic travel time from LA to SF of 2h 30 min the optimal rail share would be about 75% (excluding transfer passengers) 

In your case probably lower than this because both endpoints lack good public transport options for further travel. Also this assumes that prices for flying and rail are similar. In some places in Europe airlines have managed to regain a bit of ground by drastically slashing prices.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ That is just an estimation model that has an enourmous error term.


----------



## phoenixboi08

gramercy said:


> i would like to see a similar renaissance of PT projects, subways and trams and buses in the US, some cities like Phoenix really need it
> or is that just my myopic view?


It's already happening in most cities. 
Phoenix is just a good poster child because it's always behind. 
I think LA is making the most impressive turn around this corner.


----------



## Don31

Nexis said:


> Past Studies and Industry Experts ive asked said Electrification costs usually only add 50-150 million ontop the project.


Only $150 million?? The rule of thumb we use in the office is approximately $6 million per mile of double track, which is dependent on numerous variables. In fact, what's holding many proposals back is electricification's tremendous capital costs.


----------



## Suburbanist

150 mln. is enough for brand new track on alignments needing earthworks !


----------



## Gadiri

> *Amtrak et la Californie vont définir un matériel roulant américain à grande vitesse​*
> 
> 24/01/2013
> 
> 
> Le 17 janvier, Amtrak et la California High Speed Rail Authority se sont réunis à la gare de Washington (Union Station) pour *définir une demande d’information en vue d’acquérir en commun des trains à grande vitesse*. Ce partenariat a pour but de faire avancer à la fois la* modernisation du Corridor Nord-Est (Boston - New York - Washington) et le développement d’un réseau de 800 km en Californie*, tout en établissant une norme américaine de matériel roulant à grande vitesse (350 km/h), qui pourrait être « fabriqué et fourni localement, mais aussi produit pour le reste du monde ».
> 
> 
> --------------
> 
> *Amtrak California rolling stock will define American high speed​*
> 
> 
> 24/01/2013
> 
> 
> January 17, Amtrak and the California High Speed ​​Rail Authority met in Washington Station (Union Station) to *define an information request to acquire share high-speed trains*. This partnership aims to advance *both the modernization of the Northeast Corridor (Boston - New York - Washington) and the development of a network of 800 km in California*, establishing a standard American high rolling speed (350 km / h), which could be "manufactured and supplied locally, but also produced for the world."


http://www.ville-rail-transports.co...n-matériel-roulant-américain-à-grande-vitesse


----------



## Sunfuns

Don31 said:


> Only $150 million?? The rule of thumb we use in the office is approximately $6 million per mile of double track, which is dependent on numerous variables. In fact, what's holding many proposals back is electricification's tremendous capital costs.


Here is a recent electrification contract awarded in UK: http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...uld-electrification-contract.html?channel=542

Approximate cost of only $3.2 million per mile of double track. Plus I don't think UK is the cheapest place in Western Europe to do such things.


----------



## makita09

> Plus I don't think UK is the cheapest place in Western Europe to do such things.


Proudly the most expensive! Gives us something to moan about.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Is there any news of CHSR picking JR's offer?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Silver Swordsman said:


> Is there any news of CHSR picking JR's offer?


It's still too early- they haven't even chosen the contractors who will build the initial segment of the line in the Central Valley.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/23/3145070/wongharris-to-oversee-valley-high.html


----------



## Fan Railer

On another semi-related note, EMD has come out with official advertisement and specifications for its new F125 high speed diesel locomotive:
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/pdf/2-sidersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevE.pdf
Seems kind of on the heavy side to me 0.o?


----------



## Don31

Heavier than the ACS and the EuroSprinter for sure, I guess because of the diesel prime mover?


----------



## XAN_

Yes. Diesel traction for high-speed - it's just a joke. The higher is the speed, the more power must be installed. The higher power requires bigger engine and more fuel. Which means more weight. More weight means more power. The higher power...
Well process are slowing down with each loop, but it's still wasteful. When such energies involved, it's usually cheaper to put a power station and a centenary near the tracks, than to haul power power plant on board.


----------



## Don31

XAN_ said:


> When such energies involved, it's usually cheaper to put a power station and a centenary near the tracks, than to haul power power plant on board.


Good point. Internal combustion engines are notorioulsy inefficient.


----------



## MarcVD

Don31 said:


> Good point. Internal combustion engines are notorioulsy inefficient.


Thermal power stations, which is the origin for the majority of our
electricity, are not that impressively better... They give you more
fuel choice, but don't burn it much better ! But at least you don't
have to haul them around, agreed.


----------



## Don31

MarcVD said:


> Thermal power stations, which is the origin for the majority of our
> electricity, are not that impressively better... They give you more
> fuel choice, but don't burn it much better ! But at least you don't
> have to haul them around, agreed.


Very true. Not much choice though. Wind and solar power aren't quite there yet in terms of cost effectiveness and nuclear power would have too many political difficulties.


----------



## Fan Railer

Exactly. The only reason there is still a market and incentive for development of new diesel locomotives is because there isn't enough political will to electrify the majority of the rail corridors in the US.


----------



## Don31

Fan Railer said:


> Exactly. The only reason there is still a market and incentive for development of new diesel locomotives is because there isn't enough political will to electrify the majority of the rail corridors in the US.


Agreed. Given the tremendous capital costs involved, its doubtful the private sector (NS, CSX, BNSF, UP, et. al.) would ever be able to pull it off. Government intervention would be needed, which, as you state, requires the political will to do so. And given the current thinking in Washington (or lack of thinking) its a long shot for sure.


----------



## 1772

Don31 said:


> Agreed. Given the tremendous capital costs involved, its doubtful the private sector (NS, CSX, BNSF, UP, et. al.) would ever be able to pull it off. Government intervention would be needed, which, as you state, requires the political will to do so. And given the current thinking in Washington (or lack of thinking) its a long shot for sure.


And how do you propose your precious federal government would pay for such a thing? 
You do realize that we are in tremendous debt, right?


----------



## hammersklavier

Sunfuns said:


> Here is a recent electrification contract awarded in UK: http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...uld-electrification-contract.html?channel=542
> 
> Approximate cost of only $3.2 million per mile of double track. Plus I don't think UK is the cheapest place in Western Europe to do such things.


...And, in all likelihood, half the price as in the US...Sigh...


----------



## k.k.jetcar

1772 said:


> And how do you propose your precious federal government would pay for such a thing?
> You do realize that we are in tremendous debt, right?


You could divert 10% of funding going to the defense budget, that would provide 60 billion a year.


----------



## Nexis

1772 said:


> And how do you propose your precious federal government would pay for such a thing?
> You do realize that we are in tremendous debt, right?


We spend about 60-120 billion on entitlements and another 1.5 Trillion on Defense I think we can afford High Speed Rail and Transit.... This country has mental issues when It comes to investing in the future...its mainly from the older generations which have ruined and mucked up the country , if this country or any country in general was run by the younger fresher generation this country would be a hell of alot different.


----------



## Don31

1772 said:


> And how do you propose your precious federal government would pay for such a thing?
> You do realize that we are in tremendous debt, right?


Why don't you go back and re-read what I wrote before you write something. Where did I say the feds should pay for it. I said the private sector most likely could'nt, and that there is no political will in Washington for it.

And yes, I actually do realize our debt situation.

Thanks for coming in.


----------



## Don31

Nexis said:


> We spend about 60-120 billion on entitlements and another 1.5 Trillion on Defense I think we can afford High Speed Rail and Transit.... This country has mental issues when It comes to investing in the future...its mainly from the older generations which have ruined and mucked up the country , if this country or any country in general was run by the younger fresher generation this country would be a hell of alot different.


Agreed. Although I guess I'm one of the exceptions of the older generation.


----------



## 1772

Nexis said:


> We spend about 60-120 billion on entitlements and another 1.5 Trillion on Defense I think we can afford High Speed Rail and Transit.... This country has mental issues when It comes to investing in the future...its mainly from the older generations which have ruined and mucked up the country , if this country or any country in general was run by the younger fresher generation this country would be a hell of alot different.


Yeah, thing is, we have a "young and fresh" prez now, things ain't getting better... 

Anyhow, this is off-topic.


----------



## Nexis

1772 said:


> Yeah, thing is, we have a "young and fresh" prez now, things ain't getting better...
> 
> Anyhow, this is off-topic.


Hes not really young and is being held back by the old status quo majority....but your right this is off topic...


----------



## phoenixboi08

Anyways, that's a logical fallacy...
The "debt" is a carrot. It's a long-term issue and that prognosis is fine. 
It's the short term issue (the stick if you will) that's the issue. If you handle the deficit, the debt disappears - also erodes with growth. 

So it's really silly, to simply say we won't spend anything to pay the debt, which we won't pay unless there's growth....which won't happen if we do nothing. 

Anyways, this is perfectly affordable, in the context of what we would receive in return (as that's how investments work).


----------



## XAN_

Well, imported oil drag USA economic balance on the dark side, so anything that will reduce (import) oil dependency for a reasonable price tag will improve economic overall.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

XAN_ said:


> Well, imported oil drag USA economic balance on the dark side, so anything that will reduce (import) oil dependency for a reasonable price tag will improve economic overall.


Not really, it will be a bad for taxpayers.


----------



## Fan Railer

skyscraperhighrise said:


> Not really, it will be a bad for taxpayers.


In the short term, obviously. But in the long term, future generations will suffer more if we don't start to at least slowly ween ourselves from this international dependency.


----------



## XAN_

skyscraperhighrise said:


> Not really, it will be a bad for taxpayers.


But isn't taxpayers will be the one who will suffer from higher gas prices both directly (gas for auto) and indirectly (gas as part of price of buyable stuff)?


----------



## Don31

Fan Railer said:


> In the short term, obviously. But in the long term, future generations will suffer more if we don't start to at least slowly ween ourselves from this international dependency.


Absolutely agreed.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

XAN_ said:


> But isn't taxpayers will be the one who will suffer from higher gas prices both directly (gas for auto) and indirectly (gas as part of price of buyable stuff)?



Yes, but this is gonna make things even worse than ever

we need to not only cut spending overseas, but here at home, i'm tired of the borrowing and spending, thank goodness rick scott did the right thing to kill the HSR in florida, because we can't simply afford it, just like the same people who built that marlins stadium that we can't afford.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

Nexis said:


> We spend about 60-120 billion on entitlements and another 1.5 Trillion on Defense I think we can afford High Speed Rail and Transit.... This country has mental issues when It comes to investing in the future...its mainly from the older generations which have ruined and mucked up the country , if this country or any country in general was run by the younger fresher generation this country would be a hell of alot different.


It will be different if we get the government out of the way of our business.

thank goodness a private sector company called florida east coast railway is building their version of the HSR without any benefit from the taxpayers.

and let's not forget we need to protect farmlands as well.


----------



## XAN_

skyscraperhighrise said:


> Yes, but this is gonna make things even worse than ever
> 
> we need to not only cut spending overseas, but here at home, i'm tired of the borrowing and spending, thank goodness rick scott did the right thing to kill the HSR in florida, because we can't simply afford it, just like the same people who built that marlins stadium that we can't afford.


The problem is, the cost of doing nothing is not zero. As world move from cheap oil to expensive oil, cost of supporting oil-dependent infrastructure like airports and highways will keep rising, so those who will have a replacement infrastructure like electrical railways will be the winner.


----------



## aquaticko

Not to mention that now is the time to take on more debt, during a recession, when the costs of everything (labor, materials, interest on the debt, etc.) are depressed, and the multiplier effect for each tax dollar spent is greater than one.

You're looking at short and long-term positive economic and social effects in trade for an extra-long term economic risk; it's actually pretty damn close to a win-win.


----------



## FM 2258

China is doing the right thing now getting their rail infrastructure built while it's cheap. I'm not sure what the problem is with building high speed rail in the U.S. when the U.S. has no problem expanding highways. Here in Texas instead of expanding Interstate 35 from north of Austin to Dallas they could have put a high speed rail train next to it.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FM 2258 said:


> China is doing the right thing now getting their rail infrastructure built while it's cheap. I'm not sure what the problem is with building high speed rail in the U.S. when the U.S. has no problem expanding highways. Here in Texas instead of expanding Interstate 35 from north of Austin to Dallas they could have put a high speed rail train next to it.


I feel like it's going to take an oil "crisis" before we actually get it. 



skyscraperhighrise said:


> It will be different if we get the government out of the way of our business.
> 
> thank goodness a private sector company called florida east coast railway is building their version of the HSR without any benefit from the taxpayers.
> 
> and let's not forget we need to protect farmlands as well.


This is such a "straw man" argument. And no disrespect, but it kills me when people employ it.

Since when has it been true that the government is incapable of investing in critical infrastructure? How is this destroying the market/economy? I mean,when has it ever been the case that they did NOT act in this manner....? They got us this far.

If private enterprise was so much more resourceful, why isn't the FAA privately run and managed by private airlines? Why don't airlines build and their own airports, monitor air traffic, and provide security? Why did the government build (and continue to maintain) highways?

People like to use this kind of argument, but if faced with the alternatives (removal of government subsidies on oil, distance based tolls on highways, steeper gasoline and automobile taxes, etc) that would actually pay for all these other forms of infrastructure, they'd be shouting from high heaven to put things back the way they were. But if we talk about mass/public transit or high speed rail, it's automatically written off as a boondoggle...

Hate to break it to you, but all infrastructure is subsidized with taxpayer money and, quite frankly, it'd be a much better use of our funds to invest in high speed rail. 

It is cheaper to invest in this infrastructure. I don't know why people can't [refuse to] understand this...simple math, really. 

It's much cheaper to maintain and provides better returns than highways (usually negative, since we often don't use tolls) or airlines.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

We can already see what happens when there are no alternatives to travel when oil spikes. Back when oil prices suddenly jumped back in the summer of '11 (or was it '10?), America had a panic attack. 

And the people in Taiwan? We just took the train.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Silver Swordsman said:


> We can already see what happens when there are no alternatives to travel when oil spikes. Back when oil prices suddenly jumped back in the summer of '11 (or was it '10?), America had a panic attack.
> 
> And the people in Taiwan? We just took the train.


I'm thinking of something more along the lines of what happened in the 70s/80s


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

phoenixboi08 said:


> I feel like it's going to take an oil "crisis" before we actually get it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a "straw man" argument. And no disrespect, but it kills me when people employ it.
> 
> Since when has it been true that the government is incapable of investing in critical infrastructure? How is this destroying the market/economy? I mean,when has it ever been the case that they did NOT act in this manner....? They got us this far.
> 
> If private enterprise was so much more resourceful, why isn't the FAA privately run and managed by private airlines? Why don't airlines build and their own airports, monitor air traffic, and provide security? Why did the government build (and continue to maintain) highways?
> 
> People like to use this kind of argument, but if faced with the alternatives (removal of government subsidies on oil, distance based tolls on highways, steeper gasoline and automobile taxes, etc) that would actually pay for all these other forms of infrastructure, they'd be shouting from high heaven to put things back the way they were. But if we talk about mass/public transit or high speed rail, it's automatically written off as a boondoggle...
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but all infrastructure is subsidized with taxpayer money and, quite frankly, it'd be a much better use of our funds to invest in high speed rail.
> 
> It is cheaper to invest in this infrastructure. I don't know why people can't [refuse to] understand this...simple math, really.
> 
> It's much cheaper to maintain and provides better returns than highways (usually negative, since we often don't use tolls) or airlines.



Not really, it will get worse, HSR is just as expensive as highways and airlines.


----------



## XAN_

It will get worse, the point of question - how much? The European experience show that HSR already can compete with airlines on medium distances, and with decline of oil the favor will move to the means of transportation that (a) can be powered with alternative sources of power (b) use less energy overall. Rail is just perfect for that - you only face aerodynamical resistance once per 500-1000 passengers, now once per 5-50 like in case of cars and coaches. And car and coaches still can be electrical and carry some useful passengers/cargo, especially if they are grid-connected (trolleybuses, yeah), but the electrical planes are jokes in terms of useful load :-(


----------



## b4z

Don31 said:


> Agreed. Look at the airline's steadily decreasing share of the NYC to Boston and the NYC to Washington markets. Commercial flight only makes sense for trips of 1,000 miles or more.


The short distance handwriting is on the wall for the airlines. They've got another 20 years at best. hSR from London st. Pancras to Paris, nord is both a revelation and a non event. Perfect comfort. Once Americans get a taste of it, it's curtains. Perhaps Boeing should start building train sets and the airlines look at managing rail?LOL

I think the biggest issues for us while be the electrification. iIRC the speed change from 186 to 199mph also included additional nuclear plants.( in France)


----------



## Don31

b4z said:


> The short distance handwriting is on the wall for the airlines. They've got another 20 years at best. hSR from London st. Pancras to Paris, nord is both a revelation and a non event. Perfect comfort. Once Americans get a taste of it, it's curtains. Perhaps Boeing should start building train sets and the airlines look at managing rail?LOL
> 
> I think the biggest issues for us while be the electrification. iIRC the speed change from 186 to 199mph also included additional nuclear plants.( in France)


I think 20years would be stretching it. I think it would be more like 10. Another advantage to rail, at least here in the Northeast Corridor, is that the train will bring you into the heart of downtown while the airports are located outside, on the fringe, requiring a transfer to rail or a long taxi ride. And yes, the huge cost of electrification is a big issue.


----------



## Nexis

*Northeast Upgrade Report*

http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf


----------



## b4z

I've never heard anybody say they hated being a passenger on HSR. I've heard people say they hated driving, flying and riding in a conventional train.
There aren't too many people against HSR in this thread but maybe this will gives them a little perspective. 
My wife and I have done HSR twice. Zurich to Paris Nord(north) in 2008. A 4 minute walk from out hotel to the station and a 10 minute cab ride from Nord station to our hotel in Paris a block from the Louvre.
In 2009, London st. Pancras station to Paris Nord a 2:15 ride. 10 minute cab ride from Trafalgar Square to st. Pancras. A 10 minute cab ride from Paris Nord to our hotel 3 blocks from the Louvre( went to see the douchebag Lance Armstrong).
Now if anyone thinks it would have been economical and time friendly for us to have done the Gatwick/ Heathrow thing to Charles de Gualle they have another agenda or they are against everything.
bTW the last 2 times we left from Charles de Gualle there were strikes and our planes left almost 2 hours late.
hSR is untouchable for distances under 4-500 miles.


----------



## b4z

Funny story: friend of ours did a little France/ Belgium trip with a school friend of hers. They were meeting another friend in Brussels so they booked the train from Paris.
When she got back, I asked how she liked the High Speed Train ride? I got this quizzical look. "I don't know anything about that," she said, "It was Thalys." I replied busting out laughing, "you went almost 200 mph in a train and didn't even know it!!"
Not sure if she was hungover and slept through it or it was just a non event.


----------



## hammersklavier

Heck, it's already happening. Even as soon as we get a taste of 110 mph rail, we want more, more, more...It's the unflinching, unbending political will of places that _don't_ have it that's holding us back.


----------



## b4z

hammersklavier said:


> Heck, it's already happening. Even as soon as we get a taste of 110 mph rail, we want more, more, more...It's the unflinching, unbending political will of places that _don't_ have it that's holding us back.


My interest is in twin dedicated lines designed for 186-220 mph. 110 or even 150 on straightways is not HSR and not much of a step forward.


----------



## G5man

Nexis said:


> *Northeast Upgrade Report*
> 
> http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/necc_cin_20130123.pdf


I read that and was disappointed in the New Haven line section upgrades. Are there certain regulations or would it primarily be engineering challenges that prevent building high-bridges along the New Haven line? The maintenance costs they cite and bridge operations will come back in the future so why not replace the bridges with high bridges? Now have the substations been dealt with or would that be a part of the catenary replacement? I am glad that the critical infrastructure upgrades are a part of this and progress is being made in many more areas than just what was listed for SOGR on the Infrastructure Plan from 2010.


----------



## Nexis

G5man said:


> I read that and was disappointed in the New Haven line section upgrades. Are there certain regulations or would it primarily be engineering challenges that prevent building high-bridges along the New Haven line? The maintenance costs they cite and bridge operations will come back in the future so why not replace the bridges with high bridges? Now have the substations been dealt with or would that be a part of the catenary replacement? I am glad that the critical infrastructure upgrades are a part of this and progress is being made in many more areas than just what was listed for SOGR on the Infrastructure Plan from 2010.


The CTDOT seems to be taking the cheaper way out , Amtrak for the most part is building fixed bridges....or replacing them.... Its taken CTDOT almost 20 years to replace the New Haven line Catenary , where Amtrak , NJT and SEPTA have done similar Stretches in 5 years.... Some of the Bridges you can't replace with a higher level fixed bridge due to the surrounding approaches like Norwalk which is very complex due the nearby Danbury Interchange and South Norwalk overpass and Station. That Bridge is in very good shape , all it needs is a rehabilitation and paint job. Same with the Saugatuck River Bridge which is in Bridgeport and was heavily upgraded in the 90s..... As for Substations about half of them along the Amtrak Network have been replaced , the rest are about to be replaced , the entire corridor is being prepped for 25 kV AC at 60 Hz. In PA they need to build a New High Voltage line to feed the NEC system from the Power Plants in Central PA , thats underway as we speak.... Constant Catenary replacement is underway from Northern PA to New Brunswick , they need to fix a few of the plans before they do the rest to New Rochelle like the Elizabeth Viaduct shift , Newark upgrades , Gateway Program and Hell Gate line upgrade.... Hopefully these kinks will be fixed by the end of the year...


----------



## Don31

Nexis said:


> they need to fix a few of the plans before they do the rest to New Rochelle like the Elizabeth Viaduct shift , Newark upgrades , Gateway Program and Hell Gate line upgrade.... Hopefully these kinks will be fixed by the end of the year...



Nexis, could you please clarify for me - are you saying all of that will be physically complete by the end of the year of just the conceptual planning for them?


----------



## JamesBill

I am not convinced on HSR and was curious if someone could clear up a few things.

1. HSR will mainly compete with airlines? I personally would be willing to pay more for HSR than airlines, but talking to people it seems they are mostly under the impression HSR would cost the same as current rail transport. 

2. Are there any HSR lines in the world (>250km/h) with line length servicing small population cities like the proposal? San Antonio to El Paso would be mostly pass though traffic most likely from Houston to LA. Connecting 24 million people with 1,550 miles of track. (San Antonio, Houston Pheonix LA) A Beijing-Shanghai-Hong Kong line is shorter and services so many people I ran out of fingers and toes. 

3. How elastic is the maintenance costs if ridership on a line drops. Airlines can drop flights and reallocate resources, rail cannot and maintenance costs will go down with less traffic but how significantly?

4. Speaking of maintenance costs, the track technology is typically upfront costs vs maintenance costs. Will the compromise be decided by estimated ridership? How easy is it to upgrade/downgrade these decisions? Are you stuck in the choice if the bottom drops out of a city or another area goes "Silicon Valley" on you?


----------



## XAN_

Well, most rail maintenance standards based on how much weight moved via the track, so if you are decreasing amount of trains per day, you also lengthen maintenance cycle (e.g. many repairs are done each x tonnes, not x months). Of course some stuff and maintence are still fixed (signals, dispatching), but thanks to modern technology it's not that much.


----------



## JamesBill

XAN_ said:


> Well, most rail maintenance standards based on how much weight moved via the track, so if you are decreasing amount of trains per day, you also lengthen maintenance cycle (e.g. many repairs are done each x tonnes, not x months). Of course some stuff and maintence are still fixed (signals, dispatching), but thanks to modern technology it's not that much.


I thought for HSR it was based mostly on rail speed and the technology level of the track.


Does HSR also require daily inspection for misalignment and obstruction no matter how much traffic?


----------



## aquaticko

For high-speed rail, the lines are almost universally continuously-welded rail, the ties are made of concrete so they're less susceptible to warping, and there are various techniques for either constructing and maintaining the track bed that make it quite stable over time (including ballast-less track).


----------



## Sunfuns

JamesBill said:


> I am not convinced on HSR and was curious if someone could clear up a few things.
> 
> 1. HSR will mainly compete with airlines? I personally would be willing to pay more for HSR than airlines, but talking to people it seems they are mostly under the impression HSR would cost the same as current rail transport.


Yes, but it also tends to generate completely new traffic whic didn't exist before at all. In Europe ticket prices on average are similar or a bit lower than flying. In the optimal range (ca 150-400 miles) it is both faster and more pleasant. 



JamesBill said:


> 2. Are there any HSR lines in the world (>250km/h) with line length servicing small population cities like the proposal? San Antonio to El Paso would be mostly pass though traffic most likely from Houston to LA. Connecting 24 million people with 1,550 miles of track. (San Antonio, Houston Pheonix LA) A Beijing-Shanghai-Hong Kong line is shorter and services so many people I ran out of fingers and toes.


There could be some stations for smaller cities in between, but HSR makes most sense economically conecting large (1 million+) cities. Some of the most succesful operational lines: Tokyo-Osaka, Paris-Lyon, Paris-London, Madrid-Barcelona. Houston-Dallas would work great I think. Building it over empty plains of middle America is probably just railfans fantasy.



JamesBill said:


> 3. How elastic is the maintenance costs if ridership on a line drops. Airlines can drop flights and reallocate resources, rail cannot and maintenance costs will go down with less traffic but how significantly?
> 
> 4. Speaking of maintenance costs, the track technology is typically upfront costs vs maintenance costs. Will the compromise be decided by estimated ridership? How easy is it to upgrade/downgrade these decisions? Are you stuck in the choice if the bottom drops out of a city or another area goes "Silicon Valley" on you?


I'm not a technical expert, but your comparison is not quite proper. Rail lines are like airports with some fixed maintenance costs and no easy way to downsize. Airlines are like train operating companies - trains could be realocated to other places if needed easily enough. 

If you build a track for 300 km/h then running slower is no problem. On the other hand upgrading a track built for say 200 km/h to 300 km/h would need massive investment, almost like building a new line.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

JamesBill said:


> I thought for HSR it was based mostly on rail speed and the technology level of the track.
> 
> 
> Does HSR also require daily inspection for misalignment and obstruction no matter how much traffic?


It depends on the type of track that you use. Tokaido Shinkansen, which uses traditional ballasted track, has to be realigned every night. Tracks that use ballastless slab track (rails are bolted directly to a concrete roadbed) do not need much realignment, but have extremely high upfront costs. 

Everything related to cost about high speed rail is the upfront costs--since you have to draw a straight line you will have to have costly right-of-way acquisitions; and yes, the finesse required by the technology is expensive. However, maintenance costs are significantly less than other transportation infrastructure. 


For all HSR systems, standard protocol has maintenance crews check the track for defects and problems during the night--it's the reason why true HSR services do not operate late at night. It is undeniable that a 300km/h HSR is much more costly to maintain compared to normal railways, but the cost is still lower than that of maintaining freeways and airports. 




JamesBill said:


> I am not convinced on HSR and was curious if someone could clear up a few things.
> 
> 1. HSR will mainly compete with airlines? I personally would be willing to pay more for HSR than airlines, but talking to people it seems they are mostly under the impression HSR would cost the same as current rail transport.
> 
> 2. Are there any HSR lines in the world (>250km/h) with line length servicing small population cities like the proposal? San Antonio to El Paso would be mostly pass though traffic most likely from Houston to LA. Connecting 24 million people with 1,550 miles of track. (San Antonio, Houston Pheonix LA) A Beijing-Shanghai-Hong Kong line is shorter and services so many people I ran out of fingers and toes.
> 
> 3. How elastic is the maintenance costs if ridership on a line drops. Airlines can drop flights and reallocate resources, rail cannot and maintenance costs will go down with less traffic but how significantly?
> 
> 4. Speaking of maintenance costs, the track technology is typically upfront costs vs maintenance costs. Will the compromise be decided by estimated ridership? How easy is it to upgrade/downgrade these decisions? Are you stuck in the choice if the bottom drops out of a city or another area goes "Silicon Valley" on you?


1. HSR has the ability to completely eliminate short-haul flights due to convenience and comfort. The only way an airline can survive competition is by slashing prices below the HSR ticket price (which is very difficult). HSR also has the ability remove cars off freeways, especially long distance drives. 

2. Many stations of Taiwan High Speed Rail service less than a million people--the average seems to be around 400-600 thousand, but according to my personal observations, ridership depends more on station connectivity rather than city size. As long as bus and metro connections are made, ridership should be adequate.


----------



## Nexis

Don31 said:


> Nexis, could you please clarify for me - are you saying all of that will be physically complete by the end of the year of just the conceptual planning for them?


It Needs to be Engineered , Plans call for a Muti-Modal Station to be built at Elizabeth along with Straightening... The Newark Upgrades are Engineered and like the Portal Bridge North are awaiting funding.... Most of this stuff should be done by 2025....


----------



## Suburbanist

Sunfuns said:


> *If you build a track for 300 km/h then running slower is no problem. *On the other hand upgrading a track built for say 200 km/h to 300 km/h would need massive investment, almost like building a new line.


It depends. If trains run too slow for the line's superelevation, the rides become uncomfortable for passengers.


----------



## MarcVD

Suburbanist said:


> It depends. If trains run too slow for the line's superelevation, the rides become uncomfortable for passengers.


Well on the french TGV network, trains have to slow down to 220 km/h (from 
300) in case of severe weather conditions (ice blocks forming under the 
carriages) and that does not seem to be a problem.


----------



## makita09

Suburbanist said:


> It depends. If trains run too slow for the line's superelevation, the rides become uncomfortable for passengers.


MEME ALERT!

No, superelevation is never so high that it would be dangerous or uncomfortable if the train were to slow down or even stop. Anything other than this would be complete idiocy on the part of the engineers.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

What is the designated speed limit on the blended sections of CHSR? 

I was thinking, if they plan on modifying Caltrain anyways, they should upgrade the Caltrain corridor to semi-HSR speeds (250-270kmh), and widen the station with pass lanes for through traffic. So, instead of having a 4-track system through the entire peninsula, only the areas around the stations will have four tracks. Caltrain stopovers also allow faster HSR services to overtake them, thus freeing capacity. So instead of having the HSR run on Caltrain tracks; one is essentially putting Caltrain on HSR tracks. Of course, running trains at different speeds naturally impedes frequency to a certain extent, but it's better than having a 2-track layout the whole way through. 

What does everyone else think?


----------



## XAN_

Silver Swordsman said:


> What is the designated speed limit on the blended sections of CHSR?
> 
> I was thinking, if they plan on modifying Caltrain anyways, they should upgrade the Caltrain corridor to semi-HSR speeds (250-270kmh), and widen the station with pass lanes for through traffic. So, instead of having a 4-track system through the entire peninsula, only the areas around the stations will have four tracks. Caltrain stopovers also allow faster HSR services to overtake them, thus freeing capacity. So instead of having the HSR run on Caltrain tracks; one is essentially putting Caltrain on HSR tracks. Of course, running trains at different speeds naturally impedes frequency to a certain extent, but it's better than having a 2-track layout the whole way through.
> 
> What does everyone else think?


http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/04/primarily-two-tracks.html


----------



## FM 2258

I saw a billboard driving through Austin yesterday promoting this website: http://www.texasbytrain.org/ . I hope this campaign somehow pushes things forward with respect to HSR in Texas.


----------



## desertpunk

*Cali Bullet Train Breaking the Rules, Losing Big Supporters*












> All is not well in California high-speed rail land--some of the project's earliest backers have turned against the project, saying that concessions that have been made not only violate voter-imposed requirements on the project's funding, but have meanwhile taken the "high speed" out of high-speed rail. For instance, Quentin Kopp--who cowrote the legislation that launched HSR in California--says that the law requires that the project be built in "usable segments," and that each segment be fully funded before work begins, but "he says the current plan to build 130 miles of rail in the Central Valley for $6 billion, starting this summer, will not produce a usable segment,"reports the LA Times. According to Kopp, the first feasible usable segment would connect the San Fernando Valley to Merced, at a cost of $31 billion--way more money than the state has on hand. He also says that agreements that would allow slower trains to share the new track violate the requirement that at least some LA-San Francisco trips take no longer than two hours and 40 minutes. Kopp is apparently so disillusioned with the project that he's supporting a civil suit by Central Valley agricultural interests that's trying to bring it to a halt.
> 
> Lynn Schenk, another longtime supporter and current member of California's rail authority, voted against a track-sharing agreement with Bay Area transit agencies that she said came "at the expense of the ultimate goal of high-speed rail." But Dan Richard, chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority, says that "tremendous progress" has been made, and the critics are wrong, noting that it's common for HSR to share tracks with slower trains and run at slower speeds in urban areas.
> 
> But despite the opposition, HSR is unlikely to be stopped by the Central Valley law suit. Much of the state's political establishment is still behind the project, and "legal observers doubt a trial judge would block a voter-approved project supported by the political establishment."
> 
> [...]


----------



## SamuraiBlue

> chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority, says that "tremendous progress" has been made, and the critics are wrong, noting that *it's common for HSR to share tracks with slower trains and run at slower speeds in urban areas.*


Does this guy even know what HIGH SPEED means???hno:


----------



## Nexis

I think its time to can this project and hand all the money to the Northeastern US.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ 85% of the money spent there are CA-backed bonds. Why would they use bonds from California to fund trains on the other side of the country :nuts: ?


----------



## Spam King

SamuraiBlue said:


> Does this guy even know what HIGH SPEED means???hno:


If the segment has 4 tracks then there would be absolutely no problem with slower trains using it.


----------



## Sunfuns

I have a growing feeling that the Californian project will be killed (in the current incarnation at least) and the line not built. And as much as I like rail it might be for the best. The project has become such a monstrosity...

I'd say that the most likely HSR to succeed in US now is the privately funded line from Dallas to Houston.


----------



## Suburbanist

Spam King said:


> If the segment has 4 tracks then there would be absolutely no problem with slower trains using it.


The problem is that the curve radii and other specifications wouldn't allow speeds above 220km/h until San Jose, even is the additional tracks were top-notch.


----------



## Lithert65

:bash:


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Suburbanist said:


> The problem is that the curve radii and other specifications wouldn't allow speeds above 220km/h until San Jose, even is the additional tracks were top-notch.


Aside from curve radii and grade crossings, what else would limit train speeds on the peninsula?


----------



## XAN_

Silver Swordsman said:


> Aside from curve radii and grade crossings, what else would limit train speeds on the peninsula?


Sharing tracks with Caltrain. The greater is the speed difference, the lower is track capacity


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Silver Swordsman said:


> Aside from curve radii and grade crossings, what else would limit train speeds on the peninsula?


Maintaining head space with different speed trains, delay in traffic, communication delays between two different operating bodies, etc.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

That was my point--regarding head space and different operating speeds. Could they upgrade Caltrain to go nearly as fast as med-speed HSR on the Peninsula segment? It isn't too hard for an electrified trainset to hit 200kmh, is it? If you can run Caltrain services as fast as the line's curvature would permit, then there would be no head space issues on the Peninsula segment.


----------



## XAN_

That would help, but some Caltrain services should be all-stop anyway.


----------



## K_

XAN_ said:


> Sharing tracks with Caltrain. The greater is the speed difference, the lower is track capacity


But isn't the Caltrain corridor wide enough to just have four tracks all the way?
And how many trains are planned anyway? You can actually quite efficiently run different classes of trains on the same route if you bundle them.


----------



## Sunfuns

K_ said:


> But isn't the Caltrain corridor wide enough to just have four tracks all the way?


Lawsuits by neighbouring communities pretty much rules out any new construction. Electrification is all they can hope for.


----------



## fskobic

Suburbanist said:


> The problem is that the curve radii and other specifications wouldn't allow speeds above 220km/h until San Jose, even is the additional tracks were top-notch.


How realistic is it to expect that the train would even achieve top speeds (even if the tracks were almost perfectly straight) until San Jose, seeing as how it's only 40 miles roughly, and there are four stations planned on that section (SF, SFO, Palo Alto, and San Jose). Even on express lines that would start in SF and only stop in San Jose, would it even need to go above 220km/h? It would take it a while to accelerate when leaving the SF station, and it would take it a while to slow down when approaching the station in San Jose. That small section in between when it's at cruising speed doesn't make a big difference when traveled at 220km/h or at 300kmh (since it would eat up even more of travel time to get up to 300).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking.


----------



## Suburbanist

capping the maximum speed between SF and Gilroy at 220km/h (instead of the maximum 360km/h planned for line) would likely add 4 extra minutes for every single trip between points beyond Gilroy and SF on express trains (calling only at SJ). Might appear "peanuts", but by law the high-speed project MUST deliver express travel times below 2h40 between SF and Los Angeles (160 minutes), IIRC (I might be wrong on the exact minute count), which means these 4 minutes add 2,5% to the total travel time. Considering the long tunnels and curves to/from the Central Valley will also have some restrictions, that might put the strain to gain time on other segments at great expense, both capital and operational.


----------



## FM 2258

I probably haven't read enough to know what's really going on but why the hell can't they get their shit together and build this line? China will have the Lanzhou-Urumqi line build by 2014 but we can't get the Los Angeles-San Francisco line up anytime soon??? It seems like we'll all be dead by the time the first train runs no this line. Stupid!!! That latest map of the line looks like it's taking the long way out of Los Angeles to get past the mountains to the north, maybe that's the best route??? :bash: hno:


----------



## webeagle12

FM 2258 said:


> I probably haven't read enough to know what's really going on but why the hell can't they get their shit together and build this line? China will have the Lanzhou-Urumqi line build by 2014 but we can't get the Los Angeles-San Francisco line up anytime soon??? It seems like we'll all be dead by the time the first train runs no this line. Stupid!!! That latest map of the line looks like it's taking the long way out of Los Angeles to get past the mountains to the north, maybe that's the best route??? :bash: hno:


This is how everything is done in this country. And yes, it's pathetic.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Suburbanist said:


> capping the maximum speed between SF and Gilroy at 220km/h (instead of the maximum 360km/h planned for line) would likely add 4 extra minutes for every single trip between points beyond Gilroy and SF on express trains (calling only at SJ). Might appear "peanuts", but by law the high-speed project MUST deliver express travel times below 2h40 between SF and Los Angeles (160 minutes), IIRC (I might be wrong on the exact minute count), which means these 4 minutes add 2,5% to the total travel time. Considering the long tunnels and curves to/from the Central Valley will also have some restrictions, that might put the strain to gain time on other segments at great expense, both capital and operational.


Can the Peninsula route inherently support 350km/h operation--or is it more or less a straight line already? 

I think if they can get Caltrain to run at 220km/h on the Peninsula, I think that'll be a worthwhile tradeoff. The very idea of boosting speed to that level in America would already be an achievement.


----------



## G5man

Silver Swordsman said:


> Can the Peninsula route inherently support 350km/h operation--or is it more or less a straight line already?
> 
> I think if they can get Caltrain to run at 220km/h on the Peninsula, I think that'll be a worthwhile tradeoff. The very idea of boosting speed to that level in America would already be an achievement.


San Jose-San Francisco will only likely be a 180 km/h route given the geometry and running through communities. 220 km/h would be a bit harder given the curvature of the Peninsula Corridor. Caltrain and CAHSR need to get together and come up with a plan to fix the worst of the curves on the Corridor. I wish they would also get their heads out of the sand and realize that a 3-track tunnel for 6 platforms is highly unnecessary.


----------



## XAN_

K_ said:


> But isn't the Caltrain corridor wide enough to just have four tracks all the way?
> And how many trains are planned anyway? You can actually quite efficiently run different classes of trains on the same route if you bundle them.


http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-they-chose-caltrain-corridor.html


----------



## desertpunk

*Bullet train bidder has history of cost overruns*












> April 16, 2013 | Christopher Cadelago, U-T San Diego
> 
> *SACRAMENTO – The lowest-bidding partnership for the first segment of California’s high-speed rail line includes a firm with a history of cost overruns and costly lawsuits. The California High-Speed Rail Authority on Friday announced that the American joint venture of Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons was the “best apparent value” with a low bid of $985 million – below the $1.09 billion bid by the next-lowest bidder.*
> 
> On construction projects in California, the lowest bidder has a strong advantage in the eventual selection process. Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for the authority, declined to comment on bidders as the matter is finding its way to the authority’s board of directors. “Five world-class teams competed for this opportunity, and the process is ongoing,” Wilcox said. The first segment of the estimated $68 billion system is proposed to run 28 miles from Madera to Fresno in the San Joaquin Valley.
> 
> According to an August report by The Bay Citizen, sister site of California Watch, 11 major projects in the San Francisco Bay Area completed by Tutor in the last dozen years cost local governments $765 million more than they expected, or 40 percent above the initial bids. A company spokesman did not return a message seeking comment. CEO Ron Tutor said in the August report that attacks against him were unfounded and overruns were caused by contracting agencies changing the projects in midstream.
> 
> At San Francisco International Airport, the city alleged in a 2002 lawsuit that the company purposely bid low to win a $626 million expansion contract, then charged $980 million for the job. Tutor said there wasn’t “a single fact” justifying the city’s position but eventually agreed to pay $19 million to settle.
> 
> The company’s list of projects includes an extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit to the San Francisco airport, the Alameda Corridor rail line and the San Diego Convention Center. In 1993, the Port of San Diego paid the company $17 million to settle a $53 million lawsuit over the convention center project. In the lawsuit, the company blamed port-hired construction managers for delays that cost the company money.
> 
> Kevin Williams, a former San Francisco contracting officer who has testified in court against Tutor, said his experience with the company goes back decades. “Tom Bradley, the late mayor of Los Angeles, said it best: Ron Tutor was the change-order artist, the king, and he’s proven himself to be just that,” Williams told U-T San Diego on Monday. Williams said Tutor “is going to make up the difference somehow by lowballing. That is as old as history itself in the construction industry.”
> 
> Kevin Dayton, president and chief executive of Labor Issues Solutions and a critic of the bullet train project, said the rail authority is going to have to monitor change-order requests very closely. “People are always accusing each other in the construction industry of pulling the change-order racket: winning the low bid and then piling up costs afterward,” said Dayton, a former lobbyist for Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. “Sometimes, it is a matter of architectural errors, but everyone always blames everybody else for it, saying, ‘The drawings were bad; the engineering was bad, et cetera.’ ”
> 
> Dayton also questioned whether the four losing teams – who are eligible to be paid a $2 million stipend to cover their costs for seeking the contract – might now be required to sign statements agreeing not to publicly challenge the process.
> 
> The next-lowest bidder was Dragados/Samsung/Pulice. Officials there could not be reached for comment.
> 
> [...]


----------



## Silly_Walks

Ridiculous system that you can bid low, say $1, and then just ask the price you really wanted, and actually get it. There is no incentive to bid high, because then you won't get it, and you'll get all the money you want anyway.


----------



## Sopomon

Silly_Walks said:


> Ridiculous system that you can bid low, say $1, and then just ask the price you really wanted, and actually get it. There is no incentive to bid high, because then you won't get it, and you'll get all the money you want anyway.


UK franchising system just had a massive reshuffle thanks to similar issues regarding the West Coast franchise. First Group bid a ridiculous sum that was undeliverable, and Virgin sued after losing, leading to a huge investigation etc


----------



## Silly_Walks

Sopomon said:


> UK franchising system just had a massive reshuffle thanks to similar issues regarding the West Coast franchise. First Group bid a ridiculous sum that was undeliverable, and Virgin sued after losing, leading to a huge investigation etc


We had the same thing in The Netherlands with those AnsaldoBreda scammers.


----------



## aquaticko

After having looked at the CAHSR blog, it seems especially stupid considering the next most expensive bidder was only about 100 million more, and was evaluated as being significantly technically superior.


----------



## hmmwv

aquaticko said:


> After having looked at the CAHSR blog, it seems especially stupid considering the next most expensive bidder was only about 100 million more, and was evaluated as being significantly technically superior.


I'm sure if they chose that bidder the opposition will cry that public money has been wasted.


----------



## FM 2258

Hell they should hire the Chinese government to build this line, they'd get done in like 3 years. I doubt they made this list of bidders.


----------



## Silly_Walks

FM 2258 said:


> Hell they should hire the Chinese government to build this line, they'd get done in like 3 years. I doubt they made this list of bidders.


Afaik China likes to use as many Chinese things as possible in their projects: builders, materials, factories, etc.
Projects like these in the US generally require a lot of 'domestic' factors in their production: American builders, American factories, etc. as much as possible.

Those two don't really mix... but perhaps China would bend their own rules a bit to break into the American market.


----------



## Sopomon

^^ That and the easy process of acquiring land in China.

The Chinese were able to make a lot of savings that aren't replicable outside of the Chinese context.


----------



## aquaticko

hmmwv said:


> I'm sure if they chose that bidder the opposition will cry that public money has been wasted.


Sure, but this whole thing could cost a million dollars and those opposed would still be opposed; you know their opposition to the project has exceptionally little with whatever it ends up costing. So why should they worry about placating an implacable group of perpetual no-men? Wouldn't the smarter move be to ensure that the project has the greatest chance of ensuring that it lives up to those who expect good things to come from it?


----------



## phoenixboi08

Silly_Walks said:


> Afaik China likes to use as many Chinese things as possible in their projects: builders, materials, factories, etc.
> Projects like these in the US generally require a lot of 'domestic' factors in their production: American builders, American factories, etc. as much as possible.
> 
> Those two don't really mix... but perhaps China would bend their own rules a bit to break into the American market.


Well we kind of have to purchase the technology from somewhere...
CRH has a good shot as 1) they've already partnered with GE (so they can build the trainsets domestically, soon, and with an American partner) and 2) they'll likely be able to underbid most of the other competition.



Sopomon said:


> ^^ That and the easy process of acquiring land in China.
> 
> The Chinese were able to make a lot of savings that aren't replicable outside of the Chinese context.


They don't need to "acquire" it as they own all the land.
Essentially, they use SOE's with financing from State Banks to develop land belonging to local governments, after which these municipal governments turn around and lease to developers (as it is now worth far more than it was initially, without the infrastructure).

It's a very effective model, but it's one that works best in the initial phase of industrialization and development. It's similar to most other East Asian Economies just on a larger scale. 

China's in the unique position that they're growing so quickly, that they could pretty much build whatever they want without worrying about servicing debt, as they have a [reasonable] expectation that that growth will continue - they will outgrow any debt they take on.

My point, it's pretty futile to really go on about how much more efficiently they are at this stuff...it's a given. The Chinese market is a money-magnet. They can build whatever the hell they _want _to. 

Our obstacle isn't money, we have more than enough capital (contrary to what some have made sure to have us believe) to finance these projects, but no one wants to do it because it's unpopular. We just need to cut this negative feedback loop.


----------



## hmmwv

Using Chinese HSR technology is political suicide so it's completely out of the question. I agree that the biggest problem is HSR's image in the US general population's minds, I think it has something to do with the false impression that somehow public transit is taking away people's freedom of mobility. Essentially deep inside the American people don't want to rely on anyone to move around, that's why personal cars and even private planes are so popular here.


----------



## Suburbanist

I don't think there is anything special with Chinese engineering to make its system be cheaper. It is a matter of far lower wages, choosing always the cheaper alignment (no such thing as "preserving the views from South Fresno, no excessive tunneling to avoid disrupting communities) and reduced ancillary costs like eminent domain, extensive and protracted litigation etc. I read the legal fees bill for CAHSR is already on the US$ 105 million before works even begun.


----------



## Neb81

Suburbanist said:


> I don't think there is anything special with Chinese engineering to make its system be cheaper. It is a matter of far lower wages, choosing always the cheaper alignment (no such thing as "preserving the views from South Fresno, no excessive tunneling to avoid disrupting communities) and reduced ancillary costs like eminent domain, extensive and protracted litigation etc. I read the legal fees bill for CAHSR is already on the US$ 105 million before works even begun.


Also factor in the cost of borrowing as part of the long term costs. The Chinese banking sector is largely state owned, and the Chinese population are big savers. This gives state institutions (CR) and GLCs (rail contractors) access to very cheap credit, which makes heavy investment in HSR much cheaper all round.

Also there is just economies of scale. In similar geographic conditions, per KM, it's cheaper to build a 10,000km network than 1,000km - and China is building a *lot*. The US could save a lot of money by utilizing that economy of scale as well as not re-inventing the wheel, by buying an off the shelf solution, regardless of whether they do that from China, France, Spain, Japan or Germany. You could get around isolationist and xenophobic tendencies by importing the rolling stock as CKD kits, assembling them locally, and sticking a patriotic flag / slogan on them (much as China did in the early days with CRH).


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *Settlement reached in high-speed rail lawsuit*
> By: The Associated Press | 04/18/13 7:44 PM
> 
> SACRAMENTO — The California agency overseeing the state's effort to build the nation's first high-speed rail line received a boost Thursday when a judge approved a settlement in a major lawsuit that sought to block the project . . . .
> 
> The rail authority reached the settlement with a group of Central Valley farmers who sued to block the bullet train on environmental grounds. The approval by a Sacramento County Superior Court cleared the last legal hurdle for the $68 billion project to break ground this summer.
> 
> Getting the environmental lawsuit out of the way is a significant win for Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and other allies of the ambitious, much-criticized project. Brown said in a news release that it is a "very solid settlement" between farmers and the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
> 
> Under the deal, the authority agreed to establish a $5 million fund to preserve farmland and pay nearly $1 million in legal fees to the groups that filed the lawsuit, which include the Madera and Merced county farm bureaus. It also spells out how the authority will work with landowners to acquire land along the route.
> 
> Dan Richard, chairman of the rail authority board, said *the agreement paves the way for construction to start this summer on the first 30-mile segment of track from Madera to Fresno . . . .*


Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/tra...reached-high-speed-rail-lawsuit#ixzz2R7biNVr5


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Suburbanist said:


> I read the legal fees bill for CAHSR is already on the US$ 105 million before works even begun.


No American large scale transit project will be free of legal fees and $105 million seems low to me. In the case of CAHSR, every neighborhood organization anywhere hear the tracks could be expected to sue to try to block it over noise and other issues. They build such costs into the budget for the project and they would happen no matter who is building it or with what technology.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ My point is: this idea of "handing the project over to the Chinese and get a Seattle-SAn Diego HSR for the price in 4 years" is silly.


----------



## hmmwv

^^ I have to agree with the above statement, the Chinese model cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world, and that it's not completely immune from cost overruns and delays. For example the 684km 350kph Beijing-Shenyang HSR has been delayed for four years now because it couldn't pass environmental impact studies and objections from communities along its way. 

It's also funny that we think Chinese HSR is cheap, it really isn't, a lot of the hidden cost were swallowed by local governments eager to attract the line that weren't shown in the final cost.


----------



## Neb81

hmmwv said:


> ^^ I have to agree with the above statement, the Chinese model cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world, and that it's not completely immune from cost overruns and delays. For example the 684km 350kph Beijing-Shenyang HSR has been delayed for four years now because it couldn't pass environmental impact studies and objections from communities along its way.
> 
> It's also funny that we think Chinese HSR is cheap, it really isn't, a lot of the hidden cost were swallowed by local governments eager to attract the line that weren't shown in the final cost.


It's certainly not as cheap as people in the west tend to think, though I imagine on a per track km basis, it is still cheaper simply because of the scale. They could probably lower the cost a bit more if CR settled on a single type of rolling stock as well.


----------



## M-NL

It's not the scale. 
Material costs in China should not be substantially different from the rest of the world. But compared to the western world labour is still much cheaper (but rising fast).


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Cities Sprinter 
*


----------



## FM 2258

^^

Nice to see that these will bring more high speed rail service to our country. Where will these run and will it make a significant impact over existing service? 125mph is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Ocean Railroader

I remember on a website called the Transport politic I predicted that the Florida High Speed rail project would be killed due to it taking to long to get out of the station. And I was right when the Governor slaughtered it like a cow. Now with the California High Speed project I made a comment that I'm predicating it to would be slaughtered. And the reasons are for this are that it's cost has tripled from when they said they would build it over the last two years which is giving me a high speed rail supporter out of control sticker shock. Another thing that is going to bring it down is that how political this sticker shock is making it a target for everyone to go after it. Along with that is how it has been able to eat up all the high speed rail funds in the county that could have gone to other better projects that had far better support of their states and coasted a whole lot less.


----------



## Nexis

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> Nice to see that these will bring more high speed rail service to our country. Where will these run and will it make a significant impact over existing service? 125mph is a step in the right direction.


135mph once a few things are sorted out...they are planning on adding more cars to service the Regional and Keystone lines and eventually the Empire , Knowledge Corridor , Cape Codder , Northwestern Service , Downstater Service and Lackawanna Corridor....which means another 70-100 locomotives will need to be ordered.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

The CAHSR project is hyper-political and perhaps overly ambitious in an age of diminished expectations. I am much more hopeful about private ventures- most notably the All Aboard Florida project. Though it is not true high speed rail, if successful, I think it will benefit other passenger rail projects in terms of public perception.



> A new, privately financed passenger rail service between Miami and Orlando is still on track, although the start up may be delayed about a year until the end of 2015.
> 
> The Federal Railroad Administration in January determined that adding trains on the Florida East Coast Railway tracks between West Palm Beach and Miami would have "no significant impact." An environmental impact study on the entire 235-mile route is now under way.
> 
> And although no state or local taxes will be used for the construction or operation, All Aboard Florida is applying for a federal loan to help pay for capital expenses such as track work or equipment.
> 
> "We anticipate starting construction on the rail infrastructure by the end of this year and being operational by the end of 2015," said Mike Reininger, president and chief development officer of the $1.5 billion All Aboard Florida project.
> 
> It's been a year since Florida East Coast Industries announced plans for the service, which would make four stops — Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Orlando. The train, with gourmet meals and WiFi, will make 16 roundtrips a day, each about three hours. The FEC currently runs 10 freight trains a day between Miami and Jacksonville, and several more smaller, local freight trains.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-all-aboard-florida-20130424,0,7954045.story


----------



## Sunfuns

Ocean Railroader said:


> I remember on a website called the Transport politic I predicted that the Florida High Speed rail project would be killed due to it taking to long to get out of the station. And I was right when the Governor slaughtered it like a cow. Now with the California High Speed project I made a comment that I'm predicating it to would be slaughtered. And the reasons are for this are that it's cost has tripled from when they said they would build it over the last two years which is giving me a high speed rail supporter out of control sticker shock. Another thing that is going to bring it down is that how political this sticker shock is making it a target for everyone to go after it. Along with that is how it has been able to eat up all the high speed rail funds in the county that could have gone to other better projects that had far better support of their states and coasted a whole lot less.


At this point it probably deserves to be killed... 

I think Texas project has some promise. Private money, easy geography, the right length and in a potentially richest state in the country.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

k.k.jetcar said:


> The CAHSR project is hyper-political and perhaps overly ambitious in an age of diminished expectations. I am much more hopeful about private ventures- most notably the All Aboard Florida project. Though it is not true high speed rail, if successful, I think it will benefit other passenger rail projects in terms of public perception.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-all-aboard-florida-20130424,0,7954045.story


thank god the private sector is working.


----------



## aquaticko

Sunfuns said:


> At this point it probably deserves to be killed...
> 
> I think Texas project has some promise. Private money, easy geography, the right length and in a potentially richest state in the country.


I feel like I must be missing something; you're pretty consistently negative about the CAHSR project, where, from what I've read it's imperfect, sure, but definitely represents progress. 

Do you know something I don't know?


----------



## gramercy

the only legitimate reason to oppose hsr in the us is the lack of regular rail, even that would be an improvement


----------



## Sopomon

aquaticko said:


> I feel like I must be missing something; you're pretty consistently negative about the CAHSR project, where, from what I've read it's imperfect, sure, but definitely represents progress.
> 
> Do you know something I don't know?


Well it has been essentially just one gigantic ****-up with the CAHSR group screwing up in every possible way (constantly changing plans, poor decision-making, promising the impossible).

All they had to do was make a practical plan and stick to it. Changing decisions like that add massively to the costs of a project.

Essentially, the management are a bunch of incompetent tools.


----------



## aquaticko

^^While that's all obviously bad for public opinion of the project, that doesn't (or shouldn't) _really_ matter. As long as the project itself is actually good, then it's worth doing.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Maybe they should rename the CAHSR project the _National HSR Defense Network Pilot Project_- you know, something kickass sounding and patriotic to appeal to the red meat eaters. Hey, it worked for the interstate system:lol:


----------



## Sunfuns

aquaticko said:


> I feel like I must be missing something; you're pretty consistently negative about the CAHSR project, where, from what I've read it's imperfect, sure, but definitely represents progress.
> 
> Do you know something I don't know?


No inside knowledge if that is what you are asking. 

Normally I'm a big supporter of rail, including high speed, however I don't believe one should be built at any cost. California project's costs are spiralling out of control plus I think they are starting to build it from the wrong end. I fear there is a potential for this to be such an enormous white elephant that it will kill all other HSR rail project in the US for few more decades. Particularly if only the initial segments are built at huge cost and marginal utility...

Maybe it's better to start from the beginning and with something more modest. LA-San Diego at 140 mph perhaps?


----------



## Sopomon

^^
I'm struggling to see why that wasn't the starting point.

That makes sense, will be cheap and shows the communities involved the benefits of HSR

Damnit CAHSR, the wasted potential is astonishing


----------



## aquaticko

^^I don't think that the costs have necessarily "spiraled out of control"; the initial cost was probably an intentional underestimate, and you had to know that various land acquisition and environmental planning costs (especially the latter in California) are unavoidable. 

Also, I'm not so sure that an upgrade of that kind would be cheap, considering a lot of the trackage as it is, and the idea with making it a ~220mph system was so that it'd be a viable alternative to flying. If I remember correctly, the LA-SF air corridor is the 2nd busiest in the country (and among the busiest in the world)

As far as I know, there'll be ongoing improvements of both ends of the initial operating segment, such that there will be roughly continual improvements in travel time right up until the whole system is completed. 

Like I said before, the project is far from perfect, but "far from perfect" just as aptly describes the transportation policies and situation of the entire country. That's why I'm plenty happy and surprised to see this project, imperfect as it is, happening/.


----------



## Sunfuns

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> ^^ Why are they going to make Madeira- Fresno line? I think that San Francisco- LA will be more profitable, won't it?


This section is part of San Francisco-LA route. The cheapest and least complicated one, as I understand.


----------



## CNB30

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/13/193883/california-high-speed-rail-gets.html#.Ubpx_5zxyxw


----------



## Suburbanist

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> ^^ Why are they going to make Madeira- Fresno line? I think that San Francisco- LA will be more profitable, won't it?


It is the first (and cheaper, on a per-km basis) segment of the California High Speed Rail link.


----------



## 437.001

But does that mean that Madera-Fresno will open sooner than the other sectors of LA-Frisco? Would that have any sense? :?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

437.001 said:


> But does that mean that Madera-Fresno will open sooner than the other sectors of LA-Frisco? Would that have any sense? :?


No it's not the best solution- the best solution would be to build the most technically difficult section between LA and Bakersfield first, and thus provide an imperfect but nonetheless complete all-rail link between LA and the SF Bay Area (currently buses link Los Angeles with Bakersfield-absurd I know, but this is the USA). But the Central Valley is economically depressed and politically valuable, and there is a perception that the technically easy stretch between Madera and Fresno is the best way to establish an initial route that would be less susceptible to political sabotage by anti-rail forces. Once this initial section is built, it seems existing Amtrak trains will use it until the true high speed trains are available.


----------



## 437.001

k.k.jetcar said:


> No it's not the best solution- the best solution would be to build the most technically difficult section between LA and Bakersfield first, and thus provide an imperfect but nonetheless complete all-rail link between LA and the SF Bay Area (currently buses link Los Angeles with Bakersfield-absurd I know, but this is the USA). But the Central Valley is economically depressed and politically valuable, and there is a perception that the technically easy stretch between Madera and Fresno is the best way to establish an initial route that would be less susceptible to political sabotage by anti-rail forces. Once this initial section is built, it seems existing Amtrak trains will use it until the true high speed trains are available.


But that would mean electrifying the section of the classic line between Oakland and Madera, and between Fresno and Bakersfield... because they won´t build any hybrid trains, and Spain won´t hire them (we need them, we´ve got only 15 of them).

And ok, Fresno is a mid-size city, but Madera is a small city (only 56,000 inhab.).

I just don´t get it, I find it not reasonable, because if Oakland or LA can´t be reached by direct service, that just won´t be profitable enough (speaking in rail terms of profitability, of course) to calm down the nymbys, and that, even if it´s the first phase. I agree with you that the first phase should have been LA to Bakersfield, that would have had a real impact.

But then again, we´re not talking of Europe nor Asia here, things work differently about rail in the Americas... let´s wait and see. 

:dunno:


----------



## Sunfuns

It's a big screwup in my opinion, but we'll know for sure only in a decade or so... As for electrification, at least in the Bay area it is certainly in the plans. Due to political reason it won't be possible to build a dedicated track there anyway so the HS trains will have to use the current Caltrain route.


----------



## Suburbanist

The first phase will accelerate services in the Central Valley and allow them to have a better connection with the Bay Area.

The Bakersfield-Los Angeles sector is the most challenging one. The money they have right now is not enough to build a new set of long tunnels, simply put.


----------



## Sunfuns

But Los Angeles railway station does exist. Where do trains go from there?


----------



## G5man

Sunfuns said:


> It's a big screwup in my opinion, but we'll know for sure only in a decade or so... As for electrification, at least in the Bay area it is certainly in the plans. Due to political reason it won't be possible to build a dedicated track there anyway so the HS trains will have to use the current Caltrain route.


For now, the blended plan is a good way to get in there. Once the people see the benefit of HS rail, then it should be easier to swallow. However, when dealing with NIMBYs, I think the blended plan is a reasonable compromise. 

I am not a big fan of the plans as they are currently due to the political hands. HSR is definitely more regional which makes it hard to obtain support unless spread over a wide geographical area. I do wonder if it would have been best to do what Illinois has done first with upgrading the current heavily used Capitol Corridor and Pacific Surfliner routes to higher-speed rail. I think a 2 hour travel time LA-SD and 90 minute LA-Santa Barbara would make people want more along with reducing SJ-Sac from 3 hours to 2 or less. 

I will be over in Europe in 2 1/2 weeks and I am quite excited to take some HS trains there. I wish that politicians would actually spend some time looking into the European model of transportation. It works well for urban areas and increasing the supply of housing in the Bay Area might curb growth in the exurbs, increase the use of transit more, while reducing commutes and revitalizing communities.

Many are convinced that HSR works in the NEC and I am too. My belief is it could probably do as good as the Shinkansen given the right resources and time. However, we have lost our ability to think big in the United States. We look at the cost and say "we can't afford it". I am not sure if we had said that in the Great Depression if we would have had the infrastructure we needed in order to ramp up production for World War II.


----------



## 437.001

Sunfuns said:


> But Los Angeles railway station does exist. Where do trains go from there?


They go to San Francisco Bay Area through another route.


----------



## Suburbanist

Sunfuns said:


> But Los Angeles railway station does exist. Where do trains go from there?











Let me try to explain it.

The current AMTRAK service between Los Angeles and San Francisco go via the Coast Line, and old and slow line that follows the... coast!

California coast north of Santa Barbara up to the Bay Area is not really well populated and the coast is hilly.

There is an inland route via the flat Central Valley. However, let's take a look at the topography near Los Angeles:










As you can see, there is an L-shaped mountain range there. It is currently transposed by a freight railway that goes through the infamous Tehachapi Loop. That is one of the major freight links of US, and the railway that owns it doesn't allow any passenger train traffic there.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

437.001 said:


> But that would mean electrifying the section of the classic line between Oakland and Madera, and between Fresno and Bakersfield... because they won´t build any hybrid trains, and Spain won´t hire them (we need them, we´ve got only 15 of them).
> 
> And ok, Fresno is a mid-size city, but Madera is a small city (only 56,000 inhab.).
> 
> I just don´t get it, I find it not reasonable, because if Oakland or LA can´t be reached by direct service, that just won´t be profitable enough (speaking in rail terms of profitability, of course) to calm down the nymbys, and that, even if it´s the first phase. I agree with you that the first phase should have been LA to Bakersfield, that would have had a real impact.
> 
> But then again, we´re not talking of Europe nor Asia here, things work differently about rail in the Americas... let´s wait and see.
> 
> :dunno:


It's actually the same in Asia, too. When they were building Taiwan High Speed Rail, they built the line where it was easiest to build (unpopulated areas), and left the connection to Taipei out. 

This was because there was a huge squabble about platform sharing in Taipei Main Station between TRA and THSR. In any case, THSR simply focused on getting the other segments done and opened the Taipei link later. 

I have a question for the CHSRA though: why don't the authorities build the system on viaducts to make land acquisition easier and install sound walls? The only "land acquisition" they would need would be the cross-section area of the support pylons.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Silver Swordsman said:


> I have a question for the CHSRA though: why don't the authorities build the system on viaducts to make land acquisition easier and install sound walls? The only "land acquisition" they would need would be the cross-section area of the support pylons.


It depends on property law but I believe CHSRA would still need to sign a lease contract with the land owners to utilize the air above any private property.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

There is also a lot of opposition to the concept of viaducts in general- that they are a blight on the scenery (if you consider the scenery in the central valley beautiful). You often see "reassuring" descriptions of the ROW being "mainly at grade with minimal elevated portions over highways and other obstacles". Of course, operationally viaducts are superior for hsr operation as they ensure a relatively flat grade profile and adjacent land owners can pass under the ROW easily, rather than having to depend on a finite number of tunnels/culverts that bore under grade level ROW or berm fill ROW (likewise with bridges).


----------



## 437.001

A blight on the scenery? In California? :uh:

Come on, if it´s done in Spain, it´s done in California... nymbys... :no:


----------



## Sunfuns

437.001 said:


> A blight on the scenery? In California? :uh:


California is probably the most beautiful among US states, albeit Central Valley is not exactly the hotspot.


----------



## 437.001

Sunfuns said:


> *California is probably the most beautiful among US states*, albeit Central Valley is not exactly the hotspot.


There are lots of things that California really is, but certainly not the most beautiful US state (not that it´s ugly, mind you, it´s beautiful, but not the most beautiful).

If in Spain a viaduct is not a blight on the scenery, in California it shouldn´t be either, and for the very same reasons.

Of all the US states, California is the one that ressembles Spain the most.


----------



## Sunfuns

437.001 said:


> icard:
> 
> There are lots of things that California really is, but certainly not the most beautiful US state.


I've been to about 20 states and in my opinion is California among the most beautiful. Have you been there? If you ever get a chance take a coastal road from LA to Oregon border or cross the Sierra Nevada through Yosemite national park. Also San Francisco might be the best looking big city in US. 

Of course all this is somewhat subjective. Where do you like better? Surely not somewhere East of Mississippi...


----------



## Sunfuns

437.001 said:


> If in Spain a viaduct is not a blight on the scenery, in California it shouldn´t be either, and for the very same reasons.


That I agree with. 



437.001 said:


> Of all the US states, California is the one that ressembles Spain the most.


Does it mean you don't think Spain is all that pretty? :cheers:


----------



## Sunfuns

Even in Saudi Arabia their new HS line will use electric propulsion.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

chaking-2014 said:


> we have this diesel train in algeria the speed of this train can reach 200km/h


Are there tilting trains?


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

M-NL said:


> Speeds in excess of 140 mph require serious power to be reached in an acceptable amount of time. Drag increases exponentially with speed.
> 
> An 8 car diesel powered 186 mph train would need something in the order of 8800 kW/12000 hp, which will probably be unfeasible because of the large engines; experiments with turbine driven trains haven't been that succesfull either (unreliable and unefficient). Electric is really the way to go when you want go fast.


Yes, gas-turbine train consume much more fuel than a diesel-electric one. Because this, Union Pacific shut down its GTEL locomotives in 1969 (replaced by GE U50C diesel-electric units) and Amtrak abandoned the Turboliners in 1981.

But, what about gas-turbine, high-speed Bombardier JetTrain? They are cheaper to operate than old GTEL/Turboliner? British railways study JetTrain as a substitute to 35 years-old InterCity 125 HST trainsets.


----------



## Tinchake

Which is the fastest rail line in the US??


----------



## phoenixboi08

Tinchake said:


> Which is the fastest rail line in the US??


Fastest avg/highest top speed is Acela, on the Northeast Corridor I believe.


----------



## Fan Railer

phoenixboi08 said:


> Fastest avg/highest top speed is Acela, on the Northeast Corridor I believe.


150 mph max, a dismal 60-80 mph average


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Doesn't look good for XPressWest:



> WASHINGTON — The government has halted its review of a multibillion-dollar loan request for high-speed rail line connecting Las Vegas and Southern California, a potentially staggering hit to the ambitious project.
> 
> The development is a blow for XPressWest, which has envisioned itself having a major role in the region’s future. The company’s plans call for electric trains whisking passengers at speeds up to 150 mph between Las Vegas and, for starters, Victorville, Calif.
> 
> But two Republicans who have raised questions about the rail plan said they were told the Department of Transportation has decided to “indefinitely suspend its review of the XPressWest loan application.”


http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/n...-review-las-vegas-california-high-speed-train


----------



## M-NL

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> Yes, gas-turbine train consume much more fuel than a diesel-electric one.


The real problem of turbines is twof-fold: Efficient turbines are slow to react to load changes and they are only efficient at the load you design them to be efficient at and get very unefficient at any other load.
In case of a HST it isn't uncommon that it travels just as much time (not distance!) on conventional lines as on high speed lines. When you optimise it for high speed (when you need most power) it will be inefficient at low speed and vice versa. The best setup is probably like DB Baureihe 210. They were diesel powered 2450hp Baureihe 218s but with an additional 1350hp turbine that was only used in high load situations.


----------



## MarcVD

M-NL said:


> The real problem of turbines is twof-fold: Efficient turbines are slow to react to load changes and they are only efficient at the load you design them to be efficient at and get very unefficient at any other load.


It would be interesting to look at the first french TGV design, before they 
decided to go electric, to see how they tried to overcome that. 

Also, it's not true to say that diesel high-speed is not practical. British HSTs
routinely reached 125 mph and now the voyager sets also reach that speed.
I don't remember how fast ran the french RTG sets - probably 160 km/h,
but they sure could have been adapted easily to 200 km/h running too.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Fan Railer said:


> 150 mph max, a dismal 60-80 mph average


...I was just answering a question. :nuts:


----------



## Sunfuns

As I understand it 200-220 kmh (125-135mph) is the practical limit for diesel trains. It's not impossible to run then faster, but it would be very inefficient. So if you want something running at 300 kmh or above electric is your only option.


----------



## Suburbanist

The rejection of the loan to the project of the XPress West was related to the operator been unable to justify the waivers it wanted from Buy America provision. They wanted to use some trick to circumvent Buy America provisions.

Read here the copy of the official explanation by US Dept. of Transportation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/154207442/Ray-LaHood-s-letter-to-XpressWest


----------



## Coccodrillo

Suburbanist said:


> I don't know of any > 15km tunnels that carry passenger trains with diesel-pulled consists in any developed country.


The 12.5 km Cascade tunnel in the USA is used by a few passenger trains. The Canadian Mount Macdonald tunnel at 14.7 km is longer but I don't know if it is used by passenger trains. But in both cases maybe no more than one or two a day.



Rodalvesdepaula said:


> But, what about gas-turbine, high-speed Bombardier JetTrain? They are cheaper to operate than old GTEL/Turboliner? British railways study JetTrain as a substitute to 35 years-old InterCity 125 HST trainsets.


The UK is going to electrify many routes, the replacements of the IC 125 HSTs are likely to be bimodal trains (electric and diesel), not pure diesel trains.


----------



## Fan Railer

phoenixboi08 said:


> ...I was just answering a question. :nuts:


Lol, and I was just giving some numbers to go along with your answer.


----------



## Basincreek

437.001 said:


> And ok, Fresno is a mid-size city, but Madera is a small city (only 56,000 inhab.).
> 
> I just don´t get it, I find it not reasonable, because if Oakland or LA can´t be reached by direct service, that just won´t be profitable enough (speaking in rail terms of profitability, of course) to calm down the nymbys, and that, even if it´s the first phase. I agree with you that the first phase should have been LA to Bakersfield, that would have had a real impact.


They only had $8 billion to work with and they had a time limit to spend it. After that Republicans would take over the House and cut off all money to rail projects.

The lowest estimated cost for the Bakersfield to LA segment I've seen is $12 billion. More realistically though it will likely be in the $15 billion range. And the complex engineering work had hardly even begun for this segment when they got the money from the Feds. 

So there was not enough time to design that segment before the money would go away nor was there nearly enough money to complete it. 



Sunfuns said:


> But Los Angeles railway station does exist. Where do trains go from there?


Very few intercity trains leave that station. Most trains that leave that station never travel outside of the urban area as commuter trains. 

To understand why you need to understand that the long distance lines in California were designed to haul freight, not people, they are currently owned by freight companies that want nothing to do with passenger trains on their tracks. The current HSR plan is to link two of the few actual government owned rail lines in the state which means they will be able to electrify them and run passenger trains on them.



Silver Swordsman said:


> I have a question for the CHSRA though: why don't the authorities build the system on viaducts to make land acquisition easier and install sound walls? The only "land acquisition" they would need would be the cross-section area of the support pylons.


Cost mostly. A basic two track viaduct in California is around $1-2 million per hundred feet of length excluding costs of piers or bents which average around $500,000 each assuming standard 8 meter height. So figure on $130 million a mile to build it assuming optimal building conditions. So you'd be looking at roughly $40 billion to get the HSR just through the mostly flat central valley. And that is extrapolating minimum prices out for the entire thing. There are, in fact, numerous areas where viaducts would be much trickier to build.

And that ignores that you do have to purchase the land the viaduct runs over. In fact many farm owners will try to require you to purchase their entire property even if the viaduct runs over only a bit of it through a process called reverse condemnation.



SamuraiBlue said:


> It depends on property law but I believe CHSRA would still need to sign a lease contract with the land owners to utilize the air above any private property.


In California they have to outright buy it. 



k.k.jetcar said:


> There is also a lot of opposition to the concept of viaducts in general- that they are a blight on the scenery (if you consider the scenery in the central valley beautiful). You often see "reassuring" descriptions of the ROW being "mainly at grade with minimal elevated portions over highways and other obstacles". Of course, operationally viaducts are superior for hsr operation as they ensure a relatively flat grade profile and adjacent land owners can pass under the ROW easily, rather than having to depend on a finite number of tunnels/culverts that bore under grade level ROW or berm fill ROW (likewise with bridges).


Yeah, but the cost alone would make it a dead on arrival idea. With one of the two major parties opposed to spending _any_ money on rail while maybe spending a pittance on roads the idea of long viaducts is a pipe dream.


----------



## M-NL

Coccodrillo said:


> the replacements of the IC 125 HSTs are likely to be bimodal trains (electric and diesel), not pure diesel trains.


I have never understood why they haven't done more experimenting with dual mode train in the US anyways. On flat track diesels will do fine, on slopes switch to electric mode so can climb faster or recuperate brake power that is otherwise wasted. 

The traction system of diesel electric locomotives used to be much simpler then an electric locomotive, but with modern AC systems the only major difference seems to be the power source.

On the other hand: I would be very interested to see a HST with a 30ton axle load, where the rest of the world sticks to a 18ton limit...


----------



## XAN_

It's pointless, on higher speeds each extra tonne cost a good deal of kWh, per each km and km\h.


----------



## hmmwv

MarcVD said:


> It would be interesting to look at the first french TGV design, before they
> decided to go electric, to see how they tried to overcome that.
> 
> Also, it's not true to say that diesel high-speed is not practical. British HSTs
> routinely reached 125 mph and now the voyager sets also reach that speed.
> I don't remember how fast ran the french RTG sets - probably 160 km/h,
> but they sure could have been adapted easily to 200 km/h running too.


So is the ICE TD.


----------



## Fan Railer

M-NL said:


> On the other hand: I would be very interested to see a HST with a 30ton axle load, where the rest of the world sticks to a 18ton limit...


You're never going to see something built that heavy designed to go faster than 125 mph (200 km/h). The damage it would do to track integrity running at speeds above that would be unacceptably high. There's a reason HSTs are designed to have as low an axle load as possible.


----------



## M-NL

Fan Railer said:


> The damage it would do to track integrity running at speeds above that would be unacceptably high. There's a reason HSTs are designed to have as low an axle load as possible.


And the entire world except for NA seems to understand that. Personally I consider it madness that for instance the ALP45DP is allowed 200 km/h with its 32.5t axle load. And the most baffling is that new passenger locomotives in NA only seem to get heavier! A good exception are the electrics used on the NEC. You could consider the new ACS-64 a lightweight at 'only' 98t, which is still 10t more than the Vectron it was based on.


----------



## Fan Railer

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/530/930/Amtrak-Siemens-Locomotive-Testing-ATK-13-081.pdf


> PUEBLO, Colo. – The new Amtrak Cities Sprinter (ACS-64) electric locomotives are
> now in a comprehensive and rigorous testing program, and are being put through the paces
> before entering Northeast service this fall.
> Today, Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman, Federal Railroad Administrator
> Joseph Szabo and Siemens Rail Systems President Michael Cahill traveled to the U.S
> Department of Transportation (DOT) Transportation Technology Center (TTC) facility in
> Pueblo, Colo., to get an update on the testing program and to observe a testing demonstration.
> “These locomotives are the new workhorses of the Amtrak fleet in the Northeast and they
> must meet our performance-based specifications and reliability needs so we can keep the
> region’s people and economy moving,” said Boardman.
> Two locomotives are at the TTC facility to undergo a series of tests, including maximum
> speed runs, acceleration and braking, operating with Amtrak passenger coach cars attached and
> testing the overall performance capabilities of the locomotive. Engineers are also validating the
> on-board computer system and software, as well as evaluate ride quality by using instruments to
> measure things such as noise and wheel vibrations.
> A variety of additional tests and validation exercises are being conducted as part of the
> commissioning process to ensure the locomotive is operating and performing as designed and
> that it is ready to provide reliable service for Amtrak passengers.
> “Safety is our number one priority,” said Szabo. “Today’s testing regime demonstrates
> the extraordinary safety standards FRA requires manufacturers and railroads to meet when
> building passenger rail equipment. One in seven Americans lives along the Northeast Corridor
> and as demand for passenger rail service continues to grow across the country, we will continue
> to ensure that rail equipment is safe, reliable and efficient.”
> In addition to the robust testing regime at TTC, a third locomotive will run field tests on
> the Northeast and Keystone Corridors this summer and be used for training Amtrak locomotive
> engineers and mechanical crews. A fourth locomotive will be tested in a climate-controlled
> chamber to determine how well it performs in extreme heat and cold temperatures.


----------



## FM 2258

^^

Very cool, I never knew those Amfleet passenger cars were rated for 125mph.


----------



## Fan Railer

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> Very cool, I never knew those Amfleet passenger cars were rated for 125mph.


lol those cars run at those speeds every day, and have been since the advent of electric locomotives for amtrak that could attain those speeds (the AEM-7 in and 1980s)


----------



## trainrover

Even earlier (late-60s) if the metroliners' similarity can be considered.


----------



## G5man

phoenixboi08 said:


> Do we have any unified bodies to press for interests?
> Seems like we must rely on State Transportation Departments and the DoT - and other private/public partners.
> 
> I wish we could all sit down, draw up and agree on a basic network. And then go about it piece by piece with everyone knowing (acknowledging) what the ultimate system will be/look like.


Unfortunately, it seems quite fragmented with many bodies from various HSRAs including USHSR, AHSRA, Midwest HSRA, etc. If you could bring the organizations under NARP (National Association for Rail Passengers) with a unified vision, we could press further in terms of a national vision. 

USHSR wants to take on everything including some of the more impractical lines, the regional HSRAs like the Midwest HSRA have priorities in their region and want to extend further as funds permit. 

I think we need to emphasize more on connections within the megaregions first. NEC, California, Midwest, Flordia, and Texas being the big five and going from there to extend and interconnect the HSR networks.


----------



## Fan Railer

I did find two new videos apparently from someone who has access at Pueblo.




 - Flyby video




 - Video of info screen showing acceleration with 8 amfleets from stop to 125 mph.
I also find the comments from the crew about the engine being "too quiet" amusing. #thatsthewayitshouldbe


----------



## M-NL

The front looks more like a ES64F4, while the side resembles a HLE-18. Due to the compared to Europe extremely high overhead wire the proportions of the pantograph look a bit weird to me.

The rest of the cab also has some interesting points: There doesn't seem to be a 'cruise control' fitted, the traction/e-brake regulator works the other way around compared to the older models (now forward = more power) and why didn't they integrate the brake controls into the console?


----------



## Fan Railer

M-NL said:


> The front looks more like a ES64F4, while the side resembles a HLE-18. Due to the compared to Europe extremely high overhead wire the proportions of the pantograph look a bit weird to me.
> 
> The rest of the cab also has some interesting points: There doesn't seem to be a 'cruise control' fitted, the traction/e-brake regulator works the other way around compared to the older models (now forward = more power) and why didn't they integrate the brake controls into the console?


There's probably a cruise feature somewhere. It doesn't make sense not to have one. The brake stand is not from Siemens, hence the lack of integration.


----------



## baavaz17

This is a bit off topic but... I was wondering if this idea for HSR in the Northeast would work. Even if true HSR does come to the Northeast (not the phony Acelahno it won't be able to be efficient enough if it still stops at every single stop like the Acela does now.. My idea works like this. You designate five hubs: Washington, Baltimore, Philly, New York, New Haven, and Boston. All trains would start and end at these hubs rather than the Acela only starting and stopping in DC and Boston. So a New York to DC train would stop at all the stops that are after Baltimore and then end at DC. So instead of going through Newark, Trenton, Philly etc. to get to DC you only stop at the trains AFTER the Baltimore stop in case anyone else on the train wants to get off at one of the stops after Baltimore like Greenbelt or one the DC suburbs. So there would be direct trains between each of the hubs which would make a total of 15 different routes between the cities. It would be a lot faster since you don't have to stop at every single stop and would reduce overcrowding. It sounds really confusing but makes sense rather than having the train stop at every stop so if you want to go from Baltimore to Washington you have to cram yourself onto a train filled with New Yorkers, Bostonians, and Philadelphians. The demand is to big to have the train stop at every stop which is why I think my plan would work.


----------



## G5man

baavaz17 said:


> This is a bit off topic but... I was wondering if this idea for HSR in the Northeast would work. Even if true HSR does come to the Northeast (not the phony Acelahno it won't be able to be efficient enough if it still stops at every single stop like the Acela does now.. My idea works like this. You designate five hubs: Washington, Baltimore, Philly, New York, New Haven, and Boston. All trains would start and end at these hubs rather than the Acela only starting and stopping in DC and Boston. So a New York to DC train would stop at all the stops that are after Baltimore and then end at DC. So instead of going through Newark, Trenton, Philly etc. to get to DC you only stop at the trains AFTER the Baltimore stop in case anyone else on the train wants to get off at one of the stops after Baltimore like Greenbelt or one the DC suburbs. So there would be direct trains between each of the hubs which would make a total of 15 different routes between the cities. It would be a lot faster since you don't have to stop at every single stop and would reduce overcrowding. It sounds really confusing but makes sense rather than having the train stop at every stop so if you want to go from Baltimore to Washington you have to cram yourself onto a train filled with New Yorkers, Bostonians, and Philadelphians. The demand is to big to have the train stop at every stop which is why I think my plan would work.


The Acela currently has about 15 stops along the route. Some, even if you skipped them would not make much of a time savings due to track curvature. 

If you do take a look at Amtrak's Vision for the NEC page 21 of 42 for the 2012 update. You will see the concept of a Super Express service only serving DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Route 128, and Boston. My thinking would be to do a three level service with a brand new HSL like in Japan. Super-Express, Limited-Express, and Local. Limited-Express would not serve as many stations as a regional but service more than a Super-Express. 

It is hard to say on what stops should be made or not made for a limited stop train if there should be a combination or how that would work out. I would like to start with the following.

1x per hour Express Boston South, Back Bay, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC
1x per hour Limited-Express Boston South, Back Bay, Providence, New Haven, Jamaica (presuming HSL goes via Long Island), New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, DC

Amtrak's Acela schedule does not make sense in the aspect that a few afternoon trains skip New Haven even though you can only pass through New Haven at 30 mph. Yet all trains stop at Route 128 in Boston. 

From there, I do not know. Currently, BWI, Metropark, and New London are only served by select Acela Express trains. BWI Airport-Baltimore can be done via NE Regional in one stop, to DC in two stops to where I do not believe serving the airport by a new service will be beneficial. Philadelphia, Newark, and Jamaica I am not sure would be worth serving. In terms of reducing Northeast air shuttles, serving the cores of downtown cities would probably eliminate the hourly air shuttles. Would people use the trains to connect to destinations like New Haven? Perhaps. For most instances, the regional trains would probably do better for that job rather than HSR. I think some select service to airports would be okay, but not for all trains.


----------



## ahmadinejad

hi I just want to ask question.. a stupid one I know

how is it development in the US? if I'm not mistaken, average US states receive 0% to 1% of GDP growth. It hardly got 4%. So I assume construction there are not active


----------



## tmb-ingville

ahmadinejad said:


> hi I just want to ask question.. a stupid one I know
> 
> how is it development in the US? if I'm not mistaken, average US states receive 0% to 1% of GDP growth. It hardly got 4%. So I assume construction there are not active


Economic growth last quarter was 1.7%. But, 1.7% growth of the largest economy in the world is much larger (in absolute value) than 10% growth in an emerging economy.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Slartibartfas said:


> The longer I read about developments in the US the more I come to the conclusion that hell is going to freeze sooner than there will be a proper high speed rail line in the US. What a pity.
> 
> So people keep talking about how it can't be financed but then I look at the obscene "defense"-budget increases even during times of economic crises ... it seems financing destruction in some distant lands is more important than building something in the own homeland.


Rightly said! However I feel CAHSR and NEC projects will still chug along. But yes, there is a problem in the US in general w.r.t public transportation. When the costs of ignoring public transportation and passenger rail become intolerable then a huge majority will realize its importance. However I feel the hardships/costs involved in making that transition at a later date will be tremendous.


----------



## baavaz17

G5man said:


> The Acela currently has about 15 stops along the route. Some, even if you skipped them would not make much of a time savings due to track curvature.
> 
> If you do take a look at Amtrak's Vision for the NEC page 21 of 42 for the 2012 update. You will see the concept of a Super Express service only serving DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Route 128, and Boston. My thinking would be to do a three level service with a brand new HSL like in Japan. Super-Express, Limited-Express, and Local. Limited-Express would not serve as many stations as a regional but service more than a Super-Express.
> 
> It is hard to say on what stops should be made or not made for a limited stop train if there should be a combination or how that would work out. I would like to start with the following.
> 
> 1x per hour Express Boston South, Back Bay, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC
> 1x per hour Limited-Express Boston South, Back Bay, Providence, New Haven, Jamaica (presuming HSL goes via Long Island), New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, DC
> 
> Amtrak's Acela schedule does not make sense in the aspect that a few afternoon trains skip New Haven even though you can only pass through New Haven at 30 mph. Yet all trains stop at Route 128 in Boston.
> 
> From there, I do not know. Currently, BWI, Metropark, and New London are only served by select Acela Express trains. BWI Airport-Baltimore can be done via NE Regional in one stop, to DC in two stops to where I do not believe serving the airport by a new service will be beneficial. Philadelphia, Newark, and Jamaica I am not sure would be worth serving. In terms of reducing Northeast air shuttles, serving the cores of downtown cities would probably eliminate the hourly air shuttles. Would people use the trains to connect to destinations like New Haven? Perhaps. For most instances, the regional trains would probably do better for that job rather than HSR. I think some select service to airports would be okay, but not for all trains.


hno:
But even with the express if I want to go from Baltimore to DC the train would be packed with people from the stops before me like Philly and NY and Boston. Even if I wanted to get from New York to DC the train would still be packed with people from Boston trying to get to DC.

Even if Amtrak gets new tracks and trains go from Boston to DC on 200 MPH there would be a huge demand to take the train and they would just get overcrowded. You have to think about HSR like a plane. Everything is more efficient if everyone on board is from the same origin and are going to the same destination.


----------



## G5man

baavaz17 said:


> hno:
> But even with the express if I want to go from Baltimore to DC the train would be packed with people from the stops before me like Philly and NY and Boston. Even if I wanted to get from New York to DC the train would still be packed with people from Boston trying to get to DC.
> 
> Even if Amtrak gets new tracks and trains go from Boston to DC on 200 MPH there would be a huge demand to take the train and they would just get overcrowded. You have to think about HSR like a plane. Everything is more efficient if everyone on board is from the same origin and are going to the same destination.


I think you are missing the entire point of rail transport. ICE 3's can carry up to 460 passengers with 8 cars. The current Acela's carry 300 passengers. There is only 1 train per hour meaning there is plenty of room for growth and I would not be concerned. That is the entire point of rail. So you can have some going to the terminus point, while still getting off in between so that there is a higher utilization rate. Bypassing NYC would be a huge mistake and bypassing Philadelphia and Baltimore are expensive due to the high-speed tracks required to bypass the city. Is it worth billions of dollars to bypass cities when there is demand for the train to stop at those destinations? Amtrak tried a limited-stop Acela but demand was weak. 

The Shinkansen Nozomi stops at major destinations along the way to Osaka, there is a reason rail runs differently. There is a point in stopping at major destinations which is why I was thinking having 1x per hour Super-Express only stopping at major cities. The 5 stops are not very many and as long as bypasses are not prohibitively expensive, then it would make sense. However, if it costs billions of dollars and not many more passengers will get on board, there is no point in spending money to bypass.


----------



## Sunfuns

baavaz17 said:


> hno:
> But even with the express if I want to go from Baltimore to DC the train would be packed with people from the stops before me like Philly and NY and Boston. Even if I wanted to get from New York to DC the train would still be packed with people from Boston trying to get to DC.
> 
> Even if Amtrak gets new tracks and trains go from Boston to DC on 200 MPH there would be a huge demand to take the train and they would just get overcrowded. You have to think about HSR like a plane. Everything is more efficient if everyone on board is from the same origin and are going to the same destination.


Seats are numbered and tickets could be bought a long time in advance on HSR. Why would you be bothered about the train being completely empty at your station? 

Boston-DC is a bit too far to completely fill a train. If the new line were to be built the majority of passengers would probably be NYC-DC and NCY-Boston.


----------



## K_

baavaz17 said:


> hno:
> But even with the express if I want to go from Baltimore to DC the train would be packed with people from the stops before me like Philly and NY and Boston.


But there would also be people getting of at Baltimore.




> You have to think about HSR like a plane. Everything is more efficient if everyone on board is from the same origin and are going to the same destination.


A train isn't a plane. It is one of the strengths of railways that one service can serve multiple origin destination pairs quite easily.
A train that stops in five cities serves a total of 10 origin-destination pairs. If you wanted to replace this train with trains that only serve one single origin-destination pair you would need 10 trains...

Add another stop and the number or relations served increases to 15. Of course extra stops do increase travel time. Finding the right balance between the two is what designing timetables is all about.


----------



## desertpunk

*HSR director promises groundbreaking will come soon*












> FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- Groundbreaking on the first segment of California's high speed rail project is still scheduled to take place this summer. At a meeting in Sacramento, the director of the high speed rail authority said the contract for construction on the line from Madera County to Fresno will be signed within days. While construction hasn't started planning has been underway for months. Tutor Perini Construction, The major contractor for the nearly $1 billion first segment from Madera County through Fresno has set up shop in Fresno and is awaiting the final go ahead from the California High Speed Rail.
> 
> Authority Director Dan Richards says things are about to happen. "We're really on the verge of breaking ground our organization is just about to sign the contract with the contractor," said Richards. "Right now it's logistical issues more than anything else." The City of Fresno is gearing up. Half a dozen staff members have been added and more are expected to be hired with funds provided by the authority to both the city, the county and the Economic Development Corporation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> One legal challenge to the project remains. A Kings County dairy farmer is part of a lawsuit trying to stop the train. But Richard says he believes that obstacle will soon be removed.
> 
> The $68 billion project to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco through the Central Valley is expected to take from 15 to 20 years to complete. Work on the first 29 mile section from Madera County through the city of Fresno is expected to start within the next month or two.
> 
> ---


----------



## Fan Railer

Here's a teaser video from my Boston trip. Unfortunately I can't upload the rest of it until tomorrow since the hotel internet is slow and inconsistent. Here, at one of the only stops on the NEC where trains can accelerate out of the station at full throttle without low speed restrictions, we are afforded rare opportunities to catch Amtrak's trains showing off their full might and power. Train 173 NE Regional departs first with Toaster Rehab 904. The Acela, train 2163 is running 20 minutes late, and the engineer does a good job of indicating that he plans to make up that time. Just watch her fly out of the station. This is also one of the few spots that affords a decent opportunity to record traction motor sounds. Can't wait to come back in a few years and see how the ACS-64s perform coming out of this station.


----------



## M-NL

Fan Railer said:


> Can't wait to come back in a few years and see how the ACS-64s perform coming out of this station.


I think you'll be massively disappointed. The ACS-64 will only do marginally better then the HHP8. Their tractive effort ratings are comparable and the difference in power rating is only 400 kW and will only show at speeds over about 50 mph. Compared to an AEM7 it will be faster. The only advantage the ACS-64 will have over it's predecessors is it's more advanced control systems, but again the HHP8 isn't exactly old fashioned there either.


----------



## Fan Railer

M-NL said:


> I think you'll be massively disappointed. The ACS-64 will only do marginally better then the HHP8. Their tractive effort ratings are comparable and the difference in power rating is only 400 kW and will only show at speeds over about 50 mph. Compared to an AEM7 it will be faster. The only advantage the ACS-64 will have over it's predecessors is it's more advanced control systems, but again the HHP8 isn't exactly old fashioned there either.


I wouldn't say "massively disappointed." I realize the specs for the ACS-64, so it's not like I'm expecting it to rocket out of the station faster than that Acela did or anything. It'll just be nice to see and hear new power on the NEC.


----------



## phoenixboi08

This guy did a pretty decent job on this.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

I'm actually pretty surprised that that is a high school production.


----------



## desertpunk

jcastro805 said:


> *Bullet train bound for Fort Worth, officials learn details *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zipping from Fort Worth to Dallas in 12 minutes – without speeding tickets – could become reality if high-speed rail plans reach fruition.
> 
> Speaking at the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition’s Oct. 2 monthly meeting, rail proponent Robert Eckels outlined plans not only to link North Texas’ most populated cities, but also establish passage from Dallas to Houston. “The run [from Fort Worth] to Dallas nonstop is 12 minutes,” said Eckels, a former Harris County judge now serving as president of Texas Central High-Speed Railway, a private company joining forces with Central Japan Railway Co. to bring a 205 mph bullet train between Houston to Dallas.
> 
> After evaluating 97 U.S. “pair cities” – geographic corridors with two major municipalities – the Japanese firm chose North Texas and its proximity to Houston. “They ultimately decided that a Houston-DFW connection was the most innately financeable project in the U.S.,” Eckels said. Plans call for rail stations in Fort Worth, Arlington and Dallas, from which passengers could travel to Houston. Specific station locations have not been decided. More cities statewide could be added to the rail line after the initial route is established, Eckels said.
> 
> *Environmental impact studies are expected to begin in early 2014, with construction tentatively slated to begin in 2016 and trains possibly reaching operation by 2020 or 2021.* “That’s an aggressive schedule, but not an undoable schedule,” Eckels said.
> 
> 
> 
> read more at http://fwbusinesspress.com/fwbp/article/1/2534/News-Categories-Transportation/Bullet-train-bound-for-Fort-Worth-officials-learn-details.aspx
Click to expand...

...


----------



## FM 2258

^^

I do not understand these looooooong environmental impact studies and lengthy costly "evaluations." *2021*? Just throw up a long ass bridge, slap rails on it and run the train. :lol: I know it's not that easy but I cannot help being frustrated seeing how China can open 155mph-217mph lines every few months while in the U.S. we still have nothing. I seriously would want a Chinese firm to come in and build rail in Texas. They seem to know what they're doing. 

Anyway, I hope this gets built sooner than later. This post is probably an exact repeat of my last few posts. :cheers:


----------



## sweet-d

I kinda like the fact that it's a Japanese company helping out in Texas though they know their stuff. I also second i'm frustrated at the extra long environmental impact study but I guess it can't be helped any way. I hope I'm not the only one who wants it to be called the Texas Shinkasen though.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

The plans have to pass environmental review, no matter the national origin of the builders (i.e. it's the U.S. system that makes things slow). Even if the Chinese were to build this, they will still use American workers and have to follow U.S. and state laws- I have a feeling their cost advantage which comes in play in places like Africa (along with a good helping of good 'ol bribery and corruption) would evaporate.


----------



## Sopomon

sweet-d said:


> I kinda like the fact that it's a Japanese company helping out in Texas though they know their stuff. I also second i'm frustrated at the extra long environmental impact study but I guess it can't be helped any way. I hope I'm not the only one who wants it to be called the Texas Shinkasen though.


The name would be great, but in order to make it seem appealing to Americans and more precisely, Texans, I'm sure they're going to use some ludicrous think tank approved name.

My bet is on: Super Freedom Speed Eagle Transport Liberator. (Or at least something along those lines)


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sopomon said:


> The name would be great, but in order to make it seem appealing to Americans and more precisely, Texans, I'm sure they're going to use some ludicrous think tank approved name.
> 
> My bet is on: Super Freedom Speed Eagle Transport Liberator. (Or at least something along those lines)


more likely a silly portmanteau 
TeXpress?


----------



## G5man

http://ict.uiuc.edu/railroad/IDOT220/IDOT HSR 220 Executive Report.pdf THe University of Illinois published a study on a Chicago-St Louis and Indianapolis route. The cost estimates are quite high but state are on par with other HSR projects.


----------



## FM 2258

Sopomon said:


> The name would be great, but in order to make it seem appealing to Americans and more precisely, Texans, I'm sure they're going to use some ludicrous think tank approved name.
> 
> My bet is on: Super Freedom Speed Eagle Transport Liberator. (Or at least something along those lines)


I thought they'd just slap "Amtrak" on the side and start running it. :lol: :cheers:

If not 205 mph train I know a 125mph train would be better than any other option we have here in Texas in terms of efficient, cheaper long distance public transportation. MegaBus seems to be the best but it's limited to 75mph.


----------



## Innsertnamehere

The whole point of HSR is to attract plane and car users, not just to put bus companies out of business.


----------



## FM 2258

^^

I understand, I'm pointing out that bus is the only "affordable" as well as feasible long distance public transportation option available in Texas. There is Amtrak yet the service is slow. I took Amtrak from Dallas to Austin earlier this year, took 6 hours to make the trip.


----------



## phoenixboi08

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> I understand, I'm pointing out that bus is the only "affordable" as well as feasible long distance public transportation option available in Texas. There is Amtrak yet the service is slow. I took Amtrak from Dallas to Austin earlier this year, took 6 hours to make the trip.


Right. Which is why I'm baffled when people insinuate that there's only a strong business case for improving service in the Northeast Corridor...

Actually, I feel this would be moving far more quickly if people realized how much this could improve efficiency in air travel. It's expensive to run these smaller shuttles between hubs. It's far cheaper to connect pairs of cities that already have large amounts of air traffic. It's not just about how close the cities are, it's about where people are traveling to.


----------



## CNB30

I'm so happy that this is spreading around the internet

http://www.upworthy.com/this-future-map-of-the-united-states-is-way-cooler-than-any-current-map-of-the-u?c=bl3


----------



## aquaticko

No offense, but that's actually quite old and not very helpful. There's no way HSR is feasible along a lot of those routes (distances, passengers served, terrain issues), and it only makes it look as though HSR bumpers are looking to create a literally national network which couldn't possibly compete with air travel along a lot of its networks, and therefore would require subsidies, be a "boondoggle" (that word still makes me gag; so overused in this context), etc., etc.


----------



## phoenixboi08

aquaticko said:


> No offense, but that's actually quite old and not very helpful. There's no way HSR is feasible along a lot of those routes (distances, passengers served, terrain issues), and it only makes it look as though HSR bumpers are looking to create a literally national network which couldn't possibly compete with air travel along a lot of its networks, and therefore would require subsidies, be a "boondoggle" (that word still makes me gag; so overused in this context), etc., etc.


That line of reasoning is a bit over-used, no?

True, very few people are going to take a train from Chicago to LA; however, that isn't the point of having a _network_. If that were the case, my city (in Southern Alabama, on the Gulf Coast), wouldn't have an airport: it barely makes any money and flights to anywhere are expensive because it doesn't serve many markets (i.e. just connects you to hubs). However, the need to travel supersedes that inconvenience.


----------



## Smooth Indian

phoenixboi08 said:


> That line of reasoning is a bit over-used, no?
> 
> True, very few people are going to take a train from Chicago to LA; however, that isn't the point of having a _network_. If that were the case, my city (in Southern Alabama, on the Gulf Coast), wouldn't have an airport: it barely makes any money and flights to anywhere are expensive because it doesn't serve many markets (i.e. just connects you to hubs). However, the need to travel supersedes that inconvenience.


I think the the link between Omaha and Salt Lake City, Between Denver & El-Paso and between San-Antonio & Tucson seem outrageous at this time. But the rest seem all seem to be feasible. When the more feasible lines get built the unconnected cities like Denver or Salt lake city will clamor for HSR connections. 
On the same note was it or is it feasible to build/maintain interstates to connect to outlying cities/towns in Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming or Montana e.t.c?


----------



## Silver Swordsman

aquaticko said:


> No offense, but that's actually quite old and not very helpful. There's no way HSR is feasible along a lot of those routes (distances, passengers served, terrain issues), and it only makes it look as though HSR bumpers are looking to create a literally national network which couldn't possibly compete with air travel along a lot of its networks, and therefore would require subsidies, be a "boondoggle" (that word still makes me gag; so overused in this context), etc., etc.


The immediate point of such a network is not the termini of the lines, but rather the intermediate and interchange stations in the middle; in other words, this will give the American Midwest the boost that it never really got. 

If anyone hasn't noticed, the most crowded subway and metro rail stations are the interchange stations in the middle of the line, not the terminus stations. The NY-LA HSR route isn't so much about travelling from East Coast to West Coast; it's more about connecting New York to Chicago, Denver to Las Vegas, or Denver to Chicago--any city that is connected to an HSR line is suddenly part of a much larger group of cities. Going by that, the middle cities stand much more to benefit than the cities at the endpoints; HSR will invert the Midwest's curse of "having no access to either the East Coast or the West Coast" to suddenly "having access to the East Coast *and* the West Coast". 

Right now, automobile-centric development is mostly radial; while HSR is certainly expensive, there is almost no research on the unlimited economic potential of large-scale axial growth, which is what any region newly connected by HSR can expect.


----------



## aquaticko

^^That's all fair, but my criticism was really only aimed at those Western lines crossing vast distances that don't have a large population or substantial intra-regional travel, such that they'd be better served by simply upgrading currently-existing lines, as opposed to the new lines that'd have to be built to satisfy demand in most other parts of the country (both coasts, Midwest, Texas). And again, considering the Rocky Mts. which divide the western half of the country, the terrain works against the network pictured, too. I just shudder to think of giving any more reason for libertarians to rail against government spending on what is basically necessary infrastructure.

I've heard it said before that, essentially, everything east of the Mississippi River, Texas, and the West Coast should (save CA north of SF and southern Oregon) should have HSR service; that sounds about right to me.


----------



## CNB30

I think it would be ideal to start off with main urban centers, and then slowly over the years, and decades, expand the system everywhere if it grows in popularity.


----------



## hmmwv

I think we should just give up, accept the fact that it's not gonna happen in the next two decade. It's actually kinda sad to see this thread.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

hmmwv said:


> I think we should just give up, accept the fact that it's not gonna happen in the next two decade. It's actually kinda sad to see this thread.


You're forgetting that that was around the time that it took Japan to completely pull off what it pulled off (excluding the Tokaido Shinkansen), and that construction for Japan's maglev also (nearly) exceeds our lifetime. 

Don't give up. If we do, you're letting the Tea Party win, because that's exactly what they're trying to do--wear you down until you give up and say, "see, it's not that important after all!"


----------



## Crownsteler

I was a bit bored today so I made a US high speed map akin to the European and Asian one on Wikipedia. I can see why nobody made on earlier. It is kinda empty... So I added a 'higher-speed' tier (110 mph/177 km/h). There are probally some errors in there :angel1: So any corrections and suggestions to make it better are welcome.


----------



## SAS 16

Nice map it was time! thanks for your contribution
Besides comparing to the rest of maps its like :lurker: :lol: 
but its great to see some projects are going on!


----------



## CNB30

Nice to see somewhat of a map


----------



## robincole

Yes


----------



## FM 2258

Great map! Now it's time to get some purple lines on that map.


----------



## XAN_

Maybe it's wise to mark "planed" and "u\c" differently?


----------



## Crownsteler

Well it was a bit difficult to decided how to include those lines. They are all pretty close to going under construction (or already are), or at least have a firm commitment (i.e. money assigned). In California, for example, the first construction contracts have been signed, but construction is yet to begin. And the part which is going to be constructed, is but a tiny part of the system (30 miles?) and wont see such high operating speeds for years after completion.

The only one which is really borderline included is the Florida proposal. They are still working out the financing, and there is no a definite construction date, but on the other hand, some land acquisition has taken place.

I agree it should perhaps be clearer, but I haven't figured out how to do it yet.


In the mean time I updated the map a bit:

*changed the 110 mph section around Albany to better correspond to the real situation.
*Included the New Haven-Springfield line as 110 mph under construction.
*Included the Black Hawk service (Amtrak: Chicago-Duburque)
*Changed the legend to correspond better to the European map and FRA speed tiers (probally also made it clearer)

And for fun I made a map which includes a few more or less serious proposals for high speed rail:


btw, the line from Raleigh to Richmond could probally also be included on the other map. Anyone have any good info on it?


----------



## Smooth Indian

Crownsteler said:


> I was a bit bored today so I made a US high speed map akin to the European and Asian one on Wikipedia. I can see why nobody made on earlier. It is kinda empty... So I added a 'higher-speed' tier (110 mph/177 km/h). There are probally some errors in there :angel1: So any corrections and suggestions to make it better are welcome.


An important development would be to make all the brown lines capable of 110 mph, double tracked to the minimum and electrified. This will help in running more passenger trains and create a good foundation for passenger rail. HSR tracks can be laid down parallel to some routes where there is more demand.


----------



## FM 2258

^^

I'm not sure about the case of other city pairs but the current Austin to Ft. Worth/Dallas line for Amtrak takes 6 hours travel time. The way the line is currently set up it doesn't look feasible to get trains running 110mph unless the route between the cities is drastically changed. With all the construction they're doing on Interstate 35 I don't see why they could find a little right of way to add a good high speed line. It baffles me why we cannot just put High Speed rail in the wide medians of the current Interstate systems between cities that need it most. If the median is filled in then do it Chinese style and put up long bridges...that's my idea/opinion.


----------



## Suburbanist

FM 2258 said:


> It baffles me why we cannot just put High Speed rail in the wide medians of the current Interstate systems between cities that need it most.


Except for long straight sectors, the curve radii of the best designed freeways cannot cope with minimum radii necessary for operation of high speed trains on 200mph or more.


----------



## Smooth Indian

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> I'm not sure about the case of other city pairs but the current Austin to Ft. Worth/Dallas line for Amtrak takes 6 hours travel time. The way the line is currently set up it doesn't look feasible to get trains running 110mph unless the route between the cities is drastically changed. With all the construction they're doing on Interstate 35 I don't see why they could find a little right of way to add a good high speed line. It baffles me why we cannot just put High Speed rail in the wide medians of the current Interstate systems between cities that need it most. If the median is filled in then do it Chinese style and put up long bridges...that's my idea/opinion.


I don't think it is that bad. Baring some small towns wherein the track may take 90 degree curves, much of the track is reasonably straight. The bottleneck points which are only a handful can be avoided by building underpasses/underground tunnels. Much of the route may just need upgradation of tracks and track-bed, eliminating some level crossings, improving signaling e.t.c. I feel this approach is better than directly building HSR tracks. I also feel HSR lines when built should run roughly parallel to these existing upgraded routes with an arrangement to to exchange trains with those lines near important towns. This way smaller towns can also be served by a few high speed services and some services can extend onto branch lines.


----------



## desertpunk

*Work begins on Calif. bullet train, locals angry *












> FRESNO, Calif. (AP) -- Trucks loaded with tomatoes, milk and almonds clog the two main highways that bisect California's farm heartland, carrying goods to millions along the Pacific Coast and beyond. This dusty stretch of land is the starting point for one of the nation's most expensive public infrastructure projects: a $68 billion high-speed rail system that would span the state, linking the people of America's salad bowl to more jobs, opportunity and buyers.
> 
> Five years ago, California voters overwhelmingly approved the idea of bringing a bullet train to the nation's most populous state. It would be America's first high-speed rail system, sold to the public as a way to improve access to good-paying jobs, cut pollution from smog-filled roadways and reduce time wasted sitting in traffic while providing an alternative to high fuel prices.
> 
> Now, engineering work has finally begun on the first 30-mile segment of track here in Fresno, a city of a half-million people with soaring unemployment and a withering downtown core littered with abandoned factories and shuttered stores.
> 
> Rail is meant to help this place, with construction jobs now and improved access to economic opportunity once the job is complete. But the region that could benefit most from the project is also where opposition to it has grown most fierce.
> 
> "I just wish it would go away, this high-speed rail. I just wish it would go away," says Gary Lanfranco, whose restaurant in downtown Fresno is slated to be demolished to make way for rerouted traffic.
> 
> Such sentiments can be heard throughout the Central Valley, where roads are dotted with signs such as: "HERE COMES HIGH SPEED RAIL There goes the farm." Growers complain of misplaced priorities, and residents wonder if their tax money is being squandered.
> 
> Aaron Fukuda, a civil engineer whose house in the dairy town of Hanford lies directly in one of the possible train routes, says: "People are worn out, tired, frustrated."
> 
> Voters in 2008 approved $10 billion in bonds to start construction on an 800-mile rail line to ferry passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes, compared with 6 hours by car now during good traffic. Since then, the housing market collapsed, multibillion-dollar budget deficits followed, and the price tag has fluctuated wildly - from $45 billion in 2008 to more than $100 billion in 2011 and, now, $68 billion.
> 
> Political and financial compromises led officials to scale back plans that now mean trains will be forced to slow down and share tracks in major cities, leading critics to question whether it will truly be the 220-mph "high-speed rail" voters were promised.
> 
> Construction has been postponed repeatedly, and a court victory this summer by opponents threatens further delays; a Sacramento County Superior Court judge said the state rail authority's plan goes against the promise made to voters to identify all the funding for the first segment before starting construction.
> 
> Even the former chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, Quentin Kopp, has turned against the current project, saying in court papers that it "is no longer a genuine high speed rail system."
> 
> 
> [...]


----------



## LtBk

Crownsteler said:


> I was a bit bored today so I made a US high speed map akin to the European and Asian one on Wikipedia. I can see why nobody made on earlier. It is kinda empty... So I added a 'higher-speed' tier (110 mph/177 km/h). There are probally some errors in there :angel1: So any corrections and suggestions to make it better are welcome.


Nice map, but the average speeds on the Northeast corridor is below what's listed on the map unfortunately. The average speed between Philly and NYC for example is 76 mph or 123 kmh.


----------



## XAN_

The map shows not average, but the maxim allowed service speed, I suppose.


----------



## Sunfuns

There are quite a few city pairs in US where HSR would make perfect sense. I think you just need to build one full new route to a high standard and then it will become sufficiently popular that there will be a momentum on constructing more. Kind of like the new boom of constructing light rail in various American cities.


----------



## FM 2258

desertpunk said:


> *Work begins on Calif. bullet train, locals angry *


Why they can't build this line on bridges like they do in China? From what I see most of this line will be built at ground level. I'm glad this line is actually going forward....is it actually or are there going to be 20 more years of hurdles?


----------



## Nikonov_Ivan

^^ I guess, It is more expensive to build the line on the bridges.


----------



## Crownsteler

And why would you anyway? It only makes sence when geology dictates it, or when there are so many road crossings that it becomes cheaper to put it on a viaduct.
And it is only the first section going under construction; from Fresno to Merced. Next up will be the section from Fresno to Bakersfield, and then from Bakersfield [via Palmdale] to LA. But since planning is not yet complete for those sections, expect more hurdles.



LtBk said:


> Nice map, but the average speeds on the Northeast corridor is below what's listed on the map unfortunately. The average speed between Philly and NYC for example is 76 mph or 123 kmh.


As mentioned, maps like this show maximum operating speed, not average speeds.


----------



## Nikonov_Ivan

I wonder, who would ride between Fresno and Merced?

BTW, are there any news about updating the western HSR( I mean, increasing the average speed)?


----------



## Suburbanist

Nikonov_Ivan said:


> I wonder, who would ride between Fresno and Merced?


They want to build an initial segment that can be used by existing trains immediately upon completion. They also wanted to build one of the cheapest sectors to put a big thing out there for people to see.


----------



## phoenixboi08

It's frustrating...On the one hand, you have people obstructing this, making it necessary to pursue a blended approach; Republicans denying funding at the Federal level leading to uncertainty; and people who have lost faith in the process because of they see as an inconsistent approach.

This is why people should just step back and let things pan out before they foam at the mouth about how this is going to be apocalyptic. Has no one pointed out the possibility of these communities being able to use these railways for shipping (parcels/food/etc)?


----------



## hmmwv

Suburbanist said:


> They want to build an initial segment that can be used by existing trains immediately upon completion. They also wanted to build one of the cheapest sectors to put a big thing out there for people to see.


Sure it's the easiest to build, but it will not really be the showcase for HSR, when it's finished it'll just give the opposition more ammunition because they can show pictures of empty trains.


----------



## 437.001

Hi there. 

I have a question:

Why building Fresno to Merced and Bakersfield, instead of Los Angeles to San Diego, which has much more potential and would certainly be a much better way of introducing the HSR to the average American citizen (since it would be much more visible, like all things LA)?


----------



## Suburbanist

437.001 said:


> Hi there.
> 
> I have a question:
> 
> Why building Fresno to Merced and Bakersfield, instead of Los Angeles to San Diego, which has much more potential and would certainly be a much better way of introducing the HSR to the average American citizen (since it would be much more visible, like all things LA)?


Because the ballot approved requires a frist initial segment to be part of an operable sector of SF-LA line.

Moreover, LA-San Diego will be very expensive despite the shorter distance.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Suburbanist said:


> Because the ballot approved requires a frist initial segment to be part of an operable sector of SF-LA line.
> 
> Moreover, LA-San Diego will be very expensive despite the shorter distance.


Though that ignores the fact that people still have to transfer _*to bus*_ at Bakersfield (hereafter referred to as "Bako") in order to get to LA:hammer:

To add, the ballot measure came about during a particularly severe time in the recession, and the depressed Central Valley was seen as a good place to funnel money politically.

The LA-SD portion is an attractive market (the original early 1980's HSR route actually was to be built here), but the most direct, coastal route now used by the Amtrak Surfliners is not politically viable due to NIMBYism- the current line goes through some very wealthy beach communities, who would take a dim view of a 200mph double track line going through their palm lined and jacaranda-bedecked neighborhoods.

In a perfect world, the first stretch of HSR to be tackled would be the most challenging one in terms of engineering- namely the stretch between LA and Bako. Get this stretch done with its tunnels and mountain crossings, and you have a continuous stretch of track, albeit with transfer at Bako, from LA to SF.

This "get the difficult bit done first" approach was used on the Tokaido Shinkansen (Shin Tanna Tunnel) back in the early 60's, and more recently the Kyushu Shinkansen route, which involved a transfer from narrow gauge train to standard gauge HSR at Shin Yatsushiro.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ The new route to San Diego will be inland, via Riverside.

A coastal route would further disrupt the Camp Pendleton military area.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The new route to San Diego will be inland, via Riverside.
> 
> A coastal route would further disrupt the Camp Pendleton military area.


Indeed. A dogleg route, but the only politically viable one. I didn't know Camp Pendleton was a factor, given that there already is a rail line going through there as well as an interstate freeway.


----------



## FM 2258

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The new route to San Diego will be inland, via Riverside.
> 
> A coastal route would further disrupt the Camp Pendleton military area.


This looks like a very inefficient way to connect HSR between Los Angeles and San Diego. The plus side to this is people in "Inland Empire" will have a fast commute to Los Angeles. Riverside-Los Angeles HSR portion would make a great high speed commuter line like the Chinese lines (Shanghai-Nanjing/Guangzhou-Shenzhen or Zhuhai). A branch to Inland Empire as well as a direct down to San Diego would be great but I will not hold my breath for this one. 

I didn't think Camp Pendleton would be a problem either since like *k.k.jetcar * mentioned, Interstate 5 and rail already goes through that area. 

This last bit is another topic for maybe another forum but the political system in the United States seems to be the most inefficient in the world. It's ridiculous that millions of dollars have already been spent on this rail line when no track has been laid. I hope when this line is open it will successfully spur a high speed rail "revolution" in the U.S. Oil companies will not like it but too fucking bad!


----------



## Suburbanist

Anyway, just to shed some light, this is the schedule for all trains on the San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo corridor (LOSSAN)

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_420_16666.pdf


----------



## FM 2258

^^

If I'm not mistaken does it take about 3 hours to get from San Diego to Los Angeles downtown according to the schedule?


----------



## Suburbanist

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> If I'm not mistaken does it take about 3 hours to get from San Diego to Los Angeles downtown according to the schedule?


2h45 on the fastest services.


----------



## Zero Gravity

*BREAKING NEWS - CONSTRUCTION HAS STARTED*

http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...peed-rail-begins/story-e6frfkur-1226743578334



> *A DUSTY stretch of land in California's Central Valley is the starting point for one of the most expensive public infrastructure projects in the US: a $US68 billion ($A70.75 billion) high-speed rail system that would span the state.*
> 
> Engineering work has finally begun on the first 48km (30-mile) segment in Fresno, a city of a half-million people with soaring unemployment and a withering downtown core.
> 
> Rail is meant to help Fresno, with construction jobs now and greater economic opportunity when it's finished. But the region that could benefit most from high-speed rail is also where opposition has grown most fierce.
> 
> In the five years since California voters approved building the nation's first bullet train, opposition has grown and the project has been changed, leaving many wondering whether it will deliver what was promised.


----------



## FM 2258

^^

AWESOME!!!! Glad to see something is finally happening!!! Finally some true POSITIVE news in this thread. Like I've mentioned before I hope this project goes well and it kicks off a high speed "revolution" in this country. We can do it!!! :booze::guns1::dj::cucumber::banana2::cheer::apple::lovethem::laugh:epper::dance:


----------



## hmmwv

^^ It's either gonna kick off the revolution or become the final nail in the US HSR coffin.


----------



## Sunfuns

It's such a poorly made project, difficult to be optimistic...


----------



## CNB30

hmmwv said:


> ^^ It's either gonna kick off the revolution or* become the final nail in the US HSR coffin.*


How?

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/10/will-us-ever-get-high-speed-rail-anywhere/7314/


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Based on the Tsinghua University/UCLA study on how HSR affects human work-migration patterns, this is my own documentary on how HSR can positively affect a region. 

Warning: May contain cheese.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

aquaticko said:


> Alright, could one of you guys saying the California project is a huge mess PLEASE clarify? Because, as far as I can tell, with the exception of compromised services on the SF peninsula, what is wrong with it??


"Problems" with California HSR (with explanations as to why it's not as messed up as most think)

* - Blended approach (shared tracks with commuter rail) on Peninsula and LA sections to cut costs on right of way. Given that the "promise" of HSR is SF-LA in 2hrs40m, skeptics say that the Blended plan cannot deliver on this promise.*
_ + Blended approach does not mean HSR trains will run on commuter tracks--it means the opposite; that commuter trains will run on HSR tracks! Experts have calculated that train speeds on the Peninsula sections can still reach 125-150mph; while not the 220mph of true HSR, it is still possible to attain 2hrs40min due to the fact that the time saved between 220mph and 150mph is quite marginal. _

* - Funding shortfall. Estimated costs are between $68-98bn. Current identifiable funding is around $7-10 billion. The initial operating segment in the Central Valley is supposed to cost around $32bn. Critics are afraid that if no further funds are identified (with Congress locked on new spending projects), California will be stuck with a stretch of unusable railway.*
_ + While this is a legitimate concern, many experts have advocated different funding plans from different sources to help fund HSR, such as new taxes from fracking and cap-trade programs. _

* - Need. When people see California suffering from poor education and overworked public services, many question the necessity of investing so much in something that will not see use until much, much later.*
_ + Long-term investments should not be compared to short-term investments; California is projected to have explosive population growth in the next 20 years, which means "doing nothing" is not an alternative; either expand the freeways and airports (at much more expensive prices), or suffer crippling gridlock that is already costing Americans literally *billions* of dollars per year._ 

* - NIMBYs. CHSR is getting sued to pieces by raging farmers who even went as far to compare CHSRA to the Nazis. *
_ + Not worthy of discussion, especially when most NIMBYs in question have never even seen an HSR before. Not to mention that even Kings County's extreme "Eat Sh*t and Die, HSR fanboys" comes nowhere close to the opposition to successful HSR construction in Europe (recent protests over Italy-France HSR have been so violent that the military had to get involved to keep the construction site safe)._

-----------


----------



## Suburbanist

*Colorado evaluating $ 9.6 billion high-speed line between Fort Collins and Colorado Springs*

Another state evaluating HSR projects



> A proposed high-speed rail system from Fort Collins to DIA and then south to Colorado Springs would cost about $9.8 billion and carry roughly 13 million passengers a year, according to planners Tuesday night.
> 
> That scenario is the most favored among those being considered as part of a overall push to connect the Front Range and Interstate 70 west to Eagle County with some form of high-speed rail.
> 
> Planners told those who attended an unveiling of the plans being considered by the Colorado Department of Transportation that no one plan has been formally selected.
> 
> In fact, the costs of such system might require it to be built in stages and would depend on funding from the federal government and local governments.
> 
> "This will cost of tens of millions of dollars just to complete the environmental studies," said David Krutsinger, of CDOT's division of transit and rail.
> 
> He said an alternative mode of travel will be needed in Colorado as the population is expected to increase from 5 million to 8 million by 2035.
> 
> Planners said any rail corridor would have to avoid cutting through the city of Denver to scale back costs. Still, a 340-mile system that would go from Fort Collins south to DIA and south to Pueblo and include I-70 to Eagle would cost over $30 billion.
> 
> Which is why CDOT planners say phasing the project makes sense. The preferred 132-mile route from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs omits, for the time being, the I-70 west portion.
> 
> Five other options — including one that includes the mountain corridor at a cost of $17 billion — were also presented Tuesday night.
> 
> The opinions of potential commuters may alter the planning, however, said Krutsinger. "Really, it's down to how much do you want to speed," he told the audience.
> 
> A draft report of CDOT's recommendations will be released in December.



Read more: High-speed rail from Fort Collins to Springs would cost $9.8 billion - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...from-fort-collins-springs-would#ixzz2lIYNA4Nb


----------



## CNB30

Spam King said:


> No.
> 
> Construction on the California line is supposed to start soon, but the project has been so mismanaged and is a huge boondoggle. Hopefully it gets scrapped before tens of billions of taxpayer dollars go down the toilet.


I see why you are the spam king


----------



## Sopomon

^^
I wouldn't say scrapped, but I'd definitely have the current management forcefully ejected.


----------



## aquaticko

@Silver Swordsman

Those are mostly problems which affect almost any large infrastructure project across the entire country. Why they should make the CAHSR project bad, in particular, I'm still lost on.

I know that the 2h 40m time thing was part of the legislation voted on to begin looking at the potential for the HSR project in the first place, but (1) as you say, it will likely occur even with a blended approach, and (2) it'd be beyond stupid to abort a multi-billion-dollar project just because of a few minutes, given the alternative of ever-increasing road and air congestion.

The only objection I really get is the one wondering about what else the money could be spent on. But that's not an argument against the project; that's an argument for increased government spending and taxation.


----------



## tonii

So weird seeing rich country like US spend trillion on their military, yet struggling on upgrade their infrastructure on a lot smaller budget.


----------



## phoenixboi08

non-sequitur, that assumes that spending less on something else automatically translates into spending more on another thing.

The fact of the matter is that enough people, in positions of prominence, think it's not necessary to fund these things and enough of their constituents agree. EVERY infrastructure development in the world is financed. Period. Has nothing to do with "spending," it's a commitment issue.

For a local example, just look at all the ruckus surrounding HS2...


----------



## aquaticko

Yeah, I really don't know what the issue is with us Anglo countries not being able to get it together on our infrastructure.


----------



## UrbanMyth

phoenixboi08 said:


> And furthermore, let's be real: the obstacle to this isn't financing, it's local opposition. Think about all the land they'd need to put in such a large piece of infrastructure...


Significantly less right of way than airports or freeways. also, to increase capacity, you add more cars...no need to add wider lanes or build more runways and terminals.


----------



## CNB30

Honestly, I think we need to find more companies who could support high speed rail, and have them lobby for it, to counter all of this anti-hsr crap. Also, enough of this "it will destroy communities crap. highways did it, and made the situation MUCH worse. Clearly, why must we give so much leeway for a highway, but none for a high speed rail, which I think will be about 10 times better than any highway in the 21st century.


----------



## phoenixboi08

UrbanMyth said:


> Significantly less right of way than airports or freeways. also, to increase capacity, you add more cars...no need to add wider lanes or build more runways and terminals.


No, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying it's _actually_ that much more difficult (highways consume far more land, of course), but rather that many people just seem to be far more against rail infrastructure.


----------



## CNB30

phoenixboi08 said:


> No, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying it's _actually_ that much more difficult (highways consume far more land, of course), but rather that many people just seem to be far more against rail infrastructure.


Honestly, I think most people are xenophobic of high speed rail, but honestly, If wee can pull HSR off in California, I think people will realize how great it can be for America.


----------



## phoenixboi08

CNB30 said:


> Honestly, I think most people are xenophobic of high speed rail, but honestly, If wee can pull HSR off in California, I think people will realize how great it can be for America.


Like pulling teeth


----------



## aquaticko

^^The more apt metaphor is probably something like getting used to wearing dentures.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

CNB30 said:


> Honestly, I think most people are xenophobic of high speed rail, but honestly, If wee can pull HSR off in California, I think people will realize how great it can be for America.


If we the government and the taxpayers out of this, it would be better, thank god rick scott killed the taxpayer HSR in my state for good reason, we cannot afford it.
thank god a private enterprise like All aboard florida and FEC has taken it's place and it's a free market.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

phoenixboi08 said:


> No, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying it's _actually_ that much more difficult (highways consume far more land, of course), but rather that many people just seem to be far more against rail infrastructure.


Because they are against paying for it, it's our money they are using and we are not paying for it.
we should stop spending period.


----------



## Silly_Walks

skyscraperhighrise said:


> we should stop spending period.


No more roads? No more street lights?


----------



## aquaticko

^^DFTT! This one's a bad one, too.


----------



## phoenixboi08

skyscraperhighrise said:


> Because they are against paying for it, it's our money they are using and we are not paying for it.
> we should stop spending period.


----------



## FM 2258

skyscraperhighrise said:


> Because they are against paying for it, it's our money they are using and we are not paying for it.
> we should stop spending period.


I feel if the government is going to "waste" money on something, it should be something that will help communities get around more efficiently. High speed rail will benefit everyone, it will get more people off the roads, less people in the airport and it's much safer than driving. 

Our government wastes so much money flying military planes around for useless exercises and it's my tax money. I'd rather see it go to HSR for everyone rather than burning oil for no good reason. 

Highways are being expanded all over the country yet we cannot use the concrete to build rail? I find it pathetic since the right of way for rail is much less than expanding a highway.


----------



## ryaboisse

k.k.jetcar said:


> Univ. of Ill. is probably the best you can get in N. America. If you want to work abroad, especially in passenger rail, better to go to a program in Europe, as learning N. American practices will pretty much lock you in to systems that follow American heavy freight/low maintenance operating principles (some parts of Australia, some developing countries with lines hauling mineral traffic etc.).


Are they the best for Mass Transit as well, Light/heavy rail or streetcar?


----------



## CNB30

While THis Week Has Been Tragic For HSR, Here is some good news, less likely to be confronted by angry, Exxon Backed, 
NIMBY Farmers.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/high-speed-trains-of-the-future-may-finally-be-coming-to-the-northeast


----------



## wdobner

skyscraperhighrise said:


> at least thank god in my state, taxpayers won't have to pay a thing with AAF aka all aboard florida.


AAF is not high speed rail. Even if they do achieve the average speed they're proposing they'll barely manage to equal the Acela Express, and that barely qualifies as high speed rail. But delivering a 77mph average speed with a MAS of 110mph on some portion of the line, 79mph on the rest all while making intermediate stops with diesel push-pull sets on existing track is virtually impossible. It would make for perhaps the largest ratio of average speed to maximum allowable speed of any non-dedicated HSL in the world, including the Hamburg-Berlin ABS. Even New Jersey Transit's Trenton express commuter trains barely manage to crack 60mph average speed while running in excess of 100mph over much of their route.

Claiming it's okay that Florida HSR was killed and replaced with AAF is exactly the same thing as having a major international airport project being killed and replaced by a privately run general aviation airport with a 2000 foot runway. The latter is never going to be nearly as useful or as beneficial as the former. And FEC has already applied to the FRA for railroad infrastructure loans for the upgrades, new track, and rolling stock. It's not nearly the Atlas Shrugged fantasy you make it out to be.


----------



## Fan Railer

wdobner said:


> AAF is not high speed rail. Even if they do achieve the average speed they're proposing they'll barely manage to equal the Acela Express, and that barely qualifies as high speed rail. But delivering a 77mph average speed with a MAS of 110mph on some portion of the line, 79mph on the rest all while making intermediate stops with diesel push-pull sets on existing track is virtually impossible. It would make for perhaps the largest ratio of average speed to maximum allowable speed of any non-dedicated HSL in the world, including the Hamburg-Berlin ABS. Even New Jersey Transit's Trenton express commuter trains barely manage to crack 60mph average speed while running in excess of 100mph over much of their route.
> 
> Claiming it's okay that Florida HSR was killed and replaced with AAF is exactly the same thing as having a major international airport project being killed and replaced by a privately run general aviation airport with a 2000 foot runway. The latter is never going to be nearly as useful or as beneficial as the former. And FEC has already applied to the FRA for railroad infrastructure loans for the upgrades, new track, and rolling stock. It's not nearly the Atlas Shrugged fantasy you make it out to be.


^^This post XD


----------



## CNB30

http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/11/28/3635362/judges-decisions-will-slow-but.html


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

wdobner said:


> AAF is not high speed rail. Even if they do achieve the average speed they're proposing they'll barely manage to equal the Acela Express, and that barely qualifies as high speed rail. But delivering a 77mph average speed with a MAS of 110mph on some portion of the line, 79mph on the rest all while making intermediate stops with diesel push-pull sets on existing track is virtually impossible. It would make for perhaps the largest ratio of average speed to maximum allowable speed of any non-dedicated HSL in the world, including the Hamburg-Berlin ABS. Even New Jersey Transit's Trenton express commuter trains barely manage to crack 60mph average speed while running in excess of 100mph over much of their route.
> 
> Claiming it's okay that Florida HSR was killed and replaced with AAF is exactly the same thing as having a major international airport project being killed and replaced by a privately run general aviation airport with a 2000 foot runway. The latter is never going to be nearly as useful or as beneficial as the former. And FEC has already applied to the FRA for railroad infrastructure loans for the upgrades, new track, and rolling stock. It's not nearly the Atlas Shrugged fantasy you make it out to be.


AAF is higher speed rail


----------



## wdobner

skyscraperhighrise said:


> AAF is higher speed rail


Which means what exactly? It is slower than the high speed rail project it purportedly replaced. This high(er) speed rail term is nothing more than a scam being used to sell capital expenditure averse conservatives on "cheap" intercity rail projects. But with the reduction in cost comes a disproportionate increase in travel time which has its own disproportionate, negative impact on market share and revenue. They're simply never going to be able to cover their costs, and these bootleg "high speed" rail lines will end up consuming operational funds for however long they operate. Thus lets call these lines what they are, regional rail, or at best intercity rail. AAF is no different than Illinois' 110mph operation, and nobody is so foolish as to claim that is going to turn a profit. The only thing AAF has going for it is some real estate development FECI has, and that cannot sustain the service over the long term.

Only true high speed rail, with an average speed in excess of 100mph, can provide a service which reliably generates an operating surplus and stands a chance at turning a profit. Yes, the capital costs are higher, but when constructing new-build infrastructure the marginal cost to support a doubling of maximum allowable speed is greatly reduced. But for that money you get the possibility to have that service become self-supporting while carrying as many passengers as that intercity travel market will support.


----------



## Suburbanist

Isn't All-Abroad Florida a private project?


----------



## Silver Swordsman

wdobner said:


> Which means what exactly? It is slower than the high speed rail project it purportedly replaced. This high(er) speed rail term is nothing more than a scam being used to sell capital expenditure averse conservatives on "cheap" intercity rail projects. But with the reduction in cost comes a disproportionate increase in travel time which has its own disproportionate, negative impact on market share and revenue. They're simply never going to be able to cover their costs, and these bootleg "high speed" rail lines will end up consuming operational funds for however long they operate. Thus lets call these lines what they are, regional rail, or at best intercity rail. AAF is no different than Illinois' 110mph operation, and nobody is so foolish as to claim that is going to turn a profit. The only thing AAF has going for it is some real estate development FECI has, and that cannot sustain the service over the long term.
> 
> Only true high speed rail, with an average speed in excess of 100mph, can provide a service which reliably generates an operating surplus and stands a chance at turning a profit. Yes, the capital costs are higher, but when constructing new-build infrastructure the marginal cost to support a doubling of maximum allowable speed is greatly reduced. But for that money you get the possibility to have that service become self-supporting while carrying as many passengers as that intercity travel market will support.


Seriously, don't feed the troll.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

ryaboisse said:


> Are they the best for Mass Transit as well, Light/heavy rail or streetcar?


I don't know about those areas- in the U.S. that's public sector. Perhaps googling the websites of those organizations and their job sites will give you an idea of what kind of educational background they are looking for in their employees.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Suburbanist said:


> Isn't All-Abroad Florida a private project?


Yes indeed. As such, they have to have a business plan that will attract investors and satisfy stockholders. AAF has mentioned that they will build up the service to meet targets, but have no qualms about selling it to another party should the opportunity arise.

As for the whole "is it/is it not high speed rail" debate- what is important is this- does the service provide a competitive alternative to driving and/or flying, and will that lead to gaining a profitable chunk of market share? If the answer is "yes", who cares if it is "just" 110mph. Once again, the mantra of efficient passenger rail service is "as fast as necessary, not as fast as possible".


----------



## Fan Railer

Siemens has announced it's competing design to the EMD / CAT F125:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...s-team-for-tier-4-locomotives.html?channel=35


> Siemens Rail Systems and Cummins jointly announced a partnership on Dec. 3, 2013 that they said "will bring one of the most modern and efficient passenger rail, diesel-electric locomotives in the world to the U.S. marketplace."
> 
> The companies said Cummins QSK95 diesel engines will be used in Siemens' diesel-electric locomotives in the U.S., "resulting in one of the most energy-efficient, lightweight, smart, diesel-electric locomotives available today in North America...
> 
> ...The locomotives will be built and assembled at Siemens' solar-powered transportation manufacturing facility in Sacramento, Calif. Cummins diesel QSK95 engines will be made in Seymour, Ind. The 95-liter prime mover is the most powerful high-speed 16-cylinder diesel to be installed in a locomotive generating more than 4,000 hp (2,983 kW), the companies said.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

^^
Hither Railjet?


----------



## FM 2258

Ugh....diesel??? No please. :bash:


----------



## k.k.jetcar

FM 2258 said:


> Ugh....diesel??? No please. :bash:


Of course electric traction is far superior, but the reality_in_the_US of A is that any (realistic) new high_er_ speed services will be diesel powered. For all intents and purposes, passenger rail technology, and more importantly, operating practices, are still stuck in the 1950's mode.


----------



## aquaticko

^^Well let's be fair, it's not like the U.S. is the *only* country still using diesel for its trains. It's just that our degree of electrification lags behind most other developed countries. And I do think that's an appreciably-modern looking locomotive.


----------



## Suburbanist

UP and BNSF should electrify at least their major transcontinental mainlines between West Coast and Eastern US/Texas.


----------



## XAN_

Suburbanist said:


> UP and BNSF should electrify at least their major transcontinental mainlines between West Coast and Eastern US/Texas.


Ouch it seems our beloved free market aren't willing to do long term investments, what a twist! :lol:


----------



## M-NL

Suburbanist said:


> UP and BNSF should electrify at least their major transcontinental mainlines between West Coast and Eastern US/Texas.


To move even a heavy freight train across flat country you don't need that much power once it's up to speed. You do need power to accelerate or brake a train or to cross or descend a slope. So I would suggest they should consider dual-mode locomotives and electrify only those sections where you really need power. Considering that the traction system of a modern diesel locomotive isn't that different from an electric anymore that shouldn't be any problem, especially given the fact you don't need really to build anything light weight for freight locomotives. And once you've made a start you can always expand the number of electrified sections.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Imagine, though, the amount of energy recouped by regenerative braking on a 1.5-mile long train.


----------



## Jbte




----------



## Suburbanist

^^ I LOL-ed at the Omaha-Las Vegas HSL.


----------



## FM 2258

Jbte said:


>


I would love to see this implemented as soon as possible. :cheers:

It would be also nice if High Speed Rail technology could be fine tuned to run economically at 250mph(402km/h). That would be a sweet spot for the size of the U.S.


----------



## wdobner

chrsjrcj said:


> AAF will only have a MAS of 79 mph for 60 miles (between West Palm and Miami). The 140 mile section between West Palm and Cocoa will be 110 mph,


Yes, on existing, shared track. It may not be scheduled to stop, but it'll be stopping or slowing for any number of unscheduled points along the line. They may be capable of scheduling it for a 70mph average speed, but they'd be fools to not pad the schedule and run the risk of many late trains and what would amount to false advertising. With diesel locomotives hauling heavy rolling stock the slightest disruption is going to play havoc with their schedule. Hell, the average speed for Amtrak's Acela includes an appreciable pad and it's given priority over almost all other traffic on the line.



chrsjrcj said:


> I'm also willing to bet that AAF will run the original FHSR route between Orlando and Tampa at 125 mph. It's not 185 mph, but it really doesn't matter when the distance between the two cities is 90 miles.


I rather doubt it. FECI doesn't own real estate in downtown Tampa that they cannot currently develop. It's not like AAF is anything other than a real estate development project with a long tail hanging off toward Orlando. Were they able to finance their development plans without the FRA loans which require they create some rail service I'd be willing to bet the very risky rail portion of the project would evaporate as fast as they could pull the webpage off the server. 

It's nice that they can use their real estate development to pay down the debt incurred constructing AAF and maybe even provide a return to investors. But when they've built a 50mph average speed railroad which isn't attracting enough market share to cover its operating expenditures that real estate money isn't going to be there to subsidize their losses. I hope the State of Florida is prepared to step up and keep the service running when FEC loses interest in sustaining its losses.



chrsjrcj said:


> Also, because of the improvements to the FEC track that AAF will require, we'll likely see Tri-Rail service on the FEC within the next 5 or 6 years. Amtrak service is starting to look like a pretty good possibility too. It's really shaping up to be a good public-private partnership with the FEC and Florida.


Again, that assumes it gets built. It's a very nice paper railroad, but they have a long way to go before they can even begin to meet their claims. Given all the brash promises for "private" rail services, I'm none too optimistic they'll meet their goals or even create a self-supporting rail system.

But I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.


----------



## CNB30

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=9359971



> Board approves eminent domain move for high-speed rail train
> Friday, December 13, 2013
> This image provided by the California High Speed Rail Authority shows an artists rendering of a high-speed train station
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This image provided by the California High Speed Rail Authority shows an artist's rendering of a high-speed train station. California's ambitious bullet train project is picking up momentum thanks to the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail development in the economic stimulus package signed into law this week. The state is aggressively going after federal funding for the 800-mile high-speed rail system as it vies with a dozen designated high-speed rail corridors across the nation for a share of the money. (AP Photo/California High Speed Rail Authority)
> Tags:
> high speed rail, central valley, fresno, real estate, california news
> 
> Comment Now
> Email
> Print
> Report a typo
> ShareThis via email, AIM, social bookmarking and networking sites, etc.
> 
> AP
> 
> SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A state board gave approval Friday for the California High-Speed Rail Authority to start the process of seizing its first piece of property through eminent domain for a $68 billion bullet train.
> 
> The State Public Works Board voted 3-0 to approve a request from the authority to try to seize a 2.5-acre parcel in Fresno that is needed to build an underground trench for the project. The authority has declared an impasse with the owner of property.
> 
> Fresno County records value the property at $2.4 million. It includes a 20,000 square-foot commercial building that is leased to the state Department of Corrections.
> 
> Related Content
> link: Follow @abc7newsbayarea on Twitter
> link: 'Like' ABC7 News on Facebook
> link: Add ABC7 News to your Google+ circles
> Rail officials said they have been unable to reach an agreement with owner Frank Solomon Jr. after making an initial offer in May. Details of the offers have not been made public.
> 
> Solomon did not appear at the hearing and a phone listing under that name in Fresno could not receive messages.
> 
> Don Grebe, director of real property for the rail authority, said the parcel has been pegged as critical to acquire early because of the complicated construction needed to be done there. He said the rail authority is still open to negotiations with the owner.
> 
> The action by the board allows the rail authority to file paperwork in court asking a judge to determine the fair market value of the property as well as compensation the owner is entitled to for relocation.
> 
> The legal action also could allow the rail authority to access the property and start construction even before the state owns it.
> 
> Frank Olivera, co-chairman of the group Citizens for High-Speed Rail Accountability, told the board it would be premature to let the state acquire the property, given recent legal and administrative setbacks for the project.
> 
> Last month, a Sacramento County judge invalidated the state's funding plan and said it must have 130 miles of environmental clearances in place to meet the terms of Proposition 1A, the bond measure voters approved to sell nearly $10 billion in bonds for high-speed rail.
> 
> "I question the necessity to even take this parcel when the rail authority may not even be able to pay for it," Olivera said.
> 
> Grebe said the authority has closed escrow on five of the 380 parcels needed to complete the first nearly 30-mile stretch from Madera to Fresno.
> 
> "Overall we have people that have been signing agreements. I think it's been going quite positively, slowly," he said. Still, he estimated that as many as 20 percent of the properties could end up going through the eminent domain process.
> 
> Olivera, the rail opponent, said the prospect of eminent domain has cast a pall over many residents and business owners in the train's proposed path.
> 
> "Everybody is scared of the state of California coming to your house and saying we're going to take this, we're going to take your parking lot or your business, and they don't know what to do," he said.
> 
> Grebe said if the project were scrapped at some point and the property was no longer needed, state law gives the original owner the first option to buy it back.
> 
> (Copyright ©2013 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


----------



## SamuraiBlue

I guess nobody had caught on to this news.



> *Abe proposes to provide 5 billion dollars US through International Development Bank to develop Maglev line from DC to Baltimore.*
> 
> It was learned through government officials that PM Abe when meeting Obama last year in February had made a proposal that Japan is willing to provide 5 billion dollars in loan to develop a JRC type Maglev line between Washington DC and Baltimore.
> 
> JRC is willing to provide the technology free of patent fee if the US agrees in the project... for the original article in Japanese click here


----------



## Sopomon

I wonder how that would go down politically?


----------



## aquaticko

^^It seems kind of like an irrelevant proposal to me. That's only a 60 mile distance; a maglev is not going to be significantly faster than a traditional HSL over that distance.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

aquaticko said:


> ^^It seems kind of like an irrelevant proposal to me. That's only a 60 mile distance; a maglev is not going to be significantly faster than a traditional HSL over that distance.


It's up to the US Federal Goverrnment to extend the route up to NY and beyond. The Japanese proposal is just to kick start the entire NEC Maglev project.
I believe the leak by the Japanese government official was to move the disscussion to the general public which had been kept behind closed doors by US beauracarcy. 
Some may remember that some US Government officials visited the Yamanashi Maglev test track for a joy ride last year. Now we know why they were here for.


----------



## aquaticko

^^I understand, but even given our country's gullible politicians/citizenry, I don't think anyone's going to be fooled into undertaking such an expensive endeavor as a full DC-NYC maglev line just because a third party is donating a relatively small amount of funding for just a portion of that line.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

aquaticko said:


> ^^I understand, but even given our country's gullible politicians/citizenry, I don't think anyone's going to be fooled into undertaking such an expensive endeavor as a full DC-NYC maglev line just because a third party is donating a relatively small amount of funding for just a portion of that line.


Don't think 5 Billion dollars is exactly pocket change especially when you consider the Tokyo Nagoya route only costs 50 billion dollars for construction cost and the route is approx. 280 Km. 
The 5 billion would probably pay the entire DC Baltimore route construction cost even if it was tunneled all the way.


----------



## phoenixboi08

SamuraiBlue said:


> It's up to the US Federal Goverrnment to extend the route up to NY and beyond. The Japanese proposal is just to kick start the entire NEC Maglev project. I believe the leak by the Japanese government official was to move the disscussion to the general public which had been kept behind closed doors by US beauracarcy. Some may remember that some US Government officials visited the Yamanashi Maglev test track for a joy ride last year. Now we know why they were here for.


No, it's been known for quite some time that this is what they want to do. 

The problem is that they're exporting the wrong technology. They should just invest in the existing plans to create an actual PDL to operate the Acela on. 

maglev hasn't really reached a cost advantage yet with traditional rail.


----------



## hmmwv

SamuraiBlue said:


> Don't think 5 Billion dollars is exactly pocket change especially when you consider the Tokyo Nagoya route only costs 50 billion dollars for construction cost and the route is approx. 280 Km.
> The 5 billion would probably pay the entire DC Baltimore route construction cost even if it was tunneled all the way.


The DC Baltimore is roughly 1/3 the distance of the Tokyo Nagoya line so I don't see how can 5 billion USD covers the construction cost, unless US construction cost is significantly lower than Japan's. I think it'll be much better to spend the money on a conventional PDL, a 200+ mph conventional line is just as good as a maglev for the US passengers who have not had the chance to ride on a real HSR.


----------



## Nexis

hmmwv said:


> The DC Baltimore is roughly 1/3 the distance of the Tokyo Nagoya line so I don't see how can 5 billion USD covers the construction cost, unless US construction cost is significantly lower than Japan's. I think it'll be much better to spend the money on a conventional PDL, a 200+ mph conventional line is just as good as a maglev for the US passengers who have not had the chance to ride on a real HSR.


Some Rail projects that region are pushing 1-2 billion for half that distance. That corridor and anything in the Northeast in general will require a lot of tunnel for something new. I rather see conventional rail that would benefit a larger chunk of the population then a Maglev that only the Rich could use. I doubt the average ticket price will be affordable for a DC-Baltimore salary.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ maglev has high seed capital costs, but very low maintenance and operation costs.


----------



## Coccodrillo

^^ Are you sure? It would be better to wait for the Chuo Shinkansen to state it...


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Coccodrillo said:


> ^^ Are you sure? It would be better to wait for the Chuo Shinkansen to state it...


Not really since JR Tokai has about 5 years worth of data on maintenance obtained from the Yamanashi test track.


----------



## Suburbanist

Coccodrillo said:


> ^^ Are you sure? It would be better to wait for the Chuo Shinkansen to state it...


Didn't they test that extensively in Germany as well?

I'm thinking out of an engineering standpoint. maglev trains don't have friction with (most of) track. There aren't complicated switches and far fewer mechanical parts that need constant maintenance. That, alone, should drastically reduce ongoing costs of operating the system and the wear-and-tear on vehicles, let alone tracks. 

Maglev allows for tighter curves and steeper grades as well, which is a benefit in crowded corridors. It is also more silent, though I'm not sure how much noisy would be air displacement alone at speeds approaching 400 km/h.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ maglev has high seed capital costs, but very low maintenance and operation costs.


But I don't think its right for this corridor....conventional would be better and easier to build...and have more benefits.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Nexis said:


> Some Rail projects that region are pushing 1-2 billion for half that distance. That corridor and anything in the Northeast in general will require a lot of tunnel for something new. I rather see conventional rail that would benefit a larger chunk of the population then a Maglev that only the Rich could use. I doubt the average ticket price will be affordable for a DC-Baltimore salary.


One interesting point of Maglev is that the tunnel diameter will be smaller compared to wheel on rail conventional trains since it has no boogies or over head wiring which reflex directly to construction cost.


----------



## Tower Dude

Who would have thought that Texas might be the salvation of High Speed Rail in the United States!


----------



## M-NL

The NEC is already considered high speed rail and despite it's shortcommings has already demonstrated the benefits of high(er) speed rail in the USA. Yet up to now there has been a lot of talk, but up to now no actual action.


----------



## CNB30

M-NL said:


> The NEC is already considered high speed rail and despite it's shortcommings has already demonstrated the benefits of high(er) speed rail in the USA. Yet up to now there has been a lot of talk, but up to now no actual action.


I thought they just recently introduced a plan


----------



## scrat437

sacto7654 said:


> I think one of the first American HSR projects that could start construction fairly soon is the _Texas Central Railway_ project, which will initially link Houston with the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
> 
> Here's why it could happen pretty fast once the approval is given:
> 
> 1. A major partner in this project is the Central Japan Railway Company (JR Central), the company that operates the Tokaidō Shinkansen between Tokyo and Shin-Osaka stations. JR Central proposes a modified N700A trainset in an 8- to 10-car trainset configuration, with a top speed of 330 km/h (205 mph), the so-called _N700-I_ trainset. This means huge savings, because we don't have to develop a new trainset design from scratch and the companies in Japan that are building the N700A trainsets now (Hitachi and Nippon Sharyo) could start building the N700-I almost immediately for the TCR project.
> 
> 2. The topography of the land between Dallas and Houston is relatively flat, which means rail line construction costs will be fairly reasonable, since the rail line does not need long mountain tunnels or earthquake effect mitigation like the California HSR system requires.


If implemented with the aim of allowing trains to travel at 205 miles per hour, I am absolutely for it..if however the aim is to convince people to support "high speed rail" at only 110 mph like the current nonsense between Chicago-St Louis..just stop with the hype!


----------



## scrat437

M-NL said:


> The NEC is already considered high speed rail and despite it's shortcommings has already demonstrated the benefits of high(er) speed rail in the USA. Yet up to now there has been a lot of talk, but up to now no actual action.


High Speed being in excess of 124 mph however the Federal Rail Administration defines HSR as..... in excess of 79 mph which to me is nonsense. At least in the NEC, Amtrak has some projects underway to raise the speed in NJ from 135 mph to 160 for a stretch of 24 miles or so near Princeton Junction. Amtrak really has to get going on replacing those decrepit tunnels with the curves in Baltimore to be able to really raise the speed; as well as replace the Perryville Bridge in Maryland. The inland route in Connecticut is unrealistic: Very expensive and Connecticut, for all its hype as a progressive state seems to be throwing roadblocks up in assisting Amtrak in building its new right of way from Danbury through Hartford to Boston.


----------



## Nexis

scrat437 said:


> High Speed being in excess of 124 mph however the Federal Rail Administration defines HSR as..... in excess of 79 mph which to me is nonsense. At least in the NEC, Amtrak has some projects underway to raise the speed in NJ from 135 mph to 160 for a stretch of 24 miles or so near Princeton Junction. Amtrak really has to get going on replacing those decrepit tunnels with the curves in Baltimore to be able to really raise the speed; as well as replace the Perryville Bridge in Maryland. *The inland route in Connecticut is unrealistic: Very expensive and Connecticut, for all its hype as a progressive state seems to be throwing roadblocks up in assisting Amtrak in building its new right of way from Danbury through Hartford to Boston.*


The FRA route while more expensive would service Long Island , Knowledge Corridor of CT and Worcester/Metro West which has a population of almost 10.2 Million vs the Amtrak route which services a population of only 2 million. The underwater Tunnel under the sound could be sold to Long Islanders and Connecticut residents if you offer a car shuttle similar to the Euro Tunnel. Freight access via Freight Rail would greatly boost the dying island economy. A lot of Long Islanders like to travel across the sound in the Fall and Winter to Vacation , some for business reasons and others to visit family. They have trying to get a bridge built for decades but NIMBYS have feared it scaring the landscape...a Tunnel would be an easy sell. On Long Island and in Connecticut the line would use existing or abandoned Railroads , so the cost would be cheaper , these lines are which a few excepts straight. Only the Tunnels & the I-84/Central sections would be new and built from scratch. I-84 would be cheap and easy to build on. Leaving the Tunnel as the only real obstacle.


----------



## M-NL

CNB30 said:


> I thought they just recently introduced a plan


As far as I can tell planned trains over planned infrastructures have never moved any real life passengers before...


----------



## scrat437

Nexis said:


> The FRA route while more expensive would service Long Island , Knowledge Corridor of CT and Worcester/Metro West which has a population of almost 10.2 Million vs the Amtrak route which services a population of only 2 million. The underwater Tunnel under the sound could be sold to Long Islanders and Connecticut residents if you offer a car shuttle similar to the Euro Tunnel. Freight access via Freight Rail would greatly boost the dying island economy. A lot of Long Islanders like to travel across the sound in the Fall and Winter to Vacation , some for business reasons and others to visit family. They have trying to get a bridge built for decades but NIMBYS have feared it scaring the landscape...a Tunnel would be an easy sell. On Long Island and in Connecticut the line would use existing or abandoned Railroads , so the cost would be cheaper , these lines are which a few excepts straight. Only the Tunnels & the I-84/Central sections would be new and built from scratch. I-84 would be cheap and easy to build on. Leaving the Tunnel as the only real obstacle.


The Long Island route from that University of Pennsylvania proposal is the least realistic of any of the options presented. I used to live on Long Island. The LIRR is the busiest commuter rail line in the country and already at capacity, even with the double tracking project on the main line. In addition, officials cant even get a bridge across the LI sound built, never mind a cost prohibitive tunnel. I think the Connecticut option will be the route, if it is even implemented.


----------



## scrat437

scrat437 said:


> The Long Island route from that University of Pennsylvania proposal is the least realistic of any of the options presented. I used to live on Long Island. The LIRR is the busiest commuter rail line in the country and already at capacity, even with the double tracking project on the main line. In addition, officials cant even get a bridge across the LI sound built, never mind a cost prohibitive tunnel. I think the Connecticut option will be the route, if it is even implemented.


In addition, the LIRR will not allow catenary to be put up on the main line either.


----------



## Nexis

scrat437 said:


> The Long Island route from that University of Pennsylvania proposal is the least realistic of any of the options presented. I used to live on Long Island. The LIRR is the busiest commuter rail line in the country and already at capacity, even with the double tracking project on the main line. In addition, officials cant even get a bridge across the LI sound built, never mind a cost prohibitive tunnel. I think the Connecticut option will be the route, if it is even implemented.


The route in question uses the lighter used and abandoned LIRR lines , not the busy sections. A Tunnel is less likely to get NIMByd due to the fact you can't see it. FRA supports these route along with some LI officials...


----------



## CNB30

M-NL said:


> As far as I can tell planned trains over planned infrastructures have never moved any real life passengers before...


What about upgraded infrastructures? It sounded like this project would take quite a long time, so I wonder If traffic will simply be able to continue?


----------



## scrat437

Nexis said:


> The route in question uses the lighter used and abandoned LIRR lines , not the busy sections. A Tunnel is less likely to get NIMByd due to the fact you can't see it. FRA supports these route along with some LI officials...


Which abandoned lines? Port Jefferson?(Not really abandoned but no other lines inactive or other wise nearby) The line used to extend to Wading River but the railroad abandoned that in the early 20th Century and now private homes abut the LIPA(Now PSE&G) ROW which the tracks used to occupy. Power lines now stretch on that portion out east towards Rocky Point. You would have an uproar there if any government agency tried to condemn those homes( and there are alot of them) through eminent domain. The Ronkonkoma line between Hickville and Ronkonkoma was the line I was referring to yesterday. It is already at capacity(too many traffic conflicts) and a whole new ROW would have to be built from that line towards the Sound for any proposed tunnel. If you think a tunnel can be built out east on the north fork(practical for your plan) without any litigation, think again. The environmentalists as well as the North fork wineries would oppose it, as in their view this plan would disrupt the bucolic nature of the area which those interest groups are fighting very hard to preserve. These are the same activist type groups that were able to prevent the Shoreham Nuclear Power plant from getting approval to operate. I understand what you are trying to say but growing up there and seeing how mega plans have been brought to a stand still over the years by these same civic groups would only frustrate such plans AND make them cost prohibitive.


----------



## scrat437

Nexis said:


> The route in question uses the lighter used and abandoned LIRR lines , not the busy sections. A Tunnel is less likely to get NIMByd due to the fact you can't see it. FRA supports these route along with some LI officials...


And just to address the lighter used lines, Amtrak would have to travel through the busy sections to get to the lightly used line still in place..east of Ronkonkoma(Ronkonkoma-Greenport). Ronkonkoma is the terminus for the electric line to provide a one seat ride into penn station for LIRR commuters.


----------



## sacto7654

scrat437 said:


> If implemented with the aim of allowing trains to travel at 205 miles per hour, I am absolutely for it..if however the aim is to convince people to support "high speed rail" at only 110 mph like the current nonsense between Chicago-St Louis..just stop with the hype!


The Texas Central Railway plan is for a dedicated line--built like the Shinkansen lines in Japan so it is fully grade separated--with speeds as high as 330 km/h (205 mph). The trains won't be travelling on lines shared by other trains like the Amtrak _Acela_ trains does.


----------



## Nexis

scrat437 said:


> Which abandoned lines? Port Jefferson?(Not really abandoned but no other lines inactive or other wise nearby) The line used to extend to Wading River but the railroad abandoned that in the early 20th Century and now private homes abut the LIPA(Now PSE&G) ROW which the tracks used to occupy. Power lines now stretch on that portion out east towards Rocky Point. You would have an uproar there if any government agency tried to condemn those homes( and there are alot of them) through eminent domain. The Ronkonkoma line between Hickville and Ronkonkoma was the line I was referring to yesterday. It is already at capacity(too many traffic conflicts) and a whole new ROW would have to be built from that line towards the Sound for any proposed tunnel. If you think a tunnel can be built out east on the north fork(practical for your plan) without any litigation, think again. The environmentalists as well as the North fork wineries would oppose it, as in their view this plan would disrupt the bucolic nature of the area which those interest groups are fighting very hard to preserve. These are the same activist type groups that were able to prevent the Shoreham Nuclear Power plant from getting approval to operate. I understand what you are trying to say but growing up there and seeing how mega plans have been brought to a stand still over the years by these same civic groups would only frustrate such plans AND make them cost prohibitive.


No , did you even look at the plans? It would use the Central Branch which is abandoned , part of the lesser used Ronkonkoma line , the Hempstead line which only sees 1 train per hour , and Moutuak Branch in Queens which is only used for rush hour service. Doubling tracking plans which should start soon between Ronkonkoma and Hicksville will be enough for the New line to run through without causing capacity issues. The FRA version does not use the Main line at all , the Penn version uses part of it. The Tunnel could win over everybody if you educate people and tell them the benefits.... Long Islanders hate being trapped on the Island with only a few ways off via NyC and Ferries , so a New Faster Tunnel with a car shuttle would be a huge boon for them... If you added Freight which takes trucks off the highways , the environmentalists would on your side aswell. I don't see why the wineries would be opposed to a tunnel which opens up a larger market aka New England. A Nuclear Power Plant is something completely different from a Railway tunnel. The current LIRR upgrades and expansions have strong support from environmentalists and the Business communities , I don't think this line would be any different.


----------



## scrat437

Nexis said:


> No , did you even look at the plans? It would use the Central Branch which is abandoned , part of the lesser used Ronkonkoma line , the Hempstead line which only sees 1 train per hour , and Moutuak Branch in Queens which is only used for rush hour service. Doubling tracking plans which should start soon between Ronkonkoma and Hicksville will be enough for the New line to run through without causing capacity issues. The FRA version does not use the Main line at all , the Penn version uses part of it. The Tunnel could win over everybody if you educate people and tell them the benefits.... Long Islanders hate being trapped on the Island with only a few ways off via NyC and Ferries , so a New Faster Tunnel with a car shuttle would be a huge boon for them... If you added Freight which takes trucks off the highways , the environmentalists would on your side aswell. I don't see why the wineries would be opposed to a tunnel which opens up a larger market aka New England. A Nuclear Power Plant is something completely different from a Railway tunnel. The current LIRR upgrades and expansions have strong support from environmentalists and the Business communities , I don't think this line would be any different.


The abandoned Central Branch? The one by Roosevelt field Mall in Garden City? It ends by the Meadowbrook Parkway in Nassau, Eisenhower Park is east of that and more private homes east of that. Planners would have the impossible task of designing a whole new row east of where the Central currently ends. As for the double tracking between Hicksville and Ronkonkoma, there still wouldn't be enough slots for Amtrak to run their trains from 8am through 6 pm, that line is the 2nd busiest after the Babylon branch. There is no way the LIRR gives up time slots for amtrak without it impeding the commuter line and if you add freight to convince the environmentalists, that leaves even less slots for Amtrak. The NY and Atlantic runs primarily overnight to avoid conflict with the commuter rail operation. The LIRR determines the restrictions. To get to the lesser used Ronkonkoma portion, LIRR Trains have to leave Penn Station and travel east through Jamaica and 50 miles east of that, if that is the line you are referring to, that is the Main line. There are no other lines lightly used or abandoned that can access east of Ronkonkoma. Trains have to go through "Divide" Tower at Hicksville through Bethpage, Farmingdale, Pinelawn cemetery, Wyandanch, Deer Park, Brentwood, Central Islip(I used to catch the train to NYC from there) and finally Ronkonkoma. East of KO is Holtsville, Holbrook, Medford Yapahank on out to Greenport which is the "Lightly used" portion of the line; there are no other rights of way that feed into that portion.


----------



## jonathaninATX

FM 2258 said:


> Train to Mexico seems nice but hell, we need a network to connect Texas cities first.
> 
> It's very possible that the Mexico portion of the line will be completed in 2018 while the U.S. side is bogged down in route studies, environmental studies, and political bullcrap.


I agree FM 2258, while I love the idea of a high speed rail traveling from San Antonio to Monterrey. I would like to see our Texas cities connected as well. If we're going to break it down into phases. I would like to see a Austin and San Antonio line or a Dallas and Houston line first.


----------



## FM 2258

jonathaninATX said:


> I agree FM 2258, while I love the idea of a high speed rail traveling from San Antonio to Monterrey. I would like to see our Texas cities connected as well. If we're going to break it down into phases. I would like to see a Austin and San Antonio line or a Dallas and Houston line first.


Exactly. I would bet money that these two lines would make money and would not be a boondoggle like the SH 130 tollway south of Austin. If they build it I hope for a Chinese style railway with many bridges.


----------



## urbanfan89

FM 2258 said:


> If they build it I hope for a Chinese style railway with many bridges.


Unlikely. Sparser population, almost pancake flat terrain, higher labor costs, and extremely cheap real estate will guarantee an entirely at-grade alignment.

It will be supremely ironic if Texas completes its triangle using true high speed rail when California still continues with its half-proposal.


----------



## Innsertnamehere

Cali does have much more difficult terrian, and its cities are much more difficult to cut through because of their higher densities..


----------



## Sunfuns

k.k.jetcar said:


> *So many of these proclamations are more grounded in hype than actual potential to serve a market* (where are the preliminary business plans that would pass initial muster with a financial institution??- they never seem to appear). Most proposals are, sorry to say, in the same league as previous plans for HSR in Laos or, for godsakes, Sudan(!).


Absolutely. 

US is a rich and populous country though and most connections in the appropriate "HS rail distance" could be made to work.


----------



## phoenixboi08

aquaticko said:


> CNB30: "Is it A or B?" phoenixboi08: "Yes." :lol: :lol:


He asked if it was B rather than A. 
Which could be answered in a "yes/no" form.


----------



## Fan Railer

CNB30 said:


> So is that technically high speed rail instead of higher speed rail?^^


Yes haha. > 125 mph = HSR
90-125 mph = HrSR


----------



## aquaticko

phoenixboi08 said:


> He asked if it was B rather than A.
> Which could be answered in a "yes/no" form.


I know, it just sounded funny


----------



## CNB30

aquaticko said:


> CNB30: "Is it A or B?"
> 
> phoenixboi08: "Yes." :lol: :lol:
> 
> It does seem like it'll increase average rail speeds, but as it says in the press release (and is currently the situation on most lines across the country), the limiting factor to passenger rail speeds in the U.S. isn't rolling stock, but track condition and layout.
> 
> New, faster-accelerating trains can use more of their performance envelope, but until the average travel speed is at least >100mph, it's higher-speed rail, not high speed rail.


 I believe trains already travel that speed, and the only thing keeping the route slower is the time element from all of the stations.


----------



## towerpower123

High Speed Rail will become popular in this county if we could get more advertising for it. The airlines advertise obsessively and the car companies advertise for the highways. If only Amtrak would make their services known more, more people would think of them as an option. A key thing would be to add free wi-fi and electrical outlets to as many trains as possible. The key thing that is making trains have a comeback is that people would give just about anything to be able to work on their laptops or text the entire time they are travelling. If the trains accommodated that, and Amtrak or any other operator advertised that they do, many more people would prefer a train over driving, so much so that they might take the train and then rent a car at the destination. People do that regularly at airports, and the short distance intercity flight market is embarrassingly huge, mostly for lack of alternatives. If the train line went to the same places, most people would immediately forgo being felt-up by TSA officers and take the train. The key is convenience! The train has to run at the same or higher frequency than planes.

1. Advertise the rail services to the people who don't know about them.
2. Include Wi-fi and electrical outlets in all standard train fares.
3. Run the trains at a high frequency. The Acelas run at about one every 2 hours, in the busiest intercity travel corridor in the country, lined with dense cities. 
4. Grind the fact that the High Speed trains are effectively Electric cars on steroids without the pesky need to pay attention to the road into everyone's minds! Just about anyone who would want an electric car would want to take the train instead!

The key is government support, which is nearly impossible in a country where certain people believe that Obama carried out 9/11 to get Bush out of office and become president! A small group was holding signs about that today. I wish my camera had a longer battery life...


----------



## aquaticko

CNB30 said:


> I believe trains already travel that speed, and the only thing keeping the route slower is the time element from all of the stations.


Note that I specified "average at least 100mph". As far as I know, the only service which comes close is the Acela, and that's still 20mph off.

I know a lot of trains now reach that speed--heck, the one I take from Boston to Cleveland to return to school hits 110mph west of Albany, but it only maintains that speed until Schenectady, the next stop over. Other places, it probably hits 80, through the Empire Corridor in New York, but there are lots of spots, especially on the MA-NY border, where we can't be doing much more than 30mph.

Top speeds mean little other than press coverage; increasing average speeds is the key to improving rail service.


----------



## CNB30

^^ My point is that I'm saying it is unfair to state that the trains are going 80 mph when they travel at 120-130 mph, I don't think standing still at a station makes since as part of the average speed, rather I think it would be fairer to compare the speed of the Acela between two stations rather than the entire route. Also, If you look at Amtrak's track a train occasionally, (especially in mid day) Acela trains and all trains are given their current speed, and unless one is in a station, or on the Connecticut coast, they tend to be doing about 120 mph. In this case it would be accurate to say the US has HSR service between Phili and NYC, but not Boston and NYC, while it does between Providence and Boston

http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes

http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes


----------



## Manitopiaaa

I think Monterrey to Dallas is profitable (with a terminus in San Antonio I'm less sure)

I could see this:
Terminus: Monterrey, Nuevo Leon
-Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
-Laredo, Texas
-Pearsall, Texas
-San Antonio, Texas (another rail line connects with Houston)
-San Marcos, Texas
-Austin, Texas
-Georgetown, Texas
-Temple, Texas
-Waco, Texas
-Dallas, Texas
Terminus: McKinney, Texas


----------



## aquaticko

CNB30 said:


> ^^ My point is that I'm saying it is unfair to state that the trains are going 80 mph when they travel at 120-130 mph, I don't think standing still at a station makes since as part of the average speed, rather I think it would be fairer to compare the speed of the Acela between two stations rather than the entire route. Also, If you look at Amtrak's track a train occasionally, (especially in mid day) Acela trains and all trains are given their current speed, and unless one is in a station, or on the Connecticut coast, they tend to be doing about 120 mph. In this case it would be accurate to say the US has HSR service between Phili and NYC, but not Boston and NYC, while it does between Providence and Boston
> 
> http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes
> 
> http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes


I suppose; it's definitely true that some sections of a corridor are faster than others. But one of the things that differentiates air travel from train travel is that air travel is much more point-to-point: you don't typically have trains stopping for half an hour at a station then going in non-linear direction to the next stop, but rather they move quickly from one station continuing to the next along a line. Trains stop much more frequently, as well, so even on a section of the NEC on which an Acela hits 120mph, it won't maintain that speed for very long over a short distance (Philly is only ~80mi from NYC). 

Worrying about increasing the top speed of a train when it may not have an opportunity to exploit that higher speed seems like a waste of resources. With trains accelerating and decelerating much less quickly than planes, a lot of time is spent speeding up and slowing down, especially when track conditions are as variable as they along most lines in the U.S., including the NEC; in that way, it seems to make more sense to make sure that quicker, rather than faster, trains are purchased (much though that often, maybe always, means the same thing).


----------



## FM 2258

Manitopiaaa said:


> I think Monterrey to Dallas is profitable (with a terminus in San Antonio I'm less sure)
> 
> I could see this:
> Terminus: Monterrey, Nuevo Leon
> -Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
> -Laredo, Texas
> -Pearsall, Texas
> -San Antonio, Texas (another rail line connects with Houston)
> -San Marcos, Texas
> -Austin, Texas
> -Georgetown, Texas
> -Temple, Texas
> -Waco, Texas
> -Dallas, Texas
> Terminus: McKinney, Texas


I'd probably add New Braunfels to the list.


----------



## flankerjun

Does anyone have exact information abou CA HSR?such as what kind of track,ballastless or ballast track? what is the size of curve radius？design sketch of bridges and others.


----------



## Fan Railer

ACS-64 600 is to debut in revenue service on Friday, February 8th, on train 171 from BOS to WAS. Keep your eyes open.


----------



## FM 2258

^^

I've read that these locomotives can run up to 125mph. Where will these trains run consistently at "High Speed", I thought the Acela was the only train in the U.S. to run at 125mph or higher.


----------



## Yamauchi

k.k.jetcar said:


> +1
> So many of these proclamations are more grounded in hype than actual potential to serve a market (where are the preliminary business plans that would pass initial muster with a financial institution??- they never seem to appear). Most proposals are, sorry to say, in the same league as previous plans for HSR in Laos or, for godsakes, Sudan(!).


Oh fellow poster, if only you knew. Laos' HSR is already under construction. That's right: Laos will have true HSR before America does.


----------



## CNB30

I came up on an info kiosk in the Baltimore Penn Station on the future of high speed rail in America, now to make it a reality!!! :rock:


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Yamauchi said:


> Oh fellow poster, if only you knew. Laos' HSR is already under construction. That's right: Laos will have true HSR before America does.


I'll believe it when I see it. FYI, the cost of the HSR line is equivalent of *80%* of Laos' whole national budget, and is entirely dependent on Chinese loans, which are likely to never be repaid (who is going to ride the train and provide decent farebox recovery?- certainly not your average Laotian, who isn't exactly rich, or even middle class). Better hope that there are lots of foreigners who will ride the train, coz your peasant who lives below the viaducts can't.


----------



## jonasry

k.k.jetcar said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. FYI, the cost of the HSR line is equivalent of *80%* of Laos' whole national budget, and is entirely dependent on Chinese loans, which are likely to never be repaid (who is going to ride the train and provide decent farebox recovery?- certainly not your average Laotian, who isn't exactly rich, or even middle class). Better hope that there are lots of foreigners who will ride the train, coz your peasant who lives below the viaducts can't.


Actually you just highlighted one of the problems of US thinking about HSR. There are other values of HSR then just passenger income. A railway with China will increase growth and in Laos meaning that it might even be feasible to subsidise trips. In the US it seems that only thing that matters is if the numbers are in black at the end line of the company rather then the society at large.


----------



## aquaticko

^^I think his main point was that the Laotian HSR wouldn't be possible without Chinese funding, whereas the US has no such benefactors. I agree; there are a lot of positive externalities that aren't counted by simple a simple income v. expenditure formula, but as you say, the U.S. is no longer the kind of country that cares about things like that.


----------



## phoenixboi08

aquaticko said:


> ^^I think his main point was that the Laotian HSR wouldn't be possible without Chinese funding, whereas the US has no such benefactors. I agree; there are a lot of positive externalities that aren't counted by simple a simple income v. expenditure formula, but as you say, the U.S. is no longer the kind of country that cares about things like that.


The endpoint is that there's no lack of funding - there's plenty of it. 
Our problem is the structure we have for infrastructure: states are responsible for doing it but are really dependent upon federal funds to do it. 

What has to change is HSR to become a national priority. This administration tried...but until there's some consensus in Congress, who actually decide on the budget, we won't get anything. 

It really comes down to constituents looking at their representatives and asking, "when are we getting rail."
Unfortunately, many seem to be okay with the status quo, which is why we need to charge user/access fees for road infrastructure (tolls, a proportional gasoline tax, etc).


----------



## phoenixboi08

CNB30 said:


> For the area which needs HSR the least :lol:


Jesus, it's like you people think we live in Wyoming or Montana or something...


----------



## musiccity

phoenixboi08 said:


> Jesus, it's like you people think we live in Wyoming or Montana or something...


Exactly! There are 80 million people in the South (well in the US Census definition of the South)


----------



## aquaticko

^^Well, I don't have any first-hand experience with the South, but my brother, who used to live in Atlanta and Savannah, said that they was a lot like some of the charming cities of New England, where our family is from, e.g. Boston or Portsmouth. Obviously, Austin, Miami, and New Orleans similarly have their own charm. It's mostly social differences that lend the South its "uncivilized" flavor, from the non-Southern perspective. 

More on topic re: high-speed rail. That system of transportation works best in areas where public transit is a fairly popular way to get around, and, as far as I know, transit usage is lower than every region of the country save the sparsely-populated areas of the West. If piles of money were to flood in from nowhere for HSR, the South would have to come 2nd to last in line for funding in all but the densest areas (i.e., the Texas Triangle and southern Florida). From my biased, New Hampshire and Ohio perspective.


----------



## CNB30

Ok, maybe extending the NEC through Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, and Atlanta might be a good idea


----------



## phoenixboi08

CNB30 said:


> Ok, maybe extending the NEC through Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, and Atlanta might be a good idea


If the overwhelming goal is to: move people out of cars, move people out of planes, and induce travel, then I think one has to concede connecting The Gulf Coast (Texas [Triangle] and New Orleans) and the "Piedmont Region", isn't farfetched.

Especially as it will serve as a launch-pad for regional systems (i.e. intra-State systems) with HSR as the backbone. We can't really rely on air travel for our travel needs nor should we have to get in a car to drive less than 300 mi. to get to our destination. 

Now, if we're talking priorities, I'll concede that Chicagoland and the NEC can go first, but if we're simply saying we deserve nothing, that's BS.


----------



## Yamauchi

CNB30 said:


> Ok, maybe extending the NEC through Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, and Atlanta might be a good idea


Definitely agree on this one.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *Details emerge on blending Caltrain with future high-speed rail*
> By Laura Dudnick
> 
> By 2019, Peninsula residents will see a much more efficient, quieter and environmentally conscious Caltrain system. That’s what Ben Tripousis, Northern California regional director for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, told local business owners at the Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Forum on Tuesday.
> 
> Tripousis highlighted the impact of introducing high-speed rail transportation in California, and revealed what the Peninsula can expect when the system blends with Caltrain’s route from San Jose to San Francisco.
> 
> The agencies will ultimately run on two tracks through the Peninsula, with Caltrain operating six commuter trains per hour on its new electric system and the High-Speed Rail Authority running four trains per hour.
> 
> Four locations on the Peninsula are being analyzed for passing tracks — two in the mid-Peninsula, one near San Francisco and the fourth near San Jose, Tripousis said.
> 
> There will be no elevated tracks on the Peninsula as part of blended system, according to Tripousis.
> 
> Caltrain is receiving upgrades as part of its modernization program, a $1.5 billion project paid for in part by the rail authority as well as with local, regional and federal dollars.
> 
> Caltrain has started working on its federally mandated advanced signal system, slated to be complete by 2015. It will allow for future increases in ridership.
> 
> The trains will also be able to start and stop more quickly, allowing them to run more closely together.
> 
> Additionally, electric trains will be much better for the environment than Caltrain’s current diesel system, according to agency officials . . . .
> 
> Caltrain’s makeover will happen before the bullet trains come to the Peninsula, but having a modern rail system will make it easier for the High-Speed Rail Authority to implement its own trains when the time comes.
> 
> Construction on the electrification of the tracks is slated to last three to four years, with the new rail system expected to begin operations in 2019.
> 
> High-speed rail officials expect to break ground on construction in Fresno sometime this year, Tripousis said. By 2029, the high-speed trains are anticipated to run from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than three hours.


http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...th-future-high-speed-rail/Content?oid=2702828


----------



## Silly_Walks

> Caltrain has started working on its federally mandated advanced signal system


Is it related to ETCS like China has CTCS?


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Silly_Walks said:


> Is it related to ETCS like China has CTCS?


They are referring to so-called Positive Train Control.

The link addresses the technical issues and the relationship to ETCS. I don't pretend to really understand it.


----------



## MarcVD

Suburbanist said:


> Highways can cope with 5% grades, high speed rail, ideally, with no more than 2% grades


This page : http://florent.brisou.pagesperso-orange.fr/LGV-PSE.htm
shows the profile of the french LGV between Paris and Lyon. You can
see there that most of the length of the line uses grades above 2%,
and going as far as 3,5% in several places. 

And restarting from a full stop in those grades has been successfully tested 
before the LGV was commissionned, with a train with 33% of its traction 
(thus 2 bogies out of 6) out of service.

Therefore, given that the ICE3 has distributed traction, I do not believe that 
it would not be able to restart from a full stop on a 4% grade. What I do 
remember is that the Thalys trains have not been allowed to use that line,
just because, with 25% (thus one bogie) of traction out of service, they 
would not be able to restart. I don't think DB could prevent another train to 
use the LGV Köln-Frankfurt on those grounds if their own trains couldn't meet
the same constraints either.

But I agree that without further research, 5% is off limits. Not only for 
traction, but for brakings aspects too.

By the way, on the french LGVs, there was (I think it's lifted now) initially a
220 km/h speed limit on the grade summits because SNCF feared that the 
vertical curves were too sharp and so could lead to trains "taking off" at max 
speed... Contrary to popular belief, it was not because of power shortage
that they slowed down at the top of the grades.


----------



## mrmoopt

There are 2 main types of in cab signalling in the US. Both of them are overlays of existing signalling system with additional info relayed to the train via radio. In the wikipedia articles, it doesn't state whether the aerial component uses GSM-R or not.

To the best of my knowledge, they are not related to ETCS.


----------



## XAN_

Well, it seems, Caltrain is going to develop signalling _from scratch_, while CalHSR are going for ETCS...


----------



## keber

XAN_ said:


> Well, it seems, Caltrain is going to develop signalling from scratch, while CalHSR are going for ETCS...


Why invent another spoon?


----------



## Manitopiaaa

SMCYB said:


> A good list, but to make high speed rail work you need enough distance between stops to gain speed without all the slowing down and speeding up again. Places like New Braunfels, San Marcos, Round Rock and Temple will hopefully soon have commuter rail to connect to the high speed stops. I'd amend your list to this:
> 
> Terminus: Monterrey, Nuevo Leon
> -Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
> -Laredo, Texas
> -San Antonio, Texas (another rail line connects with Houston)
> -Austin, Texas
> -Georgetown, Texas
> -Waco, Texas
> Terminus: Dallas, Texas


Fair enough. In that case take out Georgetown and add in Temple. Williamson County is wealthier and more 'car amorous' than Temple-Killeen-Belton-Fort Hood which has a lot more carless military members who might enjoy a weekend in Austin or Dallas. Plus, that area has a lot more minorities who are more likely to use public transportation than the more right-wing Williamson County where any HSR will bring in a lot of opposition from Conservatives afraid of "undesirables" destroying their towns. Georgetown to Downtown Austin is also only a 30 minute drive.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

musiccity said:


> My HSR map of the South. That just about covers all major cities.


The train from Memphis to New Orleans takes 8hours, 42 minutes. That's 522 minutes for a 395 mile trip. That's 45mph. Before we start dreaming about HSR, I think it would help to at least have trains going faster than cars.

And I'd rather see Oklahoma City connect with Tulsa and subsequently connecting with St. Louis to provide a HSR line from Dallas to Chicago. There's nothing up in Wichita and it would be a weird, low-populated terminus. I agree with most of the rest (though I'd link Hampton Roads with Richmond, not Raleigh)


----------



## Manitopiaaa

I will say: one thing I've always disliked about Amtrak is how illogical some of their train routes are. There's no link between Little Rock and Memphis, there's Winnemuca and Elko but no Las Vegas. Want to go from El Paso to Albuquerque? You'll have to do El Paso-Los Angeles-Albuquerque because Amtrak can't make a north-south route in the Rockies linking Denver-Colorado Springs-Albuquerque-El Paso in a Front Range Corridor.

I mean really: Amtrak goes from Omaha to Chicago. What would a logical person pick as a route? Omaha-Des Moines-Cedar Rapids-Quad Cities-Chicago. Maybe swap out Quad Cities for Rockford? What does Amtrak do: Omaha-Creston-Ottumwa-Burlington-Galesburg. WTF?

Want to go Memphis to Saint Louis (a heavy Greyhound route)? You'll have to go from Memphis to Chicago and then go back South. The train goes from Dallas to Little Rock yet avoids Shreveport to take in Texarkana though the latter has, what, 4x less people? 

There's no Bakersfield to LA (or at least to Palmdale-Lancaster)

Amtrak makes 12 stops in Northern empty Montana yet from Pittsburgh to Chicago doesn't have the common sense to stop in Canton or Akron or South Bend or Fort Wayne. That's 2,000,000 potentially people who lack access though the line goes right through their area! 

The Chicago to Washington Southern Corridor stops in Ashland, KY but not nearby Huntington with 5x the population. Milwaukee to Minneapolis takes in Wisconsin Dells over direct access to Madison.

It's like Amtrak threw darts on the board. I know a lot has to do with existing freight tracks but my god, what horrible routes!

Link to map: http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/Amtrak_route_map.png


----------



## ADCS

musiccity said:


> My HSR map of the South. That just about covers all major cities.


I don't think the southern Texas junction needs to be in San Antonio. Something like Temple or Austin would provide much greater connectivity and shorter distances with the Gulf Coast line.


----------



## Suburbanist

Manitopiaaa said:


> I will say: one thing I've always disliked about Amtrak is how illogical some of their train routes are. There's no link between Little Rock and Memphis, there's Winnemuca and Elko but no Las Vegas. Want to go from El Paso to Albuquerque? You'll have to do El Paso-Los Angeles-Albuquerque because Amtrak can't make a north-south route in the Rockies linking Denver-Colorado Springs-Albuquerque-El Paso in a Front Range Corridor.
> 
> 
> I mean really: Amtrak goes from Omaha to Chicago. What would a logical person pick as a route? Omaha-Des Moines-Cedar Rapids-Quad Cities-Chicago. Maybe swap out Quad Cities for Rockford? What does Amtrak do: Omaha-Creston-Ottumwa-Burlington-Galesburg. WTF?


This is simple to answer: Amtrak operates long-distance train on train corridors. There isn't proper rail tracks on all your suggested routes




> There's no Bakersfield to LA (or at least to Palmdale-Lancaster)


The Tehachapi pass is bloated with freight trains and BNSF will not allow any passenger train there.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Suburbanist said:


> This is simple to answer: Amtrak operates long-distance train on train corridors. There isn't proper rail tracks on all your suggested routes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tehachapi pass is bloated with freight trains and BNSF will not allow any passenger train there.


Of course. And that's the problem. That Amtrak continues to support that arrangement (freight-dominant right of way routes). Not only does it contribute to erratic schedules but creates weird routes that are costly. No wonder people ditch Amtrak when they can take Bolt or Megabus for 1/10 the price.


----------



## M-NL

Isn't it a chicken and the egg problem? Limited services will cause low demand, but low demand will cause limited services as a result. However the investment required to create new lines is such that nobody wants to take the risk.


----------



## CNB30

M-NL said:


> It is already in use, because it's fitted to the Acela. As a rule of thumb with tilt speeds can increase by 10 to 15 percent. In your example the line itself should already be capable of speeds of 150 mph without tilt. The main problem is probably an insufficient safety system (no ACSES?) and the wrong overhead wire system (PRR used fixed tension instead of the now more common constant tension).


How expensive would that be to fix?


----------



## Honolulu

*sigh* will the US never learn? HSR HAS to be separated from the regular rail if you want to get anywhere near decent speeds. Time after time it has been shown that high speed rail in conjunction with freight or regular speed commuter rail NEVER works. 

Of course the curve radii is also a big factor in speed, but first people in the US need to get it through their thick skulls that they need a separate line purely for HSR. How do you think the Shinkansen is so efficient, has never had any accidents ever despite being by far the most ridden HSR network (over 10 billion rides now) 

Grade separation + dedicated HSR lines are the only way to go


----------



## XAN_

Honolulu said:


> *sigh* will the US never learn? HSR HAS to be separated from the regular rail if you want to get anywhere near decent speeds. Time after time it has been shown that high speed rail in conjunction with freight or regular speed commuter rail NEVER works.
> 
> Of course the curve radii is also a big factor in speed, but first people in the US need to get it through their thick skulls that they need a separate line purely for HSR. How do you think the Shinkansen is so efficient, has never had any accidents ever despite being by far the most ridden HSR network (over 10 billion rides now)
> 
> Grade separation + dedicated HSR lines are the only way to go


Well, Germany proved otherwise.
They of course have extensive and quick network even prior HSR, so it make sense to replicate this system only in places were there is already good service. In case in US - NE corridor only.


----------



## M-NL

The NEC was build by PRR which in it's day was the yardstick every other roadroad wanted to measure up to. They ran 100 mph train in a time Germany was still stuck at 120 km/h on the majority of it's network. But unfortunately all Americans wanted to own a car and PRR went bankrupt. How much has changed. On large parts of the network speeds have dropped and services decimated. But a new dawn seems to be comming.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

There was a study done a few years back on the feasibility of new HSR projects in the U.S., by some consultant firm/thinktank (regretfully I can't remember the name of the organization nor the authors, otherwise I would post a link), it basically came to the conclusion that a true HSR service was incompatible with blended operation with existing commuter and conventional services, _in the North American context_- the operating practices of *current* commuter lines and conventional passenger rail are so antiquated that it would throw a wrench into any effort to run a punctual and safe high speed rail service on the same tracks. The fact is, American railways are stuck with 1950's operating practices (or even regressed), while other modern nations' passenger railways have long since surpassed the practices of those once excellent operators like the Pennsy.


----------



## Christopher125

M-NL said:


> When was this consultation? Because like I said: the N700/N700A, in service since 2007, has tilt and is capable of speeds up to at least 200 mph. In fact the tilt on the N700/N700A is enough to raise maximum speed in the Tokaido from 270 km/h to 285 km/h so even a small tilt of 2 degrees has a profound impact.


I'm aware of the N700, but it is designed to overcome the limited curve radius of a high speed line for which it only needs a very limited degree of tilt - which is achieved just by manipulating the air suspension IIRC. Tilting trains in Europe and on the NEC are designed to raise speeds on much sharper curves found on existing lines, for which a far greater degree of tilt needs to be possible.

Chris


----------



## FM 2258

Those Acela pictures are beautiful *Nexis*...I still wish it was a full high speed rail solution.


----------



## CNB30

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/04/07/3865619/valley-high-speed-rail-construction.html



> An elevated viaduct near Madera will likely be one of the first major pieces of tangible construction for California's proposed high-speed rail line, with work starting as early as next month.
> 
> Jim Laing, a project manager for Tutor Perini Corp., talked about the construction plan Monday afternoon at an industry forum for engineering students, professors and professionals at California State University, Fresno. Sylmar-based Tutor Perini, Zachry Construction of Texas and Pasadena-based Parsons Corp last summer won a contract for just under $1 billion from the California High-Speed Rail Authority to design and build the first 29-mile stretch between Madera and Fresno of a statewide bullet-train line.
> 
> "The first major construction activity we see is up on the Fresno River, a 2,000-foot-plus viaduct to go across the river, over Highway 145 and over Raymond Road," Laing said. "We're looking at doing some test pilings in May to prove the validity of our design of the columns and supports."
> 
> By this summer, Laing added, "we should be building that structure and really initiating construction."
> 
> The first construction section runs from about Avenue 17, near the BNSF freight railroad tracks at the eastern edge of Madera, south to American Avenue at the southern fringe of Fresno. In addition to the viaduct, the section includes a bridge over the San Joaquin River, elevated tracks at the north and south ends of Fresno; a tunnel under Belmont Avenue and Highway 180, and a dozen street or road over- and underpasses.
> 
> Other early portions of work will likely be in downtown Fresno, Laing said. Contractors are working with the city to plan relocation of utilities before construction can begin on new underpasses that will route Tulare and Ventura streets beneath the new high-speed rail tracks as well as the adjacent Union Pacific freight railroad tracks.
> 
> Under its contract with the state, the Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons team has until late 2017 to complete its work on the Madera-Fresno section
> 
> Monday's daylong forum and workshops were part of a professional series that Fresno State's engineering program is organizing for students, professors and industry experts, said Ram Nunna, dean of the university's Lyles College of Engineering.
> 
> Nunna said his goal is for Fresno State to play a leading role in research for America's fledgling high-speed rail industry and train graduates who have bullet-train expertise as the technology spreads across the nation.
> 
> Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/04/07/3865619/valley-high-speed-rail-construction.html#storylink=cpy


----------



## rantanamo

Welcome to Dallas-Fort Worth where Dallas is constantly politically maneuvered out of good things

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...or-high-speed-rail-between-dallas-houston.ece



> *Public tie could slow plan for high-speed rail between Dallas, Houston*
> 
> Ben Torres/Special Contributor
> “The community has to embrace this, and then great things can happen,” said Tom Schieffer, senior adviser to the Texas Central Railway, with a model of a Japanese bullet train that would be used on the Dallas-Houston route.
> 
> Mitchell Schnurman
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> Published: 07 April 2014 08:31 PM
> 
> Updated: 08 April 2014 09:18 AM
> 
> If one bullet train is good, how about two?
> 
> A private plan for high-speed rail between Dallas and Houston is starting to gain some traction. Now local leaders want to piggyback on the project and add a leg from Dallas to Fort Worth, with a stop in Arlington.
> 
> The add-on would make a heavy lift heavier. Most bullet trains lose money, partly because politicians demand costly extensions.
> 
> But the temptation is understandable. The west side of the metro area lags badly on mass transit, especially rail. The bullet train offers a rare chance to catch up and link the region.
> 
> Commute times from Fort Worth to Dallas could be slashed to 19 minutes, and fans would be able to get to pro stadiums much easier.
> 
> “The community has to embrace this, and then great things can happen,” said Tom Schieffer, who helped create the Ballpark in Arlington (now Globe Life Park) and is senior adviser to the Texas Central Railway.
> 
> The catch is that the private, for-profit company won’t build the 30-mile spur. Unlike the longer line from Dallas to Houston, the numbers don’t work on a shorter line, because construction costs are much higher in urban areas.
> 
> That means government would have to find $2 billion for the project. It would lead the construction effort and be on the hook for cost overruns.
> 
> So put out the boondoggle alert, despite the best of intentions.


----------



## FM 2258

^^

I say focus on Dallas to Houston, then Austin to San Antonio, then fill the rest in. Seems like a lot of people in government in the U.S. have no idea what the **** they're doing. Keep it simple! Personally I like the look of Siemens Velaro trains but I'll take anything that runs at 217 mph and faster.


----------



## rantanamo

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> I say focus on Dallas to Houston, then Austin to San Antonio, then fill the rest in. Seems like a lot of people in government in the U.S. have no idea what the **** they're doing. Keep it simple! Personally I like the look of Siemens Velaro trains but I'll take anything that runs at 217 mph and faster.


DFW politics. Any project that comes along ends up like this. This is what happened with the Cotton Belt


----------



## phoenixboi08

The two projects have _nothing_ to do with one another. Texas Central is cooperating with Dallas and Texas authorities on the Fortworth-Dallas leg, but the Houston-Dallas system is completely, entirely separate.


----------



## rantanamo

phoenixboi08 said:


> The two projects have _nothing_ to do with one another. Texas Central is cooperating with Dallas and Texas authorities on the Fortworth-Dallas leg, but the Houston-Dallas system is completely, entirely separate.


If only things worked like that. Welcome to North Texas.


----------



## phoenixboi08

rantanamo said:


> If only things worked like that. Welcome to North Texas.


They are _two_ separate projects. The Tx Central project is being undertaken with consultation from JR Central (i.e. they're emulating the Shikansen model). 

The Fort-Worth to Dallas project is meant to take advantage of planning (undertaking EIS in concert with one another) for the TX Central project, but they are not mutually exclusive: whether or not the Fort-Worth link is built, the Houston-Dallas leg won't be affected.


----------



## sweet-d

Yeah I can't think of any reason why their needs to be a link from forth worth to Dallas with a possible stop in Arlington. It's so stupid just let the private corporation build what they think is the most profitable line first. Especially a stop in Arlington that makes no sense at all. At least not until after the Dallas to Houston line is finished.


----------



## rantanamo

phoenixboi08 said:


> They are _two_ separate projects. The Tx Central project is being undertaken with consultation from JR Central (i.e. they're emulating the Shikansen model).
> 
> The Fort-Worth to Dallas project is meant to take advantage of planning (undertaking EIS in concert with one another) for the TX Central project, but they are not mutually exclusive: whether or not the Fort-Worth link is built, the Houston-Dallas leg won't be affected.


Again, you're stating something that should be from far away. That's just not how its going to work. Lots of ROW and variance to be obtained. They could totally F-this up, just like they have other projects in the past.


----------



## phoenixboi08

They. Aren't. The. Same. Project. 
Two separate ones.
Not the same.


----------



## Hypothalamus

Fantastic pictures Nexis!


----------



## rantanamo

phoenixboi08 said:


> They. Aren't. The. Same. Project.
> Two separate ones.
> Not the same.


Right, but both will need political support from regional leaders. You just can't build infrastructure of that size without input, ROW or construction companies, allowances, etc. Yes, they are seperate projects, but there's plenty of opportunity for political shade to be thrown its way. The people of this area know how things work. That's why there's an article about it. You think SWA won't fight this tooth and nail with the Bass Brothers throwing their political weight at the leaders of Ellis or Navarro County? The RTC is already throwing shade on the project by telling the public details from the meetings and trying to publicly influence the investors where the line should be built for cheaper in their opinion. Who do you think runs the RTC. They will get their piece or it won't happen. This is just how things work in DFW. Why do you think our Superbowl and Final Four were called "North Texas"? That wasn't some moniker of friendship.


----------



## phoenixboi08

rantanamo said:


> Right, but both will need political support from regional leaders. You just can't build infrastructure of that size without input, ROW or construction companies, allowances, etc. Yes, they are seperate projects, but there's plenty of opportunity for political shade to be thrown its way. The people of this area know how things work. That's why there's an article about it. You think SWA won't fight this tooth and nail with the Bass Brothers throwing their political weight at the leaders of Ellis or Navarro County? The RTC is already throwing shade on the project by telling the public details from the meetings and trying to publicly influence the investors where the line should be built for cheaper in their opinion. Who do you think runs the RTC. They will get their piece or it won't happen. This is just how things work in DFW. Why do you think our Superbowl and Final Four were called "North Texas"? That wasn't some moniker of friendship.


SWA doesn't care because they will no longer be restricted to flying within Texas come the end of the year...

I don't know anything about the politics, so I can't comment on the matter. However, I'm speaking specifically to the perception that the fate of the Fort-Worth project is going to damage Texas Central's plans: the Houston-Dallas project is envisioned as a complete system without any other segments.

Considering the areas that they're considering running the ROW, I think it's a high probability that this won't face stiff opposition. Considering how vocal they've been in outreach in the rural communities that would be affected (see CAHSR for an example of what happens when you don't).


----------



## phoenixboi08

rantanamo said:


> I would suspect downtown dallas will have a stop at some point just because the studied route to Fort Worth is actually down the large median of I-30 between the two cities.


I think you meant the light rail?

If you mean the TX Central project, they _are_ building their stations downtown. Don't confuse this project with the one Dallas-Fort Worth link, which is being studied by TXDOT/Dallas. The idea is for the two projects to coordinate so they could essentially run to the same specifications; however, they are two separate projects.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> If they were smart, they'd be working with other agencies (namely, Amtrak) to allow them to operate on the system as well, potentially serving intermediate stops that the main, express service will not.


They are being smart _*not*_ working with the likes of Amtrak. Running a high speed rail system with stellar reliability and punctuality (which JR Central does in Japan) is incompatible with the operating philosophy (i.e. arriving within 30 minutes of the published schedule is counted as "on time"*) and real world performance of Amtrak.

*otoh, the average delay on the Tokaido Shinkansen over one year (counting weather-related disruptions like snow or typhoons) is _36 seconds_.


----------



## phoenixboi08

k.k.jetcar said:


> They are being smart _*not*_ working with the likes of Amtrak. Running a high speed rail system with stellar reliability and punctuality (which JR Central does in Japan) is incompatible with the operating philosophy (i.e. arriving within 30 minutes of the published schedule is counted as "on time"*) and real world performance of Amtrak.
> 
> *otoh, the average delay on the Tokaido Shinkansen over one year (counting weather-related disruptions like snow or typhoons) is _36 seconds_.


Oh, give me a break. They would do better to allow other operators to use the infrastructure to run other services. The reliability and punctuality of Amtrak has everything to do with the shitty infrastructure they're forced to use.

In any event, because it is not a mixed-traffic system, any other operator using the line would be operating similar rolling stock. The point at hand is allowing other agencies to serve other areas. As an initial system, it's nice, but I do think serving the intermediate areas would be far more beneficial for their bottom line in the long term. That's where other operators come in (e.g. the pseudo-bidding system used in London/UK: TX Central earns extra revenue, commuters get greater service, and the operator doesn't have to pay the intensive capital costs or much for maintenance.


----------



## CNB30

Honestly, If Republican Texas can do this, I think it will send a message to the rest of the country that HSR can work everywhere.


----------



## G5man

CNB30 said:


> Honestly, If Republican Texas can do this, I think it will send a message to the rest of the country that HSR can work everywhere.


What is helping move this project forward the most is that it is private sector investment into the infrastructure. If they can show their is serious reward with private investment, I do believe other firms would be willing to build HSR infrastructure. I think our planning process however is too bogged down in regulations. It takes 8 years from feasibility to construction start. 

The private capital is a huge help since public funded megaprojects have received ridiculous amounts of scrutiny. I feel it is why we cannot have world class infrastructure. We need to target items that are holding us back from making progress.


----------



## GodIsNotGreat

If not California, then Texas. It doesn't matter much.

All it takes is for the first HSR line to operate and most people would want one for their state.


----------



## rantanamo

phoenixboi08 said:


> I think you meant the light rail?
> 
> If you mean the TX Central project, they _are_ building their stations downtown. Don't confuse this project with the one Dallas-Fort Worth link, which is being studied by TXDOT/Dallas. The idea is for the two projects to coordinate so they could essentially run to the same specifications; however, they are two separate projects.


 
I understand that TxCentral is studying a Dallas to Houston route, but they have been very vague on station location. The DDOJSIOC(my nickname for NCTCOG's rail study group) sort of glanced over the idea that North Houston burbs and South Dallas were the to be studied stops in 2012. The first real mention of DT Dallas station by either organization was by the DDOJSIOC this year. Though they make it unclear whether TxCentral is now studying downtown Dallas after realizing they pretty much have an easy access, pretty much unchallenged clear route to DT Dallas from the south OR if as part of their HSR extension to FW(DDOJSIOC) that they would indeed be building the extension from south Dallas to DT Dallas, then onto DTFW down the median of I-30(DDOJSIOC's latest study pitted three routes from DTD to DTFW and found I-30's HOV complex and easy geometry to be most cost effective in building a 19 minute trip extension of the HSR. The DDOJSIOC is very clear this would be an extension of the TxCentral line and would be an extension and not a change to different type of train) But again, which organization is planning on building to DTD. Its is very unclear until the EIS comes out or until Tx Central says something.


----------



## phoenixboi08

G5man said:


> What is helping move this project forward the most is that it is private sector investment into the infrastructure. If they can show their is serious reward with private investment, I do believe other firms would be willing to build HSR infrastructure. I think our planning process however is too bogged down in regulations. It takes 8 years from feasibility to construction start.
> 
> The private capital is a huge help since public funded megaprojects have received ridiculous amounts of scrutiny. I feel it is why we cannot have world class infrastructure. We need to target items that are holding us back from making progress.


What's helping the project move forward is the perception by the public that they aren't being asked to pay for it...


----------



## Sunfuns

GodIsNotGreat said:


> If not California, then Texas. It doesn't matter much.
> 
> All it takes is for the first HSR line to operate and most people would want one for their state.


That's my opinion as well. Obviously provided that the first system is built to a high standard and with usable stations.


----------



## LtBk

Good news for Texas, but do you guys think it be ready by 2021?


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Suburbanist said:


> With very fast high-speed rail service on these distance ranges (where trip time length is competitive with flying), last-mile problems can be easily solved same way airports do: taxis, rental car counters, easy access to the nearby freeway etc.


Of course they "could be". And, as a regular train traveller, I've long thought they "should be". But they haven't been. And I'm not sure taxis and rental car counters are actually an answer anyway. The advantage of HSR is that it serves the city center, not some far-flung exurban airport. Given the problems of driving in the center of a city you don't know, I'm not sure that's much of an answer. And taxis are, let's face it, expensive if you are going to do much moving around the destination city.

So I am left with what I said: HSR will work best when the cities it links have decent public transportation and that may be a weakness in Texas; not prohibitive, but an issue.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Tom 958 said:


> There are these things called "taxis" that would be perfect for that situation. :banana:


Once again: Travelling exclusively by taxi is expensive, especially in cities where it isn't extremely common like New York forcing rates down.

Actually, there are better stop-gap solutions: Things you may not have heard of called Uber, Lyft and Zipcar.

These are all things I know, being carless in a major city (are there any carless Texans . . . or Georgians?).


----------



## kwonphilip

Cal_Escapee said:


> Even though I am no fan of much about Texas, I agree if there's a political will to do this, it's a good place. Not only is the Dallas-Houston route potentially one that could have decent ridership but building in Texas, with flat, open terrain, should be relatively cheap and easy.
> 
> One problem I foresee: In order to ride HSR or any rail on a regular basis, as opposed to driving, you need good transportation options at the end of the trip. Intercity rail will work best between cities that have good public transportation--so you can hop onto a bus or rail transit to get around the destination city rather than having to rent a car (there often aren't car rental agencies near train stations, at least not yet). I'm not sure either Dallas or Houston meets this test.
> 
> Another: You say "they can get this built quickly with stations near the heart of the cities." I can't speak for Dallas, but I have travelled through Houston many times on AMTRAK and the train creeps on a giant loop through the city--the antithesis of "high speed". Are they planning some different route and to eliminate all the grade crossings and other issues that slow down any train?


I remember reading an article a while back about that. It commented on how while rail in Houston was largely confined to the city loop DART, apparently the largest ligh rail operator in the USA (whatever that means), constructed a system that leads into many of its suburbs, reaching Plano, Carrollton, Garland, Richardson, Rowlett, Lewisville, Denton, and Irving, the largest suburbs of the area.


----------



## Tower Dude

I found this article about the next generation Acela trainsets.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonra...ng-to-revamp-acela-boost-capacity-and-speeds/



> _Amtrak Looking To Boost Acela Express Capacity, Speeds_
> 
> Amtrak’s Acela Express service may not be true high-speed rail, but as ridership hits new records and trains consistently packed, Amtrak is looking to prepare for the future by replacing its current rolling stock.
> On Wednesday afternoon, Amtrak said it has issued a request for proposal to “acquire new trainsets to supplement and eventually replace its aging Acela Express.” Acela Express, which runs exclusively along the Northeast Corridor (NEC), is currently operating near capacity and frequently sells out before and after major holidays.
> 
> An Amtrak spokesman tells Railway Age that *responses to the RFP are due by October 1, 2014*. Once the proposals are in, we should have a better idea of what the next generation of Acela will look like.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...-for-acela-fleet-replacement.html?channel=542
> 
> *Amtrak issues RFP for Acela fleet replacement*
> Thursday, July 03, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMTRAK has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for 28 high-speed trains, which will replace the Acela Express fleet on the Washington DC – New York – Boston Northeast Corridor (NEC).
> 
> According to the specification the new trains will need to be "capable of meeting or exceeding current Acela trip-times on the existing NEC infrastructure," and provide a 40% increase in seating capacity.
> 
> The tender will only be open to bidders who have already supplied trains capable of operating at more than 257km/h to other operators. The closing date for expressions of interest is October 1.
> 
> Amtrak had previously planned to tender the contract jointly with California High-Speed Rail Authority, which requires up to 70 high-speed trains over a 15-year period, but the two parties decided last month to launch separate tenders due to significant differences in the specifications for the two fleets.
> 
> The Acela Express fleet is struggling to cope with rapidly rising demand. Amtrak says Acela Express ridership has increased by 7% in the last year and trains are often fully-booked, particularly at peak times. Daily ridership has exceeded 14,000 passengers 25 times in the current financial year, which started on October 1, compared with five times in the whole of the 2013 financial year


----------



## CNB30

dimlys1994 said:


> From Rail Journal:


I hope they can get trains which could quickly maneuver all of those curvy tracks in New England


----------



## XAN_

Well, Acela already have active tilt, not sure if any more speed can be won. Lighter trains may help a bit, though.


----------



## FM 2258

CNB30 said:


> I hope they can get trains which could quickly maneuver all of those curvy tracks in New England




I just took a serious look at the track on a map going through Conneciticut, it looks impossible to straighten the track without demolishing some neighborhoods. So much that I feel they're lucky to even have a decent speed railroad going through southern Connecticut.


----------



## Nexis

Speaking of the Acela


----------



## CNB30

FM 2258 said:


> I just took a serious look at the track on a map going through Conneciticut, it looks impossible to straighten the track without demolishing some neighborhoods. So much that I feel they're lucky to even have a decent speed railroad going through southern Connecticut.


Yes, I know, but what I mean is to design them so they can actually maneuver the turns at at least 100mph.


----------



## desertpunk

*LA Bullet Train Could Run in Tunnel Under the San Gabriels*












> The California High-Speed Rail Authority recently decided it wants to get moving ahead of schedule on the portion of the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line that will run through LA County and now it's looking at a tunnel connecting Palmdale to a Burbank Airport station as a possible alternative to a route that would run along the 14 Freeway through Acton and Santa Clarita, reports the Daily News. The tunnel would go under the San Gabriel Mountains and shorten the travel time along the stretch, though it's not yet known by how much. Also not known yet: how much more it's going to cost. The new route, plus one that runs from Burbank to Union Station will be discussed at an upcoming series of public scoping meetings over the first few weeks in August.
> 
> The potential tunnel for the $67.6-billion projec is already more popular with at least one LA County supe and the locals along the 14 Freeway, who worried about the homes and structures that would have to be cleared in order to have the 220-mile-an-hour train running through their neighborhoods (and also about the values of those homes that remain).











http://la.streetsblog.org/


----------



## Sunfuns

Looks like at least part of it will be built after all. :cheers:

Therefore I've started to look a bit closer at the route of the initial section. I have few questions. Might have been already discussed in this thread earlier but 200+ pages is a bit too much to go through…

I've seen the map: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/Programs/Construction/CP_1_5_May_2014.pdf

However the situation with stations is not entirely clear from it. Will the new line use the same stations in Fresno and Bakersfield as the current Amtrak service? If so will it not slow down the train significantly? I've read that before the connection to LA is built the initial section will be used by Amtrak Oakland-Bakersfield service. Is it likely then that the old route is abandoned and the new one is initially not electrified? Has it been announced what travel times could be expected between these two stations initially and eventually? Also what about the lone intermediate station - it doesn't seem to serve anyone sizeable community. Was it perhaps included to appease the local opposition?


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sunfuns said:


> Looks like at least part of it will be built after all. :cheers:
> 
> Therefore I've started to look a bit closer at the route of the initial section. I have few questions. Might have been already discussed in this thread earlier but 200+ pages is a bit too much to go through…
> 
> I've seen the map: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/Programs/Construction/CP_1_5_May_2014.pdf
> 
> However the situation with stations is not entirely clear from it. Will the new line use the same stations in Fresno and Bakersfield as the current Amtrak service? If so will it not slow down the train significantly? I've read that before the connection to LA is built the initial section will be used by Amtrak Oakland-Bakersfield service. Is it likely then that the old route is abandoned and the new one is initially not electrified? Has it been announced what travel times could be expected between these two stations initially and eventually? Also what about the lone intermediate station - it doesn't seem to serve anyone sizeable community. Was it perhaps included to appease the local opposition?


The IOS through the central valley is completely grade separated, so far as the documents have said. The only shared tracks will be with Metrolink (in LA County) and CalTrain (in the Bay Area). 

Amtrak will then be able to connect their service from the Bay Area down to LA County using this PDL (*as a side note, I'm wondering if they won't shift some of their Acela Rolling Stock here once they get their new trains for the NEC?).

I've heard the Tulare station mentioned in passing, but don't know much about that station...

However, do keep in mind that there will be local and express service on the system. This is something I wish the general public was made to understand, because many clearly don't.


----------



## Suburbanist

Will they use Metrolink tracks? I don't think so. California doesn't own Metrolink network, does it?

I also think the shared traffic with CAltrain is the biggest mistake of the project. It will limit the ability to run non-stop trains from SF to LAX that wouldn't stop in San Jose. And if Caltrain increases traffic of its own trains, it would force most high-speed trains to also speed in Palo Alto


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> Will they use Metrolink tracks? I don't think so. California doesn't own Metrolink network, does it?
> 
> I also think the shared traffic with CAltrain is the biggest mistake of the project. It will limit the ability to run non-stop trains from SF to LAX that wouldn't stop in San Jose. And if Caltrain increases traffic of its own trains, it would force most high-speed trains to also speed in Palo Alto


Yes, they have been indicating in all of their planning documents that they are planning to coordinate with MetroLink and CalTrain. This is why both agencies are getting some of the funds distributed to them to upgrade (electrify) their systems.

I think MetroLink is a consortium of various public agencies...

Someone else would have to speak to what frequencies could be achieved, but a direct SF-LA service sounds like a bit much?


----------



## GodIsNotGreat

*High speed rail in the central valley - Improvements along the alignment*

Description of the video:

_This narrated educational video is part of high-speed rail's ongoing education and community outreach efforts that help explain how the program will impact and improve communities along the alignment. The video provides a conceptual overview of how the high-speed rail program will be built and revitalize downtown Fresno. It also highlights how the high-speed rail system will complement major attractions in the Fresno area, stimulate development and help lead to the reduction in blight along the system._


----------



## Sunfuns

They are talking about under 3 h from SF to LA. I find it hard to believe given the length of the route and several sections shared with commuter trains. 4 h with 2-3 intermediate stops would already be pretty fast.


----------



## Nexis

Sunfuns said:


> They are talking about under 3 h from SF to LA. I find it hard to believe given the length of the route and several sections shared with commuter trains. 4 h with 2-3 intermediate stops would already be pretty fast.


It would be 4 tracked in the areas shared with commuter trains...


----------



## Basincreek

Eventually it will be four tracked. NIMBY's in Palo Alto have forced them to use shared tracks at least initially because they don't want any property takes to widen the right of way. It will ultimately be pointless because once the trains start running it will be obvious they need to expand and it will happen regardless. The shared track option was only pushed by the NIMBY's in the hope it would lead to the entire project being canceled (which is what they really want).

And there will be a Tulare station just east of Hanford. It will be an elevated station out in what is now an open field. The station will serve the roughly 300,000 residents of the area. The Fresno station will not be where the Amtrak station is located. It is instead where the abandoned Southern Pacific station was located. The Bakersfield station is elevated so it can be right next to the existing Amtrak station.


----------



## Sunfuns

What do you mean by elevated? On a viaduct? Why would that be necessary in the open fields near Hanford?


----------



## Basincreek

It is elevated to avoid having to grade separate numerous cross streets in the area. It is only the station location that is an open field.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Basincreek said:


> Eventually it will be four tracked. NIMBY's in Palo Alto have forced them to use shared tracks at least initially because they don't want any property takes to widen the right of way. It will ultimately be pointless because once the trains start running it will be obvious they need to expand and it will happen regardless. The shared track option was only pushed by the NIMBY's in the hope it would lead to the entire project being canceled (which is what they really want).
> 
> And there will be a Tulare station just east of Hanford. It will be an elevated station out in what is now an open field. The station will serve the roughly 300,000 residents of the area. The Fresno station will not be where the Amtrak station is located. It is instead where the abandoned Southern Pacific station was located. The Bakersfield station is elevated so it can be right next to the existing Amtrak station.


Is quadrupling, upgradation and electrification of existing ROWs a more practical way to improve passenger rail and specifically high speed passenger rail in the USA? Space is often available in the US especially in the Midwest, Pacific coast Southeast and Texas. The NEC is 4 track in areas. Won't it be reasonable to 4 track it all the way from DC to Boston with some realignments to avoid sharp curves?


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya easier said than done, a lot of those areas are in the poor/richer parts of southern New York and Connecticut so that is the first problem the PR fiasco. the Second problem is the price of doing business in those parts is insane. Also The track is quite literally next to I-95 in some parts, and Connecticut doesn't have the money to repair the tracks.


----------



## G5man

When it comes to California, there has been no agreements on route choices.

1) Altamont or Pacheco has been a debate that still goes on today. Pacheco simply doesn't serve Central Valley cities north of Merced as well. The only real purpose is to prevent a train split to San Jose. Otherwise, a bridge would be built over Dumbarton for HSR, trenched and a 220 mph route over Altamont would be built and provide commuter benefits and get to Sacramento easier and faster. 
2) Some have said to go via Palmdale vs Tejon Pass. Would it be better to go via Antelope Valley and connect Palmdale to a line or would it be better to skip 500k people to save time on the express trip? I don't know. 

San Francisco-San Jose: Great growth for Caltrain but NIMBYs don't want ROW takes
Los Angeles-Burbank and beyond, well haven't seen much yet. I'd put some more effort there now with Union Station run through and improve the existing service for future HSR. Speed ups would help the Surfliner and commuter trains and if they could be electrified but that is a big wish list.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Regarding the whole 4-track argument, and listening carefully from both sides; I think it can work in the short-medium term. The Blended Approach could renovate the existing Caltran corridor by straightening curves, eliminating grade crossings, electrification etc so that the trains can approach semi-HSR speeds (around 110-125mph). Conflict with the faster and fewer-stopping CHSR trains can be solved with a limited four-track configuration at suburban "overtaking" stations where Caltran services wait on platform sidings while CHSR trains pass by them at speed. It is a system that is widely implemented around the world, and can be found on almost all French, Japanese, Chinese, and Taiwanese HSR networks. 

Under these conditions, the only consequence that the Blended Approach will have is slightly reduced train frequency. Limiting factors of the system will be the acceleration of the rolling stock, and the speed disparity between local and express services. However, if the Blended Approach is executed properly, these limitations should only surface if CHSR and Caltran intend to offer more than 4 services per hour per direction. 

Under these circumstances, the physical limitations of the Blended Approach can easily be remediated by intensive crew training and rigorous service punctuality (within 5 min). I personally think a 4-track system in a dense urban region is excessive and unnecessary, but so long as it is implemented carefully, I think it can actually work pretty well.


----------



## NicSA

^^ Tokaido Shinkansen (busiest high speed train line in the world) only has 2 tracks, so I'm sure it will work just fine in California. There are 3 classes of service - Kodama (the slowest, stops at every station), Hikari (middle) and Nozomi (fastest). So at some stations the Kodama trains wait while the Hikari and Nozomi trains pass. Of course, being Japan, this is timed so well that you don't even notice it.


----------



## MarcVD

NicSA;116255249Of course said:


> And certainly better than the 5 minutes that the previous poster equates with rigorous service punctuality. If this is the mentality that prevails on
> American rails, there is no wonder why Amtrak punctuality sucks.


----------



## phoenixboi08

NicSA said:


> ^^ Tokaido Shinkansen (busiest high speed train line in the world) only has 2 tracks, so I'm sure it will work just fine in California. There are 3 classes of service - Kodama (the slowest, stops at every station), Hikari (middle) and Nozomi (fastest). So at some stations the Kodama trains wait while the Hikari and Nozomi trains pass. Of course, being Japan, this is timed so well that you don't even notice it.


Wait, I thought the Shinkansen was a separate PDL line? Or, do you simply mean that they operate the same general type of rolling stock (that is, HSR), but with different service patterns.

I think we can see that on this system. I like this model a bit more: one agency owning the infrastructure and leasing it out to the (lowest) bidder to provide service. At least, I hope the bidding process operates this way (similarly to the way TfL handles their services).


----------



## Smooth Indian

Silver Swordsman said:


> Regarding the whole 4-track argument, and listening carefully from both sides; I think it can work in the short-medium term. The Blended Approach could renovate the existing Caltran corridor by straightening curves, eliminating grade crossings, electrification etc so that the trains can approach semi-HSR speeds (around 110-125mph). Conflict with the faster and fewer-stopping CHSR trains can be solved with a limited four-track configuration at suburban "overtaking" stations where Caltran services wait on platform sidings while CHSR trains pass by them at speed. It is a system that is widely implemented around the world, and can be found on almost all French, Japanese, Chinese, and Taiwanese HSR networks.
> 
> Under these conditions, the only consequence that the Blended Approach will have is slightly reduced train frequency. Limiting factors of the system will be the acceleration of the rolling stock, and the speed disparity between local and express services. However, if the Blended Approach is executed properly, these limitations should only surface if CHSR and Caltran intend to offer more than 4 services per hour per direction.
> 
> Under these circumstances, the physical limitations of the Blended Approach can easily be remediated by intensive crew training and rigorous service punctuality (within 5 min). I personally think a 4-track system in a dense urban region is excessive and unnecessary, but so long as it is implemented carefully, I think it can actually work pretty well.





Tower Dude said:


> Ya easier said than done, a lot of those areas are in the poor/richer parts of southern New York and Connecticut so that is the first problem the PR fiasco. the Second problem is the price of doing business in those parts is insane. Also The track is quite literally next to I-95 in some parts, and Connecticut doesn't have the money to repair the tracks.





NicSA said:


> ^^ Tokaido Shinkansen (busiest high speed train line in the world) only has 2 tracks, so I'm sure it will work just fine in California. There are 3 classes of service - Kodama (the slowest, stops at every station), Hikari (middle) and Nozomi (fastest). So at some stations the Kodama trains wait while the Hikari and Nozomi trains pass. Of course, being Japan, this is timed so well that you don't even notice it.


let me clear things. When I mean quadruple it one pair of tracks catering to commuter, regional and freight trains. The other pair AKA express/HSR tracks cater to high speed trains and some faster rapid regional trains like Kodoma express of Japan/Javelin trains go UK. The express lines can run between the slow lines as in NEC or alongside the slow lines (as seen in some CAHSR renderings). If a particular section is too curvy then the express tracks can bypass this alignment and rejoin further OR the entire new straighter aligment of 4 tracks can be made to bypass that section. Exchange of trains from express tracks to slow tracks can happen at specific points along the route in a manner not to interrupt the running on the express/HSR tracks. So during down time (night time/weekends when maintenance is carried out the HSR trains can be diverted to slow tracks allowing for late night or red-eye services if needed


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Suburbanist said:


> Will they use Metrolink tracks? I don't think so. California doesn't own Metrolink network, does it?
> 
> I also think the shared traffic with CAltrain is the biggest mistake of the project. It will limit the ability to run non-stop trains from SF to LAX that wouldn't stop in San Jose. And if Caltrain increases traffic of its own trains, it would force most high-speed trains to also speed in Palo Alto


San Jose, strictly speaking, has more population than SF. Why wouldn't they want to stop there? Anyway, the plan will create enough sidings and other mechanisms for high speed trains to pass slower commuter trains. I see no reason an HSR train couldn't pass right through San Jose while a CalTrain is in the station.

By the way, you do know that CalTrain goes all the way to Gilroy and SJ isn't the end of the line, right?


----------



## aquaticko

So...American HSR is actually happening? Here's to hoping that no one magically finds yet another reason to try to shut it down.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Thought, would it be that difficult to build a PDL over the existing ROW in the Northeast Corridor? In other words, essentially accommodating a viaduct over the existing tracks. 

They might have to push some of the center tracks out, but it would be simpler than trying to build two tracks on the shoulders of the ROW, no? 

Maybe it's not possible, but I was curious if it would be.


----------



## Don31

phoenixboi08 said:


> Thought, would it be that difficult to build a PDL over the existing ROW in the Northeast Corridor? In other words, essentially accommodating a viaduct over the existing tracks.
> 
> They might have to push some of the center tracks out, but it would be simpler than trying to build two tracks on the shoulders of the ROW, no?
> 
> Maybe it's not possible, but I was curious if it would be.


My opinion? Pretty much impossible. Not really practical from a cost perspective, and it would be an aesthetic nightmare too. And there would be tremendous pushback from towns along the route......


----------



## phoenixboi08

Don31 said:


> My opinion? Pretty much impossible. Not really practical from a cost perspective, and it would be an aesthetic nightmare too. And there would be tremendous pushback from towns along the route......


I'm just scratching my head now that I'm looking at it daily and wondering how on earth Amtrak is thinking of doing it. It would be one thing without all the commuter services, but it seems like they'll just end up doing intense realignments in those sections that are less than straight? Adding two additional tracks just seems like a no-no from a cost perspective (not to mention the property abutting much of the corridor makes this option almost impossible).

I've noticed they're upgrading the part of the network in NJ at the moment, and that many of the ties have been replaced (as well as doing some work for new power sources).


----------



## Nexis

6 tracks isn't that needed south of Rahway , the only major issues on the NEC in New Jersey are... Elizabeth S-curve and Metropark Curves which need to be straighten , you also have 2 track expansion from South Elizabeth to North Elizabeth.


----------



## 612bv3

Road closure starts tomorrow for pre-construction. 

http://hsr.ca.gov/docs/Programs/Con...al_Construction_Road_Closure_Alert_082914.pdf


----------



## 1772

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/04/technology/maglev-washington-baltimore/



> *Maglev backers plan 15 minutes Washington-Baltimore trip*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A prototype of the Japanese maglev train. Japan is offering $5 billion in financing to build a maglev line between Washington and Baltimore._
> 
> That's what backers of the idea -- including the government of Japan -- promise. And they're betting $5 billion that it can really happen.
> 
> In a filing with regulators in Maryland, proponents say the train would use magnets to levitate the train -- a system known as "maglev" -- and allow speeds faster than any traditional rail
> 
> The $5 billion is a down payment. Estimates range from $10 billion to $15 billion for a Washington to Baltimore maglev line.
> 
> Japan, which has just started its plans to build a maglev line from Tokyo to Osaka, hopes that by providing the financing it will spur demand for its technology in the United States. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been pushing his country's maglev technology in meetings with U.S. political and business leaders.
> 
> The backers of the Washington-Baltimore line, The Northeast Maglev, hope to eventually extend the line the full 225 miles from Washington to New York City. Some estimates put the cost of the New York to Washington line at far more than $100 billion.
> 
> Some high-speed rail proponents in the United States are critical of maglev proposals, arguing the money could be better spent on lower-cost services using traditional tracks.
> 
> ...


----------



## 00Zy99

612bv3 said:


> Road closure starts tomorrow for pre-construction.
> 
> http://hsr.ca.gov/docs/Programs/Con...al_Construction_Road_Closure_Alert_082914.pdf


Holy shit!

And here we go!!!!!!!!

:banana::banana::banana::banana::cheers:


----------



## Donegal

Great! :banana:


----------



## CNB30




----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...targets-californian-high-speed-contracts.html
> 
> *East Japan Railway targets Californian high speed contracts*
> 08 Sep 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: JR East is to lead a Japanese consortium in bidding for railway systems contracts for the Los Angeles – San Francisco high speed line now being developed by the California High Speed Rail Authority.
> 
> JR East announced in Tokyo that it expects to work in partnership with six other firms in an effort to export Japanese Shinkansen technology to the USA. While the prime focus if the consortium would be rolling stock, JR East is also understood to be targeting the supply of signalling equipment. The group also reportedly believes that Japan’s experience of building and operating high speed lines through areas prone to seismic activity could be attractive to CHSRA
> 
> ...


----------



## Suburbanist

CAHSR should adopt ECTS-2 with deployability of ETCS-3 as its signaling system.

It is the only feasible way they can avoid severe issues with vendor lock-in.


----------



## Silly_Walks

I'd prefer they go with ETCS


----------



## krnboy1009

I wonder if its possible to have low level platform HS trains.

California has all low level platforms and on some sections they will have to share stations with Caltrain, a commuter rail in Bay Area.


----------



## IHK

i think Maglev would be the better option.


----------



## MarcVD

Suburbanist said:


> CAHSR should adopt ECTS-2 with deployability of ETCS-3 as its signaling system.
> 
> It is the only feasible way they can avoid severe issues with vendor lock-in.


As far as I know, the association of american railroads also developped their
own version, that will be deployed nation-wide over there (I did not follow this
PTC story very closely, though). Why would this be a vendor lock-in ?


----------



## Gusiluz

krnboy1009 said:


> I wonder if its possible to have low level platform HS trains.
> 
> California has all low level platforms and on some sections they will have to share stations with Caltrain, a commuter rail in Bay Area.


If you want low-floor trains on the platforms that purchase Talgo AVRIL: 760 mm on the rail. 
When tested trains (same height as the AVRIL) in 1988 in the Northeast Corridor (120 mm) had to put up two steps to the platform from the train.


----------



## Smooth Indian

krnboy1009 said:


> I wonder if its possible to have low level platform HS trains.
> 
> California has all low level platforms and on some sections they will have to share stations with Caltrain, a commuter rail in Bay Area.


I thought Caltrain was going to move to dual-level boarding EMU trains. The HSR rakes can have retractable footboards/steps for low-level boarding as in Eurostar and Velaro trainsets.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Smooth Indian said:


> I thought Caltrain was going to move to dual-level boarding EMU trains. The HSR rakes can have retractable footboards/steps for low-level boarding as in Eurostar and Velaro trainsets.


Quite true. However, there seems to be a very small (but influential insomuch as there are few other knowledgeable voices) cabal of commenters on transit blogs that want to push low or mid-level boarding even for HSR trainsets, presumably because the existing (European) models exist and will presumably save money. The retractable steps you mention are discounted by them as being "unreliable" "prone to breakage" and the like.


----------



## Gusiluz

I imagine it will also be necessary to have dual trains able to run on electrified routes and pathways that are not. 
The Talgo AVRIL may also have hybrid version, as the Spanish 730 series or VIP train to King Abdullah of Saudi, part of delivery Haramain.

A greeting, and sorry for my bad English


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sunfuns said:


> My understanding is that when Madera-Bakersfield section is finished it will be used by the current Amtrak trains (SF-Bakersfield). There may be more of them and there will certainly be significant time improvements however the real high speed trains will only appear when this section is connected to either SF or LA. Not known yet which connection is likely to happen first.



I guess it all depends on how quickly they electricity Caltrain/Metrolink as well as complete Transbay/Union Station improvements. 

From what I've gathered in the business plan, they're hoping to borrow over operating costs once the IOS is completed to finish the vast majority of the ends as well as expand to Sacramento and San Diego. 

Depending upon how many new train sets Amtrak orders for the Acela, they may be able to shuffle some of the current (or even newer) ones to CA. That's what I'm wondering, since CAHSRA and Amtrak seem to have a good working relationship (i.e. They communicate with one another).


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Plans for a joint order have been abandoned. 
Suddenly have realized that need very different trains: Amtrak needed 28 trains for 257 km / h (after parking the previous plans for a new line) and CaHSRA need 15 to 350 km / h.
In addition, Amtrak has more haste.
....................................................
Los planes de un pedido conjunto han sido abandonados.
De pronto se han dado cuenta de que necesitan trenes muy distintos: Amtrak necesita trenes 28 trenes para 257 km/h (tras aparcar los anteriores planes de una nueva línea) y CaHSRA necesita 15 para 350 km/h.
Además, Amtrak tiene más prisa.


----------



## Sunfuns

phoenixboi08 said:


> I guess it all depends on how quickly they electricity Caltrain/Metrolink as well as complete Transbay/Union Station improvements.


Caltrain electrification is scheduled to be finished in 2019 so before Merced-Bakersfield HS line section however the gap between those two lines would still be ca 130 miles. Before that section is built there is no way for trains running between Bakersfield and Madera to use Caltrain tracks.


----------



## Blocked ID

Does anyone know anything recent about the SESHR? The latest update on the official website is almost a year old..


----------



## phoenixboi08

Gusiluz said:


> ^^ Plans for a joint order have been abandoned.
> Suddenly have realized that need very different trains: Amtrak needed 28 trains for 257 km / h (after parking the previous plans for a new line) and CaHSRA need 15 to 350 km / h.
> In addition, Amtrak has more haste.
> ....................................................
> Los planes de un pedido conjunto han sido abandonados.
> De pronto se han dado cuenta de que necesitan trenes muy distintos: Amtrak necesita trenes 28 trenes para 257 km/h (tras aparcar los anteriores planes de una nueva línea) y CaHSRA necesita 15 para 350 km/h.
> Además, Amtrak tiene más prisa.


No, I'm not talking about the joint-order. I'm talking about the actual Acela transits, which will be totally replaced by 2020. I'm just curious if they can shift any of those locomotives (and cars) to fulfill service on this line in the interim (e.g. until formal bidding commences for servicing LA-SF).



Sunfuns said:


> Caltrain electrification is scheduled to be finished in 2019 so before Merced-Bakersfield HS line section however the gap between those two lines would still be ca 130 miles. Before that section is built there is no way for trains running between Bakersfield and Madera to use Caltrain tracks.


The current Amtrak service terminates in Oakland (I believe it runs east to Stockton, then continues South), which I was under the impression would be able to make use of the IOS (utilization of the PDL from Merced to Bakersfield for significant time savings). I also thought this was why they were accelerating the Palmdale section. In other words, they'll continue to serve SF via Oakland until the full-build out is complete.











It just feels like it's a bit more pressing to handle things in LA country so that they can at least begin service on the IOS, rather than focusing primarily on the Peninsula. That's what I was trying to address.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ OK now I understand. 
In this blog you have information that you can understand much better than me. 
*Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog*
I hope you tell us, thanks! 

A greeting
..............................
OK ahora te entiendo.
En este blog tienes información que podrás entender mucho mejor que yo.
Espero que nos lo cuentes, gracias!

Un saludo


----------



## Sunfuns

What seems now reasonably likely is that stretch from Merced to Bakersfield gets built. That will shave off an hour or two for Oakland-Bakersfield Amtrak service. What if anything happens after that is much less clear. 

I agree that the Southern end is of higher priority, but on the other hand it's likely to be more expensive. I've heard of calls for some massive tunnelling there.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Gusiluz said:


> ^^ OK now I understand.
> In this blog you have information that you can understand much better than me.
> *Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog*
> I hope you tell us, thanks!
> 
> A greeting
> ..............................
> OK ahora te entiendo.
> En este blog tienes información que podrás entender mucho mejor que yo.
> Espero que nos lo cuentes, gracias!
> 
> Un saludo


Thanks for that, I'm not at all knowledgeable about the compatibility (design/engineering considerations) but it seems like a good source.



Sunfuns said:


> What seems now reasonably likely is that stretch from Merced to Bakersfield gets built. That will shave off an hour or two for Oakland-Bakersfield Amtrak service. What if anything happens after that is much less clear.
> 
> I agree that the Southern end is of higher priority, but on the other hand it's likely to be more expensive. I've heard of calls for some massive tunnelling there.


Yeah, I haven't heard anything else about that alternative route proposal(s).
It does seem a bit silly, especially since it feels like it's Santa Clarita wants to be bypassed... I haven't heard enough yet about the system-wide benefits of the tunneling they're calling for in that alternative.


----------



## grant1simons2

They're going to need to make a Nevada connection much bigger once the gigafactories get up and running


----------



## Tower Dude

Some News on the House's Passenger Rail Reform and Investment act, and how it might be bringing some changes to the NEC soon. 
http://skift.com/2014/09/20/amtrak-funding-reauthorization-bill-still-keeps-high-speed-rail-plans-on-track/


> Amtrak is preparing to receive less funding from Congress for new construction, but that isn’t deterring plans for high-speed rail service along the northeast corridor in the future.
> The bill provides the option to tap into the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, *which can authorize up to $35 billion in loans, and improve partnerships with states to advance large infrastructure projects.*
> “*The bill would help advance some near-term capital projects (bridges, tunnels, catenary)* that would improve the corridor, and are identified as needed early investments in Amtrak’s much larger, much longer-term high speed rail vision documents,” Billimoria said.


----------



## 612bv3

612bv3 said:


> Road closure starts tomorrow for pre-construction.
> 
> http://hsr.ca.gov/docs/Programs/Con...al_Construction_Road_Closure_Alert_082914.pdf



Today the Authority’s design-build contractor Tutor-Perini/Zachry/Parsons and crew started demolition work at the old Del Monte plant in downtown #Fresno. The plant, which has been vacant for years and was damaged by fire in the spring, will take several by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


Today the Authority’s design-build contractor Tutor-Perini/Zachry/Parsons and crew started demolition work at the old Del Monte plant in downtown #Fresno. The plant, which has been vacant for years and was damaged by fire in the spring, will take several by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ins-high-speed-rolling-stock-procurement.html
> 
> *California begins high speed rolling stock procurement*
> 03 Oct 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Californian high speed rail programme envisages provision of a 'one seat ride' between Los Angeles and San Francisco by 2028 within a budget of $68bn_
> 
> USA: Expressions of interest are to be submitted to the California High Speed Rail Authority by October 22 from potential suppliers of high speed trainsets for the planned 836 km network that would link the San Francisco Bay Area with the Los Angeles basin by 2028.
> 
> Issuing its call for initial responses from the supply industry ahead of a formal request for proposals, CHSRA said on October 2 that it hoped to ‘open up conversations with high speed train manufacturers’. Respondents are also expected to outline how they would provide 30 years of maintenance and spares, including proposals for a rolling stock maintenance facility to be located on land in the Central Valley which CHSRA would purchase and prepare
> 
> ...


----------



## desertpunk

*California Rail Project Pursues Deal With Las Vegas Train *



> A private train intended to whisk Southern Californians to Las Vegas casinos and resorts could boost the proposed government-owned high-speed rail connection between Los Angeles and San Francisco, which has lost support as cost estimates swelled.
> 
> A public partnership with private operators would help build segments of the system, Dan Richard, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said in an interview. “We are not going to be a government-run railroad,” Richard said. “Our business model is that the private sector will come in and bid for the right to operate on our system.”
> 
> [...]
> 
> Authority officials want to cooperate with DesertXpress Enterprises LLC to make it happen. The company, operating as XpressWest, plans a 150 mph train that would connect Palmdale, about 70 miles north of Los Angeles, with Las Vegas, Chief Executive Officer Tony Marnell said in a telephone interview.
> 
> The Las Vegas company originally planned for its route to end in Victorville, about 50 miles east of Palmdale. It added a Victorville-to-Palmdale segment after the High-Speed Rail Authority routed its train through the city, he said. The Las Vegas train would switch to public tracks in Palmdale.
> 
> [...]


----------



## phoenixboi08

desertpunk said:


> *California Rail Project Pursues Deal With Las Vegas Train *


That article doesn't wash. I believe what they're reporting is that CAHSRA is interested in having XpressWest as an operator (probably of service to Las Vegas at this point, since it's unclear they'd want - or Xpress West could even handle - a single operator for the entire system), which comes through in the latter half of the article. Fine.

However, I don't know why they're painting the picture in the first half (by linking general, non-related statements by Dan Richards) that a "private" entity is going to help finance the California project, when 1) they're clearly not (as Xpress West has no money to invest in anything) and 2) they're in no position to even build their own link at the moment...

If anything, it's the other way around: being involved in the CA system will help expedite the Xpress West link.

This is why people don't understand how the system is being financed to begin with. 

If they have a problem with a "government owned system" (which, in all honesty, it really isn't), fine, but to go on and on about Xpress West, Texas Central, etc like they're perfect alternatives is horribly hypocritical. hno:


----------



## Gusiluz

"The design would be based on a ‘service-proven trainset in use in commercial high speed service at at least 300 km/h for a minimum of five years’. A maximum train length of 205 m is specified, with a minimum of 450 seats in first and business classes with seat pitches of 1 067 mm and 991 mm respectively. Static axleloads should not exceed 17 tonnes"


dimlys1994 said:


> From Railway Gazette:
> *California begins high speed rolling stock procurement*


And I add: it must have a width of 3.2 / 3.4 meters.

These are the ones that meet:
Kawasaki. Hitachi. Nippon Sharyo & Kinki Sharyo *N700* width 3.380 300 km/h 546 seats 205 meters 370 tonnes
Siemens *Velaro CN* (CRH3C) width 3.200 350 km/h 556/600 seats 200 meters 447 tonnes

And these that no:
Hyundai Rotem KTX Sancheon II (since 2010) 305 km/h width 2.970 *363* seats 201 meters 434 tonnes
Talgo/Bombardier T350 (102 series) width 2.942 *363* seats 200 meters 322 tonnes
CSR Sifang CRH2C width 3.380 m 610 seats 201 meters 371 tonnes (rather than potential *patent issues* with Kawasaki)
CSR Sifang CRH380A (since *2010*) width 3.380 579 seats 203 meters 388 tonnes
Kawasaki-Hitachi E5 (since *2011*) width 3.350 731 seats 253 meters 454 tonnes
Alstom AGV (ETR 575 since *2012*) width 2.985 460 seats 200 meters 401 tonnes
Bombardier Zefiro 380 ( CRH380D since *2014*) width 3.400 495 seats 215 meters 462 tonnes
Bombardier V300 Zefiro (ETR 1000. desde *2015*) 447/485 seats 202 meters 500 tonnes
CAF Oaris (*on test*) 430 seats 202 meters
AnsaldoBreda ETR 500 656 seats 328 meters 576 tonnes (It is 2000, ruled for *many reasons*)
Alstom Duplex (*two floors*) width 2.900 509/560 seats 200 meters 390 tonnes


----------



## bluemeansgo

M-NL said:


> The exact same thing happened in France when they started operating the LGVs. In Japan domestic flights are mainly limited to the longest domestic routes, but Shinkansen has the major share. In Germany there is less effect, because of the lower speeds on the NBSs, coupled to more stops.
> But the obvious moral of the story: provide a good alternative and people will use it.


Shinkansen does move a lot of people, but passengers have been declining in the last few years since LCCs have infiltrated Japan. Now, airlines like Peach and Jetstar are taking away some O&D traffic to some places. They run on a RyanAir/EasyJet kind of model. 

Shinkansen is seen as as a premium way to travel, better than flying. It is almost never discounted. Just like other modes of transportation, short distance travellers on Shinkansen are penalized.. but for the kind of trips most people take, hovers between 26 - 30¥ / km. 



Code:


From 	to	distance	[B]price (¥)[/B]	¥/km
Fukuoka	Aomori	1888	[B]35660[/B]	19
Tokyo	Fukuoka	1175	[B]22950[/B]	20
Tokyo	Aomori	713	[B]17350[/B]	24
Osaka	Fukuoka	622	[B]15310[/B]	25
Tokyo	Osaka	552	[B]14450[/B]	26
Tokyo	Nagoya	366	[B]11090[/B]	30
Tokyo	Shizuoka	180	 [B]6350[/B]	35
Osaka	Okayama	180	 [B]6020[/B]	33
Osaka	Kyoto	39	 [B]3020[/B]	77

_¥1 ~= $0.01. So you can think of those prices as being in pennies._

In addition, Japan have also removed some of the more expensive highway tolls, making driving slightly more attractive.

For California, that would translate to one-way fares of approximately:



Code:


SF - LA 	$150 @ ~0.25/km
SF - BF	$125 @ ~0.28/km
SF - FR	$100 @ ~0.32/km
LA - BF	 $50 @ ~0.34/km
SF - SJ	 $35 @ ~0.40/km

At those prices, do you guys think the service will be popular? NOTE: This is directly taking the Japanese pricing structure, which essentially has NO discounts built in and no "last-minute-surcharges" either.

These prices seem directly in line with regular price airline tickets. There is obviously a discount for round-trip tickets. Do these prices pretty much jive with what you all expect to see?


----------



## bluemeansgo

Gusiluz said:


> "The design would be based on a ‘service-proven trainset in use in commercial high speed service at at least 300 km/h for a minimum of five years’. A maximum train length of 205 m is specified, with a minimum of 450 seats in first and business classes with seat pitches of 1 067 mm and 991 mm respectively. Static axleloads should not exceed 17 tonnes"
> 
> 
> And I add: it must have a width of 3.2 / 3.4 meters.
> 
> These are the ones that meet:
> Kawasaki. Hitachi. Nippon Sharyo & Kinki Sharyo *N700* width 3.380 300 km/h 546 seats 205 meters 370 tonnes
> Siemens *Velaro CN* (CRH3C) width 3.200 350 km/h 556/600 seats 200 meters 447 tonnes


It seems like they're leaning towards Japanese trains. Note, it isn't always about top speed. If I'm not mistaken, the Multiple EMU setup of the N700 makes it one of the fastest to accelerate to top speed.

Also, its max speed is 270km/h on the original line with min. 2500m curve radius. 
On newer sections with 4000m curve radius, it is limited to 300km/h.

California doesn't have as strict noise pollution laws, fewer tunnels, and fewer earthquakes... meaning it would likely be able to travel much faster in California than in Japan.

Edit: According to this article, max speed would be up to 322km/h for the N700: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ay-wants-bullet-train-line-for-texas-by-2021/


----------



## Gusiluz

bluemeansgo said:


> Shinkansen does move a lot of people, but passengers have been declining in the last few years since LCCs have infiltrated Japan. Now, airlines like Peach and Jetstar are taking away some O&D traffic to some places. They run on a RyanAir/EasyJet kind of model.
> ...


 
The figures indicate that the number of travelers has not fallen in Japan. 

Billion passenger km:
2000 71,154 
2001 72,317 
2002 71,538 
2003 73,006 
2004 74,461 
2005 77,908 
2006 79,439 
2007 82,826 
2008 81,660 
2009 76,044 
2010 77,431 
2011 81,420 
2012 86,000 

Even taking into account tsunami and subsequent blackout of electricity of nuclear origin.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Gusiluz said:


> The figures indicate that the number of travelers has not fallen in Japan.
> 
> Billion passenger km:
> 2000 71,154
> 2001 72,317
> 2002 71,538
> 2003 73,006
> 2004 74,461
> 2005 77,908
> 2006 79,439
> 2007 82,826
> 2008 81,660
> 2009 76,044
> 2010 77,431
> 2011 81,420
> 2012 86,000
> 
> Even taking into account tsunami and subsequent blackout of electricity of nuclear origin.


I can't find the source, but I understand that peak pax has declined slightly from 2007. Of course, population of Japan is also declining, so I guess it's all how you interpret the numbers.

A few new lines are coming online in the next few years, so I'm sure we'll see record numbers again, anyhow.


----------



## elekto

Im glad Japan gets the California HSR


----------



## Gusiluz

bluemeansgo said:


> It seems like they're leaning towards Japanese trains. Note, it isn't always about top speed. If I'm not mistaken, the Multiple EMU setup of the N700 makes it one of the fastest to accelerate to top speed.
> 
> Also, its max speed is 270km/h on the original line with min. 2500m curve radius.
> On newer sections with 4000m curve radius, it is limited to 300km/h.
> 
> California doesn't have as strict noise pollution laws, fewer tunnels, and fewer earthquakes... meaning it would likely be able to travel much faster in California than in Japan.
> 
> Edit: According to this article, max speed would be up to 322km/h for the N700: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201...texas-by-2021/


From my notes:
An S-103 Velaro train accelerates from 0 to 100 in 50 seconds and reaches a speed of 320 km / h in 6 minutes and 20 seconds covering about 20 km. On the other hand, runs 6,729 m to stop traveling at 350 km / h, 4,690 (300), 3,130 (250) and 1,940 (200 km / h). 
The Shinkansen N700 reaches 270 km / h in 3 minutes and walking 11.1 km to reach 300 km / h.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Thanks for that Gusiluz. That's quite a difference in acceleration. Likely due to the massive difference in weight for the trains.

I did some more digging as well. Japan is advertising a max speed US of 300km/h for the N-700i-I (I assume the "I" is for International).
http://www.usjhsr.com/usjhsr/N700-I_Bullet.html

A few comparisons with ICE3 and TGV.
http://www.japantransport.com/seminar/JRCENTRAL.pdf

It seems the main benefits of the N700 are its weight and acceleration. Considering Japan is REALLY pushing to Export its train system, I think they will likely be offering as good a price for a better product. Japan has only successfully exported its trains to Taiwan, and the Shinkansen is the pride of Japan. They have also exported E2-1000 trainsets to China, along with a technology transfer (CRH-2 trains), but Japan is looking at exporting the core of the fleet, the N700, to the USA.

Personally, I would have loved to see the E5 series being exported, but it's not as tried and true as the N700, starting revenue service only in 2011. 

With the Japanese economy the way it is, and Japan's Shinkansen network nearing build-out of the most feasible corridors, they really have to look outside the country to keep the industry building new trains.

The USA would be a HUGE feather in their cap to sell to places like India and Vietnam.


----------



## Gusiluz

bluemeansgo said:


> I can't find the source, but I understand that peak pax has declined slightly from 2007. Of course, population of Japan is also declining, so I guess it's all how you interpret the numbers.
> 
> A few new lines are coming online in the next few years, so I'm sure we'll see record numbers again, anyhow.


The source is the UIC until 2009 and then the annual reports of the companies themselves, which coincide with the UIC in previous years. In 2012 no data for Kyushu, so I added them last year.
The numbers in detail by companies:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

Greetings and sorry for my bad English


----------



## Gusiluz

In the thread of this in Spanish have asked for the price of the train, so I will put it here. 
The Velaro CN: 22.7 / 20.5 M €, and N700 of 8 cars: 29.6 M € (the conversion was made at the time the contract). 
Velaro prices are in manufacturing CNR Tangshan (China), in Germany USA cost more. 

...................
They also want the Talgo AVRIL offered. Well, it would offer the 112 series with Bombardier (which has no train to present) but with wide as the prototype AVRIL G3. I understand that the "service-proven trainset" has to do with the width of the box.


----------



## M-NL

This makes the N700 look really expensive, which it isn't when you compare it to the following examples:
Velaro D: € 33,3M (500M for 15 sets)
Eurostar E320: € 60M per set (€ 600M for 10 sets)
11-car AGV (NTV): € 26M (€ 650M for 25 sets)

Bombardier does have a suitable train: There are several Zefiro variants in test and operation, both in normal and wide body.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Yeah, well. The Eurostar e320 includes 10 years of maintenance, and the Velaro D have 4 itension and 6 backup systems for 4 countries (LZB, PZB, TBL, TVM, KVB and ATB). 
Eventually there will be 17 trains because ICE 3M is out by an accident at a level crossing, and one free for the delay in delivery.
...........................
Sí, bueno. El Eurostar e320 incluye 10 años de mantenimiento, y el Velaro D es cuatritension y con 6 sistemas de respaldo de 4 países (LZB, PZB, TBL, TVM, ATB y KVB). 
Al final serán 17 trenes porque un ICE 3M está de baja por un accidente en un paso a nivel, y otro gratis por el retraso en la entrega.


----------



## bluemeansgo

M-NL said:


> This makes the N700 look really expensive, which it isn't when you compare it to the following examples:
> Velaro D: € 33,3M (500M for 15 sets)
> Eurostar E320: € 60M per set (€ 600M for 10 sets)
> 11-car AGV (NTV): € 26M (€ 650M for 25 sets)
> 
> Bombardier does have a suitable train: There are several Zefiro variants in test and operation, both in normal and wide body.


Has anyone done a like-for-like comparison? 

What's the difference between the Velaro CN and D. The CN is the China-made variant, I assume?

Buying high speed trainsets is buying into a system. When will we know which companies have submitted bids?


----------



## Donegal

I've just watched McCarthy's declarations concerning the funding, accountability and about freezing federal funds for the train. hno:

I'm very excited about the California HSR project. Is it already decided that japanese companies will provide the train sets? I've read that they are gathering proposals:

Caltrain and High-Speed Rail Pursue Level Boarding, Compatible Platforms










Officials representing Caltrain and the California High-Speed Rail Authority recently announced that they’ll work closely together over the next several months to on a joint specification for train cars. The cars will allow both systems to board trains from high-level, shared platforms at the future SF Transbay Transit Center, Millbrae, and San Jose stations. The announcement was made last Monday at a meeting hosted by transit advocacy group Friends of Caltrain in Mountain View.

“Level boarding,” so called because passengers will be able to walk directly from platforms onto trains without any steps, maximizes passenger capacity by speeding up boarding. It’s crucial that these three stations have platforms that work for both Caltrain and CAHSR, to maximize flexibility and to reduce redundancy.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/10/07/caltrain-and-high-speed-rail-to-pursue-shared-level-platforms/


----------



## M-NL

bluemeansgo said:


> What's the difference between the Velaro CN and D. The CN is the China-made variant, I assume?


The country designation indicates the country the train was designed for. In case of the Velaro CN, some were made in Germany, but most in China. Differences include body width (CN is 300mm wider), multi-system capabilities and fitted train control systems.

An aspect that make the initial unit cost of Shinkansen more expensive is the emphasis on reliability (an ICE3 is nowhere near as reliable as a N700A or an E5). What really should count is total cost of ownership and those figures are really hard to come by.


----------



## M-NL

Donegal said:


> “Level boarding,” so called because passengers will be able to walk directly from platforms onto trains without any steps, maximizes passenger capacity by speeding up boarding. It’s crucial that these three stations have platforms that work for both Caltrain and CAHSR, to maximize flexibility and to reduce redundancy.


That's interesting considering Caltrain has indicated they want to procure a new fleet for 25 inches while CAHSR aims for 50 inches. Given the lack of a real standard I would have picked the same height as already used on the NEC. But then again, the nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them.


----------



## Gusiluz

Since both California, Texas, and Mexico are (or at least it seems) to build new infrastructure, then one would expect all parties to agree on the same standard for interoperable trains. They will have the same width, the same power alimentation and the same locking system (ERTMS, with ETCS 2), so we should agree on the issue of gauge and height of platform, it will not be easy if a cases the stations are outside the city and others use existing lines to run into the center of cities. 

As for the price, and knowing that it is impossible to know because the trains will be manufactured in USA and there a serie equal to another, we know the cost for the equivalent N700 of 8 cars: 29,6 M € (change of time), the Velaro CN 22.7 (the first serie) and 20,5 the last (manufactured in China), and Velaro D (multisystem for 4 countries, which greatly increase the price): 33.3. 
I think what will unbalance the price, the important thing, is the technology transfer, and to remember that when CaHSRA and Amtrak agreed to call a single fleet (later discarded option) wanted a fleet that was exportable, as Joseph Szabo, administrator of the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration).
.........................................
Puesto que tanto California, como Texas, como Méjico van (o al menos lo parece) a construir nuevas infraestructuras, lo lógico sería que se pusiesen de acuerdo en el mismo estándar para que los trenes sean interoperables. Van a tener el mismo ancho, la misma alimentación eléctrica y el mismo sistema de bloqueo (ERTMS, con ETCS 2), así que deberían ponerse de acuerdo en el tema del gálibo y la altura de andenes, lo que no será fácil si en unos casos las estaciones están a las afueras de la ciudad y en otros aprovechan las líneas actuales hasta el centro de las mismas.
En cuanto al precio, y sabiendo que es imposible saberlo porque los trenes se fabricarán en USA y no hay una serie igual a otra, tenemos que los N700 equivalentes de 8 coches costaron (al cambio de entonces) 29,6 M €, los Velaro CN 22,7 (la primera serie) y 20,5 la última (fabricada en China) y los Velaro D (multisistema para 4 países, lo que encarece mucho el precio): 33,3.
Pienso que lo que desequilibrará el precio serán las condiciones de transferencia de tecnología, y es que hay que recordar que cuando CaHSRA y Amtrak acordaron pedir una flota única (opción desechado posteriormente) querían una flota que fuese exportable según Joseph Szabo, administrador de la FRA (Federal Railroad Administration).


----------



## M-NL

ETCS in the USA? I seriously doubt that will ever happen. ETCS was designed by and for European railroads ("not invented here") and not adapted for the very different operation practices in the USA. That's not to say it could not be adapted for that purpose (NATCS?), but as freight railroads are still dominant and already implent or use their own PTC systems, it would likely remain a niche product.


----------



## elekto

@Gusiluz, Im not sure if americans will implement ERTMS because japanese safety system for N700 is the kind of ATC-NS, KS-ATC etc and ATC is very popular in the USA.

seems that for interoperability we will have to invent a North American RTMS in the future.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Document fresh off the web from the Technical Memorando of CaHSRA:

“The sole technology that is fully compliant with all of the CHSRA project and technical requirements is the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) European Train Control System (ETCS) Level 2 with Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway (GSM-R). ERTMS is service-proven and its attributes are highly applicable to CHSTP automatic train control and radio communications requirements and because the
train control element is integrated within the radio communications system, ERTMS places the highest demands on spectrum and quality of service for the radio network.
This assessment makes several recommendations including that the CHSRA seek the allocation of sufficient radio spectrum for exclusive and/or primary use of a GSM-R system to support ETCS Level 2 for CHSTP operations”.

In 2011 ADIF and Renfe advised the CaHSRA on: Railway Operation, trade policy, maintenance of rolling stock, contingency planning, traffic safety, public safety and civil protection, and outsourcing of support services.

ERTMS is a worldwide standard outside Japan. In Taiwan there are 1,200 km and 811 trains, 4,000 km in China and 270 trains in Saudi are building 2,493 km.

In Spain the first HST were TGV and safety system are LZB was German, and has always worked very well.


----------



## elekto

excellent! very wise decision.. :cheers2:


----------



## M-NL

Now that's news. I wonder how this effects Caltrain as they focused on their own system CBOSS. And there is nothing to stop them from creating their own fork of ERTMS, just as China has done. CTCS is basically ETCS with a different air interface. If they're smart they also jump on the ERTMS wagon.

Then again the USA has the same problem Europe has: In the USA every railroad has it's PTC flavour, just like in Europe every country has it's own systems. 

As for the Japanese, Hitachi, one of the N700 builders, is already gaining ETCS experience with the British Rail class 800. And they have proven they can can do that. As far as I can tell class 395 never had TVM430 integration problems.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Here is information on the subject. For me it is complicated by language, so maybe you can do us a summary 

*Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog*



(It seems everyone by winning the N700, and still nothing)


----------



## Tower Dude

Hey so Amtrak's RFPs for the Northeast corridor were due by the first of the first of this month, any one have any ideas when we will know more?


----------



## Fan Railer

Tower Dude said:


> Hey so Amtrak's RFPs for the Northeast corridor were due by the first of the first of this month, any one have any ideas when we will know more?


Probably not until some time in December.


----------



## greenlion

CNR to bid for Carlifonia HSR project with CRH380BL trainset, it is reported they are expecting to provide 95 rolling stocks


----------



## Sunfuns

Donegal said:


> Agreed. It's not lack of technical expertise, but experience. But hey, you guys sent a man to the moon. *You surely could build a HSR from scratch.*


That would be a ridiculous waste of money. It's already more expensive than it ought to be. If HSR really takes off in US there will eventually be local companies producing those trains, but not for the first 2-3 lines.


----------



## Donegal

Off course, I know it would be ridiculous to develop a full technological and industrial branch in order to produce something that you could buy to Japan, Europe, or even China. BUT, the technical potential is there.


----------



## siamu maharaj

Gusiluz said:


> Well, there are already official proposals (thank goodness!)
> 10 expressions of interest in California high speed fleet
> 
> And there for everyone, but it seems to me that I do not qualify. We will see.
> 
> Responses were submitted by:
> 
> Alstom Transportation;
> AnsaldoBreda;
> Bombardier Transit Corp;
> CSR Corp;
> Hyundai Rotem;
> Marnell Transportation;
> Kawasaki Rail Car;
> Siemens Industry;
> SunGroup USA & World Harmony City/CNR Tangshan Railway Vehicle Co;
> Talgo.
> The expressions of interest are intended to enable CHSRA to ‘open up conversations’ with manufacturers to help shape the upcoming request for proposals. CHSRA is looking for information regarding procurement and how the manufacturers propose complying with Buy America and Buy California provisions.
> 
> The initial procurement is expected to be for a base order and options for up to 95 trainsets, suitable for ‘sustained speeds’ over 320 km/h (200 miles/h) to offer Los Angeles – San Francisco journey times of less than 3 h.


http://www.jchighspeedrail.com/about/

The Japanese consortium. Guess Toshiba didn't jump in, unless it's partners with a non-Japanese consortium.


----------



## aquaticko

^^That would be unusual, as Japanese companies tend to tender together or alone if they tender at all. Maybe it's just me, but usually Hitachi and Kawasaki are the names that jump to mind in Japanese HSR, not necessarily Toshiba. Perhaps they're hedging their bets to see how HSR does in California before bidding on another project somewhere else in the U.S.


----------



## siamu maharaj

aquaticko said:


> ^^That would be unusual, as Japanese companies tend to tender together or alone if they tender at all. Maybe it's just me, but usually Hitachi and Kawasaki are the names that jump to mind in Japanese HSR, not necessarily Toshiba. Perhaps they're hedging their bets to see how HSR does in California before bidding on another project somewhere else in the U.S.


I named Toshiba since they always show HSR in their TV ads so I was thinking they are really making a push into this industry. 

But I read up on them and it seems they haven't worked on any Japanese trains. Taiwan is the only country I could find that has Toshiba trains.

So yeah, maybe they are just waiting this one out.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ I never heard anything about Toshiba in HST. Hitachi: yes.
Taiwan THSR 700T was: Kawasaki / Hitachi / Nippon Sharyo


----------



## Tower Dude

WOW the Japanese are Jumping full force into this Huh?


----------



## siamu maharaj

Gusiluz said:


> ^^ I never heard anything about Toshiba in HST. Hitachi: yes.
> Taiwan THSR 700T was: Kawasaki / Hitachi / Nippon Sharyo


You can read about it here.

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/sis/railwaysystem/en/products/highspeed/outline.htm


----------



## Gusiluz

In your link I see that work on trains. 



siamu maharaj said:


> I named Toshiba since they always show HSR in their TV ads so I was thinking they are really making a push into this industry.
> 
> But I read up on them and it seems they haven't worked on any Japanese trains. Taiwan is the only country I could find that has Toshiba trains.
> 
> So yeah, maybe they are just waiting this one out.


Does the radio connection ?. 
Naturally the railroad many other parties, with many companies.


Anyway, thanks for the link


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Toshiba supplies electrical equipment to rolling stock manufacturers. They also build electric locomotives, but not passenger rolling stock. Hitachi is the only more or less vertically integrated rolling stock company in Japan, capable of building both rolling stock and the traction packages that move them.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Information on the proposed route(s)of the Texas Central Railway HSR route. It's a presentation being used at public scoping meetings now being held in Texas locations. If all goes well, this will be the first all-hsr route in the U.S.
Note the proposed alignments and station locations.

https://dallashoustonhsr.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/2014_scoping_meeting_presentation.pdf


----------



## bluemeansgo

Tower Dude said:


> WOW the Japanese are Jumping full force into this Huh?


Well it makes sense if you think about it. Japan proved to the world that passenger trains are not dying, but have had limited success in exporting it. 

In recent years they exported

E2 series technology to China.
700 series to Taiwan.

There are limited opportunities in Europe, Chinese opportunities prefer to get a small order and then build it themselves, and India and Vietnam are more far-future opportunities.

The US is a large wealthy market that is just taking off as opportunities in Japanese opportunities wind down. Apart from the Hokkaido Shinkansen, there aren't any really large markets that aren't served by Shinkansen. If Japan wants to continue growing its train industry it has to aggressively market to a large market that has a long-term appetite for high quality systems.

The US is ripe with many opportunities for multiple separate systems. It's essentially like 5 or 6 markets that can be treat separately. California, Pacific Northwest, Texas, North-east corridor, Florida...

And finally, Japan and the US have been very close allies for decades. It only makes sense for them to strengthen the relationship.


----------



## M-NL

bluemeansgo said:


> The new AGV has moved to a Japanese-style Powered EMUs (as opposed to a Locomotive on front and back). It's very new for the French, though... first launching in Italy 2 years ago. It's also, unfortunately, 1' narrower than the specs require. Not sure if this is an issue or not.
> 
> I think you will see more trainsets move in this direction. Some of the advantages of having powered EMUs are weight distribution and more even and faster acceleration.


Alstom could have built HSR EMU's years earlier if SNCF had wanted them to. SNCF instead wanted double decker trains with jacobs bogies. The only way to do that and to keep within the 17 ton axle load limit was to keep using motor cars on both ends. Alstom then decided to develop the AGV on their own, just to show the world they could do it.

The AGV adheres to the UIC 505-1 profile, which enables it to be used pretty much anywhere in Europe except for the UK. Alstom could build it to fit any profile requested, but that will cost extra and could limit your area of use.
Same goes for other high speed trains though: The ICE3 (both 403/406 and 407) are also much narrower then their ICE1/2 predecessors for the same reason.


----------



## Nexis

2 pics from Secaucus 


Acela Express # 2036 at Secaucus Junction by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Amtrak Cities Sprinter # 608 at Secaucus Junction by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


----------



## City-of-Platinum

It's sad that the average speed on the NEC is still slow and there is no news about HSR on the NEC. I hate to see the poor old Acela, serving the area in the US most suited to HSR, be superceeded by California and Texas potentially.. Sad days.


----------



## XAN_

M-NL said:


> The AGV adheres to the UIC 505-1 profile, which enables it to be used pretty much anywhere in Europe except for the UK. Alstom could build it to fit any profile requested, but that will cost extra and *could limit your area of use.*
> Same goes for other high speed trains though: The ICE3 (both 403/406 and 407) are also much narrower then their ICE1/2 predecessors for the same reason.


In case of USA it isn't an issue, even in unlikely event of expanding HS service onto classic lines, both Canada and Mexico have generous loading gauge.


----------



## M-NL

The USA could still run into trouble if they want to use 3,4m wide trains to enable viable 5 abreast seating, because their normal profiles are 'just' 3,2m wide.


----------



## Nexarc

M-NL said:


> The USA could still run into trouble if they want to use 3,4m wide trains to enable viable 5 abreast seating, because their normal profiles are 'just' 3,2m wide.


While that might be valid for most of the NEC since I am not as familiar with it, loading gauges in the West tend to be greater due to lower platforms, wide freight loads and major lines such as the SF Peninsula compliant with the Dept. of Defense's STRACNET profile, which itself is 3.5m wide.


----------



## bluemeansgo

M-NL said:


> The USA could still run into trouble if they want to use 3,4m wide trains to enable viable 5 abreast seating, because their normal profiles are 'just' 3,2m wide.


I can't imagine the US wanting 5-abreast seating on a train. It will be a hard enough sell as it is and 3 + 2 seating would be a pretty tough fit for many Americans. NO one wants to sit in the middle seat. It's tolerated on a plane, but the train has to better than the plane.


----------



## CNB30

City-of-Platinum said:


> It's sad that the average speed on the NEC is still slow and there is no news about HSR on the NEC. I hate to see the poor old Acela, serving the area in the US most suited to HSR, be superceeded by California and Texas potentially.. Sad days.


Actually they're currently upgrading speeds in New Jersey to 160 miles an hour. 

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/..._high-speed_rail_project_site_in_trenton.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4gpZiUyy-U


----------



## FM 2258

CNB30 said:


> Actually they're currently upgrading speeds in New Jersey to 160 miles an hour.
> 
> http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/..._high-speed_rail_project_site_in_trenton.html
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4gpZiUyy-U


Glad that they're upgrading to a high speed but taking 6 years to do the upgrade seems like a long ass time. In 6 years China can build a 217 mph line from major city to major city it seems. hno:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20..._chief_tour_trenton_high-speed_rail_site.html


----------



## bluemeansgo

FM 2258 said:


> Glad that they're upgrading to a high speed but taking 6 years to do the upgrade seems like a long ass time. In 6 years China can build a 217 mph line from major city to major city it seems. hno:
> 
> http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20..._chief_tour_trenton_high-speed_rail_site.html


Remember, though... China builds stations away from the urban centres. Sometimes they're as much as an hour away from the city centre. Build far enough out and you can build FAST.


----------



## CNB30

FM 2258 said:


> Glad that they're upgrading to a high speed but taking 6 years to do the upgrade seems like a long ass time. In 6 years China can build a 217 mph line from major city to major city it seems. hno:
> 
> http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20..._chief_tour_trenton_high-speed_rail_site.html


I thought they just began, and stated that it will be complete in 2017


----------



## krnboy1009

In China there is no lawsuits and environmental studies that takes years to complete and bleed project fund dry.


----------



## FM 2258

CNB30 said:


> I thought they just began, and stated that it will be complete in 2017


According to the article the project started in 2011. I guess it's better than not upgrading at all. I imagine they have a really limited time to put work into this since it's such a busy corridor. 



> The federally funded $450 million project began in October 2011 and is slated for completion in June 2017.


----------



## bluemeansgo

FM 2258 said:


> According to the article the project started in 2011. I guess it's better than not upgrading at all. I imagine they have a really limited time to put work into this since it's such a busy corridor.


Yes... and there's also proximity bias. You're close to it, so it seems like it takes so much longer.

China started planning HSR in the early 90s. Almost a quarter-century ago. The first feasibility studies were commissioned in the mid-nineties. Their first 160km/h service started in late '94 between Guangzhou and Shenzhen. 4 years later, the line was electrified. 3 years after that, the X2000 Swiss tilting trains allowed it to run at 200km/h. It runs at 200km/h today with the ability to run 220km/h in some places. 

This is a classic example of a line that was upgraded and the closest comparison to the Acela Express, which is also an upgraded line in a busy corridor. 

China's new lines, although done very quickly, are all dedicated, separate, infrastructure.

Japan took 5 years to make the world's first bullet train @ ~210km/h (1959 - 1964). It was on dedicated tracks, though admittedly through highly populated areas. One year later, it was increased to 220km/h. 

It wasn't until 1992 that the 300-series trains could run 270km/h. 
*It took 28 years to increase speed 50km/h on a dedicated passenger line.*

It was yet another 5 years (1997) before the 300-series ushered in 300km/h west of Osaka. 

The original line is stuck at 270km/h until next year when an upgraded N700-series train will be allowed to run at 285km/h. *18 years for a 15km/h increase.*

Most of the changes in Japan's Shinkansen trains since 1992 have focused on comfort, efficiency and noise pollution. The 700-series, the N700 series, the N700A and the N700-I (export) are all incremental improvements.

Kind of puts into perspective how long these advancements take.

Here's a great chart of progress over 50 years of high speed lines (includes previous 50 years before High-speed as well)

While it's true that Japan was pioneer of High-speed train lines and so it makes sense that this takes extra time, it's clear that speed increases take time, especially along busy corridors like the NEC.








full size image


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Any precision, without altering the substance of the topic.

The Swedish X2000, known as _Xinshisu _in China, was only one train in service between 1998 and 2012. 

The evolution of the maximum speed in Japan was as follows: 

210 km/h. 10/1/1964. First 0 series Tokaido, JNR. Join Tokyo and Osaka an average of 129 km/h. However, the fastest train between stations was the French _Mistral_, with an average of 132 km/h. This line increased its top speed to 220 in November 1986: 22 years to climb 10 km/h !!. 
240 km/h. 03/1985. 200 F series. Tohoku Shinkansen, JNR. Join Tokyo to Morioka. 
275 km/h. 03/1990. 200 F90 series. Joetsu Shinkansen, JR East. Join Tokyo and Niigata, 186 km/h on average. 
300 km/h. 03/1997. 500 series. Sanyo Shinkansen, JR West. Join Osaka and Hakata, 242 km/h on average. Faster than now. 
320 km/h. 16/3/2013. E5 series. Tohoku Shinkansen, JR East. Join Tokyo with Aomori, 226 km/h on average. 
360 km/h, scheduled for 2020 in part of Utsunomiya-Morioka section of the Tohoku Shinkansen.

A greeting


----------



## City-of-Platinum

CNB30 said:


> Actually they're currently upgrading speeds in New Jersey to 160 miles an hour.
> 
> http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/..._high-speed_rail_project_site_in_trenton.html
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4gpZiUyy-U


That will barely raise the average speed. The entire line need to be upgraded and curves straightened. Washington to NY should be under 2 hours to finished the air shuttles and allow slot openings at congested airports. It's odd how most of the money went to the California HSR when the NEC is the place where we know rail works. The priority should be the NEC first, where it is most likely to be a success, and then take it elsewhere. But US does things assways when it comes to rail so i'm not surprised. Maybe just go maglev now on the NEC for express parallel to the current tracks. Given it won't be starting any time soon, By the time it starts, maglev will be proven in Japan on inter-city and maybe they can help build a system for the NEC.


----------



## CNB30

City-of-Platinum said:


> That will barely raise the average speed. The entire line need to be upgraded and curves straightened. Washington to NY should be under 2 hours. It's odd how most of the money went to the California HSR, while the NEC hasn't got its act together. The priority should be the NEC first, not California, etc, where it is most likely to be a success, but the US does things assways when it comes to HSR.


Yes, but it's a start


----------



## bluemeansgo

I wouldn't be surprised to see maglev on the NEC and for it to be mostly underground to mitigate nimbyism and noise issues. 

Thanks for the detail Gusiluz. Yes, you're right about the x2000. I was just using that as an example. HSR takes time. Even for China moving at breakneck speed.


----------



## City-of-Platinum

bluemeansgo said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to see maglev on the NEC and for it to be mostly underground to mitigate nimbyism and noise issues.
> 
> Thanks for the detail Gusiluz. Yes, you're right about the x2000. I was just using that as an example. HSR takes time. Even for China moving at breakneck speed.


That would cost a fortune. To tunnel the maglev hundreds of miles is a big dream that has a very low probability of coming true. Conventional rail would be fine for the NEC, the distances are quite small and 200mph is good enough. An average speed of 150mph would allow for an hour and a half travel time from DC to NYC which is a good time. 1.5 hours will likely kill the shuttles.


----------



## bluemeansgo

City-of-Platinum said:


> That would cost a fortune. To tunnel the maglev hundreds of miles is a big dream that has a very low probability of coming true. Conventional rail would be fine for the NEC, the distances are quite small and 200mph is good enough. An average speed of 150mph would allow for an hour and a half travel time from DC to NYC which is a good time. 1.5 hours will likely kill the shuttles.


Expensive to build, yes. That is very true.

Japan's Chuo line (mag-lev) will be 80% in tunnels. 500km long. $180M / km. 
Taiwan is conventional High speed, 18% in tunnels. 264km long. $53M / km.

Note: Amtrak has suggested its plan to upgrade the NEC to cost $151B for 350km/h (220mph) by 2030 (Boston by 2040). For a 720km line, that's $209M / km!!!

Taiwan's line was privately funded. Japan's Chuo line will also be privately funded, apparently.

Building out a high-speed line in the NEC is going to be expensive. Either land procurement or tunnelling won't change the costs drastically.

To run the NEC at an average speed of 150 mph (240km/h) would require trains as fast as JR West's Mizuho service, which travels from Osaka to Hakata (622km) in 150 minutes (6 stops). Max speed 300km/h.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis

bluemeansgo said:


> Expensive to build, yes. That is very true.
> 
> Japan's Chuo line (mag-lev) will be 80% in tunnels. 500km long. $180M / km.
> Taiwan is conventional High speed, 18% in tunnels. 264km long. $53M / km.
> 
> Note: Amtrak has suggested its plan to upgrade the NEC to cost $151B for 350km/h (220mph) by 2030 (Boston by 2040). For a 720km line, that's $209M / km!!!
> 
> Taiwan's line was privately funded. Japan's Chuo line will also be privately funded, apparently.
> 
> Building out a high-speed line in the NEC is going to be expensive. Either land procurement or tunnelling won't change the costs drastically.
> 
> To run the NEC at an average speed of 150 mph (240km/h) would require trains as fast as JR West's Mizuho service, which travels from Osaka to Hakata (622km) in 150 minutes (6 stops). Max speed 300km/h.


The 150 billion plan includes ...FRA Plan not Amtrak
Upgrading the Current NEC , replacing all Catenary , Substations , Moveable Bridges and Tunnels 
Expanding Terminal Stations at New York , DC , Boston and Secondary Stations like Providence , Newark , Baltimore and Stamford
Restoring Several Intercity Lines like the Lackawanna Corridor , DelMarva Express , Lehigh Corridor , I-83 Corridor , Cape Codder , New Hampshire Capital Corridor - 80-125mph
New NEC using the Long Island / Inland New England Route which reuses abandoned Railroad Corridors and Interstate ROW 170-220mph+
Electrification of the Empire Service , Vermonter / Connecticut River Line 
Extension of Downeaster Service to Augusta and Bangor
Relocation of Vermonter to Connecticut River line (Underway)
Higher Speed Rail on Empire and Keystone Services up to 135mph
Replacing Rolling Stock
Upgrading Signals on the Main line


----------



## Tower Dude

Really THAT is the plan? WHY WOULDN'T THEY SAY THAT? That would get a lot of people in the northeast on their side


----------



## City-of-Platinum

Nexis said:


> The 150 billion plan includes ...FRA Plan not Amtrak
> Upgrading the Current NEC , replacing all Catenary , Substations , Moveable Bridges and Tunnels
> Expanding Terminal Stations at New York , DC , Boston and Secondary Stations like Providence , Newark , Baltimore and Stamford
> Restoring Several Intercity Lines like the Lackawanna Corridor , DelMarva Express , Lehigh Corridor , I-83 Corridor , Cape Codder , New Hampshire Capital Corridor - 80-125mph
> New NEC using the Long Island / Inland New England Route which reuses abandoned Railroad Corridors and Interstate ROW 170-220mph+
> Electrification of the Empire Service , Vermonter / Connecticut River Line
> Extension of Downeaster Service to Augusta and Bangor
> Relocation of Vermonter to Connecticut River line (Underway)
> Higher Speed Rail on Empire and Keystone Services up to 135mph
> Replacing Rolling Stock
> Upgrading Signals on the Main line


Under this plan, what is the travel time from NY to Washington like? I assume they will be not constructing new trackage which will probably not result in a true HSR line. since you just mention "NEW NEC" in NY-New England.


----------



## CNB30

City-of-Platinum said:


> Under this plan, what is the travel time from NY to Washington like? I assume they will be not constructing new trackage which will probably not result in a true HSR line. since you just mention "NEW NEC" in NY-New England.


Honestly, I'm tierd of this crap about how the Acela is fake HSR. Yes, the entire route is slow, because it happens to stop at least 20 times, and Connecticut, and all, but, who cares about the entire rout, the train exceeds 150 mph Between Providence, and Boston. I mean come on, if we had a version of the acela that went the same speed as the current one, and only went back, and fourth between Boston, and Providence it would be true HSR. So therefore, True HSR exists between Providence and Boston. BAM America has high speed rail. Case closed.


----------



## City-of-Platinum

CNB30 said:


> Honestly, I'm tierd of this crap about how the Acela is fake HSR. Yes, the entire route is slow, because it happens to stop at least 20 times, and Connecticut, and all, but, who cares about the entire rout, the train exceeds 150 mph Between Providence, and Boston. I mean come on, if we had a version of the acela that went the same speed as the current one, and only went back, and fourth between Boston, and Providence it would be true HSR. So therefore, True HSR exists between Providence and Boston. BAM America has high speed rail. Case closed.


I was talking about dc-nyc, and I asked Nexis because he knows a lot about the rail plans. Really no need to blow up like that.


----------



## CNB30

City-of-Platinum said:


> I was talking about dc-nyc, and I asked Nexis.


I'm not soley talking about you, I'm talking about a whole bunch of people who think the Acela only goes 80 mph


----------



## City-of-Platinum

CNB30 said:


> I'm not soley talking about you, I'm talking about a whole bunch of people who think the Acela only goes 80 mph


Average speed is what really matters. It only reaches 150 for a very short time. I'd prefer a slower train but with a higher average speed for the whole track lenght.

It is medium speed rail in my book, like what England has on it's main lines. Similar average speed, although I think England is faster.

If you put the TGV on a line with so many stops that it's average speed was around 80, you wouldn't call it a HSR line. I don't care if the engine can do it or if the tracks are HSR quality, the service isn't HSR. Between Boston and Providence isn't even HSR average wise


----------



## City-of-Platinum

The day the Acela takes 90 mins up to NYC is the day I eat my hat.


----------



## CNB30

So I've started to make improvements for the Acela on this map, tell me what you think so far.


----------



## 00Zy99

Nice map. 

(can't see it, though)


----------



## kishtour365

of course yes
why not?


----------



## CNB30

Oh Yeah :hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer:

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?authuser=0&authuser=0&hl=en&hl=en&mid=zmmKAS8nkh1I.kuG4LzpoDAH0


----------



## Nexis

CNB30 said:


> Oh Yeah :hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer:
> 
> https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?authuser=0&authuser=0&hl=en&hl=en&mid=zmmKAS8nkh1I.kuG4LzpoDAH0


Never will happen , to expensive and would slice up a rich part of the state along with gaining very little in time savings.


----------



## CNB30

Nexis said:


> Never will happen , to expensive and would slice up a rich part of the state along with *gaining very little in time savings*.


Yeah, maybe some wont work, but I know one, or 2 will, such as the one just west of Kingston. There is literally nothing in the way there. Also, Even if they have to go through some of the houses, the cost to replace/buy them will probably be a drop in the bucket. Also, I believe that it could gain a good amount of time savings, considering how slow the train already goes through Connecticut. 

P.S. I've just done dome in Maryland, where the area is cheaper, and more sparsely populated. I bet The Aberdeen Straightener could go through.


----------



## CNB30

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf


----------



## CNB30

I've added in a few more changes


----------



## 00Zy99

CNB30 said:


> I've added in a few more changes


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's no "Harrowgate" man.

That's Frankford Junction and the Frankford Cutoff.

You've got the alignment slightly off, though.

Do you see the line of warehouses along the south side of Erie Avenue just north of your route?

THAT, my friend is the right of way for a cut-off purchased by the Pennsylvania Railroad in the *1930s*, and inherited by Amtrak in the 70s with the rest of the NEC. The whole alignment is completely owned by Amtrak, no purchases necessary.

Yeah. And they STILL haven't built the proposed route.


:bash:hno::bash:hno:


----------



## CNB30

00Zy99 said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> That's no "Harrowgate" man.
> 
> That's Frankford Junction and the Frankford Cutoff.
> 
> You've got the alignment slightly off, though.
> 
> Do you see the line of warehouses along the south side of Erie Avenue just north of your route?
> 
> THAT, my friend is the right of way for a cut-off purchased by the Pennsylvania Railroad in the *1930s*, and inherited by Amtrak in the 70s with the rest of the NEC. The whole alignment is completely owned by Amtrak, no purchases necessary.
> 
> Yeah. And they STILL haven't built the proposed route.
> 
> 
> :bash:hno::bash:hno:


Now that is just _*SAD*_

Also, did I edit it correctly?


----------



## 00Zy99

Now just re-name it Frankford Cutoff and everything will be perfect there.

It's worth noting that the Delaware River Levee is rather unlikely to happen. The curves are relatively gentle, and the way the river is there makes it tough to fill in, not to mention the political backlash from something (it's unenvironmental) similar to what happened with the Westway in Manhattan.


----------



## City-of-Platinum

Good job. With all those improvements, what do you think the average speed will be between NYC-WAS?


----------



## CNB30

City-of-Platinum said:


> Good job. With all those improvements, what do you think the average speed will be between NYC-WAS?


Depends, I'm hoping they can make them (and the straights around them 160 mph.


----------



## 00Zy99

Not fast enough until they fix those **** tunnels in Baltimore.

The Union Tunnel and the B&P are both substandard.

They also need to replace Portal Bridge and a ton of bridges in Maryland.

Thankfully, ALL of these century-old items are high on the to-do list.


----------



## CNB30

00Zy99 said:


> Not fast enough until they fix those **** tunnels in Baltimore.
> 
> The Union Tunnel and the B&P are both substandard.
> 
> They also need to replace Portal Bridge and a ton of bridges in Maryland.
> 
> Thankfully, ALL of these century-old items are high on the to-do list.


To be Fair, the neighborhoods above the tunnels have some AWESOME architecture!!:rock:


----------



## City-of-Platinum

The Amtrak plan for 2040 shows the alignment going up towards Danbury. So, they have ruled out the LI alignment then or is that another plan. I'm confused.

It also shows that by 2025 the upgarded NEC will allow NY to Washington in 2:15 mins or so, a decrease of around 30 mins from today. Not bad, not great. 

What exactly prevents them from going faster than 160mph on straight and upgraded/modern track in the NEC?. Is that a regulation due to shared track or is it due to the rolling stock not being able to reach that speed?

What is strange is that the time difference between the upgraded NEC at final build and the brand new "NEXTGEN" HSR is only 40mins. Is 40 mins really worth 50 billion?

Also, the money for this is going to tough to get. Amtrak funding was just cut by the house and there is no money for all this in the budget. 

Maglev with the JR involved (helping pay for some of it) and private investors could be a better option than this NextGen HSR option as the speeds would be much better -- NYC=WAS in an hour.. Washington could be a commuter city for NYC, Phil, etc.


----------



## Nexis

City-of-Platinum said:


> The Amtrak plan for 2040 shows the alignment going up towards Danbury. So, they have ruled out the LI alignment then or is that another plan. I'm confused.
> 
> It also shows that by 2025 the upgarded NEC will allow NY to Washington in 2:15 mins or so, a decrease of around 30 mins from today. Not bad, not great.
> 
> What exactly prevents them from going faster than 160mph on straight and upgraded/modern track in the NEC?. Is that a regulation due to shared track or is it due to the rolling stock not being able to reach that speed?
> 
> What is strange is that the time difference between the upgraded NEC at final build and the brand new "NEXTGEN" HSR is only 40mins. Is 40 mins really worth 50 billion?
> 
> Also, the money for this is going to tough to get. Amtrak funding was just cut by the house and there is no money for all this in the budget.
> 
> Maglev with the JR involved (helping pay for some of it) and private investors could be a better option than this NextGen HSR option as the speeds would be much better -- NYC=WAS in an hour.. Washington could be a commuter city for NYC, Phil, etc.


The Amtrak plan is silly compared to the various FRA plans which do have more power to them. The FRA controls the funding for these plans and overseas them...they also hold meetings... You can see all the various proposals below...

http://www.necfuture.com/pdfs/prelim_alts_report.pdf


----------



## CollegeBoy

Just build a second line dedicated for HSR that only stops in DC, Philly, NYC and Boston. If people want to stop in the other cities, take the existing NEC. Why do people have to make things so damn difficult?


----------



## Nexis

CollegeBoy said:


> Just build a second line dedicated for HSR that only stops in DC, Philly, NYC and Boston. If people want to stop in the other cities, take the existing NEC. Why do people have to make things so damn difficult?


Because those other cities are important and drive the Regional Economy....there will be a super express that skips the secondary cities....


----------



## aquaticko

Why is one of those routes ruler-straight and the other all wobbly?


----------



## pi_malejana

What happened to the Dallas-Austin-San Antonio line? or is that still in the works?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

aquaticko said:


> Why is one of those routes ruler-straight and the other all wobbly?


Presumably because the one with all the tangents is a utility corridor (power lines?), while the wobbly one is a railroad, which has many curves and slight alignment changes due to property rights, geographical obstacles, and the need to serve customer locations impossible with a perfectly straight alignment.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

aquaticko said:


> Why is one of those routes ruler-straight and the other all wobbly?


The difference between both these routes is simple: One follows the BNSF (red) railroad tracks and the other follows utility over head transformer lines (orange). The reason why the BNSF alignment has so many curves is simply because of the original railroad right of way; and the reason why the utility alignment is so straight is because most of these utility lines cross over very sparse and expanse rural territory. Bets are that the utility route will be the one likely chosen because of the fact it is so straight. The Japan Bank of International Coordination is making a deal to finance the construction of the entire line and the Japan Railway is part of the leading team building this line, although they are "not financing" it. Since the money is privately financed the TCR is looking to spend very carefully and save as much as possible.

To answer pi_malejana, the Dallas-Austin-San Antonio will be a later addition to the corridor. In the meantime the main focus is to focus resources on the Dallas and Houston corridor. A Dallas and Fort Worth connection is already in the works of planning, as we speak, and engineers have agreed that an alignment along the interstate 30 corridor will be suitable for it.


----------



## FM 2258

Joshua Dodd said:


> For those interested, these are the two routes that are currently being considered for the Texas HSR corridor:
> 
> https://dallashoustonhsr.files.word...-recommended-alternatives-october-19-2014.jpg


Thanks for posting this. The utility alignment looks a lot better/faster. It looks like it will be able to pull out of the station and reach high speed just a few minutes afterwards. 

Looking at the BNSF alignment I wonder if the curve radius is already fit for 217 mph speeds. I also wonder why this would be an option unless this was so.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

From what I am hearing the utility alignment will make the best bet. The problem, however, is with local land owners who do not want the line. With the BNSF option there is plenty of space since the railroad's land rights expand far beyond the base of their railroads. All the HSR needs is 80 feet of space and the railroad alignment has that, minus the land owner disputes. But the utility is the best option. From Dallas to Houston in 90 minutes vs a 4 hour drive. The train will only take 37.5% the amount of time it would otherwise take to commute by car. Of course, this estimation does not include stops for gas and traffic conditions. So probably less of a percent than that.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> The problem, however, is with local land owners who do not want the line.


Perhaps they can be persuaded with some financial incentives, certainly about $250 million or so can be set aside for these issues along with discrete negotiation, without resorting to eminent domain.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

This article is a good example of land issues at hand for the project:

http://www.waxahachietx.com/midloth...cle_e928a6ae-2d8d-5aae-a2f9-c16c77eb6a73.html


----------



## Sunfuns

I'm willing to bet that a certain section of Texans will fight tooth and nail against this project regardless of where financing is coming from. Almost like in California...


----------



## boyerling3

Would it be reasonable to extend it a bit west to College Station? How far out of the way are those two proposed lines now?


----------



## Joshua Dodd

It would make no difference if the lines were extended within a close range of College Station because the line will have no station there.


----------



## bluemeansgo

I doubt Texans would fight against a privately funded project. Aren't Texans pro-capitalism?


----------



## Nexis

bluemeansgo said:


> I doubt Texans would fight against a privately funded project. Aren't Texans pro-capitalism?


There also Pro-Oil...which has well lubed the various Political coffers of the state.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

bluemeansgo said:


> I doubt Texans would fight against a privately funded project. Aren't Texans pro-capitalism?


Texans are very pro business, yes. However, I would like to elaborate on what exactly this means since so many people seem to misconstrue this concept with either stereotypes or ideological bias. Understandably. 
Yes, Texans are pro capitalism. This is no surprise. But what does this really mean? What it means is that Texans are pro small mom and pop style independent businesses. That's what they prefer. As long as businesses respect the people, their rights, and most importantly: Their land, there is usually no issue. This is what it means when Texans say they are pro capitalism. 
The misconception when someone says they are pro capitalism is the baggage that comes with the notorious history of bug business. It's as though saying I am for capitalism assumes I am also pro monopolies and cronyism. This is far from the truth. In fact, just look at Texas' history with people fighting corporations and you will find that we are very very anti-crony capitalism. Just like any other person in the country. There have been historical cases where land owners take arms and blood is spilled because of cronyism taking advantage of people.
I personally find the biggest problem is people's loyalty to political parties and their ideological bias. That's the thorn everywhere. Otherwise Texans are very independently minded and tend to mind their own business and do what they can for their communities. For the most part the TCR is being very careful to respect people and their private property and has chosen two routes that, for the most part, avoid creeping on people's land and uses either existing railroad right of ways or utility right of ways.


----------



## krisu99

Just a thought: Will the project survive the next presidential elections? It looks like the republicans will make it(!?). But high Speed Rail is a very long term investment most likely wihout directly attribuable profits...

How "solid" is the project when it comes to political changes? Are fundings already secured, or may they be withdrawn depending on political opportunity?


----------



## Cal_Escapee

krisu99 said:


> Just a thought: Will the project survive the next presidential elections? It looks like the republicans will make it(!?). But high Speed Rail is a very long term investment most likely wihout directly attribuable profits...
> 
> How "solid" is the project when it comes to political changes? Are fundings already secured, or may they be withdrawn depending on political opportunity?


Yes. It has no federal funding pending--so nothing to be cut off in the worst case--although they'd obviously love to get more. Right now, the money available, aside from "stimulus" funds that can't be rescinded and are probably mostly spent, is mainly from the state and they are mainly trying to get private money.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *U.S. board: Federal law on high-speed rail trumps state environmental lawsuits*
> BY TIM SHEEHAN
> The Fresno BeeDecember 15, 2014
> 
> A three-member panel of presidential appointees has potentially derailed seven lawsuits challenging the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s approval of its Fresno-Bakersfield bullet-train route and raised questions about how California environmental law will apply to other planned rail sections across the state.
> 
> The U.S. Surface Transportation Board, in a ruling issued late Friday, declared on a 2-1 vote that the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, “is categorically pre-empted” in connection with the Fresno-Bakersfield route, which the federal panel OK’d for construction earlier this year.
> 
> “CEQA … by its very nature, could be used to deny or significantly delay an entity’s right to construct a line that the (federal) board has specifically authorized,” the ruling stated, “thus impinging upon the board’s exclusive jurisdiction over rail transportation.”
> 
> Therefore, board chairman Daniel Elliott III and vice chairwoman Deb Miller stated, lawsuits against the rail line — filed under CEQA by plaintiffs in Kings and Kern counties in Sacramento County Superior Court — and the ability of state judges to issue injunctions to halt work are barred by a federal law that “expressly pre-empts any state law attempts to regulate rail construction projects” . . . .


Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/15/4287088_us-board-says-federal-law-trumps.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> *State will finally break ground in Fresno on high-speed rail construction*
> BY TIM SHEEHAN
> The Fresno BeeDecember 12, 2014
> 
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority will officially break ground next month in Fresno on construction of its statewide bullet-train route.
> 
> The *Jan. 6* groundbreaking ceremony, announced Friday afternoon, comes about a year and a half after the agency awarded its first construction contract, a $1 billion deal to design and build the first 29-mile section from Madera to the south end of Fresno. Since the contract was signed in August 2013, the construction consortium of Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons has been engineering and designing the work. Subcontractors began demolishing some buildings and clearing parcels last summer as the rail authority slowly began acquiring the land needed for the right of way.
> 
> Neither a time nor location have been named for the ceremony. Earlier this year, representatives of the contracting team said that the first tangible construction was likely to happen in Madera, where an elevated bridge will be built to span the Fresno River and Highway 145 on the eastern edge of the city. Engineers with the rail authority, in the meantime, suggested that the first construction would occur in downtown Fresno.
> 
> The formal start of construction has been years in the making. California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.9 billion bond measure to help finance a high-speed rail system, in November 2008. But it wasn’t until the fall of 2010, when the Obama administration and the Federal Railroad Administration directed more than $3 billion in federal stimulus and transportation grants to California to begin construction in the central San Joaquin Valley, that the project began to move off the drawing board.
> 
> The rail board approved its Merced-Fresno route segment in May 2012, except for a portion around Chowchilla where the agency continues to evaluate route options. That’s where part of the line will branch off through the Pacheco Pass to the San Francisco Peninsula.
> 
> Between the federal money and bond funds from Prop. 1A, the rail agency has about $6 billion available to build the backbone of its system from Merced to Bakersfield. But that’s less than 10% of the estimated $68 billion cost to span the statewide system’s first 520-mile phase from Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2028 or 2029 . . . .
> 
> Just where the rest of the money will come from is uncertain. While state legislators agreed this fall to allocate 25% of annual cap-and-trade money — funds paid to California by companies for credits to offset their air pollution emissions — starting next year, the Valley’s Republican representatives in Congress have vowed to block any more federal money for the project. The rail authority said it anticipates that private industry will eventually step up to invest in the project, and while a number of companies have expressed interest in participating, none have put forth concrete proposals to date.


Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/12/4283412_state-will-finally-break-ground.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy


----------



## CNB30

FINALLY, what we've all been hoping for these last few years!!!!! :banana:


----------



## Joshua Dodd

krisu99 said:


> Just a thought: Will the project survive the next presidential elections? It looks like the republicans will make it(!?). But high Speed Rail is a very long term investment most likely wihout directly attribuable profits...
> 
> How "solid" is the project when it comes to political changes? Are fundings already secured, or may they be withdrawn depending on political opportunity?


Money is already secured. Regardless of politics, the project will move forward. It's more dependent on economic factors than it is political


----------



## nyarch21

Since when has development of High Speed Rail been an accurate measurement of a nations success? At the rate we're developing our HSR it'll be long out dated by the time we can have it fully operational. The United States does not need to look towards Europe for infrastructure examples. Our country has always found success in looking towards the future. We need to start funding research for new ideas like the hyper loop. That is our future. Not copying Europe or China.


----------



## sweet-d

Uuummm or we could just invest in developing Maglev technology. We all know maglev is good for more than just high speed rail.


----------



## Sunfuns

The argument about too low population density gets thrown around again and again whenever discussing HSR in US. Too bad it's not true, population density is actually very high in most or all places it is proposed.


----------



## Sunfuns

nyarch21 said:


> Since when has development of High Speed Rail been an accurate measurement of a nations success? At the rate we're developing our HSR it'll be long out dated by the time we can have it fully operational. The United States does not need to look towards Europe for infrastructure examples. Our country has always found success in looking towards the future. We need to start funding research for new ideas like the hyper loop. That is our future. Not copying Europe or China.


I think this is a wrong way of thinking. It's about developing efficient transportation system for medium term future instead of national pride or any other such things. It's prudent to copy if someone else has developed something useful. It happens all the time in science and technology and no one feels ashamed why would that not extend to infrastructure as well? 

It's difficult to predict a future, but my bet would be that rail based transport is still around and popular 50 years from now. Quite likely more popular than now despite all the self driving cars etc. simply because of capacity and speed.


----------



## Sunfuns

jayOOfoshO said:


> Have I done that?


You haven't, but a simple google search would reveal that it's quite common. I think much of it is because of particularly toxic environment in modern American politics. If something is proposed by Democrats and you are a Republican then it's definitely a bad idea and must be opposed at all costs and vice versa.


----------



## gippas

jayOOfoshO said:


> You point to Italy as an example of why it could be done. I point to Italy as exactly why it shouldn't be done.
> 
> 1) Look at their cost overruns. They started with x per mile, they ended up with x*2 per mile. And just because it happens in many other cases, it doesn't mean we should accept it here too.


 I really don't understand your logic. There are cost overruns in all types of projects. For example, the Big Dig, a monument of cost overruns, was a motorway. So, should motorways stop being built too? Should all public projects stop being done because they often go overbudget? Or should we move towards making them more efficient and transparent?



> 2) Italy actually had a previously developed rail network e.g. you get off in Milan, you jump on a different train and can go to virtually any minor city. California does not have that.


 Part of California does. One can move in big parts of the Bay Area and LA pretty ok with public transport. Plus, the HSR to a significant degree will relieve congested air routes (which will only become worst in the future) that face exactly the same issues. With the added bonus that the HSR stations in the major cities will be close to businesses and houses, unlike airports.



> 3) I understand the distance between LA-SF is similar as other European cases. But it is extremely difficult to build a track between the two cities in areas like the SF peninsula. The same goes for the LA-SD track which will later be developed. You have to literally go through cities, mountains, or in some cases around them, which is all extremely expensive.


 And what is the difference from Italy and Spain, not to mention Japan? As you know, the space between Barcelona and Madrid is not a big flat valley either but there are many mountains that required numerous tunnels and bridges to be consructed for the line. Plus, further tunnels were needed to enter densely populated cities like Madrid and Barcelona. Despite all these, that line is actually bringing back its money, even its capital costs. California's line passes through around 100 miles of difficult terrain but the majority is flat land.


----------



## Slartibartfas

gippas said:


> And what is the difference from Italy and Spain, not to mention Japan? As you know, the space between Barcelona and Madrid is not a big flat valley either but there are many mountains that required numerous tunnels and bridges to be consructed for the line. Plus, further tunnels were needed to enter densely populated cities like Madrid and Barcelona. Despite all these, that line is actually bringing back its money, even its capital costs. California's line passes through around 100 miles of difficult terrain but the majority is flat land.


Indeed. I am not an expert, but the geography of the corridor doesn't look exceptionally challenging rather it looks like a regular case. There are numerous HSR corridors connecting smaller metropolitan areas with a much more challenging corridor. For example Spain is no less challenging. They've got tons of tunnels and bridges there as well. 



jayOOfoshO said:


> Your sarcasm is unnecessary.


Sarcasm? Merely a reaction to your modesty. 



> This analogy with the US highway system or other infrastructure projects doesn't hold. Just because some other project has been approved, it doesn't mean we should be in favor of this one. And by the way comparing this project with the US interstate highway system is like comparing oranges with apples. Costs are different, and don't forget you can get off the highway and "connect" to any road and go wherever you want. You can't do that with trains in California, unless you develop the network even more of course, but that doesn't make sense due to population density (except in a few cases of course).


Of course the differences are substantial but both, interstate network as well as HSR share in common that without a strong public plan behind it and the financial support to realize it, they would not have happened or are not going to happen.

You are not seriously claiming that with your cost and other criteria applied to all the interstate routes, based on the numbers before its realization, that the network, if it existed at all would not look substantially smaller, are you?


The argument that the single line on its own is not enough is a lame one. Of course there has to be a master plan for connecting the HSR to the local transit, and this would have to go hand in hand with solid investment in that local transit as well of course. 

Of course densities are not as high as with many other non-US cities. But except for the east coast and the greater Chicago area, there is basically barely a spot in the US with a higher population density than LA. Central districts reach densities of above 40000 inh./sqm, not record high but that is a solid value and numerous central districts are at least above 20000. Most of them have a fairly good transit connection to Downtown already. Furthermore are there already today a number of regional lines connecting the larger metropolitan area with that hub. The city changes and is not stagnating, in fact many of the already denser areas are getting even denser. 

If the greater LA area doesn't want to strangle itself with car infrastructure (it is not like there wouldn't be any already) and doesn't want its air hub to totally collapse due to overload, it needs to redistribute the modal split a bit again. This is mainly done with improved local transit but also car oriented intercity connections are heavily stressed and HSR is not only building some really strong alternative capacity there but also putting a strong incentive on using local transit as well. All of this goes hand in hand. If you ripped out one component while ignoring the rest it wouldn't make much sense of course.

You don't need to connect to "any highway", a solid local and regional transit network is enough to supply the line with sufficient numbers of potential riders. And for the rest, ever heard of cabs or car renting? A HSR line does not need to be embedded in an entire HSR network to function well. It is enough to connect a solid chunk of such big metropolitan areas like LA and the Bay Area at the given distance. Especially connecting to the business centers is of importance there, which is why stations should be downtown to downtown, with some more periphery connector stations.


----------



## Eiropro

jayOOfoshO said:


> Oh ok that makes perfect sense! Others have done it, and since you believe they are "perfectly civil" then it makes sense to do it here too.
> 
> 
> 
> You used the term to address my comment. It is insulting to me to use that term in this context because you are using it to label me with something based on the fact that I disagree with your ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant
> 
> 
> 
> Great, but can we afford to address this "dilemma" with a $68 billion train?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are replying to things I didn't say. I didn't say you hate the US. I said you should be proud to live here and not be ashamed if someone opposes your ideas or HSR doesn't get built. You should accept that some people will disagree with you and that is also part of being in the US.
> 
> All those other countries are capable of building "high speed" trains with public money. But in none of those countries except the US a company like Uber, Lyft, etc. could have grown and disrupted the taxi business. Before you all accuse of me doing so, I am not saying Uber will substitute HSR. But I am saying the idea of progress for one country being represented by building HSR is bogus. A train running at 250 km/h is not progress.
> 
> I wouldn't have that big of a problem in HSR. I don't oppose the idea of a fast train in itself. I am not against it. What I am against is the massive amounts of public money that is needed for this project. I am convinced it is not worth it and I am scared by the amount of public debt this country has reached. I don't think it's sustainable at this pace. This is why I am against it.


well, if less public money would spent on weapons and world domination, orange revolutions, wars, military bases all over the world than you may have smaller debt, HSR network and even normal free medicine.

sure HSR is not a big progress, but free medicine like in UK is much highier progress than huge military ships. 

i doubt spending billions on some NASA programs is also a good investment, maybe some more of civil engineering would work better.


----------



## [atomic]

can't you do this via pm?


----------



## CollegeBoy

Eiropro said:


> well, if less public money would spent on weapons and world domination, orange revolutions, wars, military bases all over the world than you may have smaller debt, HSR network and even normal free medicine.
> 
> sure HSR is not a big progress, but free medicine like in UK is much highier progress than huge military ships.
> 
> i doubt spending billions on some NASA programs is also a good investment, maybe some more of civil engineering would work better.


Have you actually seen the United States Federal Budget? Most of the money that we spend is on entitlements and if you're going to slash defense, you'd have to slash that as well to make things all fair and well in Never-Neverland. "Free" medicine? Who's going to pay for that? I'm not paying more in taxes just so we can have an ineffective bureaucracy mismanage health care because a few of us want to emulate the Europeans and while I'm still talking, you should be aware that NASA _only_ makes up 1% of Federal spending. It's far cheaper to construct the James Web Space Telescope than it is to fund SCHIP for 1 calendar year. You claim no benefit comes from NASA, but that's so asinine, I don't know how to respond to that. All I will tell you is that NASA has been responsible for many technological breakthroughs and we could probably see more if we invested in our space program. However, this is merely semantics and I'm starting to get off topic. 

I have always said that one of the few things government should be involved in is infrastructure spending and that the government should take on this role along with private investment in order to cut costs as I too am concerned about the high level of debt and out of control spending. The difference is that I think HSR can be done on-time, within budget and without further saddling us with unnecessary debt. But we as a country need to realize that if mass transit and commercial rail were meant to be profitable, we'd have subway lines in every major city (excluding NOLA and Miami) and a vast commuter rail network outside of the Northeast and a few other cities. The fact of the matter is, these transportation options provide a service to get passengers from point A to Point B in the quickest time possible; they aren't meant to generate millions year in and year out.

The US should invest in HSR and use the private sector to help see that vision come true because it benefits us all and could potentially allow us to move goods long distances via HSR in the future. Freight rail is a very profitable business and they're always looking to move goods to their destinations faster and cheaper. It's better you develop the technology now so it can be perfected and costs reduced over time. We did it with the automobile, we did it with the airplane and now we must do it with our rail infrastructure. 

We shouldn't try to be Europe; that's a continent full of citizens that have a mindset that is radically different from us when it comes to mass transit, cars and HSR. We should incorporate our own attitudes when constructing HSR lines (if that makes any sense). While NIMBYs are a pain in the butt, some have valid concerns and maybe we should take them into consideration, instead of writing them off. Maybe it's cheaper to upgrade lines along existing routes than build a new route all together; on the flip side, maybe it's better to start from scratch. What we need is competent leadership (don't laugh...) that takes everything into consideration and is willing to be pragmatic and logical. Rome wasn't built in a day, so don't expect HSR to be built in a day either. I will say that $68 billion is far cheaper than what some out there have speculated it would cost to build a line, but you know what, we have our own self to blame for that figure. We waited and waited, made fun of the Europeans and called them "socialists" for their love of HSR and now we're looking stupid because we want one and have come to the realization that both ROW and construction costs have quadrupled since the 1960s.

I'll close by saying this, no sane person is saying we should build lines that cross the country, but we need to do it by corridors where we KNOW it will make the most money: NEC, Texas, California and maybe the Gulf Coast and the Midwest. 

Just my 2 cents on the matter.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I don't know if this principal debate is still welcome in this thread. I hope we are not upsetting guys for repeating stuff over and over again. 

The argument with "but Europe is different" is a bit outdated. It doesn't take into account that not Europe is the exception, the US is. Almost all developed countries of a certain size have HSR nowadays. We are currently at a stage where developing countries are starting to build such systems as well. And I am not even talking about China here, which is a really impressive case but certainly quite special as well.


----------



## LtBk

Off-Topic, but I don't see how reforming a dysfunctional health care system is "European".


----------



## bluemeansgo

Sunfuns said:


> The argument about too low population density gets thrown around again and again whenever discussing HSR in US. Too bad it's not true, population density is actually very high in most or all places it is proposed.


For comparison:

The line is approximately comparitive to Japan's Sanyo/Kyushu corridor.

Osaka - Fukuoka : 622 km ( by train )
Sacramento/SF - LA : ~620km ( by car )

Populations: 
*Sanyo Corridor TOTAL: 28,070,066*
Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto:	18,768,395
Okayama:	1,646,757
Hiroshima:	2,064,536
Fukuoka:	5,590,378

*CAHSR Corridor TOTAL:	29,021,758*
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA:	18,081,569
Bakersfield, CA CSA:	851,710
Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Yuba, CA CSA:	2,425,019
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA:	7,663,460


Both are secondary corridors. 
In Japan, the main corridor is the *Tokaido* between *Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka*. 
IN USA, it's obviously the *NEC* between *Boston & NYC & DC*. 

Both connect a huge metro area to smaller areas. 
Both have difficult terrain but no massive mountain ranges to traverse.

The Sanyo Shinkansen was constructed between 1964 (completion of Tokaido line) and 1975 (completion to Fukuoka). Even back then, when the nation was in massive building mode, it took 11 years.

68 billion sounds expensive, but when you think about it like 4 separate infrastructure projects over 4 or 5 CMAs, it's manageable. 

Look at the costs of highway Improvements.

The I-5 North will cost *$1.3B* over 5 years.
The I-5 South will cost *$1.6B* over 5 years.
The I-405 10mi Improvements are *$1B*.
The I-710 corridor project (Long Beach) is estimated to cost between *$3.1 B *and *$6.37 B*. 

These end up being *from $7 to $11 B* dollars and they're all *essentially improvement projects on existing infrastructure* (MOSTLY LA). I haven't looked up major infrastructure project costs in other areas.

Remember, all this money doesn't have to come at the same time and it's coming from 5 major areas of California.

Am I preaching to the choir? Beating a dead horse? Probably.


----------



## CNB30

Sunfuns said:


> I think this is a wrong way of thinking. It's about developing efficient transportation system for medium term future instead of national pride or any other such things. It's prudent to copy if someone else has developed something useful. It happens all the time in science and technology and no one feels ashamed why would that not extend to infrastructure as well?
> 
> It's difficult to predict a future, but my bet would be that rail based transport is still around and popular 50 years from now. Quite likely more popular than now despite all the self driving cars etc. simply because of capacity and speed.


Since I was the one whom this was originally addressed to, I will admit that "national pride" is by far in away, not the main reason, but rather, I was mentioning that as a personal desire. While I know that it's not "original" to build HSR (after all, since when did anything new in America have to always be 100% original), but rather, I see it as a "catch up" kind of situation, when other nations are miles ahead, and America hasn't even left the station. 

Also, on a different note to everyone here, I appreciate your help in debunking virtually all of the anti transit arguments from those hiding under some imaginary cloak of all that "reason" represents; as well as acknowledging the fact that more than just the money should be taken into account when dealing with these projects.


----------



## CNB30

nyarch21 said:


> Since when has development of High Speed Rail been an accurate measurement of a nations success? At the rate we're developing our HSR it'll be long out dated by the time we can have it fully operational. The United States does not need to look towards Europe for infrastructure examples. Our country has always found success in looking towards the future. We need to start funding research for new ideas like the hyper loop. That is our future. Not copying Europe or China.


I'm going to be blunt here and state that I wish the U.S. was more like Europe, and not just in term of HSR. :lol:


----------



## nyarch21

gippas said:


> California's line passes through around 100 miles of difficult terrain but the majority is flat land.


The argument about the difficulty of terrain being a huge roadblock for the line is invalid. Sure maybe its not convenient, but was it convenient for the Transcontinental Railroad to find a route through the Sierras? Now I'm impartial here, because I don't know all the facts and figures, but what I do know is trains can go above ground, under ground, over mountains, around mountains, through mountains, under water, and can be elevated in the air. So just about any roadblock can be dealt with. Now I still don't claim to be an expert, but if a 1,900 mile railroad can be built across the United States *150 years ago*, we sure as hell can build a high speed rail through a small portion of California in the 21st century.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Of course, it is no technical problem at all to build that track. It is not even close to the most challenging HSR corridors built on earth. Connecting London to the European HSR grid was much more of a challenge for example. 

In the end it is merely a matter of price and while I am not an expert either I doubt the price tag for the Californian HSR corridor is out of the norm.


----------



## Woonsocket54

They're breaking ground tomorrow in Fresno. What a boondoggle. CA HSR will be the GOP's most successful recruitment drive in state history. Yikes.


----------



## CNB30

Woonsocket54 said:


> They're breaking ground tomorrow in Fresno. What a boondoggle. CA HSR will be the GOP's most successful recruitment drive in state history. Yikes.


In the long term, the benefits in jobs, the environment, urban planning, the economy as a whole, let alone the very fact that the U.S. will have high speed rail exponentially outweigh the cost. yeah, there's been some reaction to the project, but I personally think it's from either NIMBY farmers in the valley, people who are too short sighted to see any long term benefits and only care about the upfront costs.


----------



## CNB30

GET READY, TOMORROWS THE GROUND BREAKING DATE!!!!

:dance:


----------



## Woonsocket54

00Zy99 said:


> You have repeatedly posted disparaging things (using derogatory and at times outright cursing language) without evidence to back them up. That is something that is not productive to the board at minimum and could constitute trolling.


You may be confusing me with someone else. Can you please PM me and identify the potentially offensive verbiage? 

Thanks.


----------



## icracked

Been reading the comments, Woonsocket54 is very pessimistic about HSR in the U.S. Just sayin'.


----------



## Woonsocket54

icracked said:


> Been reading the comments, Woonsocket54 is very pessimistic about HSR in the U.S.


There's more to the US than Fresno.


----------



## aquaticko

Not to mention that pessimism doesn't constitute trolling.

At this point, I don't think that CAHSR opponents have an argument, but people are allowed to voice their opinions. America, free speech, bla bla.


----------



## CNB30

Woonsocket54 said:


> There's more to the US than Fresno.


and what point are you trying to make here?


----------



## Woonsocket54

That I'm not pessimistic about HSR in the US in general, just this particular HSR in particular.


----------



## aquaticko

Considering how well-scrutinized this project is, you must be particularly particular, then .


----------



## bluemeansgo

Woonsocket54 said:


> Existing track = true HSR???


It will barely have time to reach top speed (3-4 minutes best case access/decel ) in the urban areas as stations are closer to together. Dedicated rails isn't as important if stations are close together.

*SF – SJ = ~50mi ( 80km ).*
There will be stops at SFO & Palo Alto, though I'm not sure if all trains will stop there. Perhaps someone else knows the answer to that.

*SF - SFO (~15 mi) *. I doubt it could average more than *75mph* (incl. accel/decel time). I don't even think it would get up to its max speed of 220mph, even with a quick accelerating train like Japan's N700-i.

*SFO - SJ (~35m)* ~15 minutes dedicated HSR, avg ~125 mph over the trip. Sharing rails will likely *increase this to 30 minutes*.

Interestingly, This trip is almost exactly equivalent to Odawara - Tokyo in Japan. Although the Shinkansen in Tokyo does run on dedicated tracks within the city of Tokyo, in realistic terms... 

Here's the avg. speed for Odawara - Yokohama - Shinagawa(Tokyo) - Tokyo

*Segments*
Odawara - Yokohama ( 55.1km - 16 min ) = 207km/h* ( 129mph )*
Yokohama - Shinagawa ( 22.0km - 11 min ) = 120km/h* ( 75mph )*
Shinagawa - Tokyo (6.8km - 6 min ) = 68km/h* (42mph)*

*Whole Trip:*
Odawara - Tokyo ( 83.9 km - 33 min ) = 153km/h* (95mph)*

*Partial Trip:*
Yokohama - Tokyo ( 28.8km - 26 min ) = 66km/h *(41mph)*

THE POINT is... station spacing has a drastic effect on operations meaning that for the outset, running on existing rails in urban areas isn't a deal breaker. Note, in Japan, ALL trains stop at Yokohama, Shinagawa(Tokyo) and Tokyo. 

CAHSR will also be faster than trains on Japan's Tokaido line, which currently have a max speed of 270km/h. CAHSR Trains will cruise at 330km/h (205mph) in the central parts of the line.

Another parallel comparison is the Paris - London Eurostar. Initially, Eurostar was limited to 160km/h (~99mph) along the 108km ( 67mi) segment in Britain. 

1994 - Paris to London was *2:56*. 108km segment limited to 160km/h
2003 - Paris to London was *2:35*. 74km section 1 increased to 300km/h
2007 - Paris to London was *2:15*. 39km section 2 increased to 230km/h

Read more about HS1 upgrade.

Using Japan as a model for efficient, fast and frequent service and seeing the problems Britain has with its very first high speed train line (and still only HSR line) you can kind of see how it will shake out in CA.

It'll be fast in the middle and slow in the cities. Due to station spacing, it doesn't overly matter, but to be truly competitive, it will likely be gradually upgraded to support higher speeds in the urban areas.


----------



## bluemeansgo

One more thing...

To anyone who points at Amtrak ridership and thinks HSR will fail because of that... 

How many passenger ocean liner companies are still making the trans-atlantic run?
How many airlines run propeller planes long distance?

We never really think about the incremental upgrades to the airport infrastructure over the decades that has allowed large planes like the 747 and now the A380 to even land and be usable.


----------



## nyarch21

Actually I really enjoy taking Amtrak from Grand Rapids to Chicago. It's always clean and comfortable. Also I would say a reason for a low Amtrak ridership is due to the amount of neglect it gets. If you need a good example just go look at how inconvenient the website is.


----------



## bluemeansgo

nyarch21 said:


> Actually I really enjoy taking Amtrak from Grand Rapids to Chicago. It's always clean and comfortable. Also I would say a reason for a low Amtrak ridership is due to the amount of neglect it gets. If you need a good example just go look at how inconvenient the website is.


Clean, comfortable and clickey-clackety slow. Looks like that trip takes 4 hours!!!

The (similar-length) 175 mi trip between Nagoya and Odawara takes *69 minutes non-stop* and runs semi-hourly. 
The local service makes 8 stops and takes 2:10 (runs every 30 minutes). 

Costs about $100 for the trip (runs at a profit) timetable.

If they had HSR like this between Grand Rapids and Chicago:


How many would take the 55 minute flight? 
How many would make the 3 hour drive?


----------



## Goy

It is a shame a rich country like USA doesn't have HSR. The problem can be "lobby" of car industry and cultural trend to individualism that cars represent. I think if US wants to be independent from oil sources should invest a lot in electrified railways. HSR should be a priority to Americans, but it is too hard convince conservatives of it. Like germans, Americans are too attached to cars. So it will difficult to reduce American dependence on oil and countries that are hostile to USA: Russia, Iran, Venezuela....


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

Goy said:


> It is a shame a rich country like USA doesn't have HSR. The problem can be "lobby" of car industry and cultural trend to individualism that cars represent. I think if US wants to be independent from oil sources should invest a lot in electrified railways. HSR should be a priority to Americans, but it is too hard convince conservatives of it. Like germans, Americans are too attached to cars. So it will difficult to reduce American dependence on oil and countries that are hostile to USA: Russia, Iran, Venezuela....


the private sector should be involved, not the government.


----------



## oslogospelchoir

skyscraperhighrise said:


> the private sector should be involved, not the government.


The new Texas proposal appears to balance both worlds - libertarian desire to avoid coercion but modern proposal to get HS trains running.

I agree with previous posters. Libertarians especially should welcome getting government out of road building, oil industry ties and links to bad countries overseas just because you need their oil.


----------



## nyarch21

bluemeansgo, I appreciate you giving me an example of a HSR line similar in distance from Grand Rapids to Chicago. Sometimes when I Hear about all these projects proposed elsewhere I have no way of comprehending since all these areas are foreign to me. Any comparisons to the Midwest are warmly welcomed!


bluemeansgo said:


> Clean, comfortable and clickey-clackety slow. Looks like that trip takes 4 hours!!!
> 
> The (similar-length) 175 mi trip between Nagoya and Odawara takes *69 minutes non-stop* and runs semi-hourly.
> The local service makes 8 stops and takes 2:10 (runs every 30 minutes).
> 
> Costs about $100 for the trip (runs at a profit) timetable.
> 
> If they had HSR like this between Grand Rapids and Chicago:
> 
> 
> How many would take the 55 minute flight?
> How many would make the 3 hour drive?


Yes but does HSR always come with a higher trip cost? It cost about $30 to go one way from GR to Chicago on the Amtrak route. A more popular choice for me over the years has been to drive to Michigan City, Indiana(2hrs), and then take the commuter rail to Millenium Station (an additional 2hrs). With this option I am able to go the full distance conveniently. When tickets go for $8.50 one way, this is almost always the better option. I was able to make my last trip for $35 round trip. 

The first question that comes to mind when people make arguments for HSR is how many people would pay so much more for the extra convenience? It is currently a 55 minute flight from GR to Chicago, but most people I come across still prefer to travel to Chicago via car or rail. The benefit of the vehicle is that it is more economically efficient when you travel in large numbers since you pay a flat rate for your group transportation vs a transportation service where you have to pay for each person individually.

Many people think that HSR is very important to infrastructure, do you think that the Midwest could ever have a high speed network? I can fantasize about it, but I'm not sure if I can ever see it realisticly happening.


----------



## zaphod

> the private sector should be involved, not the government.


Well lets be honest. It's been over 50 years since the first high speed trains started for there to be serious headway towards privately built HSR in the US. And Texas Central has not even begun construction yet. Also Houston -> Dallas is a very low hanging fruit. There is nothing in between except for rolling farm fields. For whatever historical reason, there just isn't a lot of population along the I-45 corridor and the terrain is benign. And in Texas, there's not much of a NIMBY culture, and rural county governments don't have a great deal of power to decide what can be built where. Also the south side of Dallas and the North Side of Houston have plenty of open areas where you could thread a HSR line next to warehouses and vacant lots and nobody will complain about noise or it being an eyesore. So basically I can see them building it at a very low cost per mile where most of the route is at-grade and runs in a straight line across some pastures and cotton fields, compared to any line in northeast or California that would involve tunneling or building viaducts through towns and buying out neighboring landowners and fighting lawsuits. And finally it fits perfectly in the ideal time/distance niche high speed rail fills. And the two cities are large and growing.

Though I wish all these private developers luck, if they do succeed then that is good for everyone. The government can save money for something else.


----------



## CollegeBoy

Public-Private is the way of the future folks, so we better get used to it.


----------



## bluemeansgo

nyarch21 said:


> bluemeansgo, I appreciate you giving me an example of a HSR line similar in distance from Grand Rapids to Chicago. Sometimes when I Hear about all these projects proposed elsewhere I have no way of comprehending since all these areas are foreign to me. Any comparisons to the Midwest are warmly welcomed!
> 
> 
> Yes but does HSR always come with a higher trip cost? It cost about $30 to go one way from GR to Chicago on the Amtrak route. A more popular choice for me over the years has been to drive to Michigan City, Indiana(2hrs), and then take the commuter rail to Millenium Station (an additional 2hrs). With this option I am able to go the full distance conveniently. When tickets go for $8.50 one way, this is almost always the better option. I was able to make my last trip for $35 round trip.
> 
> The first question that comes to mind when people make arguments for HSR is how many people would pay so much more for the extra convenience? It is currently a 55 minute flight from GR to Chicago, but most people I come across still prefer to travel to Chicago via car or rail. The benefit of the vehicle is that it is more economically efficient when you travel in large numbers since you pay a flat rate for your group transportation vs a transportation service where you have to pay for each person individually.
> 
> Many people think that HSR is very important to infrastructure, do you think that the Midwest could ever have a high speed network? I can fantasize about it, but I'm not sure if I can ever see it realistically happening.


I guess it depends on who's running it and what kind of traveler you want to attract. I would say... HSR is USUALLY a little less expensive than 

HSR doesn't HAVE to be expensive, it depends on a lot of factors. In Japan, HSR is usually a little lower than the price to fly, but people take it for its convenience. Prices will reflect what the market will bear. Grand Rapids would likely be on a line between Detroit and Chicago, by the looks of it, but honestly, I don't really know the area other than looking on a map.

Some lines are cash-cows. JR-Central, which operates the line between Tokyo and Osaka is very profitable. They're profitable enough that they decided to bank-roll a somewhat parallel mag-lev line for $80 billion dollars. 80% of this line will be in tunnels. 

Tokyo to Osaka (552km) is $144 one-way which consists of a $87 base fare and a $57 Express Fee. It works out to ¥26 ($.25)/km. That's pretty standard across the whole network. Despite the high cost of construction, there will only be a price difference of about $10 apparently.

I'm sure they COULD charge less and be less profitable, but if people will pay it, then they will charge it.

You typically find that those that wouldn't fly MAY take the train due to its convenience. Air travel is a major hassle and usually outside of the city centre. Business travelers will take the train because of its speed and convenience. Those that usually drive will consider the train because it is so much quicker than driving and takes you right downtown.

Families usually don't take the train en masse, but at least in Japan, children under 6 are free (and sit on a lap) 6+ kids are half price.

I hope that gives you an idea of how a complete system works in a country with similar wealth as the US. There's much more of course


----------



## gippas

nyarch21 said:


> Many people think that HSR is very important to infrastructure, do you think that the Midwest could ever have a high speed network? I can fantasize about it, but I'm not sure if I can ever see it realisticly happening.


I think from a european perspective, Midwest is one of the best places to have HSR in the US. Many big population centers in distances below 250 miles. For example, a line from Milwuakee to Columbus passing through Chicago and Indiannapolis would connect around 16 million people within less than 350 miles. And all that with a line passing mostly through flat ground. Similar cases could be made for lines to St Louis, Cincinatti and Detroit, which, despite its decline, remains a metro with over 4 million people. For connections to Milwaukee and Indianapolis not even real HSR is needed, a service with Acela's characteristics would work fine. 

So, the basics are there and in the case of Chicago at least probably the money. What is lacking however is the political will, which made the difference in California. In the Midwest, there is instead a Governor who gave back $800 million federal money that would have been spent in his state instead of creating a 65 mile rail connection between the two biggest cities in his state.


----------



## 00Zy99

^^Which state was that?


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> ^^Which state was that?


I think he's referring to Wisconsin, probably.


----------



## Suburbanist

Without a Barkersfield- Los Angeles basin link, it won't be possible to travel from SF to LA even on mixed tracks. There is absolutely no space on the freight lines to accommodate passenger traffic out of the basin. The Tehachappi traverse is very slow and utterly busy with freight trains already. The BNSF line over Cajun pass is also extremely busy.


----------



## 00Zy99

Suburbanist said:


> Without a Barkersfield- Los Angeles basin link, it won't be possible to travel from SF to LA even on mixed tracks. There is absolutely no space on the freight lines to accommodate passenger traffic out of the basin. The Tehachappi traverse is very slow and utterly busy with freight trains already. The BNSF line over Cajun pass is also extremely busy.


A new route over Tehachapi is planned, and will be built as soon as money is available, I expect. The difficulty comes once you get over the mountains into the LA basin.


----------



## Woonsocket54

What's the plan in the interim? To run HSR via the Tehachapi loop?


----------



## 00Zy99

Woonsocket54 said:


> What's the plan in the interim? To run HSR via the Tehachapi loop?


Nothing. It's only going to be a few years. Improved buses, I guess. But the Central Valley market is growing already.


----------



## bluemeansgo

We could also see changes as the project picks up steam. It could be that once it's being built, the people will demand it to be built out. The key thing for this project is just STARTING it.

It's a shame that it won't be super-awesome on Day 1, but hopefully it will eventually be a shining beacon for other places in the States... like for example, the Midwest which already has a decent commuter network (read: Amtrak acts as a feeder).

Ironically, HSR has the potential to make Amtrak and commuter rail MORE competitive and viable! Why? Amtrak no longer has the pressure to keep good services on intercity lines and can focus on more profitable commuter runs, as well as feeding HSR stations. 

If you look at Japan, HSR has helped make private rail companies like Kintetsu, Keihan, Nankai, Keisei and others both profitable and competitive. Look at the largest private operator: *Kintetsu*. Their network feeds three major HSR stations in Osaka, Kyoto and Nagoya:










Unfortunately, the US has more of a quarterly culture, both in business and building infrastructure. It's hard to get business to take a losses on quarters for big gains a few years from now. Investors are more interested in the here and now and what you've done for me lately.

It's even harder to get something approved and started that will span over several elections.


----------



## nyarch21

When will the sections from Fresno to Bakersfield be complete? I read that the Texas HSR line could be complete by 2021, but I haven't heard anything for a while on the progress. Any updates?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> Amtrak no longer has the pressure to keep good services on intercity lines and can focus on more profitable commuter runs, as well as feeding HSR stations.


I suppose you mean Amtrak "commuter" to be high frequency short distance intercity runs i.e. Chicago-St. Louis or Detroit-Chicago, and "intercity" to be the loss-making long distance transcontinental runs . At least in the U.S., no one makes money running the typical AM suburb to city and PM city to suburb services that constitute the majority of commuter operations.


----------



## Basincreek

Woonsocket54 said:


> There's more to the US than Fresno.


Yes. That is probably why the high speed lines connect lots of cities.



Woonsocket54 said:


> That I'm not pessimistic about HSR in the US in general, just this particular HSR in particular.


Uh huh. And yet you seem to have some large gaps in your knowledge about it.



Woonsocket54 said:


> What's the plan in the interim? To run HSR via the Tehachapi loop?


No. The plan is to not run high speed trains until the tracks reach LA. Once that is done a limited HSR service will run from LA to Merced until the tracks reach San Jose. At that point the entire SF to LA trip can be made using upgraded tracks at the very ends.



nyarch21 said:


> When will the sections from Fresno to Bakersfield be complete? I read that the Texas HSR line could be complete by 2021, but I haven't heard anything for a while on the progress. Any updates?


Fresno to Bakersfield will be complete by 2017. By then the Bakersfield to Palmdale segment will be under construction too.


----------



## Sunfuns

Basincreek said:


> No. *The plan is to not run high speed trains until the tracks reach LA.* Once that is done a limited HSR service will run from LA to Merced until the tracks reach San Jose. At that point the entire SF to LA trip can be made using upgraded tracks at the very ends.


That's not very smart if true. Why not let Amtrak use the new section from Madera to Bakersfield? It would allow huge time savings for that service and prove that infrastructure works. The gap between the first section opening and reaching LA will be at least 5 years I think. Other option would be to run Fresno-Bakersfield service say 10 times a day in each direction just as a trial.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Amtrak and high speed rail will likely use vastly different systems. How would they test the trains if Amtrak is running on the lines? On paper it sounds like a good idea but in real terms it isn't really practical. There is a lot of testing and work on the tracks and pieces that are system wide and require access to the tracks.


----------



## Sunfuns

bluemeansgo said:


> Amtrak and high speed rail will likely use vastly different systems. How would they test the trains if Amtrak is running on the lines? On paper it sounds like a good idea but in real terms it isn't really practical. There is a lot of testing and work on the tracks and pieces that are system wide and require access to the tracks.


There is a lot of testing, but not 5 years of constant testing (usually about a year) and that would be done before anything runs on it. Spending billions and then not using it would be PR disaster. They should definitely run something on it if for no other reason than to demonstrate to still sceptical public how fast and convenient it is. The gauge is identical so I'm sure Amtrak could be adapted to run on it, just not as fast.


----------



## rbt4mak786

Great i really like it thanks for share..


----------



## Basincreek

Sunfuns said:


> That's not very smart if true. Why not let Amtrak use the new section from Madera to Bakersfield? It would allow huge time savings for that service and prove that infrastructure works. The gap between the first section opening and reaching LA will be at least 5 years I think. Other option would be to run Fresno-Bakersfield service say 10 times a day in each direction just as a trial.


Actually, the plan is to let Amtrak use the tracks (except for when trainset testing and qualifications is taking place) until the tracks are converted to high speed only. In fact that is why the ICS is being staged the way it is. So that the tracks at either end can be tied into the BNSF line that currently carries the San Joaquin.


----------



## Tower Dude

If nothing else this will allow the San Joaquin to have a dedicated ROW!


----------



## Sunfuns

Tower Dude said:


> If nothing else this will allow the San Joaquin to have a dedicated ROW!


Exactly! I suppose San Joaquin trains are capable of at least 80 mph. On a dedicated track that will improve travel time and reduce delays significantly.


----------



## Tower Dude

The EDM F59PHI locomotives Amtrak California currently uses on the SurfLiner and San Joaquin are capable of 110 MPH (180 KmPH) and the new Siemens Charger locomotives are Capable of 125 MPH (200 KmPH). So ya if they are only able to build Fresno to Bakersville it won't totally in vain. Though I am total hoping for the full build with Termini in San Fransisco, Sacramento Anaheim, and San Diego!


----------



## Sunfuns

Of course a full length needs to be built for the project to make any financial sense, but stuff like this is a valuable add-on.


----------



## 00Zy99

Won't the heavy conventional stock wreck the track?

Also, won't this lock the system into using low-platform stock when the N700 is favorite, and is high-platform?

And doesn't the San Joaquin make more stops than the HSR will?


----------



## Tower Dude

I believe that the route for the HSR line is pretty much based off the I San Joaquin and then some, as far the new track is concerned I'm pretty sure it would be stronger than the regular track as to be resistant to the seismic vibration created by trains at that speed. As for the platforms...you got me there


----------



## 00Zy99

No, I'm asking if the San Joaquin makes more stops along the Central Valley then the HSR.

So between Merced and Bakersfield, the San Joaquin makes X many stops, and how many does HSR make?

What will happen to those stops that are bypassed?


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya they are they are gonna be bypassed though they will still be serviced by the San Joaquin. Also I spoke too soon on the platform issue, if the CHSRA chooses the N700 it really doesn't make sense to run the San Joaquin on the line, but if they choose trains made by Siemens, Bombardier, Alstom or Talgo it somewhat makes sense since those trains are made for low platform boarding. BUT the Authority doesn't want low platform trains and whether or not those companies will decide to make high platform trains? Your guess is a good as mine!!


----------



## bluemeansgo

Isn't part of the reason they are low boarding because they're just simple locomotive driven cars? The N700 cars are EMUs. This distributes the weight of the train allowing you to construct lighter track structures as they don't need to support heavy locomotives. It also means you have superior acceleration. France's newest AGV is the same as they've seen the benefits and advantages that the Japanese trains have.


----------



## Tower Dude

You are most definitely right about the EMUs, after that things get a little more woogy. In the debate of High v. Low platforms it seems to be a matter of preference, tradition or money, modern High Speed EMUs in Italy, Switzerland, Spain, and Germany all use low platforms while a lot of rail lines in the northeast have high platforms that only serve push/pull trains. So ya it gets kinda confusing.


----------



## 2co2co

Would this count as a "high speed rail" project?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30849171


----------



## Sunfuns

San Joaquin is unlikely to still run in the Central valley after full opening of California HS rail. Here is San Joaquin route with all stops: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Joaquin_(train)#mediaviewer/File:Amtrak_San_Joaquin.svg

HSR between Merced and Bakersfield will have stations in Fresno and possibly a new station at Kings/Tulare close to Hanford. That leaves out only Corcoran and Wasco. Those two small towns (25k each) will have to switch to buses I think. 

One issue I hope they do take care off is that conventional trains from Sacramento and HS line meet in some station (Merced?) so that passengers can conveniently change from one service to another.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Excellent compendium you shouldn't miss: California High-Speed Rail: The Collector's Edition


----------



## sekelsenmat

high speed rail in USA is a bad joke. Already 5 years ago I said they should have started building in the part Los Angeles - Central Valley. If they had done that, they could have something working. The way it currently it, they might build the valley part and then run out of funds and leave an useless skeleton.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

sekelsenmat said:


> they might build the valley part and then run out of funds and leave an useless skeleton.


Or they might not. Given the irremediable congestion at the airports serving flights connecting northern and southern California, I think HSR on that route is inevitable. Even if the built segment of the presently-planned HSR route languishes for a while, I think the odds are overwhelming it will eventually be completed. Of course, the longer it is delayed, the more it will ultimately cost.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

sekelsenmat said:


> high speed rail in USA is a bad joke. Already 5 years ago I said they should have started building in the part Los Angeles - Central Valley. If they had done that, they could have something working. The way it currently it, they might build the valley part and then run out of funds and leave an useless skeleton.


I get where you're coming from, and while I agree that is a scary thought, I would like to point out that it was exactly this kind of fear decades ago that have caused the delays you are complaining about now. 

Although I find some details a little fishy with CHSRA (such as one of the bids coming in at 1,234,567,800; come on, seriously?), overall I feel that they are trying their best to reach out to the affected communities. It just seems a pity that most of the affected residents, instead of trying to be cooperative with the Authority and work together to find a solution, choose rather to try waste time and money fighting a war of attrition that benefits no one. 

hno:


It's one thing to be an NIMBY, and sue for adequate compensation/protection. That I can understand and completely sympathize with. It's another to tell HSR supporters to "Go eat sh*t and die" and to drag to the Supreme Court with the sole intention of killing the project.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

Silver Swordsman said:


> I get where you're coming from, and while I agree that is a scary thought, I would like to point out that it was exactly this kind of fear decades ago that have caused the delays you are complaining about now.
> 
> Although I find some details a little fishy with CHSRA (such as one of the bids coming in at 1,234,567,800; come on, seriously?), overall I feel that they are trying their best to reach out to the affected communities. It just seems a pity that most of the affected residents, instead of trying to be cooperative with the Authority and work together to find a solution, choose rather to try waste time and money fighting a war of attrition that benefits no one.
> 
> hno:
> 
> 
> It's one thing to be an NIMBY, and sue for adequate compensation/protection. That I can understand and completely sympathize with. It's another to tell HSR supporters to "Go eat sh*t and die" and to drag to the Supreme Court with the sole intention of killing the project.


I Think this is all a plan for the UN Agenda 21 to be pushed down our throats, people need to wake up.


----------



## Tower Dude

EGADS!! You're right!! I'M OFF to the wilds with my Barrett .50 cal, my gallons of distilled unfluoridated water, my tons of potted meat, and army surplus hummer!! OH and I almost forgot my greatest weapon of all, MY TINFOIL HAT!!


----------



## Nexis

skyscraperhighrise said:


> I Think this is all a plan for the UN Agenda 21 to be pushed down our throats, people need to wake up.


Not this Agenda 21 Bullshit again...


----------



## 00Zy99

skyscraperhighrise said:


> I Think this is all a plan for the UN Agenda 21 to be pushed down our throats.


This is a good thing. Why are you saying it like it's bad?


----------



## Tower Dude

Because he's Crazy! like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Aynn Rand, Charles and David Koch Kinda Crazy!


----------



## CNB30

Guys the New World order is obviously going to enslave us all with agenda 21. Alex Jones told me so :nuts::nuts:


----------



## Tower Dude

I knew I forgot to add someone to that list!


----------



## 00Zy99

skyscraperhighrise said:


> I Think this is all a plan for the UN Agenda 21 to be pushed down our throats, people need to wake up.


Before you gripe about something like this, how about you sit down, take a deep breath, and read the actual document with an open mind. Then decide if it has to be opposed.


----------



## jam5

skyscraperhighrise said:


> I Think this is all a plan for the UN Agenda 21 to be pushed down our throats, people need to wake up.


...........


Tell me this is sarcasm.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

jam5 said:


> ...........
> 
> 
> Tell me this is sarcasm.


it's true and it is no conspiracy theory, it is a fact, they are kicking people off their lands for this scheme, thank god Silver Swordsman and sekelsenmat
are the only ones besides me that is speaking truth.


----------



## CNB30

^^ so where are your sources?


----------



## Tower Dude

WHAT!! NO ONE is getting kicked off their land! In fact the lack of use of eminent domain is why this project is taking this so long!! And why the cost of this project is so high


----------



## 00Zy99

skyscraperhighrise said:


> it's true and it is no conspiracy theory, it is a fact, they are kicking people off their lands for this scheme, thank god Silver Swordsman and sekelsenmat
> are the only ones besides me that is speaking truth.


Even if they WERE "kicking people off of their lands" (which I doubt), the vast majority of the property "takings" are slated to be small slivers of farm land-a few rows of plants are not exactly devastating. Urban segments are intended to follow existing RoW for rail, road, and power as much as possible, or travel underground. And even if they DO take a few houses, that's eminent domain and completely legal so long as it is done in the public interest. 

The Interstate Highway System was absolutely DEVASTATING in terms of neighborhood destruction through eminent domain. If you've EVER driven through a city (or large town) on a major highway, you have benefited from "kicking people off of their lands" in a FAR more brutal and widespread manner than what will be necessary for a two-track railroad. For that matter, there is the whole issue of Native Americans which I won't go into further.

Eminent Domain was written into the Bill of Rights as completely legal and permissible so long as fair recompense is made to the victims, as it undoubtedly will here. It is an ancient concept about the needs of the many outweighing the desires of the few and has been employed by EVERY state in history to varying degrees.

If I was told that my property was needed for a new HSR line, I would HAPPILY move, so long as I received just compensation. (although I'd seriously wonder what they were smoking to think that this place needs to be moved for an HSR line given the local terrain and traffic markets :lol::nuts


----------



## CNB30

So it's Ok to Demolish so many beautiful, quaint, walkable, cultural neighborhoods for highways, but you cant get a couple of NIMBY farmers to give up 2% of their land hno:


----------



## 00Zy99

CNB30 said:


> So it's Ok to Demolish so many beautiful, quaint, walkable, cultural neighborhoods for highways, but you cant get a couple of NIMBY farmers to give up 2% of their land hno:


That seems to be what he's saying. I completely disagree with such thoughts and think that the inverse should be true.


----------



## aquaticko

Really not sure why you guys are trying to reason with someone who's had that much Kool-Aid. He's got a different perspective on the world from the rest of us, and we can argue back and forth about how right or wrong we think it is, but fundamentally, we're either not having the same argument, or more likely, speaking in different languages, entirely.

Let's get back to topic, shall we? Are we still stuck with the absurd >$100 billion, ~40 year timeline for a Boston-D.C. high-speed line? Or has someone come up with another idea? Also, how's the Florida rail thing going?


----------



## Tower Dude

I think florida is starting construction this year, as for the new NEC that is not going anywhere for a while.


----------



## CNB30

00Zy99 said:


> That seems to be what he's saying. I completely disagree with such thoughts and think that the inverse should be true.


 as any sentient being should believe as well


----------



## Innsertnamehere

Florida isn't real HSR. The NEC will happen slowly with upgrades coming over decades. The next big one will possibly be Texas.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

00Zy99 said:


> If I was told that my property was needed for a new HSR line, I would HAPPILY move, so long as I received just compensation. (although I'd seriously wonder what they were smoking to think that this place needs to be moved for an HSR line given the local terrain and traffic markets :lol::nuts


Devil's advocate here for a second.


Say that you bought your house for $750,000, at the peak of the housing bubble. You've made wise investments, and your bank account is in the black. You've also invested privately in renovating your home, an additional $150,000, let's say. 

Now the CHSRA is knocking at your door, telling you that your house is in the way of a support pylon--not for the HSR, but for moving a small road that will need to be rerouted due to the train's path. 

Based on their estimates on land value (everything has dropped after 2008), they are willing to offer you $350,000 for your home. After telling them that you paid $750,000 for the house and invested another $150k in renovations, they bump it up to $450,000 out of sympathy, but maintain that this area is currently very cheap land due to many foreclosures due to the Financial Crisis. 

You try to explain that $450,000 nowhere comes close to buying a new house in the current market, and that this home was everything to you, including retirement, and you request a minimum of $750,000 (the price you paid for the house). The CHSRA agent apologizes that the amount you posted is not valid based on depreciation and inflation, as well as the fact that their funds are limited.

You are an electronics engineer, with no experience in finance. 

Now, would you accept, or would you sue?
















Basically, this is the nightmare that all NIMBYs face.


----------



## bluemeansgo

So the nightmare that all Nimbys face is realizing that that they made a mistake in buying at the top? Or is it the nightmare that realizing that their granite countertops and Miele dishwashers were a bad decision they made when assuming that the cheap loans they got to renovate would continue forever.

They get above market value and would not have to list the property or deal with real Estate fees. If their house is worth 350,000 I'm sure they can find an equivalent or better house for that price. Sure there's a cost to move but that's taken into account.


----------



## 00Zy99

Silver Swordsman said:


> Devil's advocate here for a second.
> 
> 
> Say that you bought your house for $750,000, at the peak of the housing bubble. You've made wise investments, and your bank account is in the black. You've also invested privately in renovating your home, an additional $150,000, let's say.
> 
> Now the CHSRA is knocking at your door, telling you that your house is in the way of a support pylon--not for the HSR, but for moving a small road that will need to be rerouted due to the train's path.
> 
> Based on their estimates on land value (everything has dropped after 2008), they are willing to offer you $350,000 for your home. After telling them that you paid $750,000 for the house and invested another $150k in renovations, they bump it up to $450,000 out of sympathy, but maintain that this area is currently very cheap land due to many foreclosures due to the Financial Crisis.
> 
> You try to explain that $450,000 nowhere comes close to buying a new house in the current market, and that this home was everything to you, including retirement, and you request a minimum of $750,000 (the price you paid for the house). The CHSRA agent apologizes that the amount you posted is not valid based on depreciation and inflation, as well as the fact that their funds are limited.
> 
> You are an electronics engineer, with no experience in finance.
> 
> Now, would you accept, or would you sue?
> 
> Basically, this is the nightmare that all NIMBYs face.





bluemeansgo said:


> So the nightmare that all Nimbys face is realizing that that they made a mistake in buying at the top? Or is it the nightmare that realizing that their granite countertops and Miele dishwashers were a bad decision they made when assuming that the cheap loans they got to renovate would continue forever.
> 
> They get above market value and would not have to list the property or deal with real Estate fees. If their house is worth 350,000 I'm sure they can find an equivalent or better house for that price. Sure there's a cost to move but that's taken into account.


This. BMG shows what my family has done with property. Carefully examined market trends and done our best to avoid buying in bubbles. We ended up taking a loss in Manhattan for 20+ years before selling out and making money. 

The important thing is to pay attention to the local government and find out whether there is ANYTHING being planned that might impact your house. In that case, sell early or DON'T BUY. Be thrifty and don't spend unnecessarily on luxury items like pools (they don't bring back their money on sale).0


----------



## phoenixboi08

My understanding of much of the lawsuits is that the disputes center around the notion that attempting to purchase some parcels of land either diminishes the value on others surrounding it or reduces their usefulness (largely, agricultural), which resulted in owners trying to get the authority to either buy their entire lot or else they were disputing that an alternative could be chosen that would eliminate the takings to begin with. 

Then there was the whole BS about the business plan being in violation of the voter proposition.


----------



## MarcVD

Silver Swordsman said:


> Devil's advocate here for a second.
> 
> Based on their estimates on land value (everything has dropped after 2008), they are willing to offer you $350,000 for your home. After telling them that you paid $750,000 for the house and invested another $150k in renovations, they bump it up to $450,000 out of sympathy, but maintain that this area is currently very cheap land due to many foreclosures due to the Financial Crisis.


The price you paid has nothing to do in this equation. Adequate compensation means that with the money you get, you can buy someting of similar size, location, condition and equipment. If the local prices have been
correctly surveyed, there is no reason this shouldn't be the case.


----------



## Basincreek

skyscraperhighrise said:


> I Think this is all a plan for the UN Agenda 21 to be pushed down our throats, people need to wake up.


Sadly a lot of the people opposing the project believe in the conspiracy crap about Agenda 21.



Silver Swordsman said:


> Devil's advocate here for a second.
> 
> 
> Say that you bought your house for $750,000, at the peak of the housing bubble. You've made wise investments, and your bank account is in the black. You've also invested privately in renovating your home, an additional $150,000, let's say.
> 
> Now the CHSRA is knocking at your door, telling you that your house is in the way of a support pylon--not for the HSR, but for moving a small road that will need to be rerouted due to the train's path.
> 
> Based on their estimates on land value (everything has dropped after 2008), they are willing to offer you $350,000 for your home. After telling them that you paid $750,000 for the house and invested another $150k in renovations, they bump it up to $450,000 out of sympathy, but maintain that this area is currently very cheap land due to many foreclosures due to the Financial Crisis.
> 
> You try to explain that $450,000 nowhere comes close to buying a new house in the current market, and that this home was everything to you, including retirement, and you request a minimum of $750,000 (the price you paid for the house). The CHSRA agent apologizes that the amount you posted is not valid based on depreciation and inflation, as well as the fact that their funds are limited.
> 
> You are an electronics engineer, with no experience in finance.
> 
> Now, would you accept, or would you sue?


Well, you could sue but it won't do you any good. So far not one of the lawsuits has benefited the plaintiffs. Just sucked a lot of money into the coffers of lawfirms. 

And that specific situation of the house being in the way of an easily movable component has already played out. Check out the change in designs from the Draft EIR's to the actual RFP's. Numerous designs were altered so as to avoid homes.

But the reality is that most of the lawsuits are't from people looking to save a family home. They are from big corporate farmers who don't even live in the area. 

And if that is the situation, well it sucks but life kind of sucks in general. Welcome to the suck club. 



phoenixboi08 said:


> My understanding of much of the lawsuits is that the disputes center around the notion that attempting to purchase some parcels of land either diminishes the value on others surrounding it or reduces their usefulness (largely, agricultural), which resulted in owners trying to get the authority to either buy their entire lot or else they were disputing that an alternative could be chosen that would eliminate the takings to begin with.
> 
> Then there was the whole BS about the business plan being in violation of the voter proposition.


This is claimed in many of the lawsuits but others really just have an agenda. Having talked to one of the main plaintiffs it is clear he has bought into Tea Party koolaid and just thinks trains=communism while Real Americans™ drive pick up trucks. He actually said once that the more trains we have the easier it will be for the socialists to load up the Christians into railcars for delivery to the extermination camps. 

You can't really reason with such people.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

Basincreek said:


> Sadly a lot of the people opposing the project believe in the conspiracy crap about Agenda 21.


B.S., it is the truth, wake up, both democrips and rebloodlicans support this.


----------



## Tower Dude

"Sigh" I'm tired of this. I'm going to go back to discussing high speed rail if you want to discuss the threats of what ever howl at the moon theories you believe in create a separate forum and debate it there. 
So on that note anyone have any pictures of construction from out in California or Florida maybe or any news of any projects that may be in the "pipeline"?


----------



## sdery

> Sigh" I'm tired of this. I'm going to go back to discussing high speed rail if you want to discuss the threats of what ever howl at the moon theories you believe in create a separate forum and debate it there.
> So on that note anyone have any pictures of construction from out in California or Florida maybe or any news of any projects that may be in the "pipeline"?


^THIS

Let's get this topic back on track to a discussion of construction activity and, more importantly, pictures of that construction activity.


----------



## phoenixboi08

sdery said:


> ^THIS
> 
> Let's get this topic back on track to a discussion of construction activity and, more importantly, pictures of that construction activity.


I think we are still waiting for the NTP (Notice to Proceed). Likely, they are going over the CP details, since it's essentially a contract. Once they've fully reviewed, amended anything/accepted the terms, they'll officially accept it.

Until then, we won't see/hear much of anything.


----------



## sdery

> I think we are still waiting for the NTP (Notice to Proceed). Likely, they are going over the CP details, since it's essentially a contract. Once they've fully reviewed, amended anything/accepted the terms, they'll officially accept it.
> 
> Until then, we won't see/hear much of anything.


Any idea of how long that will take?


----------



## NergiZed

00Zy99 said:


> California has requirements that the rolling stock be in service accident-free for at least five years. China doesn't have that.


China will have that in 18 months. 

Considering how slow the Californian HSR progress is going, Japan will have a functioning commercial High-speed Mag-lev before California has HSR.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

SamuraiBlue said:


> Any thoughts?


another reason to get out of these so-called free trade agreements.

let's build high speed rail for made in america, not china.


----------



## hmmwv

sdery said:


> Most (if not all) the HSR projects in the US have local build requirements for the highspeed train sets. I'm not sure how willing or able the Chinese are to move the manufacturing process to the US as this might limit their price competitiveness.
> 
> The fact that the Chinese government is also discouraging the purchase of US IT products in China might also result in a US government retaliation by not considering Chinese train set manufacturers.


When China first pitched HSR to US five years ago the proposal was already setting up JV manufacturing in CONUS with GE.

To your second point, the new IT equipment restriction itself is a retaliation to US banning Chinese IT firms from participating in various US sectors.


----------



## luhai

SamuraiBlue said:


> Any thoughts?


talks are just talks. With the current US political envirenment, it will remain just talks. The Chinese knows it, the Americans knows it as well. At best, Chinese bid will be used to pressure other parties to lower their price, at worst it's just a waste of time and money for everyone, and enable offical to hold meetings in nice hotels and dine on fine foods.


----------



## 00Zy99

NergiZed said:


> China will have that in 18 months.
> 
> Considering how slow the Californian HSR progress is going, Japan will have a functioning commercial High-speed Mag-lev before California has HSR.


A) The closure date on that time period has passed (I believe that it was ending August 2014) since the bidding process is already underway.

B) China wasn't accident free in that time.

C) California HSR will beat the Chuo maglev based on current projections.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Have to agree with luhai. Almost every company (or nation) will throw their hat into a big project like this. It may merely be symbolic, it may not. Several years ago there was a business agreement between GE and one of the big Chinese rolling stock makers, with talk about GE getting high speed rail technology from the Chinese. Nothing seems to be coming of that. I suspect it was merely polite talk, and the main part (99%) of the deal was GE selling more of their heavy freight locomotives to China Railways.

The Chinese approach is to low-ball bid, which works with corrupt U.S. transit agencies and local governments, but it may be more difficult with a higher profile project like HSR that receives more public scrutiny. As luhai says, at best it may serve to force the middle tier (Korean) and high end (European and Japanese) builders to lower their bids.


----------



## sweet-d

Ummm doesn't being accident free go by rolling stock and NOT the number of accidents on China's HSR. Their certainly has to be at least 1 type of Chinese High Speed Train Set that's accident free (still 18 months left). 

Yeah the political climate sucks a** especially when you have some people in Texas trying to prevent privetly developed HSR. Nimbys can be rationalized but some people in Texas wanna go as far preventing the state of Texas from allowing the use of immenent Domain to be used to acquire property for HSR lines. 

Its too bad really Texas along with Ohio and Pennsylvania are states that could easily have had the first phases of regional HSR lines as of now we get more talking except for Texas at least.


----------



## aquaticko

Considering that price has been arguably *the* hot-button issue throughout the entire CAHSR process (and is with basically everything in this jaded country), I think the Korean bid stands the best chance, especially if they can get their new EMU units ready for deployment in time. They're likely to offer the best balance between cost and quality, even though they can't match the name recognition of the Shinkansen.

In any case, I agree that a Chinese bid wouldn't be seriously considered, both for political reasons and the issue of selling a system that's recently had a major fatal accident in the recent past. Germany may have the Eschede disaster, but that was long enough ago that people don't know about it, and besides, Germany obviously has a better reputation for quality products than China. Spain has the same issue as China in terms of public perception due to Santiago de Compostela, but I'm not sure where French or Italian bids would fall in the ranking.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

aquaticko said:


> Considering that price has been arguably *the* hot-button issue throughout the entire CAHSR process (and is with basically everything in this jaded country), I think the Korean bid stands the best chance, especially if they can get their new EMU units ready for deployment in time. They're likely to offer the best balance between cost and quality, even though they can't match the name recognition of the Shinkansen.


Unfortunately the Korean HS rolling stocks had been myriad with various service accidents. Although they had no fatalities, I do not think they will clear that clause.


----------



## 00Zy99

The last time I saw the official documents, they were including things like quality and life-cycle costs. Korea's EMU won't be ready in time.

At last check the leading contender was the N700, followed by the Velaro.


----------



## phoenixboi08

I think the signaling and other technologies are also really important to a potential bid, no?
More than the actual price of the rolling stock, I think they'll be more keen to choose a bid that has the potential to offer a "complete" package. 

In any case, the way JRE is handling through running seems to have caught the agency's eye (and, going off of the previous attempt to coordinate procurement with Amtrak, I wonder if they weren't aggressively pursuing the E5/6 trains from the outset).


----------



## aquaticko

^^I guess that wouldn't be too surprising. Particularly if they're looking for a totally clean service record, doesn't that just leave the Japanese and the French? Toss in the fact that all of the renderings and videos look like they're using 700 Series Shinkansen, and maybe there won't be much of a "bid" at all.


----------



## Sunfuns

There should be a serious bidding if for no other reason than to keep down the price.


----------



## hmmwv

It'll all come down to financing, if the Japanese can finance it then there really won't be any competition.


----------



## Maarten Otto

I hope for California, and I sure think they will, is to demand the manufacturer to build the trains in the state with American labour. The best solution would be to build a train factory, be it French (Alstom), German (Siemens) or Japanese (Hitachi) right in the Fresno/Bakersfield area where after construction they could also do heavy maintenance during the entire lifetime of the fleet. Small maintenance can be done in the Bay and Basin. This approach will allow the generation of many direct and indirect quality jobs in the central valley during construction time and the future.

The Dutch HSL-Zuid was build by contracting only the building company's in the state, generating jobs. This reduces the unemployment rates and thus the line is already beneficial to the country from day 1 of construction.


----------



## Sunfuns

Wasn't Dutch HSL also one of the most expensive lines ever built? 

Of course longer term trains ought to be built in US, but right now is there a demand already to justify a factory? Plus perhaps some of the train manufacturers might already have factories in US so there is no need to build another one. The more restrictions you put the more expensive a project is going to be...


----------



## Maarten Otto

sekelsenmat said:


> high speed rail in USA is a bad joke. Already 5 years ago I said they should have started building in the part Los Angeles - Central Valley. If they had done that, they could have something working. The way it currently it, they might build the valley part and then run out of funds and leave an useless skeleton.


Is it a joke? The Valley section is the cheapest part of the network and the longest available stretch that allows for higher speeds without excessive investments from day 1. 

If you have trains from LA to SF every hour and they use this section of line, then you not only introduce a rail service between these areas but also let Californians experience what is "common" all over Europe and Asia. 

Not having the entire route that allows for high speed has an effect on the price tag of the service. Get it under those of the airlines and people will ride. 

Furthermore, I think that many will get a great fealing when they realise they're speeding through their state at such speeds.


----------



## Maarten Otto

Sunfuns said:


> Wasn't Dutch HSL also one of the most expensive lines ever built?


Yes it is. But it has to do with the fact that is is build in the most dense populated country in Europe and they choose to build an 8 kilometre long tunnel under an area of outstanding natural beauty.


----------



## oslogospelchoir

Despite the prevailing negativity, I a still very surprised the dense North East, Florida, California, Texas, Illinois Michigan Ohio area, and maybe even some other areas aren't already crawling with HSR


----------



## Nexis

oslogospelchoir said:


> Despite the prevailing negativity, I a still very surprised the dense North East, Florida, California, Texas, Illinois Michigan Ohio area, and maybe even some other areas aren't already crawling with HSR


Comes down to lack of Federal funding , they rather bomb the Middle East then spend billions on HSR...


----------



## bluemeansgo

M-NL said:


> You forgot two details: No matter which manufacturer is chosen it will be a custom design, because no existing design will meet the specific requirements.



All HSR systems have to be custom to a certain extent but when the CAHSR went out to tender the exact specifications went out for things like min and max carriage weight/dimensions loading gauge / etc and they fit a few already existing systems with little to no modifications. I believe the short list was mentioned a few pages ago. 

Things like interior finish is also usually built to suit the customer. 

You're right about trains being custom, but it is often more about customization rather than custom-designed. The CAHSR bid seems to be designed with a few manufacturers already in mind.

The U.K. Rules on having fluorescent yellow fronts comes to mind.


----------



## phoenixboi08

bluemeansgo said:


> I don't think the e5/e6 have been running for long enough. The 5 year cut off is to weed out specific bids. Remember that the n700-I is not the same n700 that is running in Japan. It has borrowed components from newer Shinkansen train sets like the e5/e6 series.
> 
> Japanese train makers don't rest on their laurels and the n700-i isn't the n700 series built in 2007 for the Tokaido/Sanyo line. Max Speed is 330km/h instead of 285km/h. I saw a listing of other differences somewhere online before but can't find it now.
> 
> I'd be surprised if the Korean ktx trains stood a chance. They're essentially reskinned TGV and there would likely be patent challenges from the French. While it is challenging to fight a Korean company in Korea, fighting one in the USA is a different matter (Unless you're Apple that is. Ha! )
> 
> China is too big to really hit with patent infringement suits. They would just shrug it off.
> 
> This, in my opinion, is a two man race and I'd give a slight lead to the Japanese due to the general good relationships between the nations, the timing (Japan's never needed other countries to put its trains but will be almost built out in Japan in a decade or two), and Japan's financial state needing all the help it can get. In short, great product — highly motivated seller. They also have been doing EMUs for much much longer which is what all the manufacturers are moving to.


That's a good point. However, what I was also trying to get at is that buying the real "meat" (the signaling and other technology) a company like JR East would allow them to adopt such innovations quite easily in the future...

Even if they're not going to start out with the rolling stock to do it, the potential for efficient through-running alone would make their bid stand out.

That's CNR/CSR's problem: they can do the rolling stock, but they don't yet seem to have the same level of expertise yet in the actual systems behind it.


----------



## Sunfuns

You think none of the European companies are likely to be competitive? Why would that be?


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Bombardier pulled out due to "change in specifications" or something, Alstom is MIA, Siemens is perhaps putting all its eggs in the CAHSR project, so that leaves Rotem, and perhaps one of the Japanese builders? It's not a good situation when you have only one or two bidders. I wonder if all the past problems with Acela has made Amtrak sour on Bombardier/Alstom. I would like to see an upstart like CAF join the fray, though maybe they don't meet the requirements stipulated by Amtrak.


----------



## Tower Dude

I thought Bombardier pulled out of the Northeast Tender not the CA tender because of how much of a PIA the Acela Project was and they were not redoing it. I really hope they didn't withdraw their tender from the CA Project because I really want to see the Zefiro in the US!


----------



## Sopomon

^^
Aren't Alstom out due to some crazy law about companies that were involved in the holocaust being unable to compete? Unless that was an Onion piece I'd read and have conflated the facts...


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sunfuns said:


> You think none of the European companies are likely to be competitive? Why would that be?


I don't personally think they're uncompetitive...I just think the authority isn't too caught up on the actual rolling stock, but is thinking ahead to the actual systems behind it. JR has a huge lead in the actual signals and technology, and I think that bears a lot of weight (i.e. they're not really as cost conscious as we think they are...having really good systems - and leap-frogging on the back of that firm's future R&D - is worth a lot more to them than getting a really low bid on the rolling stock). 

I think we're just focusing on totally different things than the authority is, here.

For what it's worth, I do think Bombardier will have among the strongest bids, since they'll have the easiest time actually deploying (since they're so near already and have a good deal of assets in the US). Siemens probably has another strong advantage in that regard.

Those three are who I see in the top tier....it's kind of a tossup between Alstom, CSR/CNR.


----------



## M-NL

The most stupid thing you can do is to couple the choice of operating principles and safety system to your rolling stock supplier. That's a sure way for vendor lock-in. There is no reason why you for instance couldn't implement Shinkansen-style operating principles with a Siemens safety systems and Alstom trains.

JR (which one?) doesn't have a huge lead in signals and technology. They just currently have systems that are very optimised for their use. Any foreign signalling system must be optimised for US use, regardless if it's ERTMS, CTCS or NS-ATC.


----------



## phoenixboi08

M-NL said:


> JR (which one?) doesn't have a huge lead in signals and technology. They just currently have systems that are very optimised for their use.


Tomato, tomato...
"Lead" in terms of this bid, not absolutely. That's not what I meant...

There are certain things that they could manage only with their systems and rolling stock (specifically, the hitched, through-running of multi-speed rolling stock), which I think the authority is interested in from what they've been expressing, thus far.

I don't think the authority is basing their judgement solely on the merits of the rolling stock (or, rather, the cost savings of various vendors), but seem interested in the efficiencies of having a complete package. That's all.

I think you may be overemphasizing the threat of vendor lock in, in any case...


----------



## bluemeansgo

Vendor lock in isn't as big a deal as one thinks. Typically you will get better pricing with the partner who helped build the system. They want a long term relationship. However in the world of HSR all trains and systems are BTO, vendor lock in or not. Besides the more closely you car wed your rolling stock to your rails the more efficiencies you can find making vendor lockin not a big deal.


----------



## M-NL

Vendor lock-in completely eliminates competition, so you run the risk that when for instance maintenance contracts expire you have no choice but to extend the existing contracts. Would you raise or lower your prices when you know you are the only one able to provide a certain product or service?


----------



## M-NL

phoenixboi08 said:


> Tomato, tomato...
> "Lead" in terms of this bid, not absolutely. That's not what I meant...


But that's what you wrote. Remember that this is a forum visited by users of which English isn't there mother tongue. Language nuances tend to get lost.



phoenixboi08 said:


> (specifically, the hitched, through-running of multi-speed rolling stock)


The fact that only JR East does it doesn't mean others couldn't. For instance: Any type of TGV can be coupled. If they still existed an original 270 km/h TGV Sud Est could be coupled to a brand new 320 km/h EuroDuplex and it would work. It also wouldn't surprise me that coupling a TGV and an AGV would also work.


----------



## phoenixboi08

M-NL said:


> But that's what you wrote. Remember that this is a forum visited by users of which English isn't there mother tongue. Language nuances tend to get lost.


Yes, that's why I clarified. 



M-NL said:


> The fact that only JR East does it doesn't mean others couldn't. For instance: Any type of TGV can be coupled. If they still existed an original 270 km/h TGV Sud Est could be coupled to a brand new 320 km/h EuroDuplex and it would work. It also wouldn't surprise me that coupling a TGV and an AGV would also work.


I should suspect so, but the train would need to be specially engineered, no?...Otherwise, I don't know what all the fuss was about with Amtrak trying to coordinate with CAHSRA on procurement; why people thought it was so strange.

It certainly seems to possible, if not tenable.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

M-NL said:


> Any type of TGV can be coupled. If they still existed an original 270 km/h TGV Sud Est could be coupled to a brand new 320 km/h EuroDuplex and it would work. It also wouldn't surprise me that coupling a TGV and an AGV would also work.


Does it work at it's full potential though?
I am not familiar with AGV's acceleration profile but since it is a MU I believe it has a much higher acceleration rate compared to the old push-pull type TGV so the AGV's full potential would be held back if the two different types were to be coupled together.


----------



## bluemeansgo

M-NL said:


> Vendor lock-in completely eliminates competition, so you run the risk that when for instance maintenance contracts expire you have no choice but to extend the existing contracts. Would you raise or lower your prices when you know you are the only one able to provide a certain product or service?


I understand the concerns to vendor lock-in, but I honestly don't think it affects future costs as much as is thought when it comes to HSR. Standards like gauge and electrical supply are based on the environment it will run in. Not much is off-the-shelf, so there is generally engineering required. You will be "somewhat" locked in no matter which vendor you choose. But only in terms of costs. Generally, the original manufacturer will be able to extend contracts for much cheaper than 3rd parties, because they have invested in the tooling. HSR is as much about good partnerships as it is about choosing the right technology.

That being said, these projects are built to the CAHSR spec and though CAHSR may fashion the specs to favor one vendor over another, it is still the CAHSR spec.


----------



## Buffaboy

Can someone give a brief synopsis of HSR development over the past month or two here?


----------



## bluemeansgo

SamuraiBlue said:


> Does it work at it's full potential though?
> I am not familiar with AGV's acceleration profile but since it is a MU I believe it has a much higher acceleration rate compared to the old push-pull type TGV so the AGV's full potential would be held back if the two different types were to be coupled together.


This argument reminds me of the constant issues the Shinkansen has with older trains running on the network. For example, it wasn't until they got rid of all the older 700-series and replaced with newer N700s that they were able to increase the speed of the busy Tokaido line from 270km/h to 285 km/h. 

When the Seikan tunnel opens up to Shinkansen soon, they will only be able to run a couple of HSR trains per hour because they will catch up to the freight trains already running through.

Speeds are limited in the tunnel because passing a freight train inside the tunnel has a slight chance of derailing it.

Any time you introduce mixed traffic or mixed technology on a line, your efficiency and flexibility decreases, sometimes dramatically.

CAHSR won't live up to its billing on day 1 but over time, it will get better and better. That works for a culture like Japan, which welcomes continuous small improvements and celebrates the small victories because they see each increment is important. I feel the American public has a longer memory for bad experiences and tends to like massive jumps over little bits and pieces.


----------



## M-NL

SamuraiBlue said:


> Does it work at it's full potential though?


Obviously not. The combo will have to adjust it's performance to the weakest link, which is not necessarily the train set you would expect. The train with the higher top speed probably has taller gear and therefore might also have slower acceleration, even despite a higher power rating.


----------



## Zenith

Watching all this with a lot of interest.


----------



## M-NL

bluemeansgo said:


> For example, it wasn't until they got rid of all the older 700-series and replaced with newer N700s that they were able to increase the speed of the busy Tokaido line from 270km/h to 285 km/h.


When did they get rid of the 700?

As far as I know they have started to eliminate the 700 from Nozomi services, because the 700 lacks the tilting needed to go 285 km/h on the Tokaido (without tilting you're limited to 270 km/h, just like the 300 and 500 were) and it's 285 km/h top speed causes time loss on the 300 km/h Sanyo sections. As far as I know the 700 is still used for Hikari and Kodama services, but given the congested situation on the Tokaido it wouldn't surprise me if they have started to eliminate the 700 from the Tokaido completely.

Note that a N700/N700A is only a few minutes quicker over the entire Tokyo to Hakata stretch compared to a 700. That a good indication that raising speeds further on the Tokaido/Sanyo will only yield minimal gains. That in turn explains why so much effort is put into building the Chuo Shinkansen.


----------



## victorios

00Zy99 said:


> New Poles!!!
> 
> Not just new wires, new poles!!!!
> 
> Yay!!!! :banana::banana::banana::banana:


ROTFL :nuts::nuts:


----------



## Nexis

Some Poles are already up , all signal bridges have been replaced...


----------



## 00Zy99

Nexis said:


> Some Poles are already up , all signal bridges have been replaced...


Pics, please?


----------



## Nexis

00Zy99 said:


> Pics, please?


Its very hard taking photos when the train is traveling above a certain speed....


----------



## 00Zy99

Nexis said:


> Its very hard taking photos when the train is traveling above a certain speed....


Ah, yeah.

Any pics from trackside? Bridges, etc.?


----------



## Nexis

00Zy99 said:


> Ah, yeah.
> 
> Any pics from trackside? Bridges, etc.?


The main section of work is South of Jersey Avenue and North of Hamilton...the area is semi-rural and only has a few access roads. Work near Princeton JCT has just started but isn't anything that I would take photos of yet. I don't think it would be a good idea to get up close and snap photos of the NEC. Homeland Security and the FBI would be all over me in a flash...hno:


Traveling along the Northeast Corridor - Rural Central Jersey by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Traveling along the Northeast Corridor - Rural Central Jersey by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

> Morning Acela
> 
> The first Acela Express of the day leaves New York behind and crosses the obsolete Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River bound for Philadelphia and points beyond. The Pennsylvania RR constructed this bridge in 1910 and due to its age has a speed restriction that causes a major chokepoint on the NE corridor. On top of it's age, the bridge was built low and water traffic has bridge opening rights which happen to coincide with the peak train rush in the morning and afternoon further causing delays to the nearly 400 train that cross each weekday. This train was in fact delayed by almost 25 minutes as the bridge slowly opened and closed to allow a tug and barge to pass. Amtrak has started groundwork on a new bridge and hopes to have it opened by 2017.`


`


Morning Acela by ericwill, on Flickr




> Golden Arch
> 
> The sun has just risen and shoots a beam of light through a small arched bridge that leads to the ocean. This will be my last sighting of an HHP-8 as they are all now officially retired.



Golden Arch by ericwill, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

> *Sell $3B in real estate to fund new Hudson River rail tunnel, top Dem tells Port Authority​*
> By Larry Higgs | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
> Email the author
> on March 17, 2015 at 1:45 PM, updated March 17, 2015 at 5:22 PM
> 
> NEWARK -- State senate president Steve Sweeney called on the Port Authority to sell at least $3 billion in real estate to help fund construction of a new Hudson River rail tunnel.
> 
> Sweeney, who made the public call at a Newark Penn Station press conference today, said he spoke to Port Authority chairman John Degnan about the idea.
> 
> "He recognized the need," Sweeney said. "We need to send a message to Amtrak and the federal government we're willing to work to come up with a funding component."


http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/03/sell_3b_in_real_estate_to_fund_new_hudson_river_rail_tunnel_top_dem_tells_port_authority.html#incart_river


----------



## CNB30

I just Rode the Acela Recently (Boston-Philli), and while it didn't even his 120 mph where it was supposed to hit 150 mph, it did go 125+ in New Jersey. Anyway, traveling through NJ and seeing how all of the construction has progressed (even since January) was still pretty exciting. I can hardly imagine what that part will be like in 3 years when one can take it at 160mph.


----------



## Nexis

Did you take any photos?


----------



## grant1simons2

*Minnesota high speed rail from the Twin Cities to Rochester could be backed by private investors* 

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/po...cle_0289cceb-9963-5c19-9903-fca521658071.html

Fingers crossed :banana::banana::cheers:


----------



## hmmwv

^^ I've learned over the years that I'll only believe it once I see trains start to run.


----------



## Nexis

hmmwv said:


> ^^ I've learned over the years that I'll only believe it once I see trains start to run.


In my opinion the route would have more weight if it at least went to Chicago...i'm abit skeptical on route Rochester..


----------



## grant1simons2

Nexis said:


> In my opinion the route would have more weight if it at least went to Chicago...i'm abit skeptical on route Rochester..


Why not both? There has been some talk of connecting Rochester to the "River Route" HSR to Chicago.


----------



## 00Zy99

grant1simons2 said:


> Why not both? There has been some talk of connecting Rochester to the "River Route" HSR to Chicago.


Where is the "River Route" supposed to run?


----------



## grant1simons2

You can see a detail map on page 2. You could follow a current rail route between Rochester and Winona for maybe a commuter rail.


----------



## CNB30

Nexis said:


> Did you take any photos?


A couple, but I have yet to upload them.


----------



## Nexis

grant1simons2 said:


> You can see a detail map on page 2. You could follow a current rail route between Rochester and Winona for maybe a commuter rail.


But that skips over Madison...


----------



## Nexis

*Acela at Secaucus*

Early morning Acela at Secaucus


Eastbound Acela Express approaching Secaucus Junction by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Acela Whoosh at Secaucus Junction by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


----------



## CNB30

Did you take any pictures on the 13th by any chance?


----------



## 00Zy99

The problems stated are less inherent to trains and more inherent to the level of service that we currently have.


----------



## bluemeansgo

The levels of service being slow, slower, and delayed.

Note this comparison:
Tokyo – Nagoya (366km / 227 mi)

Fastest (every 6 min) : 99 min.
Slowest (12 stops - hourly ) : 170 min. 
Price: ¥10,800 ( $100 )
Runs at a profit

Same distance as Acela's NYP–WAS 

Very few do this trip by air , apart from those transferring to an international flight. 

There is absolutely no reason The NEC can't invest in separate, dedicated HSR and the same applies to California. 

Upgraded Amtrak just doesn't cut the mustard.


----------



## Nexis

Acela Express parked at New York Penn Station


Acela Express at New York Penn Station by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

Westbound / DC Bound Acela Express rolling through Harrison Station


Westbound Acela Express passing Harrison station by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express passing Harrison station by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express passing Harrison station by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express passing Harrison station by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

New Catenary Poles in Sunnyside Yard


034 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

New Signal Bridge


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Queens,New York by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Queens,New York by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

Old Hell Gate Line Poles soon to be replaced


Amtrak's Hell Gate Line in Queens,New York by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


----------



## 00Zy99

bluemeansgo said:


> The levels of service being slow, slower, and delayed.
> 
> Note this comparison:
> Tokyo – Nagoya (366km / 227 mi)
> 
> Fastest (every 6 min) : 99 min.
> Slowest (12 stops - hourly ) : 170 min.
> Price: ¥10,800 ( $100 )
> Runs at a profit
> 
> Same distance as Acela's NYP–WAS
> 
> Very few do this trip by air , apart from those transferring to an international flight.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason The NEC can't invest in separate, dedicated HSR and the same applies to California.
> 
> Upgraded Amtrak just doesn't cut the mustard.


The delays are largely due to deferred maintenance of the infrastructure, which is something that is FINALLY being rectified.

The track speeds along much of the NEC are being upgraded to 160 mph, which is not much less than the Tokaido Shinkansen, or the Kyushu Shinkansen. Combined with a few major infrastructure projects (Gateway Tunnels, B&P Tunnels, etc.), this will bring travel times down into the same range as noted above (roughly 2.5 hours). Then, the only obstacle will be track capacity, and there are plans in place to expand the NEC to up to six tracks through various chokepoints. This will effectively create the capacity and infrastructure neccessary for something comparable to the Tokaido Shinkansen, at least between New York and Washington.


----------



## Tower Dude

Yes though these are mostly plans, unless the Feds and/or the States and/or private enterprise or some mixture of two or three of the afore mentioned in the form a P3 come up with the money none of this will happen


----------



## 00Zy99

Tower Dude said:


> Yes though these are mostly plans, unless the Feds and/or the States and/or private enterprise or some mixture of two or three of the afore mentioned in the form a P3 come up with the money none of this will happen


These plans ARE advancing. Six tracks in New Jersey is close to final design. The Susquehanna River Bridge is getting to the final selection (late this year/early next) and may be finished by 2025. The new bypasses at Harrison Interlocking are already under construction. Just because things haven't produced major visible results yet doesn't mean that work isn't underway.


----------



## CNB30

Uhh, The Tracks in NJ are well under construction, and I could notice a difference there between January, and March. The Acela should be running at 160 mph there in 2017


----------



## Basincreek

It would appear that California will be getting a lot more money from their cap & trade auctions than they anticipated. They had planned on roughly $250 million a year for HSR but now it appears they will more likely be getting around $600 million a year. This would be in addition to the $16 billion already appropriated for construction.


----------



## Tower Dude

Well here's hoping the vamp up the process so the can spend the federal dough


----------



## bluemeansgo

00Zy99 said:


> The delays are largely due to deferred maintenance of the infrastructure, which is something that is FINALLY being rectified.
> 
> The track speeds along much of the NEC are being upgraded to 160 mph, which is not much less than the Tokaido Shinkansen, or the Kyushu Shinkansen. Combined with a few major infrastructure projects (Gateway Tunnels, B&P Tunnels, etc.), this will bring travel times down into the same range as noted above (roughly 2.5 hours). Then, the only obstacle will be track capacity, and there are plans in place to expand the NEC to up to six tracks through various chokepoints. This will effectively create the capacity and infrastructure neccessary for something comparable to the Tokaido Shinkansen, at least between New York and Washington.


That's good to hear.
160 mph = 257 mph max track speed.

Note that the Tokaido is limited by running in urban areas and noise restrictions in addition to tracks that were laid initially to max out at 200km/h ( 125 mph ).They have a minimum 2500m curve track radius and a max speed (just upgraded) of 285 km/h (177 mph).

On paper that *does* sound like promising and close in speed, but I'd be curious to know how that translates into real world application. According to this article, for example, the new trainsets take 8 minutes to get up to 125 mph (200 km/h ). While that may be an improvement over what it was, it still is quite far off an N700 which is able to accelerate to 270km/h in 3 minutes.


----------



## aquaticko

^^Well, Acela sets are of a much older design than N700's, and they're locomotive sets, not EMU's, so slower acceleration isn't terribly surprising. Besides, Amtrak is working on acquiring newer sets within a decade or so, so although things are moving at a typically-slow, U.S. infrastructure development pace, they are improving.


----------



## bluemeansgo

aquaticko said:


> ^^Well, Acela sets are of a much older design than N700's, and they're locomotive sets, not EMU's, so slower acceleration isn't terribly surprising. Besides, Amtrak is working on acquiring newer sets within a decade or so, so although things are moving at a typically-slow, U.S. infrastructure development pace, they are improving.



That is all true. It isn't a fair comparison. Fwiw, that 8 minute number was the speed of the new locomotives Amtrak is ordering. 

Of note, the Tokaido is the oldest track in the network dating back to the sixties. I should check out the Sanyo line times for an equivalent segment. 

What I was illustrating is that top speed doesn't necessarily translate into much time savings. It is easy to go fast. Just get a straight line and give yourself enough time. It is hard to improve actual service (quality). 

What would it take for Acela to come close to a 2 hour trip time?


----------



## Amexpat

bluemeansgo said:


> Note this comparison:
> Tokyo – Nagoya (366km / 227 mi)
> Fastest (every 6 min) : 99 min.
> Slowest (12 stops - hourly ) : 170 min.
> Price: ¥10,800 ( $100 )
> Runs at a profit


It may be one of the few lines that cover it's operational expenses, but does it generate enough profits to repay the capital costs?

I'm a strong supporter of HSR where it makes sense, but it's important to be upfront that it will involve heavy subsidies (as do many highways and airports).


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Amexpat said:


> It may be one of the few lines that cover it's operational expenses, but does it generate enough profits to repay the capital costs?
> 
> I'm a strong supporter of HSR where it makes sense, but it's important to be upfront that it will involve heavy subsidies (as do many highways and airports).


It already has. Without the then JNR law, the Tokaido Shinkansen generated enough profit to pay up capital cost within 10 years if I remember correectly.


----------



## aquaticko

bluemeansgo said:


> That is all true. It isn't a fair comparison. Fwiw, that 8 minute number was the speed of the new locomotives Amtrak is ordering.
> 
> Of note, the Tokaido is the oldest track in the network dating back to the sixties. I should check out the Sanyo line times for an equivalent segment.
> 
> What I was illustrating is that top speed doesn't necessarily translate into much time savings. It is easy to go fast. Just get a straight line and give yourself enough time. It is hard to improve actual service (quality).
> 
> What would it take for Acela to come close to a 2 hour trip time?


Track upgrades, pure and simple. Modern catenary, larger curve radii, modern bridges that can take the stress of trains going >125mph, etc. You're absolutely right; average speed is more important, but it's a much bigger challenge, and it's what's needed to cut down trip times.


----------



## bluemeansgo

aquaticko said:


> Track upgrades, pure and simple. Modern catenary, larger curve radii, modern bridges that can take the stress of trains going >125mph, etc. You're absolutely right; average speed is more important, but it's a much bigger challenge, and it's what's needed to cut down trip times.



Has there been talk of what those trip times will be improved by? 

It will be interesting to see Japan's maglev come more clearly into focus in the coming decade. It seems that kind of solution is an ideal for congested regions like the NEC. 

Yes the cost is high but the impact is relatively low. It's mostly underground. Yet potentially disruptive enough to make it worthwhile for larger urban conglomerations. In fact I wonder if in the long run it ends up being cheaper than trying to upgrade regular HSR.


----------



## Flyer121

makita09 said:


> ^^ Not really though is it? The automobile has shaped transport in nearly all countries - western Europe is no exception.
> 
> And no, chicken and the egg is not the case - it was the egg that came first (*obvious as the egg becomes a chicken but a chicken does not become an egg*), and in the case of railways, it was the railways that came first and _then_ people used them.
> 
> Build it and they will come.
> 
> Have a bit of vision and build it.
> 
> And don't get sucked into poor reality-twisting narratives that are politically based rather than practically based.


Was reading thru this thread coz of its OT amusement value and this is the line which made me LOL.

Point is that Chicken does become an egg by laying it - where else does egg come from?? I hope the poster was kidding here ..


----------



## aquaticko

bluemeansgo said:


> Has there been talk of what those trip times will be improved by?


I've seen things as optimistic as 3 hours from Boston to D.C., which although actually totally feasible, would require a dedicated HSL and new, much straighter ROW. So, feasible, but unlikely considering everything.



> It will be interesting to see Japan's maglev come more clearly into focus in the coming decade. It seems that kind of solution is an ideal for congested regions like the NEC.
> 
> *Yes the cost is high *but the impact is relatively low. It's mostly underground. Yet potentially disruptive enough to make it worthwhile for larger urban conglomerations. In fact I wonder if in the long run it ends up being cheaper than trying to upgrade regular HSR.


That, right there, is enough to say that it won't happen. If we can't get $100 billion for a proper HSL, why could we get $100 billion for a maglev? I suppose people might buy it more due to the futuristic, super-high-speed image of the maglev, but it wouldn't happen without generous support from the Japanese government, and at least at present, I don't think that investing in overseas infrastructure is a big part of Abe's plans to rejuvenate the economy. But, who knows.


----------



## 00Zy99

I seem to recall JR Central offering to pay 50% of the cost of a maglev for DC-NYC, or something similar.


----------



## Nexis

00Zy99 said:


> I seem to recall JR Central offering to pay 50% of the cost of a maglev for DC-NYC, or something similar.


I highly doubt that they'll pay for 50%....more like 20 or 30....and stick the rest with taxpayers. The Routing for the Maglev goes from the outskirts or Baltimore to the outskirts of DC...not Downtown to Downtown like Amtrak or FRA proposals.


----------



## Nexis

*Senate Bill Targeting Bullet Train Project Advances​*http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/08/bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-moves-senate-f/

Well it was fun ride while it lasted...


----------



## Sopomon

Backward hicks competing for soundbytes


----------



## bluemeansgo

aquaticko said:


> I've seen things as optimistic as 3 hours from Boston to D.C., which although actually totally feasible, would require a dedicated HSL and new, much straighter ROW. So, feasible, but unlikely considering everything.


To be honest I really don't think 3 hours will cut it. I mean that barely competes with short haul flights. So Acela will remain expensive to run.

A ticket on Acela's current service is double that of Japan for a far inferior product. It's all to do with utilization. You have to have demand that allows business travellers convenient and comfortable quick travel times. The jnvestment pays for itself. I know it is difficult to compare but it feels like most Americans don't really understand hat HSR is meant to replace regional planes not cars. 









> That, right there, is enough to say that it won't happen. If we can't get $100 billion for a proper HSL, why could we get $100 billion for a maglev? I suppose people might buy it more due to the futuristic, super-high-speed image of the maglev, but it wouldn't happen without generous support from the Japanese



in the end people don't take a form of travel because of its futuristic appeal. That rubs off quickly. You have to frame it economically. Although Ido agree with you that it is unlikely, I do think it can be economically feasible. If a private company can decide to construct the maglev in Japan because they feel it will be profitable there must be something to it. 

The thing is, at speeds of 500km/h and fully automated, you don't need as many trainsets. The major difference with Japan is that they will be able to siphon traffic from the already popular and crowded Tokaido line. Tickets are apparently only going to command a $10 premium. They forecast running a profit after a few years. 

Is believe te deal for the USA is that japan offered to built the BWI - DC link and partially finance the rest. 

The thing is, because much of it is tunnelled there potentially is no expensive land acquisition and fewer environmental concerns. Tunnelling seems expensive but these days it is close to surface costs. In Japan they passed a special law which allows them to tunnel 40m below the surface without compensating the landowner above. Especially useful in urban areas. 

I know this is pie in the sky for the USA but hay corridor is seriously perfect for a super high speed line. It would completely change transportation in that corridor.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

Nexis said:


> *Senate Bill Targeting Bullet Train Project Advances​*http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/08/bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-moves-senate-f/
> 
> Well it was fun ride while it lasted...



At this rate, I've decided to withdraw support for CHSR and TxHSR... and vote for Ted Cruz. I will silently watch from afar as America burns to the ground. 


Damn, not enough butter on my popcorn. Refills, anyone?


----------



## Nexis

Theres still some hope for the Northeast/Mid Atlantic...


----------



## Unit8200

There should be a highspeed railway from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. The Highway is too busy between these cities.


----------



## rantanamo

nothing more than the Southwest Airlines lobby. Its ok when its an oil pipeline, but not this. I have no doubt this HSR will be fine. Eminent Domain isn't needed and they seem to be ready with or without it.


----------



## Sunfuns

rantanamo said:


> nothing more than the Southwest Airlines lobby. Its ok when its an oil pipeline, but not this. I have no doubt this HSR will be fine. *Eminent Domain isn't needed* and they seem to be ready with or without it.


How can it ever be not needed? No matter where you build a lot of land will need to be bought from a large number of landowners and it's bound to happen that someone will refuse to sell either for ideological reasons or just to get way more money than the market would indicate. 

I already wrote here few months ago that some Texans will fight tooth and nail against this project and it being privately financed will not matter one bit. One of those cases when I'm not all that happy about being right…


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sunfuns said:


> How can it ever be not needed? No matter where you build a lot of land will need to be bought from a large number of landowners and it's bound to happen that someone will refuse to sell either for ideological reasons or just to get way more money than the market would indicate.
> 
> I already wrote here few months ago that some Texans will fight tooth and nail against this project and it being privately financed will not matter one bit. One of those cases when I'm not all that happy about being right…


Precisely...this was the same point people were missing about the Hyperloop.

What's more, private companies* do not have police power, and thus can not exercise eminent domain...which may complicate any litigation TXCentral faces.


*if not acting on behalf of the state


----------



## Cal_Escapee

phoenixboi08 said:


> I know that, but that isn't my point.
> As of now, passenger rail does not get priority on the vast majority of the rail network: it does in most other countries that have a maintained ROW.


Actually, it's supposed to.



> *U.S. high court orders new review in Amtrak vs. freight trains dispute*
> March 9, 2015 12:43 PM
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court at least temporarily revived a federal law credited with improving Amtrak’s on-time performance, setting aside a lower court ruling that had marked a victory for the freight railroad industry.
> 
> Today’s unanimous ruling sends the case back to the appeals court level, where freight carriers will have another chance to topple a law they say unfairly forces them to delay their own traffic.
> 
> *A 2008 law directs Amtrak to work with the Federal Railroad Administration to create standards that let Amtrak keep priority over freight trains along common railroad tracks.* That upset the freight railroad industry, which argues that Amtrak is a private organization that could not regulate competitor’s actions.
> 
> A federal appeals court sided with the freight railroads, ruling that Congress unconstitutionally gave regulatory power to a private company.
> 
> The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that even though Amtrak is subject to government oversight, it is like a government entity. While Congress created Amtrak in 1970 as a for-profit corporation, Amtrak is subject to government oversight, receives billions of dollars in federal subsidies and its board is nominated by the president.
> 
> The justices left broader constitutional questions unresolved, leaving that for the appeals court to decide.
> 
> *Under the regulations, if on-time passenger train performance averages less than 80 percent for two consecutive quarters, the federal Surface Transportation Board may investigate whether freight railroads caused the delays. Freight railroads could have to pay damages to Amtrak.*
> 
> The government said the regulation simply helped to enforce existing law, which already guarantees passenger trains a preference over freight trains on shared tracks.


http://www.post-gazette.com/news/tr...Amtrak-s-on-time-metrics/stories/201503090130


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Unit8200 said:


> There should be a highspeed railway from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. The Highway is too busy between these cities.


It's so obvious (because the area of Las Vegas at interest is small enough that people going there don't require a car) that a private developer/operator has been promising to do it and someday may. Because it involves 2 states and wouldn't benefit CA that much, I doubt government will pay for it unless it would be the city of Las Vegas.


----------



## G5man

Sunfuns said:


> How can it ever be not needed? No matter where you build a lot of land will need to be bought from a large number of landowners and it's bound to happen that someone will refuse to sell either for ideological reasons or just to get way more money than the market would indicate.
> 
> I already wrote here few months ago that some Texans will fight tooth and nail against this project and it being privately financed will not matter one bit. One of those cases when I'm not all that happy about being right…


I see a few issues

1) The purpose would be for a railway company. If BNSF and UP already have eminent domain powers, then you are discriminating a railway company and constitute a violation of the 14th amendment. 

2) Southwest has no reason to fight this. Short haul flying simply is not profitable. They currently have 4 flights from DAL on the half-hour to HOU. Those flights could go longer distances to other parts of the country and increase profitability which is why you don't hear them being vocal.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Cal_Escapee said:


> ...because the area of Las Vegas at interest is small...a private developer/operator has been promising to do it and someday may. Because it involves 2 states and wouldn't benefit CA that much, I doubt government will pay for it unless it would be the city of Las Vegas.



Isn't the whole desert xpress between Victorville, CA and Vegas all about connecting to LA? One gets the feeling that they're waiting for CAHSR to get some momentum before we see movement. 

They'd obviously prefer to take advantage of CAHSR building the expensive part of the line down to LA.


----------



## ADCS

phoenixboi08 said:


> Precisely...this was the same point people were missing about the Hyperloop.
> 
> What's more, private companies* do not have police power, and thus can not exercise eminent domain...which may complicate any litigation TXCentral faces.
> 
> 
> *if not acting on behalf of the state


Electric interurban railroads, such as a high speed line, explicitly have eminent domain power in the State of Texas. That's why there's a bill in the Legislature to begin with.


----------



## phoenixboi08

ADCS said:


> Electric interurban railroads, such as a high speed line, explicitly have eminent domain power in the State of Texas. That's why there's a bill in the Legislature to begin with.


See footnote.


----------



## phoenixboi08

bluemeansgo said:


> Isn't the whole desert xpress between Victorville, CA and Vegas all about connecting to LA? One gets the feeling that they're waiting for CAHSR to get some momentum before we see movement. They'd obviously prefer to take advantage of CAHSR building the expensive part of the line down to LA.


There have been murmurs that the xpresswest project is back from the grave, but I've only head it mentioned in passing (namely, by someone at CAHSRA when mentioning why the "Golden Spike" at Palmdale made sense).

I imagine we'll see the talk grow if (well, when, really) the Palmdale section gets fast-tracked to be included with CP-4/5. It's looking like this will likely be the case.


----------



## ADCS

phoenixboi08 said:


> See footnote.


_Sec. 131.012. EMINENT DOMAIN. A corporation chartered for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between municipalities in this state for the transportation of freight, passengers, or both freight and passengers may:
(1) exercise the power of eminent domain with all the rights and powers granted by law to a railroad company; and
(2) enter, condemn, and appropriate land, right-of-way, easements, or other property of any person or corporation to acquire:
(A) right-of-way on which to construct and operate lines of railway for the acquiring corporation; or
(B) sites for depots or power plants.

Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 85 (S.B. 1540), Sec. 2.03, eff. April 1, 2011._

It's not simply acting on behalf of the state. Any company whose chartered purpose is to construct an electric railway between two cities in the State of Texas has the legal authority to conduct eminent domain takings for right-of-way. TCR is not acting at the state's behest.


----------



## hmmwv

It's actually kinda sad, my first real HSR ride was on the Acela a little over 8 years ago, at a time where China has zero HSR service, now eight years later there are no comparison between the two countries. The shortsightedness of some American politicians are truly something.


----------



## Tower Dude

It not short sightedness its a Koch addiction


----------



## reackt

maybe when air travel becomes too expensive for the average person, serious thought will be put into railways, especially high speed


----------



## Xoser_barcelona

JuaanAcosta said:


> sorry, but the Maglev is a train...


No need to feel sorry about it  To make a long story shorter, AFAIAC the 'French' (Alstom?) hold the high speed record for trains and will be beaten when another steel on steel train beats that speed. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE JAPAN AND MAGLEV...

Meanwhile in the US of gorgeous A.. did the CHSA already decide on a train provider and do Japanese producers make more sense seeing the earthquake experience Japan has with P-waves and stopping HSTs before earthquakes' secondary waves hit?


----------



## phoenixboi08

Xoser_barcelona said:


> No need to feel sorry about it  To make a long story shorter, AFAIAC the 'French' (Alstom?) hold the high speed record for trains and will be beaten when another steel on steel train beats that speed. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE JAPAN AND MAGLEV...
> 
> Meanwhile in the US of gorgeous A.. did the CHSA already decide on a train provider and do Japanese producers make more sense seeing the earthquake experience Japan has with P-waves and stopping HSTs before earthquakes' secondary waves hit?


Bids are still coming in...Judging from information that's been provided over the last few months, it sounds like we probably won't get a shortlist until mid-summer (if they even decide to do that). Otherwise, we will probably hear their decision in the fall or early next year.



Tower Dude said:


> So Kawasaki is Building a train that looks like the E7/W7 Series Shinkansen but has the Speed capabilities of the N700 or E5/E6? I think I like this train!


It is interesting...given how long they've been developing, I hadn't heard about it before.
Wonder just how much lighter it is than comparable rolling stock.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Xoser_barcelona said:


> No need to feel sorry about it  To make a long story shorter, AFAIAC the 'French' (Alstom?) hold the high speed record for trains and will be beaten when another steel on steel train beats that speed. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE JAPAN AND MAGLEV...



Alstom holds a record,no doubt. It's just not for the fastest train. Just like there are records for self-powered, steam-engined, fuel-electric, fastest on conventional (wood ballasted) track...

Don't get me wrong I love France, but it's splitting hairs not calling the L0 the fastest train.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Don't fight in other people's turf this thread is neither about Maglev or Alstom. If you want to debate on those fact I suggest you two create a separate thread.


----------



## prageethSL

TOKYO—When Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits the U.S. this week, he will act as salesman-in-chief by marketing Japan’s high-speed rail system.

With the support of the government, Japanese companies are vying for chances to join three fast-train projects under consideration in the U.S. The three would link Los Angeles and San Francisco; Dallas and Houston; and New York and Washington with high-speed systems.

Exporting Japan’s bullet-train system, known as the Shinkansen, is an important element of Mr. Abe’s strategy to revive his nation’s economy. Winning contracts in the U.S. would help bolster Japan’s bid to expand business in other markets, particularly in Asia’s developing nations, and compete with rivals from China and Europe.

When he visits California as part of a weeklong tour that was to start Sunday, Mr. Abe is expected to deliver a speech seeking to persuade the state’s leadership of the advantages of the Japanese system, including its strong safety record, reliability and the availability of inexpensive financing, Japanese officials say.

The state broke ground in January on a high-speed link between Los Angeles and San Francisco—a signature project of Gov. Jerry Brown, with an estimated cost of $68 billion. But it has yet to choose a train supplier. At 559 kilometers, the distance between the two cities is similar to that of the popular Tokyo-Osaka route in Japan. There, the bullet train runs every five to 10 minutes. The trip takes 21/2 hours.

Mr. Abe also is expected to highlight the latest achievement of the magnetic levitation bullet train being developed by Central Japan Railway Co. The maglev train reached a record speed of 603 kilometers an hour) during a test run in Japan last Tuesday.

In a speech marking the 50th anniversary of the Shinkansen in October, Mr. Abe said he had proposed to President Barack Obama to roll out the maglev train in the northeastern U.S. as a symbol of bilateral cooperation. “If that happens, you could travel from Washington to Baltimore in 15 minutes, and to New York within less than an hour. What’s more, there would be very few delays,” Mr. Abe said, giving a boost to supporters of a high-speed rail proposal for the Northeast corridor.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese-leader-abe-rails-for-high-speed-trains-in-u-s-1430081956


----------



## M-NL

I know it's meant for propaganda purposes, but what nitwit made that info graph?
First when you state Tohoku Shinkansen, then use a photo of an actual train that runs there, like an E5,E6 or H5. Second the China trains have run faster in the past and could do so again effective immediately. Third, the Chuo maglev is intended to run at around 500 km/h, so either mention that speed or mention the actual maximums of the others correctly (TGV 575 km/h, China 487 km/h, JR East E5 360 km/h, Acela 266 km/h)


----------



## Sopomon

^^
While ridiculous, it's hardly meant for people like those who frequent here.

Plus in the end, 603 vs 500 km/h doesn't really matter as it's still leaps and bounds ahead of the others regardless.

I was more amused than angered by it, though the WSJ ought to have better standards than that.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Sopomon said:


> ^^
> While ridiculous, it's hardly meant for people like those who frequent here.
> 
> Plus in the end, 603 vs 500 km/h doesn't really matter as it's still leaps and bounds ahead of the others regardless.
> 
> I was more amused than angered by it, though the WSJ ought to have better standards than that.


True. The infographic certainly raised my eyebrows. It seems to deliberately knock down the Chinese trainsets, putting them under French and Japanese transits. I DO think China was "overclocking" their trainsets to run at 350km/h prematurely before the accident in 2011, but it kind of reminded me of the top-speed wars a decade or so ago between Japan and France, except China seems to be the only one competing. They were trying to run before they walked and unfortunately, whether due to the fast speed of development or not, they had that accident in 2011. That being said, don't they have services that are regularly running at 320km/h or higher yet? Of note, it's also missing the German Maglev. Has Germany given up on promoting its maglev tech?

An interesting note about the Japanese Maglev. I know in other places, people like to compare some of the high-speed experimental test runs of conventionally-wheeled trainsets with the Maglev, but the reality is, *I don't think we will see conventional wheeled trains running regularly at 400km/h any time soon.* The energy losses and the wear on both track and wires are just too great to be practical. I just don't see super-highsped conventional train sets being viable until we see some alternative method of power delivery or substantial technology *advances in things like acceleration, metallurgy, low-friction, noise, braking, and in the end COST*. It's just not cost-effective to run these trains at those speeds for the relatively small benefits you gain due to the biggest overlooked flaw of high-speed conventional trains: *SLOW ACCELERATION*.

As a comparison: 
The Yamanashi test track had trains that accelerated to *581km/h and decelerated to 0 in 18km*. On the 42.8km test track the train comfortably maintained a top speed over 600km/h for 1.8km (10.8 seconds). 

In a different way, the folly of "top speed" is illustrated well with the Shanghai Maglev. Despite reaching a *431km/h top speed* and reaching that in just a couple of minutes, the track is not long enough to be the fastest point to point trains currently in commercial operation. It ends up running at an average speed of 249.5km/h. Slower than 5 other train segments. The fastest has a max speed of "only" 300km/h..

*What chance does a conventional train have of super high speed running?* The French train, though modified, short (3-cars long) and along a favorable section of track took over 40km to reach 500km/h when it was going for the record. It took over 70km to reach 581km/h on 140km of track. I imagine real-world acceleration is much lower than this on that section of track on which trains run at 320km/h. 

NOTE: _Don't take the earlier comments to be disparaging of Chinese trains/tech/etc. I hate it when people try to make the argument of it being stolen/copied German/Canadian/Japanese/French technology. China purchased the tech from a willing seller to provide a level-up base to work with and that the manufacturers knew what they were getting into when they signed the deal._


----------



## hmmwv

bluemeansgo said:


> True. The infographic certainly raised my eyebrows. It seems to deliberately knock down the Chinese trainsets, putting them under French and Japanese transits. I DO think China was "overclocking" their trainsets to run at 350km/h prematurely before the accident in 2011, but it kind of reminded me of the top-speed wars a decade or so ago between Japan and France, except China seems to be the only one competing. They were trying to run before they walked and unfortunately, whether due to the fast speed of development or not, they had that accident in 2011. That being said, don't they have services that are regularly running at 320km/h or higher yet? Of note, it's also missing the German Maglev. Has Germany given up on promoting its maglev tech?


I agree, the infograph is definitely misleading, not just for Chinese trains but for the others as well, because it pitted the Chuo Shinkansen's trail run maximum speed against the others' normal operation speed. You either compare all of their normal operating speed or all of their maximum tested speed, you don't mix match them.

As for CRH, right now there are no more 320km/h services, the maximum operating speed has been reduced to 300km/h. 350km/h service was pretty wide spread on newly constructed lines prior to 2011 though. Also after the cancellation of the Shanghai Maglev Longyang Rd Station to Hongqiao Airport extension as well as the Shanghai-Hangzhou line, I think the future of Siemens Transrapid isn't too bright.

A bit OT. The Wenzhou accident has nothing to do with speed or the maturity of technologies in China, it didn't even happen on a high speed line (200km/h passenger/freight mixed use line). It's a managerial thing, every piece of technology worked and stopped the train as designed, it's the human in the loop who manually overridden the system and caused the crash.


----------



## bluemeansgo

hmmwv said:


> A bit OT. The Wenzhou accident has nothing to do with speed or the maturity of technologies in China, it didn't even happen on a high speed line (200km/h passenger/freight mixed use line). It's a managerial thing, every piece of technology worked and stopped the train as designed, it's the human in the loop who manually overridden the system and caused the crash.



It did allow the authorities to save face though. It gave them a reason to reduce the speeds after they proved that they could run trains at 350km/h with thee best of them. 

I suspect the real reason the trains run at 300km/h is quite simple. Noise and cost. The faster you go the more maintenance you require. Tickets in China are still relatively cheap to purchase and the market doesn't demand faster service. 

Anyhow, back to US high speed rail, I thought all the bids for trains in California all had to be in by last December? And didn't they have to have a proven record according to the RFP? Why is this being announced now?

The Kawasaki efSet, while gorgeous, isn't in use any where yet. I thought they had submitted the n700-i which is designed to run at 330km/h which, intentionally I'm sure, just breaks into the 200mph barrier.


----------



## M-NL

bluemeansgo said:


> The French train, though modified, short (3-cars long) and along a favorable section of track took over 40km to reach 500km/h when it was going for the record. It took over 70km to reach 581km/h on 140km of track.


In defence of SNCF: the train didn't need that distance to reach that speed, it had that track length available and they used it. They more or less knew in advance where the top speed was going to be reached, so they could have reduced the required length. Instead they chose to gradually increase the speed over the length available.
Having said that: Even if they would have started from a suitable starting position along the LGV it would have taken more track to accelerate to and brake from 575 km/h, then the Maglev needs.


----------



## M-NL

bluemeansgo said:


> The Kawasaki efSet, while gorgeous, isn't in use any where yet.


The efSet is just an international version of the Japanese domestic technology. It's basically the E2, E5, E6 and E7 put into the blender and the efSet came out.
Also note that Kawasaki was a contractor for both the 700T and CRH2C.


----------



## phoenixboi08

bluemeansgo said:


> Anyhow, back to US high speed rail, I thought all the bids for trains in California all had to be in by last December? And didn't they have to have a proven record according to the RFP? Why is this being announced now?


I'm not sure...they haven't always been clear about this process.

Maybe the timeline shifted after Amtrak and CAHSRA decided to not attempt a joint procurement?


----------



## xjtyou

M-NL said:


> I know it's meant for propaganda purposes, but what nitwit made that info graph?
> First when you state Tohoku Shinkansen, then use a photo of an actual train that runs there, like an E5,E6 or H5. Second the China trains have run faster in the past and could do so again effective immediately. Third, the Chuo maglev is intended to run at around 500 km/h, so either mention that speed or mention the actual maximums of the others correctly (TGV 575 km/h, China 487 km/h, JR East E5 360 km/h, Acela 266 km/h)


true, this is a very misleading graph, comparing the experimental speed in Japan with the operational speed in other countries


----------



## xjtyou

hmmwv said:


> I agree, the infograph is definitely misleading, not just for Chinese trains but for the others as well, because it pitted the Chuo Shinkansen's trail run maximum speed against the others' normal operation speed. You either compare all of their normal operating speed or all of their maximum tested speed, you don't mix match them.
> 
> As for CRH, right now there are no more 320km/h services, the maximum operating speed has been reduced to 300km/h. 350km/h service was pretty wide spread on newly constructed lines prior to 2011 though. Also after the cancellation of the Shanghai Maglev Longyang Rd Station to Hongqiao Airport extension as well as the Shanghai-Hangzhou line, I think the future of Siemens Transrapid isn't too bright.
> 
> A bit OT. The Wenzhou accident has nothing to do with speed or the maturity of technologies in China, it didn't even happen on a high speed line (200km/h passenger/freight mixed use line). It's a managerial thing, every piece of technology worked and stopped the train as designed, it's the human in the loop who manually overridden the system and caused the crash.


I read an article which argues that when the speed is more than 320kph, the resistance from the air will be bigger than from the track, so 300kph might also be a consideration of cost


----------



## SamuraiBlue

xjtyou said:


> I read an article which argues that when the speed is more than 320kph, the resistance from the air will be bigger than from the track, so 300kph might also be a consideration of cost


To my understanding this is actually only partially true under conditions that the trainset is at constant steady speed but that kind of condition is never the case in which you need to accelerate and decelerate all the time. It's during these time the rail and wheel are damaged the most.


----------



## Anday

Japan Wants to Spend $5B on a D.C.-Baltimore Bullet Train

http://dc.curbed.com/archives/2015/04/japan-bullet-train-shinkansen.php

http://dcinno.streetwise.co/2015/04/27/shinzo-abe-dc-visit-maglev-train/

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...rovaltoTransferPassengerRailroadFranchise.pdf

[posted this on the wrong thread first but I found the right one : i'm a noob]


----------



## Nexis

Old News....will never happen...silly investment on the part of the Japanese...


----------



## bluemeansgo

Nexis said:


> Old News....will never happen...silly investment on the part of the Japanese...



Why is that? It would be a win even to get an airport pone for Japan. They need to prove the technology outside off japan and in the next 50 years the USA market has huge untapped potential.


----------



## Nexis

bluemeansgo said:


> Why is that? It would be a win even to get an airport pone for Japan. They need to prove the technology outside off japan and in the next 50 years the USA market has huge untapped potential.


Its Washington to Baltimore....there really isn't a high enough demand to justify the cost of building a tunneled Maglev line. I don't buy the 5 billion $$ estimate....probably 20 billion or more. The Region would be better if Japan invested in regular HSR and Regional Rail. They should convince Amtrak & MARC to buy EMUs and invest in Electrification.


----------



## Qtya

Nexis said:


> 50 Injuried...Mutiple cars off the tracks , a few cars are tipped over... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/amtrak-train-crash-pennsylvania_n_7270804.html


 Thx! This sad event also shows the need for a separated HSR (of some kind) line on the NEC.


----------



## CNB30

Such a shame, especially considering that I just saw some articles discussing the dire situation of the NEC infrastructure. I'm actually quite upset that it has to come to an incident like this to bring any attention to needed repairs, such a shame.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Qtya said:


> Thx! This sad event also shows the need for a separated HSR (of some kind) line on the NEC.


As well as to segregate passenger and freight rail. Just take a look at this:









http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079138/Amtrak-train-crashes-Philadelphia.html


----------



## CNB30

It is on a segregated area though


----------



## Woonsocket54

Right. Though as bad as it was, it was very close to being even worse.

Here is Cities Sprinter 601, the locomotive involved in this incident, negotiating a curve in Maryland last year:









http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=528482&nseq=2


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

I'm seeing in Brazilian TV news about Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia. It was a Northeast Regional, right? The HSR is a fallacy as the Northeast Corridor is not fully modernized.


----------



## scrat437

CNB30 said:


> It is on a segregated area though


Segregated or dedicated HSR ROW isn't the issue regarding this accident, by the acccounts of the local papers here in NYC, it is being reported the locomotive was traveling 100mph in a curve with speeds restricted to 50 mph.


----------



## M-NL

This source speculates that the train was doing over 100 mph where it should have done 50. Aren't both the NEC and the ACS-64 fitted with the ACSES PTC system that is supposed to protect against this?


----------



## N.Y.C.H

Its pathetic that right after this crash $250mil in funding was cut from amtrack. It boggles my mind why these politicians dont want to invest in this country's infrastructure


----------



## 00Zy99

I live near Philadelphia, and I can tell you that that curve at Frankford Junction is notoriously sharp. Another accident at roughly the same spot killed more than 70 people in 1943. 

This curve was put into place in the mid 19th Century. Originally, trains from Trenton to Philadelphia ran north to south through the area and terminated on the Northeast side of Center City (around Front and Montgomery). Then, the railroads became consolidated under the Pennsylvania Railroad, which terminated on the West side of the city. To connect its lines, the PRR built the Connecting Railroad running East-West from ZOO Interlocking (just north of 30th Street Station) across the Delair Bridge to connect to the lines to southern New Jersey. New York trains were routed through a connecting curve at the new Frankford Junction to run west through North Philadelphia station and past ZOO to Broad Street Station/30th Street Station (or out the Main Line).

This sharp curve has been seen as a problem spot for decades. The PRR bought land for a Frankford Cutoff that would ease the curve for NYC-Philadelphia trains in the 1930s, but nothing was built. The land was transferred to Amtrak along with the NEC in 1975, and still nothing was built. As far as I know, Amtrak STILL owns the land. Diagonal property lines can be seen from roughly B and Venango Streets to Adams Ave and Torresdale Ave in Philadelphia (along the south side of Erie Ave and Torresdale Ave).

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0001706,-75.0965556,1325m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en





Rodalvesdepaula said:


> I'm seeing in Brazilian TV news about Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia. It was a Northeast Regional, right? The HSR is a fallacy as the Northeast Corridor is not fully modernized.



Not sure what you're talking about as a fallacy here. The upgrade projects will bring 160-170 mph service here.


----------



## 00Zy99

N.Y.C.H said:


> Its pathetic that right after this crash $250mil in funding was cut from amtrack. It boggles my mind why these politicians dont want to invest in this country's infrastructure


What's this about? Haven't heard anything about this.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

00Zy99 said:


> Not sure what you're talking about as a fallacy here. The upgrade projects will bring 160-170 mph service here.


Well, when I said "fallacy", I wanted to refer to the HSR construction plan in the NEC, with a new tunnel below Manhattan and a new line through Hartford.

I think the HSR works could be concentrated more in the Philadelphia area, with the construction of a new access to the 30th Street Station. Nowadays, the access to 30th Street Station is busy, sharp and very slow. It is a real "bottleneck" for the trains.

Amtrak could change the NextGen HSR project, eliminating the tunnel in East Manhattan and including a crosstown tunnel in Philadelphia.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

The locomotive involved in this derailment is one of three first Cities Sprinter models ever made: the 601.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Cities_Sprinter


----------



## Klausenburg

00Zy99 said:


> What's this about? Haven't heard anything about this.


This...


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Klausenburg said:


> This...


Is it possible to transfer NEC (infrastructure and _Acela Express/Northeast Regional/Keystone_ rolling stock) for private sector?

I think Amtrak could be reorganized by the following steps:

1. Privatization of NEC, Detroit-Chicago line and _Hiawatta_ Service

2. Transfer of regional services for some States (ex.: _Lincoln Service_ for Illinois Dept. of Transportation and _Heartland Flyer_ for Texas Dept. of Transportation)

3. End of operation of some long-distance trains such as _Silver Meteor_ and _Sunset Limited_

4. Partnership with the private sector for the operation of other long-distance trains, with outsourced crew.


----------



## Nexis

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> Is it possible to transfer NEC (infrastructure and _Acela Express/Northeast Regional/Keystone_ rolling stock) for private sector?
> 
> I think Amtrak could be reorganized by the following steps:
> 
> 1. Privatization of NEC, Detroit-Chicago line and _Hiawatta_ Service
> 
> 2. Transfer of regional services for some States (ex.: _Lincoln Service_ for Illinois Dept. of Transportation and _Heartland Flyer_ for Texas Dept. of Transportation)
> 
> 3. End of operation of some long-distance trains such as _Silver Meteor_ and _Sunset Limited_
> 
> 4. Partnership with the private sector for the operation of other long-distance trains, with outsourced crew.


The NEC is their cash cow...without it , they would have no revenue at all. Some of the Midwestern Services can be taken or by the State or Private companies. The Sunset Limited would do better if it were restored to Orlando & Extended to Miami.... The Crew costs wouldn't change as private pays the same...


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

From CNN Facebook profile:










I believe that the engineer had a sudden illness.


----------



## Nexis

The Mayor is an asshole , and shouldn't have said that.... We don't know why he was speeding , maybe the train malfunctioned which has in the past...


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

A Brazilian newspaper said that the train had not an automatic emergency stop system and this tragedy would be avoided with this equipment.


----------



## Tower Dude

It's the truth, and now the deadline to install this technology will probably be delayed, even though it is desperately needed, also Amtrak needs improvement. It needs more funding, it needs better rolling stock, it needs to expand it's trackage rights. I needs so many things but because it doesn't service 148 congressional districts it becomes an easy punching bag.


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Acela Express Waits for its turn to enter the East River Tunnels in Queens,NY*


Acela Express in Sunnyside,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## phoenixboi08

[atomic] said:


> that's a start
> but I find it odd that the NEC doesn't have positive train control (on all sections) when it is the busiest rail corridor probably on the entire continenthno:


Would you also find it odd if a 1920s Studabaker didn't have gps...?
It's old, Amtrak funding is a pittance. It doesn't have PTC, and it's not that surprising...


----------



## I(L)WTC

The infraestructure of NEC it's federal administration or separated state administration?


----------



## CNB30

Does anybody know when the NYC-Philly route will be reopened?


----------



## Nexis

CNB30 said:


> Does anybody know when the NYC-Philly route will be reopened?


Tuesday


----------



## Nexis

I(L)WTC said:


> The infraestructure of NEC it's federal administration or separated state administration?


Massachusetts DOT (Boston - MA/RI border)
Amtrak (MA/RI border - New Haven)
Connecticut Department of Transportation (New Haven - CT/NY border)
Metro-North Railroad (CT/NY border - New Rochelle)
Amtrak (New Rochelle - Washington)


----------



## M-NL

phoenixboi08 said:


> It's old, Amtrak funding is a pittance. It doesn't have PTC, and it's not that surprising...


That is very surprising. Lines with speeds over 100 mph or with steep inclines without any ATC system are ridiculous. And unfortunately there have been plenty of accidents proving that. 

It's especially these locations where you transition to and from higher speeds combined with sharp curves that are particularly dangerous and need additional protection. Human operators make mistakes, just ask the driver of the Santiago de Compostela crash. They didn't intend to make mistakes, but they happened. The lives of the passengers carried and those living around the danger areas are to important not to protect the system from the single point of failure called a human operator.


----------



## Nexis

*High Speed Acela meet at Rahway *


----------



## FM 2258

Cool seeing the signal change from green to red at the end...


----------



## phoenixboi08

M-NL said:


> That is very surprising. Lines with speeds over 100 mph or with steep inclines without any ATC system are ridiculous. And unfortunately there have been plenty of accidents proving that...


There are very few of those sections...and they have not been operated at those high speeds for some time.

In any case, the point I'm making is, if we're going to make the assumption that economic decisions are "rational" (for the sake of brevity, we will), it is _not_ surprising that an entity with limited funds, and the relevant State Agencies that seem to always find more pressing issues, would not put in the effort to roll out PTC. Considering the backlog of work on the corridor, it does make sense that they never got around to it. Not acceptable, but it's really not so shocking...

That's the reality of why it took the Metro North accident to create a strong push for the current roll out to happen...

That's what I mean by "not surprising."


----------



## Nexis

Northeast Corridor train travel ground to a halt for 30mins yesterday so conductors could escort some ducklings off the tracks...


Conductor with Duckling at Darien... by Corey Best, on Flickr


Conductors or Animal Control? by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

New Catenary Poles along the New Haven Line in CT


New Catenary pole by Corey Best, on Flickr


New Catenary Poles for the New Haven Line by Corey Best, on Flickr


New Catenary Poles for the New Haven Line by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## CNB30

^^ Those are all over the 20 some mile stretch in New Jersey where they're upgrading for 160 mph.


----------



## 00Zy99

I'm pretty sure the ones in New Jersey are of a different type.


----------



## Anday

Found this article about high speed trains in the U.S 

"About 160 years ago, the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in the US made travel between the East and West Coasts a lot easier, and changed the country forever.

Today, Americans still rely on trains to help them to go great distances or just across the city.

And just around the time when America was building its first cross-country railroad, Siemens started building passenger trains, all over the world.

Siemens and a private company in Florida have joined together to start another transportation revolution: a new passenger train line that just might be the future of American transportation."



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sc/h...change-the-way-we-travel-2015-5#ixzz3az2HFyg6


----------



## Nexis

* Westbound Amtrak Acela Express Crawling through New Haven - State Street Station *


Northeast Corridor at New Haven - State Street Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor at New Haven - State Street Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor at New Haven - State Street Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

00Zy99 said:


> I'm pretty sure the ones in New Jersey are of a different type.


Yea , Amtrak is going with a PRR Design while the MNRR is going with a custom design.


----------



## zaphod

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/...for-High-Speed-Rail-Voted-Down-304794591.html

The Texas High Speed rail project still lives! Although privately funded, a ban on the use of any public funding for the project whatsoever would have been a big problem because it means TXDOT would not be allowed to do simple things like coordinate their own plans or engineering with this project.

Anyways, to me the US just needs one successful HSR project. Then the dam will break, people will see and experience what HSR is like and soon there will be demand for all over the place.


----------



## Nexis

*Commuter Rail & Amtrak Ridership along the NEC*

Providence Line - 19,634 (MBTA/Commuter Rail RI/MA) & 8306 (Amtrak - MA/R/I)
Amtrak Only Serviced Stations in RI & CT - 594
Shore Line East - 2400 (Commuter Rail - Eastern CT) & 607 (Amtrak - CT)
New Haven Line - 125,000 (Commuter Rail - Western CT/Eastern NY) & 3550 (Amtrak - CT)
Proposed : Hell Gate Line : 40,000
Long Island Railroad Main Line - 250,000 (Commuter Rail - NYC) & 29,500 (NYP - Amtrak)
Morris & Essex Midtown Direct - 25,600 (Commuter Rail - NJ) & 0 (Amtrak)
Northeast Corridor Line - 117,600 (Commuter Rail - NJ) & 4460 (Amtrak-NJ)
Trenton Line - 10,387 (Commuter Rail - PA) & 11,850 (Amtrak-PA)
Wilmington/Newark Line - 9,274 (Commuter Rail - PA/DE) & 1940 (Amtrak - DE)
Penn Line - 26,046 (Commuter Rail - MD/DC) & 19,400 (Amtrak - MD & DC)


----------



## LondonerMiles

Nexis said:


> *Amtrak Acela Express Waits for its turn to enter the East River Tunnels in Queens,NY*
> 
> 
> Acela Express in Sunnyside,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Fantastic picture, wouldn't the East River Tunnels be extremely congested with only two single bores?

I find American railways so much more interesting to my own in Britain. After privatisation in the mid 1990s all our trains are bland and boring European built multiple units.


----------



## mrsmartman

^^ Should be four, built by PRR.


----------



## 00Zy99

LondonerMiles said:


> Fantastic picture, wouldn't the East River Tunnels be extremely congested with only two single bores?


There are FOUR single bores under the East River. 

The two-track stretch is West from Pennsylvania Station, under the HUDSON RIVER (western/NJ portal seen here:









http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...a/File:Western_portal_North_River_Tunnels.jpg

and across the Meadowlands








http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...ear_western_portal_of_North_River_Tunnels.jpg

(and the infamous Portal Bridge









http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Portal_Bridge#/media/File:Portal_Bridge_from_I95_jeh.jpg
) to Newark.

Of course, this isn't to say that there isn't a lot of congestion on BOTH sides of Manhattan. The two tracks to the west are trying to carry the load from a four-track main line and several branches. The East River tunnels are trying to carry a four-track main, a two-track main, and a major yard-access lead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Bridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_River_Tunnels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_River_Tunnels





> I find American railways so much more interesting to my own in Britain. After privatisation in the mid 1990s all our trains are bland and boring European built multiple units.


While we certainly do have an interesting system, you should consider yourself fortunate to have so much more (relative) passenger service than us.


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> Of course, this isn't to say that there isn't a lot of congestion on BOTH sides of Manhattan. The two tracks to the west are trying to carry the load from a four-track main line and several branches. The East River tunnels are trying to carry a four-track main, a two-track main, and a major yard-access lead.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Bridge
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_River_Tunnels
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_River_Tunnels


Other than the obvious insistence on not cooperating, why has no one seriously pushed for through-service for some NJT and LIRR services?

At the very least, adding a place for LIRR trains to turn around west of the Hudson/Penn Station (Secaucus or even Newark) and a place for NJT trains to turn around east of Penn Station (Jamaica Station) would go a long way in solving congestion and rationalizing time-tables/fares by carrying more passengers with fewer trains, overall.

In all honestly, most of those regional/commuter agencies should just be run as _one_ service (e.g. the SBahn services in many German cities). 

I've always wondered just how much "duplication" could be squashed by through-running. I know PB is at least thinking about this in the NECFuture study, but I've only gotten some tight-lip responses, so I have no clue how aggressively they'll push for it.


----------



## 00Zy99

phoenixboi08 said:


> Other than the obvious insistence on not cooperating, why has no one seriously pushed for through-service for some NJT and LIRR services?


The schedules and service patterns and characteristics are very different. Not to mention the different technical specifications.



> At the very least, adding a place for LIRR trains to turn around west of the Hudson/Penn Station (Secaucus or even Newark) and a place for NJT trains to turn around east of Penn Station (Jamaica Station) would go a long way in solving congestion and rationalizing time-tables/fares by carrying more passengers with fewer trains, overall.


While this sounds like a good idea in theory, the only place of these three where there would be any room at all would be at Secaucus. There is no room at all at either Newark or Jamaica, not without a HUGE (we're talking "a new Penn Station" huge) outlay and (politically tough) land acquisition. And Secaucus would require a new pair of tunnels under the Hudson dedicated to the LIRR IN ADDITION to the current pair and the Gateway Project tubes (which will quickly fill up with Amtrak and NJTransit runs).



> In all honestly, most of those regional/commuter agencies should just be run as _one_ service (e.g. the SBahn services in many German cities).
> 
> I've always wondered just how much "duplication" could be squashed by through-running. I know PB is at least thinking about this in the NECFuture study, but I've only gotten some tight-lip responses, so I have no clue how aggressively they'll push for it.


The SBahn arose from a single unified organization over a much longer period of time, unlike the current systems in the US. Here there is much more inertia in organization and travel patterns.

As an example, I'll point to SEPTA in Philadelphia, which attempted to move towards an S-Bahn system with the opening of the Center City Commuter Connection tunnel in 1984. This united the old PRR and Reading commuter networks into a single system. However, traffic patterns proved otherwise, and today only about 1/3 of all trains run through on their originally designated routes. Others travel off onto various opposite branches as needed, or terminate downtown.

That said, this is the HSR thread, not the commuter rail thread, so lets move on.


----------



## 33Hz

LondonerMiles said:


> I find American railways so much more interesting to my own in Britain. After privatisation in the mid 1990s all our trains are bland and boring European built multiple units.


If you ignore the colourful Japanese built multiple units and the European and American built locomotives...

Besides, what we have now is far less samey than the monochrome liveried stock that rolled around in the 70s and 80s.


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya but it pales in comparison to the glory days of American rail! When the Streamliners sped across our country and into our cities. It would be a very different America if rail had stayed the primary mode of transportation, imagine HSR already connecting most of our major cities with Maglev train routes in construction right now!


----------



## aquaticko

^^It's still difficult to imagine high-speed rail being a useful mode of transportation across the entire country, given our settlement patterns and the giant population hole in the middle. It still makes the most sense to focus on the most densely populated parts of the country, even if that were to mean everything east of the Mississippi, the Texas Triangle, and sections of the west coast.

As this point, particularly given the suburban nature of much of our housing nationwide, I'd just be glad to see genuine, dedicated PDL's along our very densest corridors.


----------



## 00Zy99

There are some other corridors as well:

Denver-Colorado Springs-Santa Fe-Albuquerque. 

LA-Vegas-Phoenix

You could just about make an argument for eventually building a line clear through from LA to New Orleans, if you consider all of the cities along the route.


----------



## Nexis

Bullet Train in South Norwalk?


Bullet Train at SoNo Station? by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## jam5

*Nevada joins the high-speed rail bandwagon with plans for Vegas, SoCal link*

_May 26, 2015, 5:52am PDT
Allen Young
Sacramento Business Journal_



> A high-speed train to Las Vegas took another step toward to reality last week as the Nevada Legislature sent a bill to Gov. Brian Sandoval to establish the Nevada High-Speed Rail Authority.
> 
> The agency would select a firm to construct and operate a high-speed train from Las Vegas to Southern California and oversee construction if Senate Bill 457 becomes law. The bill passed both legislative chambers last week with only one dissenting vote.
> 
> XpressWest, a private rail company, has proposed a bullet train from Las Vegas to Victorville in California, where it would connect to other rail systems. The trip would last 80 minutes, with trains traveling at speeds up to 150 miles per hour, the company reports on its website.
> 
> Financing for the $6.9 billion project is in final stages, the company reports, with money coming from a mix of private investment and federal grants.
> 
> The counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino have adopted resolutions supporting the project, XpressWest said. The Nevada project also has early support from the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said spokeswoman Lisa Alley.


----------



## dimlys1994

^^At least some progress on my favourite HSR project in America


----------



## Anday

Nevada legislature approves high-speed rail from socal to Vegas

"Unlike the bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles championed by California Governor Jerry Brown, a proposed bullet train from Southern California to Las Vegas approved by the Nevada legislature last week would not rely on state funds."

"According to the Sacramento Business Journal (via California Political Review), the Nevada Legislature sent Senate Bill 457 to Gov. Brian Sandoval to establish the Nevada High-Speed Rail Authority, which would choose a firm to construct and operate the high-speed train. The bill passed both houses of the Nevada legislature with only one nay vote"

http://www.breitbart.com/california...rail-to-vegas-approved-by-nevada-legislature/


----------



## clippp

👍🏼


----------



## dimlys1994

^^SO FAST?:cheers:


----------



## Nexis

Wasn't this killed last year?


----------



## dimlys1994

Nexis said:


> Wasn't this killed last year?


No, it wasn't. XpressWest was suspended, because investors can't find proper train manufacturer for this line and proper funding. But not cancelled


----------



## Nexis

dimlys1994 said:


> No, it wasn't. XpressWest was suspended, because investors can't find proper train manufacturer for this line and proper funding. But not cancelled


Is Siemens or Bombardier stepping up this time?


----------



## dimlys1994

Nexis said:


> Is Siemens or Bombardier stepping up this time?


Or even Chinese. I don't know


----------



## Nexis

dimlys1994 said:


> Or even Chinese. I don't know


I thought it had to be buy America?


----------



## 00Zy99

Buy America is for federal (and state) funded projects.


----------



## Nexis

CNB30 said:


> HSR is 125mph, not 150 ^^


125mph is outdated , 140-150mph is the new standard....then again this is the US where we do lag behind when it comes to Infrastructure.


----------



## CNB30

Nexis said:


> 125mph is outdated , 140-150mph is the new standard....then again this is the US where we do lag behind when it comes to Infrastructure.


I think we lag behind in MUCH more than infrastructure.


----------



## ZKB9

k.k.jetcar said:


> It's not true high speed rail, "one" of the definitions being 150mph plus operating speeds, but rather euphemistically higher speed rail or high performance rail. The media is very cavalier in defining what is high speed rail and politicians/bureaucrats will label anything going faster than 79mph as hsr to score points for their political self-worth index. The line itself is being upgraded to max 110mph speeds. Admirable by N. American standards, ho hum elsewhere.
> 
> http://www.idothsr.org/


Thanks for the clarification. Baby steps I guess.


----------



## milipumba

If you follow international standards, then high speed is 200 km/h(125 mph) on upgraded lines. But it has to be 250 km/h, or 156.25 mph, on new lines.


----------



## FM 2258

^^

Thanks for clearing this up. I forget about the "new lines" stipulation. In my head if it's 124 mph, it's high speed. I've done 130 mph in my car only once in my life and it felt damn fast.


----------



## prageethSL

*Texas Inches Closer To Getting High-Speed Rail Lines*



> For years, politicians and volunteers have been talking about building a high-speed rail line to and possibly through North Texas. That ‘dream’ has now inched closer to becoming reality.
> On August 21, the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) approved $4.5 million for the planning, design, project development and preliminary engineering to build a high speed rail in the Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston corridor by 2021.
> Officials say the regional bullet train would connect Fort Worth to Houston in 90 minutes.
> The high-speed trains would link Fort Worth to Houston, other metropolitan areas in the state and eventually have another corridor stretching from Oklahoma to South Texas. Proponents say the trains would give travelers “a smooth, congestion-free ride between the state’s two largest metropolitan areas using technology popular in other parts of the world.”
> The RTC plan sets aside $1.5 million to be spent each year, starting in 2016. The money will come from the Regional Toll Revenue funding account.
> In a press releases statement, Bill Meadows, the chairman of the Commission for High-Speed Rail in the Dallas-Fort Worth region, said, “With population growth in Dallas-Fort Worth and throughout Texas showing no signs of slowing down, innovation is necessary and will ensure the transportation system continues to provide safe, efficient service to all. With this decision, the RTC has reaffirmed its commitment to high speed rail in the region.”


source : http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/08/21/north-texas-inches-closer-to-getting-high-speed-rail-lines/


----------



## Nexis

Would it really only take 6 years to build?


----------



## fskobic

Nexis said:


> Would it really only take 6 years to build?





> ...*approved $4.5 million for the planning, design, project development and preliminary engineering* to build a high speed rail in the Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston corridor by 2021.
> (...)
> The RTC plan sets aside *$1.5 million to be spent each year*, starting in 2016.


No, this is for the planning and designing phase. It would be wonderful, though, if it could be built in 6 years and cost just $4.5 mil.  :cheers:


----------



## Anday

fskobic said:


> No, this is for the planning and designing phase. It would be wonderful, though, if it could be built in 6 years and cost just $4.5 mil.  :cheers:


No I think when it says by 2021 it means the line itself not the design phase [that shouldn't take 6 years] and I've read before that they hope for the line to be open by 2021.


----------



## Anday

fskobic said:


> No, this is for the planning and designing phase. It would be wonderful, though, if it could be built in 6 years and cost just $4.5 mil.  :cheers:


No I think when it says by 2021 it means the line itself not the design phase [that shouldn't take 6 years] and I've read before that they hope for the line to be open by 2021. Also it says in the article how much it is estimated to cost so I think if he read the article he would know $4.5 mil wasn't the cost of the actual project.


By the way sorry if what I said sounds stupid i'm not the smartest person in this subject.


----------



## hmmwv

The 4.5mil is the design cost, and 6 years is the projected construction time frame. Of course that time frame is just a wide a** guess which doesn't correlate to reality.


----------



## phoenixboi08

hmmwv said:


> ...and 6 years is the projected construction time frame. Of course that time frame is just a wide a** guess which doesn't correlate to reality.


Yeah, I've always rolled my eyes at that.

Money isn't really the issue, it's property owners and the weird legal precedent we have when it comes to "Takings."



Nexis said:


> Would it really only take 6 years to build?


To be fair, I guess actual construction could wrap up within that time frame. I just have serious doubts that they'll finish all of the studies, secure financing, etc with enough time to spare for a 2021 completion date...the way rural opposition is beginning to mount, I have a feeling they're going to be spending a lot of time trying to bifurcate as few properties as possible, which probably means quite a bit more time studying alternatives.


----------



## fskobic

Might be, but it's very optimistic to have it done by 2021, if they JUST approved the planning, design and project development, and approved $4.5 mil, with only $1.5 mil coming in every year (that's $4.5 mil by 2018). That means they've only just started to gather people with the know-how, to get things going. Not to mention all the EIRs and other studies, possible protests etc. It's a 250 mile high speed rail, building it from scratch. Also, this tiny budget was approved by the Regional Transportation Council, which doesn't mean much.

I'm not going to say it's impossible, I just think it's very unlikely.

In comparison, take High Speed 2 (Phase 1) in the UK, for example. It's a 120 mile stretch (so, half the lenght, but a more complex setting), in a country where rail transit is of high importance and usage, with political support from all the major parties. It's a second major high speed rail line in the UK (so, not a completely new concept). Its cost is estimated between 10 and 20 billion pounds. They've been planning it since 2010, with construction projected to begin in 2017 or 2018, and possible completion date estimated at 2025 or 2026.

Kudos to Texas if they manage to get this done by 2021. I'm just saying it's waaay too optimistic. :cheers:


----------



## Yeezus2

Alright guys, I had to clear some things up here, from someone who's been following this project for awhile on our Houston Architecture forum.

The above mentioned article is NOT by Texas Central Railway. About a year ago, when this whole Texas HSR talk began picking up steam, various government agencies wanted TCR to extend the HSR line from Dallas to Ft.Worth, which they deemed not financially beneficial. Instead, these lines will be studied, financed, and constructed by TX HSR government agencies, of which TCR has nothing to do with. Whatever costs or projected timelines associated with that are NOT referencing the HSR project across the entire state.

However, TCR just received $75 million in financing, as well as a new CEO for further design and engineering of the project, which can be read here;

TCR has stated, and really it should be pretty obvious, that $75 is no where close to being the amount of money that is required for the construction of this project. This initial round of funding, however, came from Texas investors and was significantly more than TCR asked for. Funding for the major portion of the line will come from Japan Bank for International Cooperation, which funds projects that will benefit Japan's economy. The justification for this is the fact that TCR is JR Central's first, and therefore most important, export to the US. 

One of the most crucial first steps in building a private passenger railway is gaining federal approval...which was just given to TCR today! Federal Authorities have just given approval to the final route narrowed down by TCR called the "Utility Corridor." 

I've seen a few comments from people on relation to projected timelines and route option's. Most of those comments are unaware of how far along this project actually is. One frustrating aspect of this entire project is TCR's reluctance to provide continual updates. To their credit, the only update they could've given the past year was "we're still waiting on the Federal Review" but now that it has passed, we should see some very exciting developments within this coming year.

As an aside; any comment on rural opposition should note the two bills that were submitted in this latest Texas Legislature failed to gain any steam, and that because of Texas politics, the next Legislative Session won't be until 2017, which means TCR will be underway with construction by that point. Another point I'd like to make is that TCR does have Eminent Domain authority. However, as a private company, it is more likely than not that they will go through with paying much more than market value of land, so that they avoid any cost issues with court cases. I say this because, and this is where none of you have to believe me because it's the internet, but because I sat down and discussed this entire project with the TCR President Robert Eckels. We discussed where the project was at, the finances of the project, and how they would go about acquiring land for the project. Mr. Eckels was actually the former Harris County Judge, who oversaw the Reliant Stadium, Minute Maid Park, and BBVA Compass Stadium, as well as, and this is key, the I-10 Katy Freeway project. As some of you may know, this is literally the world's "widest freeway" (which can be debated but whatever), and thus required enormous amounts of land. Because of his time spent on that project, he argues that it's cheaper to pay above market price than it is to pay market price, and end up going to court because a landowner is unhappy. 

It honestly makes sense; if a strip of land that TCR needs is worth $200,000, TCR would theoretically offer $400,000. However, if they offered $200,000 and the landowner sued and brought them to court, TCR would end up paying an extra $150,000 in court fees, and the increased price to the property value deemed by a judge. 

Some of you are quite right in your ideas on rural opposition; it is a much better option to provide an offer that will make the landowners much happier than it is to fight in court and create a bitter relationship.


In fact, by the time this line is built, it will be taxed (I believe it's by mile) on the land that it occupies, which means some of the rural counties between Dallas and Houston now have an incredibly high tax payer; Texas Central Railway.


----------



## prageethSL

Feds agree with developer on Dallas-Houston high-speed rail route



> The Federal Railroad Administration announced this month that the general route preferred by the project developer of a high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston is indeed the best choice.
> 
> Known as the “utility corridor,” it runs somewhat along high-voltage electrical transmission lines and capitalizes on relatively straight, existing easements.
> 
> “It’s of interest to us because it provides a source of power for our system, is straighter for a larger portion and therefore more suitable for the engineering,” said Tim Keith, chief executive of Texas Central Partners, the developer.
> 
> The utility easement runs only to about Palmer in Ellis County. Between Dallas’ Union Station and the Trinity River, the path follows a railroad corridor.
> 
> The federal report issued Aug. 10 does not outline a specific route but a broad path with many possible alignments. Corridor choices were wide swaths. Elements of each could still make it into the final plan.
> 
> “There’s not a whole lot of clarity even with the declaration of the corridor,” said Kyle Workman, president of Texans Against High Speed Rail.
> 
> But Texas Central Partners says it’s enough of a definition to host open houses in towns along the line.
> 
> “As we identify that final alignment, we will know which parcels are effective and which landowners we will engage with,” Keith said.
> 
> The label of “utility corridor” doesn’t ease rural landowners’ concerns about the project, Workman said.
> 
> “Utilities don’t run the whole length,” he said. “From our standpoint, it’s a prime farm and ranchland corridor.”
> 
> Two other corridors studied were tied to existing rail lines.


Read more :http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20150825-feds-agree-with-developer-on-dallas-houston-high-speed-rail-route.ece


----------



## lunarwhite

Yeezus2, that was a great first post. Welcome to the forum.


----------



## Yeezus2

Thanks guys; I'd be more than happy to answer any questions any of you guys may have on the project. I'll answer to the best of my abilities as an outsider with a bit more inside information than most. 

I've been following the project since 2011, so it's something I'm very passionate about and something I believe will propel Texas forward into a mid 21st century state. I'm excited to see other HSR initiatives pick up steam, and look forward to seeing how they stand up to this project.


----------



## Nexis

Will the Houston Station be near the old Multi Modal Transit hub proposal site?


----------



## prageethSL

Fresno River Viaduct construction(8/26)



























source :https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaHighSpeedRail/photos/ms.c.eJxlzsEJACAMQ9GNxKhpm~;0XU7wI8fr4gaCDk4UZmVhFNTypYXJALvJmfU2EN5I1oq9EuoQ~;VN6HG4oAKEU~-.bps.a.10153581366244859.1073741922.273053429858/10153581367714859/?type=1&theater


----------



## Yeezus2

Nexis said:


> Will the Houston Station be near the old Multi Modal Transit hub proposal site?


Man that entire complex would've been amazing; unfortunately, it was a doomed recession era project that never gained too much steam. The project was cancelled, and I do not know if there are any plans to pick that up anytime soon. 

However, that being said, it would behoove TCP to consider a similar design; something that connects LRT, Bus, and HSR in one roof (think Denver's Union Station). The question remains then, where would it be? As surprising as it may be to some, Houston has quite a bit of extra space lying in downtown (joking). Most of these empty lots are surface lots, and wouldn't be ideal for a downtown hub. 

Over at the Houston forum, we've narrowed it down to what we believe are the only two viable options (exluding a tunnel'd option, which I'd be surprised because of Houston's proximity to sea level). The first is the Hardy Yards, directly north of Buffalo Bayou, which is currently undergoing the first signs of devleopment in years, thanks to newly paved roads, a refurbished tunnel, and signs of mixed use development popping up in the area. It's unlikely that the station could go here, as TCR would most likely need to supply land for a station and the surrounding mixed-use work/live/play areas that would benefit it greatly.

The other option is the soon-to-be former Lair of Satan himself, the Post Office! This sprawling monolith to the crumbling decay of a once (apparently) great company that can't seem to deliver a goddamn package from Houston to Denver without losing it for two months.

But I digress...this site was recently purchased by Lovett Commercial, who are responsible for the redevelopment of a portion of the Sawyer Yards complex; an area within a few miles of the site that was home to warehouses for decades, but are now being converted to mixed use, artist studio's, and retail centers for a more, young and cultured demographic (as in, rich hipsters? It's a great redevelopment regardless)

The second option would have to be my favorite option, simply because I can see TCR and Lovett doing great work together. 

HOWEVER, there has been no word on the two companies partnering in this kind of development, but we should know within the next few months.



Another important thing I'd like to add is something that was mentioned to me by Judge Eckels; the demand for a downtown station may not be fully realized until an established station is already up and operating, meaning an extension directly to downtown Houston could come after the line is open. This has not been mentioned at all since the discussion in articles or interviews, so it could have absolutely no merit to it. Do not take my word as absolute.

If, however, we are to believe that to be true, then the initial "end terminus" of the route will almost certainly be at the Northwest Mall site; an outdated monarch of 80's Houston's suburban mall carnage. The site is up for sale, and has absolutely enormous potential for not only HSR, but for commuter rail and/or light rail as well. This site is just minutes from the famous (or infamous, depending on time of day and traffic) Galleria. To make a long story short; The Galleria should have had light rail transit years ago but was blocked by one congressmen. Instead, traffic along this sector is literally the worst in Texas, BUT, by having a very valuable HSR terminus nearby, it would kick-start discussion for light rail extensions. I believe I've heard mention that TCR has been looking intently at this location for their "610 Station"

If you read that correctly, you'd understand the differintiation I just made; TCR has planned multiple station's at either end of the corridor. TCR has made it known they are heavily considering, at the Houston end, a downtown station, the Northwest mall station, and somewhere between Beltway 8 & The Grand Parkway (god I love Houston's freeway naming schemes), which would not only act as a catalyst for urban development around the station's, but has a little known consequence for Houston commuters.

It is no secret Houston's driving is the _fking worst_. We waste millions of hours a year, for bigger freeways that become overcroweded within a year due to population increases. Bigger freeways and increased transit option's are not the miracle solution's many of us (including me) would like them to be. This has required extensive research and design into engineering arguably some of the best roadway systems in the world, regardless of the fact that they are constantly crowded (blame the drivers). Due to the HSR's alignment from Loop 610 all the way to Hempstead (or Highway 6), the track will have to be elevated above an existing freight rail line. TCR plans to of course have a double track line from Houston to Dallas, but is considering adding a second line _below_ their line, parallel to the existing freight line; acting as a commuter line extension from downtown (or close by) into the ballooning Cypress suburb (Fun fact; Cypress is the home of the under construction Daikan facility, which will set a *world record* for a single tilt wall building encompassing over 4 million sqft).

This commuter line extension is planned already by METRO but has gone nowhere because of a lack of funding and shitty politics. If METRO decides not to help fund a second line below the HSR lines, TCR has offered to allow METRO usage of their rail lines for a commuter service line. But, because the track is specifically designed for HSR use, METRO can't use their light rail trams already in place. This...unfortunate...setback would require METRO to purchase their own set of Shinkansen train sets for commuter service.

I don't know about you guys, but operating a HSR train set as a regular commuter train for a city is pretty badass.


----------



## zaphod

What's wrong with the 14 Freeway option?

Freeways are already a blight and when they add lanes or do construction it involves taking neighboring properties. I don't see what adding rail could do that would make it any worse than it is.


----------



## Sunfuns

From the given map tunnel option would be faster and considering the very high price of construction in US perhaps not more expensive.

It wouldn't be possible to run HSR 100% parallel to the freeway in the mountains because a standard highway tolerates a much smaller curve radius than a train running at 300 km/h can. Therefore impact would be bigger than you might think.


----------



## prageethSL

Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section Animation


----------



## Anday

*Transportation and Money: Would Americans Use High-Speed Rail?*












> A new survey by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) — “High-Speed Rail in America 2015” — *finds that if high-speed rail were available now, 63 percent of Americans would be likely to use high-speed trains.
> 
> The number jumps to 67 percent when respondents were informed that it will be less expensive than flying and that it will take less time than driving to their destination.
> *
> But by and large, Americans don’t get the chance.
> 
> Over the Christmas holidays, I had the chance to take the high-speed Eurostar train from Paris to London. I looked at the train and the plane as options, and the Eurostar, at 199 mph, was the best by far, both by time and convenience.
> 
> Japan is known for its high-speed maglev bullet trains (270 mph), and there’s also France’s TVG (236 mph), the Korea Train Express (219 mph), and China Railways (302 mph), to name a few. But the trend has been slow to catch on in the United States. Amtrak’s Acela, which runs between Washington, D.C., and Boston, which can only reach a top speed of 150 mph.


https://businessjournalism.org/2015/10/transportation-and-money-would-americans-use-high-speed-rail/


----------



## prageethSL

Study: Texas High-speed rail would spur billions in economic benefits




> An impact study commissioned by the developers of a high-speed train between Dallas and Houston says the project will spur $36 billion in economic benefits over 25 years – and will pour hundreds of millions of dollars into government coffers each year.
> 
> Texas Central Partners today released the major findings of the study, which for the first time attached estimated figures to the bullet train’s potential economic effects.
> 
> Company CEO Tim Keith said in an interview that he pleasantly surprised about “how substantial and long-lasting the project will be on the state’s economy.”
> 
> Because Texas Central is a private company, its property and infrastructure is taxable, unlike tax-funded rail lines or highways. That means the company will have to pay property taxes to cities, school districts and counties for the entire length of its track between the two metropolitan areas. Those rural counties between the two cities is home to several people who oppose the project.
> 
> “We’re hopeful the study will highlight some of the benefits delivered by the project,” Keith said.
> 
> But Kyle Workman, president of Texans Against High-Speed Rail, criticized the study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It paints the rosy picture that TCR wants to paint and fails to account for the loss of property tax value that takes place for those whose land will be taken in the surrounding area,” Workman said.
> In all, the study conducted by Allen-based Insight Research Group estimates that Texas Central will pay $2.5 billion in taxes by 2040. Grimes County, which this year has an operating budget of about $20 million, will likely see the biggest benefit compared to other rural counties.
> 
> Texas Central plans to put a station in the county, though an exact location isn’t known. Today’s study estimates that the company will pay $50 million in taxes to county entities by 2040. Grimes County Judge Ben Leman is also the chairman of Texans Against High-Speed Rail. Leman was not immediately available for comment Thursday morning.
> 
> Workman said Leman would release a statement later Thursday.
> 
> Texas Central has long said it would likely put a station near the line’s midpoint. Keith said Grimes County was selected for the Brazos Valley station location because it is in the middle of several cities including College Station, Huntsville and Madisonville.
> 
> The study released today also estimates that the $1 billion it will spend in Grimes County alone will spur development around the station. But Workman doubted those projections.
> 
> “It also presupposes a project that succeeds as opposed to addressing a project that fails, as we all know it will,” Workman said.


Read more : http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2015/10/study-high-speed-rail-would-spur-billions-in-economic-benefits.html/


----------



## Surel

How real are those california plans for the HSR in fact?

It would be nice to see HSR in the US, however, I see two major complications.

a) Public transport is quite underdeveloped in the US, but it is crucial for good functioning of HSR.
b) Americans are used to the cars and prefer taxi to the public transport. It would be very difficult to serve a HSR hub passenger numbers properly with the taxis.

=>

I think that the, already a reality, driver-less car solutions could be a good answer to this. Especially when we realize that the technology is having strong foothold in the US.

Another point is of course, whether we could not, with further development of this technology, skip the HSR in its classic sense completely, organizing the autonomous vehicles into some sort of "high speed trains" at some hub points.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Surel said:


> a) Public transport is quite underdeveloped in the US, but it is crucial for good functioning of HSR.
> b) Americans are used to the cars and prefer taxi to the public transport. It would be very difficult to serve a HSR hub passenger numbers properly with the taxis.


You have to start somewhere. People in the USA or anywhere in the world are used to a number of things that are not good in the long run. Its not like public transport has never existed in the USA.



Surel said:


> I think that the, already a reality, driver-less car solutions could be a good answer to this. Especially when we realize that the technology is having strong foothold in the US.
> 
> Another point is of course, whether we could not, with further development of this technology, skip the HSR in its classic sense completely, organizing the autonomous vehicles into some sort of "high speed trains" at some hub points.


It will still use cars and even electric cars will still have a greater environmental foot print than trains.


----------



## zaphod

Surel said:


> How real are those california plans for the HSR in fact?
> 
> I think that the, already a reality, driver-less car solutions could be a good answer to this. Especially when we realize that the technology is having strong foothold in the US.
> 
> Another point is of course, whether we could not, with further development of this technology, skip the HSR in its classic sense completely, organizing the autonomous vehicles into some sort of "high speed trains" at some hub points.


Or, robot cars could pick up people at high speed train stations in locations where it is easier to build them.

This is an argument I've made before- automated cars will make high speed rail practical since they'll fix the "last mile" problem that comes from a lack of mass transit in US cities.

Robot taxis in the role of high speed intercity transit seems problematic. You'd have to have a separate fleet of cars that were specially designed to travel at high speeds with sufficient battery power and motors. And you'd have to accept an imbalance if the flow of passengers in direction was different from the flow in another direction. And it wouldn't be as comfortable as a train.


----------



## prageethSL

Chinese firms want to build, finance California high-speed train



> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A team of Chinese firms, along with the Export-Import Bank of China, wants to build and finance a large part of California’s proposed 800-mile high-speed rail project.
> 
> The firms expressed their interest last month in a 23-page document sent to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The authority asked private companies from around the globe to help shape the state's strategy to launch the first stage of its train line, considered the most ambitious infrastructure project in the United States.
> 
> Led by China Railway International, the Chinese team proposed it could provide big elements of the project, including design expertise, construction, equipment procurement, and rolling stock. It also proposed financing from the Export-Import Bank of China.
> 
> By packaging large pieces of the high-speed rail line together, for delivery by a single contractor, the project’s cost and construction timeline would be greatly reduced, the team proposed.
> 
> “To the Chinese team, a relatively large-scale contract is proper and reasonable,” said the letter, obtained by Reuters through a Public Records Act request.
> 
> California’s high-speed rail line would run trains at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour between Los Angeles and San Francisco by 2029 and, later, expand to San Diego and Sacramento.
> 
> The United States is a key target for China's rail industry, even though policymakers have been split over the need for high-speed rail and some have taken a dim view of Chinese involvement. Last month, a unit of China's CRRC Corp, the world's biggest train maker by revenue, agreed to a deal to help build a high-speed link between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
> 
> California still needs a large amount of funding to complete its rail line. About $13.2 billion of the estimated $68 billion has been raised through state and federal funds, plus a pledge of cap-and-trade proceeds, or funds paid by companies to offset carbon emissions.
> 
> The Chinese team proposed that under “appropriate loan conditions," the Export-Import Bank of China could "satisfy the financing needs of the project.”
> 
> But the Chinese also warned that California should provide additional public financing and guarantee future project debt to appease uneasy investors.
> 
> “Due to the huge financing gap of the project, potential private investors and lenders may be cautious,” the Chinese team wrote.
> 
> China has recently clinched contracts in Russia, the latest in an aggressive push to procure high-speed rail deals overseas. It faced hurdles in Mexico and Indonesia due to bureaucratic flip-flops in those countries.


Source : http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-firms-want-build-finance-california-high-speed-020507770--business.html


----------



## Tower Dude

Well this is humiliating


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Tower Dude said:


> Well this is humiliating


It's true. 

Until 1960's, United States were a reference in passenger rail transport and some of the few passenger trains of the age were from America. Nowadays, USA don't have a all-American passenger rail industry and need to buy foreign technology to carry passengers in its railroads.


----------



## Tower Dude

And CERTAIN groups don't really see the problem with this as long as they can continue to suckle at the teet of Charlie and Davie.


----------



## CNB30

^^ Just like Highways, the automotive industry, the oil industry, and the airline companies


----------



## Yeezus2

I don't understand the issue here? Yeah, the US looks pretty dumb for not having a nation-wide HSR system, but it was only very recently that China (a nation roughly the same size as the US in terms of square miles) built out an incredible High Speed Network. They may not be as successful in terms of accidents, but it's not like they're new to this.

If they go this route, it would seem that CHSRA has taken a note or two from Texas Central's playbook; JR Central is the "mastermind" of sorts for our Texas HSR, and Will use Japan's Export-Import Loans for financing most of the project.


----------



## Tower Dude

Well when some thing is labeled a private project like Texas Central you expect money to come from everywhere/anywhere and when it's labeled a public project you expect the government of the country that the project is in to help fund it, seeing as how the majority party in the United States Congress has devolved into a bunch of fatuous nincompoops who refuse to fund anything that would make people realized that government isn't a bad thing, a foreign government is willing to step up to the plate to help fund HSR in California is kinda humiliating because you realize that if your country is unwilling to fund its own future the writing is starting to appear on the wall


----------



## phoenixboi08

Tower Dude said:


> Well when some thing is labeled a private project like Texas Central you expect money to come from everywhere/anywhere and when it's labeled a public project you expect the government of the country that the project is in to help fund it, seeing as how the majority party in the United States Congress has devolved into a bunch of fatuous nincompoops who refuse to fund anything that would make people realized that government isn't a bad thing, a foreign government is willing to step up to the plate to help fund HSR in California is kinda humiliating because you realize that if your country is unwilling to fund its own future the writing is starting to appear on the wall


This is called Globalization...country A experiences investment outflows, while country B experiences inflows and amasses a good amount of capital. Country B allocates that capital on what it sees fit, but eventually, returns diminish and the capital inflows turn into outflows as higher yields are sought.

You can paint it any way you want to, but investment is slowing quickly and [State-Owned] companies are moving fast to find profits in whatever they can get their hands on.

This will mean quite a favorable deal for CA in any MOA, reached.

It doesn't matter who funds finances it, so long as it's funded financed.


----------



## Tower Dude

^^ I'm not saying that this is not a good thing and that I am against the offer of funding. I am happy financial entities have stepped up to the plate to help fund this.

I'm just saying I'm embarrassed by the hostility and attacks towards High Speed Rail in the United States' by backwards ass politicians who don't seem to know their ass from their elbow.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Tower Dude said:


> ^^ I'm not saying that this is not a good thing and that I am against the offer of funding. I am happy financial entities have stepped up to the plate to help fund this.
> 
> I'm just saying I'm embarrassed by the hostility and attacks towards High Speed Rail in the United States' by backwards ass politicians who don't seem to know their ass from their elbow.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And I'm pointing out that that's a weird way of thinking. Would it be just as "embarrassing" if it was a bank putting forth the financing?

No one seems to have a problem with JR doing the same thing in Texas - and attempting to with Maglev in the NE. Somehow, we're supposed to start navel-gazing because, "_China_"

They're desperate to invest and generate some returns, and we're desperate for financing (because we refuse to tax ourselves to do it). Perfect match.


----------



## Tower Dude

phoenixboi08 said:


> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And I'm pointing out that that's a weird way of thinking. Would it be just as "embarrassing" if it was a bank putting forth the financing?
> 
> 
> 
> No one seems to have a problem with JR doing the same thing in Texas - and attempting to with Maglev in the NE. Somehow, we're supposed to start navel-gazing because, "_China_"
> 
> 
> 
> They're desperate to invest and generate some returns, and we're desperate for financing (because we refuse to tax ourselves to do it). Perfect match.



Fair enough, at one time our infrastructure was privately financed and it didn't turn out half bad, just look at GCT and the New York Tunnel extension project those turned out pretty damn well.


----------



## Yeezus2

Ok Tower Bro I see what you mean now. I assumed that this move wasn't so much as a lack of will to fund the CHSRA by Congress, so much as I saw it as California seeing the success TCR has had so far with the implementation of their plan.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Tower Dude said:


> Yeezus2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that this was a public project. So it's all privately funded then?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a PPP in essence, as it has received federal grant money, state bond money and will receive state cap and trade funds...
Click to expand...

Right, it's essentially a PPP: the CAHSRA is a government agency that operates like a company. It's charter is to plan the system and guide the process, but was never supposed to build anything - that's why all the contracts are design-builds. 

Additionally, the state has never expressed interest in running service, and the CAHSRA doesn't seem interested in doing so.. They want to franchise actual operations to some other entity, preferably one who would be interested in putting their own capital into the system in exchange. 

In essence, it's the same as TX Central, equity the actual partner not being announced until after planning work is complete. Instead of a private developer identifying the need (as in Texas), the state has (in California). The end result will be much the same, however. Just a different route to get there. 



Tower Dude said:


> ...But so far that only accounts for $12 Billion out of $68 Billion, so the rest will have to be appropriated through private investment.


More like $12 billion out of $31 billion...the other $37 billion is for the remaining sections of the entire system, beyond the IOS, which aren't immediately necessary for initial revenue service. 

That's the real reason they're beginning in the Central Valley: they need a useable segment - legally - from which they can secure future financing, based on revenue. 

Remember, service can still run between LA-SF even if only work on the IOS is complete... By law, they really can't build a "train to nowhere," and they have no incentive to do so, as they need something people will use, so they can be certain to receive financing, if no additional funding comes through. 

If you remember the stink everyone made about the legal challengers to their initial business plans, it had nothing to do with the actual soundness of the plan, but rather a legal question of whether they could begin spending the bond money on the IOS without "adequately" identifying the remaining money for the entire system. This point is moot, however, because funding/financing for the later phases have nothing to do with the IOS... The suit only got that far thanks to language in Prop 1A.

In any case, what remains to be seen is how much of the Bay-to-Basin scheme will make its way into the IOS. It appears that they at least want to get things moving on a more accelerated timeline (their refocusing on the Palmdale section and redirected attention on the LA Basin - Anaheim - and Peninsula - Palo Alto - sections are some current examples of this). 

I, for one, predicted they would begin moving more aggressively once some of their initial environmental reviews ended and construction contracts awarded. How much so, is the question.


----------



## prageethSL

Time to build


----------



## Anday

*$68-billion California bullet train project likely to overshoot budget and deadline targets*

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-final-20151025-story.html


----------



## Smooth Indian

Anday said:


> *$68-billion California bullet train project likely to overshoot budget and deadline targets*
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-final-20151025-story.html


Still worth the cost of completing it. If congress can provide dedicated funding then it will get done faster and cost overruns cain be avoided.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Anday said:


> *$68-billion California bullet train project likely to overshoot budget and deadline targets*
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-final-20151025-story.html


In actuality...Ralph Vartabedian Declares HSR A Failure Years In Advance


----------



## Tower Dude

^^ 
Tonight at Eleven...
DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!


----------



## Nexis

143811940


----------



## sdery

First pic of columns near the Fresno River for the CA HSR project (courtesy of their Twitter account).


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak/NJT [ALP45DP & Viewliner] 130MPH Test Train @ Princeton Juntion*








> Amtrak/New Jersey Transit's 125MPH qualification test train heads west down Track 2 on the Northeast Corridor past Princeton Junction station. This was one of 5 passes made by the test train. Amtrak has been looking to qualify/approve the Viewliner I (1) cars for 125MPH speeds. New Jersey Transit was also been looking to qualify/approve their ALP-45DPs for 125MPH speeds. In stead of running two separate test trains, the decision was made to combine the two tests together. This pass by shows the train running at 130MPH. Consist for the train is as follows:
> 
> +NJT ALP45-DP (#4511)
> -Horizon Coach
> -Horizon Coach
> -Amfleet
> -Viewliner I Sleeper
> -Viewliner I Sleeper
> -Amfleet Cafe
> -Viewliner II Baggage
> -Amfleet Cafe (Computer car)
> + NJT ALP-45DP (#4529)
> 
> (Taken during the early morning hours of 10/28/2015)


----------



## prageethSL

Fresno River Viaduct construction progress




























https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaHighSpeedRail/photos/pcb.10153712215394859/10153712211999859/?type=3


----------



## Nexis

So today I got a rear view window from Center City all the way to Trenton

Emerging from the Center City Tunnel


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Leaving SEPTA 30th Street Station


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Accelerating in the 30th Street yard


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

some SEPTA equipment parked in the yard


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Yellow PRR Signals...which seem to be used only in Center City


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Diesel unit reversing into the Yard from the Zoo Interlocks


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Crossing the Schuylkill River


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Its Straight and Fast in parts of North Philly


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

A slight curve to the right


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Passing an inbound Atlantic City line train


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Under the Market-Frankford EL


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

The infamous Curve where the derailment occurred earlier this yr..., the poles were anchored in concrete...but they didn't appear to be new..


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Southbound Regional roars past near Bridesburg station


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

60 Speed limit near Bridesburg


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Another straight away near Tacony station


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Northbound Regional roars past at Torresdale station


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Very Curvy in Northeastern Philly


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Finally out of Philly , this station is Croydon


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Another straight away along US 13


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

And a Curve before Bristol


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

And another Curve after Bristol


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

near Levvittown Station


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Inbound Septa local passing outside Levvittown 


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Southbound Acela passing...


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr


SEPTA Trenton Line Railfan window outbound Journey by Corey Best, on Flickr

Trenton Cut...


Trenton Northeast Corridor Cut by Corey Best, on Flickr


Trenton Northeast Corridor Cut by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

More poles and now the Catenary is starting to get replaced along the NEC in NJ


New NEC Catenary by Corey Best, on Flickr


New NEC Catenary by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Basincreek

The RFEI responses are now up on the CAHSR website. 

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Construction/rfei_for_ios.html

Be sure to click the arrow button to see them. 

Interesting reading. Most of the firms seem excited and recommend abandoning doing the project as IOS - South or North and instead just proceeding with all of it at once. Barclays seems to think private investment isn't necessary and that California could just borrow the needed money, $40 billion or so, with an agreement to repay it with Cap & Trade funds from out to 2050.

One of the responses is just trolling though. Check out the one from AirTrain. It's like spam almost.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Basincreek said:


> The RFEI responses are now up on the CAHSR website.
> 
> http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Construction/rfei_for_ios.html
> 
> Be sure to click the arrow button to see them.
> 
> Interesting reading. Most of the firms seem excited and recommend abandoning doing the project as IOS - South or North and instead just proceeding with all of it at once. Barclays seems to think private investment isn't necessary and that California could just borrow the needed money, $40 billion or so, with an agreement to repay it with Cap & Trade funds from out to 2050.
> 
> One of the responses is just trolling though. Check out the one from AirTrain. It's like spam almost.


...don't forget that infamous "mock-up" in the Siemens documents.


----------



## 00Zy99

Basincreek said:


> The RFEI responses are now up on the CAHSR website.
> 
> http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Construction/rfei_for_ios.html
> 
> Be sure to click the arrow button to see them.
> 
> Interesting reading. Most of the firms seem excited and recommend abandoning doing the project as IOS - South or North and instead just proceeding with all of it at once. Barclays seems to think private investment isn't necessary and that California could just borrow the needed money, $40 billion or so, with an agreement to repay it with Cap & Trade funds from out to 2050.
> 
> One of the responses is just trolling though. Check out the one from AirTrain. It's like spam almost.


OMG, "AirTrain". Just OH MY GOD!!!

:lol::nuts::bash:hno:



phoenixboi08 said:


> ...don't forget that infamous "mock-up" in the Siemens documents.


????

Where is the mock-up?


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> ????
> 
> Where is the mock-up?


I meant render...You can see some of the older posts, here (but the link to the render seems to be broken).
There was a render of what people supposed at the time was Siemens' design for the Authority...

However, it wasn't really clear, since it came from a graphic design studio (scroll down until you see "Amtrak"), so it may have just been something of a place holder, as opposed to actual design.

Anyways, if you look at the photo at the top of Siemens' RFEI response, it's pretty close to the original images, someone found, earlier this summer.


----------



## prageethSL

Three US states order Charger locomotives



> California, Illinois and Maryland have ordered a combined 34 Charger diesel-electric passenger locomotives from Siemens Mobility, bringing the number of state Departments of Transportation procuring these units to six and the total number to 69. The locomotives will be built at the Siemens rail manufacturing plant in Sacramento, Calif.
> 
> 
> 
> The original procurement order (“framework contract”) for 35 Charger locomotive worth $225 million was signed in March 2014 by the Departments of Transportation in Illinois, California, Michigan, Missouri and Washington State. The order included an option for up to an additional 222 locomotives.
> 
> Adding to the original 35 units, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) ordered 14 Chargers for the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route along the southern California coast from San Luis Obispo to San Diego via Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) will expand its fleet with 12. Maryland Transit Administration (MTA is the sixth agency to join the procurement process with eight units for the MARC commuter rail line that serves Caltimore, Brunswick, Frederick, Martinsburg and Washington D.C. as well as Harford County. With this order, CALTRANS, IDOT and MTA have brought the total to 69 Chargers.
> 
> The Siemens Charger is designed for a maximum operating speed of 125 mph. A microprocessor control system manages performance and performs self-diagnostics that automatically notifies the locomotive engineer and maintenance facility about required service measures. The locomotive’s carbody structure meets the latest FRA crashworthiness regulations, providing additional protection for the locomotive engineer. The prime-mover is a 4,400-hp, 16-cylinder Cummins QSK95 diesel engine.
> 
> The Charger is also FRA and Federal Transit Administration Buy America-compliant with parts produced by U.S. suppliers or offshore suppliers with domestic manufacturing facilities. This includes Siemens traction motors and gearboxes manufactured in Norwood, Ohio, and Siemens power inverters made in Alpharetta, Georgia. Cummins builds the QSK95 in Columbus, Ind.
> 
> “With these new state-of-the art, energy-efficient locomotives, California can continue toward its goal to offer more alternative and sustainable transportation choices,” said Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty. “Not only will these new locomotives promote increased passenger rail ridership, but they will have environmental benefits by reducing the amount of automobile traffic.”
> 
> “Approval of this contract enables us to replace older locomotives, thereby improving the reliability and efficiency of MARC for thousands of commuters, businesses and tourists that depend on this vital train service every day,” MTA CEO Paul Comfort added. “This cooperative agreement also enabled us to purchase these eight new locomotives at a lower cost, which will save taxpayers money.”
> 
> “The new diesel-electric locomotives provide U.S. operators with a number of advantages,” said Siemens Mobility Division CEO Jochen Eickholt. “Their energy efficiency reduces costs and helps protect the environment. At the same time, they improve passenger rail service reliability and efficiency.”


http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/commuter-regional/three-states-add-to-siemens-charger-orders.html


----------



## prageethSL

*First look at new Siemens All Aboard Florida train*












> Sleek, modern, and 100% American made. This is Brightline. The express train service that’s coming to Florida in the form of a brightly colored fleet connected to a high-tech locomotive.
> 
> Designed with our guests and optimal efficiency in mind, our locomotive and passenger cars are being manufactured in California by Siemens USA, the global powerhouse of innovative train-builders. And a fuel-efficient Cummins diesel-electric engine built in the heart of Indiana will power the locomotive with 16 cylinders pumping up to 4400 horsepower for optimum reliability and consistency. The lightweight engine is designed to have lower emissions and reduced noise, plus positive pressure clean air management and energy efficient LED lighting throughout. It’s our smart locomotive that is powering your trip.
> 
> The ingenuity of our train service is obvious both inside and out. From the fun of trying to ride each of the bright orange, green, pink, blue and red colored cars, to simply enjoying your view out of our giant picture windows that are perfectly aligned with every seat.
> 
> Choose between two tiers of available seating options – Smart and Select – and enjoy free Wi-Fi, smartly placed power outlets, and custom built leather seats with plenty of room and multiple seating configurations! Within each tier, there will be a quiet car where you can work or relax, and a social car for when you’re traveling with family, friends or colleagues.
> 
> You can enjoy a cup of coffee or glass of wine delivered right to your seat or check out a new take on a train café car designed to meet your every need; stocked full of quality food and drink options, wine and local beers, a retail store, souvenirs and entertainment.


:cheers:
http://gobrightline.com/train


----------



## CNB30

Finally, A decent looking American train not named Acela!! :banana:


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

prageethSL said:


> *First look at new Siemens All Aboard Florida train*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :cheers:
> http://gobrightline.com/train


This is a beautiful train indeed:banana::heart:


----------



## Anday

*Texan takes on high-speed rail heavyweights
*



> Deprived of facts and figures, Kyle Workman is often left to interpret signals sent by his opponents, who are committed to financing a high speed rail line from Dallas to Houston any way they can.
> 
> And no matter how they say it, Workman, president of Texans Against High Speed Rail, believes “any way they can” means building it on the backs of federal and state taxpayers and private property owners who would be forced to give up their land.
> 
> Take Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks just before Thanksgiving from the roof of the South Side lofts in the rapidly gentrifying Cedars neighborhood in Dallas.
> 
> “Folks, you don’t even know it yet, but you’re going to lead this country into an entirely new era of transportation,” Biden said.
> 
> In the usual gushing and uncritical way the legacy media covers high speed rail, the transportation blogger for the Dallas Morning News called Biden the highest-ranking official in America to christen the Texas Central Partners proposal a “watershed American project.”


http://watchdog.org/249622/high-speed-rail/


----------



## sdery

That was a painful read...lack of basic understanding of transport financing (both for roads and rail) as well as the very loose use of facts. The best quote:

“The point is the Dallas-to-Houston line makes no sense from an economic and transportation standpoint,” Workman says.

Of course, connecting the two largest cities in the state of Texas makes absolutely no sense...


----------



## Buffaboy

Why isn't the corridor from Buffalo to NYC electrified? I've seen videos of regional trains in the NYC area that fly around like planes at over 150+ mph.


----------



## Innsertnamehere

because its a very long corridor that isn't super densely populated and runs through mountains on a curvy alignment.. There are plans to raise speeds on the corridor, but not electrify it, as its simply too long of a corridor with frequencies too infrequent to justify it. I believe the plan is to get 120mph diesel service on the Empire corridor.. but even that has a very high, multi billion dollar price tag.

Hopefully if it ever happens the Maple Leaf service will see service increase from more than once daily, and see actually reasonable travel times between Toronto and NYC.. its way too slow of a trip right now to make sense to take it.


----------



## Neb81

Innsertnamehere said:


> because its a very long corridor that isn't super densely populated and runs through mountains on a curvy alignment.. There are plans to raise speeds on the corridor, but not electrify it, as its simply too long of a corridor with frequencies too infrequent to justify it. I believe the plan is to get 120mph diesel service on the Empire corridor.. but even that has a very high, multi billion dollar price tag.
> 
> Hopefully if it ever happens the Maple Leaf service will see service increase from more than once daily, and see actually reasonable travel times between Toronto and NYC.. its way too slow of a trip right now to make sense to take it.


I agree. In terms of getting people out of cars and onto trains, probably the most useful thing up there right now would be a Rochester-Buffalo-Niagara commuter rail service. More results for less outlay, and therefore more chance of getting it through to completion - especially if it can offer realistic headways throughout the day.


----------



## Nexis

Some Photos of the decrepit Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River from Russell Sullivan 


NJT at Portal by Russell Sullivan, on Flickr


Regional at Portal by Russell Sullivan, on Flickr


----------



## Innsertnamehere

^ the US post industrial landscape can be beautiful but yet horridly ugly at the same time.


----------



## hammersklavier

I recently read that there's only one marine customer north of Portal Bridge -- a state waste dock.

It occurs to me, then, that instead of investing an ungodly sum into raising Portal to allow for a fixed-link bridge, we can move the dock onto its other side?

While I agree a replacement is necessary, not needing to provide clearance for shipping traffic makes one *much* easier -- and cheaper. Then you can retain the existing approach (adding fill for extra capacity) and just replace the bridge superstructure itself.


----------



## Nexis

I believe the plan calls for 2 bridges , one to be built next to the current and then the current bridge will be demolished with a new replacement bridge built in his place.


----------



## 00Zy99

hammersklavier said:


> I recently read that there's only one marine customer north of Portal Bridge -- a state waste dock.
> 
> It occurs to me, then, that instead of investing an ungodly sum into raising Portal to allow for a fixed-link bridge, we can move the dock onto its other side?
> 
> While I agree a replacement is necessary, not needing to provide clearance for shipping traffic makes one *much* easier -- and cheaper. Then you can retain the existing approach (adding fill for extra capacity) and just replace the bridge superstructure itself.


The barges carry all of Bergen County's sludge (compacted sewerage) from the waste dock and make about a fifteen-mile trip to their offloading terminal in Newark. Portal Bridge is near the end of that trip, so it doesn't really make sense to build a new dock instead of just extending the pipeline carrying the sludge to the existing Newark terminal. I'm going to ignore the idea of building a massive new sewerage treatment facility in the heart of the NYC metropolitan area and just use existing plants.

Since you are from Philadelphia, I'm going to use a local example for you (it's also in the same region so costs should be similar). In 2010, Cheltenham Township (pop. 36,882) decided to build 4.1 miles of new sewer at a cost of $20.48 million. Bergen County has a population of 905,116. 

Some quick back-of-the-napkin figuring gives me a price of about $1.8 BILLION to build that new pipeline. And then you have to spend about $500 million (at LEAST) to completely replace Portal (there's apparently absolutely NOTHING of the current bridge that can be reasonably salvaged). And that doesn't take into account the fact that you have to deal with various groups getting upset over you taking away a stretch of navigable river in case someone else wants to build a marine facility upstream.


----------



## Nexis

Innsertnamehere said:


> ^ the US post industrial landscape can be beautiful but yet horridly ugly at the same time.


Some of that was supposed to be converted to a new yard for ARC project..., but that was cancelled. The Gateway Project does not call for a New Rail Yard there...just a looping connector.. I heard the town wants to redevelopment the land after its cleaned up...


----------



## hammersklavier

Buffaboy said:


> Why isn't the corridor from Buffalo to NYC electrified? I've seen videos of regional trains in the NYC area that fly around like planes at over 150+ mph.


Because (unlike the Pennsylvania Railroad) the New York Central never really got into mainline electrification. Part of this is that the NYC never did have access to as much capital as the PRR did; part of it is that diesalization took hold just after the PRR's massive Northeast Corridor electrification project, thereby rendering further such projects, in the eyes of the railroads, obsolete. (You can see part of the fallout from this in the fact that the PRR never did electrify their Main Line west of Harrisburg.)


----------



## hammersklavier

00Zy99 said:


> The barges carry all of Bergen County's sludge (compacted sewerage) from the waste dock and make about a fifteen-mile trip to their offloading terminal in Newark. Portal Bridge is near the end of that trip, so it doesn't really make sense to build a new dock instead of just extending the pipeline carrying the sludge to the existing Newark terminal. I'm going to ignore the idea of building a massive new sewerage treatment facility in the heart of the NYC metropolitan area and just use existing plants.
> 
> Since you are from Philadelphia, I'm going to use a local example for you (it's also in the same region so costs should be similar). In 2010, Cheltenham Township (pop. 36,882) decided to build 4.1 miles of new sewer at a cost of $20.48 million. Bergen County has a population of 905,116.
> 
> Some quick back-of-the-napkin figuring gives me a price of about $1.8 BILLION to build that new pipeline. And then you have to spend about $500 million (at LEAST) to completely replace Portal (there's apparently absolutely NOTHING of the current bridge that can be reasonably salvaged). And that doesn't take into account the fact that you have to deal with various groups getting upset over you taking away a stretch of navigable river in case someone else wants to build a marine facility upstream.


A cost of $20.48 mil for a 4.10 mile pipeline gives a cost per mile of $5.00 million. If that pipeline costs $1.8 billion to build, it implies that the sewer dock is ... 360 miles away.

I don't think the Hackensack River is even 360 miles long. 

In fact, when I checked the distance from the sewerage dock to Portal, it only came out as being 7.45 mi.

Even if you routed your sewer line on a very circuitous path avoiding the Meadowlands altogether, it wouldn't be more than 20ish miles = $100 million. Although you have a fair point about the unknown cost of the receiving facilities, your pipeline estimation is *way* off, by at least an order of magnitude.

So let's say replace-in-place Portal ($500 mil: your figure, which I also think is too high, given that the Niantic River Bridge cost 20% that to replace) + pipeline ($100 mil). Even with a $400 mil budget for new receiving facilities, this comes out as $1.00 billion, not the $2.3 billion you were prognosticating.

As far as keeping that stretch of the Hackensack navigable, it runs through the freaking Meadowlands! Nobody in their right mind is going to take on the paperwork that comes with trying to build in what is almost certainly a "protected ecological environment".


----------



## Nexis

They've floated the possibility of having boat docks further upstream as part of a riverfront revitalization plan...so a navigable river is some what needed. The Height of the New bridges is enough... Also if they decide to clean up the River they'll need a higher clearance...


----------



## 00Zy99

I was also taking into account the fact that bigger pipelines cost more, and Bergen County has a few more people than Cheltenham.


----------



## prageethSL

2015 California High-Speed Rail Year in Review


----------



## zaphod

What would it take to kick all freight off the NEC where Amtrak owns the rails? That would simplify some of the FRA regulatory stuff, wouldn't it? All that would be left is other Amtrak and commuter trains which could be outfitted with PTC.

Second crazy idea; the eastern tunnel going out of Baltimore union station doesn't seem very deep underground and the neighborhood above it is in bad shape. Instead of spending billions to replace those tunnels could it be "daylighted" instead? Smaller tunnel segments that go by sensitive locations like schools would remain.


----------



## phoenixboi08

zaphod said:


> What would it take to kick all freight off the NEC where Amtrak owns the rails? That would simplify some of the FRA regulatory stuff, wouldn't it? All that would be left is other Amtrak and commuter trains which could be outfitted with PTC.
> 
> Second crazy idea; the eastern tunnel going out of Baltimore union station doesn't seem very deep underground and the neighborhood above it is in bad shape. Instead of spending billions to replace those tunnels could it be "daylighted" instead? Smaller tunnel segments that go by sensitive locations like schools would remain.


As has been pointed out, time and again, those rules are not long for this world.

We don't know _when_ they will announce the rules, but we know that they are changing. It remains to be seen how this ripples down to other commuter and regional services (if, at all). Most indications are that the change will be broader than simply HSR services.


----------



## hammersklavier

zaphod said:


> What would it take to kick all freight off the NEC where Amtrak owns the rails? That would simplify some of the FRA regulatory stuff, wouldn't it? All that would be left is other Amtrak and commuter trains which could be outfitted with PTC.


First of all, there are two Class I freight roads that service the Northeast: Norfolk Southern (NS) and CSX. Both of these routes now have mainlines from points south to Boston that completely bypass the NEC.

CSX historically owned the second mainline between NYC and DC, one which closely parallels the current NEC. As a result of the Conrail breakup, they also got the old NYC West Shore Line and the Boston & Albany, extending their route to Boston. The problem with this route, however -- one which is increasingly operationally compromising -- is that the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore doesn't have double-stack clearance and can't be undercut to get it without going below the water table. (Tunnels that go under the water table are much much more expensive to maintain than ones that don't.) The upshot of this is that double-stack trains originating on the north side of the Port of Baltimore have to take an almost ridiculously circuitous route to reach the Midwest: Baltimore -> Philly -> Jersey City -> Albany -> Buffalo.

The Norfolk Southern wasn't blessed to inherit such infrastructure. Nor was it able to fully capitalize on Conrail's bypass, because the half heading from New York east went to CSX. Instead, its bypass route heads waaaaaay inland but the routes leading to individual cities pretty much converge at Harrisburg. The NS mainline basically runs from Albany across the Catskills, then down the Susquehanna to Harrisburg, and then across the Cumberland Valley down towards the Shenandoah Valley where it meets with the old N&W and Southern mainlines somewhere in the Roanoke area. At Albany, it connects with a Class II railroad, Pan Am, with which it has a through-haulage agreement to Boston; from Harrisburg, branches run to New York, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore; a separate route runs from the Shenandoah Valley to DC. NS has, naturally, greatly expanded operations in Harrisburg, where it now owns both the old PRR and Reading facilities.

NS' purchase of the Delaware & Hudson a few months back completed this route.

On the NEC proper, the most significant freight/passenger conflict south of New York occurs between Baltimore and Wilmington, as the NS' route from Harrisburg to those cities meets it at Perryville. While most of those conflicts can be solved by giving NS their own tracks on the side of the passenger ROW (perhaps with bypasses in areas where widening the easement poses problems, like Elkton), the elephant in that room is the Susquehanna crossing. Keep in mind, also, that the NS alignment uses the low-grade PRR route, and the old fast passenger route from Baltimore to Harrisburg is now abandoned.

North of New York, things get more complicated. The NEC is also a Class II railroad's mainline -- the Providence & Worcester -- from the Hell Gate Bridge all the way to at least Providence, if not Boston proper. While a second mainline through upstate Connecticut (the New York & New England) did historically exist, it has largely been abandoned and converted to a rail-trail, something that is ... less-than-useful for the PW's purposes.

This section is also problematic for passenger operations, due to the fact that its progenitor railroad, the New Haven had inferior engineering relative to the PRR. (_Every_ railroad had inferior engineering relative to the PRR, but that's neither here nor there.) The preponderance of sharp curves etc. means that a bypass for fast passenger traffic between New Haven and the CT-RI border is badly needed, which of course separates the PW mainline from the NEC mainline, thereby improving both passenger and freight operations.

As for accessing New York from the east, well that's a cluster**** with no good solution in sight, I'm afraid.


> Second crazy idea; the eastern tunnel going out of Baltimore union station doesn't seem very deep underground and the neighborhood above it is in bad shape. Instead of spending billions to replace those tunnels could it be "daylighted" instead? Smaller tunnel segments that go by sensitive locations like schools would remain.


Baltimore Penn is accessed via two tunnels: the Baltimore & Potomac (B&P) complex to the west and (IIRC) Union Tunnels to the east.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for doing anything with the Union Tunnels: They are dry tunnels, so they're low-maintenance; they have three tracks, therefore adequate capacity; any speed restrictions due to the tunnels themselves appear to be arbitrary (they're straight); the track geometry around either portal approach does not appear to be a significant issue ... and across the way you've got the B&P Tunnels.

The B&P Tunnels are the second-biggest bottleneck, after the North River Tubes, on the NEC west of New York. That's because they _have_ pretty much any problem you can name that the Union Tunnels don't:

(1) They're wet tunnels, unlike either the Howard Street or Union tunnels. That means they lie below the water table and have to be pumped dry more or less continuously.
(2) They suffer from deferred maintenance, which due to them being a high-maintenance facility in the first place, is a double whammy.
(3) There is insufficient capacity in the tunnels -- only two tracks heading towards the station throat on what is otherwise a 3- or 4-track main.
(4) There are significant track geometry problems within the tunnels themselves, including a sharp curve.

Basically, you just need to fiddle with the Union Tunnels a bit if you want to add a fourth track, while the B&P Tunnels need to be replaced whole. Daylighting the Union Tunnels is an extreme -- and extremely pointless -- solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.


----------



## Nexis

Amtrak's Acela Express 15 year Anniversary


----------



## prageethSL

CHSR 
1/13/2016 








































































https://web.facebook.com/CaliforniaHighSpeedRail/photos/ms.c.eJxlkkEOxDAIA39UYQMp~;P9jXWkPVe3ryJkEEwQ655xuxqnpvfCSiv2S7PMltTtOSsmKOSinOuyuyFYyaWTUvJAMqB5klhL14IQR89yWGWrGXogtI9oPY8VDaGOkZbKUlGVap~;jVo~_TWDrk6aQaVQP9P~;rf8AIzdfRU~-.bps.a.10153866549309859.1073741930.273053429858/10153866549989859/?type=3&theater


----------



## zaphod

Awesome!

This is what true 350 km\h new build HSR in the USA looks like! I am cheering on this project, but I hope it actually gets built. Won't the original money run out before the initial operating segment(Burbank-Merced) opens? It would be a shame if Californians chickened out and accepted a crappy diesel express service using the 'rails to nowhere'. 

I really hope they can achieve Bay to Basin(San Jose to Burbank). Reaching into the LA basin will be revolutionary. Then from there, I think LA would pony up the cash to finish Union Station regardless of the political climates.

Forget the Peninsula line if it ends up dragging the whole project down.


----------



## Tower Dude

I think that it will not be a boondoggle that it will take much longer than anticipated but I think that it will all come to fruition, SF to LA and Sacramento to San Diego. Though the good news is if cities in California continue their current level of investment in transit expansion this system will have no shortage of riders.


----------



## prageethSL

Bullet train's first segment, reserved for Southland, could open in Bay Area instead



> A valuable perk handed to Southern California from the bullet train project — a 2012 decision to build the first operating segment from Burbank north into the Central Valley — is being reconsidered by state officials.
> 
> The state rail authority is studying an alternative to build the first segment in the Bay Area, running trains from San Jose to Bakersfield.
> 
> If the plan does change, it would be a significant reversal that carries big financial, technical and political impacts, especially in Southern California.
> 
> “You can’t ignore Southern California or Los Angeles or Orange County and say we are going to go north, period,” said Richard Katz, a longtime Southern California transportation official and former Assembly majority leader. “It made sense to start in the south, given the population and the serious transportation problems here.”
> 
> Costs rise for moving utility lines in construction of bullet train
> The original decision to start the initial segment in Burbank was considered a major economic benefit to the region, providing commuters with 15-minute rides to Palmdale, a connection to a future Las Vegas bullet train and an early link to the growing Central Valley.
> 
> But the state is facing major difficulties with the south-first plan. By building in the north initially, the state would delay the most difficult and expensive segment of the entire $68-billion project: traversing the geologically complex Tehachapi and San Gabriel mountains with a large system of tunnels and aerial structures.
> 
> With the project already behind schedule and facing estimates of higher costs, the Bay Area option could offer a faster, less risky and cheaper option. Getting even a portion of the project built early would help its political survival.
> 
> The outcome of the new evaluation will be known in the coming weeks, when the state unveils its 2016 Business Plan. The document will be the most comprehensive update for the $68-billion program in four years.
> 
> A decision to drop its plan to start the system in Southern California will not be popular among area civic leaders.
> 
> “I understand they have a difficult political situation, but they really need to come to Los Angeles,” said Art Leahy, chief executive of the Metrolink commuter rail system in Southern California.
> 
> “The southern route has a lot more ridership,” Leahy said. “The north is very important and I love the Bay Area, but the economic center of the state is in Southern California.”
> The rail authority has been hinting at a potential change for months, starting last summer when it asked potential private investors to describe how they would help build an initial operating system from either the south or the north.
> 
> And in December, rail authority Chief Executive Jeff Morales said in a Sacramento television news interview that the agency was reconsidering its south-first strategy.
> 
> Rail authority spokeswoman Lisa Marie Alley said the plan to build an initial operating segment in the south was never final.
> 
> “The option to do an initial operating segment north has always been there,” she said.
> 
> Gov. Jerry Brown did not leave room for that possibility in 2013. In his State of the State address that year, he said the first phase of the future bullet train would start in the Central Valley and connect to Union Station in Los Angeles.
> “The first phase will get us from Madera to Bakersfield,” Brown said. “Then we will take it through the Tehachapi Mountains to Palmdale, constructing 30 miles of tunnels and bridges.
> 
> “The first rail line through those mountains was built in 1874, and its top speed over the crest is still 24 miles an hour,” Brown said. “Then we will build another 33 miles of tunnels and bridges before we get the train to its destination at Union Station in the heart of Los Angeles.”
> 
> The governor’s latest State of the State speech, delivered Thursday, did not mention the bullet train. It had been included in each of his annual speeches since 2012.


Read more : http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bullet-train-southern-california-20160123-story.html


----------



## phoenixboi08

prageethSL said:


> Bullet train's first segment, reserved for Southland, could open in Bay Area instead
> 
> Read more : http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bullet-train-southern-california-20160123-story.html


...so they're essentially prioritizing the Bay connection to the IOS before the Basin?

I wonder if this is an indication that they might be seriously considering tunneling under the LA National Forest, after all. 

I hope they don't.


----------



## zaphod

The way I see it, doing the LA basin segment first using money that is available makes more sense because without it the whole project will fail. There is no other satisfactory, fast, not crowded route over the mountains.

The Bay to Valley segment on the other hand could be downgraded to express conventional rail if the project runs out of money and still result in a finished project that actually accomplishes what voters demanded when they said yes to it in 2008.


----------



## Sunfuns

Are you saying that because actual passenger rail from the Valley to SF already exists even if the route is not a direct one but there is none at all from the Valley to LA?


----------



## zaphod

Sunfuns said:


> Are you saying that because actual passenger rail from the Valley to SF already exists even if the route is not a direct one but there is none at all from the Valley to LA?


Exactly

Worst case scenario where forces conspire to kill the project, building valley to basin first means that the state could scrounge up some 125 mph diesel equipment to run the route in the interim. That would keep the whole HSR dream alive and citizens would see merit in completing the project when they could.

Without Valley to Basin, you literally have a train to nowhere(Fresno and Bakersfield truly are nowhere)


----------



## Sunfuns

zaphod said:


> Without Valley to Basin, you literally have a train to nowhere(Fresno and Bakersfield truly are nowhere)


If Valley is "nowhere" then why did you choose to run the HSR through there in the first place? Just from LA to SF coastal route would have been possible as well. I suspect the point is that Valley is of higher importance than you are saying (both demographically and politically).


----------



## hans280

Sunfuns said:


> If Valley is "nowhere" then why did you choose to run the HSR through there in the first place? Just from LA to SF coastal route would have been possible as well. I suspect the point is that Valley is of higher importance than you are saying (both demographically and politically).


Politically, yes! No doubt. I'm a foreigner, but here in France the opening of an extension of our North-South HS line into sort France had almost no impact on the passenger numbers in the south. The whole increase came between the south and Paris. Now, several of the south French cities are way bigger than Fresno and Sacramento. I strongly suspect that the success (or failure) of the Californian HS line will also depend on having a city with more than 10 million inhabitants as a backstop and "passenger pool". In other words: Los Angeles.


----------



## Anday

*Plans for Houston-Dallas bullet train moving along
*



> DALLAS - Plans for high-speed rail in Texas will speed up in 2016, company officials said Friday, as the first comprehensive examination of the Houston-to-Dallas line is on pace for release in the summer and design changes are taking shape.


You need to be subscribed to view the article. If anyone is subbed can you post what it says? Thanks in advance.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...-Dallas-bullet-train-moving-along-6777582.php


----------



## Sunfuns

hans280 said:


> Politically, yes! No doubt. I'm a foreigner, but here in France the opening of an extension of our North-South HS line into sort France had almost no impact on the passenger numbers in the south. The whole increase came between the south and Paris. Now, several of the south French cities are way bigger than Fresno and Sacramento. I strongly suspect that the success (or failure) of the Californian HS line will also depend on having a city with more than 10 million inhabitants as a* backstop and "passenger pool".* In other words: Los Angeles.


I'd say Bay area (ca 8 million in the larger agglomeration) would fulfil that role equally well. It could well be the single richest area in the World. California has two centres economically, politically and demographically there as France really has only one. The best analogy in Europe would be Madrid-Barcelona line. 

Another consideration of course is whether those Valley cities have more economical links with LA or SF. I think it's more likely to be with LA.


----------



## prageethSL

*1/29/16*


----------



## prageethSL

2/4/16
*Fresno river viaduct construction*

DSCN2498 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


DSCN2473 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


DSCN2467 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

*Construction on the Fresno trench*


















Tuolumne Street Bridge demolition
DSCN2513 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Photo taken by Lee Carlson



> *Through the Tunnels*
> 
> Eastbound Amtrak Acela heads through the Fair Haven Tunnels, in New Haven, CT 9/23/2010



Through the Tunnels by Lee Carlson, on Flickr


----------



## mrsmartman

_The Northeast Corridor (NEC)_, *the only premier high speed line in America*, links Boston to Washington DC passing through New Haven, New York, Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore – a total of 363 miles.

(C)RailSimulator.com










*Acela and the Empire State Building together represented on one picture!* Taking this shot and others at this location awarded me the pleasure to be hassled by a MTA employee. He was annoyed that I was taking pictures here. I had to explain him that it is fully legal, but he was still willing to take me to some MTA office down in Penn Station. Which I refused and there was nothing he could do about it. Railfan hassle has become a real pain everywhere. But talking about New York, it is the worst you can imagine. On the same week, I have also been asked not to take pictures on platforms in Grand Central, which is also not illegal. Coming back to the picture above, it is a Southbound Acela leaving Penn station. The picture is shot in the short open air section west of Penn Station, between 9th and 10th avenues. The building on the right of the picture above the tracks is the back of the James A. Farley Building, New York City's General Post Office. Signs in front of it announce the coming of Moynihan Station at this location, a much needed redevelopment of the cramped Penn Station in favor of a grander station. The project has been debated since 1999, and the works have not started yet.

Jean-Marc Frybourg
April 25, 2008

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=233057


----------



## hammersklavier

zaphod said:


> Exactly
> 
> Worst case scenario where forces conspire to kill the project, building valley to basin first means that the state could scrounge up some 125 mph diesel equipment to run the route in the interim. That would keep the whole HSR dream alive and citizens would see merit in completing the project when they could.
> 
> Without Valley to Basin, you literally have a train to nowhere(Fresno and Bakersfield truly are nowhere)


One of the project's biggest problems has been the passes used to surmount the mountains.

A lot of "technical" proponents, looking at the cheapest way to achieve CAHSR's goals, proposed that the line use Tejon Pass to cross the Tehachapi Mountains, and Altamont Pass across the Diablo Range. 

The path chosen instead uses Pacheco Pass across the Diablos and Tehachapi Pass across their eponymous mountains.

The biggest issue with Pacheco Pass is that it requires many more miles of duplicate track, as Altamont pretty much just deposits you in the Bay Area, while Pacheco requires you to go all the way up Silicon Valley. Tehachapi Pass creates a major detour to Palmdale; Tejon Pass is something on the order of 50-100 miles shorter in toto.


----------



## Nexis

> *New NEC Alternatives for NYC-Newark*
> 
> *Alternative 1*
> 
> *-New Jersey*
> 
> Two new tracks in one or two tunnels, beginning on embankment east of Secaucus Station adjacent to the existing NEC and continues east in tunnel west of U.S. Routes 1 & 9. The new segment continues in tunnel under the New Jersey Palisades and the Hudson River.
> 
> *-New York*
> 
> Two new tracks in one or two tunnels continue from New Jersey at the Hudson River and terminate under 31st Street, south of Penn Station New York (Figure 4-12).
> 
> Figure 4-12 : Alternative 1 (Existing NEC and New Segment through New York City Metropolitan Area)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
> Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
> 
> *Alternative 2*
> 
> *-New Jersey*
> 
> 
> New, two-track infrastructure in central and northern New Jersey, beginning in North Brunswick, Middlesex County and continuing generally at-grade or on embankment adjacent to the existing NEC through central Middlesex County. The segment is in tunnel under the Raritan River through New Brunswick and Highland Park, and short tunnel segments near Metuchen in Middlesex County, Elizabeth in Union County, and Newark in Essex County. The new segment reconnects with the existing NEC in Kearney, Hudson County west of the Passaic River.
> New third and fourth Hudson River tunnels, beginning on embankment east of Secaucus Rail Station, adjacent to the existing NEC, continuing east in tunnel west of U.S. Routes 1 & 9, adjacent to the existing NEC, under the New Jersey Palisades and Hudson River, terminating south of the existing NEC and Penn Station New York, under West 31st Street (Figure 4-16).
> 
> Figure 4-16 : Alternative 2 (Existing NEC and New Segment through New York City Metropolitan Area)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
> Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
> 
> 
> *-New York*
> 
> New fifth and sixth East River Tunnels, beginning at Penn Station New York in Midtown Manhattan, and continuing east under the East River south of the existing NEC through Woodside, Queens. The tunnels rise to an aerial structure, connecting with the Hell Gate Viaduct in Astoria, Queens (Figure 4-16).
> The existing NEC in Bronx County, near I-895 and I-95, shifts approximately 500 feet at the widest point from its current location on the east side of the Bronx River.
> The existing NEC shifts approximately 300 feet at the widest point from its current location in Bronx County, near Pelham Bay Park. The improvement includes a new crossing over the Hutchinson River (Pelham Bay).
> The existing NEC shifts approximately 150 feet at its widest point from its current location near New Rochelle rail Station.
> New, two-track infrastructure, beginning west of the New Rochelle Rail Station and continuing at-grade or on embankment parallel to the existing NEC to Rye in eastern Westchester County, into Fairfield County, CT.
> 
> *Alternative 3*
> 
> *-New Jersey*
> 
> Alternative 3 is typically at-grade or on embankment adjacent to the existing NEC from Trenton Station north through rural sections of northern Mercer County and southern Middlesex County. The alternative is in tunnel under the Raritan River through New Brunswick. Proceeding north, the route shifts from the existing NEC and is in short tunnel segments near Metuchen in Middlesex County, Elizabeth in Union County, and Newark in Essex County. Alternative 3 is above grade across Hackensack River, shifting south of the existing NEC in tunnel east of the Hackensack River and continuing through Jersey City, Union City, and Hoboken in Hudson County.
> 
> *-New York*
> 
> Alternative 3 includes six tracks under the Hudson River: two existing tunnels (North River Tunnels), two new tracks in one or two tunnels as described in Alternative 1, and two new tracks in one or two tunnels in Alternative 3 (Figure 4-19). The alternative continues in tunnel east under Midtown Manhattan entering Penn Station New York.
> 
> *Figure 4-19 : Alternative 3 (Existing NEC and New Segments through New York City Metropolitan Area)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *-New York (via Central Connecticut)*
> 
> East of Penn Station New York, the six-track configuration for Alternative 3 continues east under the East River (four existing East River tunnels and two new tracks in one or two tunnels under the East River), and continues in tunnel south of the existing NEC through Woodside Queens, where the two tracks rise to connect with the Hell Gate Viaduct in Astoria. At Third Avenue, two tracks in one or two tunnels split from the six-track railroad headed east, continuing north along the east side of Manhattan in tunnel(s) under the East River, Wards Island, and Randall's Island, continuing at-grade near the Bruckner and Sheridan Expressways in Bronx County at which point the two new tracks join and continue parallel to the existing NEC, generally at-grade or on embankment through Pelham Bay Park, entering Westchester County along the Long Island Sound.
> 
> In Mamaroneck, Westchester County, Alternative 3 veers north of the existing NEC near Mamaroneck Avenue and continues north primarily in tunnel or aerial structure through Scarsdale and White Plains, where the new White Plains East station is proposed. Alternative 3 continues northwest, adjacent to Westchester County Airport in Harrison, crossing into Connecticut for a short distance before reentering Westchester County and continuing north through northern Westchester County and southern Putnam County parallel to I-684 in tunnel, on embankment or aerial structure. Alternative 3 crosses the Connecticut state line again north of I-84.
> 
> *-New York City (via Long Island)*
> 
> Alternative 3 continues east in six tracks under the East River (four existing East River tunnels and two new tracks in one or two tunnels under the East River), and continues in tunnel south of the existing NEC through Woodside Queens. At Woodside, the Representative Route splits into two; one segment rising to connect with the Hell Gate Viaduct in Astoria Queens. The other segment continues as Alternative 3, diverging south in one or two tunnels and continues south and east through Queens County, near the LIRR Montauk Branch. Alternative 3 continues on aerial structure or embankment east from I-678 to Floral Park in Nassau County, east of the Cross Island Parkway.
> 
> The alternative shifts in tunnel south adjacent to the LIRR Hempstead Branch, continuing east in trench through Garden City. Alternative 3 continues in trench east parallel to Stewart Avenue, through Eisenhower Park and the village of Levittown. The alternative continues in trench east, reconnecting with the LIRR Main Line in Farmingdale, and continues east, crossing in the Suffolk County, adjacent to the Main Line through Wyandanch, Brentwood, and Ronkonkoma. Alternative 3 shifts north near Long Island MacArthur Airport, crossing I-495 in tunnel and continuing typically on embankment or aerial structure north to Stony Brook. Alternative 3 transitions to trench and then into tunnel near Port Jefferson where the alternative continues across the Long Island Sound in tunnel, emerging in New Haven County, Connecticut.


*Read more about various NEC Proposals here : *


----------



## Nexis

> *Amtrak NEC Plans for Maryland & Delaware*
> 
> *Alternative 1*
> 
> *-Maryland*
> 
> New, two-track infrastructure in tunnel, approaching Baltimore Penn Station from the west (Figure 4-11). This new segment diverges from the existing NEC in West Baltimore, and continues in an arching path under U.S. Route 1 (North Avenue), keeping to the south of Druid Hill Park, and crossing under I-83 before reconnecting at-grade to the existing NEC north of Baltimore Penn Station.
> 
> Figure 4-11 : Alternative 1 (Existing NEC and New Segment through Baltimore)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
> Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
> 
> *Alternative 2*
> 
> *-Maryland*
> 
> 
> New, two-track infrastructure in tunnel, approaching Baltimore Penn Station from the west. This new segment diverges from the existing NEC in West Baltimore, and continues in an arching path under U.S. Route 1 (North Avenue), keeping to the south of Druid Hill Park, and crossing under I-83 before reconnecting at-grade to the existing NEC north of Baltimore Penn Station.
> 
> The existing NEC shifts approximately 300 feet at the widest point from its current location in the city of Baltimore, east of Baltimore Penn Station and continues east of I-895.
> 
> The existing NEC shifts approximately 500 feet at the widest point from its current location in Baltimore and Harford counties centered on the Gunpowder River.
> 
> The existing NEC shifts approximately 250 feet at the widest point from its current location just east of Aberdeen Rail Station.
> 
> New, two-track infrastructure in Cecil County, MD, beginning in Perryville, beginning west of Principio Creek, and shifting north of the existing NEC typically on an aerial structure and parallel to U.S. Route 40. The new segment continues at-grade or on embankment east through the town of North East, MD, shifting to the north side of I-95 and continuing through rural Cecil County. The segment enters New Castle County north of the West Branch of the Christina River, reconnecting with the existing NEC west of the Newark Rail Station
> 
> *Alternative 2 (Existing NEC and New Segment through Maryland and Delaware)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
> Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
> 
> *-Delaware*
> 
> New, two-track infrastructure near Wilmington, beginning east of Banning Park, shifting south of the existing NEC and east of I-95, continuing at-grade or on embankment east, crossing the Christina River, U.S. Route 13, and the Christina River again in succession. The segment shifts north, running parallel to I-495, reconnecting with the existing NEC near Fox Point State Park in Edgemoor.
> 
> 
> *Alternative 3*
> 
> *-Maryland*
> 
> Alternative 3 continues at-grade or on embankment, through suburban Prince George's County before crossing the Patuxent River and Patuxent Research Refuge into Anne Arundel County, continuing at-grade or on embankment northeast through Maryland, shifting approximately 1,000 feet from the existing NEC for short distances near Odenton and BWI Rail Stations. North of BWI Rail Station, Alternative 3 is adjacent to the existing NEC, crossing the Patapsco River on an aerial structure, returning to at-grade or on embankment through Patapsco Valley State Park into Baltimore County. Alternative 3 continues adjacent to the existing NEC and U.S. Route 1 (Figure 4-17) into Baltimore City where it shifts east of the existing NEC in tunnel through downtown Baltimore and north of the Inner Harbor. The alternative continues at-grade near I-895 on the west side of Baltimore, continuing in the same general northeast direction, but not adjacent to, the existing NEC through Rossville and White Marsh in suburban Baltimore County. Alternative 3 continues northeast, parallel to U.S. Route 40 through Edgewood and Riverside in Harford County before shifting closer to the existing NEC near Aberdeen Proving Ground and Aberdeen Station in northern Harford County.
> 
> Alternative 3 crosses the Susquehanna River on an aerial structure parallel to the existing NEC into Cecil County, where it shifts away from the existing NEC near Perryville and continues parallel to U.S. Route 40 through rural Cecil County and into New Castle County, DE, north of the West Branch of the Christina River.
> 
> *Figure 4-17 : Alternative 3 (Existing NEC and New Segments through Baltimore)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2015
> Background Image Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, Accessed July 2015
> 
> *-Delaware*
> 
> Alternative 3 continues northeast into Delaware, adjacent to the existing NEC between Newark and Wilmington, typically at-grade or on an aerial structure. The alternative shifts approximately one-mile south of the existing NEC near Wilmington Station, where it crosses the Christina and Brandywine Rivers on an aerial structure through an industrial section of the city. Alternative 3 continues north adjacent to the existing NEC east of I-495, and the Delaware River and Fox Point Park in Edgemoor, and continues north, adjacent to the existing NEC into Pennsylvania.


*Read the Full Report Here *


----------



## Nexis

*Shoreline Town Balks At Possible New Amtrak Line*

Not surprised this alignment got backlash...

*Figure 4-13 : Alternative 1 (Existing NEC and New Segment near Old Saybrook, CT and Kenyon, RI)*









Source :


----------



## mrsmartman

*Concept rendering of a next generation Acela trainset (Source: Amtrak)*










http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jasonrabinowitz/files/2014/07/snip7.jpg


----------



## mrsmartman

*Observed speeds on a recent “Acela Express” train trip.*










http://tumble.mlcastle.net/post/36590828847/observed-speeds-on-acela-express


----------



## M-NL

Unfortunately to much yellow and to few red dots.
However unlike the commentary at the link states this does qualify as a high speed line according to the European definitions, because the NEC meets the 'Specially upgraded High Speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,' and 'Specially upgraded High Speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case.' criteria.


----------



## 00Zy99

That's from 2012. I think they've done some upgrades since then. And more upgrades are in the works.


----------



## CNB30

Still waiting to hear about the think in NJ


----------



## Nexis

CNB30 said:


> Still waiting to hear about the think in NJ


I'll have an update in Mid March...


----------



## Nexis

Taken Yesterday at Newark Airport station - 2/11/16


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Acela Express stops at Newark Liberty Airport Station?


----------



## Nexis

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> Acela Express stops at Newark Liberty Airport Station?


No , the only stops the Acela makes in New Jersey is Newark Penn & Metropark...


----------



## Fan Railer

Nexis said:


> No , the only stops the Acela makes in New Jersey is Newark Penn & Metropark...


Untrue; as a select few Acelas do stop at Trenton.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

And is there demand to make some Acela trains to stop at Newark Airport Station? Because Newark Liberty receives many international flights, I think some Acela trains could stop in this station to serve passengers that arrive there.

Example: EWR receives flights from Portugal and Brazil, and Boston has a big Portuguese-Brazilian colony. So, many passengers could take the Acela to go to Boston.


----------



## Nexis

Fan Railer said:


> Untrue; as a select few Acelas do stop at Trenton.


Which ones , I only thought that was for special events?


----------



## Suburbanist

California High Speed line, more specifically the Fresno River bridge under construction 









.








.








.









Source: California High Speed Authority facebook page


----------



## Fan Railer

Nexis said:


> Which ones , I only thought that was for special events?


Actually, just 2103.


----------



## Nexis

Fan Railer said:


> Actually, just 2103.


Does that go to Boston or does it just go to New York?


----------



## Fan Railer

Nexis said:


> Does that go to Boston or does it just go to New York?


Takes 5 seconds to look up; https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/498/180/Northeast-Corridor-Schedule-W02-011116-rev.pdf

NYP - WAS; first Acela train of the day.


----------



## prageethSL

*High-speed rail on fast track to Bay Area*



> High-speed trains would roll into the Bay Area from the Central Valley years before they start going to Los Angeles, under a dramatic strategy change that the state is on the verge of approving.
> 
> 
> One big reason: The Caltrain commute line between Gilroy and San Francisco is poised to get an early infusion of cash to help pay for its $1.7 billion conversion to electric power. That conversion is essential for high-speed rail.
> 
> Plus, the South Bay, Peninsula and San Francisco constitute a huge potential market for bullet trains. A promise of early Bay Area service could build political support for the overall system and attract private investment that is badly needed to build out the $68 billion rail line.
> Initially, the California High Speed Rail Authority’s business plan called for building the Burbank-to-Los Angeles portion before laying down track to connect the Central Valley to San Francisco. But the Southern California stretch needs a labyrinth of tunnels and bridges to cross the Tehachapi and San Gabriel mountains — a costly undertaking that threatens to hold up completion of the full line for decades.
> Under the plan the rail authority is considering, bullet trains could be zipping up and down the Peninsula ahead of what had been the system’s 2028 targeted opening date.
> Rail authority chairman *Dan Richard* stopped short of confirming the plan to leapfrog the Bay Area ahead of L.A., saying only that “whatever we announce will be the most rational way to build a system, so we can get the trains running and attract private sector money as soon as possible.”
> *Randy Rentschler*, spokesman for the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission, said that just as Caltrain electrification could boost prospects for high-speed rail down the line, a firm high-speed rail plan could boost prospects for Caltrain electrification in the near term.
> *“*High-speed rail is going to provide a host of infrastructure investments that benefit the system we already have,” Rentschler said.
> 
> 
> Despite state and federal money, the Caltrain electrification project still has at least a $440 million funding gap. It could be five to seven years before the line is actually electrified and there are new train cars to go with it.
> There are ways to cut costs, but they’ll be inconvenient for passengers. Analysts say shutting down Caltrain on weekends could reduce the project’s costs by about $150 million.
> “There will definitely be weekend and overnight work,” said Caltrain spokeswoman *Jayme Ackemann*. “But to what extent and for how long, we can’t say yet.”
> The bottom line is that Caltrain electrification is still dogged by big questions — and so is high-speed rail. Not only does the system still face technical, legal and financial hurdles, but ballot measures are circulating to redirect voter-approved money to other uses.
> So, no matter which way the high-speed trains head first, they’ve got a long way to go.


http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...ed-rail-on-fast-track-to-Bay-Area-6830444.php


----------



## rakcancer

*New York state Empire Corridor.*
It is not new but I didn't see anybody posted this for at least last year.
More info here:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/deli...-Repository/ECHSR_Public_Hearing_Brochure.pdf
and here:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor


----------



## Nexis

Classic New England NIMBY syndrome + FRA stupid syndrome


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya if this goes through the I-84 option will likely be chosen


----------



## Smooth Indian

Tower Dude said:


> American freight companies are too cheap to install electrification, also it would require them to abandon current loading gauges which are specifically designed to move massive amounts of freight, which is very profitable. So yes diesel, really.


I think it is possible to have electrification at current loading gauges and double stack operation. Its just that all this needs capital investment to electrify the lines and purchase electric/electrodiesel locomotives. And I am not sure then railway companies have made such huge investments in the last several decades. Its just easy to maintain the status quo.


----------



## Nexis

Smooth Indian said:


> I think it is possible to have electrification at current loading gauges and double stack operation. Its just that all this needs capital investment to electrify the lines and purchase electric/electrodiesel locomotives. And I am not sure then railway companies have made such huge investments in the last several decades. Its just easy to maintain the status quo.


There are a few sections of the SEPTA regional rail network that share there trackage with double stacked freight trains. The wires are abit higher to allow for the freight clearances...but nothing to complex is needed..


----------



## Nexis

Taken Yesterday - 4/6/16

Secaucus JCT 

Westbound Acela Express roaring through the Station


Early Morning Northeast Corridor Rush Hour at Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Early Morning Northeast Corridor Rush Hour at Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Early Morning Northeast Corridor Rush Hour at Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## hammersklavier

Silly_Walks said:


> Diesel? Really?


Those Brightline trains are our equivalent of InterCity 125s ... 30 years later.


Tower Dude said:


> American freight companies are too cheap to install electrification, also it would require them to abandon current loading gauges which are specifically designed to move massive amounts of freight, which is very profitable. So yes diesel, really.


It's somewhat more complex than that. Electrification is really expensive. So expensive, in fact, that one could argue that their attempt to _electrify_ the Pacific Extension was what doomed the Milwaukee Road, in the end. Most railroad electrification projects globally are backed by national rail corporations and other state mechanisms, which don't really have the profit requirement US railroads do.

If oil prices were sustained at a rate where the freight railroads decided the long-term cost savings were worth the *enormous* upfront capital of electrification (didn't Warren Buffet say that would be if oil cost $5/gal or something?) then you would almost certainly start to see the freight railroads start to electrify their systems at a furious rate.


hmmwv said:


> I think those diesel loco info should be in the conventional US railway thread.


Is the InterCity 125 a conventional train or a high-speed train?


Nexis said:


> There are a few sections of the SEPTA regional rail network that share there trackage with double stacked freight trains. The wires are abit higher to allow for the freight clearances...but nothing to complex is needed..


I've also heard of double-stacks moved under wire in China ... there's no technical constraint against having a clearance standard capable of handling that.


----------



## 00Zy99

You have to remember that we're talking about hundreds to thousands of miles for each major route in the US. That's a LOT of wire. And then you have to worry about flexibility-if you have an accident on an electric line it is rather harder to detour the trains unless ALL the lines are electric, which is another fortune.


----------



## Sunfuns

Is there really that much of an advantage of electrifying freight lines? Most of the advantages are really relevant only for passenger trains. Of course unless the oil prices are vastly higher than they are now.


----------



## Nexis

Taken on Wednesday - 4/6/16

Eastbound Acela Express to Boston at Newark Penn


Evening Rush Hour at Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Evening Rush Hour at Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Evening Rush Hour at Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Evening Rush Hour at Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Evening Rush Hour at Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Tintin72

Looks like our french TGV


----------



## CNB30

Tintin72 said:


> Looks like our french TGV


Too bad it cant MOVE like your French TGV :lol:


----------



## Smooth Indian

Sunfuns said:


> Is there really that much of an advantage of electrifying freight lines? Most of the advantages are really relevant only for passenger trains. Of course unless the oil prices are vastly higher than they are now.


Electric locomotives generally can be more powerful than comparable diesel electric locomotives on per ton of loco weight basis. They generally perform better on challenging gradients such as Cowan bank in NSW, Australia or Cranberry Grade in WV, USA. For high density freight routes using electric traction would reduce fuel use with associated savings for the railroad companies. The low crude prices make diesel more attractive now but that won't be the case in the long term.


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## Tower Dude

Holy crap water in the Fresno River.


----------



## Bulbous

hammersklavier said:


> It's somewhat more complex than that. Electrification is really expensive. So expensive, in fact, that one could argue that their attempt to _electrify_ the Pacific Extension was what doomed the Milwaukee Road, in the end.


It would be far easier to argue that the mistake was not taking up the GE project to both upgrade the existing electrification segments as well as electrifying the section between the two existing segments for around $34 million at the time (1971 I think) and instead having it all de-energised and spending the same money instead on SD-40s right when the oil crisis hit. Having to run the diesel fleet right through with additional electric units for those sections was definitely not efficient fleet management, and having the section from Tacoma right through to Harlowtown electrified would have given a far better result from both fleet utilisation and maintenance points of view.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## mrsmartman

*Pittsburgh Station - Some Thoughts*










http://testplant.blogspot.com/2012/01/pittsburgh-station-some-thoughts.html

_Your Trusted Source of Photographs from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_


----------



## Nexis

*MARC MultiLevel 125MPH Speed Qualification Test Train @ Princeton JCT*


----------



## 00Zy99

Huh.

So were the Kawasaki multilevels already certified for 125? And why did they need to certify the MARC Bombardier cars? Didn't they already test the identical NJTransit multilevels?


----------



## Nexis

00Zy99 said:


> Huh.
> 
> So were the Kawasaki multilevels already certified for 125? And why did they need to certify the MARC Bombardier cars? Didn't they already test the identical NJTransit multilevels?


I'm sure fan railer knows the answer to this..


----------



## 1772

Bill O'Reilly bashed Airline companies and supports High Speed Rail. Didn't see that one coming. 

(at 3:48)


----------



## hammersklavier

Bulbous said:


> It would be far easier to argue that the mistake was not taking up the GE project to both upgrade the existing electrification segments as well as electrifying the section between the two existing segments for around $34 million at the time (1971 I think) and instead having it all de-energised and spending the same money instead on SD-40s right when the oil crisis hit. Having to run the diesel fleet right through with additional electric units for those sections was definitely not efficient fleet management, and having the section from Tacoma right through to Harlowtown electrified would have given a far better result from both fleet utilisation and maintenance points of view.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Matt


Hah I am well-versed in the story of the Milwaukee's epic mismanagement. Going from "most profitable transcon" to "bankrupt" in a decade takes more than just incompetence, it takes a sort of anti-competence where total incompetents would do a _better_ job than you.

The argument I'm referencing is essentially that the initial electrification project in the '20s destroyed the Milwaukee's long-term capital reserves. Unlike, say, the Rock Island, which was able to keep running some 20ish years after it became functionally insolvent (it last posted a profit in the late '50s IIRC), the Milwaukee simply didn't have the reserves necessary to weather storms.


----------



## Fan Railer

The NJT multilevels are NOT certified for 125. The ALP-45s are (or at least they were tested with the Amtrak Viewliners. MARC is certifying theirs now because they actually run their Penn Line trains at 125, and would like to use the MLVs on that line with the electric locomotives. When it comes time, NJT will have to run their own 125 certification tests on their MLVs.


----------



## zaphod

Yes, CAHSR and the Texas Central project have zero in common.

Between Houston and Dallas there is nothing but flat or gently rolling rural land with a relatively low population density. Even better, there were multiple choices of right of way that could be obtained, they were able to seek a high voltage power line corridor that's pretty much a straight line. Also the southeastern quadrant of the Dallas region is industrial and there is very little suburban sprawl between open country and the downtown core where lots of land is available for a station, it will be easy to bring the line into the city without any complications or disruption.

CAHSR has to cross 2 huge mountain ranges and then penetrate deep into two of the most most expensive and densely built up cities in the United States, coincidentally having to pass through some of the richest and snobbiest suburbs in the country in SF and having to do some complicated things to get into LA as well.


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## phoenixboi08

zaphod said:


> Yes, CAHSR and the Texas Central project have zero in common.


People will always fetishize "private" ventures, because everyone believes they're inherently superior - even if that isn't always the case. 

The former is attempting to be a comprehensive, state-wide (well, at least Coastal) system, while the latter is not. 

Two entirely different scopes of work entailed. 

It doesn't appear that TxCentral is at all interested in being a carrier for other services, which might end up being problematic, down the line, unless they decide to suddenly become interested in other markets besides Dallas-Houston. 

Though, I'm not optimistic. 

Their stubbornness is unnecessarily complicating the Fort-Worth - Dallas proposal...


----------



## Anday

*Hyperloop Technologies becomes Hyperloop One, pulls in $80 million and announces global partners
*












> Los Angeles-based Hyperloop Technologies is now Hyperloop One and $80 million richer from a close of its Series B round of financing today.
> 
> The news comes just days after rival hyperloop builder Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) announced a licensing deal to power its own prototype with magnetic levitation technology.
> 
> Both Hyperloop One (formerly Hyperloop Technologies) and HTT are based in L.A. and both are working on models of Elon Musk’s Hyperloop – a vacuum tube-based transportation technology promising to shoot riders from San Francisco to the City of Angels in 30 minutes or less.
> 
> The moniker was too much like its rival hyperloop builder and the change comes just in time for a propulsion open-air test (POAT) Hyperloop One will be conducting in North Las Vegas tomorrow.
> 
> The new cash is from existing investors Sherpa Ventures, 8VC, ZhenFund and Caspian Venture Partners and a few new investors, including 137 Ventures, Khosla Ventures, Fast Digital, Western Technology Investment (WTI), SNCF, the French National Rail Company (interestingly) and GE Ventures, which has invested heavily in building high speed rail in various parts of the world such as Europe and China. The total now raised is at $100 million.
> 
> “The overwhelming response we’ve had already confirms what we’ve always known, that Hyperloop One is at the forefront of a movement to solve one of the planet’s most pressing problems,” Hyperloop One co-founder and venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar said in a company statement. “The brightest minds are coming together at the right time to eliminate the distances and borders that separate economies and cultures.”


http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/10/hy...-in-80-million-and-announces-global-partners/

http://www.treehugger.com/public-tr...rloop-one-model-go-zero-sixty-one-second.html


----------



## 00Zy99

Why can't this thing just die already? :bash::bash:

What a waste of money.

The technical challenges are not yet solved and the financial programs that they give are simply deceitful.


----------



## G5man

00Zy99 said:


> Why can't this thing just die already? :bash::bash:
> 
> What a waste of money.
> 
> The technical challenges are not yet solved and the financial programs that they give are simply deceitful.


Because somehow it will deliver us from something that is outdated yet reliable and done well.


----------



## 00Zy99

G5man said:


> Because somehow it will deliver us from something that is outdated yet reliable and done well.


A field that is constantly having improvements and modernization is hardly outdated.


----------



## Fan Railer

Photos: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...073741915.100001258801227&type=1&l=3473de3d4c


----------



## Smooth Indian

G5man said:


> Because somehow it will deliver us from something that is outdated yet reliable and done well.





00Zy99 said:


> A field that is constantly having improvements and modernization is hardly outdated.





00Zy99 said:


> Why can't this thing just die already? :bash::bash:
> 
> What a waste of money.
> 
> The technical challenges are not yet solved and the financial programs that they give are simply deceitful.


Have any physicists or transport engineers ever positively critiqued this concept? I have not heard of anyone reviewing the white paper from Elon Musk exhaustively. But somehow a lot of young engineers and graduate students are attracted to it.


----------



## Guest

I read something yesterday that said SNCF were backing this and had even invested some money into its development.


----------



## 00Zy99

Salif said:


> I read something yesterday that said SNCF were backing this and had even invested some money into its development.


In what?

Hyperloop?

Texas HSR?

California?

The NEC?

Minnesota?


----------



## Smooth Indian

Salif said:


> I read something yesterday that said SNCF were backing this and had even invested some money into its development.





00Zy99 said:


> In what?
> 
> Hyperloop?
> 
> Texas HSR?
> 
> California?
> 
> The NEC?
> 
> Minnesota?


Even if SNCF is interested is it willing to back it all the way. The total cost of the hyper loop route between SF and LA was estimated by Musk to be around $10 billion which is much lower than the CaHSR. But then if the cost is so low he could easily raise that money given his tremendous clout. Somehow figuring out the technology is left to the geeks.


----------



## 00Zy99

Smooth Indian said:


> Even if SNCF is interested is it willing to back it all the way. The total cost of the hyper loop route between SF and LA was estimated by Musk to be around $10 billion which is much lower than the CaHSR. But then if the cost is so low he could easily raise that money given his tremendous clout. Somehow figuring out the technology is left to the geeks.


That $10 billion quote?

That's from the EDGE of the Bay Area to the EDGE of LA. Yeah.

Somehow it's still going to be just as fast downtown-to-downtown (yeah, right).

The biggest costs for HSR is actually getting into the heart of the cities. For the stretch that compares to Musk's "super-cheap" gimmick? The costs are similar.


----------



## prageethSL

*Could the Hyperloop soon be a reality, or are we getting taken for a ride?*



> *Hyperloop Transportation Technologies has new partners in developing Elon Musk’s concept. But it may still have fundamental flaws.
> *
> 
> In late August, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) announced co-development deals with Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum and the engineering design firm Aecom. The involvement of two established and publicly-traded companies was widely interpreted as validation of the idea that Tesla founder Elon Musk shared with the world in a whitepaper in August of 2013.
> And there are other signs of forward motion on the Hyperloop: Musk himself is building a test track, through SpaceX, for a pod design contest slated for January of 2016. And HTT (which is not directly affiliated with Musk) is building a separate test track in California.
> But not everyone’s jumping on board. The media, and especially the tech media, have been aflutter about the Hyperloop since that first paper. But close observers and transit industry vets are much less enthusiastic about the concept, from the big picture down to the nuts and bolts. They argue that even given that the Hyperloop whitepaper was a rough sketch, the most important elements of the plan—its speed and price—have been vastly oversold.
> One of the Hyperloop’s critics is Alon Levy, a researcher in theoretical mathematics with Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology, who analyzes public transit issues at the blog Pedestrian Observations . When the Hyperloop was first announced, Levy highlighted conceptual problems, including that Hyperloop’s acceleration would make it a “barf ride”.
> The new partnerships haven’t changed his perspective. If anything, they’ve made him more worried about the Hyperloop’s potential to erode support for California’s high speed rail project (CHSR) between Los Angeles and San Francisco.


http://fortune.com/2015/09/11/is-elon-musks-hyperloop-fatally-flawed/


----------



## Spam King

Anday said:


> *US bullet train plans, learning from California, favor private cash over public funds
> *


That's good news.

But if they want HSR to actually work (and survive) they need to place it on an equal footing with other modes of transportation. That means ending the massive amounts of subsidies for highway users (interstates should all be tolled) and ending massive spending state spending on airport infrastructure (it should be funded by airport authorities through fees, for example as done in Vancouver, Canada).

Once rail is on an equal footing with highways and air travel it should be profitable enough for private investment. The key is that people who use infrastructure should pay its true cost.


----------



## Nexis

Smooth Indian said:


> Have any physicists or transport engineers ever positively critiqued this concept? I have not heard of anyone reviewing the white paper from Elon Musk exhaustively. But somehow a lot of young engineers and graduate students are attracted to it.


Being Crammed into a tube and flying that fast is not going to be attractive to most of the public...outside the thrill seeker segment of the population...


----------



## Nexis

Westbound Acela Express Crawling through Secaucus JCT


Westbound Acela Express crawling through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express crawling through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express crawling through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Spam King

Nexis said:


> Being Crammed into a tube and flying that fast is not going to be attractive to most of the public...outside the thrill seeker segment of the population...


How is that different from flying in an airplane?


----------



## Nexis

Spam King said:


> How is that different from flying in an airplane?


An Airplane is much larger and you can get out and move around from time to time along with having windows... The Hyperloop will be windowless...and tiny...smaller then a Coach bus..


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Nexis said:


> An Airplane is much larger and you can get out and move around from time to time along with having windows... The Hyperloop will be windowless...and tiny...smaller then a Coach bus..


There are similarities like the passengers would be doomed if there is an accident when the cabin hull is breached and all air is sucked out since there are no escape mechanism due to inherent flaw in design.:nuts:


----------



## Tower Dude

I, believe that this train will be a custom design using everything Alstom has developed in the past 16 years, don't forget the Acela was built before Alstom acquired Fiat Ferroviaria and there for the Pendolino so the tilting mechanisms are much more improved also the "failures" of the Acela power cars have been fixed and the solutions have been introduced into the next generation of Duplex trainset power cars. Also the traction motors of the AGV are an extreme improvement as well. So it will probably a crazy custom mix of all three to comply with FRA regs.


----------



## M-NL

phoenixboi08 said:


> Amtrak: Vision for the NEC, 2012 Update Report pg. 22, Figure 22


These plans state an extension of the current Acela sets by 2 cars starting 2015. I thought they cancelled those plans?


----------



## hans280

Tower Dude said:


> I, believe that this train will be a custom design using everything Alstom has developed in the past 16 years, don't forget the Acela was built before Alstom acquired Fiat Ferroviaria and there for the Pendolino so the tilting mechanisms are much more improved also the "failures" of the Acela power cars have been fixed and the solutions have been introduced into the next generation of Duplex trainset power cars. Also the traction motors of the AGV are an extreme improvement as well. So it will probably a crazy custom mix of all three to comply with FRA regs.


Well, yeah, but the information disclosures posted on this thread do seem a bit confusing. On the one hand they mention tilt-technology (i.e. the Pendolinos). On the other hand they mention speeds approaching 350 km/h, which as far as I'm aware no tilting train has ever achieved - not even in the upright-locked position. And as for making a Duplex train set tilt... well, their gravity point is so high that, shall we say, this seems to contradict high-school physics. - But I could be mistaken. Does anyone know more?


----------



## phoenixboi08

M-NL said:


> These plans state an extension of the current Acela sets by 2 cars starting 2015. I thought they cancelled those plans?


Yeah, that I don't know much about...


----------



## Tower Dude

M-NL said:


> These plans state an extension of the current Acela sets by 2 cars starting 2015. I thought they cancelled those plans?


Yes they are.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Progress on Minnesota High Speed Rail Slows*

(TNS) -- A company seeking to build a high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities with private dollars needs more time before deciding whether to push ahead with the project[...]

*Proposed High-Speed Rail Routes Into South Texas Unveiled *

A major transportation study is being done to determine the feasibility of high-speed rail service through Texas that could include the Rio Grande Valley[...]
*
Gov. Jerry Brown's best hope for high-speed rail? A Donald Trump presidency *

Gov. Jerry Brown badly needs a financial angel to salvage his sputtering bullet train. Nobody ever dreamed it might be Donald Trump[...]


----------



## prageethSL

THSR facebook page


----------



## prageethSL

Texas HSR


----------



## bluemeansgo

If they choose AGV in the NEC, Texas will end up having Americas coolest, quietest, and most comfortable trains.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

bluemeansgo said:


> If they choose AGV in the NEC, Texas will end up having Americas coolest, quietest, and most comfortable trains.


Not going to happen, not even an ice-cube in hell chance with JR Central heavily involved in the project.:lol:

Besides the European standard loading gauge is too small for Americans.


----------



## SSMEX

SamuraiBlue said:


> Not going to happen, not even an ice-cube in hell chance with JR Central heavily involved in the project.:lol:
> 
> Besides the European standard loading gauge is too small for Americans.


I think he means that if the NEC gets the AGVs, Texas will have Shinkansen rolling stock. I personally really like the clean and efficient design of the Shinkansens but the AGV is equally as cool with its Transformer-like angular features.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

SamuraiBlue said:


> Besides the European standard loading gauge is too small for Americans.


I'm pretty sure the loading gauge can be changed if necessary. For example, the Russian Siemens Velaro trains are 33cm (13 in) wider than the standard train.


----------



## Fan Railer




----------



## bluemeansgo

SSMEX said:


> I think he means that if the NEC gets the AGVs, Texas will have Shinkansen rolling stock. I personally really like the clean and efficient design of the Shinkansens but the AGV is equally as cool with its Transformer-like angular features.


That's exactly what I meant. While I like the AGV (traveled on in Italy), I still find the N700 series ( at least on tracks in Japan ) to be the more comfortable, smoother, quieter ride.


----------



## 00Zy99

That may be at least partly due to having entirely exclusive new-build tracks, as you noted.


----------



## M-NL

Maybe, but I have a similar experience. I've ridden the pre-redesign ICE1, both Thalys types and the Shinkansen N700. Both ICE1 and N700 are pretty close and the TGV based Thalys far worse.


----------



## Silly_Walks

I've ridden ICE3 based units in China, and they are extremely smooth. Especially on the line Beijing-Tianjin, it was like it was floating on a cloud.

Might be track, train, or a combination of the two.


----------



## phoenixboi08

On the topic of the new, Acela rolling stock, two questions came to mind:

1. It appears they're concentrating on 12 new sets, for the short-term (2020), to be amended with an additional 32, in the medium-term (2025), and completely replaced by another 14, in the long-term (2040ish)._* So, do we think this will be one, large order (either figuring in all of these needs or - most likely - the short/medium-term needs), or that this contract will only cover the initial 12? *_

Considering just how long it took, and that Alstom was the only remaining candidate, It occurs to me that there is a good chance that this contract could be for 44 (or all 58) sets. Also, I would really want to know if they negotiated for the right to amend their order, since them exercising that right might signal they were considering/prepping for a bid to operate service in CA[HSR].

2. Concerning the initial 12, it would appear to me that Pendolino and Euroduplex might be the most obvious contenders since they're desperate to increase capacity and lower fares (I really don't know if they'd go with the AGVs, unless they're not as expensive as I think). _*Are the Euroduplexe's even compatible - as far as height clearances? *_

I can't tell if they're bi- or multi-levels, if that even makes a difference.
______________________________________________________
I hope we don't have to wait much longer. I'm getting really antsy!


----------



## 00Zy99

The Euroduplex is four inches shorter than the Bombardier Multilevel, which is built for the restrictive heights of the NEC. 

That said, I personally expect something along the lines of the Pendolino, based on the need for tilting, a dislike of articulation, and some of the theoretical renders put out by Amtrak.


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> The Euroduplex is four inches shorter than the Bombardier Multilevel, which is built for the restrictive heights of the NEC.
> 
> That said, I personally expect something along the lines of the Pendolino, based on the need for tilting, a dislike of articulation, and some of the theoretical renders put out by Amtrak.


That's true, on first thought I did think of NJT's multilevels. However, I know there are some rather short bridges, further north - in CT, maybe - that might cause issues.

I do think the Pendolinos are probably favored, as well, but they're not articulated? Or is such a configuration simply a possibility?


----------



## 00Zy99

Sports specials have already run the multilevels as far as New Haven. And I would assume that everything east of there was taken care of when they hung the wires.


----------



## Anday

*There Could Be Another High-Speed Rail Line In Texas: From Oklahoma To Rio Grande Valley
*



> *The Texas Department of Transportation studied the possibility of a passenger rail line between Oklahoma and South Texas. The Federal Railroad Administration will decide on whether to build next year.
> *


http://keranews.org/post/there-coul...ed-rail-line-texas-oklahoma-rio-grande-valley


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## prageethSL

*Another Step Closer to High Speed Rail From Houston to Dallas?*



> Dallas city leaders took their first official action to bring a high speed rail from Houston to Dallas.
> On Wednesday, they approved a deal, with the private company planning the train line, to pay the city's expenses for a permit.
> The goal is to use technology like the bullet train in Japan to make the Houston to Dallas trip in 90 minutes.
> On Wednesday, the Dallas City Council agreed to receive $1.5 million from Texas Central Railway.
> The money will to cover fees and engineering on an Army Corp of Engineers permit, which is needed for a train crossing planned over the Trinity River.
> It will be years before the high speed rail gets here, but this shows the project is moving forward.
> "We are making great progress, this is another milestone today," said Holly Reed with Texas Central Partners. "And we expect to break ground, the earliest the end of '17 or into '18."
> A downtown Dallas station location has been identified near Interstate 30 with fast connections to DART rail and major freeways, and a separate leg to Fort Worth is in the works.


----------



## prageethSL

Japan authorizes $2M to study high-speed train from D.C. to Baltimore 



> Japan's ambassador to the U.S. says his country has authorized $2 million to support a feasibility study on building a high-speed train between Baltimore and Washington.
> 
> Ambassador Kenichiro Sasae made the announcement Wednesday after signing a memorandum of cooperation between Japan and Maryland with Gov. Larry Hogan. The agreement formalizes trade relations between the state and Japan.
> In November, the federal government awarded nearly $28 million in seed money to a private venture seeking to build a high-speed magnetic levitation train between Washington and Baltimore. A 20 percent outside match is required, and the $2 million from Japan will go toward that 20 percent.
> The money is for planning and an engineering analysis for the train, which could carry passengers from Washington to Baltimore in 15 minutes.


----------



## Nexis

What a joke...a shuttle for the rich...typical govt corruption...


----------



## 00Zy99

I think its less a matter of corruption and more a matter of ignorant bureaucrats having started something and now being unable to stop it until its found to be fully worthless.

Its not even a toy for the rich, either. More of a pipe-dream.


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

Nexis said:


> What a joke...a shuttle for the rich...typical govt corruption...


another example of incompetence in our government from both political parties.


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Announces Next-Generation of High-Speed Rail*


----------



## 00Zy99

Looks like a new-generation tilting TGV. Basically the same as Acela, but articulated. I can't find any mention of the "Avelia" family on Wikipedia, but the TGV is the only one that really fits.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*US to invest $2.5bn in high-speed rail expansion*

US vice president Joe Biden has announced plans to lend railway operator Amtrak $2.45bn (£1.86bn) to expand services and make upgrades[...]


----------



## 00Zy99

Looking on Alstom's website, it turns out that "Avelia" is a new catch-all brand name that refers to their entire line of high-speed trains, which currently consists of the Pendolino, the TGV Duplex, and the AGV.

This, of course, tells us nothing at all about which one the new Avelia Liberty is derived from.


----------



## Tower Dude

It seems to be a mixture of all of their technology power cars and Jacobs bogies from the Euroduplex, tilting from the Pendolino, streamlining and traction motors from the AVG.


----------



## webeagle12

Nexis said:


> *Amtrak Announces Next-Generation of High-Speed Rail*


Sorry but I believe it when I see it. I smell BS...


----------



## 00Zy99

webeagle12 said:


> Sorry but I believe it when I see it. I smell BS...


And how exactly do you think this won't happen? This is what has already been ordered. As in, they've given Alstom the go-ahead to start building the trains. The initial set-up work will probably begin by the end of September.


----------



## prageethSL

Alstom to provide Amtrak with its new generation of high-speed train







































> *Alstom and Amtrak announced today that they have signed a contract for Alstom to design and build 28 new high-speed trains, which will run on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) between Boston and Washington D.C. Amtrak and Alstom also signed a long-term contract under which Alstom will provide Amtrak with long-term technical support and supply spare components and parts for the maintenance of the new trainsets. Together, these contracts are worth €1.8 billion ($2 billion). *
> The Northeast Corridor (NEC) line covers roughly 730 km (457 miles)*[1]*. In only ten years, the number of passengers has increased from 2.4 million passengers in FY 2002 to 3.5 million in FY 2014. As part of an effort to renew and expand their premium product, Amtrak has therefore decided to purchase new trainsets to replace the existing Acela trains *[2]*, thus increasing passenger capacity, providing more frequent service, minimizing journey times, and improving operating costs and energy efficiency.
> The train ordered by Amtrak is Avelia Liberty, the latest development of Alstom’s high-speed train range Avelia. The new trainset will be able to carry up to 33% more passengers than the current Acela trains. The trainset configuration includes an innovative compact power car and nine passenger cars, with the possibility of three more being added if demand grows. The train is capable of travelling at speeds up to 300 km/h (186 mph), but will initially operate at a maximum speed of 257 km/h (160 mph) based on NEC track speed limits. Additionally, each concentrated power car is equipped with Alstom’s pioneering Crash Energy Management (CEM) system.
> Another key feature is the train’s articulated architecture, which provides greater stability and passenger comfort while enhancing safety. The train also includes Alstom’s innovative Tiltronix anticipative tilting technology, which allows the train to manoeuvre curves safely and more comfortably at high speeds.
> “_Amtrak is taking the necessary actions to keep our customers, the Northeast region and the American economy moving forward,” _said Amtrak President & CEO Joe Boardman._ “These trainsets and the modernization and improvement of infrastructure will provide our customers with the mobility and experience of the future._”
> 
> Jérôme Wallut, Senior Vice President, Alstom North-America said “_Alstom’s high speed trains, which we have branded Avelia, are the most advanced, reliable and safest trains in the world. Avelia Liberty will not only provide premium passenger experience but will also provide greater energy efficiency and lower lifecycle costs. This award is an illustration of the success of Alstom’s strategy of customer proximity. We would like to thank Amtrak for its vote of confidence and remain fully dedicated to making this project a success_”.
> Most of the Avelia Liberty for Amtrak will be manufactured in the United States. The new trainsets will be manufactured at Alstom’s 150 year-old historic site in Hornell, NY. They will be maintained in the depots of Amtrak in Boston, New York and Washington DC under a specific Technical Support and Spare Supply Agreement with additional support from Alstom’s sites in New York, Delaware and Illinois for a period of 15 years, with an option for an additional 15 years. These contracts will result in the creation of more than 1,000 jobs nationwide, including 750 in New York with 400 of those at Alstom facilities.


----------



## prageethSL

Looks like *Alstom HS2 *concept unveiled earlier in year does have an American cousin.


----------



## zaphod

Looks great! A lightweight train built to more standard specifications should be more reliable and economical to run than the current Acelas. A larger number of them running more frequently on the newly upgraded 150-160 mph tracks in New Jersey will reduce trip times a lot and accommodate more passengers. Seems like very exciting times for Amtrak.

Will Amtrak keep the older acela sets around to supplement existing service or are they just sort of worn out at this point? I wonder if they could de-motor one power car and turn it into a cab car and then chop off the other one to make them locomotive hauled sets? Since they have nicer interiors than other cars. Would be cool to see them get run on the Keystone corridor or something.


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## Tower Dude

zaphod said:


> Will Amtrak keep the older acela sets around to supplement existing service or are they just sort of worn out at this point? I wonder if they could de-motor one power car and turn it into a cab car and then chop off the other one to make them locomotive hauled sets? Since they have nicer interiors than other cars. Would be cool to see them get run on the Keystone corridor or something.



That would be quite awesome Indeed, also would allow for faster Keystone Service. 

But the real question is when the hell is Amtrak going to replace the Amfleets.


----------



## 00Zy99

zaphod said:


> Looks great! A lightweight train built to more standard specifications should be more reliable and economical to run than the current Acelas. A larger number of them running more frequently on the newly upgraded 150-160 mph tracks in New Jersey will reduce trip times a lot and accommodate more passengers. Seems like very exciting times for Amtrak.
> 
> Will Amtrak keep the older acela sets around to supplement existing service or are they just sort of worn out at this point? I wonder if they could de-motor one power car and turn it into a cab car and then chop off the other one to make them locomotive hauled sets? Since they have nicer interiors than other cars. Would be cool to see them get run on the Keystone corridor or something.


Cutting apart the power cars would be more hassle than its worth at this point. I suppose you mean to have one power car without motors and a conventional locomotive on the other end? The Acela sets do not use regular couplers. 

It might be better to just "de-tune" the sets and run them on slower services.



Tower Dude said:


> That would be quite awesome Indeed, also would allow for faster Keystone Service.


The Keystone Corridor is too short to take advantage of the highest speeds. And many of the stations have low-level platforms, which the Acela are not designed to use in regular service.



> But the real question is when the hell is Amtrak going to replace the Amfleets.


That's in the longer-term future. Simply put, the basic body-shell of the Amfleet/Metroliner design is still very sturdy. As I've said before, Budd stainless steel railroad cars have been compared to the great pyramids. They just got major interior rehabs over the last couple of decades, so they have at least another 20 years before they need total replacement.


----------



## OslPhlWasChi

The investment and new trains for the NEC is certainly a good step, but it is just that - a small step. While ideally a path towards maglev for the NEC should happen as soon as possible, even without transitioning to HSR there will need to be significant more investment in the current infrastructure and chopping at deferred maintenance to make the current lines live for many more years.

I can't find the link but supposedly there is a formal commitment/agreement for Japan to fund maglev for the state of Maryland between DC and Baltimore. As great as that may be, financial commitments are (I assume) just one of about 1000 things that need to be figured out for this to actually happen, correct?


----------



## 00Zy99

If conventional HSR can be built well enough, it well negate most of the advantages of Maglev-downtown to downtown journey times would be less due to the lack of a need for a massively expensive new approach to the center of the cities.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

00Zy99 said:


> If conventional HSR can be built well enough, it well negate most of the advantages of Maglev-downtown to downtown journey times would be less due to the lack of a need for a massively expensive new approach to the center of the cities.


If your are talking about the train-sets alone utilizing the present right of way then it will never be a true High speed rail since the route was did not take into consideration of a high speed curve and if you are talking about the route as well then it really doesn't matter whether it be conventional wheel on rail or maglev since you are going to develop new right of way anyways.


----------



## 00Zy99

There are considerable stretches of the current alignment that are suitable for up to 180 mph as soon as the track is upgraded. I'll point to the area around the Susquehanna River in Maryland and across New Jersey.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Also, more so than travel times, Amtrak being able to increase capacity and - hopefully - lower fares, would be more useful, in the short term.

I just don't know how much of an impact, if any, a 40% increase will have.


----------



## 00Zy99

That's almost half again as much. So a fairly decent amount.


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> That's almost half again as much. So a fairly decent amount.


Right, but we don't know how quickly it would be filled. These sets won't go into revenue service for at least 5 years or so. Much of that increase might be eaten up fairly quickly.

Then again, maybe not. I just really want to see fares decrease or be more dynamic/flexible, at least.


----------



## zaphod

When the distance of a line is short, the difference between conventional high speed rail and maglev would only be a few extra minutes of travel time. At approximately 30 miles, you could drive there in about half an hour. A conventional express train going 125 mph only saves you 15 minutes compared to the car. A maglev train going about 250 mph would only save 7 minutes compared to the normal train.

Compared to a car, the maglev train would save 23 minutes. But it would probably take 15-20 minutes to go the station on one end, and 15-20 minutes to get from the station to your other destination on the other. So it would take over 15 minutes longer to take the "fastest" mode of transportation between the two cities. With car sharing, automated vehicles, and plain old shuttle buses that could run point A to point B in either city's urban centers, it all seems very pointless to even consider this.

The real purpose of high speed rail is in moderately greater distances. Going from DC to Philadelphia for example. Even a current 'slow' train is double the average traffic speed of driving over a distance of about 130 miles, and an upgraded world-standard 186 mph(300 kph) line is going to make up for the time cost in reaching stations and beat nearly any other mode including airplanes(because of time reaching airports). Of course once you get distances more than a couple hundred miles, airplanes start to make more sense.

I really don't know what Hogan's deal is. The guy can't possibly be that stupid to think its feasible to build a maglev just between DC and Baltimore. This must be some kind of favor he is doing for the Japanese trade officials, as well as a distraction from a goal to reduce non-road transportation funding probably.


----------



## Sunfuns

All that Maglev talk really should be put to rest. It's not economically feasible except under some very special conditions like for the one line being built in Japan and even that still remains to be proven. 

High quality conventional HSR is entirely sufficient for routes like Boston-Washington DC (ca 3.5 h realistically). For anything much further apart than that airlines are and always will be the preferred option for travellers primarily concerned with speed (=majority of us).


----------



## bluemeansgo

Sunfuns said:


> All that Maglev talk really should be put to rest. It's not economically feasible except under some very special conditions like for the one line being built in Japan and even that still remains to be proven.


There's nothing special about the line in Japan. It's more or less an airplane replacement. That's what people don't get. It will completely replace the need for any airline travel between those cities. Connecting flights may make up some flights but there will not be s y need to build expensive airport expansions in valuable land. 



> High quality conventional HSR is entirely sufficient for routes like Boston-Washington DC (ca 3.5 h realistically). For anything much further apart than that airlines are and always will be the preferred option for travellers primarily concerned with speed (=majority of us).



True. But we all know that this is a functional test line to prove the technology for a NYC Boston DC route. Yes it will be expensive and likely mostly underground but when all is said and down upgrading the ACELA will cost billions and billions and by the time it's done will still bleed money.

The maglev in Japan goes through rural areas. It's equivalent to Building airports in urban areas and it's more convenient and comfortable.

Airlines are the LEAST preferable mode of transport and only win because of speed. Take that advantage away and they truly suck.


----------



## jonasry

bluemeansgo said:


> There's nothing special about the line in Japan. It's more or less an airplane replacement. That's what people don't get. It will completely replace the need for any airline travel between those cities. Connecting flights may make up some flights but there will not be s y need to build expensive airport expansions in valuable land.


You don't need Maglev to replace flying on such short routes as Washington-New York. In fact, Amtrak already has 75 % market share on that route (source)! Eurostar has a 65 % share on London-Paris.

With trains capable of doing 320 km/h (200 mp/h) the market share can increase even further. I don't have anything particular against Maglev, but I think it's a waste of money as conventional high speed trains can deliver more for less money. Also, it's a proven technology and is readily available. For Maglev, there's a huge process of building up know-how and tech infrastructure before anything can happen on the ground.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

jonasry said:


> You don't need Maglev to replace flying on such short routes as Washington-New York. In fact, Amtrak already has 75 % market share on that route (source)! Eurostar has a 65 % share on London-Paris.
> 
> With trains capable of doing 320 km/h (200 mp/h) the market share can increase even further. I don't have anything particular against Maglev, but I think it's a waste of money as conventional high speed trains can deliver more for less money. Also, it's a proven technology and is readily available. For Maglev, there's a huge process of building up know-how and tech infrastructure before anything can happen on the ground.


How long does the Accela journey from DC to NY actually take?
You can't just buy a train that can go 320Km/h and place it on the same tracks and expect it to do magic and slash travel time by 50% fro present travel time. To operate an HSR at optimum efficiency you need to widen the curve radius to at least 7000m so the train can run through without dropping speed, that is plain physics.
You can't have mixed traffic within the line as well so you need a dedicated right of way.
Without the two acquiring a trainset possible of 320Km/h is merely boys with toys situation.


----------



## 00Zy99

As I've already stated, there are long stretches that already permit 160 mph running. And more stretches have curvature that is adequate for up to 180 mph.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

00Zy99 said:


> As I've already stated, there are long stretches that already permit 160 mph running. And more stretches have curvature that is adequate for up to 180 mph.


Long stretches means not all route and a curvature allowing 256Km/h means the minimum radius is smaller than 5000m which will not be sufficient for 320Km/h runs even with leaning cars while the biggest problem being mixed traffic which AMTRAK is not be able to solve by themselves.
At the end NEC requires a dedicated right of way to run a true high speed rail regardless of the system.


----------



## Sunfuns

SamuraiBlue said:


> How long does the Accela journey from DC to NY actually take?


Almost exactly 3 h which is about 40-50 min faster than driving in light traffic, but most people in NYC don't even own a car. The average speed is ca 75 mph (120 km/h). Nothing to write home about, but already not easily beatable by other modes of transport. A standard HSR on that route, which would indeed require substantial stretches of new alignment, could achieve an average of 125 mph covering that distance (with stops in Philadelphia and Baltimore) in ca 1 h 45 min. More than fast enough for that to be a dominant mode of transport between all those cities except for those who are most price sensitive (buses then).


----------



## Sunfuns

bluemeansgo said:


> There's nothing special about the line in Japan. It's more or less an airplane replacement. That's what people don't get. It will completely replace the need for any airline travel between those cities. Connecting flights may make up some flights but there will not be s y need to build expensive airport expansions in valuable land.


Not about the line maybe albeit we don't know yet how much if any technical difficulties will be encountered during construction leading to delays and cost overruns. It's more about have all those huge, densely populated cities in a row at the right distance. Boston-Washington DC is not far enough.


----------



## 00Zy99

SamuraiBlue said:


> Long stretches means not all route and a curvature allowing 256Km/h means the minimum radius is smaller than 5000m which will not be sufficient for 320Km/h runs even with leaning cars while the biggest problem being mixed traffic which AMTRAK is not be able to solve by themselves.
> At the end NEC requires a dedicated right of way to run a true high speed rail regardless of the system.


The stretch I'm referring to in central New Jersey could easily support much higher speeds. The current limitation is in the signalling. I think they've tested up to 180 on the late nights there. And there are only two curve realignments separating it from Newark and the approaches to Manhattan (no room between stops for speed there). The largest realignment is the very northern-most edge of Maryland near Elkton.


----------



## Buffaboy

Got an email from Amtrak showing the sexy Acela upgrade!


----------



## Buffaboy

We need the old train sets on a modernized Maple Leaf corridor.


----------



## Smooth Indian

kokomo said:


> Would Trump's arrival to power somehow impact this project?


Most likely not. Atleast not in the positive. The problem is not so much the presidency. It is the congress which controls the purse strings and passes legislation. Without a sea change in the outlook of the congress or the appearance of a private/foreign financier progress on CaHSR will be slow.


----------



## sdery

> Would Trump's arrival to power somehow impact this project?


Tough to say...Many in Congress seemed to be against HSR because Obama was for it. My understanding is that Trump is actually positive inclined towards infrastructure, including HSR (but maybe not necessarily the CA HSR project specifically). Will depend on if Trump can position it as something critical to America and not necessarily linked with a rival political party.


----------



## 00Zy99

Trump was constantly hyping infrastructure, but he never made anything clear about who would pay for it, given that he wants to slash all the taxes. Of course, he doesn't make anything clear about anything.


----------



## tjrgx

00Zy99 said:


> Trump was constantly hyping infrastructure, but he never made anything clear about who would pay for it, given that he wants to slash all the taxes. Of course, he doesn't make anything clear about anything.


I think he want to private sector to do it and use tax credit as incentive.

That means old roads/bridges fix probably will take a back seat since they don't generate cash flows....


----------



## Neb81

tjrgx said:


> I think he want to private sector to do it and use tax credit as incentive.
> 
> That means old roads/bridges fix probably will take a back seat since they don't generate cash flows....



True of almost all gig infrastructure to be honest. No country I know of has had HSR built by a purely private enterprise. HSR can turn an operational profit and be contracted out for operation if you want - or even have it built under a BOOT contract - but there's no way private money will build a real HSR network for profit, the huge capital costs just make the payback period far too long for any private body to accept. 

If trump wants big infrastructure he'll have to give up on tax cuts, and persuade a GOP dominated legislature to either approve tax rises or major cuts to defense spending (not much else left to cut that could generate the required sums). All of this is unthinkable to Republicans.


----------



## Spam King

tjrgx said:


> I think he want to private sector to do it and use tax credit as incentive.
> 
> That means old roads/bridges fix probably will take a back seat since they don't generate cash flows....


Toll roads and bridges are very good cash generators.


----------



## 00Zy99

Which will meet the same opposition. Tolls are the same as taxes in that the people pay for it. There will need to be massive investment in upgrading or new construction to justify tolls.


----------



## Sergey Olenin

Could anybody tell me if there are technical standard for high-speed rolling stock in US? As my understanding is, there are FRA standarts only to tier I and tier II trainsets, but there are only safety standarts in CFR (title 49). So where are technical standarts like axle load, length, service speed or another (like there are in Europe's TSI or Japan's Technical regulatory standarts for Shinkansen)?


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sergey Olenin said:


> Could anybody tell me if there are technical standard for high-speed rolling stock in US? As my understanding is, there are FRA standarts only to tier I and tier II trainsets, but there are only safety standarts in CFR (title 49). So where are technical standarts like axle load, length, service speed or another (like there are in Europe's TSI or Japan's Technical regulatory standarts for Shinkansen)?


FRA Press Releasehttp://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L18435#


> "Although Tier III trains will be required to have exclusive track to operate at speeds above 125 mph, *the new standards will allow Tier III trains to safely share track with current Tier I and Tier II commuter, intercity, and Acela trains. Compatibility between equipment types is a key strategy to allow trains to share existing corridors to reach downtown stations*."


We've been waiting to hear what the new safety rules for HSR services will be (Tier III) - turns out the new draft has been released, today.

WIRED also has some more in-depth coverage.


----------



## Anday

*The Feds Finally Make Safety Rules for High Speed Rail*



> Advocating for HIGH SPEED RAIL in the US is a brutal business, continually raising and dashing one’s hopes. Six years ago, President Obama dedicated some $8 billion in stimulus funds to high speed rail projects. Then the governors of Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin spurned the cash. California took the money, only to see its plan to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles hamstrung by bureaucracy, crippling land use issues, and the Golden State’s vicious brand of NIMBYism.
> 
> Today, it’s back to good news: The Federal Railroad Administration is releasing new draft regulations that could make it a lot easier to build the speedier transport option right here in the US of A. They lay out clear safety standards for the trains, the product of 10 years of back-and-forth with industry.
> 
> Yes, these projects will still face capacious bureaucratic rigmarole and construction will take years. But if the Federal Railroad Administration can finalize the rules by next year, as it expects, the age of the true American high-speed system is nigh. Well, nigh-er.


https://www.wired.com/2016/11/feds-finally-make-safety-rules-high-speed-rail/


----------



## Anday

*California's bullet train authority decides to buy American after all*












> The California High Speed Rail Authority has reversed its plans to buy foreign parts for its trains, saying in a letter to federal regulators that it was withdrawing a request for a waiver from the Buy American Act.
> 
> The change on Thursday came after Rep. John Garamendi (D-Fairfield) and other Democratic lawmakers became outraged over the plan, disclosed last week, to import the most important parts of future rail cars, including motors, brakes, wheels, axles, the aluminum shells and undercarriages.



http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-reverse-direction-20161118-story.html


----------



## Shenkey

And which American company is making trains, or does that mean just that GE will buy some foreign company like Bombardier and that means "American"?


----------



## Kenni

Did you read the article?


----------



## SamuraiBlue

Basically the main HSR fabricators will be able to bid since they all have a knock down factory in the US.


----------



## sacto7654

I'd give Siemens the lead. Siemens could assemble a variant of the _Velaro_ trainset at an expanded version of their Sacramento, CA plant.


----------



## 00Zy99

I would not count out Hitachi and Kawasaki just yet. They also have US factories, and the technical requirements are more closely aligned with the N700.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Shenkey said:


> And which American company is making trains, or does that mean just that GE will buy some foreign company like Bombardier and that means "American"?


That's not really the point....
Buy America doesn't really work that way. In practice it's akin to the way that China gives certain trade incentives (e.g. lower tariffs, access to certain funding and financing, etc) for producers to locate production, domestically. That's kind of the point of these provisions, in the US: if the RFP process is essentially a point-based system, then the rules require that any project receiving federal funding allocate a high score to domestic producers and suppliers. It doesn't require them, as the waiver exists, but since it's included in the RFP another bid can simply use that as a means to undercut another - or not.

The contention here is that the media - and subsequently, the State Legislature - are holding the Authority's toes to the fire over the request to source the car body [shell], braking system, and some other components outside of the American supply chain...even though this is the case because no suppliers currently exist, domestically.

This is really another instance of journalists and certain legislators being idiots. Given how antagonistic the public has been to objectively necessary expenses (e.g. upgrading existing ROW on the Peninsula), it's strange that they expect the Authority to then add unnecessary expenses in order to get suppliers in the US California, right off the bat.

If the Authority didn't request and receive this waver, and the bids came in on the expensive end (because it includes expansions of facilities and establishing/sourcing suppliers), the same journalists, legislators and members of the public would have complained and yelled that the Authority is "wasting money!" and the costs were out of line, internationally, while completely missing the added value (see: Alstom Avelia order for Amtrak).

I suppose the Authority felt it would be better to have a faster, cheaper procurement than to strong arm technology transfer, on balance, considering the scrutiny they're under. 

My guess is that they will adjust and resubmit the waiver request: they planned to use the procurement to transfer some technology in waves, by having finally assembly of the bogies in US facilities (which, is what typically happens - again, refer to the recent Avelia order. Hopefully so, as it might have been preferable given the potential for lower procurement costs, timelier and more reliable/efficient production, and stronger momentum to incrementally build up an American Californian supply chain for HSTs. 

The chances they'll resubmit are particularly high since their chances might be higher during the current administration...Ironically, I could see there being some cognitive dissonance that sees the next administration actually push to have the rules overturned.


----------



## prageethSL

HSR will build trains in US after all



> The California High Speed Rail Authority has reversed their plan to buy foreign parts for the California bullet train after pressure from Democratic law makers.
> In a letter to the Federal Railroad Administration, the Authority recently asked their September waiver request from the Buy America Act be dropped. The trains could cost some $3.4 billion. The agency now says it “ has agreed to allow the formal procurement process to determine what components are available or could be built in the American marketplace.
> “Our hope is that this approach will encourage the United States manufacturing industry to rise to the challenge of producing what is needed to build high-speed trains in America.”
> Their statement continues: “The Authority is committed to work with the manufacturing community, suppliers and Congress to ensure that all investments and products made in rail infrastructure, including high-speed trains, are made in America.”
> California-based members of congress, John Garamendi and Doris Matsui, praised the authority’s reversal and thanked authority Chairman Dan Richard.
> “Following my conversation with the authority, they made the right decision to withdraw the Buy America waiver request and renew their commitment to maximum American-made content in all their projects, including the high-speed trainsets,” Garamendi said.
> 
> 
> *New request soon*
> 
> •The Authority is initially looking to order 2 prototype and 14 high-speed trainsets (approximately 8 cars per trainset), which will have a minimum of 450 seats.
> •Trainsets built for the Authority will need to meet speeds of a minimum of 200 mph to meet its planned trip-time requirements for service from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles on what will be largely brand new infrastructure.
> •The Authority anticipates issuing a Request for Proposal for a high-speed train manufacturer in winter 2016/2017 or spring 2017. The high-speed train procurement will be a competitive and open process and what any bidder chooses to include will be up to them and will be evaluated as part of the open and transparent process.


----------



## Fan Railer

Black Friday NEC fanning compilation (Princeton Junction, Metropark, & Elizabeth):


----------



## Fan Railer

READ FIRST:
Recorded November 27th, 2016 (11/27/16). Welcome aboard Amtrak Thanksgiving Holiday Extra Northeast Regional train 1099, originating out of New York Penn Station & bound for Washington DC with leased commuter equipment (NJT GE Arrow III EMU). Along the way, we make the following station stops:

Newark Penn Station - 14:20
Metropark - 31:08
Trenton Transit Center - 1:02:55
30th Street Station, Philadelphia - 1:34:15
Wilmington, DE - 2:07:30
Baltimore Penn Station - 3:04:51
BWI Airport Railway Station - 3:21:02
New Carrollton - 3:38:25
Union Station, Washington DC - 3:47:05

Due to the equipment, we are limited to 80 MPH the entire way down, but despite that, the ride was still pretty decent. We start off in the first car (1361), but end up moving to the second car (1362), so that I can position myself over a motor truck as opposed to a trailer truck. Additionally, the horn on 1361 was crap, so I didn't have a compelling reason to stay in the first car. I apologize for the sun sliding into and out of the shot, as I did not anticipate the winding nature of the Corridor to be an issue with the lighting this time of year. At the very least, the audio is well captured, and the conductor is quite cheerful. Along the way, we play leapfrog with Northeast Regional train 145 @ Hamilton, Trenton, and 30th Street, a pair of guys coming from Philly bound for NYC get on at Trenton after getting off SEPTA only to find out they've gotten on the wrong train and are headed back to Philly, and we see lots and lots of railfans @ various stations. Thanks for watching and enjoy the ride =)

Image thumbnail credits to Rob Sartain​. Many thanks to him for allowing me to use his photo.


----------



## Jthurmo2

Sorry guys im new to this particular thread. Where exactly is the california high speed rail going to stretch through. My first time hearing of the project (I realize im slow) was in the stadium threads when they spoke of a train from LA to vegas but it didnt seem high speed because they said it was a 5 hour ride which seems like thats a drive time? thanks in advance.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Jthurmo2 said:


> Sorry guys im new to this particular thread. Where exactly is the california high speed rail going to stretch through. My first time hearing of the project (I realize im slow) was in the stadium threads when they spoke of a train from LA to vegas but it didnt seem high speed because they said it was a 5 hour ride which seems like thats a drive time? thanks in advance.


I think you're thinking of XpressWest, which is meant to tie into the CAHSR via Victorville-Palmdale, initially relying on Metrolink to fill that gap.

You can get more info about the SF-LA project, here.

Interactive map

Construction progress


----------



## prageethSL

CHSR construction progress


----------



## 00Zy99

ITS HAPPENING!!!!

We're actually starting to see things that look like actual construction!!!!

Oh MY GOD!!!!!


----------



## Tower Dude

Give it a couple months and we'll see construction outside Fresno!


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> ITS HAPPENING!!!!
> 
> We're actually starting to see things that look like actual construction!!!!
> 
> Oh MY GOD!!!!!


It's been looking like real construction for like 6+ months...


----------



## 00Zy99

This is the first time we've had aerial photos that look like something you would see in Japan or Europe.


----------



## prageethSL

Alstom to receive $30 million in NY funds for Amtrak train deal


*http://www.progressiverailroading.c...lion-in-NY-funds-for-Amtrak-train-deal--50181







*




> New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo yesterday announced $30 million in state funds will be used to support Alstom Transportation Inc.'s expansion in Hornell, N.Y., to accommodate a new contract to build next-generation high-speed trains for Amtrak.
> 
> New York's state support for the project was an important factor in Alstom's winning bid for the Amtrak contract, according to a press release issued by Cuomo's office.
> 
> The 28 new trainsets will be part of Amtrak's $2.5 billion program to upgrade the Acela Express service in the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> Amtrak has ordered Alstom's "Avelia Liberty" train, the latest development of Alstom's high-speed train range Avelia. The new trains will operate at speeds up to 160 mph from the current 135 mph on the Acela line, but will be capable of speeds up to 186 mph.


----------



## prageethSL

^^
Video: Alstom North American President Jerome Wallut tells employees the first high-speed car will start next Thanksgiving, then two cars a month



> With what may be the final celebration of the $2.5 billion Amtrak contract now in the rear-view mirror following Gov. Andrew Cuomo's visit to Alstom on Wednesday, and the $30 million check from the state for facility expansion delivered, the company has work to do, a top official says.
> 
> "Today is a great day, and the continuation of a long process that started three years ago when we started to bid on this contract, now we are beginning to move to the implementation phase, so the support we're getting from New York state is huge," said Alstom senior vice president of North American Operations Jerome Wallut.
> With cash in hand, and a vote of confidence from the state, Alstom will build facilities to accommodate the major contract.
> "It will be a continuation of the current test track, extending the one along this building. It's quite complex because we have to test the train at higher speeds, so we have to extend the test track and build a bridge to go over the river," Wallut said.
> However, the Amtrak contract isn't the end of the company's quest to aquire work for Hornell, according to Wallut.
> "In ten years we will be creating jobs for your children," Wallut told employees.
> Wallut said Alstom is approaching new contracts with the same vigor that won the Amtrak contract.
> "In business you don't get surprised. When you start to engage in the contract process, it's to win. We've done everything possible, the right team, the right product, the right quality, the right, and this is what allows us to win," he said.
> 
> Wallut hopes that the Amtrak success can be parlayed into a culture of winning.
> "You cannot set a strategy on only one project. Amtrak is a fantastic booster for us, but in order to stand strong on all legs, you need several activities. As you see today, we are doing four projects (currently in Hornell)," he said.


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## CNB30

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/12/faster-rail-service-is-coming-to-america-slowly/509954/



> There’s a long and distinguished conservative tradition of hating on passenger rail projects, mainly because of the massive federal expenses they tend to incur. Republicans vigorously fought President Obama’s $8 billion pledge to power high-speed intra-city lines back in 2009 (alongside Vice President “Amtrak Joe” Biden, of course), and blocked his plans to fund road, bridge, and rail projects with a $478 billion infrastructure bill in 2015. (A whittled-down, $305 billion version passed later that year.)
> 
> Will Donald Trump be more sympathetic to trains than the average Republican? Possibly. The President-elect has compared America’s railroads to those of third-world countries and made envious references to Chinese bullet trains: "They have trains that go 300 miles per hour," he said in March. "We have trains that go chug-chug-chug." As a New York City developer, he also knows how rail connections can anchor serious real estate investments. His much-touted $1 trillion infrastructure plan hinges on leveraging big chunks of private lucre with very small amounts of public cash—the sort of financing scheme that could actually work for a rail project along a dense, inter-city corridor with lots of development opportunities. (What does his nominated DOT secretary, Elaine Chao, think about rail? Who knows?)
> 
> Despite having long been left for dead, those sorts of rail improvements and connections are coming to life in the U.S.—corridor by corridor, at varying velocities. In the absence of much dedicated federal funding, private investments are paying the freight in some cases; others are getting state funding. If Trump wants to create jobs with splashy infrastructure upgrades, giving these existing high-speed rail projects a cash injection might be a good bet. (Especially now that the Federal Railroad Administration finally released updated safety standards for high-speed trains, which stands to speed up project approvals in the future.)
> 
> Here’s a roundup of America’s motley fleet of unfinished supertrains.
> 
> Florida’s model (private) train
> 
> 
> Construction is underway in Miami for All Aboard Florida’s Miami-West Palm Beach connection. (Not seen: the train.) (Flickr/Phillip Pessar)
> Florida knows anti-train vitriol first hand. Back in 2011, Governor Rick Scott rejected $2.4 billion in federal change (Ohio and Wisconsin governors John Kasich and Scott Walker also rejected their chunks of Obama’s $8 billion rail stimulus) for a high-speed line from Orlando to Tampa due to concerns of state cost overruns—a decision that most Florida representatives, including Republican Congressman John Mica, greeted with dismay. (Mica is also the guy who once called Amtrak a “Soviet-style operation,” but he was convinced that private investors would pick up the rest of Florida’s HSR tab.)
> 
> Then a private rail company, All Aboard Florida, stepped in with plans to build a ultra-sleek passenger rail line along Florida’s east coast, and moved quickly on building. Running between 79-125 mph, the train won’t exactly be “true” high-speed—but that’s still nearly as fast as the Northeast Corridor’s Acela service, the speediest in the country. AAF is betting that the Brightline, scheduled to start service between Miami and West Palm Beach in 2017 (!), will open up big real estate development opportunities. It’ll be this country’s first privately run and operated passenger rail system in a century (it was also mostly privately funded, though the feds and the state wound up kicking in funds—for which Scott was, of course, criticized). An extension to Orlando might happen depending on how popular the service is. Rail supporters around the country will be watching.
> 
> California’s slow ride toward true high-speed rail
> 
> 
> People get ready: Supports for a 1,600-foot-viaduct to carry high-speed rail trains across the Fresno River, are under construction near Madera, California. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
> With limited support from Uncle Sam, California’s $68 billion, 200 mph L.A.-to-S.F. rail connection—set to be the first and only true high-speed project in the country—has been inching along behind schedule since voters agreed to finance it 2008. Land disputes, engineering challenges, and relentless opposition from a few loud-spoken politicians have bogged down its progress and forced some significant planning changes. But construction is seriously underway, with viaducts, bridges, and a whole mess of berms and protective walls coming to life in the Central Valley. That’s infrastructure that would be hard to simply up and abandon at this point, despite some speculation along those lines.
> 
> That said, “If the feds said California was a priority, they could just write a check,” says Andy Kunz, the president and CEO of U.S. High Speed Rail Association. “We spend that much on defense in a month.” (Well, almost.) Trump might be unlikely to smile quite that much on deep-blue California, though, given that state leaders are vocally gearing up to oppose many of his key policy points. But California is a wealthy state, with a bench of HSR support among gubernatorial contenders (rail-champion Governor Jerry Brown is out in 2018). The first segment might not be complete until at least 2025, but it’s still looking likely than California traingoers will one day break the double ton.
> 
> The Northeast Corridor, stuck in a tunnel
> 
> 
> The Hudson River tunnel is far from the only chokepoint along the Northeast corridor. (Mel Evans/AP Photo)
> The rail service between Boston and Washington, D.C. is Amtrak’s most profitable, but it’s badly bottlenecked, thanks to the zillions of rail agencies offering service on the 457-mile Northeast Corridor. Service improvements along the NEC might also be the most viable and necessary in the country. Upgrades to the Acela line, which tops out at 150 mph, are happening little by little. In August, Amtrak announced nearly $2.5 billion worth of cutting-edge equipment capable of traveling 186 mph, and tracks and stations are seeing (utterly essential) piecemeal improvements.
> 
> But the new trains can’t get near their top speeds until they’re traveling on a fully upgraded set of rails. Amtrak has a $151 billion proposal to build separate high-speed tracks by 2030, but without dedicated federal commitment to the plan, the only kind of progress the NEC is likely to see is incremental. “Unless something radical happens, and people change their minds, the only place we’re going to see true high-speed rail is in California,” says Yonah Freemark, a transportation scholar and consultant.
> 
> The so-called “Gateway” project looks similarly iffy. That $24 billion plan proposes to make high-speed upgrades inside the Hudson River rail tunnels between New York City and New Jersey, which were badly damaged during Hurricane Sandy. But the project has descended into political and inter-agency bickering about who pays what. Without dedicated state leadership and dedicated federal funds, the Gateway is likely to remain hanging open—slowing down hundreds of thousands of daily riders and the nation’s largest urban economy.
> 
> The Midwest feels a need for speed
> 
> 
> Chicago’s historic Union Station is undergoing a major renovation, as a higher-speed connection to St. Louis takes shape. (Flickr/Andrew Seaman)
> Perhaps more than any other state, Illinois has demonstrated strong, bipartisan support for rail improvements in recent decades. And soon, it’ll have a major connection to show for it: $2 billion worth of improvements on tracks between Chicago and St. Louis are set to wrap up in summer 2017. New crossings, bridges, stations, and rail upgrades should push corridor speeds to 110 mph—again, not true high-speed, but a lot better than the current 79 mph service. (There’s a theme here; outside of California, the U.S. might never see 200-mph-and-up trains like those in Europe and Asia. You need new tracks to do that, and there’s just not enough federal money, or will, to build them.)
> 
> There’s good reason to expect that the state could keep funding rail improvements on spokes to other cities—namely, Detroit. Michigan is also supplementing a big hunk of federal change with tens of millions in state funds to improve rail connections within the state and to Chicago. Ohio and Wisconsin governors John Kasich and Scott Walker may have turned down federal high-speed rail funds for their states, but Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri seem to be starting the Midwest’s engine on a legitimate 21st-century rail network.
> 
> Texas gets ready
> 
> 
> What’s the hold-up in Texas? (Adrees Latif/Reuters)
> Texas Central Partners, a group of private investors backed by the Japanese government, wants to start construction on a $10 billion true high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston as soon as 2017. Domain restrictions and disputes have meant this project hasn’t proceeded quite as smoothly as Florida’s private line (All Aboard Florida already owned most of the right-of-way), but given the serious potential for real-estate development in those Texas metros, this project seems likely to get built.
> 
> Other sparks of high-speed rail activity are crackling nationwide. The privately backed “XpressWest” proposal from Las Vegas to Southern California refuses to die. Virginia is making headway on plans for a higher-speed spoke between Washington, D.C. to Richmond, as is North Carolina for Raleigh’s connection to that corridor.
> 
> Then there are a pair of space-age wild cards: a Japanese maglev proposal between D.C. and Baltimore, and Elon Musk’s famous Hyperloop, which could revolutionize L.A. to San Francisco commutes in California, assuming people are willing to strap themselves into a windowless capsule that goes 760 mph inside a steel tube. Both would require enormous investments in new infrastructure, and the whole Hyperloop thing is still deeply unproven as a way of moving human beings around.
> 
> But in the meantime, a bonafide network of higher-speed passenger lines is slowly emerging in the U.S. anyway. And, strangest of all, it’s possible that the incoming GOP president might even help push it along, rather than try to derail it.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Ok, I had no troubles believing the Apollo missions but this is just too much. Actual HSR construction which looks like actual HSR construction? Those pictures have to be fake!

jk, congratulations, it's happening. Maybe we'll really see some HSR ... in 20 or 30 years.


----------



## Anday

*CA bullet train authority green lights $3B bond financing deal
*



> *Dive Brief:
> *





> The California High Speed Rail Authority has approved a $3.2 billion bond sale to help fund construction of one stretch of its bullet train route and the electrification of another, according to the Mercury News.
> 
> The state spend, which will come from $10 billion in voter-approved financing, is necessary so that the rail project can continue to be eligible for matching federal funds.
> 
> Opponents have filed a lawsuit alleging that the conditions of the original high-speed rail bonds did not authorize money to be spent on electrification and that a state bill passed last year "materially changing" the bond is unconstitutional.


http://www.constructiondive.com/new...y-green-lights-3b-bond-financing-deal/432432/


----------



## prageethSL

FRA recommends $120bn investment in Northeast Corridor :cheers2:









> A 30-year programme of route modernisation, including four-tracking and some new alignment, has been recommended by the Federal Railroad Administration under its proposal to develop the Northeast Corridor linking Boston, New York and Washington DC.
> 
> 
> A four-year consultation and market testing exercise known as NEC Future was launched in 2012 to evaluate options for investment in the 735 km corridor, and in April 2013 FRA issued an initial list of 15 potential investment options. Now these have been whittled down to a single recommendation, intended to improve reliability on the route and address a ‘consensus’ among policymakers, business leaders and the rail industry that its ‘current capacity is vastly inadequate to meet the demands of today or tomorrow’.
> 
> In the short term, FRA suggests that expenditure should focus on renewal of the existing railway to bring it to ‘a state of good repair’. Subsequent enhancements would cover:
> 
> 
> adding infrastructure to provide four tracks along most of the corridor, enabling the separation of premium inter-city and regional or local trains;
> realignment of the railway around Philadelphia to serve a new station at Philadelphia Airport and avoid tight curves north of the city;
> route upgrading to enable regular-interval inter-city services to Hartford (Connecticut) and Springfield (Massachusetts);
> release of train paths to permit up to a doubling of regional passenger trains and a five-fold increase in inter-city services.
> Other enhancements already being developed include the New York Gateway programme, which would alleviate the current bottleneck between Newark, New Jersey, and New York Penn Station, and provide a degree of redundancy for the ageing Hudson tubes. This is being co-ordinated by a four-way consortium including the federal government, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and national passenger operator Amtrak.
> 
> Upon completion, significant journey time savings are envisaged, with Boston – New York journeys accelerated by 45 min to 2 h 45 min and New York – Washington DC journeys falling by 35 min to 2 h 10 min.
> 
> However, FRA stresses that ‘it would be up to states, cities and railroads to decide whether to move forward with any specific projects’. The total cost of the programme is expected to be approximately $120bn, of which around $40bn is needed to renew the existing infrastructure.
> 
> ‘In order to keep moving forward, we need a new vision for the Northeast Corridor’, said FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg. ‘We need a corridor that provides more options and more trains for commuters. One that allows for seamless travel between the nation’s capital and New York, and New York and Providence and Boston. A corridor that provides streamlined connections between a city’s airports and its cities. And a corridor that can efficiently and reliably serve a population that is growing quickly.’
> Related news


----------



## 00Zy99

In 1970, the Metroliner was scheduled for 2:30 from NY to Washington. Of course, that round trip only made one stop, northbound, at Baltimore and the southbound trip was nonstop. A more accurate comparison might be the train stopping at Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Newark with a 2:40 run time.

What bugs me are some of the alignment options. The proposed Philadelphia route would be a MASSIVE Big Dig-class tunnel under the whole city. However, the sharpest curves (the one where the derailment happened) could be obviated with a simple cutoff, the land for which was purchased back in the 1920s (and I think Amtrak still has it). Build the Frankford Cutoff and a few other small projects and you've probably saved a fair chunk of time off the trip, equivalent to that whole new tunnel.


----------



## G5man

00Zy99 said:


> In 1970, the Metroliner was scheduled for 2:30 from NY to Washington. Of course, that round trip only made one stop, northbound, at Baltimore and the southbound trip was nonstop. A more accurate comparison might be the train stopping at Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Newark with a 2:40 run time.
> 
> What bugs me are some of the alignment options. The proposed Philadelphia route would be a MASSIVE Big Dig-class tunnel under the whole city. However, the sharpest curves (the one where the derailment happened) could be obviated with a simple cutoff, the land for which was purchased back in the 1920s (and I think Amtrak still has it). Build the Frankford Cutoff and a few other small projects and you've probably saved a fair chunk of time off the trip, equivalent to that whole new tunnel.


It is the main issue I have with this $150 billion bloating boondoggle. If you were to cut the expensive tunnels and correct curves let alone banish freight in Baltimore let alone the ridiculous station sizes that are being asked for, it would likely be much cheaper and provide the same results. Correct the Zoo Interchange and it fixes a huge bottleneck in Philly for many trains. Fixing the curves and getting the catenary up to modern standards (in progress in NJ) will do quite a bit.


----------



## zaphod

Pretty much. I feel like that entire plan is a big joke and will poison the long term support and potential for successfully modernizing the northeast corridor.

The actual needs for modernizing the NEC are well-known. The choke points are the hudson river tunnels, tunnels around Baltimore, some severe curves in various places, and a couple of old drawbridges.


----------



## 00Zy99

To be fair, I would include a fairly significant bypass in Connecticut as part of those "severe curves". 

But with ZOO, there's really not much that can be done without hugely expensive and disruptive projects that won't deliver much bang for the buck. ZOO is right near 30th Street, so trains are slowing down anyways for the approach.


----------



## G5man

00Zy99 said:


> To be fair, I would include a fairly significant bypass in Connecticut as part of those "severe curves".
> 
> But with ZOO, there's really not much that can be done without hugely expensive and disruptive projects that won't deliver much bang for the buck. ZOO is right near 30th Street, so trains are slowing down anyways for the approach.


I don't disagree with the Connecticut portion but I am curious if you have read the blog Pedestrian Observations that has mentioned these tunnels are absolutely nuts. https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/northeast-corridor-hsr-90-cheaper/ This was even pointed out 4 years ago how you could do this monstrosity 90% cheaper with similar benefits.


----------



## 00Zy99

I agree with most, but not all, of the things posted there.

Western Connecticut needs more curve straightening, and more capacity than he recommends. His plan, as far as I can tell, would cut into the commuter rail capacity when the need is to have a major increase in commuter capacity.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I hopw you are right, but with the current adminstration everything is possible on infrastructure. Trump might not have a clue about rail nor an opinion but his arch-conservative advisors are rather no fans of passanger rail, are they?


----------



## 00Zy99

It doesn't put money in THEIR pockets.


----------



## zaphod

The only glimmer of hope I have is that maybe Trump, being a NYC developer, won't be completely unfriendly to investments in Northeastern Amtrak projects. There is an enormous potential for private sector development to piggyback on public investments in rail and rail stations across the East Coast.

Surely some of his rich buddies are involved in building the Hudson Yards skyscraper district near Penn Station, of which the successful start and finish of the gateway project and river tunnel replacement project is crucia.

But overall I am not optimistic. The GOP's scandal of the week recently was Amtrak food service, which loses money but is a loss leader in terms of making train travel attractive and therefore selling tickets. Republicans have always wanted to run Amtrak into the ground, and the ones that don't have only supported it on the basis their home districts get a route which only perpetuates a focus on low ridership money-losing long distance trains instead of modern corridor service.


----------



## CNB30

Tower Dude said:


> Ya we're hoping that that the great Yam supports the whole fast trains thing because "Chinese trains are so fast" and national pride and such


Trump will probably try to take all the credit for high speed rail at this rate, even the projects that were well on there way before he took office.


----------



## Buffaboy

When you have someone at the wheel of a car that doesn't know how to drive it, but pretend like he knows exactly what to do and can do it better, then the can fail. We better hope the sane people aren't too far away from the Oval Office.

The GOP will only expand Amtrak if they can use it as a political broach later on, or if they get private companies signing multibillion dollar contracts to run the service.


----------



## Zack Fair

CNB30 said:


> Trump will probably try to take all the credit for high speed rail at this rate, even the projects that were well on there way before he took office.


What projects? Besides the CHSR, there really isn't anything concrete going on right now.


----------



## hammersklavier

Zack Fair said:


> What projects? Besides the CHSR, there really isn't anything concrete going on right now.


There's also the Brightline project down in Florida, where the FEC is, as I have observed before, essentially the freight railroads' guinea pig for whether modern passenger service is feasible.


----------



## Zack Fair

hammersklavier said:


> There's also the Brightline project down in Florida, where the FEC is, as I have observed before, essentially the freight railroads' guinea pig for whether modern passenger service is feasible.


The Brightline is not High Speed Rail, though.


----------



## 00Zy99

Zack Fair said:


> The Brightline is not High Speed Rail, though.


Brightline sits at the border.

And there's also the Texas Central project.

And of course, the NEC.


----------



## prageethSL

Trump Agrees With Democrats on High-Speed Trains



> *“Our airports, bridges, water tunnels, power grids, rail systems—our nation’s entire infrastructure is crumbling, and we aren’t doing anything about it,”* he wrote in his 2015 book, _Crippled America_. He went on to promise that fixing it would spur economic growth.
> while on the Presidential campaign trail he has committed to infrastructure spending as a path to more U.S. jobs and private sector growth. He has proposed spending $1 trillion on roads, airports, pipelines, and the electrical grid, compared to the $305 billion over 5 years approved by Congress in late 2015.That level of spending would put him far beyond the pale of traditional GOP politics. Even more remarkably, *Trump has said his infrastructure priorities would include mass transit and high-speed trains*. Those are typically a bugaboo for the American right—Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott, for instance, turned down free federal money for a large rail project in 2011.


----------



## 00Zy99

That's what he _said_. But take a look at who his advisers are.


----------



## Tower Dude

Elaine Chao is a fairly competent administrator so we could be worse for DOT


----------



## prageethSL

^^
Agree , But Her relationship with McConnell could be helpful to get an infrastructure spending bill passed through Congress.


----------



## Sunfuns

Any updates about the construction of HSR in California? Has the construction now started south of Fresno?


----------



## prageethSL

Sunfuns said:


> Any updates about the construction of HSR in California?


Fresno river viaduct

DSC_0052 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

Tuolumne Street Bridge

DSC_0144 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

Cedar Viaduct

DSC_0145 by California High-Speed 
Rail, on Flickr

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER VIADUCT

DSC_0099 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

Cottonwood Creek bridge

DSC_0048 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr



Sunfuns said:


> Has the construction now started south of Fresno?


Yes


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Why does the US lag so far behind in high speed rail?*

_China and others are charging ahead with high speed rail. But political will is not the only reason the US doesn’t have a comparable investment[...]_


----------



## Zack Fair

^^
The answer to that question might be... unions, higher labor costs, higher property values, environmental impact assessments, the EPA, NYMBYs, airlines lobbies, freight companies owning most of America's tracks, political will...

ETA: comparing the US to China is unrealistic.


----------



## 00Zy99

Big air, big road, big oil, and the far-right are basically it. Labor, NIMBY and environment are relatively minor and easily overcome. Only if the lobbyists get out of the way.


----------



## Negjana

Political will is the problem.

Unless you americans stop being scared of "communism" when you talk about trains, nothing will change.


----------



## 00Zy99

Its not a fear of communism, its the bribery from competing industries stopping the political will.


----------



## Negjana

Suggest any rural republican the construction of federally funded trains and they will cry "communism!".


----------



## aquaticko

^^Or "tax and spend", or "boondoggle" (blech). 

The thing to remind those rural Republicans (or any Republicans) is that all of the money that is being spent belongs in the places where it's being spent; more- populated areas of the country generate more tax revenue than the less-populated areas, such that the urban zones that tend to lean Democrat are (to an extent) funding the rural zones that run Republican. 

Teaching "salt of the Earth, hard-working" country people that their work is deemed less valuable than that of us snooty urbanites might seem unkind, but if the world's going to work closest--the best for the most--to the way it ought to, it's a lesson that must be taught.


----------



## Nexis

Well even private attempts have been met with backlash on a local and state level...this country would just rather sink further into the Abyss then enter the 21st century.


----------



## 00Zy99

A fairly decent majority of the people in this country want HSR. The issue is that certain groups are able to fund a minority voice and amplify it beyond all due recognition.


----------



## prageethSL

Port Authority moves ahead with capital plan, delivering $2.7B Gateway commitment.
:banana:













> After months of bitter political squabbling, the board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey unanimously agreed Thursday to introduce a $32.2 billion capital plan that includes the first major outlay of funding for the Gateway rail tunnel.
> The 10-year proposal includes $2.7 billion to support construction of the tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan, as well as related work on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. The total includes $302 million that was already approved to pay off debt associated with replacement of the Portal Bridge, a major bottleneck just outside the city.New York and New Jersey have agreed to cover half of the cost of Gateway, which is estimated to be a $20-billion-plus undertaking, with the federal government covering the remainder.
> 
> “Today’s commitment to the Gateway project is by far and away the largest single commitment of financing to the Gateway tunnel and the only one that is committed, real and that the project can rely on,” Pat Foye, executive director of the Port Authority, said after the agency’s meeting in New York. “I think it’s a huge step forward.”


----------



## aquaticko

00Zy99 said:


> *A fairly decent majority of the people in this country want* HSR. *The issue is that certain groups are able to fund a minority voice and amplify it beyond all due recognition*.


Hmmm....Sounds familiar.


----------



## 00Zy99

prageethSL said:


> Port Authority moves ahead with capital plan, delivering $2.7B Gateway commitment.
> :banana:


*Well, Amen, Hallelujah, and Peanut Butter! The Great Pumpkin DOES EXIST!!!!!*

Finally, some good news in this hellish world. Lets get this damn sucker moving! I want to get a job working on Gateway, if at all possible.


----------



## Sunfuns

This looks good for sure! What would the impact of completion be on speed and reliability of long distance trains going South of NYC?


----------



## 00Zy99

It might save only 15 minutes. But the real impacts will be on reliability and capacity. Right now, the infrastructure is seriously deteriorated and the whole area is essentially one large choke-point. This project will eliminate the capacity issues and remove the delays from malfunctioning equipment.

Perhaps the best example is Portal Bridge. The current Portal Bridge was built in 1907 and is a swing-span. It must be opened to allow critical barge traffic at least once a day. However, it requires a large crew to lock and unlock the pivots, and the bridge has a tendency to jam part-way, causing massive delays. Furthermore, due to the age of the structure, speeds are restricted to 60 mph across the bridge compared to 90 mph on either side. 

Portal North will be a high-level bridge that will replace the existing structure. Since it will be a new bridge, it won't have any speed restrictions, and since it will be high-level, it won't open, and therefore be more reliable. This alone will mean more capacity since the schedules won't have to accommodate openings and trains will be faster. Portal South will provide an additional two tracks to create a four-track line and increase capacity.


----------



## 00Zy99

The Hudson River Tunnels are from 1910 and desperately needed a major overhaul even before Hurricane Sandy inundated them with brackish water several years ago. Engineers are holding their breath to keep the tunnels open until the new ones are ready. They absolutely MUST be shut down for a major overhaul YESTERDAY. The construction of new tunnels will allow this to happen, and once the overhauls are done, will provide much more (badly needed) capacity into Manhattan.


----------



## Negjana

How long will that project take?


----------



## 00Zy99

All of Gateway?

2040~ish.

Some parts, like the Penn Station Newark improvements, could be done by the end of the year, or next year at worst. Portal North is fully blueprinted, if I recall properly, and can be started whenever the funds appear-which would lead to a 3-4 year construction period. Portal South needs some detail work, and would then be similar. 

Harrison is a small project on existing RoW-it consists of leveling an embankment and shifting the westbound PATH track onto it followed by rebuilding the existing PATH alignment as the fourth NEC track. If the shovels started tomorrow, it might well be ready by Christmas. 

Sawtooth Bridge is not big in size, but its in a very tight place, with lots of active tracks all around. Its a very complex endeavor, so I would say 2-3 years for planning and 3-4 for building. On the other hand, absolutely no land not owned by participating railroads anywhere near it, so no property takings or anything.

The High Line is simpler but bigger, so I would give a similar time-frame for that. It involves building up embankments to add more tracks and replacing two bridges on a busy rail line. Not really any land takes, but it does cross some wetlands.

The Penn Station expansion, on the other hand, is something that will take DECADES. 

The box under Hudson Yards will enable the new Hudson River tunnels to enter the station-that's much of the Manhattan approaches right there. After about 2-3 years to organize and start construction, you have another 3-5 to actually dig the tunnels.

The new platforms, though, would involve BUYING AN ENTIRE BLOCK OF MIDTOWN MANHATTAN. Let's repeat that: BUYING AN ENTIRE BLOCK OF MIDTOWN MANHATTAN. To make matters worse, there are several large office buildings and a very historic church on the site. Once ALL OF THAT (money and objections) is dealt with, you have a massive demolition job, followed by an immense excavation program in a very tight and sensitive site. Followed in turn by a major construction program. Notice that they are only now finishing the train stations destroyed by 9/11? Yeah. That's what you are looking at in terms of construction, not counting the property hearings. So about 2030? Maybe?

Seacaucus Junction is at the bottom of the priorities list. The loop can only be put in place after the PSNY expansion is operational. And the addition of more platforms won't be very useful without the new PSNY, either. Everything else is about repairs and opening up bottlenecks. This is the only part (aside from the new PSNY platforms) that is about actually adding whole new capacity and not smoothing out wrinkles to achieve what capacity there SHOULD be. And even the Penn South plan can be argued as simply fixing bottlenecks, too.


----------



## 00Zy99

Another quick note to above: traveling from Penn Station Manhattan to Penn Station Newark took about 12 minutes by Metroliner in 1971 on the eve of Amtrak. With subsequent rehabs, drop maybe two minutes off of it for today's time. The distance is only 10 miles. Any improvements would drop times by a small margin.


----------



## CNB30

00Zy99 said:


> All of Gateway?
> 
> 2040~ish.
> 
> The new platforms, though, would involve BUYING AN ENTIRE BLOCK OF MIDTOWN MANHATTAN. Let's repeat that: BUYING AN ENTIRE BLOCK OF MIDTOWN MANHATTAN. To make matters worse, there are several large office buildings and a very historic church on the site. Once ALL OF THAT (money and objections) is dealt with, you have a massive demolition job, followed by an immense excavation program in a very tight and sensitive site. Followed in turn by a major construction program. Notice that they are only now finishing the train stations destroyed by 9/11? Yeah. That's what you are looking at in terms of construction, not counting the property hearings. So about 2030? Maybe?


What Block? If it's the block I'm thinking about, then I hope they don't follow through with it, as it involves razing some gorgeous historic Art Deco and Beaux arts skyscrapers, as well as a couple of brand NEW luxury condo apartment towers. Is there ANY Adjacent block that they could other wisedo this on?


----------



## 00Zy99

The block due south of Penn Station, between 7th and 8th Avenues and between 30th and 31st streets. Like I said, it's a real issue. We're talking about a valued and beloved part of the city-scape. But that's the only real option. 

The North Side of Penn Station is occupied by the LIRR, so adding platforms on that side would necessitate shifting all of the operations to the north. This would mean impossible curves for trains as they shift alignments, and would basically mean digging a new East River Tunnel to accommodate the LIRR since it wouldn't reach the current tunnels. It would be a giant mess with Amtrak and LIRR trains conflicting unless massive new track segments were blasted out from under adjacent blocks to allow the LIRR to get to and from the West Side Yard.

To the West is no good because the tracks are splitting and diverging, climbing up from the Hudson River Tunnels and rising into the West Side Yard for the LIRR.

To the East is impractical since the tracks are merging and diving into the East River Tubes and the Herald Square subway station complex is present.

Running the tracks above would mean an impossible gradient and would get in the way of the passenger concourses.

Running the tracks below would disrupt operations as they try to punch access-ways through the platforms from beneath (not to mention accessing below anyways).

Penn Station's current location and arrangement is largely the result of very careful balancing of factors way back in 1900 when the original design work was carried out. The station's basic layout has changed very little since then. The site and configuration were a delicate balancing act then and remain so today. The PRR left room in the original designs for expansion in multiple directions, including new tunnels and platforms. For adding capacity from New Jersey, a southern expansion of the station is the only feasible option.

I should also note that the concourses and the platforms are haphazardly configured to reflect the current users. Since the new tunnel and platforms will be geared towards NJ Transit, it is less hassle to add them to the Southern side where NJ Transit currently lives.


----------



## 00Zy99

These images from the blog LIRR Today show how things currently stand:

http://i.imgur.com/yl0EWFA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/k58Dd3a.png


----------



## 00Zy99

To give an example of the complexity of Penn Station New York, a train from Albany can not use track 14 or track 1 (as an example). The switches for the Empire Connection, which is the tunnel from Albany, do not reach as high as track 14, making it impossible to reach any track above 9. 

Track 1 is also out for different reasons: trains from Albany are powered by diesels equipped with 3rd rail shoes for electric running in tunnels. However, track 1 has no 3rd rail. Furthermore, track 1 terminates at a concrete wall immediately beyond the platform. Without a massive choreographed dance that would be hugely disruptive, only a train with a cab car/push-pull or an EMU can operate on track 1.

This is but a sample of the daily headaches facing Penn Station.


----------



## aquaticko

^^All that makes the kind of expansion Penn Station needs sound essentially impossible. I cannot fathom an entire block being leveled for what basically amounts to transit expansion--in any major world city within densely built-up areas, much less in some of New York's most valuable area. 

At the same time, the kind of transportation hub which NYC serves as for the entire metropolitan (and megalopolitan) area necessitates some infrastructure which is truly massive in scale. Has anyone ever proposed an inter regional rail transit hub outside of Midtown to supplement the existing hubs? Anywhere on Manhattan would be a massive endeavor, but then, it'd be that much more worth it, too.


----------



## zaphod

But they will still replace the critically old tunnels, right?

Expanding Penn Station itself seems like a big unfeasible mess given the way large public projects are handled in NYC.

Maybe capacity could be increased by improving train turnaround time?


----------



## MarcVD

I think it is more a question of operating processes. With 22 tracks (19 through and 3 stub), Brussels manages 1200 trains per day. How many there ? 

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## 00Zy99

aquaticko said:


> ^^All that makes the kind of expansion Penn Station needs sound essentially impossible. I cannot fathom an entire block being leveled for what basically amounts to transit expansion--in any major world city within densely built-up areas, much less in some of New York's most valuable area.


I know it sounds absurdly difficult, but they are apparently at least reasonably serious about this. Serious enough to start looking at the needs and to get the local opposition muttering about the historic church.



> At the same time, the kind of transportation hub which NYC serves as for the entire metropolitan (and megalopolitan) area necessitates some infrastructure which is truly massive in scale. Has anyone ever proposed an inter regional rail transit hub outside of Midtown to supplement the existing hubs? Anywhere on Manhattan would be a massive endeavor, but then, it'd be that much more worth it, too.


Building a new intercity hub would mean digging two river tunnels with long approaches under cities, carving out a huge new terminal, and making connections to many subway lines. The best contender would actually be the WTC location (roughly). That's where PATH terminates, and makes a connection to Newark Penn Station. Anywhere else would be a little trickier in terms of subway connections.

Doing this would mean billions of dollars and would require dodging the enormous amount of underground infrastructure. It would probably be considerably more expensive overall. 

There was a proposal from a private advocacy for a new Hudson tunnel stretching from Hoboken Terminal to a terminal on the far west side of the island by the Hudson. However, this ignored the considerable difficulties associated with connecting the NEC to Hoboken Terminal, disrupting Hoboken Terminal, and then dealing with the fact that a far West Side terminal wouldn't have good subway connections or be in a particularly desirable location.

In terms of intra-regional projects, the East Side Access is currently under construction connecting the LIRR to Grand Central Terminal. This is a HUGE multi-billion dollar effort that involves using a lower level of a subway tunnel under the East River dug in the 1970s as a provision for just such a plan. This tunnel is now being connected to the LIRR at Sunnyside Yard (which means boring new tunnels through tricky railroad facilities) and to Grand Central Terminal, which means boring from 63rd and Lexington way down to Grand Central at 42nd and Madison, with tail tracks extending several blocks further south. It also means blasting out huge underground caverns to serve as a station facility deep below the existing GCT facilities and carving out access tunnels to the surface and the rest of the station. As of now, tunneling and blasting are complete, with fitting-out scheduled to last until 2023 (as of now with no further delays). However, this will only serve commuter trains coming from Long Island and terminating in Manhattan. It will _slightly_ relieve the burden on PSNY, but the LIRR wants to take the chance to simply add more of its own trains into the existing facility.



zaphod said:


> But they will still replace the critically old tunnels, right?


The new Hudson River Tubes and Portal Bridge are very much the Five-Alarm Fire and Galloping Gertie of American infrastructure. They MUST be replaced yesterday. Almost everybody agrees on it, but the states have been passing the buck on funding, and the GOP in Congress is in denial. That's the only reason construction isn't already underway.

And I should note that its not really "replacement" of the existing tunnels. Once the new tunnels are open, the old ones can be shut down one at a time for their VERY needed rehabilitation. Once that is done, however, they will be reopened for service to provide the needed capacity.



> Expanding Penn Station itself seems like a big unfeasible mess given the way large public projects are handled in NYC.


That's a serious bureaucratic issue. But sometimes, you just have to bite the bullet and build what needs building, as with this and the Third Water Tunnel.



> Maybe capacity could be increased by improving train turnaround time?


Believe me, as far as I can tell they are trying their best with what they have, given the confines of the situation.



MarcVD said:


> I think it is more a question of operating processes. With 22 tracks (19 through and 3 stub), Brussels manages 1200 trains per day. How many there ?


I believe that it is less, but you have to understand that Brussels has a relatively unconfined approach layout and better flexibility. Penn Station was designed for much more long-distance and much less commuter trains that it sees today, and for much lighter traffic overall. It has to deal with an amazingly complex and haphazard layout-quite possibly the most difficult in the world today. There are significant physical obstacles to doing something incredibly simple like having through-running trains from NJ Transit to LIRR. Leaving aside the different electrical systems, the two systems are on opposite sides of the station, to the degree that they almost might as well be in separate facilities. A train from New Jersey trying to go through to Long Island would either have to stop on the Amtrak NEC platforms and tie up that space, or it would have to cross every single approach track for west-bound trains. I strongly advise you to go examine LIRR Today and read its Penn Station articles. They are quite fascinating, and explain why the station is so complicated and operates the way it does. The operating processes are very much dictated by the incredibly tight confines and immense complexity of the physical layout. It simply can't put through more than it does without an immense reconstruction that would basically amount to total demolition, and require blasting out more space under neighboring blocks anyways.


----------



## CNB30

Just to follow up, I though we were talking about leveling the block between 6th, 7th, 31st and 32nd, which would've been insanity.


----------



## 00Zy99

????

No. It's the block diagonally across the intersection of 7th and 31st.

7th Avenue to 8th Avenue

30th Street to 31st Street

The block with St. John the Baptist Church.

Its still pretty damn tough, but its not COMPLETELY insane. Sadly, we are still talking about a lot of very big, very beautiful, very historic buildings having to come down. I very much don't want to have to do it, especially given the martyrdom of the original Penn Station, but it does appear to be a tragic necessity in the long run. I do wish that it was possible to have some of the more historic buildings stand (a few of them of modernist junk and easily clearable), but I don't think it can happen. 

Amazingly, a few of the buildings are only 2-3 stories tall! That's what they mean when you hear talk about that part of Manhattan being underdeveloped. I very much doubt any replacements will be nearly so short.


----------



## CNB30

There are a number of places in Manhattan where the buildings are only a few stories tall on average (Harlem, parts of the West Villiage, and some of the East Villiage. But yeah, Hudson Yards was for a long time where all the rail yards and dirty industry was meaning that everything but low density industrial development tended to avoid that area. I mean for goodness sakes, there are EMPTY LOTS let alone 2-3 story buildings around the area.


----------



## prageethSL

Is Elon Musk's hyperloop more likely to be built by a Trump administration?


----------



## Tower Dude

prageethSL said:


> Is Elon Musk's hyperloop more likely to be built by a Trump administration?


Oh God No. Can we stop wasting time on this literal pipe dream.

Also this is some good news about gateway funding



> PANYNJ releases $32 billion 10-year capital plan
> The draft Capital Plan includes a total of $2.7 billion toward the payment of debt service for the critical Trans-Hudson rail tunnel link between New York and New Jersey. That includes an already approved $302 million toward debt service on the Gateway Development Program's Portal Bridge North project.


----------



## 00Zy99

CNB30 said:


> There are a number of places in Manhattan where the buildings are only a few stories tall on average (Harlem, parts of the West Villiage, and some of the East Villiage. But yeah, Hudson Yards was for a long time where all the rail yards and dirty industry was meaning that everything but low density industrial development tended to avoid that area. I mean for goodness sakes, there are EMPTY LOTS let alone 2-3 story buildings around the area.


Its one thing for there to be 2-3 story buildings several blocks over. Its another to have them right across the street from Penn Station!!


----------



## CNB30

00Zy99 said:


> Its one thing for there to be 2-3 story buildings several blocks over. Its another to have them right across the street from Penn Station!!


If you know the layout of NYC, it's really not as surprising as you would think. Believe it or not, the Chrysler building Shared blocks with 3/4 story walk-ups, and the Empire State building STILL shares the same block as some 3/4 story walkups. In fact, midtown used to be FULL of civil War era rowhouses, and prior to the 50s and 60s, most of the world class art deco Skyscrapers in midtown actually shared blocks with 3 story row houses Even in Downtown, you have places like Peck Slip with a bunch of 4 story brick warehouses that are literally across the street from 60 story skyscrapers.

Plus, this photo of Old Penn Station right after completion might be of interest to you


----------



## prageethSL

First look: New Florida higher-speed train unveiled

*http://www.azcentral.com/story/trav...-florida-high-speed-train-unveiling/96450136/*











































































> WEST PALM BEACH — After years of failed attempts to bring higher-speed rail service to the Sunshine State, officials with Brightline relished a historic moment Wednesday, showing off the first train set delivered to their operations center in this South Florida city.
> The two locomotives and four passenger coaches, collectively dubbed "BrightBlue," arrived in West Palm Beach last month and were put on public display for the first time Wednesday. The set will soon be followed by four more - BrightOrange, BrightPink, BrightRed and BrightGreen - with the hopes of starting regular service by this summer.
> If all goes according to plan, it will be the first privately run and operated rail service launched in the United States in over 100 years. And for passengers, it will mark the culmination of years of efforts to create a higher-speed rail option between the tourist havens of Orlando and Miami.
> Brightline president Mike Reininger said he expects about 3 million passengers a year in the first phase of operations, which will run between stations in West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. By the time rail lines and stations are completed to Orlando, possibly by 2018, Reininger said they hope to lure up to 5.5 million passengers per year.


----------



## 00Zy99

Am I the only one who saw this and thought "Go, Go, Brightline Rangers!"?

When they all gather together they form the FlaglaZord!


----------



## 3tmk

Great news if it becomes a success.
But at a maximum of 80mph (actually 79 according to the article), is it common for a HSR through urban areas?


----------



## ChuckScraperMiami#1

WOW 3tmk, Great 60,000 Dollar Question Our SSC Friendly Family Friend and World Moderator and My SSC Friend to Everyone Here:banana:, 
^^at 80 MPH ( 79 MPH ), would probably be between Miami and West Palm Beach at it's fastest there in the over 6 Million Metro areas population of the 3 Tri Counties it's running through by early next year, 2018 For sure :cheers:!!, 
But from West Palm Beach to the Orlando International Airport and Orlando Intermodal Station for trains, Light Rails and Airport People movers to the Planes and Car Parking garages AREAS, IT'S max speed WOULD BE over 125 mph TO MAKE IT THERE TO Orlando international AirPort " O.I.A. " BY 3 hours EACH TRAIN FROM Downtown MiamiCentral Trains Station AS predicted 5 years AGO hno::nuts:??


3tmk said:


> Great news if it becomes a success.
> But at a maximum of 80mph (actually 79 according to the article), is it common for a HSR through urban areas?


----------



## 00Zy99

CSM's being pessimistic. All indications are that service will open to West Palm Beach by years' end.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

79mph due to grade crossings with conventional gates. If you add four quadrant gates with presence detectors, the speed goes up to 95mph. Any speeds above that need grade separation.


----------



## 00Zy99

I thought that 110 was permitted with quad-gates. At least I've seen them doing that in Michigan and New York. And that's the goal in Illinois.


----------



## Fan Railer

^That is correct.


----------



## Anday

*CA bullet train officials deny reports of potential $3.6B cost overrun*



> *Dive Brief:
> 
> 
> The California High Speed Rail Authority has disputed a report in the Los Angeles Times that alleged its $64 billion bullet train project was headed toward a $3.6 billion cost overrun, according to the Silicon Valley Business Journal.
> 
> The initial 118-mile segment through northern California (Merced to Shafter) could end up costing as much as $10 billion — more than 50% over its original budget of $6.4 billion — even though the CHSRA relocated the inaugural route there to save money, according to the Times report.
> 
> The Times said it based its story on a "confidential Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis," but both CHSRA and FRA authorities said the report in question was prepared for discussion purposes, was populated with hypothetical situations and did not accurately reflect the current state of the high-speed rail project.
> *


http://www.constructiondive.com/new...reports-of-potential-36b-cost-overrun/434083/


----------



## Slartibartfas

That "Bright Blue" looks nice, is it possible that US trains are slowly arriving in the presence? Still, it looks like it is still affected by that tank-train regulation, what a pity as it makes train service so much less efficient and is just a huge waste of energy without much gain (if any) in safety. 

The whole Brightline project sounds good to me as they really bring intercity rail stations right to the core of these downtown areas and the speed seems apropriate. It will bring West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Downtown Miami much closer together, also for tourists. 

PS: What is the status of Phase 2 now? Has it been pushed way back or is it still going to come anytime soon?


----------



## 00Zy99

Brightline complies with all current safety regulations, and does so while simultaneously working comparably to European stock-the coaches are copied from the Austrian Railjet.

Phase 2 is moving forward, with the Orlando station under construction, and the funding for the new track being locked down.


----------



## Zack Fair

First run in South Florida.


----------



## Anday

*Report: Texas Bullet Train, Dallas-Area Rail Line Among Trump's Transportation Priorities
*










http://keranews.org/post/report-tex...l-line-among-trumps-transportation-priorities


----------



## phoenixboi08

^^ I thought they didn't want/need grants/funding?


----------



## rantanamo

phoenixboi08 said:


> ^^ I thought they didn't want/need grants/funding?


They don't. Many think this is a political play.


----------



## Silly_Walks

phoenixboi08 said:


> ^^ I thought they didn't want/need grants/funding?


That makes it very easy for Trump to make it one of his transportation priorities.

"So I don't have to do anything, and it won't cost me anything? Good, let's make that my priority".


----------



## phoenixboi08

rantanamo said:


> They don't. Many think this is a political play.


Yes, it certainly is - particularly given the timing of the leak of the CAHSR/ FRA Risk Analysis draft. 

I was just poking a bit of fun at the apparent hypocrisy of TXCentral if they just accept the funds - since they've insisted they could do so on their own.

In any case, it isn't as if someone just added them to this list: they've had to have either submitted their project to State/Local leaders for consideration or at the very least were contacted about it and agreed.

Either way, they clearly think they could use some public money.


----------



## 00Zy99

What's the deal with the leak?


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> What's the deal with the leak?


If you mean in terms of what happened: someone leaked a report to the LATimes who spun it to insinuate that the Federal Government determined the project is going over budget (this is false). 

If you mean who did it and what will it mean: beats me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Innsertnamehere

the list has a couple of other oddities - like the Detroit - Windsor bridge, which is already entirely financed.

I think "Priority" does not mean exclusively funding. Priority for the Texas project may simply be clearing the way in terms of bureaucracy to ensure the project does not get bogged down.


----------



## Zack Fair

Innsertnamehere said:


> the list has a couple of other oddities - like the Detroit - Windsor bridge, which is already entirely financed.
> 
> I think "Priority" does not mean exclusively funding. Priority for the Texas project may simply be clearing the way in terms of bureaucracy to ensure the project does not get bogged down.


Yep, in the case of the TX Central, it ha probably more to do with environmental assessment than funding.


----------



## prageethSL

CHSR January Construction Updates

Fresno river Viaduct


DSC_0024 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

Tuolumene Street bridge


DSC_0072 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

Cedar Viaduct


DSC_0106 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


DSC_0094 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


DSC_0082 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

San joaquin river viaduct


DSC_0008 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

Fresno Trench


DSC_0053 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr

99 Realingment


DSC_0039 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


----------



## Anday

*Shinzo Abe intends to propose during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on Feb. 10 a bilateral economic cooperation plan, including the creation of a $450 billion (¥51 trillion) market through railways and other infrastructure investments in the US to generate 700,000 jobs.*

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003498622


----------



## 00Zy99

hmmmmm......

I smell an opportunist. In this case, its probably a good thing for the US, so long as a certain somebody doesn't mess things up.


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> hmmmmm......
> 
> I smell an opportunist. In this case, its probably a good thing for the US, so long as a certain somebody doesn't mess things up.


Potentially...of course, the devil is in the details.


----------



## 00Zy99

Hence the probably.


----------



## albert0123

prageethSL said:


> CHSR January Construction Updates
> 
> Fresno river Viaduct
> 
> 
> DSC_0024 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> Tuolumene Street bridge
> 
> 
> DSC_0072 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> Cedar Viaduct
> 
> 
> DSC_0106 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> 
> DSC_0094 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> 
> DSC_0082 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> San joaquin river viaduct
> 
> 
> DSC_0008 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> Fresno Trench
> 
> 
> DSC_0053 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr
> 
> 99 Realingment
> 
> 
> DSC_0039 by California High-Speed Rail, on Flickr


Nothing is done prefab with precast elements? Construction seems traditional and slow.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

albert0123 said:


> Nothing is done prefab with precast elements? Construction seems traditional and slow.


It's basically the same as freeway/highway construction, which is what the contractors know, and that's fine. What's more important and worth monitoring is designing a passenger demand-based service schedule that is effective, stations that serve their communities well, as well as signaling that works, reliable and robust trackwork and rolling stock, and the like.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

00Zy99 said:


> hmmmmm......
> 
> I smell an opportunist. In this case, its probably a good thing for the US, so long as a certain somebody doesn't mess things up.


When life gives you lemons, make lemonade...


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> Hence the probably.


...and I was concurring.


----------



## 00Zy99

k.k.jetcar said:


> When life gives you lemons, make lemonade...


Lemonade needs sugar. Hopefully there will be some.



phoenixboi08 said:


> ...and I was concurring.


...and I was expounding upon your concurrence.


----------



## phoenixboi08

00Zy99 said:


> ...and I was expounding upon your concurrence.


Technically, you were just reiterating your initial point.


----------



## 00Zy99

The 200 kph/125 mph project is trundling along slowly. There have been improvements along the Hudson River, and they are going to restore a second track between Albany and Schenectady.


----------



## prageethSL

Brightline targets inter-city opportunities across the country












> USA: Inter-city passenger promoter All Aboard Florida is expanding its horizon to focus on other potential markets across the country.
> The company announced on March 8 that Dave Howard, ‘a veteran executive from the sports and entertainment industry’, was joining the leadership team as Chief Executive Officer for the Brightline project, while Patrick Goddard had been promoted to Chief Operating Officer. Former CEO Michael Reininger is moving to parent company Florida East Coast Industries as Executive Director with a remit to ‘lead new development and growth opportunities’.
> With the first of five Siemens-built trainsets already test running from the operator’s new servicing facility at West Palm Beach and a second dispatched from its Sacramento birthplace at the end of February, Brightline is gearing up to launch passenger services between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach in mid-year. Meanwhile, the related property development projects are taking shape around the three stations.
> Speaking exclusively to _Railway Gazette_, Howard said Brightline was ‘a private passenger railroad express that solves a significant issue’, adding that ‘I see this extraordinary plan coming to reality.’ Emphasising that ‘this needs to be operated with a hospitality mindset’, Howard said he was able to bring a range of experience from the sports and entertainment sector.
> Explaining that it was ‘great to bring in an executive to run the day-to-day business’, Reininger confirmed that he was now focusing on the second phase of the Brightline project. ‘Station construction in Orlando is proceeding very well’, he reported, adding that the authorisation process for the new route from there to meet the FEC main line at Cocoa was in its final stages. ‘Once we get started on right-of-way construction, the Orlando line will be done in 2½ years.’
> FECI was already looking at extend the Brightline service north from Cocoa to Jacksonville and west from Orlando to Tampa. But Reininger said ‘we’re going to look beyond’, to find other potential inter-city corridors in which to replicate the rail-plus-property model. ‘Florida is not the only area where there are overcrowded roads and interstates’, he pointed out. ‘We are fulfilling our vision here in Florida, but we are not exclusively bound by the state borders. We have a belief that major cities that are 500 to 600 km apart set themselves up as prime candidates for express passenger rail, and can be made to work. We want  to apply that throughout the USA.’


----------



## phoenixboi08

*March 2017 Construction Update*


----------



## towerpower123

Amtrak Acela at Stamford Station


----------



## k.k.jetcar

*List of operators interested in CA HSR revealed*



> Five international teams of companies – all from nations with well-established passenger rail systems – have submitted their qualifications to handle the early ramp-up operation of California’s future high-speed rail program.
> 
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority received statements this week from British, Chinese, German, Italian and Spanish firms. The statements of qualifications is the first step toward selecting a consortium that will advise the authority as construction moves forward on the statewide bullet-train system and, later, become the first operator of the trains before a long-term franchise contract is awarded to run the system.


http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article142923849.html

*wrt this project, the Japanese Asahi newspaper reported Wednesday (April 5) that JR East will not be participating, given concerns of the profitability of the system as planned.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ 
China: HSR ETO Consortium

Germany: Deutsche Bahn and American subsidiary DB International USA Inc., Massachusetts-based Alternate Concepts Inc. and HDR Inc., based in Nebraska.

Italy/UK: FS First Rail Group, which includes Italian firms Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A., Trenitalia, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A., CentoStazioni S.p.A. and Italferr S.p.A. 

Spain: Renfe, Adif and Globalvía (Concessionary) 

UK: Stagecoah and its American subsidiary Coach USA Administration Inc.; a Scottish company operating jointly with Virgin in United Kingdom, what experience do you have at high speed? HS2 requires five years of high-speed experience.


----------



## VITORIA MAN

good luck spain !!!


----------



## jchernin

Personally, without knowing the details, I'm rooting for Germany.


----------



## prageethSL

*Trump is Interested in The Hyperloop*












> Earlier this week, Elon Musk dined at the White House with the president to discuss his infrastructure plan for the country, according to reports from _The Wall Street Journal_. President Trump in turn expressed his interest in the Hyperloop.
> While no concrete plans have been provided, the administration has stated their intentions to dedicate significant budget towards improving America’s roads and bridges. That certainly could include the latest technologies, like the Hyperloop. That being said, Trump’s curiosity for Musk’s ambitious transportation project doesn’t necessarily mean it come to fruition under his administration. According to The American Society of Civil Engineers_, _the U.S. would need $3.6 trillion to update the entire country’s infrastructure — and that’s not counting the Hyperloop.
> Of course, apart from Musk sitting down with the President, there aren’t any concrete details that would suggest Trump could allot trillions from the federal budget for the project. Still, Trump’s interest could hint that the administration is looking towards privatizing American transportation infrastructure.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Sure, it's the project that has more tweets.


----------



## Tower Dude

Also the that it ,like him, is made of smoke mirrors and bulls**t!


----------



## CNB30

I hope it never gets built. What we need is HSR. Hyperloop won't Eurpeanize our cities.


----------



## Tower Dude

Shhh we can't let people l know that's the end goal so in the meantime use density and low-mid rise instead


----------



## CNB30

Honestly I think the Smart growth movement would do better to look up at European architecture, and city planning. If they weren't making either boring colonial crap, or sterile LeCorbusian blocks, and instead insisted on making everything following strict 19th century European ideals, more people would be chill with Smart Growth.


----------



## Tower Dude

CNB30 said:


> Honestly I think the Smart growth movement would do better to look up at European architecture, and city planning. If they weren't making either boring colonial crap, or sterile LeCorbusian blocks, and instead insisted on making everything following strict 19th century European ideals, more people would be chill with Smart Growth.



Are we talking Parisian or Roman or Barcelonan zoning because in my opinion the best form of zoning to support High speed rail is the grid of the commissioner's plan.


----------



## CNB30

Tower Dude said:


> Are we talking Parisian or Roman or Barcelonan zoning because in my opinion the best form of zoning to support High speed rail is the grid of the commissioner's plan.


Likely something which follows European planning in general. Depends on a city by city basis as well. I think the Barcelona plan would have success as something like 2/3 of the US in situated on a grid.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Tower Dude said:


> Are we talking Parisian or Roman or Barcelonan zoning because in my opinion the best form of zoning to support High speed rail is the grid of the commissioner's plan.





CNB30 said:


> Likely something which follows European planning in general. Depends on a city by city basis as well. I think the Barcelona plan would have success as something like 2/3 of the US in situated on a grid.





CNB30 said:


> Honestly I think the Smart growth movement would do better to look up at European architecture, and city planning. If they weren't making either boring colonial crap, or sterile LeCorbusian blocks, and instead insisted on making everything following strict 19th century European ideals, more people would be chill with Smart Growth.


Why not look at the way the US cities and their suburbs developed prior to WW2. The patterns of the older neighborhoods, suburbs and communities can support mass transit as well as high speed rail very well.


----------



## CNB30

Smooth Indian said:


> Why not look at the way the US and their suburbs developed prior to WW2. The patterns of the older neighborhoods, suburbs and communities can support mass transit as well as high speed rail very well.


Still way to anti-Urban and Spread out. Honestly, anything less dense than London Suburbs is a mistake.


----------



## bluemeansgo

k.k.jetcar said:


> http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article142923849.html
> 
> 
> 
> *wrt this project, the Japanese Asahi newspaper reported Wednesday (April 5) that JR East will not be participating, given concerns of the profitability of the system as planned.




Although I'm disappointed we won't see Japanese trains in California... my guess is that there would be too many compromises needed to get these trains working on the planned route... and it would potentially damage the Japanese brand if it fails... which at this point is looking more likely. 

In other news... Japan's focus seems to be 100% on Texas. An interesting 30 minute show on that project: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/vod/japanrailway/20170407/


----------



## Gusiluz

*CHSRA*



bluemeansgo said:


> Although I'm disappointed we won't see Japanese trains in California...


You will not tell because Japan is missing from this list (listed in alphabetical order):

-China HSR ETO Consortium: China Railway International; Beijing Railway Administration; China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group; China Railway Corp. 
-DB International US: DB International USA; Deutsche Bahn; Alternate Concepts; HDR Inc. 
-FS First Rail Group: Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane; FirstGroup; Trenitalia; Rete Ferroviaria Italiana CentoStazioni; Italferr; McKinsey & Co. Trenitalia bought National Express Essex Thameside.
-RENFE: RENFE Operadora; Globalvia Inversiones; ADIF. 
-Stagecoach Group: Stagecoach Group plc; Coach USA Administration Inc.



> Five international teams of companies – all from nations with well-established passenger rail systems – have submitted their qualifications to handle the early ramp-up *operation* of California’s future high-speed rail program.


It has nothing to do with one another. This week is the management of the *railway operation*: commercial policy, maintenance of rolling stock, contingency plans, traffic safety, public safety and civil protection, subcontracting of auxiliary services ...


In February 2015 were tendered the first *15 trains* (out of a total of 95) began, each for € 52.23 million with 30 years of maintenance (very cheap, I think, we will see) with 9 manufacturers: Alstom (AGV), Bombardier (Zefiro 380), CRRC (China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation: CRH380A), Hitachi (AT400), Hyundai Rotem (HEMU 430X), Kawasaki (N700-i as Taiwan), Siemens (Velaro) CRRC (CNR Tangshan: CRH380B), and Talgo (Avril). They ask for 350 km/h (389 in tests), 30 years of minimum duration, 450 seats in a single floor, Cafeteria, 210 m, 88 dB at 25 m at 249 km/h and 96 db to 350.


----------



## phoenixboi08

CNB30 said:


> Jesus Christ why doesnt the HSR line go between SAN FRANCISCO and LOS ANGELES? Not between two obscure towns nobody gives a damn about.


Why is the sky blue?


----------



## Zack Fair

CNB30 said:


> Jesus Christ why doesnt the HSR line go between SAN FRANCISCO and LOS ANGELES? Not between two obscure towns nobody gives a damn about.


Probably because it's easier to build a HSR line in the Valley than digging tunnels through the Coast Ranges. And, with a metro pop. of 1 million, I wouldn't call Fresno an "obscure town".


----------



## CNB30

Whoops, I though you guys mean that they are NEVER going to extend the line to LA & SF which would kinda defeat the entire point of CAHSR, but I realize this isnt a complete map, and I didn't miss anything super awful.


----------



## jonasry

hammersklavier said:


> Turns out there's something in the way.


I'm assuming trains would run from LA Union Station on existing tracks? Also, improvements to the stretch between San Berandino and Victorville is needed. Right now Amtrak trains takes 1:20 to traverse 46 miles (74 km), an average speed of 35 mph!


----------



## 00Zy99

Between San Bernardino and Victorville is Cajon Pass. Which is very tight and very steep. The winding tracks force trains to go slowly. The route is very busy, and is currently at capacity. Adding more tracks oriented for fast passenger trains would involve an immensely expensive tunneling project. After that, you would still need to provide a connection to downtown LA, either modifying existing (very busy) track or adding new track (very expensive). The route down from Palmdale via Burbank is already going to be dealing with the same issues, so why spend a fortune twice when the time difference won't be very large?


----------



## skyridgeline

phoenixboi08 said:


> 2035 is the expected connection of XpressWest to CAHSR (e.g. the 11 million riders figure) - the latter of which is not scheduled to complete the Bakersfield-Palmdale-LA section until 2029; although, probably sooner.
> 
> The article clearly states the projected completion of the trunk line (e.g. the 3 million riders figure) to Las Vegas is 2021.
> 
> No one knows what the plans are for Palmdale, as no preferred alternative has been selected. Those dates will continue to shift.





FM 2258 said:


> Why won't they build the XpressWest line to Los Angeles? Looks like *they don't want* too many people to use this. Driving almost 2 hours to catch a high speed train makes no sense. Time to contract China to build our high speed rail system. They would get this line done in a jiffy. :cheers:


They the airlines.


----------



## skyridgeline

00Zy99 said:


> Between San Bernardino and Victorville is *Cajon Pass*. Which is very tight and very steep. The winding tracks force trains to go slowly. The route is very busy, and is currently at capacity. Adding more tracks oriented for fast passenger trains would involve an immensely expensive tunneling project. After that, you would still need to provide a connection to downtown LA, either modifying existing (very busy) track or adding new track (very expensive). The route down from Palmdale via Burbank is already going to be dealing with the same issues, so why spend a fortune twice when the time difference won't be very large?



Fixed ...











In California, the most important feature of any stations is to have a lot of parking spaces ( multilevel and automated ) .


----------



## 00Zy99

skyridgeline said:


> Fixed ...


There's no room for that.

This is Cajon Pass:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e,_California_(NYPL_b12647398-74448).tiff.jpg

Building bridges alone would be impossible. The land on the east side of the pass is much higher than the land on the west side. Like so:

****************** /\ ************ Victorville
***************** / * \_____________________________
San Bernardino **** /
------------------------

You would need to do a LOT of tunneling. And either bridges or tunnels will be VERY expensive.

And then, you have only gotten to San Bernardino. There are still another 25+ miles through suburban LA, all of it built up. You would need to either take land (hello, there, tremendously expensive eminent domain suits), build a viaduct (nuisance complaints + the cost of building a 25 mile-long bridge) or dig a tunnel (slightly less nuisance complaints, but can you say Big Dig?).



> In California, the most important feature of any stations is to have a lot of parking spaces ( multilevel and automated ) .


They are very much trying to get away from that and over towards Transit-Oriented Development with walkable town-like settings.


----------



## skyridgeline

00Zy99 said:


> There's no room for that.
> 
> This is Cajon Pass:
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e,_California_(NYPL_b12647398-74448).tiff.jpg
> 
> Building bridges alone would be impossible. The land on the east side of the pass is much higher than the land on the west side. Like so:
> 
> ****************** /\ ************ Victorville
> ***************** / * \_____________________________
> San Bernardino **** /
> ------------------------
> 
> You would need to do a LOT of tunneling. And either bridges or tunnels will be VERY expensive.
> 
> And then, you have only gotten to San Bernardino. There are still another 25+ miles through suburban LA, all of it built up. You would need to either take land (hello, there, tremendously expensive eminent domain suits), build a viaduct (nuisance complaints + the cost of building a 25 mile-long bridge) or dig a tunnel (slightly less nuisance complaints, but can you say Big Dig?).
> 
> 
> 
> They are very much trying to get away from that and over towards Transit-Oriented Development with walkable town-like settings.



They can have shuttle services at transit hubs but the parking spaces are a must.

Say 5km of tunnels is too much? Even w/o tunnels is too much? I don't think so.

Google Maps


----------



## 8166UY

True, but someone has to pay for it. And building tunnels in the USA has proven to be ridiculously expensive.


----------



## Negjana

skyridgeline: That tunnel would have an incline of 45%.........


----------



## skyridgeline

8166UY said:


> True, but someone has to pay for it. And building tunnels in the USA has proven to be ridiculously expensive.


It's expensive anywhere when you have captured markets and corrupt politics.



Negjana said:


> skyridgeline: That tunnel would have an incline of 45%.........


Actually, 4.5% for a 11km tunnel. Are tunnels needed? The I-15 is ~2.5% (20km) which is well within the limits for high speed trains.


----------



## 00Zy99

Alright. For the umpteenth time.

Its not just about getting over the pass. You still have another *80 MILES* through the LA sprawl to get to downtown. And the land is all built up.

The existing tracks are heavily used or slated for more commuter traffic, so there's no room for a new service there.

That means you need to build new tracks.

You can run on the surface, and deal with hundreds of eminent domain cases.

You can build an elevated line, with a few dozen eminent domain cases and a TON of nuisance cases.

You can dig a tunnel. That will get fewer eminent domain and nuisance cases, but you will still have some.


----------



## skyridgeline

00Zy99 said:


> Alright. For the umpteenth time.
> 
> Its not just about getting over the pass. You still have another *80 MILES* through the LA sprawl to get to downtown. And the land is all built up.
> 
> The existing tracks are heavily used or slated for more commuter traffic, so there's no room for a new service there.
> 
> That means you need to build new tracks.
> 
> You can run on the surface, and deal with hundreds of eminent domain cases.
> 
> You can build an elevated line, with a few dozen eminent domain cases and a TON of nuisance cases.
> 
> You can dig a tunnel. That will get fewer eminent domain and nuisance cases, but you will still have some.



What eminent domain is a concern if the tracks (need not be side by side) tag along the Santa Ana River and I/SR roadways? You can have bridges instead of tunnels if needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_River










Google Maps


----------



## jonasry

00Zy99 said:


> Alright. For the umpteenth time.
> 
> Its not just about getting over the pass. You still have another *80 MILES* through the LA sprawl to get to downtown. And the land is all built up.
> 
> The existing tracks are heavily used or slated for more commuter traffic, so there's no room for a new service there.
> 
> That means you need to build new tracks.
> 
> You can run on the surface, and deal with hundreds of eminent domain cases.
> 
> You can build an elevated line, with a few dozen eminent domain cases and a TON of nuisance cases.
> 
> You can dig a tunnel. That will get fewer eminent domain and nuisance cases, but you will still have some.


Look, there is a an eight-lane highway going through the pass. It's not impossible.

And if Los Angeles seriously considers shifting a large proportion of traffic to rail, new tracks will have to be added. A lengthy process, yes. But not at all impossible.

Point is that it all comes down to *political will*.


----------



## Negjana

skyridgeline said:


> Actually, 4.5% for a 11km tunnel. Are tunnels needed? The I-15 is ~2.5% (20km) which is well within the limits for high speed trains.


Well you got me there! Still impossible for a tunnel that length.


----------



## phoenixboi08

8166UY said:


> True, but someone has to pay for it. And building tunnels in the USA has proven to be ridiculously expensive.


Tunneling costs aren't really that out of line...in a typical project like, say, a metro line, it's the [deep cavern-style] _stations_ that tend to be way too expensive, not the tunnels.

The Second Avenue Subway always gets floated around as being the most expensive metro project in the world ($1.7 billion per km), but tunneling costs were probably only something like $60 million per km. 

If the SAS were built at a more reasonable depth, the project probably would've been cheaper.

If you look at LA's Purple Line extension, you'd find the _entirety_ of all three phases are budgeted at something around $400 million per km - still on the expensive side, but something less stratospheric (most likely, because the stations are not being built nearly as deep as many other similar projects [in NYC]).



jonasry said:


> Point is that it all comes down to *political will*.


It comes down to the opportunity costs of doing it...


----------



## SSMEX

phoenixboi08 said:


> $5 million per km


Where did you get this figure? The article says $19,000 per foot which is more than $100M per mile.


----------



## 00Zy99

skyridgeline said:


> What eminent domain is a concern if the tracks (need not be side by side) tag along the Santa Ana River and I/SR roadways? You can have bridges instead of tunnels if needed.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_River
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Maps


Well, there's the small fact that the Santa Ana River doesn't go nearly far enough west.

Then there's the fact that the area is built up everywhere except for the flood plains.



jonasry said:


> Look, there is a an eight-lane highway going through the pass. It's not impossible.


Impossible? No.

Highly technically challenging? Yes.

It simply isn't worth the value of opening a link to Las Vegas, which is a much smaller market.



> And if Los Angeles seriously considers shifting a large proportion of traffic to rail, new tracks will have to be added. A lengthy process, yes. But not at all impossible.
> 
> Point is that it all comes down to *political will*.


Actually, there's a major difference. High Speed Rail has different performance characteristics. The commuter rail can be expanded with maybe one additional track along the current route. Doing that with HSR would compromise the speed advantages of the mode. There is some room to expand freight and commuter rail, but not enough to cram in HSR.



Negjana said:


> Well you got me there! Still impossible for a tunnel that length.


The current record slope for a high speed rail line is 4.0%.


----------



## phoenixboi08

SSMEX said:


> Where did you get this figure? The article says $19,000 per foot which is more than $100M per mile.


Right  I stupidly reversed the conversion.

In any case, the overall point is that the actual tunneling isn't actually so expensive, it's all the other stuff - some of it necessary, a lot of it not inherently so.


----------



## nossiano

There are new aerial photos of California HSR CP1 from the official Flickr account:banana::banana::cheers::
Fresno Trench at SR180:








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/34472444405/sizes/l/








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/33662819453/sizes/l
Avenue 8 crossing ( in this photo we can see the cleared way for future tracks)








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/34342196001/sizes/l
Cottonwood Creek Bridge








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/33662769713/sizes/l
Fresno River Viaduct








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/34342146201/sizes/l
San Joaquin River Viaduct:








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/33630252434/sizes/l
Cedar Street viaduct:








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/34342121941/sizes/l
New Toloume Street Bridge( in the background we can see a part of the Fresno Trench)








https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/34431549006/sizes/l

CHSR Official Flickr Account:https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/


----------



## Negjana

00Zy99 said:


> The current record slope for a high speed rail line is 4.0%.


I said for a tunnel THAT LENGTH.


----------



## prageethSL

May Construction updates.


----------



## prageethSL

Gov. Brown asks President Trump for help on the California bullet train



> Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday appealed to President Trump for help on the California bullet train, which would connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.
> Brown’s letter asks the president to transfer federal oversight of environmental reviews on the $64-billion project to the state rail authority.
> 
> 
> It also seems to search for common ground between two leaders who have little other than an appreciation for high-speed rail and a disdain for what some would call “red tape.”
> Brown has made the construction of a bullet train a cornerstone of his vision for the state’s future transportation system, while Trump has touted the need for fast trains nationwide.
> 
> 
> So far, Brown hasn’t gained any demonstrable traction with the Trump Administration, but the letter appears to be his biggest bet yet that he can do business with the president — even while the Trump administration battles California over sanctuary cities and other hot-button issues.
> Brown’s request for “delegation of federal authority” under the National Environmental Protection Act is far from symbolic.
> The bullet train project’s environmental review process is behind schedule. Earlier this year, the state’s rail authority said it would not meet its long-stated goal to have all of its reviews done this year and that they would slip into 2018.
> “The authority has had ongoing discussions with the administration about streamlining the environmental process,” rail authority spokeswoman Lisa Marie Alley said in an email Friday.
> Brown made his request because he believes the state can handle the environmental workload faster than federal regulators, according to officials close to the project.
> The rail project is broken into a series of regional segments for environmental review, each requiring the designation of routes, station locations and many other matters.
> Teams of state consultants prepare the massive documents that the rail authority board submits to the Federal Railroad Administration for final approval.
> The two segments in the Central Valley that have completed reviews so far were amended to leave out the most complex parts, including how the bullet train would go through Bakersfield and how it would complete a complex rail junction north of Madera.
> Those reviews have been subject to a number of amendments, each of which must be forwarded to the Federal Railroad Administration for approval.
> Alley said those amendments are not extensive. But Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of a Bay Area group that has been a longtime critic of the project, said many parts of approved environmental documents have undergone revisions and must pass through federal regulators, which causes delays.
> Brown is seeking to shortcut that process so that the rail authority board makes the final decision on the reviews and the changes.
> In his letter, he tells Trump that getting waivers from federal environmental oversight has allowed California to “cut the regulatory burden on thousands of road projects.”
> And he noted that Trump’s own White House Council on Environmental Quality has outlined a process to expedite such reviews.
> Several years ago, Brown had discussed putting the rail project on a “fast track” approval process for environmental review, similar to the abbreviated procedures that are sometimes granted to such projects as sports stadiums.
> But environmental groups opposed watering down environmental protections even while supporting the bullet train.
> The state’s Republican delegation in the House has sought to initiate a major financial audit of the project and delay funding.


----------



## prageethSL

Trump administration approved $650M for Caltrain electrification.:banana:



> The Trump administration announced Monday that it will fully fund a $650 million federal grant for electrification of a San Francisco Bay Area train system that also would help California's high-speed rail project.
> The government previously delayed a decision when congressional Republicans objected. But the Federal Transit Administration said in a statement that the Caltrain project had "met all of the statutory requirements" for the funding.
> Members of California's GOP delegation had asked President Donald Trump's administration to block approval of the grant to electrify a major commuter line, Caltrain, between San Jose and San Francisco until an audit of the bullet train's finances is completed.
> They said providing additional funding to help the $64 billion high-speed rail project would be an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars.
> Future bullet trains would need electrified rails and high-speed rail's business plan calls for the two systems to share lines along the Peninsula Corridor in the Bay Area.
> Monday's announcement includes $100 million already allocated for Caltrain this fiscal year and an additional $547 million over the next five years.
> "This is exactly the type of infrastructure investment our country needs," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said in a statement.
> Caltrain officials say the $2 billion project will create as many as 10,000 jobs in half a dozen states, including 500 in Utah where a manufacturer is set to open a facility to build more rail cars.
> Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat who lobbied Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to release the funding, said it will expand service on a congested corridor, improve air quality and put thousands of people to work.
> "Secretary Chao did the right thing on Caltrain. This is not only good for California, it's good for America," Brown said in a statement.
> Congressional Republicans who pushed for the funding delay did not immediately issue statements on the funding.
> Trump has spoken favorably of high-speed rail and lamented that the United States is behind many other countries that have bullet trains.
> 
> 
> Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/latest-news/article151974577.html#storylink=cpy​


----------



## siamu maharaj

Trump seems to dislike how many countries he finds inferior have better infrastructure. He's alluded to that several times. I don't find it surprising he found the money to fund it.


----------



## luacstjh98

siamu maharaj said:


> Trump seems to dislike how many countries he finds inferior have better infrastructure. He's alluded to that several times. I don't find it surprising he found the money to fund it.


Here's hoping that becomes one of the few good things to come out of the Trump administration.

He *is* a New York property developer after all, I would expect him to be well aware of the benefits of infrastructure and mass transit...


----------



## aquaticko

^^I'm not sure I expect him to be aware of anything, but who can complain about the administration not reneging on promises for funding for good projects?


----------



## Kenni

*California Bullet Train Construction Update*


----------



## mrsmartman

M II A II R II K said:


> A 3-Part Plan to Rebuild New York's Old Penn Station
> 
> 
> May 4th, 2015
> 
> By ERIC JAFFE
> 
> *Read More:* http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/a-3-part-plan-to-rebuild-new-yorks-old-penn-station/392261/


Source: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=216940


----------



## mrsmartman

*Could New York's Pennsylvania Station actually get rebuilt the way it was?*



treehugger said:


> I usually dislike reproductions and reconstructions, and believe that one can mix new and old. But Penn Station is a different case; it is righting a wrong, giving us back something that should never have been taken away. I wonder what Ada Louise Huxtable would have thought. What do you think?












Read More: https://www.treehugger.com/green-ar...-station-actually-get-rebuilt-way-it-was.html


----------



## mrsmartman




----------



## Gusiluz

*Texas*

Interesting and extensive article on the future of this infrastructure:
Biting the bullet: Is Texas ready to embrace high-speed rail? Railway Technology May 22 2017.



> The Texas bullet train proposal is dividing opinion across the Lone Star State, but recent reports suggest that President Trump has earmarked it as one of the country’s key infrastructure projects. Could this be the boost the project needs, or simply hot air? Ross Davies looks at the arguments.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Gusiluz said:


> Interesting and extensive article on the future of this infrastructure:
> Biting the bullet: Is Texas ready to embrace high-speed rail? Railway Technology May 22 2017.




Wow. That workman guy is a total tool. The instant he says... Make America Great again... we have Amtrak... this is a bad deal... he loses all credibility. A private operator and builder will obviously use the the most profitable and lowest risk. Building a system and trains from scratch when you have no hsr industry is the definition of risk. 

China has used technology from Japan, Germany, and France to build its system In a quick and efficient manner. No need to reinvent the wheel here.

I'm confident the Texan system and the California are two systems that show two radically different approaches. The California system is a very custom highly subsidized but essential people transport system that needs subsidizing due to a heavily built of state and lots of building restrictions. The Texas system is a for profit route that I think will compete directly with business air travel between the two cities that can be built profitably due to big spaces. Both are essential. California to prove that you can overcome major political and geological challenges and Texas to prove that you can overcome financial and eminent domain challenges.


----------



## SSMEX

bluemeansgo said:


> I'm confident the Texan system and the California are two systems that show two radically different approaches. The California system is a very custom highly subsidized but essential people transport system that needs subsidizing due to a heavily built of state and lots of building restrictions. The Texas system is a for profit route that I think will compete directly with business air travel between the two cities that can be built profitably due to big spaces. Both are essential. California to prove that you can overcome major political and geological challenges and Texas to prove that you can overcome financial and eminent domain challenges.


As someone who's pretty familiar with CAHSR but only has a passing knowledge of the Texas Central system, I have a few questions I haven't been able to figure out:


As a private company, how is Texas Central able to exercise eminent domain to complete the corridor?
How is Texas Central able to get electrified HSR-compatible tracks to downtown Dallas and Houston? CAHSR is partnering with Caltrain and Metrolink in SF and LA to share tracks into LA Union and the Transbay Terminal. Is Texas Central going to build a new alignmemt through downtown into new stations, or are they going to "blend" with existing commuter rail tracks and use existing stations?
To what extent is JR involved in the project? It seems to me that Texas Central is in charge of administration whereas JR will supply the trainsets and wayside equipment and provide a bulk of the engineering services. Is that a fair statement? Is JR making financial commitments to the project beyond simply as a supplier?
The quoted $15B total buildout cost seems quite low compared to the CAHSR amount. Is this simply because the corridor is flat and rural?
Of all places, I wouldn't expect Texas to be one of the first to have a true privately-funded HSR system. Is there any other example of a fully private system being built like this (not a private operator utilizing public tracks/trains)?


----------



## prageethSL

California High-Speed Rail drills into Pacheco pass in preparation for tunnel boring.



> The geological secrets of Pacheco Pass are buried up to 1,500 feet below the brown and rounded hills of the Diablo Range east of Gilroy.
> The California High-Speed Rail Authority is several weeks into a project to dig those secrets out before boring a pair of 28-foot diameter tunnels scheduled to carry 200 mph trains between San Jose and the San Joaquin Valley within eight years.
> 
> 
> “We want it completed so we can start laying tracks and get into our revenue service as quick as we can,” said Randy Anderson, the authority’s engineering manager and its tunneling expert. The construction schedule for the tunnels calls for hiring a design-build contractor next year.
> High-speed trains don’t mix well with the steep grades and sharp turns of conventional mountain railroads, so what will become North America’s longest rail tunnels at completion will maintain a relatively level and straight path in their 13 miles underground. A shorter 1½-mile tunnel is also planned at the Gilroy end to lift the rail line into the valley near the Casa de Fruta.


----------



## bluemeansgo

SSMEX said:


> As someone who's pretty familiar with CAHSR but only has a passing knowledge of the Texas Central system, I have a few questions I haven't been able to figure out:
> 
> 
> As a private company, how is Texas Central able to exercise eminent domain to complete the corridor?
> How is Texas Central able to get electrified HSR-compatible tracks to downtown Dallas and Houston? CAHSR is partnering with Caltrain and Metrolink in SF and LA to share tracks into LA Union and the Transbay Terminal. Is Texas Central going to build a new alignmemt through downtown into new stations, or are they going to "blend" with existing commuter rail tracks and use existing stations?
> To what extent is JR involved in the project? It seems to me that Texas Central is in charge of administration whereas JR will supply the trainsets and wayside equipment and provide a bulk of the engineering services. Is that a fair statement? Is JR making financial commitments to the project beyond simply as a supplier?
> The quoted $15B total buildout cost seems quite low compared to the CAHSR amount. Is this simply because the corridor is flat and rural?
> Of all places, I wouldn't expect Texas to be one of the first to have a true privately-funded HSR system. Is there any other example of a fully private system being built like this (not a private operator utilizing public tracks/trains)?


I don't have all the answers, and I'm not intimately familiar with the Texas system. However, I am very familiar with the Japanese system being used.

The alignment will be on dedicated tracks. Much of it will likely be built on viaducts, like the Japanese system. This preserves land below and allows the train to have no level crossings. Much of the alignment will follow existing rail ROWs where possible. Stations will not go all the way into downtown, they will stop short. This helps greatly to keep the costs down. At a future date, it can always be extended, but this is primarily an intercity transport system designed 1st to compete with Air, not the car. 









Japanese systems favor this kind of system. In Japan, much of the local rail runs on narrow gauge tracks, so is incompatible with bullet trains anyhow... however, they do have some mixed systems like the Joetsu mini-Shinkansen where standard gauge tracks exist. The Seikan tunnel is also shared. Note that Japanese law prohibits trains from running faster than 140km/h ( if I'm not mistaken ) if there are ANY level crossings. 

JR is supplying technology and guidance. They're essentially a partner and supplier, but I'm sure there will be a long ongoing relationship for things like trainsets and other lines. JR really wants a line in the USA to prove its technology and built relationships and hopefully get other contracts in the USA. JR Central is massively profitable in Japan and is currently financing the build of a Mag Lev line called the Chuo Shinkansen.

Is the $15B low, or is the California quote high? The California system is really complex, runs through a fault zone, has WAY more red tape, is bound by strict environmental restrictions, has to deal with much more NIMBY-type entitlement and due to it's funding (public) has to please more masters. The Texas system runs for a large part of its alignment through existing ROWs, like electrical ROWs and, yes, has a MUCH less challenging terrain to navigate. Land is also a LOT cheaper in Texas.

When it comes to costs, much can be saved with you have people working TOWARDS a goal instead of fighting it tooth and nail. In Japan, the Chuo Shinkansen between Tokyo and Nagoya is forecast to cost $50B and it's 286km long. Of note... the Chuo line will be *90% in tunnels!!!!* some of which are under 40m underground. This is a massive undertaking... but required due to the speeds of the MagLev. At 500km/h noise and safety become serious issues. Much of the tunneling will happen through the Japanese Alps!! Despite it being a massive intercity subway using a brand-new technology with hovering trains from the future... it is estimated to cost $175M / km.

The Dallas Houston route is about 375km or so (~$40M/km). 

At first glance this seems low compared to California, but consider a recently completed project, the Hokuriku Shinkansen. It was completed for ¥1.7 Trillion ($15B USD). This is about $60M / km. So... does the $40M / km estimate for Texas HSR seem overly optimistic? Not necessarily. MOST of the cost of these lines are when you start to put them underground. This is why the Chuo line will be so expensive. The Hokuriku line was about 50% in tunnels, due to Nagano being a mountain city (where the Winter Olympics were held). 








source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/02/reference/hokuriku-shinkansen-setting-tourists-abuzz/









source: http://www.apta.com/mc/hsr/previous...ons/Infrastructure-High-Speed-Lines-Japan.pdf

Because the route in Texas is along a utility corridor, above a freight ROW and not right into downtown, the cost seems reasonable assuming it doesn't hit law suits and legal disputes along the way. It's probably somewhat underpriced, but not overly so. 

The real question is: *Why is the California system so expensive?* Personally, I think that system is biting off more than it can chew, but I also don't see how it could be any other way. It seems like California was trying to gold plate the system and serve every single Californian along the corridor instead of treating it like a San Francisco - LA connector. It's pretty common knowledge that the VAST majority of ridership comes from travelers going from one major city to the other. Smaller cities and towns along the way really don't use the line NEARLY as much. This is why, for example, out of 18 hourly trains between Tokyo and Osaka... one ONE train makes all stops. MOST trains ONLY stop at the Major cities of Yokohama and Nagoya.


----------



## The Polwoman

prageethSL said:


> California High-Speed Rail drills into Pacheco pass in preparation for tunnel boring.




Pretty funny how they try to point out why the HSR is built with very gentle slopes, but the truth from Europe is that no railways can be laid so steeply as HSR ones because of the lack of goods trains. At once 5% is very reasonable where we shouldn't even try it on normal tracks.


----------



## mrsmartman




----------



## The Polwoman

^^ of course it doesn't really show any details. However, the shift to private companies was ongoing already with the increasing number of turnpikes and also the Texas HST plan. It is good on one side as it finally enables parts of the USA to good transport options, with which I mean different than by car, but regulation is also important to prevent the projects to become only for the rich.


----------



## bluemeansgo

aquaticko said:


> ^^Verbal approval? I verbally approve any notion to have the Republican party disbanded and made illegal. That means it's real, right?
> 
> Any idiot who believes that an primarily underground tunnel is a cost-efficient means to "transform" transportation in the NEC hasn't looked at a cost analysis of the Chuo Shinkansen. If this happens (I just want to say "it won't", but then, who is our nominal president?), it'll be another Faraday Future Industries disaster--tossing government money at private industry vaporware, which would've been infinitely better spent on _actual_ improvements to transportation systems which _actually_ exist.




Tunnelling used to be extremely expensive, but a lot has changed. It adds to a project's cost but not as much as people think. 

The reality is that upgrading the existing infrastructure is going to be costly if you want to increase the speeds to proper high speed. In addition, you have problems because those speeds generate a lot of noise. The net cost in loss of land and in land devaluation should also be accounted for. It's not 0.


----------



## aquaticko

bluemeansgo said:


> Tunnelling used to be extremely expensive, but a lot has changed. It adds to a project's cost but not as much as people think.
> 
> The reality is that upgrading the existing infrastructure is going to be costly if you want to increase the speeds to proper high speed. In addition, you have problems because those speeds generate a lot of noise. The net cost in loss of land and in land devaluation should also be accounted for. It's not 0.


Honestly, my problem with the attention paid to the Hyperloop is that there's all this fanfare around a technology without any existing real-world applications, when there currently exists technology being used daily, on a huge scale, the world over, to do the same thing. 

People so sickeningly fetishize private enterprise that we'd rather trust what would likely be billions of our own dollars to a person with minimal experience building infrastructure (Musk's Supercharger network primarily piggybacks onto the pre-existing grid) peddling an untested technology, when there's no reason for us to take that kind of risk. 

I just can't get over the blindspot that people seem to have for entrepreneurial exploitation when, if we simply had enough faith in our democratic system to make it work, it would. Democracy and public endeavors don't work unless we think they do; most private entities couldn't give a sh*t about the public unless they think it'll make them money. 

That's how _they_ work, and I'm so done with people thinking that that mindset works out if we all behave in the same manner.

/Rant.


----------



## Smooth Indian

bluemeansgo said:


> Tunnelling used to be extremely expensive, but a lot has changed. It adds to a project's cost but not as much as people think.
> 
> The reality is that upgrading the existing infrastructure is going to be costly if you want to increase the speeds to proper high speed. In addition, you have problems because those speeds generate a lot of noise. The net cost in loss of land and in land devaluation should also be accounted for. It's not 0.


If tunneling has become cheaper then surely building elevated ROWs should also have become cheaper. Lets now construct partly underground- partly elevated HSR corridors along or parallel to existing railway corridors. 
If we believe that cost still will get inflated due of legal/political/social issues then the same can happen to hyper loop.


----------



## hmmwv

Smooth Indian said:


> If tunneling has become cheaper then surely building elevated ROWs should also have become cheaper. Lets now construct partly underground- partly elevated HSR corridors along or parallel to existing railway corridors.
> If we believe that cost still will get inflated due of legal/political/social issues then the same can happen to hyper loop.


While tunneling cost is decreasing the same can't be said for elevated ROW, because despite being elevated it'll still occupy a lot of land, and land acquisition cost is increasing fast.


----------



## tjrgx

*High speed rail promoter Texas Central selects planning and construction contractors*

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ts-planning-and-construction-contractors.html

USA: Privately-financed high speed line project promoter Texas Central has appointed Fluor Enterprises and The Lane Construction Corp to refine the construction planning, scheduling and cost estimates for the project, and to support procurement.

It is envisaged that the two contractors would also design and build the project following financial close, although they have no equity or ownership stake and will not be involved in land acquisition. The proposed 385 km high speed line using eight-car trainsets based on Central Japan Railway’s N700 design would offer a 90 min journey time from Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston with a stop in the Brazos Valley. Environmental studies are currently underway, and Texas Central envisages that construction could begin in late 2018.

The contracts with Fluor and The Lane Construction Corp ‘underscore the attention the Texas Bullet Train has received from world class firms, wanting to be part of a project that will revolutionise travel here and generate long-lasting local economic benefits’, said Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar on August 14.

‘This will be America’s first true high speed train, and we’re eager to be part of the next generation of sustainable infrastructure’, said Robert E Alger, President & CEO of The Lane Construction Corp. ‘The project will create benefits for generations to come while providing an innovative transportation alternative for Texas commuters.’

‘We will use our industry experience and proven track record of delivering high speed rail projects to provide high value services for this significant infrastructure project’, added Hans Dekker, President of Fluor’s infrastructure business.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

hmmwv said:


> While tunneling cost is decreasing the same can't be said for elevated ROW, because despite being elevated it'll still occupy a lot of land, and land acquisition cost is increasing fast.


I don't know how it works in the US but elevated ROW is based on lease of airspace not complete acquisition of land space, acquisition of land is limited to the amount required to construct the support columns to raise the elevated tracks not the entire ROW.


----------



## Anday

*High-speed rail feasibility study between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland underway*



> The vision of traveling from Vancouver to Seattle on a ultra high-speed train in just one hour is one tiny step closer towards becoming a reality after Washington State officially launched a study to examine the feasibility of such a rail link.


----------



## Zack Fair

Fluor Enterprises, Lane Construction on track to design, build Texas' proposed bullet train



> Irving-based Fluor Enterprises and Lane Construction Corp. have been chosen to help with the design and construction of the high-speed rail line that will carry travelers between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, developer Texas Central Partners said Monday.
> The announcement comes after more than three years of development by Texas Central, the private company behind the $12 billion-plus venture. The project will be backed by private investors, and the company has pledged not to pursue federal or state government grants but said it may seek loans from existing transportation credit programs.


----------



## Anday

*Texas Central Partners inks deal with city of Houston for bullet train*



> The city of Houston and Texas Central Partners have confirmed the general site for the Bayou City’s passenger station for the proposed high-speed train between Houston and Dallas.
> 
> The city and company signed an agreement Aug. 17 to plan the economic development of the bullet train together, according to a press release.





> The company estimates the project will create 10,000 jobs per year *during the construction phase, which is expected to begin in late 2018 or early 2019 and finish in 2023.*


----------



## Anday

Anday said:


> *High-speed rail feasibility study between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland underway*


*Funding Contenders Emerge as Canada’s Infrastructure Bank Is Official*



> Meanwhile, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) had talks in May with Trudeau to gain bank funding for a long-gestating high-speed-rail line that would connect northwestern U.S. cities and Vancouver, British Columbia, spokespersons for the governor confirm. They said a $350,000 project feasibility study awarded to CH2M is set for release at year-end They did not provide a proposed project cost, but the line, which media have estimated at $30 billion, also is seen as a boost for a proposed technology corridor. Trains would run at speeds of at least 400 km per hour between Vancouver and Portland, Ore., with Washington stops in Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, SeaTac, Tacoma and Olympia. The state and Microsoft Corp. are funding the study. “We have heard from some Canadian counterparts that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a possible option, and we’re open to analyzing it.” said one spokesperson.


----------



## prageethSL

*Texas Central Partners inks deal with city of Houston for bullet train*





















> Backers of a Texas high-speed rail line on Thursday announced for the second time this week what they called significant progress on the controversial line, inking an agreement with Houston officials, detailing the work to come.
> At City Hall, Houston and Texas Central Partners announced the signing of an memorandum of understanding, which commits both sides to share environmental surveys, utility analysis and engineering related to the project and surrounding area and work together to develop new transit and other travel options to and from the likely terminus of the bullet train line.
> 
> 
> In the memorandum, Texas Central notes the likely end of their Houston-to-Dallas line will be south of U.S. 290, west of Loop 610 and north of Interstate 10. The exact site has been long suspected as the current location of Northwest Mall.
> The train will run on its own tracks, separated from roads and elevated in most places in the Houston area. Construction is expected to start late next year or early 2019, company officials said, and take between four and five years. The cost is expected to be at least $12 billion.


----------



## JohnDee

I don't understand why the Houston station is out on the beltway in the middle of the burbs.


----------



## sdery

Is the Houston station on the Beltway or the Loop? If it on the Loop then at least it will be close to the Galleria area which is Houston's "second downtown" area. It would be great to see it go all the way to central downtown Houston but I assume the trade off of cost vs. additional passengers was no optimal.


----------



## JohnDee

sdery said:


> Is the Houston station on the Beltway or the Loop? If it on the Loop then at least it will be close to the Galleria area which is Houston's "second downtown" area. It would be great to see it go all the way to central downtown Houston but I assume the trade off of cost vs. additional passengers was no optimal.


It's on I-610. I suppose that's the Loop. I'm unfamiliar with the city. It's at the old Northwest Mall apparently.


----------



## Sunfuns

Chinese do it like this, but Chinese cities mostly have good subway systems to connect those out of the way HSR stations. How do they expect travellers from Dallas to reach Houston downtown area from that station? Many business passengers would need to do exactly that.


----------



## rantanamo

Sunfuns said:


> Chinese do it like this, but Chinese cities mostly have good subway systems to connect those out of the way HSR stations. How do they expect travellers from Dallas to reach Houston downtown area from that station? Many business passengers would need to do exactly that.


I don't live in Houston, but do business and visit often so







, but Houston has a very nice bus system, and I imagine there would be an express line directly to downtown. This is also on the west side of town. Lots of business is done on that side of town. 

I'm surprised they are not using that rail corridor that they are using to get to the mall site, all the way into downtown. I dunno. They say costs. Perhaps that's just a busy rail corridor that rail companies aren't giving up. Maybe they might have to double deck if they went with that plan. Maybe there are noise issues. It also goes to I-10, where perhaps they could have done what Dallas is talking about doing with an extension to Fort Worth, which is to build it above I-30. I dunno, but I was expecting that line to be used until they announce the site on 610 last year.


----------



## rantanamo

And Dallas was talking about doing the same on the south side of town and linking it to DART. Dallas has an easy corridor all the way to downtown, though


----------



## Nexis

Its weird that there not building it closer to the Downtown in Dallas , theres plenty of room at Union Station for a High Speed Terminal..


----------



## rantanamo

Nexis said:


> Its weird that there not building it closer to the Downtown in Dallas , theres plenty of room at Union Station for a High Speed Terminal..


They are building it downtown, just south of Union Station over I-30 or a couple of blocks south in The Cedars. I was only referring to one of the proposals being in South Dallas, but two downtown sites are the finalists.


----------



## Nexis

Any blue prints?


----------



## M-NL

There are probably 2 reasons for that: the Pendolino running gear you would need for a 350 km/h EMU isn't suited for 300+ km/h speeds (yet) and creating a lightweight tilting driving trailer that meets the FRA standard is challenging.

An EMU isn't necessarily quicker: a 399t TGV duplex will out accelerate a 435t ICE 3M. Only when the tracks get extremely slippery the ICE could benefit from having more driven axles, but when it's to slippery to accelerate, you can't brake either, so I would not want to go fast then.


----------



## SSMEX

Am I the only one who dislikes the livery? It seems incredibly dated already. The large number of contrasting color features based around panel geometry is reminiscent of when airplanes had black nosecones and black anti-glare mascara under the cockpit window.

Plus, the multi-colored carriages (which scream vintage trains) and non-sensical curves in the powered car just seem so unthoughtful.

I realize the Pendolinos aren't the sleekest trains around, but compare with this SBB train:










Keep in mind that these trains were originally ordered in 2004.


----------



## prageethSL

M-NL said:


> the body shape of the power car and the first passenger car differ so much, that they visibly misalign. I hope they will fix that.


This is a strange feature. Non of the current Pendolino , AGV or TGV train designs have this type of misalignment between power car and the first passenger car.


----------



## M-NL

There is also a misalignment on double deck TGVs, albeit far less pronounced: TGV 2N2 and TGV Duplex.


----------



## prageethSL

M-NL said:


> There is also a misalignment on double deck TGVs, albeit far less pronounced: TGV 2N2 and TGV Duplex.


Misalignment on double deck TGV is due to extra height of the passenger car. But there is no reason for Avalia liberty to have such misalignment between power car and the first passenger car.It could negatively effect on aerodynamics of the train.


----------



## Sopomon

I noticed the same thing on the new Brightline trains too


----------



## prageethSL

*Production of next-generation Acela Express fleet underway*












> Production of the bodyshells and principal components for the Avelia Liberty high speed trainsets ordered for Amtrak’s premium _Acela Express_ service has begun at Alstom’s Hornell factory in New York state, the manufacturer has confirmed. The fleet is expected to enter service in 2021-22. Alstom displayed a model at the APTA Expo in Atlanta on October 8-11, showcasing the final exterior design of the trainsets, which will feature short wheelbase power cars and nine articulated trailer cars. There is an option to add up to three more vehicles if demand grows.
> Designed for operation at up to 300 km/h, the 28 trainsets will initially enter service at up to 255 km/h on the 735 km Northeast Corridor which links Boston with New York and Washington DC.
> They will incorporate Alstom’s Tiltronix anticipatory tilting technology, and a crash energy management system meeting the latest Federal Railroad Administration crashworthiness guidelines.
> Alstom’s Vice-President for Marketing & Strategy in North America Scott Sherin told _Railway Gazette _that the Avelia Liberty design blended experience from various high speed trains supplied internationally over recent years.
> ‘*The trailers are based on the AGV bodyshell *used in Italy and the *tilt equipment is derived from our Pendolino family*, while we expect the compact power car design to be selected for SNCF’s next generation of TGVs’, he said. By opting for power cars with unpowered intermediate trailers, Alstom has continued the arrangement used for the existing fleet of 20 Acela Express trains supplied by a consortium of Alstom and Bombardier in 1998-2001.
> ‘Amtrak initially favoured a Pendolino derivative’, Sherin explained, but ‘we were able to persuade them otherwise, partly because a move to a multiple-unit fleet would require significant alterations to depot facilities’. The Avelia Liberty is also designed to allow extra intermediate cars to be added without any mechanical or electrical alterations to the train.


----------



## Qtya

^^









Source: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-generation-acela-express-fleet-underway.html


----------



## Stuu

Isn't the odd profile difference down to the tilt? i.e. the cars will tilt but the power cars don't


----------



## Anday




----------



## SSMEX

Odd to show CAHSR and LA's Metrolink commuter rail service during a news segment about Texas HSR. You'd think TxHSR would have animations or at least renderings of their own . . .


----------



## M-NL

Stuu said:


> Isn't the odd profile difference down to the tilt? i.e. the cars will tilt but the power cars don't


That triggers two comments:
Will the driver get sports buckets and seat belts to stay in his seat during cornering, because of that?

Have you ever stuck your hand out of the window of a train or car at speed? Even at 80 km/h you feel a considerable force. Drag increases quadratic, so imagine what happens when you triple or quadruple that speed. Most aerodynamic improvements on the newer train models weren't at the nose but especially at the roof and bottom sections. In fact the nose is just a small portion of a trains total drag. The major reason for reshaping nose sections is in fact reducing tunnel boom.

By simply reshaping the rear of the power car to align better that will improve aerodynamics and therefor reduce power consumption, but also exterior noise every time the train runs at a significant speed. Even the most curved track in the world usually still has more straight sections then curves.


----------



## Buffaboy

So I learned that the railroads in the UK and throughout a lot of the world are owned by the government. In the US, private companies (CSX, NS, UP, etc) obviously own them.

There are obviously issues with this when it comes to operating a national railroad service, but my question is, why didn't we establish a public railroad network like we did with our interstate highways?

I doubt this can happen today, as any idea of a government-owned railroad would be slammed by some politicians as communism or something.


----------



## luacstjh98

Wouldn't that technically be Amtrak?


----------



## Anday

mrsmartman said:


>


*$1.5B project to replace critical New Jersey rail bridge over Hackensack River starts*


----------



## Buffaboy

luacstjh98 said:


> Wouldn't that technically be Amtrak?


Amtrak shares/leases (I think) the tracks, they don't own them at all.

UK government owns their tracks.


----------



## aquaticko

Buffaboy said:


> Amtrak shares/leases (I think) the tracks, they don't own them at all.
> 
> UK government owns their tracks.


The only track which Amtrak does own is the rail along the Northeast Corridor--the busiest and best-served stretch of rail in the U.S. There might be others, but that's the only one I know of for certain, and I do know for sure that there aren't many others. 

To my knowledge, railways built by governments are not something which have ever been very common in the Anglosphere world.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Buffaboy said:


> So I learned that
> There are obviously issues with this when it comes to operating a national railroad service, but my question is, why didn't we establish a public railroad network like we did with our interstate highways?


The investment in the interstate highway system was pushed for by auto and gas lobbies along with the critical endorsement of Eisenhower. There was no equivalent push for a national rail system since the railway companies were perhaps though to be adequate to the task of maintaining the tracks.
If more and more high speed rail line get built and if they get built with some assistance from the Federal govt then the US might get a public railroad network. Moreover AFAIK the railways are classified as utilities by the federal govt. So the railway co.s may be facing a higher level of scrutiny and restriction with respect to using their right of way.


----------



## Buffaboy

I see, it's just a different system. The UK really is an anomaly then as it appears (at least from Google Earth) that trains are nearly as accessible as big city busses are in the US. Even if you live in the middle of nowhere your town will have a station.

On the contrary, their freeway network seems small in comparison. Like you said, when the oil and gas lobby is backing this stuff then it happens, which is why our road network is so robust and street cars that used to run on every street in Buffalo are nonexistent.


----------



## phoenixboi08

[remove]


----------



## phoenixboi08

*TL;DR*, it was not really the result of any lobbies nor any “love affair” with cars. Those private railroads were just poorly managed and were in no position to expand into the new towns/cities that were popping up at the periphery of established urban centers (in the process, sucking resources away from those urban centers, which hurt establish travel markets) in the several decades after WWII, when the country first began building suburbs. 

There was no coherent planning body to coordinate infrastructure and service, which might have happened if we’d used anti-trust laws to alter regulations of the industry - or just nationalize it - during the 30s-40s-50s. Else, the RRs might have consolidated but were in no position to, given their finances: Passener service became a loss leader once ridership plateaued, while the infrastructure itself remained a valuable asset; hence, reorientation towards freight. 

Most towns _are_ near railroads, in this country, whether the lines are active or not. They’re everywhere. 

The easiest shorthand, off-hand...
The UK: 
Private RRs>Nationalization>Privitization of Service
The US:
Private RRs>Nationalization of Service>Ongoing attempts to build new, public infrastructure. 
____________________________________
I gather most railroads in the UK were in fact built by private companies (eg why London has so many damn termini; they didn’t want to cooperate, and it took the Metropolitan line being so useful/popular for them to begin doing so). 

And this also happened in the US. They received favorable purchase options on land (sometimes were given it for free) and low-interest loans, I believe, in exchange that they would provide passenger service in perpetuity. 

Turns out that operating railroads, especially for passenger services, is extremely capital intensive, and many of these companies operated with thin margins - or else, often in extrememe debt. By the time it became apparent that most of these railroads were collapsing, the types of hostile, government takeovers that might have occurred earlier on in the late-19th or early-20th C. were _not_ going to be done in the [conservative] governments during the 70s-80s (also around the time when the Conservatives in the UK decided to privatize passenger services, if I’m not mistaken)...

Heck, most people seem to forget there was a short window during that decade in which the Federal government _was_ making a commitment to Transit, promising matches of 80% - this is when the last wave of metro systems were planned/built in ATL, SF, MIA, LA). Reagan’s term(s) kinda screwed any chance of anything positive in that realm. Really had nothing to do with lobbies as much as ideology, the fact that most cities were becoming starkly non-white, and that suburbanites didn’t want to continue paying taxes to fund any services or infrastructure within these cities, but I digress...

Anyways, early plans did consider nationalizing infrastructure alongside service. In fact, what was first proposed by planners was a much more expansive system that was figured to be the bare minimum of what could be functionally relevenat. We’re lucky we got anything in the end, at all: The current network was literally designed to starve Amtrak and eventually allow it to wind down and die.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Smooth Indian said:


> If more and more high speed rail line get built and if they get built with some assistance from the Federal govt then the US might get a public railroad network. Moreover AFAIK the railways are classified as utilities by the federal govt. So the railway co.s may be facing a higher level of scrutiny and restriction with respect to using their right of way.


Well, 1) you’re right; they are utilities. However, they aren’t regulated properly as Common Carriers, which is why they don’t _have_ to allow Amtrak to use their ROWs, if they think it would be too burdensome, don’t have to pay to maintain specific corridors up to specific standards for passenger services, etc.

2) It doesn’t really take building all new, publicly-funded ROWs to establish a national network: It already exists. Whether the infrastructure used to operate it is private- or publicly-owned is irrelevant. What needs to happen is alterations to the way RRs are regulated to privilege passenger services over freight (and accompanying increases in funding for improvements).


----------



## prageethSL

Finally :cheers:


NJ leaders break ground on Portal North Bridge


















> A star-studded bipartisan lineup threw some real dirt Friday to officially launch construction of a new Portal North Bridge. The $1.64 billion project will replace the current cranky “swing”-style span that must swivel open and closed for river traffic and now carries more than 470 trains daily over the Hackensack, one every two minutes, during rush hour.
> The Portal North Bridge project leads off the long-awaited Gateway trans-Hudson railway rebuilding program at a crucial spot on the Northeast Corridor. But Friday’s ceremony marked a qualified leap of faith without the Trump Administration’s firm commitment to pony up its share of federal funding.
> “I know there’s a trendy notion that the private sector will somehow step up to finance all of our crumbling infrastructure, but for me that’s nothing more than wishful thinking,” said Sen. Bob Menendez.
> The House has appropriated $900,000 but that’s not locked in. And delays have already boosted the Gateway program’s overall cost, from $23 billion to $29 billion.
> “This is a good day,” said Sen. Cory Booker. “New Jerseyans should be very happy today, because now we have visible signs of progress and momentum. The only thing lacking right now is the president of the U.S. honoring the commitments the federal government made to the state of New Jersey under President Obama.”
> “The president doesn’t need the explanation on this project. He’s lived here and developed real estate here his entire life. He knows how important this is to this economy of this region and I am absolutely confident the president will partner with us to make sure this entire project is done,” said Gov. Chris Christie.
> The problem with a century-old swing bridge is that in 2014, out of 100 openings, 15 percent of the time, the bridge failed to close properly. Workers had to go out onto the span to fix it. Trains were stopped.
> Designs for the new two-track bridge show it would arch over the river.
> “No longer will the trains rely on these massive wheels behind me that you see and then the people in Penn Station Control Center, nervously waiting for it to reconnect to the Northeast Corridor,” said Amtrak Board of Directors Chair Anthony Coscia. “Or people with sledgehammers, literally having to bang it shut.”
> Critics claim a new railway under the Hudson River would be opening next year, if Christie had not cancelled the ARC tunnel project in 2010, forfeiting $3 billion in federal funding. Christie on Friday continued to call ARC a bad deal.
> “There’s a fairness to the funding which did not exist in ARC and there’s an efficacy to the project. The past project was going to the basement of Macy’s. This is going to New York Penn Station, doing what should be done,” said Christie.
> “I have a different view. The reality is, we lost that money and now we’re going to have to fight again. So, I’m focused on the future,” said Menendez.
> The Portal North Bridge is part one of that future — an integral connection along the Northeast Corridor.


----------



## Anday

Chattanooga-Atlanta bullet train could lure millions of air travelers to Chattanooga airport



> *First study phase finally done after a decade*


----------



## phoenixboi08

I support connecting the two cities, but this is a very strange travel market to be targeting...I’ll have to read the reports to see just what their assumptions are. 

For the time-being, I’ll chalk this up to news outlets being generally ‘off’ in how they report on transportation projects. I imagine it’s not _solely_ about facilitating air travel.


----------



## Gusiluz

*CHSRA*

Early Train Operator proposals.



> Final Rankings:
> Total score
> 815,77 DB Engineering & Consulting USA
> 775,81 Renfe (Spain, + Globalvia, Adif, Amtrak...)
> 545,00 FS First Rail Group (Trenitalia)
> 471,87 China HSR ETO Consortium



--



Gusiluz said:


> Proposals submitted:
> 
> *China* HSR ETO Consortium
>  China Railway International Co., Ltd
>  Beijing Railway Administration
>  China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group Co., Ltd
>  China Railway Corporation (China Railway)
>  HJI Group Corporation
>  AndersonPenna Partners, Inc.
>  Casamar Group, LLC
>  ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc.
> 
> *DB* Engineering & Consulting USA
>  DB Engineering & Consulting USA, Inc.
>  DB Engineering & Consulting GmbH
>  Deutsche Bahn AG
>  Alternate Concepts, Inc.
>  HDR, Inc.
>  Raul V. Bravo + Associates
>  FMG Architects
>  Pendergast Consulting Group
>  Acumen Building Enterprise, Inc.
>  ProPose LLC dba Sagent
>  B&G Transportation Group, LLC
>  Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc.
>  KL Bartlett Consulting
> 
> *FS First Rail Group*
>  Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A.
>  FirstGroup plc
>  Trenitalia S.p.A.
>  Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A.
>  CentoStazioni S.p.A.
>  Italferr S.p.A.
>  McKinsey & Company, Inc.
>  Raul V. Bravo + Associates
>  Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc.
>  JAD & Associates, LLC
>  Jakes Associates, Inc.
>  James Transportation Group
> 
> *Renfe*
>  RENFE – Operadora Globalvia Inversiones S.A.U.
>  Adif
>  AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corportation)
>  360 Total Concept
>  Acumen Building Enterprise, Inc.
>  Aeko Consulting
>  Anil Verma Associates, Inc.
>  Archipelago Builders Collective
>  Arman Consulting, Inc.
>  Auxitec, LLC
>  Bionic Landscape, Inc.
>  Blair, Church & Flynn
>  Bohica Advisors, LLC
>  CHS Consulting Group
>  Elliot Consulting Group, Inc.
>  Fossil Faux Studios
>  Fryman Management
>  GCM Consulting, Inc.
>  Global Executive Security
>  Hattin Construction Management
>  Irene Avetyan Consulting
>  Jakes Associates, Inc.
>  Kornerstone Technology, Inc.
>  Merriwether & Williams Ins. Services
>  Navigating Preparedness Assoc.
>  Outsource Consulting Services, Inc.
>  Paul Murdoch Architects
>  PEMCCO, Inc.
> 
> Stagecoach is left out by not submitting an offer. We said here that they had no HS experience.


----------



## luacstjh98

The Japanese didn't even try?


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ No, not even the French SNCF.
But this is only a non-binding proposal on which the adviser of the design and implementation of the operation will be decided, it is not about trains, which will be decided in another contest.

It is verified that the cheapest offer was the Chinese, and that the best technical offer is the Spanish, superior to the German offer in those two sections. In what we have been inferior has been in the presentation and in the colloquium.


----------



## TM_Germany

Isn't that kind of weird, though? Why is the presentation so important if they themselves thought the other product was better?


----------



## benjaminh

TM_Germany said:


> Isn't that kind of weird, though? Why is the presentation so important if they themselves thought the other product was better?


a) Presentation, procurement term sheets, and questions and answers might allow to assess the credibility of the proposal.
b) It's not that the DB technical proposal was too inferior. It scores by far the highest regarding key deliverables 5-8, highest regarding key deliverable 1, and second highest re key deliverables 1-4 and 9.


----------



## SSMEX

Gusiluz said:


> It is verified that the cheapest offer was the Chinese, and that the best technical offer is the Spanish, superior to the German offer in those two sections. In what we have been inferior has been in the presentation and in the colloquium.


It looks like the Italian consortium had the best price, considering it scored 100/100.


----------



## prageethSL

*Elon Musk’s Boring Company is starting work on Baltimore-DC underground Hyperloop*





















> Earlier this morning, we reported about Elon Musk announcing that his Boring Company is getting a second multi-million dollar boring machine.
> Now we might have an idea where that new machine is going after what appears to be a new digging site spotted in Maryland today.
> Earlier this year, Musk announced a project to create an underground hyperloop system between New York and Washington DC.
> The idea is to leverage both the tunnel boring technology that the Boring Company is working on and Musk’s original idea for a new mode of transportation called hyperloop, which consists of pods with electric propulsion in a near-vacuum tunnel or tube in order to achieve extremely high speeds.
> Now a site just south of Baltimore in Maryland with a visible ‘The Boring Company’ logo was spotted this week


----------



## weava

> An official with Hyperloop One, which proposes building ultra-fast tubular transportation around the world, said that a Missouri route is a top contender for development.
> 
> Dan Katz, the head of policy for the company, told The Associated Press that Missouri is among the top 5 contenders, if not in the* top 3*.


http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article180177516.html#storylink=latest_side


----------



## Nexis

Can you form your own thread for the hyperloop...its not HSR...its a scam by musk...


----------



## anunnaki

Nexis said:


> ..its a scam by musk...


Do you have any evidence to prove this claim?


----------



## Tower Dude

anunnaki said:


> Do you have any evidence to prove this claim?


It's a "Pipe Dream"?
But seriously can we get a separate thread for thew Hyperloop similar to how there is a thread for HSR in Japan and one Maglevs in Japan.


----------



## anunnaki

Tower Dude said:


> But seriously can we get a separate thread for thew Hyperloop similar to how there is a thread for HSR in Japan and one Maglevs in Japan.


Agree




Tower Dude said:


> It's a "Pipe Dream"?


It is too early to call hyperloop a pipe dream.


----------



## Gusiluz

*CHSRA*

Deutsche Bahn (DB), the German public railway giant, outperformed Renfe to be the strategic partner of California for high speed. 
This is apparent from documents issued by the US local authority. Renfe does not agree with this result and, therefore, has submitted a brief that has paralyzed the award for a month. "Clarifications have been requested," acknowledged sources close to the process. Although the Renfe consortium prevailed to its four rivals in the sum of the technical and economic part of the contest, the contract, provisionally, ended in the hands of DB.
The board of directors of the High-Speed ​​Rail Authority planned to announce the award to DB on 19 October, but the highest management body has suspended the decision a month until clarifying the allegations of the Spanish.



The presentation was made by Iñaki Barron and Rodrigo Hilario advised by ATKearney.

From Spain it is blamed for the difference of scores in the most subjective part of the Siemens factory in Sacramento, which has a thousand workers.
Siemens Brings High Speed Rail to the State Capitol


----------



## Shenkey

Gusiluz said:


> The presentation was made by Iñaki Barron and Rodrigo Hilario advised by ATKearney.
> 
> From Spain it is blamed for the difference of scores in the most subjective part of the Siemens factory in Sacramento, which has a thousand workers.
> Siemens Brings High Speed Rail to the State Capitol


makes sense, US is a really protectionist country.


----------



## Kenni

*CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL*

Construction update.


----------



## phoenixboi08

aquamaroon said:


> Thanks again! I agree I like the route, perhaps this is a sign that the DB arrangement is starting to pay dividends?


Wait, what does the DB consultant contract have to do with anything? They've only barely just awarded the contract...Did I miss something?

AFAIK, DB's role is more about maximizing use of the system by informing desired fare management systems, station design, the location of facilities, etc.

I think it's been clear the Authority prefers ustilizing the existing station in Bakersfield - or building a new one adjacent.



aquamaroon said:


> Also, I know the IOS currently stops just outside of Bakersfield, but my big hope is that this EIR is a sign they will find the funds not only to get the IOS to Bakersfield but (now that Caltrain will be electrified by 2022) even perhaps up to San Francisco, if only to 4th/King station if the Transbay Center is not up and running at the time.


Yah. The IOS is planned to get to Bakersfield - if possible - with a contingency for an interim station just outside the city in Shafter. The uncertainty mostly stems from Bakersfield seeming insistent that the Authority choose an alignment that will allow the station to be placed in a greenfield site, rather than in/alongside the existing station, downtown.

The sooner they decide on the alignment, the better: It means it can be tacked-on to one of the existing Construction Packages.

The same goes for San Jose: The trouble is the Pachecho Pass alignment (i.e. tunneling under the Diablos now seems to mean one, long tunnel instead of multiple shorter ones). Ultimately, the final alignment and mix of tunnels/viaducts/at-grade segments will determine how soon they make it to SJ.

I mean, this was behind the confusion that the Authority was somehow back peddling - or incompetent - by 're-orienting' work to the Bay Area rather than LA. In reality, it was due to vocal opposition to the desired alignment through Santa Clarita (e.g. the [refined] SR14 alignments, which were preferred by the Authority, were not favored by the public) and insistence that a tunnel under the Angeles National Forest be studied: This means delays and thus meant attention went to the north segment since it would thus be finished, first.

This is something the public needs to be informed about, but the LATimes consistently misrepresents these decisions as signs that the Authority just doesn't know what it's doing. Hell, most people seem to think the environmental review process is solely about saving [insert endagered, rare species here], but is more about minimizing impacts to residents; hence, why they consistently solicit public feedback and why they _must_ demonstrate good faith efforts to attempt to ameliorate them. 

This often means lengthy studies to demonstrate why the public's favored alternative is sub-optimal to what the Authority favors. Sometimes, it means the opposite.



aquamaroon said:


> A Bakersfield to SF IOS in 2025 would be a monumental game changer for the whole project, and make the inevitable slog through SoCal and the as of now vaporware of Phase 2 far more manageable as the HSR becomes an integral part of the mobility portfolio of California. Again that may be wishful thinking on my part, but even if it is an IOS from the central valley to San Jose will still be fantastic. I don't know how many people would ACTUALLY commute from Fresno to Silicon Valley in 40 minutes, but even the _possibility_ of doing so will change the living patterns of Californians in ways we can't fully see yet!


I'd encourage you read through the 2016 Business Plan...I actually find their thinking about this rather sound. It's obviously optimal to end in SF/SJ-Bakersfield, but even an interim IOS that stops in Merced-Fresno/Bakersfield is enough to generate the needed revenue against which they can finance the last bit of construction to get to SJ/SF (even under their most pessimistic projections).


----------



## aquaticko

^^What is Bakersfield's interest in having a greenfield site? They must know that that's a surefire way to reduce ridership and thwart downtown revival.


----------



## phoenixboi08

aquaticko said:


> ^^What is Bakersfield's interest in having a greenfield site? They must know that that's a surefire way to reduce ridership and thwart downtown revival.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not sure - especially since it'd use existing ROW - but my guess is the notion by residents that the greenfield site would be less disruptive since the other option would mean viaducts through town.

It makes absolutely no sense, especially once you start thinking about TOD and the fact that it'd be rather difficult to get to, but it does seem the Authority is _still _ pushing for the downtown site. Although, that's just the impression I've gotten from glancing over the EIR, since I haven't read through the entirety of the draft linked above, yet.

*and I suppose "greenfield" is a bit generous. It's just on the outer edge of town.


----------



## aquamaroon

phoenixboi08 said:


> Wait, what does the DB consultant contract have to do with anything? They've only barely just awarded the contract...Did I miss something?
> 
> AFAIK, DB's role is more about maximizing use of the system by informing desired fare management systems, station design, the location of facilities, etc.


Yeah that was perhaps a bit of a leap; what I was going off of were comments made by a representative of DB Engineering and Consulting USA made during the Oct. 19 CAHSRA Board. It seemed to me that DB USA clearly had some opinions regarding the alignment of the project through the various construction packages. Video at the pertinent section below at 13:40 (_Warning: Intense German Scolding in the following video! :lol:_):







So my thinking has been that DB has already done quite a bit of work behind the scenes before they were awarded the contract, and came into the project in November with a full suite of ideas regarding the most efficient and cost effective path forward, not just for track alignment but for stations etc. But you're right, they've only started officially as of November, so not that much time, hopefully we'll see the real benefits of the partnership in the 2018 business plan.



> Yah. The IOS is planned to get to Bakersfield - if possible - with a contingency for an interim station just outside the city in Shafter. The uncertainty mostly stems from Bakersfield seeming insistent that the Authority choose an alignment that will allow the station to be placed in a greenfield site, rather than in/alongside the existing station, downtown.
> 
> The sooner they decide on the alignment, the better: It means it can be tacked-on to one of the existing Construction Packages.
> 
> The same goes for San Jose: The trouble is the Pachecho Pass alignment (i.e. tunneling under the Diablos now seems to mean one, long tunnel instead of multiple shorter ones). Ultimately, the final alignment and mix of tunnels/viaducts/at-grade segments will determine how soon they make it to SJ.
> 
> I mean, this was behind the confusion that the Authority was somehow back peddling - or incompetent - by 're-orienting' work to the Bay Area rather than LA. In reality, it was due to vocal opposition to the desired alignment through Santa Clarita (e.g. the [refined] SR14 alignments, which were preferred by the Authority, were not favored by the public) and insistence that a tunnel under the Angeles National Forest be studied: This means delays and thus meant attention went to the north segment since it would thus be finished, first.


Even if it was extenuating circumstances I have to say, even as an Angeleno and Southern Californian, I'm still happy they decided to finish the Northern Leg of Phase 1 first. Just as a mental exercise I can far more easily imagine the "Fresno-San Jose/San Jose-Merced" market than I can the "LA-Merced/Anaheim-Fresno" market. I will admit though that if the IOS ends without SoCal OR the Bay Area I will be disappointed, and I'm waiting with bated breath on the results of the Pacheco Pass study hoping they push through. That said having the funds and plan in hand to connect the Central Valley is a great reassurance, and a finished Central Valley HSR will probably will itself to the major population centers through inertia alone.
And yep I agree overall re: Public Criticism, it's easy to criticize without all the facts; it doesn't help that at least for our major paper here in SoCal, the LA Times, the reporter on the HSR beat is an avowed skeptic and critic, Ralph Vartabedian. He never misses on opportunity to luxuriate in the woes of the CAHSRA, so all the print news we get here about CAHSR is negative. The fact is that a project of this scope is inherently complicated, especially so in a state with stringent environmental laws and a population of well heeled NIMBYs, and quite frankly especially so in a country where the government can't just seize your land for nothing and bulldoze your house just because you're in the way of their megaproject. But they get finished and in time seem indispensable and hopefully it'll be the same case here. :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon

Also regarding the Bakersfield greenfield site, it wouldn't surprise me if that was an _intentional_ ploy to decrease the success of HSR in the city. Bakersfield is a very republican area (the House Majority Whip in Congress Kevin McCarthy represents Bakersfield) and there's nothing the California GOP love to hate more than "Jerry Brown's Crazy-Train". Considering the current state of the party in California, pretty much all they have is railing against the "choo-choo train" and they take any chance they can get!


----------



## Nacre

I often ride Amtrak Cascades instead of driving on business trips. Yet I don't want HSR. Building more passing loops, signal upgrades and viaducts to get rid of crossing at grade on Amtrak Cascades would cut my transit time in half for a small fraction of the cost to upgrade Amtrak Cascades to HSR.

We could do this entirely with domestic equipment and labor. That may sound nationalistic, but it is simply realistic. It will be a lot easier to get Republican politicians from Idaho to vote for a national rail project if the locomotives are made by MotivePower in Boise.

I think that progressives in the USA have unrealistic expectations of public transport. Look at the situation in the Netherlands, which has better connecting mass transit than we have and one of the highest population densities in the world.

Total Dutch HSR Lines: 1 (to Belgium)

Dutch Transit By Trip: (excluding air travel)
50% automobile
25% bike
20% walking
5% public transit

Reliable inter-city rail that does not get stuck behind a freight train for three hours or have to slow down for at-grade crossings would be a massive upgrade on what we currently have, and would make passenger rail faster than cars.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^

For sure I don't think you'll find much argument here about upgrading standard Amtrak service to speed up and smooth out trips, after all we're all talking about trains :lol:. In fact here in California one of the hypothetical rail projects I'm most exited about is, instead of HSR, potential improvements to the Pacific Surfliner route. Here's a great recent article describing the route's potential with upgrades:










A High-Speed Train From San Diego to L.A. Is Possible Even Without High-Speed Rail

snippet from the article:



> Phase One of California high-speed rail, between San Francisco and Anaheim, will only open in 2029, and the High-Speed Rail Authority has so far done little work on Phase Two, which includes the line between Los Angeles and San Diego, via the Inland Empire. Since high-speed rail service to San Diego is so far on the horizon, it is worth discussing medium-term improvements, which would take several years instead and upgrade service before high-speed rail arrives.
> 
> Examples of these interim improvements already exist. For instance, the Northeast Corridor – the East Coast rail line that runs from Boston to Washington D.C. – has been improved slowly over many decades, is electrified and runs at an average speed of 60 to 80 miles per hour. Some European countries, including Britain, Sweden and Switzerland, have not built high-speed networks but instead upgraded legacy lines. In those countries, upgraded lines average between 70 and 90 miles per hour, supporting multiple trains per hour on the busier lines. San Diego is bigger than any Swedish or Swiss city, and the five-county Los Angeles metro area is bigger than Sweden and Switzerland combined. If domestic trains in Sweden and Switzerland can support one to two trains every hour, fast service between Los Angeles and San Diego should support at a minimum a train every half hour, and potentially much more.
> 
> The Los Angeles-San Diego corridor is 128 miles long, and is for the most part straight. Target trip times of two hours should be achievable even with the frequent stops on the Pacific Surfliner. The aspirational trip time is about 1:45 or 1:50, which would be competitive with driving even outside rush hour. The investment required for this ranges from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to the very low billions. This is still slower than the eventual trip time envisioned by Phase Two of the high-speed rail project, currently projected at 1:18, via an indirect route through the Inland Empire.
> 
> The way to achieve trip times lower than two hours on legacy track is to combine new federal regulations and strategic investments intended to take advantage of the new rules. In late 2016, the Federal Railroad Administration released new regulations for passenger rail safety, which allow lightly modified European trains to run on U.S. tracks. Previously, unique U.S. rules required trains to be heavier. This follows a regulatory change from 2010 that allows trains to run faster on curves, subject to safety testing. The existing diesel locomotives are too heavy to take advantage of this change, but lighter electric passenger trains face no such obstacle.
> 
> This means that the region needs to invest in electrifying the corridor from San Diego to Los Angeles, and potentially as far north as San Luis Obispo. Between San Diego and Los Angeles, the likely cost – based on the California high-speed rail electrification cost – is about $800 million.



So with the very improvements you suggest, plus to be fair a BIG one with electrification of the route, could get the LA-SD Surfliner trip down to 1:45; competitive with even off-peak driving and a service for real commuting as opposed to day tripping (not that there's anything wrong with that!) And it could be done for billions less than high speed rail, and started now!


All that said though, I think you're selling HSR as a transit mode a bit short. I think countries around the world have shown that HSR fills a valuable niche and provides an important piece to the whole mobility pie. From looking at Europe and Asia it seems that experience has shown that HSR is the ideal form of travel for the 200-700 mile trip (car for shorter trips, plane for longer), and California as well as other corridors in the US just happen to fit that sort of trip. Also, and this can't be overlooked, HSR also provides a fast transit option to communities poorly served by air and vehicle otherwise. Sure from LA to SF you can say "why don't I just fly?" but what about Bakersfield and Merced? For those folks it's either a four hour car trip or a prohibitively expensive plane ticket out of a regional airport. HSR by contrast finally offers the smaller overlooked metros the ability to connect with their region as a whole in a fast and economical way, and that's not just an economic good but a social one too. :cheers:


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> I often ride Amtrak Cascades instead of driving on business trips. Yet I don't want HSR. Building more passing loops, signal upgrades and viaducts to get rid of crossing at grade on Amtrak Cascades would cut my transit time in half for a small fraction of the cost to upgrade Amtrak Cascades to HSR.
> 
> We could do this entirely with domestic equipment and labor. That may sound nationalistic, but it is simply realistic. It will be a lot easier to get Republican politicians from Idaho to vote for a national rail project if the locomotives are made by MotivePower in Boise.
> 
> I think that progressives in the USA have unrealistic expectations of public transport. Look at the situation in the Netherlands, which has better connecting mass transit than we have and one of the highest population densities in the world.
> 
> Total Dutch HSR Lines: 1 (to Belgium)
> 
> Dutch Transit By Trip: (excluding air travel)
> 50% automobile
> 25% bike
> 20% walking
> 5% public transit
> 
> Reliable inter-city rail that does not get stuck behind a freight train for three hours or have to slow down for at-grade crossings would be a massive upgrade on what we currently have, and would make passenger rail faster than cars.


I am pretty sure everyone worth his/her salt on this thread will support and actively vouch for having better and faster conventional passenger railway. However, in the USA making all these improvements i.e. passing loops, overpasses/underpasses, signaling improvements, electrification is cumbersome given the ownership of the tracks and not very SEXY for the politicians to market to the public. The CAHSR is an attractive proposal and still took decades of planning, marketing and lobbying to get the ball rolling

Of the numbers you provide for percent breakdown of trips in Netherlands how many of the automobile and cycling trips are really very short local trips where public transit is not much of an option?
What are the unrealistic expectation made of public transit in the USA?


----------



## phoenixboi08

Smooth Indian said:


> Nacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often ride Amtrak Cascades instead of driving on business trips. Yet I don't want HSR. Building more passing loops, signal upgrades and viaducts to get rid of crossing at grade on Amtrak Cascades would cut my transit time in half for a small fraction of the cost to upgrade Amtrak Cascades to HSR.
> 
> We could do this entirely with domestic equipment and labor. That may sound nationalistic, but it is simply realistic. It will be a lot easier to get Republican politicians from Idaho to vote for a national rail project if the locomotives are made by MotivePower in Boise.
> 
> I think that progressives in the USA have unrealistic expectations of public transport. Look at the situation in the Netherlands, which has better connecting mass transit than we have and one of the highest population densities in the world.
> 
> Total Dutch HSR Lines: 1 (to Belgium)
> 
> Dutch Transit By Trip: (excluding air travel)
> 50% automobile
> 25% bike
> 20% walking
> 5% public transit
> 
> Reliable inter-city rail that does not get stuck behind a freight train for three hours or have to slow down for at-grade crossings would be a massive upgrade on what we currently have, and would make passenger rail faster than cars.
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure everyone worth his/her salt on this thread will support and actively vouch for having better and faster conventional passenger railway. However, in the USA making all these improvements i.e. passing loops, overpasses/underpasses, signaling improvements, electrification is cumbersome given the ownership of the tracks and not very SEXY for the politicians to market to the public. The CAHSR is an attractive proposal and still took decades of planning, marketing and lobbying to get the ball rolling
> 
> Of the numbers you provide for percent breakdown of trips in Netherlands how many of the automobile and cycling trips are really very short local trips where public transit is not much of an option?
> What are the unrealistic expectation made of public transit in the USA?
Click to expand...

Of course, the important caveat is that a lot of the ROW that existing passengers services operate on (at least, in CA) is privately owned/maintained. Freight is hostile to it, at best. Either way one looks at it, we'd have needed all-new, dedicated passenger ROW anyways...

CAHSR is a backbone/trunkline for what is emerging as an actual statewide rail system. That's its purpose. That's why it's being built through the CV...that's why monies are being provided for local projects.

They are planning how to best interface existing rail services with HSR, going forward.



There have been rumors about a major increase in frequencies for MetroLink, but it may just be that. Although, I would not be surprised to continue seeing increased funding for improvement.

Anyways, the state has shown interest in actually using existing infrastructure, if possible (e.g. Caltrain). 

We seem to always be in the impossible situation where half call for entirely new infrastructure and the other half insists we should just make do with what exists.

Either or doesn't get us 100% there: Doing a little fo both does. Blending is always an option


----------



## Nacre

Smooth Indian said:


> Of the numbers you provide for percent breakdown of trips in Netherlands how many of the automobile and cycling trips are really very short local trips where public transit is not much of an option?


That is my point, though. Reduced automobile dependence in Europe is more a product of pedestrianized urban areas rather than high speed rail lines and metro systems.

Note that I am not against public transit, as I use the train wherever practical. But just digging a tunnel through Seattle for high speed rail would cost at least $6 billion USD. Based on California's numbers it would then cost an additional $29 billion to fully replace the Vancouver-Portland line with HSR.

For $1 billion we could implement all of the improvements I suggested to the existing line. (Electrification would be increase that a bit.) I don't really care if the evil railroad companies benefit if it also saves the taxpayers $34 billion.


----------



## Sunfuns

In Europe passenger trains have priority over freight on almost all routes. The opposite is true for Amtrak everywhere except parts of North Eastern corridor. That's a major problem not allowing higher reliability, more trains per hour etc.


----------



## bifhihher

I think we should try to find a sweet spot. Rail freight is not big in Europe, there is work to do in that area


----------



## aquamaroon

Some California High Speed Rail odds 'n ends:

The video of the November 15th meeting is now on Youtube:






A little bit of a dry civic watch so just the highlights of two specifics: this is the meeting where they awarded the DB contract and they also discuss construction updates. Regarding construction updates, of the 17 major projects listed (source here), 3 are completed and another 7 are online. The completed projects are:

Tuolumne Street Bridge











Fresno River Viaduct











Cottonwood Creek Viaduct









(doesn't look like much but it's still 250 feet long!)


Of the other projects some of the main ones online are the San Joaquin Viaduct and Cedar Viaduct already mentioned, as well as the SR99 realignment and the  Fresno Trench & State Route 180 Passageway:















In addition, Construction Packages 2,3 and 4 are well underway in pre-construction activities.

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

Regarding the funding from the state's Cap-and-Trade program, it looks like the money is finally coming through:



> *California Nets $860M From Carbon Auction*
> 
> California Nets $860M From Carbon Auction
> November 21, 2017 3:52 PM
> Filed Under: Abducting Southern California Boys, Auction, Cap-And-Trade, Carbon, Emissions
> 
> 
> SACRAMENTO (AP) — California will collect $860 million from auctioning carbon-emissions permits after the allowances sold out at a record price for the second straight quarter, according to state data released Tuesday.
> 
> Auction results released by the California Air Resources Board showed that demand remains strong for pollution permits since California lawmakers renewed the state’s cap-and-trade program in July. The program requires polluters to obtain a permit for each ton of greenhouse gases they release. The number of available permits declines each year.
> 
> Auction proceeds pay for a variety of environmental, transportation and other projects including high-speed rail and clean-vehicle subsidies.
> 
> Permits sold for $15.06 for current emissions, the highest price ever. That’s the nearly $1.50 above the auction floor and up from $14.75 in August. Permits for emissions in 2020 and beyond sold for $14.76 in last week’s auction.
> 
> *Lawmakers voted in July to reauthorize the cap-and-trade program through 2030. Before that demand for permits plummeted as businesses waited to see if the program would continue.*


http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/11/21/carbon-auction-california/
(_emphasis mine_)

So the Cap-and-Trade program, which had seen dismal returns due to market uncertainty, has finally spiked in demand. 25% of the revenue goes to HSR, so that works out to $215 million in the quarter alone. Combined with the $375 million dollars already procured by HSR from the program this year, and you're looking at $590 million for HSR from Cap-and-Trade this year, with millions more to come (if I've double counted please feel free to let me know.) All in all, excellent financial news for CAHSR going forward! (of course, private investment is still going to be required to get this thing over the finish line.)


----------



## aquamaroon

bifhihher said:


> I think we should try to find a sweet spot. Rail freight is not big in Europe, there is work to do in that area


Yeah good point. I think something American passenger rail supporters fail to appreciate is what a fantastic freight rail system the US has, and how the US is second to none when it comes to rail-shipment efficiency:

US Freight Railroads are the Envy of the World | TIME.com


> It’s not just that they are self-sufficient and fuel-efficient, employ 175,000 workers and have poured $500 billion into their trains, tracks and terminals since 1980. They are also quite literally the engines of our economy. America’s passenger rail is a global joke, but our freight rail is the envy of the world, carrying over 40% of our intercity cargo. Trains carry much less of Europe’s freight, which is why trucks clog Europe’s highways. And America’s rail-shipping rates are the world’s lowest, reducing the cost of doing business in the U.S.; they’ve fallen 45% in real dollars since the industry was deregulated three decades ago.


(_article from 2012 so some things may have changed_)

In the US rail is for goods and not people; in Europe it seems to be the reverse. And honestly, from say BNSF's perspective, you can see why they only begrudgingly accept Amtrak when in their view passengers are a sideshow to the "real" purpose of rail.
All that said, again Europe and Asia I think have shown that completely giving up on passenger rail was a mistake, and it's time to invest again. Passenger rail though has to understand that until they have their own dedicated tracks they are second priority to freight.


----------



## P2O5

The experience in Ireland was that rail freight became woefully uncompetitive for anything but bulk goods (mining products, timber etc.) as the distances goods needed to travel were small (under 250km in almost all cases). If transporting by rail this then meant unloading from ship or truck to a train, travelling to a depot to switch freight to trucks again within 50-250km, and then complete the journey by road - all the while increasing time and monetary costs every time extra freight handling was required. It's much easier to have trucks roll on and roll off ships here, or drive from one side of the island to the other (most journeys no longer than, or substantially under, 4 hours) without switching mode twice.

The situation in mainland Europe is of course much less extreme than that, but this might be an analogue to partly explain the comparatively poor modal share of freight in Europe as nearly everywhere in Europe is near the sea by US standards - geographical determinism perhaps.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Yep! That's a good/fair point, the issues may be geographical and cultural(i.e. smaller nation states) than anything else. Also, European nations had a nasty habit of going to war with one another throughout the 20th century, and so probably weren't that interested in coordinating on international freight rail routes! (it's why to this day Russia uses a separate track gauge than Western Europe/China; they got attacked by the Germans one too many times)


----------



## phoenixboi08

phoenixboi08 said:


> There have been rumors about a major increase in frequencies for MetroLink, but it may just be that. Although, I would not be surprised to continue seeing increased funding for improvement.
> 
> Anyways, the state has shown interest in actually using existing infrastructure, if possible (e.g. Caltrain).


And here it is...



> *Metrolink Plans for Increased Service and Partial Electrification*
> Regional rail agency plans for growth over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _So what can be done to make Metrolink more useful? The agency – which operates across five Southern California counties - is looking at a modernization program, announced earlier this month in a report entitled Integrated Service and Capital Plan (with Discussion on Electrification). It proposes far-reaching service improvements, including wiring some lines for electric operations, increasing frequency, and coordinating service planning with intercity rail as well as local buses. What Metrolink is seeking mirrors what some of the most forward-thinking foreign regional rail networks have achieved, such as those of Switzerland. And yet, some elements in the plan remain lacking.
> 
> ...the upcoming state rail plan may have also played a role. The state is [proposing] concrete goals, including a policy for evaluating multimodal lifecycle costs in decision making. This policy heavily favors electrification._


----------



## aquamaroon

Thanks for the link! I think the rail advocate mentioned, Clem Tillier, makes a good point: there's perhaps a better than even chance that Metrolink will become the southern counterpart to Caltrain, and an electrified HSR will run to Union Station alongside Electrified Metrolink tracks in a similar HSR/Commuter-Rail relationship.


ETA: for reference, the track that HSR would use would be that Orange trunk line in the center of the map phoenixboi08 posted, the one with stops in Anaheim-Fullerton-Norwalk-LA-Burbank (at that point the HSR would split off to go into its tunnel under SR-14/Angeles National Forest and up to its next stop in Palmdale. And like mentioned, maybe an "Electrolink" line would follow it up to Palmdale as well!)


----------



## M-NL

Sunfuns said:


> In Europe passenger trains have priority over freight on almost all routes. The opposite is true for Amtrak everywhere except parts of North Eastern corridor. That's a major problem not allowing higher reliability, more trains per hour etc.


In the Netherlands there are about 5 passenger trains for every freight train and the majority of those freight trains are limited to about 4 corridors of which one is a purpose built freight only line. This may give the false impression that passenger trains always get priority. Track capacity is however divided into slots. Bar a few exceptions, the train using its asigned slot usually gets priority, regardless what kind of train it is. However trains can be asked to give up their slot if that optimises capacity.


----------



## aquamaroon

CAHSRA released a 2017 year in review video. Nothing too new but nice to have it in one place! :cheers: Also slight addendum to my last video post: The Fresno/Cottonwood Creek viaducts aren't 100% completed. Essentially substantial construct is complete and the final "crossing the t's/dotting the i's" work is being done on the structures.


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


To step away from CA HSR for a bit, I wanted to check in on the *Big Enchilada* of US passenger rail: the Northeast Corridor, NEC. Specifically I had a question on Washington Union Station and its planned renovation. As part of Amtrak's plan to convert the NEC to full HSR by 2040, Union Station has planned upgrades in store:


























For those of you who closely follow the NEC, would you happen to know the latest updates on the Union Station Master Plan? Thanks! :cheers:


----------



## LtBk

Nacre said:


> That is my point, though. Reduced automobile dependence in Europe is more a product of pedestrianized urban areas rather than high speed rail lines and metro systems.
> 
> Note that I am not against public transit, as I use the train wherever practical. But just digging a tunnel through Seattle for high speed rail would cost at least $6 billion USD. Based on California's numbers it would then cost an additional $29 billion to fully replace the Vancouver-Portland line with HSR.
> 
> For $1 billion we could implement all of the improvements I suggested to the existing line. (Electrification would be increase that a bit.) I don't really care if the evil railroad companies benefit if it also saves the taxpayers $34 billion.


Good mass transit and railways play a role in reduced auto dependence too.


----------



## dysharmonica

Nacre said:


> That is my point, though. Reduced automobile dependence in Europe is more a product of pedestrianized urban areas rather than high speed rail lines and metro systems.
> 
> Note that I am not against public transit, as I use the train wherever practical. But just digging a tunnel through Seattle for high speed rail would cost at least $6 billion USD. Based on California's numbers it would then cost an additional $29 billion to fully replace the Vancouver-Portland line with HSR.
> 
> For $1 billion we could implement all of the improvements I suggested to the existing line. (Electrification would be increase that a bit.) I don't really care if the evil railroad companies benefit if it also saves the taxpayers $34 billion.


No freight line owner will allow electrification -- just ask Seattle and their Sounder system. 

80% of SoundTransit Link expenses are on building new right of way, because working with the freight line owners is impossible. Yes what you propose sounds nice .. on paper. It will never happen.


----------



## 00Zy99

dysharmonica said:


> No freight line owner will allow electrification -- just ask Seattle and their Sounder system.
> 
> 80% of SoundTransit Link expenses are on building new right of way, because working with the freight line owners is impossible. Yes what you propose sounds nice .. on paper. It will never happen.


They aren't TOTALLY toxic. So long as there is adequate provision made for high-wide loads, and the additional trains don't infringe on capacity.

There have been off-and-on studies for mass electrification for a century. It may just happen in our time.


----------



## The Polwoman

Strange, because in the Netherlands, the Betuweroute is an electrified freight-only line where all tunnel and viaduct dimensions are adapted to a possible future adaptation of double-stacked freight trains. It won't be a bad idea to electrify railways at all, provided that tunnel and viaduct dimensions (gauge) are big enough. The pantograph can extend to higher altitudes anyway. In Europe, many freight trains are electric ones.


----------



## anunnaki




----------



## aquamaroon

So since I mentioned Washington D.C.'s Union Station, I thought I'd provide an update on another Union Station getting ready for HSR: LA's!











This is a little bit of old news but Union Station, as part of its "Link US" program, recently approved a track layout for the future run through tracks as well as HSR:



















The "6+2" alternative (seen above) will have 6 tracks on 3 platforms for local Metrolink commuter rail, one platform and two tracks for long distance Amtrak, and one platform and two tracks for HSR. In addition there are two metro lines: the Gold (soon to be Blue) line from Long Beach to Montclair, and the West Santa Ana Branch from the Gateway Cities to Union Station (and then maybe onto Glendale someday? Fingers crossed!)

Here's a nice article describing the changes:



> *Metro Approves Continuing Work on Union Station Run-Through Tracks
> 
> By Joe Linton
> Mar 23, 2017*
> 
> As a result of interactions with the state of California and the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the recommended alternative actually changed since the item was considered in February. In February, Metro staff recommended a “6+4” alternative, which would have built four high-speed rail tracks. For today’s vote, the staff recommendation shifted to the “6+2” alternative which includes only two high-speed rail tracks, and accommodates phasing in high-speed rail over time. With fewer high-speed rail tracks, Metro’s planned West Santa Ana Branch rail project is expected to operate at the same level as the other tracks, instead of double-decked as was anticipated in the 6+4 alternative.
> 
> The funding for actually building the project is not clear. So far funding has come from Measure R and CHSRA. Metro staff reports that they are “exploring” getting funding from Metrolink and Amtrak, officially via their overarching agencies: Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency. Potential additional funding could come from Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and/or state cap-and-trade funds via CAHSRA and/or the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) grants.
> 
> To quell board fears about high-speed rail viability, Metro staff reported that the phased approach includes plenty of “offramps” where high-speed rail could be jettisoned from the project. CAHSRA is paying for the high-speed rail share of the design and construction costs. Further, from the staff report: “all the HSR project components in Link US are being designed with independent utility so that when complete all tracks and infrastructure can be fully utilized by Metrolink, Pacific Surfliner, and Amtrak until HSR reaches LAUS. If HSR plans do not move forward, and Metro chooses to change the scope of the project because the CHSRA plans are not advancing, CHSRA will be responsible for actual costs incurred including without limitation any and all costs due in connection with reducing the scope items added to accommodate HSR.”


https://la.streetsblog.org/2017/03/...ing-work-on-union-station-run-through-tracks/

Nice support for HSR guys! hno: (Though I guess TBF they have to be prepared for anything)

Re: the chosen alignment, the biggest negative I've seen in response is that this highly restricts potential HSR service to Las Vegas i.e. Desert Xpress. However, it was also mentioned in the comments of that article that the with the Electrification of Metrolink that "stub-end" platform and track can be repurposed for Desert Xpress service (it's unlikely they'll go south of LA). Be curious to see what you all think!

----

In addition to the new tracks Union Station is also upgrading it's concourse and areas adjacent. There are two main alternatives: an at grade concourse and an above grade concourse.

At Grade


















Above Grade



















In general the preferred option among transit riders is the at grade concourse option: It provides for easier circulation from Metrolink/Amtrak to Metro's subways/light-rail/buses. However, the at-grade option also has advantages: it's cheaper and it provides for sweeping vistas of the city. Here's a video showing the potential above grade concourse:






Hopefully we get an equally nice video for the at-grade option as well! :cheers:


----------



## dysharmonica

The Polman said:


> Strange, because in the Netherlands, the Betuweroute is an electrified freight-only line where all tunnel and viaduct dimensions are adapted to a possible future adaptation of double-stacked freight trains. It won't be a bad idea to electrify railways at all, provided that tunnel and viaduct dimensions (gauge) are big enough. The pantograph can extend to higher altitudes anyway. In Europe, many freight trains are electric ones.


I mean yes... elsewhere in the world it's possible. But in the US electrifying lines owned by freight companies has been a no-go for decades. 

Proposing such a solution as "easier" is just wishful thinking. I'd love to be wrong, but look at all that CAHSR has to build because negotiating with freight is an exercise in futility. US rail transit has been stunted for over a century by this problem - rail lines owned by private corporations - not the state and blocking any upgrades, elctrification, and passenger traffic.


----------



## Nacre

dysharmonica said:


> US rail transit has been stunted for over a century by this problem - rail lines owned by private corporations - not the state and blocking any upgrades, elctrification, and passenger traffic.


Governments have a lot of sticks to use against the railroad companies who are obstructive, including eminent domain. They also have several carrots.

For the Sounder specifically, BNSF needs government support over the coal trains run to Bellingham. (The track is within sight of my house, and there have been protesters and anti-railroad signs for a couple years now.) Washington State and DC should be able to force BNSF into submission with threats to block them from moving coal to China and potentially even using eminent domain to seize the railroad if they don't agree to electrification on the Sounder route.

I suspect the real reason we can't get this done is political. Moderate, cost-effective rail improvements do not win politicians enough votes from excited members of the public or the bags of campaign cash from construction companies that high speed rail would bring.


----------



## prageethSL

Texas bullet train clears environmental hurdle, alignment approved













> The long-awaited Texas "bullet train" cleared an important hurdle Friday when the Federal Railroad Administration released a draft environmental impact statement identifying a preferred route between Dallas and Houston as well as potential passenger station locations.
> The FRA analysis, which took roughly four years to complete, will kick off a consultation and land acquisition process that could eventually link the state's two largest urban and economic centers with a travel time less than 90 minutes at more than 200 mph, with a midway stop in the Brazos Valley near College Station.
> 
> "This is the biggest milestone to date that we've crossed so far," said Tim Keith, president of Texas Central Partners, the company developing the project. "This is actually the beginning of a document that will allow us to build the bullet train."
> The completion of the draft environmental impact statement kicks off a public comment period that runs through late February. Texas Central and the FRA will take those comments into consideration in moving toward a final statement.
> The project is expected to cost $12 billion. Texas Central has said it will not use federal or state grants to build the project, though it might obtain federally supported loans open to private companies. The Irving-based Fluor Enterprises and The Lane Construction Corporation, based in Connecticut, were selected in August to handle the construction and engineering of the project.
> The route for the train, selected out of a half-dozen options, follows transmission lines in a utility corridor between North Texas and Houston. The train lines would incorporate viaduct structures and would not include any existing road crossings, so as to not interfere with pedestrians, cars or wildlife.
> The analysis lists three options for the Houston station, to be determined at a later date. The station could be placed in the general area south of U.S. 290, west of Loop 610 or north of Interstate 10 — near major employment centers, including the Galleria, Texas Medical Center, the Energy Corridor and downtown.
> The Dallas station would be in the Cedars area south of the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center. The Brazos Valley Station in Grimes County would be near Texas 90 and Texas 30, and would serve Bryan-College Station with direct shuttle service to Texas A&M University.
> The company has already acquired 30 percent of the land parcels it needs to complete the project, with about 50 percent of the parcels it needs in Grimes and Waller counties.
> "We've done well in the areas that we've had certainty of alignment," Keith said. "Now we're able to move out quickly on additional purchases."
> With the release of the draft statement, the typical timeline for a final decision on permitting is less than 12 months. If all federal approvals are obtained, *construction could begin as early as late 2018 or early 2019*, with an expected completion in 2023.


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^Any reason they wouldn't use Union Station in Dallas? And why so far out of downtown Houston?


----------



## Sunfuns

Because they want to save costs. It's a privately funded project after all.


----------



## ADCS

BoulderGrad said:


> ^^Any reason they wouldn't use Union Station in Dallas? And why so far out of downtown Houston?


The last six miles inside the loop could cost as much as the entire rest of the project.


----------



## Basincreek

Nacre said:


> Governments have a lot of sticks to use against the railroad companies who are obstructive, including eminent domain. They also have several carrots.
> 
> For the Sounder specifically, BNSF needs government support over the coal trains run to Bellingham. (The track is within sight of my house, and there have been protesters and anti-railroad signs for a couple years now.) Washington State and DC should be able to force BNSF into submission with threats to block them from moving coal to China and potentially even using eminent domain to seize the railroad if they don't agree to electrification on the Sounder route.
> 
> I suspect the real reason we can't get this done is political. Moderate, cost-effective rail improvements do not win politicians enough votes from excited members of the public or the bags of campaign cash from construction companies that high speed rail would bring.


By law only the Federal government can compel the freight railroads to do anything (an artifact from when Robber Baron railroad owners basically ran the country and didn't want to have to deal with the demands of states or city governments). With congress in the hands of anti-transit Republicans such a thing is unlikely at best.


----------



## zaphod

IIRC the Dallas station will be less than a mile from Union Station anyways, it would be possible to build a pedestrian skywalk alongside the convention center if necessary I think. A little bus or van could meet Amtrak trains to shuttle passengers between the two.


----------



## sdery

The station location for Houston is actually reasonably close to the Galleria area which is almost a second downtown for Houston. They could probably extend it to downtown proper if the demand is there and if the project can be completed at a reasonable price.


----------



## Anday

*Vancouver to Seattle in an hour? Ultrafast rail study brings it one step closer*



> *Washington State study examined technology, routes, station locations, costs for linking Pacific Northwest*





> _An ultra-high-speed rail line linking Vancouver to Seattle and Portland would cost between $24 billion and $42 billion US and attract around 1.8 million riders per year, according to a study conducted by Washington’s department of transportation._


----------



## tjrgx

*Enthusiasm for ‘maglev’ train between D.C., Baltimore mounts — as does opposition*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...490ee0-e112-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html

Opponents of a proposal to build a high-speed train line that could make the trip between Washington and Baltimore in 15 minutes are asking state and federal officials to kill the project.

Northeast Maglev, the Washington-based company behind the project, says the 40-mile "superconducting magnetic levitation train system," commonly called a maglev, would be the first leg of a line between Washington and New York — a trip that could be done in an hour.

Proponents say the project would ease travel in the congested Interstate 95 corridor, but many residents are concerned about the environmental impact and the homes that would be taken to make way for the line.

And, with limited public funding available for transportation projects, opponents say, any taxpayer money that would be used for the maglev would be better spent improving the existing rail infrastructure.

"We don't believe it is economically viable. We don't see the ridership. We don't see the revenue," said Dennis Brady, a Bowie resident who has organized a grass-roots group against the project.

"We are concerned that they will end up coming to the state and the feds for subsidies and it will be a pocketbook issue for taxpayers," Brady said.

Supporters counter that the Maryland maglev project, estimated to cost $10 billion to $12 billion, will create jobs, spur economic development and provide a fast, green and innovative "transportation solution" using a proven technology.

The system, in use in Japan, harnesses powerful magnetic forces that lift and propel trains four inches above a U-shaped guideway at speeds of up to 375 mph.

"It is going to be three times as fast as anything we have now," said Wayne Rogers, chief executive of Northeast Maglev. The train would travel at 311 mph, he said.

Amtrak's fastest service, the Acela Express, makes the trip from Washington to Baltimore in 32 minutes, and to New York's Penn Station in just under three hours. Acela trains run at speeds up to 135 mph, but more than half of Amtrak trains operate at top speeds of 100 mph.

'Transformational' plan

Known as the world's fastest train, the maglev is faster than Japan's famous bullet trains, which travel at about 200 mph, and some of Europe's high-speed trains that travel at up to 186 mph.

Discussion of a maglev system for the Washington region goes back at least two decades. The Federal Railroad Administration studied a German version of the maglev technology in the early 2000s. Interest in the project waned as the region — and country — braced for the economic recession, but picked up again with the success of the Japanese system.

Japan is one of the first countries to develop and adopt maglev trains.

Supporters tout the Maryland project as "transformational" for American travelers who often face delays on the country's aging rails, gridlocked roads, and in outdated airports. The Northeast Corridor, the country's busiest rail network, would benefit from additional capacity, they say.

The project has the backing of Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), and the state has received a $28 million federal grant to cover impact studies. If things go as planned, construction could begin as soon as 2019, with service starting in 2027, officials said.

But critics aren't convinced the system is needed or economically feasible.

Some residents and elected officials of communities in the proposed path of the line are concerned about the homes and businesses that would be displaced through eminent domain. They also contend the service would target the "elite business traveler" and be out of reach of most citizens, with high ticket prices and limited access to stations. More than 1,300 people have signed a petition to be presented to Hogan and the FRA asking the project be killed.

Project leaders say the maglev line is planned to run about 60 percent underground; the aboveground portion would be built on less developed areas of the corridor, reducing impact on residential communities.

They also say ticket prices probably would be slightly more than an Acela fare. The one-way adult business-class fare between Washington and Baltimore costs about $46.

Plans call for three stops: one in each city and at Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport.

The project is in the early stages of a multiyear environmental study required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Led by the FRA and the Maryland Department of Transportation, the study will analyze impacts on communities and the environment and ultimately determine a preferred construction alternative. The impact study began last summer and is expected to be completed in 2019.

As part of the process, officials have narrowed the project's potential routes to three, eliminating in recent months some of those that would have necessitated the leveling of hundreds of homes. Two of the proposed routes parallel the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. A third option, the one that raises the most concerns, runs along Amtrak's Penn Line, a heavily-developed corridor.

Maryland and Northeast Maglev officials say they expect that option will be left off the final list. MDOT spokeswoman Erin Henson said the agency is working with the FRA "to eliminate the Amtrak route outright and will continue to closely examine remaining potential routes to guard against any possible harm to local communities."

'Train to nowhere'?

Hogan and Maryland Transportation Secretary Pete K. Rahn promised to bring maglev technology to Maryland after they rode Japan's 27-mile Yamanashi maglev line during a 2015 trade mission.

Maryland has since pursued grants for the project and has looked at other initiatives that could bring a high-speed transportation system to the state. Maryland recently gave conditional approval for construction of a tunnel from Baltimore to Washington as part of entrepreneur Elon Musk's plans to build a super-high-speed transportation system known as the Hyperloop. Musk's Boring Co. envisions tunnels that will cart goods and people underneath major cities in vacuum-sealed tubes at high speeds.

Maglev proponents say while the Hyperloop remains a concept, maglev is a proven technology already carrying passengers. "We are talking about bringing a train that already exists, it's already been designed. It's already something that you can ride on," Rogers said. And it has financing commitments.

Japanese media have reported that the nation's government has offered $5 billion in financial backing for the Maryland line, while Central Japan Railway, the train operator, has said it will not charge any licensing fees for the technology. Northeast Maglev would have to raise the remainder from public and private sources, company officials said. Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pitched the Washington-to-New York maglev as an opportunity to invest in infrastructure at a White House visit last February.

Baltimore Mayor Catherine E. Pugh (D), a proponent of the project, has called it a stimulator for growth and economic development and a generator of jobs with potential to transform neighborhoods and communities.

"I am excited about being able to travel to D.C. in 15 minutes," Pugh said at a recent announcement of a labor agreement for the project. North America's Building Trades Unions are backing the *effort.

Chanda Washington, a spokeswoman for the D.C. deputy mayor for planning and economic development, said the District is engaged in the environmental review process for the project but has not committed to it.

"It is premature to speculate on the District's position overall, but we are interested in the project," Washington said. "We are always interested in transit options that will provide opportunities for our residents and businesses."

State Sen. Jim Rosapepe (D-Prince George's) said most people agree the focus moving forward should be on narrowing the route options to one that has minimal impact on communities.

In a Dec. 19 letter to Rahn, Rosapepe and six other lawmakers from Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties asked the state to drop the Amtrak route and urged the state to "identify and mitigate any community impacts of underground routes."

In northern Prince George's County, Laurel officials, including Mayor Craig Moe (D), are among those who say money should instead be spent on fixing existing infrastructure, including Metro.

"I have repeatedly heard that this is a train to nowhere!" Moe wrote in a Dec. 22 letter to Hogan. "I share that thought and believe that taxpayers need better infrastructure and upgraded services, and not the commitment of funds for another system that serves no one in the greater Laurel area.

"Our sparse transportation dollars are needed to fund projects that will truly serve all of the constituents in this region in a cost effective manner," he wrote.

Community activists, meanwhile, are mobilizing to distribute hundreds of "Stop the maglev train" yard signs, and get residents to project meetings. A Facebook page, "Citizens Against SCMaglev," is available for residents to voice their concerns.

"Now that they seem to be lining up the money, we are more concerned," Brady, the Bowie resident, said.

Proponents say they understand the residents' fears. They say they hope to settle on a route that most people can agree on.

"Our infrastructure is old and straining. The car traffic is terrible. The rail infrastructure is 100 years old. And the airports are overcrowded. So we got to do something about it," Rogers said. "We have to move on this today."


----------



## Nerone.Au

Alstom's numbers says the Avelia Liberty can do 300km/h on curves, but will that be commercially possible on East Coast tracks? In my opinion the new service should be an hour faster than the Regional...


----------



## phoenixboi08

The new platform (which marries the Pendolino with whatever it is the TGV uses - I can never really remember what they call that) will allow for actual use of tilt. There have apparently been issues with the current Acela rolling stock that have prevented full utilization. 

However, I don’t think service _ever_ hits 300kph, in regular service - with existing infrastructure. 

I believe the highest speed [restriction] is ~265kph, and I don’t know how many curves can be taken at this speed. Very few, I suspect (probably closer to 115-130kph range).


----------



## siamu maharaj

The Japanese maglev is in testing phase and not in production. A maglev from Washington to Boston would be amazing though.


----------



## Negjana

What the hell are train collision barriers?


----------



## wgerman

aquaticko said:


> To put these numbers in perspective, the entirety of the first phase of the project could double in cost--go from $64B to $128B--and still cost less than 5% of one year of California's GDP (~2.7 trillion in 2017). Considering that construction is projected to take about 13 years, and 13x2717=35,321, and 128/35,321=.0036, and therefore the annual cost of the project over the duration of construction will cost less than one-half of 1% of California's GDP, the state can _easily_ afford this.
> 
> And this is only really a "cost" if one assumes that the alternative is to not spend anything on California's transportation infrastructure over the next 13 years--which is not actually an option.
> 
> I'm politically biased, but not geographically biased (I'm from faraway NH), and I can't help but think, over and over again, that opposition to this project is based far more on ideology than practicality.


Which is ironic because of the one smaller tenets of those on the left (which is almost 100% of California) is a strong infrastructure. I was excited when the idea was proposed having seen so many Hi-Speed projects announced but never moved on. I thought this would be a relatively quick project with populace support. Did not know or understand the opposition from the bay area or SoCal. I thought everyone was on the same "political" team. Weird, just very weird from such a progressive state as California. Then again, the government did themselves no favors by underestimating the cost of such a project. 

I remember Popular Mechanics or Science had a front cover article in the 80s about the hi speed rail between LA-SAN. The estimated cost at time I believe was like 6 billion dollars.................Yeah let that sink in.


----------



## wgerman

Short said:


> While this is the only operating station along the Dallas-Houston HSR, are there provisions for emergency stations and refuges in other places along the line? Or for future infill stations if the project demands it in later years?


The only major population center between Dallas and Houston. Texas A&M is there, potential for lots of student traffic, especially to Houston.

The only bad thing about this route that is proposed is that it will miss the Houston Airport on the northside.


----------



## aquaticko

wgerman said:


> Which is ironic because of the one smaller tenets of those on the left (which is almost 100% of California) is a strong infrastructure. I was excited when the idea was proposed having seen so many Hi-Speed projects announced but never moved on. I thought this would be a relatively quick project with populace support. Did not know or understand the opposition from the bay area or SoCal. I thought everyone was on the same "political" team. Weird, just very weird from such a progressive state as California. Then again, the government did themselves no favors by underestimating the cost of such a project.
> 
> I remember Popular Mechanics or Science had a front cover article in the 80s about the hi speed rail between LA-SAN. The estimated cost at time I believe was like 6 billion dollars.................Yeah let that sink in.



Well, like every state to varying extents, California is a microcosm for the U.S. as a whole. There are more than enough people in the state with vested interests--economic and/or ideological--in making that sure that CAHSR fails. Even some of those on the left don't like the idea of a big government project which is liable to do a little environmental damage and not benefit absolutely every single person involved.

I'm not at all surprised by cost overruns in a big infrastructure project; that's just about the only certainty with these kinds of things. However, that doesn't make the project less worthwhile overall.


----------



## Smooth Indian

wgerman said:


> Which is ironic because of the one smaller tenets of those on the left (which is almost 100% of California) is a strong infrastructure. I was excited when the idea was proposed having seen so many Hi-Speed projects announced but never moved on. I thought this would be a relatively quick project with populace support. Did not know or understand the opposition from the bay area or SoCal. I thought everyone was on the same "political" team. Weird, just very weird from such a progressive state as California. Then again, the government did themselves no favors by underestimating the cost of such a project.
> 
> I remember Popular Mechanics or Science had a front cover article in the 80s about the hi speed rail between LA-SAN. The estimated cost at time I believe was like 6 billion dollars.................Yeah let that sink in.


Strong infrastructure is not necessarily a tenet of the Left. In UK and in India it is the right (Conservatives and BJP) who are promoting high speed rail in the form of HS2 and the Mumbai-Ahmedabad HSR. Its only in the US that the Right opposes it. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger who was opposed initially came on board in his final years as governor. If the proposed 42-45 billion dollars were guaranteed in 2008-2009 then this project would have been in the advanced stages of construction right now. If California was an independent country we would have been rail fanning on the 'fly california' trains instead of debating on this forum.


----------



## Basincreek

Negjana said:


> What the hell are train collision barriers?


Basically an expensive reinforced concrete wall.



wgerman said:


> Which is ironic because of the one smaller tenets of those on the left (which is almost 100% of California) is a strong infrastructure. I was excited when the idea was proposed having seen so many Hi-Speed projects announced but never moved on. I thought this would be a relatively quick project with populace support. Did not know or understand the opposition from the bay area or SoCal. I thought everyone was on the same "political" team. Weird, just very weird from such a progressive state as California. Then again, the government did themselves no favors by underestimating the cost of such a project.
> 
> I remember Popular Mechanics or Science had a front cover article in the 80s about the hi speed rail between LA-SAN. The estimated cost at time I believe was like 6 billion dollars.................Yeah let that sink in.


In the cities of California there is massive support for the project. But out in the rural areas things are different.


----------



## Fan Railer

Late-night trains @ Princeton Junction:


----------



## pesto

Smooth Indian said:


> Strong infrastructure is not necessarily a tenet of the Left. In UK and in India it is the right (Conservatives and BJP) who are promoting high speed rail in the form of HS2 and the Mumbai-Ahmedabad HSR. Its only in the US that the Right opposes it. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger who was opposed initially came on board in his final years as governor. If the proposed 42-45 billion dollars were guaranteed in 2008-2009 then this project would have been in the advanced stages of construction right now. If California was an independent country we would have been rail fanning on the 'fly california' trains instead of debating on this forum.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Why mislead others into believing any of this b/s? Even on the internet there is some responsibility.


----------



## aquaticko

pesto said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. Why mislead others into believing any of this b/s? Even on the internet there is some responsibility.


...He's not necessarily wrong; it just depends on what kinds of "left" and "right" are dominant in a country.

Take the countries of East Asia. In China, Japan, and South Korea, the prominent rightist position is of state intervention in market activity if warranted for national economic security and growth. By contrast, the left in those countries (such as it exists) often emphasizes environmental preservation, which the building of things like concrete viaducts and tunnels for HSR obviously contradicts, as well as the kind of protection of individual rights which might end up emphasizing landholders' rights over national infrastructure projects.

Basically, does your right prioritize economic growth and development over all else, or is a slightly more holistic approach considered? I'm generalizing, but that's what I take to be his general meaning.


----------



## wgerman

Fan Railer said:


> Late-night trains @ Princeton Junction:



Amazing how well the twenty year old Acelas and forty year old Amfleet cars are holding up on the NEC. Testament to their build quality.


----------



## prageethSL

*Texas High speed rail*


----------



## pesto

prageethSL said:


>


Sounds like a reasonable idea given the flatness of the state and moderate distances involved. That's where trains have a fighting chance.

But you can't put together a slide show with misspellings and improper word usage. It makes people assume your numbers and engineering are equally funky.

Second, I didn't see much about operating costs and losses; or private investors lined-up; or costs of a ticket and comparison to the cost of electric cars and airplanes.

Finally, it's always hard to take these numbers seriously when California HSR is now about triple its projected cost, has already started dipping into the general fund and hasn't penciled out for a private investor in 10 years of trying.


----------



## TM_Germany

wgerman said:


> Which is ironic because of the one smaller tenets of those on the left (which is almost 100% of California) is a strong infrastructure. I was excited when the idea was proposed having seen so many Hi-Speed projects announced but never moved on. I thought this would be a relatively quick project with populace support. Did not know or understand the opposition from the bay area or SoCal. I thought everyone was on the same "political" team. Weird, just very weird from such a progressive state as California. Then again, the government did themselves no favors by underestimating the cost of such a project.
> 
> I remember Popular Mechanics or Science had a front cover article in the 80s about the hi speed rail between LA-SAN. The estimated cost at time I believe was like 6 billion dollars.................Yeah let that sink in.


I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but to me it sounds like you think the left is trying to ideologically c**kblock the project. That is not the case (at least that I am aware of) They are having big problems in the (overwhelmingly conservative) Central Valley because they are ideologically opposed to big government spending (unless it's freeways, of course) and trains are just for hipsters and vegans anyway.
Opposition from the progressive Bay Area or SoCal seems to be more the classic NIMBY rather than ideologic opposition. That's at least my take on the whole thing


----------



## lunarwhite

Today Texas Central Partners released renderings and plan maps for the Dallas Station.

Here is the link.

https://www.texascentral.com/2018/01/29/north-texas-bullet-train-station/


----------



## zaphod

TM_Germany said:


> I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but to me it sounds like you think the left is trying to ideologically c**kblock the project. That is not the case (at least that I am aware of) They are having big problems in the (overwhelmingly conservative) Central Valley because they are ideologically opposed to big government spending (unless it's freeways, of course) and trains are just for hipsters and vegans anyway.
> Opposition from the progressive Bay Area or SoCal seems to be more the classic NIMBY rather than ideologic opposition. That's at least my take on the whole thing


Also isn't the California project going to be relatively complicated, in an engineering sense?

It's going to require massive viaducts and tunnels, cross mountain passes, and travel deep into densely populated urban centers that have some of the world's most expensive real estate.

And its being built in a country with strong private property rights, lots of complex building regulations, earthquakes, expensive unionized construction labor, and absolutely no domestic experience in the design and construction of a modern high speed railway. Then there's the lack of political will and continual political turmoil and drama within the US.

In contrast the Texas high speed line is being built over flat, rural land with no significant water or hill features and will avoid even the tiniest towns. Almost the entire alignment will be built on an existing contiguous right of way currently occupied by high voltage power lines. Except for the downtown Dallas station which is being built in an abandoned industrial wasteland adjacent to a floodplain, the other two stations will be built in suburban locations. And, because its a private sector project in a cheap business friendly state it can get away with buying "off the shelf" trains and engineering and construction from an established Japanese high speed rail company.


----------



## prageethSL

Here's what the proposed Dallas bullet train station could look like.



































> The developer behind a proposed bullet train connecting North Texas and Houston has released renderings of the planned station in southern Dallas.
> Texas Central Partners’ plans show a multi-level station between South Riverfront Boulevard and Austin Street in Dallas’ Cedars neighborhood. Pedestrian bridges connect the proposed station to nearby DART and other public transit stations as well as parking areas included in the proposal.
> “This station will be a magnet for economic activity in an area ripe for development. And it will connect seamlessly with local roads and public transit,” said Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar.
> Station concourses would also include public areas like bars and restaurants, seating areas and rental car kiosks, according to the Draft Environmental Impact Survey.


----------



## 8166UY

Will there be a fast connection to the down town area with metro or light rail? That would really make it more competitive.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

8166UY said:


> Will there be a fast connection to the down town area with metro or light rail? That would really make it more competitive.


It's in the description:


> Pedestrian bridges connect the proposed station to nearby DART and other public transit stations...


Dallas doesn't have a metro (heavy rail system), just light rail, and buses. But as you can see, the closest facilities are huge car parks (and I assume rental car lots) which acknowledges the reality that in the U.S., outside the NE corridor, and especially in sunbelt sprawl cities, the majority of customers of this service will be driving to their final destinations.


----------



## rantanamo

k.k.jetcar said:


> It's in the description:
> 
> 
> Dallas doesn't have a metro (heavy rail system), just light rail, and buses. But as you can see, the closest facilities are huge car parks (and I assume rental car lots) which acknowledges the reality that in the U.S., outside the NE corridor, and especially in sunbelt sprawl cities, the majority of customers of this service will be driving to their final destinations.


TRE


----------



## k.k.jetcar

rantanamo said:


> TRE


Trinity Railway Express is a diesel commuter line with (by world standards) miniscule ridership of 8200 pax/day. If it eventually becomes a fully electrified line with 5 min headways, then we could consider it a metro or RER type system.


----------



## rantanamo

Forgot how specific you guys were. Zipping the trap back up

Sent from my XT1650 using SkyscraperCity Forums mobile app


----------



## dysharmonica

k.k.jetcar said:


> It's in the description:
> 
> 
> Dallas doesn't have a metro (heavy rail system), just light rail, and buses. But as you can see, the closest facilities are huge car parks (and I assume rental car lots) which acknowledges the reality that in the U.S., outside the NE corridor, and especially in sunbelt sprawl cities, the majority of customers of this service will be driving to their final destinations.


indeed. 

One thing I am surprised is that the carparks seem to block the path for the tracks to continue. Ultimately, Texas Central has no interest in spending the billions needed to get the rail to the actual downtown in either city (not now), but has floated that such extensions could happen in the future, and of course other expansions also .... so I hope they are not blocking future expansion path.


----------



## phoenixboi08

k.k.jetcar said:


> Dallas doesn't have a metro (heavy rail system), just light rail, and buses.


LRT/HRT is technology, not service. There are metros that use LRT (especially when you break down the semantic difference of streetcar-tram between NA and the EU).

Anyways, it's more illustrative to examine the actual level-of-service to determine whether it meets what we would _describe_ as metro/subway service (i.e. "show up and get on").



k.k.jetcar said:


> ...which acknowledges the reality that in the U.S., outside the NE corridor, and especially in sunbelt sprawl cities, the majority of customers of this service will be driving to their final destinations.


...it acknowledges the reality that a private venture, with narrowly defined interests, is only capable of so much...

Land use can change.

It changes all the time.

Houston and Dallas are fully capable of supplementing travel needs of most passengers if this was being planned holistically: It isn't. TXCentral thinks this will/can be successful with majority business travelers, driving to/from the stations. 

A proper EIS should tell them as much, and is why I've always been skeptical of their rationale; particularly, their chosen alternatives for route and station locations. They mostly appear to be doing what's cheapest, honestly.

That's the problem.


----------



## Stuu

I have never been to Dallas, but looking at the map the proposed station seems pretty good. It’s a reasonable walking distance to the light rail stop, and only around 1km from the middle of downtown. To get any more central would cost serious $$ for not very much benefit. Access by car is the reality for the majority of potential passengers


----------



## dysharmonica

phoenixboi08 said:


> They mostly appear to be doing what's cheapest, honestly.
> 
> That's the problem.


they appear to be doing what will be the most profitable. There indeed are limits to what a private railroad venture is capable of / willing to do. 

I think of this segment as the IOS of a future system. If the demand is there, it's easier to make a business case for taking the line downtown in both cities -- especially with local support. 

(and then extending to FW, and adding more lines) -- basically similarly to how Brlightline is planning it's growth. I think Texas Central is just not talking about it, so they can win one battle before moving to the next.


----------



## Gusiluz

*Acela ridership*

Fiscal year / *Passengers* / % change

2003 / 2,363,454
2004 / 2,568,935 / +8,69 %
2005 / 1,772,868 / -30,99 %
2006 / 2,668,174 / +50,50 %
2007 / 3,191,321 / +19,61 %
2008 / 3,398,759 / +6,50 %
2009 / 3,019,627 / -11,16 %
2010 / 3,218,718 / +6,59 %
2011 / 3,379,126 / +4,98 %
2012 / 3,395,354 / +0,48 %
2013 / 3,343,143 / -1,54 %
2014 / 3,545,306 / +6,05 %
2015 / 3,473,644 / -2,02 %
2016 / 3,489,311 / +0,45 %
2017 / 3,442,000 / -1,36 %
Own elaboration with Amtrak data

*Passengers.Km*
In 2016 they were approximately one billion (1,055,685,460) since the average route was 303 km (188 miles).
To place in the international context: something less than the Javelin regional service, provided by HST (class 395) of Southeastern Co. (not Eurostar) in the HS1 between Stratford International or Ebbsfleet International and London St Pancras: some 13 million passengers with an average of 75 km.

Does anyone have data from other years? The most important are the Passengers.Km. It is the same if the data is in Passengers.Mile.
Thanks in advance!


----------



## Qtya

*Texas Central Announces Its Houston Bullet Train Station Preferred Location*









































































Source: https://www.texascentral.com/2018/02/05/houston-bullet-train-station-location-announced/


----------



## prageethSL

^^


----------



## towerpower123

Of course that will be in the middle of nowhere where it will effectively be a park-and-ride station to get to nowhere! Why am I not surprised? It will be here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7992351,-95.4527019,1188m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2
It is the corner of Magnum Road, West 18th Street, and Hempstead Road, immediately west of a massive freeway interchange and surrounded by suburban office parks, warehouses, a few single-family homes (all only minimally accessible due to the wide roads and highways), and oversized roads, with a hellish pedestrian environment. This means that very few people will actually use it as it is far outside of the the closest walkable downtown area, Uptown, at more than 3 miles away to the south, and the main Downtown is 6.5 miles to the southeast. There is absolutely no bus transportation around it, which means that taxis and Uber will be the only way to the business and tourism districts until they put a commuter rail line on the adjacent rail line to goes right to Downtown. Why not parallel that rail corridor that runs next to the site and go right to the northern edge of the Downtown if they are spending that much money??? You can also tell their views on the situation in that there are no trains and very few people in those renders while the cars and highways are prominently shown!


----------



## dysharmonica

towerpower123 said:


> Why not parallel that rail corridor that runs next to the site and go right to the northern edge of the Downtown if they are spending that much money???



Simply put Money and the lack of political capital. 

This has been known for a while. They are relying on this "initial operating segment" to get things going, and as the line get more popular are betting that the public pressure for better station location will grease the way to get through grabbing ROW for the track to the city. 

This is what we get with a privately funded train. No government project would be allowed to place a terminus station here. Alas ... they are maximizing profits .. and that means placing the station here.


----------



## Woonsocket54

If built, this will be billed as the "train to nowhere" and will be ridiculed so much that it will serve as the death knell for HSR in Texas.

That said, this has zero chance of ever being built.


----------



## [atomic]

It is a 20 Minute ride from Downtown in a Car, should be ok. Sure the Station should be just across the 45 from Downtown but I don't want to know what that would cost.


----------



## Woonsocket54

If they're going to drive a car from downtown to the edge of town, they may as well keep driving to Dallas. In any case, Houston has a largely vacant downtown, so the actual location of the station probably doesn't matter much.


----------



## The Polwoman

I personally wouldn't go by car from downtown to an HST station, that's a waste of space and parking costs. What should be done to connect this station to any form of rail transport (commuter/light rail/etc) to downtown?


----------



## aquaticko

> If built, this will be billed as the "train to nowhere" and will be ridiculed so much that it will serve as the death knell for HSR in Texas.
> 
> That said, this has zero chance of ever being built.


^^Kinda have to second that notion. We've seen renders, price tags, and a couple specifics about route and station locations, but unless JR Central is going to finance this whole thing itself, we know of nothing concrete to actually _make_ it happen (as opposed to just imagine it).


----------



## Woonsocket54

The Polman said:


> I personally wouldn't go by car from downtown to an HST station, that's a waste of space and parking costs. What should be done to connect this station to any form of rail transport (commuter/light rail/etc) to downtown?


What should be done? Someone should find a way for $5 billion to materialize out of thin air.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*This one they can't blame on CSX lol*

"*Amtrak train breaks apart at 125 mph*"

https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/amtrak-train-breaks-apart-at-125-mph/









https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/amtrak-train-breaks-apart-at-125-mph/


----------



## [atomic]

Woonsocket54 said:


> If they're going to drive a car from downtown to the edge of town, they may as well keep driving to Dallas. In any case, Houston has a largely vacant downtown, so the actual location of the station probably doesn't matter much.


I can see lots of people taking a Taxi or Uber between Downtown (or wherever) and the Station. Many don't want to take the car if they don't have to (4+hours by car). 


Woonsocket54 said:


> "*Amtrak train breaks apart at 125 mph*"
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/amtrak-train-breaks-apart-at-125-mph/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/amtrak-train-breaks-apart-at-125-mph/


What is going on...:bash:


----------



## Woonsocket54

Another photo of the HSR post-premature decoupling










https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amtrak-train-2150-acela-breaks-apart-boston/


----------



## prageethSL

*Feds reveal finalists for maglev train route between Baltimore and D.C. *

*Baltimore-DC Maglev Could Be Speeding Toward 2020 Construction Start*





















> Last fall, UrbanTurf reported on the progress that had been made on selecting a route for a superconducting magnetic levitation (maglev) system that would ferry passengers from DC to Baltimore within 15 minutes. Now, the Federal Railroad Administration and Maryland Department of Transportation have narrowed route options down further.
> As the maglev team works to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, a report was released last month that identifies two potential routes worth studying for the high-speed rail system. The option to build nothing will also be retained and studied alongside the two routes.
> 
> 
> The first route, “BWP Modified East”, has elevated tracks that generally follow along the east side of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway through the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), the Patuxent Research Refuge (PRR) and Fort Meade. The train would tunnel under DC until after the Beltway and from Fort Meade to BWI Airport and then to its terminus in Baltimore.
> The second route, “BWP Modified West”, has elevated tracks along the west side of B-W Parkway, going through BARC and avoiding PRR. The train on this route would also tunnel under DC until after the Beltway, and would tunnel under Fort Meade before turning east toward BWI Airport and its Baltimore City terminus.
> Both routes would involve going under Anacostia Park; both also avoid the National Arboretum and are considered to have the least impact on residential areas.
> 
> 
> *The maglev system would have three underground stations—in Baltimore City, at BWI Airport, and in the District—with entrances either on the street or within buildings.​* The station in Baltimore would either be in the Westport-Cherry Hill area, around Inner Harbor or in Port Covington. In DC, the station would either be around NoMa-Gallaudet or Mount Vernon Square. At all three stop locations, a zone with a one-mile radius has been identified for study.​ Going forward, the team will analyze both routes to determine alignments, the “Limits of Disturbance”, and the potential locations of stations and support facilities. Both routes will also be compared to the costs and benefits of a “no-build” option.





> Construction of a high-speed maglev train system between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., could begin as early as 2020, according to Maryland Secretary of Transportation Pete Rahn.
> 
> Speaking before a state legislative committee, Rahn said that the NEPA analysis of potential routes for the 40-mile system are focusing on both sides of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, portions of which are maintained by the Maryland Department of Highways and the National Park Service. Construction would take between five to seven years, Rahn added.
> 
> While terminal locations in both cities’ downtowns have yet to be determined, the maglev line would have a stop at Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport. *Approximately 75% of the line would be located underground.*
> 
> Estimated to cost as much as $15 billion, the Baltimore-DC maglev project would rely entirely on private financing. Although the project’s website mentions no specific funding resource or allocation, Wayne Rogers, CEO of project developer NortheastMAGLEV, told the state legislative committee that *$5 billion in funding will come from Japan*, where high-speed trains using superconductiving magnetic levitation technology have been in operation for several years. The technology allows for speeds of up to 300 mph, according to proponents.
> 
> Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) became a proponent of a Baltimore-Washington project following a 2015 trade mission to the country, when he and Rahn rode the 27-mile Yamanashi maglev line.
> 
> In 2016, the Federal Railroad Administration awarded the state $27.8 million grant to fund preliminary and a NEPA analysis of potential routes. A draft environmental impact statement is due to be issued in early 2019, according the project’s website.


----------



## aquamaroon

Oh and of course for those interested here is the Draft 2018 Business Plan from CAHSRA: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/Draft_2018_Business_Plan.pdf


ETA: Obviously haven't gotten a chance to read in depth, but from just scanning over it it looks like Bakersfield to Anaheim can only be gleaned in some far off distant future, and they are going to try and bribe us in the Southland with corridor improvements from Burbank to Anaheim while HSR starts up north ELEVEN YEARS from now. I have to say, as an LA resident who supports this project, I can't help but feel like I am getting SCREWED and the 20+ million of us who live in Southern California (you know, most of the state??) are essentially being asked to pay for a speedy commuter train for Silicon Valley. I'm sorry! I want to be optimistic and maybe that's an uninformed take... but that's my initial takeaway and if someone like ME is starting to feel ripped off then CAHSR is going to have to deal with some ANGRY constituents from SoCal in the months to come.

ETA 2: So digging a little more, it looks like "Phase 1" is scheduled to be complete now in 2033. 2033! Oh goody hno:


----------



## tjrgx

*California bullet train costs soar to $77B; opening delayed*

https://www.apnews.com/amp/5a55d15ce69149d792e536246edc1cf4

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The projected cost of California's bullet train between San Francisco and Los Angeles has jumped to $77 billion and the opening date has been pushed back four years to 2033, according to a business plan released Friday.

The plan by the California High-Speed Rail Authority presents the latest setbacks for a project that's been beleaguered by delays and cost overruns since voters first gave it the greenlight in 2008.

Among the challenges in the latest plan: A lack of money and the difficulty of weaving through mountain passes between Silicon Valley and the inland Central Valley, which rail executives hope to complete by 2029.

Doing so will require a fresh infusion of cash from the Legislature or the private sector, said Brian Kelly, the project's new chief executive. If completed, it would be the nation's fastest train, carrying people between the two major cities in less than three hours.

"You cannot build a mega-project of this magnitude on a pay-as-you-go basis," he told reporters Friday.

While $77 billion is the baseline cost estimate, the plan estimates total costs could be as low as $63.2 billion or as high as $98.1 billion.

It brought fresh fire from critics who doubt the high-speed train will ever be built. The last plan, presented in 2016, estimated the project would cost $64 billion and be open by 2029.

"Let's cut our losses and use the billions not yet wasted on (high-speed rail) to instead improve freeways, highways and roads and perhaps improve existing rail systems throughout California," Republican state Sen. Andy Vidak said.

The project is currently under an audit that could expose more management and cost issues when released later this year.

Kelly has promised to be more transparent about the project's challenges, including by assigning costs to every potential risk, such as trouble acquiring land or securing environmental clearance. Lawsuits over land have bogged down construction in the Central Valley and driven up costs. While 119 miles of track is under construction, the state has just 1,300 of the roughly 1,800 needed parcels in that area, Kelly said.

The ultimate goal is to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles — and eventually Sacramento and San Diego — but the immediate focus is opening track between San Francisco and the Central Valley, an agriculturally dominant, less-populated portion of inland California.

Rail proponents say linking the two areas would be an economic boon, as housing costs are exploding in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley is in need of jobs.

That portion of track is now set to be finished by 2029, also marking a four-year delay, and significant challenges remain.

Dan Richards, chairman of the rail agency's board of directors, said it wants to work with private investors to tackle that portion of the project.

"The highest risk in terms of uncertainty and cost is the tunnels, and that is an area where we really feel preliminary discussions with the private sector are promising," he said.

Rail executives need more legislative buy-in too.

A major source of rail funding is the cap-and-trade program, under which the state auctions permits to release greenhouse gases. Rail planners are currently using the money as it comes in but say they'd need the ability to take on debt that would be paid off with future cap-and-trade dollars.

That would require the Legislature to extend the program until 2050. That's a difficult task for a Legislature that struggled just last year to muster the two-thirds votes needed to extend the program from 2020 to 2030.

The state has spent $2.5 billion in federal stimulus money and has an additional $930 million in federal money on the table. That's on top of a $10 billion bond from voters.


----------



## Smooth Indian

^^
The cost has fluctuated before. The $38 billion sticker price went up to $ 42 billion and even went up to around $65 billion. Later the price tag was again proposed to be around $ 45 billion. How about funding the project with the total amount needed at once and it would be built by the middle of the next decade. And how about those naysayers proposing tolls on the California freeways. Lets see how cost efficient those highways are when they are subjected to the same tough requirements as the CAHSR.


----------



## The Polwoman

Highways are rather ineffective per land use, as train tickets cost at least as much as toll, I think that even with including maintenance the cost-efficiency of an HSR is better and especially when considering the environment as well. The cost-efficiency is btw a reason that more commercial/private plans for HST's spring up all over the country.


----------



## aquaticko

Once again, people are getting scared of a big number as though it's all happening tomorrow. We're talking about ~$100 billion spread over about a decade and a half, which ends up being a small annual cost, and a minuscule fraction of the California's yearly GDP.

Admittedly, the increase in costs and delay in completion as we go along is concerning, but it's not at all unusual for large infrastructure projects. Given the likely positive externalities of CAHSR--and most other large rail projects--the project still remains not just viable, but wise. As long as people with skin in the game keep the screws tight against project management, there's no way that this project is anything but hugely beneficial to the state as a whole.


----------



## dysharmonica

Yeah -- I love this cycle. Naysayers refuse to sell land, refuse to allow permits, sue to stop, derail from focus, derail funding, throw roadblock after roadblock ... and in the meantime ask for modifications that make the project more expensive and less efficient ... 

... and when the delays and the cost overruns are documented, they cry bloody murder as if that was not the whole purpose this whole time. 

It's ugly and cynical business.


----------



## siamu maharaj

It's normal for projects like these to cost 3x the initial estimate. California is rich as ****, they should have no problem funding this on their own.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Texas HSR is obviously a scam that will never come to fruition, but for some reason the SNCF deemed it substantive enough to issue a statement:

https://www.progressiverailroading....ents-about-Dallas-Houston-bullet-train--54169


----------



## Spam King

siamu maharaj said:


> It's normal for projects like these to cost 3x the initial estimate. California is rich as ****, they should have no problem funding this on their own.


And massively in debt...



> *California’s Total State and Local Debt Totals $1.3 Trillion*
> 
> We estimate that California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015. Our analysis is based on a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures. The total includes bonds, loans and other debt instruments as well as unfunded pension and other post-employment benefits promised to public sector employees. Our estimate of California government debt represents about 52% of California’s Gross State Product of $2.48 trillion. When added to the state’s share of the national debt, we find that California taxpayers are shouldering debt burdens on a par with residents of peripheral Eurozone states.
> 
> Not included are billions of dollars in deferred maintenance and upgrades to California’s infrastructure. To the extent California’s government has not maintained investment in infrastructure maintenance and upgrades to keep up with normal wear and to keep pace with an expanding population, it has passed this cost on to future generations who will have to issue additional debt to pay for this expense.
> 
> https://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-total-state-local-debt-totals-1-3-trillion/


----------



## 996155

California has a gdp of 3 trillion, granted its debt is a lot but it has less debt than france and italy despite the fact they have similar gdp nominal.


----------



## aquaticko

That's the thing that drives me nuts. No matter how many times we say it, California's economy (and the economy of the other large U.S. states) is larger than most European economies...and, in fact, larger than most other economies in the world. The only countries with larger GDP's than California are China, Japan, the U.K., and Germany. 

Once a-f**king-gain, posting numbers outside of context is at best uninformative, and as often as not, totally misleading. Given OP's apparent political leanings, my guess is that the latter was intended.

I will continue to hope that CAHSR proceeds carefully, but without cessation.


----------



## Stuu

Spam King said:


> And massively in debt...


And how much of that debt is due in any one year? And how easily can any due in one year be refinanced? Things like pension obligations will stretch to 70+ years in the future, so it financially illiterate to consider a 52% debt to be an issue. Would you get a mortgage of half your annual income?

Adding the share of national debt shows the politics... would all the states suddenly be asked to take on the federal debt?


----------



## 996155

It's not even 52% at this point, the gdp has been growing and the deficit has been minimal or shrinking. I'd say by now it has a debt to gdp ratio of about 45%, I think UK is at 90% and Italy over 150%. California is like a less efficient germany when you compare debt to gdp.


----------



## SSMEX

Hugh G. Reukshin said:


> It's not even 52% at this point, the gdp has been growing and the deficit has been minimal or shrinking. I'd say by now it has a debt to gdp ratio of about 45%, I think UK is at 90% and Italy over 150%. California is like a less efficient germany when you compare debt to gdp.


You can't compare the debt of a U.S. state with the federal government of another country. California, for example, largely isn't responsible for healthcare, social security, defense, etc (or at least isn't as much as the U.S. federal government).


----------



## dysharmonica

Woonsocket54 said:


> Texas HSR is obviously a scam that will never come to fruition, but for some reason the SNCF deemed it substantive enough to issue a statement:
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading....ents-about-Dallas-Houston-bullet-train--54169


How is Texas Central a scam. Maybe we should actually cite some data and sources before we slam an entire private project as a scam


----------



## 996155

SSMEX said:


> You can't compare the debt of a U.S. state with the federal government of another country. California, for example, largely isn't responsible for healthcare, social security, defense, etc (or at least isn't as much as the U.S. federal government).


So? Germany has only been paying for "defense" for the past half decade, before that they were under the USA umbrella called NATO, even now their defense spending is laughable at best, California also gives more money to the federal government than it gets in return, they're basically losing tens of billions of dollars being in this union, where states like alabama, mississippi are basically given free money. 

California also has one of the largest Medicaid expansions in America, I think they spend close if not over $100 billion dollars a year on medicaid. 

Basically california and germany are extremely similar aside from defense spending, even though its not like germany spends a large amount on defense regardless. California also loses money by being part of this union, if they were an independent country they would keep the billions they send to the federal gov't every year.

Also social security isn't a major factor, because the money the federal gov't is receiving from californian residents would instead go to california if they left the union, Basically California would just have to bear defense, and healthcare costs if they left the union. That might be beneficial to Cali as USA healthcare is a massive debt bubble waiting to explode.


----------



## bluemeansgo

Woonsocket54 said:


> Texas HSR is obviously a scam that will never come to fruition, but for some reason the SNCF deemed it substantive enough to issue a statement:
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading....ents-about-Dallas-Houston-bullet-train--54169




That’s ridiculous to call it a scam. Texas HSR has everything in its favor and is close to a perfect use case of HSR... that’s why SNCF wants in. I don’t think SNCF thought they’d get this far into the process and now that there’s a real risk of it not only getting a foothold in the USA but also being profitable it would put SNCF at a serious disadvantage for any future lines or trains. 

Of note the newest N700S is even lighter and more efficient than the N700A and is designed for even more flexibility in train lengths specifically for the export market.


----------



## prageethSL

bluemeansgo said:


> Of note the newest N700S is even lighter and more efficient than the N700A and is designed for even more flexibility in train lengths specifically for the export market.


Texas HSR is planning to use *N700-I* , export version of N700S.


----------



## Sunfuns

bluemeansgo said:


> That’s ridiculous to call it a scam. Texas HSR has everything in its favor and is close to a perfect use case of HSR... that’s why SNCF wants in. I don’t think SNCF thought they’d get this far into the process and now that there’s a real risk of it not only getting a foothold in the USA but also being profitable it would put SNCF at a serious disadvantage for any future lines or trains.
> 
> Of note the newest N700S is even lighter and more efficient than the N700A and is designed for even more flexibility in train lengths specifically for the export market.


It's not Japanese trains or technology which is being questioned here, but the questionable (to say the least) alignment and incompatibility with existing public transport infrastructure. 

I've been to Japan and your trains don't operate like that there...


----------



## zaphod

Sunfuns said:


> It's not Japanese trains or technology which is being questioned here, but the questionable (to say the least) alignment and incompatibility with existing public transport infrastructure.
> 
> I've been to Japan and your trains don't operate like that there...


Texas is very different from Japan. Most people are going to drive to the station, which is why they have large parking structures attached. The system's clientele is also likely to utilize taxis and ridesharing services like Uber to reach their final destinations. This line will compete with air travel - a little slower but cheaper and with more frequent schedules. And stations which serve different corners of the city than airports.

The Houston station is not as bad a location as you might think. Even if it is not downtown, it is close to what one might reasonably estimate to be the mean population center of the region. The metro area sprawls north and west moreso than east, so a northwestern suburban location is actually closer to a lot of potential passengers and their destinations than the traditional city center. Houston's bus system has also been improved in the last few years and the station is near a major hub.

Dallas' downtown station location is appreciated of course, but the metroplex could benefit if it were extended to DFW airport.

Also I don't actually think the Brazos Valley station is so terrible. I say that as a resident of College Station who lives about 20 minutes from that proposed station. As it is, there is a booming private van shuttle industry around here for traveling to IAH(Houston Airport). There is one that advertises black Mercedes sprinter vans with wifi. They'll probably add a route for going to the outlying rail station if its built. There was no good way to get the line into the heart of the twin cities worth the ridership.


----------



## ADCS

zaphod said:


> Texas is very different from Japan. Most people are going to drive to the station, which is why they have large parking structures attached. The system's clientele is also likely to utilize taxis and ridesharing services like Uber to reach their final destinations. This line will compete with air travel - a little slower but cheaper and with more frequent schedules. And stations which serve different corners of the city than airports.
> 
> The Houston station is not as bad a location as you might think. Even if it is not downtown, it is close to what one might reasonably estimate to be the mean population center of the region. The metro area sprawls north and west moreso than east, so a northwestern suburban location is actually closer to a lot of potential passengers and their destinations than the traditional city center. Houston's bus system has also been improved in the last few years and the station is near a major hub.
> 
> Dallas' downtown station location is appreciated of course, but the metroplex could benefit if it were extended to DFW airport.
> 
> Also I don't actually think the Brazos Valley station is so terrible. I say that as a resident of College Station who lives about 20 minutes from that proposed station. As it is, there is a booming private van shuttle industry around here for traveling to IAH(Houston Airport). There is one that advertises black Mercedes sprinter vans with wifi. They'll probably add a route for going to the outlying rail station if its built. There was no good way to get the line into the heart of the twin cities worth the ridership.


All of this. Also, my guess is that long-term, the Roans Prairie station is going to be a major transfer if the concept is proved - they'll branch through B/CS, Austin and San Antonio.


----------



## jonasry

I'm curios about the California high speed rail project. Will sections of the new line be used before the whole project is complete? For example could the current Amtrak _San Joaquins_ train benefit from the first construction packages?


----------



## bluemeansgo

Sunfuns said:


> It's not Japanese trains or technology which is being questioned here, but the questionable (to say the least) alignment and incompatibility with existing public transport infrastructure.
> 
> I've been to Japan and your trains don't operate like that there...


What local transit do you propose it be compatible with? 
And while we're at it, what mode of transportation is the airplane compatible with?

In Japan, when they built the bullet train, they also didn't necessarily build trains right into downtown, but rather outside of the main downtown area. When the station to Osaka was built it wasn't integrated into the existing main Osaka station in Umeda, but it was built across the river. They then EXTENDED the midosuji subway TO the bullet train line. 

Shin-Osaka is: 
~3 km from Osaka's North Station
~6 km from the major shopping area
~10 km from Osaka's two South stations ( Tennoji & Namba )

The new Chuo Maglev line is being built to Shinagawa, and not to the far more logical choices of Shinjuku, Shibuya, and Tokyo stations. 
Shinagawa is:
~6.5km from Tokyo Station
~8 km from Shinjuku
~10 km from Ueno

*For reference, the Houston station is 10 km from downtown ( 6 mi ). *

Why? There are a couple of reasons... but the major one is of course cost and profit.

It's being built by JR Central, and they control more of the real estate around Shinagawa. Shinjuku and Tokyo station are owned (moreso) by JR East. So, they'll build the terminal station in Shinagawa, which is less developed and reap in the fees.

I wouldn't be surprised if Texas HSR doesn't plan to do the same thing with NW Mall. Given the area is ripe for redevelopment, there's more potential there. Sure, it would be NICE to be connected better to the local transportation lines, but given the additional cost of a downtown station it doesn't make financial sense. Houston can choose to build a rail line to the station location... or once locals see the benefits of HSR, could make it easier to build a 2nd downtown station later on. It's built along a railway ROW, so building it along that route wouldn't be terribly difficult if you had local support.


----------



## jamesinclair

jonasry said:


> I'm curios about the California high speed rail project. Will sections of the new line be used before the whole project is complete? For example could the current Amtrak _San Joaquins_ train benefit from the first construction packages?


Yes and no. The assumption is that everything will be built on time with no issues so that wont be required.

BUT 

The section under construction now (Bakersfield to Madera) is built to allow trains to switch to the BNSF tracks at Madera, should that be requested. Basically, if the next section to the Bay keeps getting delayed and delayed (likely), they will mostly likely finish this connection and run San Joaquin express trains on that section.


----------



## jadebenn

Woonsocket54 said:


> Texas HSR is obviously a scam that will never come to fruition, but for some reason the SNCF deemed it substantive enough to issue a statement:
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading....ents-about-Dallas-Houston-bullet-train--54169


You know, I'm probably just wasting my time by making an account just to ask this question - seeing as how you haven't answered anyone else who's asked - but why are you convinced this is a scam?


----------



## prageethSL

*Engineering giant Bechtel named project manager for Texas bullet train *




> Global engineering giant Bechtel will work with bullet train developer Texas Central on project management for the $15 billion high-speed rail project planned between Dallas and Houston.
> Bechtel has been enlisted to support Texas Central as the project moves from development to implementation, Texas Central announced Wednesday.
> “The addition of Bechtel, with its experience in train and mega-infrastructure project experience, is another sign of the expertise this project is attracting and leveraging,” Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar said in a prepared statement.
> Bechtel has completed more than 300 major train and subway projects, including the Channel Tunnel High Speed 1, Crossrail in London, Riyadh Metro and Dulles Corridor Metrorail in the Washington, D.C., area.
> The partnership is the latest advancement for the investor-led project – a 200 mph train that will connect the state’s largest cities in 90 minutes, with a midway stop in the Brazos Valley.
> The project is expected to create 10,000 direct jobs each year during construction.
> Bechtel, a U.S.-based company with an office in Houston and about 2,000 employees in Texas, has delivered complex, heavy civil projects for more than 100 years.
> “We look forward to using our international high-speed train experience to progress this transformative project in the United States,” Scott Osborne, Bechtel’s Infrastructure general manager for the Americas, said in a statement. “The high-speed connection between Houston and North Texas will begin a new era of travel and convenience for riders.”
> The partnership comes after Texas Central selected Fluor Enterprises and The Lane Construction Corporation to perform pre-construction planning with engineering support from WSP, an engineering and professional services consultancy.
> Texas Central, Fluor, Lane and WSP are refining and updating construction planning and sequencing, scheduling and cost estimates and other design and engineering activities. Their work is being guided by the Federal Railroad Administration’s recently released Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the project.


----------



## Sellemantz

Where can I find a map of this project? the Texas HSR.


----------



## jadebenn

Sellemantz said:


> Where can I find a map of this project? the Texas HSR.


Here.


----------



## Woonsocket54

The partnership with Amtrak is exactly what this project needs to succeed.

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2018/05/04/amtrak-partners-with-texas-bullet-train-for.html

I sincerely apologize for calling this a scam, and I further apologize to anyone I have offended. Last thing I want to do is mess with Texas.

This Texas HSR will be a huge success!


----------



## Silver Swordsman

@Woonsocket54

There's no inherent need to apologize for calling a project a scam (you're entitled to your own opinion), it's just that we would like to see more (concrete) evidence why you would think so (i.e. insufficient/flawed ridership numbers, overpowered, NIMBYism, etc) after which other people would either back up or refute those claims with more information. 

That's the point of having a proper discussion here, is it not?


----------



## jadebenn

Woonsocket54 said:


> I sincerely apologize for calling this a scam, and I further apologize to anyone I have offended. Last thing I want to do is mess with Texas.


To echo the other poster, you don't need to apologize for speaking your mind. I was curious about your rationale for saying that, not trying to condemn you.

Did the Amtrak partnership cause you to change your mind, or was it something else?


----------



## Sellemantz

I really wish this Project come into fruition, will be an amazing development


----------



## carlosg7

Sorry to interrupt the Texas HSR talk but what is the news with a BosWash high speed rail line?


----------



## wgerman

Woonsocket54 said:


> The partnership with Amtrak is exactly what this project needs to succeed.
> 
> https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2018/05/04/amtrak-partners-with-texas-bullet-train-for.html
> 
> I sincerely apologize for calling this a scam, and I further apologize to anyone I have offended. Last thing I want to do is mess with Texas.
> 
> This Texas HSR will be a huge success!


Don't get too excited, its not built yet. But things are looking good despite the opposition from a few state law makers.


----------



## wgerman

carlosg7 said:


> Sorry to interrupt the Texas HSR talk but what is the news with a BosWash high speed rail line?


You mean the NEC. The news is that Amtrak has a CEO who used to run Delta Airlines, and has a fetish for DMUs. He wants to replace the 40 year old Amfleet 1 regional trains with modern DMU/EMUs. It would make the WAS-RIC route seemless instead of the engine change today that takes 30 minutes.

Acela II are on order, and a few big projects are going ahead, some bridge is being replaced. The new NYC train station is going forward and other stations are being upgraded, I believe Philadelphia and WAS Union are being upgraded, probably the first time since thenCEO Graham Claytor had them renovated in the 80s.

That's pretty much a synopsis whats going on in the NEC.


----------



## Stuu

Woonsocket54 said:


> The partnership with Amtrak is exactly what this project needs to succeed.
> 
> https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2018/05/04/amtrak-partners-with-texas-bullet-train-for.html
> 
> I sincerely apologize for calling this a scam, and I further apologize to anyone I have offended. Last thing I want to do is mess with Texas.
> 
> This Texas HSR will be a huge success!


I think the sarcasm may have gone over a few people's heads...

There doesn't seem to be much substance to the partnership with Amtrak, just an agreement to sell through-tickets if and when the trains run. So just a little publicity for both sides and a show for Amtrak that they can work with the private sector


----------



## Ivan the Immigrant

I'll just leave this here:

FRA Corridors Potentially Ready for Capital Investment FY2015 to FY2019








http://www.apta.com/resources/hottopics/highspeedrail/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## Ivan the Immigrant

> *California's $77 billion 'bullet train to nowhere' faces a murky future as political opposition ramps up*
> 
> Although it has been dubbed a "bullet train to nowhere," California Gov. Jerry Brown has pushed forward over the years with the state's high-speed rail project. But now the day of reckoning may come sooner than expected for the state's most expensive infrastructure project.
> 
> A business plan released Friday by the California High-Speed Rail Authority shows its projected baseline cost is now $77 billion — up 20 percent from two years ago — and it indicated the cost could rise to as high as $98 billion.* The opening date for the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco bullet train has also been delayed by at least four years, to 2033.*
> 
> "It appears that they are finally bringing forth more realistic cost estimates and a more realistic schedule," said Stephen Levy, executive director and senior economist with the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, a Menlo Park-based research group. "The whole project remains in doubt as the costs increase and the funding gap increases."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bullet train line's 119-mile Central Valley segment under construction in the less populated area from Madera to north of Bakersfield is scheduled to open by 2022, and the partial route between San Francisco and Bakersfield isn't likely to be operational until 2029, according to the business plan. It said planning work has advanced on the 500-mile corridor between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim, but indicated the project remains short of financing to complete all the work.
> 
> In particular, there's cost and various other challenges posed by the tunneling through the Pacheco Pass, which the business plan termed "the critical link between the Silicon Valley and the Central Valley. This tunnels segment, required to connect San Francisco and Gilroy to the Central Valley, presents challenges in terms of environmental planning, cost, technical complexity, schedule and available funding to complete."
> 
> "It's crazy time with this thing," said Pat Bates, the Republican leader in the state Senate. "Every time we get a new report it's more money and more time. It's a boondoggle. At some point you have to pull the plug."
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/californias-77-billion-high-speed-rail-project-is-in-trouble.html











https://www.wsp.com/en-GB/projects


----------



## wgerman

Ivan the Immigrant said:


> https://www.wsp.com/en-GB/projects


In hindsight maybe should have taken that Japan Railroad or China deal and outsourced the construction and operating to them.


----------



## Sunfuns

When you look at their website there has been hardly any visible progress even in existing building sites this year. I have a bad feeling this will never be built... It was simply overambitious.


----------



## Nexis

Sunfuns said:


> When you look at their website there has been hardly any visible progress even in existing building sites this year. I have a bad feeling this will never be built... It was simply overambitious.


The Project is finally starting to accelerate. The Merced to Bakersfield section is under construction , the San Jose - San Fran upgrades are underway and the remaining sections are in the engineering phase.


----------



## [atomic]

Sunfuns said:


> When you look at their website there has been hardly any visible progress even in existing building sites this year. I have a bad feeling this will never be built... It was simply overambitious.


You can clearly see Work along a 70 mile Stretch in Google Earth/maps, between Corcoran and north of Madera.


----------



## Sunfuns

Nexis said:


> The Project is finally starting to accelerate. The Merced to Bakersfield section is under construction , the San Jose - San Fran upgrades are underway and the remaining sections are in the engineering phase.


Yes, there is certainly work ongoing but I have a feeling that it's actually slowing down lately...


----------



## [atomic]

^^ I think I know what you mean. Right now they are working on a few major engineering works which take time. The smaller things like clearing fields, construction of rural Road Bridges (Ave.7-15) are done at a relatively slow pace since they will only be needed (useful) once the whole Project is done. Also sometimes there is just not much to see :lol:


----------



## phoenixboi08

wgerman said:


> In hindsight maybe should have taken that Japan Railroad or China deal and outsourced the construction and operating to them.


Why? Any private/foreign consortium would have faced similar obstacles; namely, the acquisition of land.

To date, every single such proposal from the private sector or international interests has gone bust, namely due to difficulties with the regulatory framework and environmental clearances, which mainly consists of the public review process btw.

Of all of these such projects, I can only think of 1) Brightline that has been delivered (though, mainly due to their unique position) and 2) TX Central Partners that has cleared the first hurdle of completing the draft EIS (by broadly having the FRA to do it for them...). 

I don't know why so many people seem to think Chinese-led projects are made of 'magic-stuff,' or whatever. They operate in a very peculiar context within China, that isn't easily - or commonly - emulated outside of the country.

CAHSRA has generally been okay with project management. What they've sucked at is communications and PR.
I could maybe grant you that a Japanese (and probably even Chinese-led, as DesertXpress demonstrated) team would have been able to secure a lot of financing from their own governments/banks...that's about the only advantage I can see -- and most of that financing is actually still available to CAHSR, once they seriously solicit interest, and I'm sure they've been exploring their options.



[atomic] said:


> ^^ I think I know what you mean. Right now they are working on a few major engineering works which take time. The smaller things like clearing fields, construction of rural Road Bridges (Ave.7-15) are done at a relatively slow pace since they will only be needed (useful) once the whole Project is done. Also sometimes there is just not much to see :lol:


Yeah...they detailed this a while back in one of the Business Plans -- or in one of documents generally detailing the scope of the Construction Packages (CPs).

These CPs are mainly to build the large, aerial structures. The rest -- power-supply, traction, catenary, rail, M&O facilities and stations, etc. will be let separately.

I think some of the main CPs may include ancillary work in conjuction with these other smaller lets (ie. building embankments and laying concrete beds alongside the contractor(s) who would be laying track and installing power-systems, signals, etc).

You can by now find the work going on around Fresno or so in Google Maps, and follow the entire alignment up to San Jose quite clearly. Most of the land in the Central Valley has been cleared, and you can see necessary berms, embankments, road works, etc being done. Once it is, they will all be connected quite quickly, and the fun stuff will start


----------



## benjaminh

I actually find their website(s) fairly informative. They publish a monthly construction update and you can find a lot of information about individual projects.
http://hsr.ca.gov/
https://buildhsr.com/

The problem with infrastructure projects in the US is that they are ridiculously expensive. For examples see Second Avenue subway, Gateway etc. What all these people that shriek 'boondoggle' all the time forget to explain is how to transport a growing population, in particular in and between metropolitan areas, in an effective fashion. CA HSR actually conducted, and I believe all such projects are required to so, an evaluation of the so-called 'no built' option. This looked at costs of airport and highway extensions and came to the conclusion that HSR is the cheaper alternative. Yes, the project is way over initial budget, but which large infrastructure project is not - no matter if rail, airport, roads, bridges.

On a different note: I really believe that HOU-DAL is one the corridors in the country most-suited for HSR. And I wish the project all the best. What they haven't really explained so far is how to pay for it. We'll see what happens but the part of the project where you put out shiny brochures is the easy one.


----------



## Ivan the Immigrant

One more news I've found in international skybar twitter thread:



ainvan said:


> Microsoft and Amazon have been pushing to make Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor another Silicon Valley. So we might get more investments from the tech giants in Seattle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft pledges $300K to study high-speed train linking Seattle-Vancouver, B.C. in under an hour
> 
> Microsoft is committing an additional $300,000 to continue studying whether a high-speed train between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., is possible. The funds are in addition to Washington state’s $750,000 contribution and the B.C. government’s $300,000 investment announced previously.
> 
> The announcement is part of Microsoft’s ongoing efforts to make the “Cascadia” region an innovation hub akin to Silicon Valley. The high-speed rail line under consideration would connect Seattle and Vancouver in less than an hour, fostering more collaboration between their respective tech industries.
> 
> “Shrinking the distance between Vancouver, Seattle and potentially Portland through more efficient travel connections is the sort of forward-looking investment that could be a game changer for generations to come, and lawmakers are wise to make relatively modest investments today to fully understand the potential,” Microsoft President Brad Smith said in a blog post Thursday.https://www.geekwire.com/2018/micro...-train-connecting-seattle-vancouver-b-c-hour/
Click to expand...


----------



## Sunfuns

Of course it is possible, the question only is how much would it cost and who would be willing to pay...


----------



## aquaticko

Why don't Seattle's resident multi-multi-multi-billionaires actually invest their boundless riches in something that will create thousands of permanent jobs?


----------



## Gedeon

aquaticko said:


> Why don't Seattle's resident multi-multi-multi-billionaires actually invest their boundless riches in something that will create thousands of permanent jobs?


Why don't you tax them more so projects of public importance can be funded from tax dollars, like it's done in Europe?


----------



## Smooth Indian

Gedeon said:


> Why don't you tax them more so projects of public importance can be funded from tax dollars, like it's done in Europe?


Or somehow convince the federal authorities (despite the challenges) and the general public to dedicate wasteful spending from other functions and some more towards these high speed rail corridors.


----------



## AnOldBlackMarble

I love the idea of a high speed train, or even a hyperloop, but considering the costs I keep hearing are they ever going to be profitable? Plane tickets today are so cheap. You can fly, round trip, anywhere in the US today for $200-300 dollars. Will this be possible with high speed trains? If I had the option to fly from LA to SF for $200 in 1.5 hours or take a train for the same price but for 2-3 hours, and with stations far from the city, I will always chose the airline. And airlines are actually profitable. Will these trains ever be profitable or will they always run on a subsidy? Are European and Japanese trains profitable? 

Just curious.


----------



## The Polwoman

Dutch Intercity trains are profitable. But it's not just about profit, or it only is in the eyes of corporatocrats. It's about all the economic impact that spins off from such a railway line. Interstates are unprofitable as well, do we demolish them?


----------



## Sunfuns

Depends how you define profitable... If you mean operational profits from running trains then mostly yes, if you mean able to pay for back for the infrastructure itself then mostly no. There are a lot of side benefits from trains however which are not related to profits of train operators. 

It's near impossible to beat a 3 h train from city centre to city centre by flying. At the very best you'd break even unless you actually start or want to go to a place much closer to the airport than downtown.


----------



## aquaticko

Gedeon said:


> Why don't you tax them more so projects of public importance can be funded from tax dollars, like it's done in Europe?


I would, so very happily, but no one cares what I would do, so I'm left with praying to the oligarchs for their beneficence.



AnOldBlackMarble said:


> ...If I had the option to fly from LA to SF for $200 in 1.5 hours or take a train for the same price but for 2-3 hours, and with stations far from the city, I will always chose the airline. And airlines are actually profitable....


You've got the locations backwards; train stations can be in city centers, and given that most major U.S. cities were once dependent solely on rail for long-distance transportation, most city centers still do, in fact, contain train stations. By contrast, airports cannot be in city centers, for obvious reasons, and so you're left with something of a commute to and from. Even my hometown, an older city turned Boston bedroom suburb which hosts a small regional airport but has a rail line running right through it, has its (potential) train station far closer to the nexus of economic activity than its airport.

And who says that airlines don't receive subsidies, too?



Sunfuns said:


> ...Depends how you define profitable... If you mean operational profits from running trains then mostly yes, if you mean able to pay for back for the infrastructure itself then mostly no....


I always wonder about this bit. Granting that most major infrastructure projects are financed in part by borrowing, and that there's interest associated with most kinds of debt, and that the physical infrastructure, itself, tends to be the most expensive part of any such project, it just seems far-fetched that large infrastructure projects _never_ pay off their initial capital expense. I'm aware that even the world's most arguably-successful large transportation related project--the Shinkansen system--so mired its parent in debt that multiple restructurings were required, and that a holding company is still managing trillions of yen of debt, but...._never_ seems like such a very long time, and it's a word that's thrown around a lot to scare people off of investing in a long-term frame of mind.


----------



## Smooth Indian

AnOldBlackMarble said:


> I love the idea of a high speed train, or even a hyperloop, but considering the costs I keep hearing are they ever going to be profitable? Plane tickets today are so cheap. You can fly, round trip, anywhere in the US today for $200-300 dollars. Will this be possible with high speed trains? If I had the option to fly from LA to SF for $200 in 1.5 hours or take a train for the same price but for 2-3 hours, and with stations far from the city, I will always chose the airline. And airlines are actually profitable. Will these trains ever be profitable or will they always run on a subsidy? Are European and Japanese trains profitable?
> 
> Just curious.


Flying requires burning jet fuels and good airports. Do govts especially the US federal govt provide subsidies (direct or indirect) so that the cost of jet fuel is lower and to the construction/maintenance of airports?? How profitable would the airlines be if such subsidies were removed and all those costs were to be paid through ticket sales?

On the other hand high speed train operators like SNCF and AVE have developed budget services such as Ouigo and EVA. 

As others have pointed out profitability is not the only factor that is to be considered for promoting high speed rail. It is way more fuel efficient than air travel/car travel and it runs on electricity which can be generated by different sources. Airplanes still have not figured out alternatives to jet fuel which will get scarce at some point. As other have pointed out the economic impact of high speed rail lines is also quite healthy.


----------



## Sunfuns

aquaticko said:


> I always wonder about this bit. Granting that most major infrastructure projects are financed in part by borrowing, and that there's interest associated with most kinds of debt, and that the physical infrastructure, itself, tends to be the most expensive part of any such project, it just seems far-fetched that large infrastructure projects _never_ pay off their initial capital expense. I'm aware that even the world's most arguably-successful large transportation related project--the Shinkansen system--so mired its parent in debt that multiple restructurings were required, and that a holding company is still managing trillions of yen of debt, but...._never_ seems like such a very long time, and it's a word that's thrown around a lot to scare people off of investing in a long-term frame of mind.


I certainly wouldn't claim it's never, but accounting on time scales longer than 30 years is a bit difficult with all the inflation and everything. Clearly modern infrastructure, including top class rail systems, does pay off in overall economic growth and standard of living. Taken individually most roads wouldn't pay off either. There is a good example of a large infrastructure project paying off it's building costs by direct user fees alone - Oresund bridge between Sweden and Denmark. The tolls are quite high and it will still take 37 years to repay the debt.


----------



## kokomo

I've been reading newspapers stating the Brightline, now that has opened the extension to Miami, is a *High Speed service*. 

When considering that the potential max speed it could reach would be 200 km/h, isn't that somewhat unaccurate (not to say bit sketchy)? Or, to see it on a positive stance "overly positive"?

When I define "high speed" I quote wikipedia


> While there is no single standard that applies worldwide, new lines in excess of 250 kilometres per hour (160 miles per hour) and existing lines in excess of 200 kilometres per hour (120 miles per hour) are widely considered to be high-speed,


----------



## Gusiluz

lawdefender said:


> Jiangsu Communications Holdings Co., Ltd. holds 17% and 10.72% of the shares of Shanghai-Nanjing high-speed rail and Nanjing-Hangzhou high-speed rail respectively.* According to its 2014-2015 financial data disclosure, the operating income of Shanghai-Nanjing high-speed railway in 2014 was 3.135 billion yuan and net profit was 1.42 billion yuan. In 2015, the operating income was 3.361 billion yuan and the net profit was 641 million yuan. After a loss of 380 million yuan in 2014, the Nanjing-Hangzhou high-speed rail company turned losses into profits and its net profit was 101 million yuan in 2015.*
> 
> http://www.nbd.com.cn/articles/2016-07-22/1024290.html





> The Beijing-Shanghai high-speed train a net profit of 6.6 billion in 2015, the average profit per person $ 50, in 2015 the Shanghai-Nanjing, Nanjing-Hangzhou, Guangzhou-Shenzhen high-speed train also had a net profit of 641 million, 101 million y 177 million yuan. Among them, Beijing-Shanghai, Nanjing-Hangzhou and Guangzhou-Shenzhen achieved profitability in 2015. In addition, according to informed sources, the Shanghai-Hangzhou high-speed train, Beijing-Tianjin has also achieved profitability. In other words, after 10 years of high-speed construction and development, the profitability map of China's high-speed rail has taken shape. Last year, at least six eastern coastal lines have been profitable.
> ...
> According to its disclosure of financial data 2014-2015, the operating income of the Shanghai-Nanjing high-speed rail in 2014 was 3.135 billion yuan and the net profit was 1.42 billion yuan.In 2015, operating income was 3,361 million of yuan and net profit was 641 million yuan. After a loss of 380 million yuan in 2014, the Nanjing-Hangzhou high-speed railway company converted the losses into profits and its net profit was 101 million yuan.
> ...
> The Guangzhou-Shenzhen had 503 million loss in 2014, in 2015 the net profit was 177 million yuan. In addition, according to China International Capital Corporation released, a new report revealed that the railway company Beijing-Shanghai high-speed in 2013-2015 had a result of: -13 billion, -23 billion yuan and 6.6 thousand million yuan.
> ...
> The above information means that 2015 has become a turning point for many national high-speed train companies to make a profit.
> ...
> The Tianjin-Qinzhou high-speed train had revenues of 832 million in 2015 and a loss of 2.152 billion yuan.
> ...
> It is noteworthy that, as the "world's most profitable high-speed railroad," the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway, which transports passengers in 2015 to around 130 million people, has more than four national air traffic; Beijing-Shanghai high-speed train in 2015 revenue data show profitability (The average benefit of each passenger is about 50 yuan).


1 USD = 6,38 yuan


----------



## Sunfuns

I'd be shocked if Beijing-Shanghai weren't solidly profitable, however this says nothing about the infrastructure costs.


----------



## Klausenburg

Guys, nothing is cancelled. Its just scaled back. Central Valley part between Merced and Bakersfield will be completed. But it won't conitnue anymore to SF and LA. Therefore, wprobably they will use tilting trains to make the most of central segment and get good times elsewhere...


----------



## aquaticko

^^...So, it will become the train to "nowhere" that people were claiming it'd be? Connecting no major markets at either end? Thereby fulfilling all the naysayers' chiding that this'd be a "white elephant"? A "boondoggle"?

Comment ditons? This country is a poopy.


----------



## Billpa

Klausenburg said:


> Guys, nothing is cancelled. Its just scaled back. Central Valley part between Merced and Bakersfield will be completed. But it won't conitnue anymore to SF and LA. Therefore, wprobably they will use tilting trains to make the most of central segment and get good times elsewhere...


Merced to Bakersfield?
No offense, that's ridiculous. Unless it leads to LA to SF in the near future what's the point? This type of project needs to connect major cities.


----------



## cle

The current route from Merced to SF runs via Stockton - which is not ideal.

Could a more modest, direct route be found towards the South Bay from Merced or Modesto - to at least connect one of the main conurbations to this HS line - even at traditional speeds and onto Caltrain?

How about the SF Caltrain terminus change into Salesforce?


----------



## lochinvar

The Central Valley will experience an unprecedented boom and become a powerhouse. No more Bay Area and Southern Cal only.


----------



## Nacre

aquamaroon said:


> As a nation we apparently are no longer able to accomplish large scale, transformational projects. We've given trillions to to billionaires and have nothing to show for it but more debt, and we have nothing left to improve our country. Afraid to say it but this is just another sign that America's heyday as a word leader is swiftly and ignominiously coming to an end.


But why do we have to go from crawling to running a marathon all at once? High speed rail didn't appear out of nowhere in Asia or Europe either.

The foundation of passenger rail service in countries like Japan, France and Germany is reliable, efficient transport at around 140-150 kph or 90 mph. _That is good enough to make the train faster than driving_, which is what we need to change our car-dominated transport system. Medium speed rail isn't sexy, but it is a necessary intermediate step in transforming transportation in the USA while we also work on building functional metro systems in our cities.

From a political perspective no American companies make high speed trains, and won't be able to for a very long time. Buying foreign rolling stock is a vote loser in Middle America. But buying medium speed rolling stock from Motive Power in Boise wins votes in Idaho, and buying medium speed rolling stock from GE wins votes in Pennsylvania. And if the steel and other components are made in this country it adds other midwestern votes. Getting national political support is another reason to go with medium speed trains.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> But why do we have to go from crawling to running a marathon all at once? High speed rail didn't appear out of nowhere in Asia or Europe either.
> 
> The foundation of passenger rail service in countries like Japan, France and Germany is reliable, efficient transport at around 140-150 kph or 90 mph. _That is good enough to make the train faster than driving_, which is what we need to change our car-dominated transport system. Medium speed rail isn't sexy, but it is a necessary intermediate step in transforming transportation in the USA while we also work on building functional metro systems in our cities.
> 
> From a political perspective no American companies make high speed trains, and won't be able to for a very long time. Buying foreign rolling stock is a vote loser in Middle America. But buying medium speed rolling stock from Motive Power in Boise wins votes in Idaho, and buying medium speed rolling stock from GE wins votes in Pennsylvania. And if the steel and other components are made in this country it adds other midwestern votes. Getting national political support is another reason to go with medium speed trains.


Medium speed projects like the 3C connection in Ohio, NEC and even others such as upgrading/electrifying commuter railways have also lagged. Apart from the NEC wherever decent service exists it is still slower than by road. The CAHSR had it been completed would have been a huge leap forward in showcasing the HSR in other parts of the US.


----------



## Basincreek

aquaticko said:


> ^^...So, it will become the train to "nowhere" that people were claiming it'd be? Connecting no major markets at either end? Thereby fulfilling all the naysayers' chiding that this'd be a "white elephant"? A "boondoggle"?
> 
> Comment ditons? This country is a poopy.


Only because it doesn't have all the money right now. It was never planned to be a train to nowhere but you do have to start construction somewhere. If they are sticking to the 2018 Business Plan they will at least buy all the property needed to get the SF connection going as soon as they get more funds.


----------



## Scba

Why in god's name was it going to take until 2033 to fully build and open, anyway?


----------



## pesto

Uh, this project is pretty bleepin' dead. If it weren't for the Gov wanting to look friendly to the CV unions, it would all be gone. (Btw, the Chron said 5 years ago it was only being kept alive as the Dems favor to Brown, and it was gone when he left.)

The next step is to finish off the CV and put money into rail transit in LA and Bay Area where there is legitimate demand and need.


----------



## pesto

Scba said:


> Why in god's name was it going to take until 2033 to fully build and open, anyway?



As Newsom points out: no money, opposition from every area it ran through, expected massive operating losses forever, not close to meeting time goals, slower and more expensive than car or air, etc. He hits the major ones and the dozens of legislative reports document them in detail.

Remember that Newsom is about as far left as you can get. And he has to tell his own supporters: Let's be real. In political talk that's the equivalent of "you are all in a dream world".


----------



## phoenixboi08

Headlines by year’s end: “HSR Back On, Newsom Forces Hard Choices, Rework of Plans in LA, SF to Reduce Costs. 

They’re in a bind: They have to build the current IOS or give back Federal funds. 

The IOS is the minimal operating segment. 

Finishing the MOS is a sunken cost that necessitates completing the entire Phase 1. 

What Newsom actually is saying in the announcement is that they will a) focus construction for now solely on completing the IOS (ie. not submitting the last 2-3 construction packages for bid), while b) completing the entire, statewide environmental clearances/planning for the rest of the Phase 1 System. 

I’m far more likely to believe the governor wants to reorient the project than cancelling it — if latter, they wouldn’t be finishing the MOS. 

If they don’t come out in 12-18 months and announce that they’ve found an *interim* solution to reach the Bay Area by using an alternative alignment (ie. Altamont, a new Dumbarton crossing, etc), I’d be surprised. Newsom has had a particular view about how the project should have been proceeding for some time; This was expected — if communicated strangely — and is more about him trying to remake the project as his own, not Brown’s.

That’s what’s being communicated here...most of the cost was scope creep from the expanding tunneling being required of the Authority to reach SF/LA; the IOS is about $30million/mi (~$3B for current civil works, not including ancillary roadworks, utility relocations, land purchases, etc). There are options to reach the Bay Area in the near term and potential options to reach LA in the meadium-term. 

If cost is his stated concern, cost is what’s going to guide the project going forward...


----------



## dyonisien

*oil business as usual ?*

The rest of the world must be mad, we just go on producing more CO2 !
Money for 700+ military bases around the world is there, but a few hundred miles high speed railroad are too expensive, while roads are OK...


----------



## aquaticko

To the question of why jump to HSR, the reasons are manifold.

First of all, the point here, specifically, was/is to link two major, distant regions--LA and SF--and cut into the air travel market, so speed is essential.

Second, Americans tend to think of trains--rightly, considering the reality in most of the country--as slow, chronically delayed, and expensive. The idea was/is to show them the opposite: a system competitive with the best in the world in terms of speed, punctuality, and cost.

Third, to get people to actually ride this train, it has to be a bit flashy because the vast majority of people who would even be able to afford to ride this train are wealthy enough to own cars. I.e., they already own a mode of travel which can not only get them between LA and SF, but also _around_ those places once they get there, because neither city is primarily pedestrian-friendly. Even if a car is slower than either a high-speed train or a plane, it's not only potentially the most convenient method of travel, but also the cheapest (in a sense) because it imposes no additional cost.

The idea, in sum, was to achieve a modal shift here: from cars and planes to trains. It may still happen, given the cost of gas and congestion, but it'll be that much more piecemeal and haphazard a change if this keystone project never comes to fruition.


----------



## Sunfuns

In retrospect it was a huge mistake to start in the Central valley instead of at either end. In the latter case even a 200 km segment would be useful and could be continued later, now it will be a train to nowhere for sure (if not canceled outright). There is a reason why no country anywhere has ever approached HSR construction in this manner.


----------



## [atomic]

Maybe starting with connecting Silicon and Central Valley would have been better, now they have good infrastructure connecting not a whole lot. But who knows how fast things can pick up again with a new administration and some corrections in the Project. Lets hope for the best, but still very bad news..


----------



## Scba

pesto said:


> As Newsom points out: no money, opposition from every area it ran through, expected massive operating losses forever, not close to meeting time goals, slower and more expensive than car or air, etc. He hits the major ones and the dozens of legislative reports document them in detail.
> 
> Remember that Newsom is about as far left as you can get. And he has to tell his own supporters: Let's be real. In political talk that's the equivalent of "you are all in a dream world".


I understand some of that, but also, what was it, SEVENTY BILLION for the line? Through the flat farmland of Central CA?


----------



## Nacre

aquaticko said:


> Second, Americans tend to think of trains--rightly, considering the reality in most of the country--as slow, chronically delayed, and expensive. The idea was/is to show them the opposite: a system competitive with the best in the world in terms of speed, punctuality, and cost.


It simply isn't realistic to go from a totally dysfunctional system to a "best in the world" system. 



aquaticko said:


> Third, to get people to actually ride this train, it has to be a bit flashy because the vast majority of people who would even be able to afford to ride this train are wealthy enough to own cars.


People may make their tourist plans based on flash, but commuters just need a reliable way of getting around.

Right now business travelers rarely use Amtrak because of the frequent 3+ hour delays being stuck behind a freight train. I can't count on Amtrak Cascades to get me to work or a meeting on time. My desire to avoid being fired for being late to work five or more times per month is greater than my desire to do the environmentally and socially conscious thing and take the train to work.

Give travelers a train that runs at 90 miles per hour, bypasses traffic and reliably runs on schedule and people will be happy to use it.


----------



## pesto

Scba said:


> I understand some of that, but also, what was it, SEVENTY BILLION for the line? Through the flat farmland of Central CA?


Most analysts are way over 100B; you have to trim SD and Sactown to get below that.

Unfortunately, 80 miles of tunneling or winding through mountain is required to get to LA, the OC and SD, where 2/3 of the population is. In the Bay Area, every attempt at widening the ROW or using eminent domain is met by 100 percent opposition from homeowners and government agencies.

But the real fundamental is that air and car are much faster and cheaper and soon most cars will be electric powered.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> It simply isn't realistic to go from a totally dysfunctional system to a "best in the world" system.
> 
> 
> 
> People may make their tourist plans based on flash, but commuters just need a reliable way of getting around.
> 
> Right now business travelers rarely use Amtrak because of the frequent 3+ hour delays being stuck behind a freight train. I can't count on Amtrak Cascades to get me to work or a meeting on time. My desire to avoid being fired for being late to work five or more times per month is greater than my desire to do the environmentally and socially conscious thing and take the train to work.
> 
> Give travelers a train that runs at 90 miles per hour, bypasses traffic and reliably runs on schedule and people will be happy to use it.


There is no meaningful level of commuters on this train as proposed. Right from the beginning HSR said they would attract NO commuters away from air. Their published model is based on winning people away from cars and from general growth in population. They ADMIT they are too slow for business people whose time is valuable; it's *in their original analysis. * 

If you want to put HSR in within the Bay Area or within the LA area, this would make sense and I would support it completely as an extension and modification of the existing train systems already there.


----------



## aquaticko

Nacre said:


> It simply isn't realistic to go from a totally dysfunctional system to a "best in the world" system.
> 
> People may make their tourist plans based on flash, but commuters just need a reliable way of getting around.
> 
> Right now business travelers rarely use Amtrak because of the frequent 3+ hour delays being stuck behind a freight train. I can't count on Amtrak Cascades to get me to work or a meeting on time. My desire to avoid being fired for being late to work five or more times per month is greater than my desire to do the environmentally and socially conscious thing and take the train to work.
> 
> Give travelers a train that runs at 90 miles per hour, bypasses traffic and reliably runs on schedule and people will be happy to use it.


You're right, but the biggest thing that seems to have sunk this project to its current point--any mismanagement aside--is the cost and delays involved in acquiring new land to on which to create ROW to allow trains to run unobstructed by freight. 

At that level, the speed question is kind of moot: if you need to buy new land, then the curve radii difference isn't going to be the hinge point. Ceteris paribus, trains and track don't cost much different to build in straights or curves. 

Freight companies remain without an incentive to share their ROW to allow construction of additional trackage, as construction=delays=cost. Ergo, new land was a must, thus a major cause of the cost increase and delay, therefore the project becomes untenable.


----------



## Tower Dude

I think that over all this is a good thing, a re-orientation is needed but the underlying problems (lack of inclusion of international expertise, the sprawl inherent in the bay and LA requires massive land purchasing, few national manufacturers of HSR rolling stock, no to minimal federal support) remain.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> But the real fundamental is that air and car are much faster and cheaper and soon most cars will be electric powered.


This isn't entirely true.

High density, pedestrianized urban areas served with rail transportation systems have lower overall costs than suburban areas served with automobile-based transit systems. The problem is that the major capital costs of building airports and freeways has already been done in the USA, while past investment in rail has been comparatively low. If we had gone with urbanization and rail transport in the 1950's and 60's instead of automobiles and suburbanization things would be very different.


----------



## Bobdreamz

aquamaroon said:


> *As a nation we apparently are no longer able to accomplish large scale, transformational projects. We've given trillions to to billionaires and have nothing to show for it but more debt, and we have nothing left to improve our country.* Afraid to say it but this is just another sign that America's heyday as a word leader is swiftly and ignominiously coming to an end.


It's pathetic what America is turning into which is a wealthy oligarchy.

:bash:


----------



## Suburbanist

Scba said:


> I understand some of that, but also, what was it, SEVENTY BILLION for the line? Through the flat farmland of Central CA?


Everything on the flat segment could be build with 11 billions. It is the rest that cost a lot, particularly underground stations and tunnels through seismic areas,

This being said, Italy build a high speed line on similarly challenging terrain (including crossing 2 seismic faults and deep underground tunnels) for less than half of the CAHSR cost.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

pesto said:


> But the real fundamental is that air and car are much faster and cheaper and soon most cars will be electric powered.


It still won't solve an important issue: capacity. We can't keep building more freeway lanes and especially airport runways. The one thing trains have an advantage compared to cars is that they can move much more people in that same amount of space compared to a car.



Bobdreamz said:


> It's pathetic what America is turning into which is a wealthy oligarchy.
> 
> :bash:


Courtesy of every American presidency since 1980.

Now with all that said, since CAHSR has been scaled back to Bakersfield-Merced, maybe the one next thing they should tackle once that is complete is linking the Central Valley with SoCal because there's no existing passenger rail link (UP refuses to let passenger trains on the Tehachapi line because it's way beyond capacity). Instead of detouring to Palmdale and Tehachapi like in the original plan, they can do the sensible thing and follow I-5 and build directly though the Tejon Pass. This would actually gain quite a bit of ridership as the Tejon tends to get clogged and is often closed in the winter due to the snowy weather (and the Tehachapi isn't equipped to handle all that traffic). Being that it's has grades of up to 3%, locomotives would be banned from running it and EMUs would have to be used. To make the best use of it, the Tejon passenger train would have to terminate at Los Angeles, and this would mean having to rebuild and electrify the Sylmar-Los Angeles section of the Antelope Valley Line. The electrified tracks would be only for the Tejon passenger train.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

pesto said:


> But the real fundamental is that air and car are much faster and cheaper and soon most cars will be electric powered.


It still won't solve a very important issue: capacity. We can't keep building more freeway lanes and airport runways forever. One thing that trains have an advantage compared to cars is that they can transport a lot more people within the same amount of space that a car occupies.



Bobdreamz said:


> It's pathetic what America is turning into which is a wealthy oligarchy.
> 
> :bash:


Courtesy of every American presidency since 1980

Now with all that said, the one next thing CAHSR should tackle once Merced-Bakersfield is completed is linking SoCal with the Central Valley. At present, there is no passenger rail link (UPRR refuses to let passenger trains operate on the Tehachapi line because it's way beyond capacity). Instead of detouring through Tehachapi to serve the Antelope Valley, they can instead do the sensible thing and follow I-5 and build through the Tejon Pass. Being that grades will be up to 3%, electric locomotives cannot be used on the line, thus requiring EMUs. To maximize its potential, the Sylmar-Los Angeles rail would have to be rebuilt and electrified. This includes grade separation and electrifying the 8th Street Yard (alternatively, Amtrak can build a new rail yard on the ex-SPRR Taylor Yard and the new yard can be used by both Amtrak and Metrolink).
This would definitely gain a good amount of ridership as the Tejon tends to get clogged and closed during the winter months due to the weather, thus requiring a multi-hour detour through the Techachapi. At 125 mph, people can travel from LA to Bakersfield in around an hour


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Sorry for the double-post :nuts:


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> This isn't entirely true.
> 
> High density, pedestrianized urban areas served with rail transportation systems have lower overall costs than suburban areas served with automobile-based transit systems. The problem is that the major capital costs of building airports and freeways has already been done in the USA, while past investment in rail has been comparatively low. If we had gone with urbanization and rail transport in the 1950's and 60's instead of automobiles and suburbanization things would be very different.


Assuming your analysis is correct, you are making an argument for keeping the airports and freeways, not for removing them. We plan based on where we are today not the 1940's.

But you are wrong in any event. Airports are required regardless since trains will not handle travel to Europe, Asia, Latin America, the East Coast or Midwest. The marginal cost of adding LA-SF trips is immaterial to the capital expenditure. And likewise roads are required as well since LA/LB is the largest port in the world and handles goods for all of the western US. The 5 and 99 are filled with trucks handling agriculture, machinery and every type of goods. Also emergency equipment in case of fires, earthquakes, etc. You are going to have them regardless.


----------



## pesto

D.S. Lewith said:


> It still won't solve a very important issue: capacity. We can't keep building more freeway lanes and airport runways forever. One thing that trains have an advantage compared to cars is that they can transport a lot more people within the same amount of space that a car occupies.
> 
> I agree but you are changing the subject. We are talking about intercity rail for 400 miles through mountains and deserts. This has essentially zero impact on rail or road commutes within the urban areas.
> 
> Building transit within the Bay Area or LA is obviously desirable and no one opposes it. Building a train to compete with air and cars on a 400 mile trip is just ridiculous.
> 
> To repeat, HSR itself did not believe it could compete with air; read their analysis of expected ridership!!!!!! They were going to have to charge DOUBLE and take almost twice as long; this would not interest those who use air.
> 
> The focus is on winning over car drivers and those are already moving freely on three excellent highways and by 2033 will be primarily electric cars. Just a loser at every level. Dems and Republicans are opposed; every legislative analysis has said it would result in perpetual losses (this in the far-left controlled California legislature). The governor is opposed; the 'hoods that would have trains blasting through at high speeds are opposed.
> 
> Even Newsom, who is the ultimate green goofball couldn't find a way to save it.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

pesto said:


> Building transit within the Bay Area or LA is obviously desirable and no one opposes it. Building a train to compete with air and cars on a 400 mile trip is just ridiculous.


What about trying to bridge gaps like Tejon passenger rail because there are only two choices for passengers to get from LA to CV: I-5 and CA-14+CA-58. The former gets easily clogged and tends to be closed in the winter, the latter will take more time (and even more so when I-5 is closed) as it has much less capacity. The only existing rail link is the Tehachapi line, and the UPRR doesn't want anyone else using it.



pesto said:


> To repeat, HSR itself did not believe it could compete with air; read their analysis of expected ridership!!!!!! They were going to have to charge DOUBLE and take almost twice as long; this would not interest those who use air.


Yet the government heavily subsidizies the airlines and freeways.



pesto said:


> the 'hoods that would have trains blasting through at high speeds are opposed.


Electric trains are a lot quieter than the freeways that they hear all the time.

With all that said, what solutions are there if expanding the freeway lanes and runways won't cut it (unless there isn't any). There still will be gridlock on the freeways even if all the cars went electric. Do you think people enjoy being stuck on gridlock for hours end?


----------



## N830MH

Folks, can you please stay on topics? Thanks for your understanding! 

HSR is still ongoing construction, but they still have to be completed in 2023.


----------



## Nacre

Bobdreamz said:


> It's pathetic what America is turning into which is a wealthy oligarchy.
> 
> :bash:


It is very important for people to understand that _democratization was precisely the reason that we went for suburbanization and cars in the first place_. Politicians wanted to put affordable housing in reach of working class families, which meant suburbanization. Suburbanization trades higher maintenance and land useage in exchange for lower initial land acquisition and construction costs. And it was actually the railroads that enabled much of that sprawl in places like Los Angeles: the Pacific Electric Railway's Red Cars were intentionally created to serve streetcar suburbs.

My point is that seeing things as good vs evil or black vs white is not very true to reality. The world we live in is about tradeoffs rather than things being completely good or completely bad. Building high speed rail in the USA carries very substantial downsides for the middle and working class people who likely will not be able to enjoy the benefits of the system for a very long time.

And that's true for metro systems as well. I want Seattle to build a subway system. But while I would have to pay the taxes to build it I would probably either be dead or relocated before the lines were built that connected my place of residence to my place of work. Building mass transit systems is something that one generation does for the generations that will follow it. And that's why working class people don't want these rail projects to move forward.


----------



## aquaticko

^^I think that that last sentiment is exactly what's so disheartening about the whole situation.

This project failed (again, ignoring the major mismanagement issue) because people are either desperate or greedy enough to forgo generations of benefit to avoid cost to themselves.


----------



## pesto

D.S. Lewith said:


> What about trying to bridge gaps like Tejon passenger rail because there are only two choices for passengers to get from LA to CV: I-5 and CA-14+CA-58. The former gets easily clogged and tends to be closed in the winter, the latter will take more time (and even more so when I-5 is closed) as it has much less capacity. The only existing rail link is the Tehachapi line, and the UPRR doesn't want anyone else using it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the government heavily subsidizies the airlines and freeways.
> 
> 
> 
> Electric trains are a lot quieter than the freeways that they hear all the time.
> 
> With all that said, what solutions are there if expanding the freeway lanes and runways won't cut it (unless there isn't any). There still will be gridlock on the freeways even if all the cars went electric. Do you think people enjoy being stuck on gridlock for hours end?


Ok, I don't mind debating this but you have to read what I wrote:

The airports are used for flying people all over the world; they HAVE to be there. Same for roads: food, goods, materials, emergency, public service, bus transit, etc., use them.

Again you are confuting inter-regional travel with intra-regional travel. Or are you claiming that HSR from LA to SF will help reduce the commute time in SV and the Peninsula? I hope not.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> It is very important for people to understand that _democratization was precisely the reason that we went for suburbanization and cars in the first place_. Politicians wanted to put affordable housing in reach of working class families, which meant suburbanization. Suburbanization trades higher maintenance and land useage in exchange for lower initial land acquisition and construction costs. And it was actually the railroads that enabled much of that sprawl in places like Los Angeles: the Pacific Electric Railway's Red Cars were intentionally created to serve streetcar suburbs.
> 
> My point is that seeing things as good vs evil or black vs white is not very true to reality. The world we live in is about tradeoffs rather than things being completely good or completely bad. Building high speed rail in the USA carries very substantial downsides for the middle and working class people who likely will not be able to enjoy the benefits of the system for a very long time.
> 
> And that's true for metro systems as well. I want Seattle to build a subway system. But while I would have to pay the taxes to build it I would probably either be dead or relocated before the lines were built that connected my place of residence to my place of work. Building mass transit systems is something that one generation does for the generations that will follow it. And that's why working class people don't want these rail projects to move forward.


Agree about trade-offs but then you go off the tracks. 

In general, transit is the current generation robbing from the future. Instead of taxing themselves, the current generation borrows funds with the knowledge that future generations will be stuck with paying them back with compounded interest, plus maintaining the systems. This guarantees that the future will be saddled with high taxes, high fares, decaying infrastructure and slow growth.

This generational theft is one of the biggest issues in contemporary economic growth theory and is one of the things that almost everyone agrees on.


----------



## aquaticko

^^...Really? I'd love to know who "everyone" and "agrees" on means.

But that'll be getting us...wait for it...off track.


----------



## Stuu

pesto said:


> This generational theft is one of the biggest issues in contemporary economic growth theory and is one of the things that almost everyone agrees on.


This is literally the first time I have ever heard of this, and I have a degree in economics and work in finance, and keep abreast of developments. Who is 'everyone'?


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> In general, transit is the current generation robbing from the future. Instead of taxing themselves, the current generation borrows funds with the knowledge that future generations will be stuck with paying them back with compounded interest, plus maintaining the systems.


1) Debt servicing is an issue, but most transit systems are funded from direct taxation rather than debt. LA Metro's various sources of taxation are listed here. In short only 6.3% of the agency's spending goes to debt servicing, while new construction works eat up 30% of the agency's spending. You can argue that it's unfair that drivers who don't use mass transit are paying sales taxes to subsidize bus and rail transit, but LA isn't saddling future generations with massive debts.

2) The maintenance costs for rail transit systems are substantially lower than the combined maintenance costs of comparable carrying capacity in cars and freeways. The maintenance costs of detached single story housing (or multistory McMansions) and their supporting infrastructure is substantially higher per unit than apartments blocks or towers.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> 1) Debt servicing is an issue, but most transit systems are funded from direct taxation rather than debt. LA Metro's various sources of taxation are listed here. In short only 6.3% of the agency's spending goes to debt servicing, while new construction works eat up 30% of the agency's spending. You can argue that it's unfair that drivers who don't use mass transit are paying sales taxes to subsidize bus and rail transit, but LA isn't saddling future generations with massive debts.
> 
> 2) The maintenance costs for rail transit systems are substantially lower than the combined maintenance costs of comparable carrying capacity in cars and freeways. The maintenance costs of detached single story housing (or multistory McMansions) and their supporting infrastructure is substantially higher per unit than apartments blocks or towers.


Agree with this. But the point made was some b/s about the great sacrifices that the current generation is making for the future. That couldn't be more inaccurate.

Economic writers from Mankiw at Harvard (far left) to the right have pointed out that the major problem with the US economy is the belief that outlandish spending can be continually supported by issuing indebtedness, mostly to foreigners; that this is theft from the future and almost certainly will result in long-term slow growth and the gradual eclipse of US leadership in standard of living. In the same general way as the prior easy debt policies re housing and education loans have already come home to roost to some extent.

The good news is that technology has bailed us out in part and people are adjusting to the unaffordability of urban life by moving operations to cheaper locations.

But the real point here is that HSR over 400 miles through mountains doesn't work when the airplanes do it in 45 minutes at $79 each way, from an airport within a few miles of where you are going (3 in Bay Area; 5 in greater LA).


----------



## Nacre

JMBasquiat said:


> Rail travel is very common in and around Chicago, a huge metropolis in the Midwest.


Indeed.

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/images/Travel-Information/passenger-rail/Amtrak%20Map%20for%20Travelers.jpg

And in fact the upgrades to the Chicago to St Louis route are a good example of the improvements the rest of the country should be making, even if those upgrades have run into trouble.


----------



## Khaul

JMBasquiat said:


> Rail travel is very common in and around Chicago, a huge metropolis in the Midwest.


That is, very common for American standards. Here in Sydney there is a general agreement about our substandard railways. 

Yet the Sydney commuter railways are clocking about 1.3M trips in a weekday. That's about as much as the Chicago L, Metra and the South Shore put together. Greater Sydney is half the size, in population terms, of Greater Chicago _and_ is a modern, generally low-density city. However, here "transit" is neither a charity for the carless poor nor a folly of new urbanists. Quite simply the city would grind to a standstill without the trains. Like in Chicago, economic activity is relatively concentrated in a central business district with about half a million jobs. Most people take the train to the city as there is no nearly enough parking for so many cars. It makes sense, with less car parks you can have more skyscrapers and generate more money.

Rail patronage in Sydney is growing faster than population for many years in a row, and it is at its historical maximum. We also have an automated metro line under construction, which will add a lot of capacity, a couple of metro lines in different planning stages and projects to convert commuter railways to metro standards. It all looks so slow, costly and full of senseless bickering to us, but one only needs to compare the Sydney Metro to, say, the Second Avenue Subway to feel a bit better.


----------



## tjrgx

*Federal Government to Cancel Funds for California High-Speed Rail*

https://www.wsj.com/articles/federa...ds-for-california-high-speed-rail-11550618638

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration said Tuesday it would cancel almost $1 billion in funding for the California high-speed rail network, casting doubt on whether the state will be able to complete even the first phase of the troubled project.

In a letter to state officials, Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald Batory said the administration is planning to revoke its grant agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority, and halt $928.6 million in future grant payments it was expected to make to fund the project through 2022.

The FRA is also considering a legal effort to recover $2.5 billion in federal funds already spent on the project, which was originally set to link Los Angeles and San Francisco.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week that the state would focus on completing the first phase of the project, connecting the cities of Bakersfield and Merced, and revisit plans to extend the network south to Los Angeles and north to San Francisco.

“And by the way, I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump, ” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said in his State of the State speech.

Those remarks were widely interpreted as an admission the system wouldn’t be completed as designed, though Mr. Newsom has said his remarks were misinterpreted.

Mr. Newsom’s plan “represents a significant retreat from the State’s initial vision and commitment and frustrates the purpose for which Federal funding was awarded (i.e., an initial investment in the larger high-speed rail system),” Mr. Batory wrote.

The letter from Mr. Batory came hours after Mr. Trump weighed in, via Twitter .

“The failed Fast Train project in California, where the cost overruns are becoming world record setting, is hundreds of times more expensive than the desperately needed Wall!” Mr. Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning, referring to his proposal to erect a wall on the southern border of the U.S.

Mr. Newsom accused the president of taking revenge for the decision by California and other states to challenge Mr. Trump’s declaration of an emergency to build a border wall.

“It’s no coincidence that the Administration’s threat comes 24 hours after California led 16 states in challenging the President’s farcical ‘national emergency,’” the governor said in a statement. “This is clear political retribution by President Trump, and we won’t sit idly by. This is California’s money, and we are going to fight for it.”

A former Transportation Department official questioned whether the FRA could snuff out the project so easily.

“As much as the Trump administration would like to think they can simply decide to kill a major infrastructure project that has already created thousands of multiyear jobs, it doesn’t work like that,” said the official, who worked in the Obama administration. “It’s actually not as easy as sending a tweet, or even a letter. My money is on this project going forward.”

In laying out the case for revoking the contract, Mr. Batory said that California had not made financial contributions to advance the project on a previously agreed-upon schedule. He cited a state expenditure of $47.9 million on final design and construction in December 2018.

That was nearly $100 million less than the state had committed to, he said. The FRA set a deadline of March 5 for the rail authority to contest its findings.

The funding clash is another black eye for a project that was once billed as America’s pre-eminent investment in high-speed passenger rail, a successful transportation mode in countries around the world that has lagged behind in the U.S.


----------



## Short

JMBasquiat said:


> Rail travel is very common in and around Chicago, a huge metropolis in the Midwest.


Illinois has a great deal to improve on, judging from my recent experience. 

As an outsider, I visited Chicago for the first time last year and I was extremely disappointed and baffled by the disjointed rail systems. Only cash was accepted in the ticket machines but then only small notes, smaller than what I had just withdrawn from an ATM at O'Hare Airport. Not a great welcome. A manned ticket barrier but no manned ticket office. Multiple stations all have the same name but on different lines in wildly different parts of the city, confusing for international tourists. Metra stations were not located next to the L stations of the same name to enable transfers, plus you can not use one ticket for both systems. Had to go to an event in the western suburbs and was shocked that the Metra trains was only an hourly service for such a major city. Lastly the carriages would have to be the worst design for any impaired traveller with steep steps even to the lower level, let alone the upper level with it's gaping hole and cramped seating.

As for the rest of Illinois, to go from the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana to the capital in Springfield, I had to get an indirect bus first to Normal/Bloomington. The bus was over an hour late because it was an extreme long distance bus, that had snowballed delays from many states before my stop. Not that it mattered, my connecting Amtrak train still required a wait of over an hour. Overall it was well over 5 hours of travel compared to a 90 minute direct route. The return train to Chicago was also late due to freight train movements.

It was as if no bothers to bring the various interests together to co-ordinate and cooperate together for a coherent system. Just an apathy of the situation always being that way, preference for car travel and a reluctance for change. South America is the only continent where I have not caught public transport and travelled by train, so I have experienced a great deal of different systems.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

I always knew the USA was lacking in public transportation, but dang, I think your post encapsulates why public transportation has such terrible ridership figures and such a terrible reputation state-side. Someone who grew up with this kind of paradigm (with nothing else to compare to) simply cannot wrap his/her mind around spending billions on such a system. 

*Meanwhile I start rolling my eyes and throwing a fit when my train arrives more than 5 minutes late.


----------



## JMBasquiat

Short said:


> Only cash was accepted in the ticket machines but then only small notes, smaller than what I had just withdrawn from an ATM at O'Hare Airport.


You can use credit, debit, or cash to purchase a Ventra ticket at O'Hare which you can use on CTA, Metra and Pace. 

As can be seen on the video below, the machine takes $20 bills which are not small notes and are typically what the ATM will serve to customers. 

You can then link the Ventra card with your mobile wallet system to pay for any other rides using Apple Pay or whatever. 



> Ventra is designed to accept industry-standard, contactless payments, which means that you can use a bankcard loaded into digital wallets or payment apps Apple Pay, Google Pay or Samsung Pay—instead of a Ventra Card—when boarding a bus or when entering a CTA train station. It’s just like using a contactless reader at a checkout or vending machine.







https://www.rtachicago.org/index.php/plan-your-trip/travel-tips/paying-your-ride
https://www.ventrachicago.com/featured-questions/#470


----------



## Short

JMBasquiat said:


> You can use credit, debit, or cash to purchase a Ventra ticket at O'Hare which you can use on CTA, Metra and Pace.
> 
> As can be seen on the video below, the machine takes $20 bills which are not small notes and are typically what the ATM will serve to customers.
> 
> You can then link the Ventra card with your mobile wallet system to pay for any other rides using Apple Pay or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.rtachicago.org/index.php/plan-your-trip/travel-tips/paying-your-ride
> https://www.ventrachicago.com/featured-questions/#470


This is the front gate to Chicago for millions of people, for such a major world airport, you need to have things straight forward and simple for visitors. 

No information booth or no detailed signage on what is the best option for newly arrived passengers. The staff manning the ticket line could not be less interested in providing helpful information beyond suggesting where to get change, which I had to do by buying something in a nearby shop. That gave the situation an overtone of feeling like a rort, even though I know it was not. As for the cash, the ATM gave me $50 notes, but that should not matter. Other tourists in the same situation had bought several hundred dollars in $100 notes from their bank in their homeland. 

Many places around the world make a priority of providing information at their airport public transport, they know visitors are more reliant of public transport and will not have the same access to information as locals. In the six days prior to arriving in Chicago, I went through Sydney, Bangkok, London & Dublin which all had manned transport information at the airport which helped me greatly. Not just a vending machine that I had to work out myself. This was not a great welcome to Chicago.


----------



## Anday

*Houston-Dallas high-speed rail construction may begin in late 2019*













> Texas Central, the company behind the proposed high-speed train that would take passengers between Houston and Dallas in less than 90 minutes, may begin construction in late 2019 or early 2020.
> 
> The project has had its detractors. Recently, a judge in Leon County ruled that the company is not a railroad and did not have the authority to make property owners sell or provide land for the rail.
> 
> “It’s a very long process. We will be appealing that case,” said David Hagy, regional vice president of external affairs for Texas Central.
> 
> Despite the setback, the company plans to move forward, saying that construction for the 240-mile project may begin as early as the end of this year. The construction could take up to five years and cost approximately $12 billion.


*Texas high-speed rail project selects financial advisers*




> Texas Central has named Citi and MUFG as financial advisers who will help spearhead the high-speed rail project's capital-raising efforts.
> 
> According to a news release, Citi will serve as "sole global coordinator and lead financial adviser" while MUFG's role will be "co-global financial adviser." Texas Central said in the release that Citi and MUFG will also "assist in securing the financing across debt and equity to finance the project."


----------



## Slartibartfas

pesto said:


> That may be what works for Switzerland or India; but this is not a one-size-fits-all world. Even CA HSR in their printed materials rejected this. They said they could not take passengers away from air either on a cost or time basis so they would go after the drivers and hope for substantial population growth.


And why would that be exactly that HSR up to 4 hours and especially up to 2 hours is highly competitive against aviation everwhere in the world (Switzerland doesn't have HSR and India doesn't either), except for US, according to your claims. 

The reason may be ideology. It is ideologically pretty much considered a criminal thought that the state could subsidise HSR like it actually subsidises interstate car traffic and aviation.


According to your car arguments the number of people who would take the plane to SF should be pretty much 0%. After all, certainly more than 95% do not live on or near to the airport and don't get me started about the parking fees and hassles there. What you deliberately ignore is that HSR is not an option that has to target everyone, like aviation doesn't either. HSR has to be well connected to the business centres of both metropole regions. The stations will be right in or adjacent to downtown and therefore will be in an attractive location. Other commercial hot spots of multicentric Los Angeles, like Hollywood, Century City, Wilshire Blvd., the centre of Beverly Hills are well connected to rapid PT, with a single transfer at Union Station. No need to call an Uber or rent a car. For people on some private journey, the easiest thing will be to drive to their closest metro or commuter rail station and change their to a train to a HSR station. Unlike the airport HSR has more than one station in the larger LA area (if I am not mistaken that will include: Anaheim, Fullerton, Norwalk, Union Station, Burbank and Palmdale). If you don't live anywhere near those stations and your trip to SF leads you nowhere near to one of these stations, chances are you don't live anywhere near to LA in first place.



> Total cost for 4: $800 for train RT plus car rental, Uber, parking, etc. Total cost by electric car (the dominant form of compact and mid-sized car by 2033) about $60 RT.


30 USD one way? Roads are of course for free and don't cost anything to anyone, so is electricity.


----------



## JMBasquiat

Short said:


> This is the front gate to Chicago for millions of people, for such a major world airport, you need to have things straight forward and simple for visitors.


I'm not disagreeing with you that things can be better, but it's not correct to say that you can only use cash and that the machine only takes small bills, as you claimed. 

As has been demonstrated, the machine takes credit, debit, and cash ($20 dollar bills). It's unfortunate the ATM gave you a $50 bill, but that has nothing to do with CTA or railways in Chicago. It's a bank issue, they need to provide customer friendly denominations, especially at the airport.


----------



## 00Zy99

There is no reason why the ATM should be dispensing a fifty-dollar bill to begin with. There are more than a few small businesses that don't accept them. An ATM, especially at an airport, should not give anything bigger than a twenty-dollar bill.


----------



## Calvin W

00Zy99 said:


> There is no reason why the ATM should be dispensing a fifty-dollar bill to begin with. There are more than a few small businesses that don't accept them. An ATM, especially at an airport, should not give anything bigger than a twenty-dollar bill.


Australian ATMs readily dispense 20's and 50's. Not uncommon to use 50 dollar notes everywhere. As for businesses refusing them, would never happen in Australia as it is legal tender and has to be accepted. Even 100 dollar bills are not uncommon....


----------



## ledmonkey96

Calvin W said:


> Australian ATMs readily dispense 20's and 50's. Not uncommon to use 50 dollar notes everywhere. As for businesses refusing them, would never happen in Australia as it is legal tender and has to be accepted. Even 100 dollar bills are not uncommon....


I've seen a fair number of places that won't accept 100's, generally it's people who just want their money broken, using a 100$ on a 7$ order is a bit of a jerk move early in the day, i've only got 120$ in the register to begin with and only half of that is bills bigger than 1$


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> And why would that be exactly that HSR up to 4 hours and especially up to 2 hours is highly competitive against aviation everwhere in the world (Switzerland doesn't have HSR and India doesn't either), except for US, according to your claims.
> 
> The reason may be ideology. It is ideologically pretty much considered a criminal thought that the state could subsidise HSR like it actually subsidises interstate car traffic and aviation.
> 
> 
> According to your car arguments the number of people who would take the plane to SF should be pretty much 0%. After all, certainly more than 95% do not live on or near to the airport and don't get me started about the parking fees and hassles there. What you deliberately ignore is that HSR is not an option that has to target everyone, like aviation doesn't either. HSR has to be well connected to the business centres of both metropole regions. The stations will be right in or adjacent to downtown and therefore will be in an attractive location. Other commercial hot spots of multicentric Los Angeles, like Hollywood, Century City, Wilshire Blvd., the centre of Beverly Hills are well connected to rapid PT, with a single transfer at Union Station. No need to call an Uber or rent a car. For people on some private journey, the easiest thing will be to drive to their closest metro or commuter rail station and change their to a train to a HSR station. Unlike the airport HSR has more than one station in the larger LA area (if I am not mistaken that will include: Anaheim, Fullerton, Norwalk, Union Station, Burbank and Palmdale). If you don't live anywhere near those stations and your trip to SF leads you nowhere near to one of these stations, chances are you don't live anywhere near to LA in first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 30 USD one way? Roads are of course for free and don't cost anything to anyone, so is electricity.


I'm sorry, I would normally not respond since this is so delusional (duh, don't plan for where the ridership is coming from; the Magic Fairy Dust will take care of that). But I just happened to have a Bay Area/LA trip going on right now.

My wife: $49 one-way airfare Bay Area to LA; about 60 daily flights; 15 minutes Uber to the curb in SJ; check two suitcases at curb; walk to boarding, 40 minutes in air; pick up luggage; I am waiting at Burbank. Check into hotel in Hollywood 20 minutes later (free self-parking!).

Whatever maintenance and capital improvements are needed come from the airlines and are built into the ticket price; but it’s essentially free for SF/LA traffic since you have to have the airport anyway for international, east coast, Midwest, south and Rockies. Plus freight, emergency and other services. MTA has lines going straight to the airport which take you to most parts of LA if you prefer transit.

Likewise for the highways. LA/LB are the two largest container ports in the country and trucks use 101,99 and 5 pretty much 24/7. You HAVE to have them for that traffic and for the 8M people in the CV using them daily.

Or there is HSR: 150B to build, ready in 30 years; operating losses of, say, 300M/yr. plus the economic costs of projects foregone by burning 150B (e.g., instead we could have built out NY-like subway all over LA, OC, SD, SJ, SF, etc.; an area that already has 30M and will have 40M by 2050).


----------



## Short

JMBasquiat said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you that things can be better, but it's not correct to say that you can only use cash and that the machine only takes small bills, as you claimed.
> 
> As has been demonstrated, the machine takes credit, debit, and cash ($20 dollar bills). It's unfortunate the ATM gave you a $50 bill, but that has nothing to do with CTA or railways in Chicago. It's a bank issue, they need to provide customer friendly denominations, especially at the airport.


It is not the issue that the machine does not accept notes over $20. O'Hare station is the first place that tourists unfamiliar with Chicago will arrive. CTA should be more welcoming to anyone and everyone. There should be a manned information/ticket office welcoming all newcomers to the city. To help them with working out which of the multiple Pulaski stations is the one they want, as an example. It is not unreasonable to expect incoming tourists to have large denominations of notes, who having just stepped off a plane are yet to make change. To have an attendant at the ticket barrier who seemed annoyed that I was asking them for information was also not a good welcome. For a major city, this is well below the standards I have experienced in many other places.


----------



## Rover030

Anday said:


> *Houston-Dallas high-speed rail construction may begin in late 2019*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Texas high-speed rail project selects financial advisers*


What's up with this project? I read the same news yesterday on a Dutch website, but when googling for it in English I read that they're still in this lawsuit about whether they are a railroad that can take land or not. Are they really going to start construction, or is it just PR and does it fully depend on the court case? I imagine it would be a big blow to private companies in the US that want to build railroads if they would not be recognised as railroads?


----------



## dysharmonica

Rover030 said:


> What's up with this project? I read the same news yesterday on a Dutch website, but when googling for it in English I read that they're still in this lawsuit about whether they are a railroad that can take land or not. Are they really going to start construction, or is it just PR and does it fully depend on the court case? I imagine it would be a big blow to private companies in the US that want to build railroads if they would not be recognised as railroads?


In the US there are always lawsuits until the very very start of construction. These are not valid claims, just delay tactics. Court cases in the US have a rather predictable timeline, so the company has a rough estimate when this court case will finish, and has a reasonable expectation that the case will be won for them ... and thus have some expectations about when they can begin construction. 

The project is just before construction. It has passed all the local, state and federal approvals, it is fully engineered, and I believe contracted out for construction. It's just waiting for conclusion of this delay lawsuit .. about whether a railroad is a railroad (US makes no sense).


----------



## Slartibartfas

pesto said:


> I'm sorry, I would normally not respond since this is so delusional (duh, don't plan for where the ridership is coming from; the Magic Fairy Dust will take care of that). But I just happened to have a Bay Area/LA trip going on right now.
> 
> My wife: $49 one-way airfare Bay Area to LA; about 60 daily flights; 15 minutes Uber to the curb in SJ; check two suitcases at curb; walk to boarding, 40 minutes in air; pick up luggage; I am waiting at Burbank. Check into hotel in Hollywood 20 minutes later (free self-parking!).


I know, HSR around the world is built on Magic Fairy Dust and only used by fairies. It's so delusional one can hardly grasp it. 

I am not sure what you are trying to tell me on the Burbank side of the story, other than yes, for that specific example the airport is located almost as good as the HSR station will be. If you want to catch her, you surely would have no disadvantage when catching her at Burbank station and then having your 20-30 min drive to Hollywood by car. 

Maybe airports operate differently in the US but if you want to check in suitcases you'd better be at least 1h before check-in at the airport. Well that is actually already too late probably, as they might have closed it by then already, make that 90 min. Check-in is probably another 30 min until the plan is finally on its way. Catching your suitcases can easily eat up another 30 min, incl. getting to the pickup location and potential waiting times. Of course, small airports can save a bit of time at some of these things. Add all those very pleasent activities together and you can easily get 2 hours together. 40 min in the air. Volia, the riding of a properly implemented HSR from Union Station to SF. If you depart from Burbank it might be similar or a bit shorter (depending on the kind of services offered), especially when the station on the other end is San Jose or Palo Alto, which as you pointed out so well, you could reach with a cheap Uber drive if PT isn't working out great for your specific case. 

Unlike flying you don't have a lot of short unproductive waiting times which just add up to something more substantial but in the HSR you spend most of the time actually in the train, in a comfortable seat, with plenty of room and options to be productive.

I am not saying that everyone will prefer HSR but HSR corridors all around the world have shown that a 2:40 H connection has a very good competitiveness towards aviation. 






> Whatever maintenance and capital improvements are needed come from the airlines and are built into the ticket price; but it’s essentially free for SF/LA traffic since you have to have the airport anyway for international, east coast, Midwest, south and Rockies. Plus freight, emergency and other services.


There is nothing free in life. Unless the airport is underutilised, capacity limitations are commonly an issue at airports as they are were hard to expand runway wise. I would imagine that the airspace over greater LA is extremely crowded. Airspace that isn't wasted for short domestic flights could be used for more useful longer range connections.


----------



## Silver Swordsman

pesto said:


> I'm sorry, I would normally not respond since this is so delusional (duh, don't plan for where the ridership is coming from; the Magic Fairy Dust will take care of that). But I just happened to have a Bay Area/LA trip going on right now.
> 
> My wife: $49 one-way airfare Bay Area to LA; about 60 daily flights; 15 minutes Uber to the curb in SJ; check two suitcases at curb; walk to boarding, 40 minutes in air; pick up luggage; I am waiting at Burbank. Check into hotel in Hollywood 20 minutes later (free self-parking!).
> 
> Whatever maintenance and capital improvements are needed come from the airlines and are built into the ticket price; but it’s essentially free for SF/LA traffic since you have to have the airport anyway for international, east coast, Midwest, south and Rockies. Plus freight, emergency and other services. MTA has lines going straight to the airport which take you to most parts of LA if you prefer transit.
> 
> Likewise for the highways. LA/LB are the two largest container ports in the country and trucks use 101,99 and 5 pretty much 24/7. You HAVE to have them for that traffic and for the 8M people in the CV using them daily.
> 
> Or there is HSR: 150B to build, ready in 30 years; operating losses of, say, 300M/yr. plus the economic costs of projects foregone by burning 150B (e.g., instead we could have built out NY-like subway all over LA, OC, SD, SJ, SF, etc.; an area that already has 30M and will have 40M by 2050).


To put things in perspective, the land that is now LAX was acquired by the government (via eminent domain) in *1928*. That's literally over 90 years ago. Over its lifetime, LAX was upgraded and expanded numerous times, on public dollar (LAX is owned by the government of Los Angeles). For reference, an expansion for the Olympic Games in 1980 cost $700million--adjusting for inflation today, that figure will have been over $2 billion. The construction of new terminals and the reconstruction of old ones each cost between $1-4bn dollars... along with another $14bn earmarked for renovation. 

SFO was also initially built in the 1920s, and was also gradually built outwards (funded by the government). Like LAX, SFO is a major source of noise pollution to nearby residential communities. A proposal to build a new runway by filling in the SF Bay is expected to cost over $3bn alone. 

Finding actual figures for the total construction and renovation costs of airports have been very difficult, as it seems that in the past construction costs weren't excoriated or scrutinized as deeply as they are today, as it was general consensus at the time that such public works were considered a necessary expense for the future development of the region. 

The Interstate Highway System began construction in 1956, and took over 35 years to build. In today's money, the cost of the highway system is over $500bn dollars, with even more externalized costs (as most of the highways were routed through poor neighborhoods with little attention paid to retaining connectivity). 

Over 90 years of construction and renovation, for what are now two of the world's most busiest airports. The problem is that today, with SFO and LAX already at overcapacity, climate change has become a severe issue with very tangible effects (with vehicle emissions accounting for more than 30% of the US' total carbon output), and the cost of housing rapidly outpacing income in coastal cities: spending $100bn on HSR is not just for building "a shiny new train", but for a massive fix addressing numerous issues facing the state today and tomorrow. 

It is a critical piece of infrastructure that connects the isolated and economically-depressed Central Valley to the coast, offering new job opportunities for those living in the Central Valley while also increasing the housing supply for the bottled coast. In spite of advancements in driverless and electric cars, automobiles remain by and large the most energy-inefficient mode of transportation, while air travel is particularly damaging to the environment due to releasing large, concentrated quantities of greenhouse gases at high altitudes; with an energy footprint of less than 1/10th compared to driving or flying, high speed rail is a core investment that is required if one is serious at all about stopping climate change. Lastly, Americans prefer automobiles because the American cities were _redesigned_ in the 1960s to accommodate the automobile: the signature urban sprawl of US cities today happened not in a vacuum, nor overnight; high speed rail is one of the many steps needed to reverse this trend of over-reliance on automobiles, towards city planning that is more sustainable and friendly to the environment. 

The only true problem CHSR has is political will. California is now much more built up than it was in the 1920s when LAX and SFO were first built, and tearing down buildings and ripping up farmland is anathema to most politicians (the fact that even today CHSRA has not obtained all of the land parcels it needs is ridiculous, why eminent domain has not been used more is beyond me). The increased pricetag of $100bn is the price of waiting, and it will only grow higher with time as inflation and California further develops. In comparison, China was able to build the 1.3km/830mi Beijing-Shanghai HSR in just three years for just $35bn USD. The fears that CHSR will be forever hooked on subsidies is dubious--while it is very normal for new transit systems to operate at a loss in their first years of operation, almost all services become profitable in the long term. Even Taiwan's long-embattled HSR system ultimately turned a profit after ten years of running. The reason why HSR is constantly criticized is because it truly doesn't make sense... _only if one is solely fixated on short-term profits_. Infrastructure projects are long-term investments, and like the airports SFO and LAX, their value increases slowly with time as people adapt and integrate it into their lives, until it literally becomes part of daily life and is taken for granted. 

$100-150 billion sounds like a lot of money (and I agree it is definitely not a small sum), but for all the accomplishments and benefits such a system will bring, it is by far one of the most cost-effective and safe investments one can make.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Small correction. 830 mi translate to 1300 km not 1.3 km 

Otherwise I fully agree.

One of the most controversial rail projects in Europe has been probably the channel tunnel. I suppose one could make a case that it was never a financially feasible project. Yet, it is rightfully today considered an absolutely crucial piece of transport infrastructure and why it is can be easily seen when the tunnel is temporarily shut down in exceptional cases. Its existance is probably considered a matter of national security nowadays for the UK. When it was first anounced people were shaking their heads why such a fortune is being wasted on when people have ferries and planes anyway.


----------



## pesto

Silver Swordsman said:


> To put things in perspective, the land that is now LAX was acquired by the government (via eminent domain) in *1928*. That's literally over 90 years ago. Over its lifetime, LAX was upgraded and expanded numerous times, on public dollar (LAX is owned by the government of Los Angeles). For reference, an expansion for the Olympic Games in 1980 cost $700million--adjusting for inflation today, that figure will have been over $2 billion. The construction of new terminals and the reconstruction of old ones each cost between $1-4bn dollars... along with another $14bn earmarked for renovation.
> 
> SFO was also initially built in the 1920s, and was also gradually built outwards (funded by the government). Like LAX, SFO is a major source of noise pollution to nearby residential communities. A proposal to build a new runway by filling in the SF Bay is expected to cost over $3bn alone.
> 
> Finding actual figures for the total construction and renovation costs of airports have been very difficult, as it seems that in the past construction costs weren't excoriated or scrutinized as deeply as they are today, as it was general consensus at the time that such public works were considered a necessary expense for the future development of the region.
> 
> The Interstate Highway System began construction in 1956, and took over 35 years to build. In today's money, the cost of the highway system is over $500bn dollars, with even more externalized costs (as most of the highways were routed through poor neighborhoods with little attention paid to retaining connectivity).
> 
> Over 90 years of construction and renovation, for what are now two of the world's most busiest airports. The problem is that today, with SFO and LAX already at overcapacity, climate change has become a severe issue with very tangible effects (with vehicle emissions accounting for more than 30% of the US' total carbon output), and the cost of housing rapidly outpacing income in coastal cities: spending $100bn on HSR is not just for building "a shiny new train", but for a massive fix addressing numerous issues facing the state today and tomorrow.
> 
> It is a critical piece of infrastructure that connects the isolated and economically-depressed Central Valley to the coast, offering new job opportunities for those living in the Central Valley while also increasing the housing supply for the bottled coast. In spite of advancements in driverless and electric cars, automobiles remain by and large the most energy-inefficient mode of transportation, while air travel is particularly damaging to the environment due to releasing large, concentrated quantities of greenhouse gases at high altitudes; with an energy footprint of less than 1/10th compared to driving or flying, high speed rail is a core investment that is required if one is serious at all about stopping climate change. Lastly, Americans prefer automobiles because the American cities were _redesigned_ in the 1960s to accommodate the automobile: the signature urban sprawl of US cities today happened not in a vacuum, nor overnight; high speed rail is one of the many steps needed to reverse this trend of over-reliance on automobiles, towards city planning that is more sustainable and friendly to the environment.
> 
> The only true problem CHSR has is political will. California is now much more built up than it was in the 1920s when LAX and SFO were first built, and tearing down buildings and ripping up farmland is anathema to most politicians (the fact that even today CHSRA has not obtained all of the land parcels it needs is ridiculous, why eminent domain has not been used more is beyond me). The increased pricetag of $100bn is the price of waiting, and it will only grow higher with time as inflation and California further develops. In comparison, China was able to build the 1.3km/830mi Beijing-Shanghai HSR in just three years for just $35bn USD. The fears that CHSR will be forever hooked on subsidies is dubious--while it is very normal for new transit systems to operate at a loss in their first years of operation, almost all services become profitable in the long term. Even Taiwan's long-embattled HSR system ultimately turned a profit after ten years of running. The reason why HSR is constantly criticized is because it truly doesn't make sense... _only if one is solely fixated on short-term profits_. Infrastructure projects are long-term investments, and like the airports SFO and LAX, their value increases slowly with time as people adapt and integrate it into their lives, until it literally becomes part of daily life and is taken for granted.
> 
> $100-150 billion sounds like a lot of money (and I agree it is definitely not a small sum), but for all the accomplishments and benefits such a system will bring, it is by far one of the most cost-effective and safe investments one can make.


Briefly: we are talking about LA to SF today, not some other place, some other time. I am a supporter of rail where it makes sense. When I am in Europe I take it. 

The environmental issues are fading; new fuels are far lower in carbon and in any event most small and mid-sized cars will be electric in 20 years. 

HSR will develop the CV? That's just embarrassing. Newsom doesn't believe that and neither does anyone else, least of all CV residents. 

HSR is NOT going to slow the expansion of airports. Train are too slow and way too expensive. Likewise with a car a family can decide to go to Santa Barbara, Big Sur, Yosemite, the Wine Country, the redwoods, etc. All in one week if they choose.

Just for fun, plan a trip from, say, Norwalk or Monrovia or Inglewood to Hayward, Sunnyvale or Antioch. No contest. Basically the only way you can beat car or air is if you live on the roof of Union Station in LA and are visiting someone living on the street in front of Transbay Terminal.


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Small correction. 830 mi translate to 1300 km not 1.3 km
> 
> Otherwise I fully agree.
> 
> One of the most controversial rail projects in Europe has been probably the channel tunnel. I suppose one could make a case that it was never a financially feasible project. Yet, it is rightfully today considered an absolutely crucial piece of transport infrastructure and why it is can be easily seen when the tunnel is temporarily shut down in exceptional cases. Its existance is probably considered a matter of national security nowadays for the UK. When it was first anounced people were shaking their heads why such a fortune is being wasted on when people have ferries and planes anyway.


Off subject.


----------



## davide84

Slartibartfas said:


> suppose one could make a case that it was never a financially feasible project.


The company operating it is profitable since a few years ago.
Of course that most likely does not account for the construction of the infrastructure, just for operations. Which is the main problem in discussing big infrastructural projects.

When building infrastructure the profit for the community is seldom a direct one, it's not like renting a flat when you have cash coming in each month right after you finish it, it's more like bad things like pollution or congestion potentially being avoided for decades to come.


----------



## Negjana

Pestos don't care about such "details".


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Negjana said:


> Pestos don't care about such "details".


He's just a sycophant for autos and planes as the end-all-be-all for transportation in america


----------



## foxmulder

aquamaroon said:


> Just curious, does anyone know the trip time from Washington-NY, NY-Boston and total trip time on the new Avelia Liberty cars, IF they do the necessary rail improvements to allow these trains to go ~186 mph (300 km/hr) on the route?


300km/h must have new rail line. So, no.


----------



## chaser9

From my understanding, Acela express is not limited by the current equipment, but by the track infrastructure of the route. So like foxmulder stated above, a new train will not have any speed improvement. The current trains are capable of 266km/h (165mph) but never comes close to that for most of the route. 

Excerpt from Wikipedia


> South of New York City, *the trains are restricted to 135 mph (217 km/h)*. By comparison, the Northeast Regional and the now-defunct Metroliner service reached 125 mph (201 km/h).


----------



## cheehg

foxmulder said:


> 300km/h must have new rail line. So, no.


The cost to build and maintain a new 300km/h maybe cheaper than to upgrade an old one. There is no point to waste money on it. And it won't increase capacity. UK WCML is a perfect example. Now they still have to build HS2.


----------



## Slartibartfas

pesto said:


> Briefly: we are talking about LA to SF today, not some other place, some other time.


Wrong. We are talking about LA to SF in 10 to 20 years.


----------



## Slartibartfas

davide84 said:


> The company operating it is profitable since a few years ago.
> Of course that most likely does not account for the construction of the infrastructure, just for operations. Which is the main problem in discussing big infrastructural projects.


Well of course. Operating the line is perfectly feasible. It is after all a very useful if not even essential connection. If a country turns itself incapable of realizing projects where the construction can not be stemmed by private companies calculating at full costs, you drive the country against the wall in the long run as the list of terribly needed but not realizable infrastructure will get longer and longer.


----------



## Slartibartfas

pesto said:


> Off subject.


You are the on-topic police or what? This comment wasn't even directed at you.
The example does carry some relevance to other HSR examples, including HSR Californai. After all it was a very expensive infrastructure project with a lot of potential, that could not have been realized with a full cost calculation approach. If those arguing like you would have won the debate, it would not exist today and so will HSR California fail if your line of argument wins the debate. 

I am convinced that also HSR is of high strategical interest for the state. It would create capacities for rapid mobility which aviation struggles to offer and even highway infrastructure would have to be very substantial to equal it capacity wise. 

California is set to grow substantially over the next decades. It is now time the time to prepare the needed new or expanded infrastructure.


----------



## Klausenburg




----------



## Clery

Silver Swordsman said:


> To put things in perspective, the land that is now LAX was acquired by the government (via eminent domain) in *1928*. That's literally over 90 years ago. Over its lifetime, LAX was upgraded and expanded numerous times, on public dollar (LAX is owned by the government of Los Angeles). For reference, an expansion for the Olympic Games in 1980 cost $700million--adjusting for inflation today, that figure will have been over $2 billion. The construction of new terminals and the reconstruction of old ones each cost between $1-4bn dollars... along with another $14bn earmarked for renovation.
> 
> SFO was also initially built in the 1920s, and was also gradually built outwards (funded by the government). Like LAX, SFO is a major source of noise pollution to nearby residential communities. A proposal to build a new runway by filling in the SF Bay is expected to cost over $3bn alone.
> 
> Finding actual figures for the total construction and renovation costs of airports have been very difficult, as it seems that in the past construction costs weren't excoriated or scrutinized as deeply as they are today, as it was general consensus at the time that such public works were considered a necessary expense for the future development of the region.
> 
> The Interstate Highway System began construction in 1956, and took over 35 years to build. In today's money, the cost of the highway system is over $500bn dollars, with even more externalized costs (as most of the highways were routed through poor neighborhoods with little attention paid to retaining connectivity).
> 
> Over 90 years of construction and renovation, for what are now two of the world's most busiest airports. The problem is that today, with SFO and LAX already at overcapacity, climate change has become a severe issue with very tangible effects (with vehicle emissions accounting for more than 30% of the US' total carbon output), and the cost of housing rapidly outpacing income in coastal cities: spending $100bn on HSR is not just for building "a shiny new train", but for a massive fix addressing numerous issues facing the state today and tomorrow.
> 
> It is a critical piece of infrastructure that connects the isolated and economically-depressed Central Valley to the coast, offering new job opportunities for those living in the Central Valley while also increasing the housing supply for the bottled coast. In spite of advancements in driverless and electric cars, automobiles remain by and large the most energy-inefficient mode of transportation, while air travel is particularly damaging to the environment due to releasing large, concentrated quantities of greenhouse gases at high altitudes; with an energy footprint of less than 1/10th compared to driving or flying, high speed rail is a core investment that is required if one is serious at all about stopping climate change. Lastly, Americans prefer automobiles because the American cities were _redesigned_ in the 1960s to accommodate the automobile: the signature urban sprawl of US cities today happened not in a vacuum, nor overnight; high speed rail is one of the many steps needed to reverse this trend of over-reliance on automobiles, towards city planning that is more sustainable and friendly to the environment.
> 
> The only true problem CHSR has is political will. California is now much more built up than it was in the 1920s when LAX and SFO were first built, and tearing down buildings and ripping up farmland is anathema to most politicians (the fact that even today CHSRA has not obtained all of the land parcels it needs is ridiculous, why eminent domain has not been used more is beyond me). The increased pricetag of $100bn is the price of waiting, and it will only grow higher with time as inflation and California further develops. In comparison, China was able to build the 1.3km/830mi Beijing-Shanghai HSR in just three years for just $35bn USD. The fears that CHSR will be forever hooked on subsidies is dubious--while it is very normal for new transit systems to operate at a loss in their first years of operation, almost all services become profitable in the long term. Even Taiwan's long-embattled HSR system ultimately turned a profit after ten years of running. The reason why HSR is constantly criticized is because it truly doesn't make sense... _only if one is solely fixated on short-term profits_. Infrastructure projects are long-term investments, and like the airports SFO and LAX, their value increases slowly with time as people adapt and integrate it into their lives, until it literally becomes part of daily life and is taken for granted.
> 
> $100-150 billion sounds like a lot of money (and I agree it is definitely not a small sum), but for all the accomplishments and benefits such a system will bring, it is by far one of the most cost-effective and safe investments one can make.


Very good post. I would only add that something which is often discarded as well are the huge maintenance costs required by such an extensive freeway network as the one existing in most of the US. Not only those are huge, but they even favor sprawl. And sprawl is even more costly for public finances than HSR will ever be.

Indeed, sprawl requires a lot more roads to be maintained per capita, but also a lot more garbage trucks, a lot more school buses, a lot more kilometers of sewers, and so on. Even considering private services such as electricity or optic fiber, deploying them in a sprawling environment considerably increases the costs, making them a lot more expensive to the consumer. And yes, you guys in the US pay a lot more for those services than we would in Europe. If so many states and municipalities are heavily indebted in the US, it's also because of those huge costs generated by sprawl.

Yet, weirdly, I never see any news in the US about that. However, when it goes about investing in HSR or public transport, it's always denounced as a waste of public money. Go figure.


----------



## Nacre

Slartibartfas said:


> I am convinced that also HSR is of high strategical interest for the state


It is, but that doesn't matter. The problem is that in a democracy the people get to choose government policy. Additionally NIMBY's all along the route of a new railway get to obstruct the process. (Although this happens with all transit projects and not just HSR.)

Haussmann's renovations of Paris in the 1800's only happened because the government gave him the power and money to take peoples' houses, tear down the old medieval buildings of Paris, and build a new and better Paris from the metaphorical ashes. People in the USA now don't want to give property developers and transit authorities the money and power that Haussmann was given. Maybe they _should_. But they do not.



Clery said:


> Yet, weirdly, I never see any news in the US about that. However, when it goes about investing in HSR or public transport, it's always denounced as a waste of public money. Go figure.


It is a waste of money for the people who drive since they don't/won't use the new transit services. And when it comes to a public vote the 97% of people commute in a car will outvote the 3% who commute on foot, by cycling or public transit.

To ignore the political reality of getting funding for public transit in the USA is silly. Our best chance of achieving positive change is to focus on cost effective solutions and urbanized areas where there is public support for funding public transit systems.


----------



## RyukyuRhymer

thread cleaned up.

A thread on California rail should not have some random comments about China or Islam.


----------



## davide84

Clery said:


> If so many states and municipalities are heavily indebted in the US, it's also because of those huge costs generated by sprawl.


I agree. Sharing/concentrating is an important factor in determining the efficiency of a service, and bringing services in sprawl conditions is usually a big problem.

In Zurich the city imposes a minimum density of people for new constructions depending on the zone, e.g. you can not build a single family house in the centre even if you own the land. This is seen as a prerequisite for proper planning and sustainability of public services, including transportation, because then every area will have a certain number of inhabitants (= users) once it is fully developed.
Basically, on a timescale of many years, they plan buildings in a certain area and then they start beefing up the services there. Buildings and services would not be efficient without each other.

I've been to Albuquerque recently, I know there's a downtown with some big buildings but most of the city I've seen is made of single houses or small shops with a lot of surface used for parking:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/A...d3f8ceb8d9f6fd!8m2!3d35.0843859!4d-106.650422
Urban density is incredibly low and no form of public transport will ever be efficient in these conditions, even with unlimited magic funding.

And all these people drive and vote, like Nacre was pointing out...


----------



## pesto

Slartibartfas said:


> Wrong. We are talking about LA to SF in 10 to 20 years.


You are getting closer. We are talking about what decisions should be made now; and the correct decision is that HSR makes no sense. 

If you want to revisit the decision in 10-20 years, you are on-board with the Governor, the state legislature and pretty much all Californians other than the unions and construction companies. There is no evidence that HSR can compete without massive annual losses or meet any need. Conversely, it is obvious that it will draw funds that could go to transit in legitimately crowded urban areas.


----------



## hammersklavier

Calvin W said:


> Australian ATMs readily dispense 20's and 50's. Not uncommon to use 50 dollar notes everywhere. As for businesses refusing them, would never happen in Australia as it is legal tender and has to be accepted. Even 100 dollar bills are not uncommon....


Keep in mind, though, that Aussie cash is not US cash. In the US anything bigger than a $20 is considered "large denomination" and a lot of business (and vending machines and the like) will not take them. Actually, I have no idea if _any_ vending machine will take a $50 or a $100. Certainly none that I have ever used.

It's also for this reason that ATM withdrawals are almost always exclusively as $20 bills -- I've never heard of an ATM discharging large-denomination bills before. For those you usually have to manually withdraw from your account or cash a check at a bank.


----------



## Calvin W

hammersklavier said:


> Keep in mind, though, that Aussie cash is not US cash. In the US anything bigger than a $20 is considered "large denomination" and a lot of business (and vending machines and the like) will not take them. Actually, I have no idea if _any_ vending machine will take a $50 or a $100. Certainly none that I have ever used.
> 
> It's also for this reason that ATM withdrawals are almost always exclusively as $20 bills -- I've never heard of an ATM discharging large-denomination bills before. For those you usually have to manually withdraw from your account or cash a check at a bank.


In both countries a dollar is still a respective dollar. I guess since it is so easy to counterfeit US money maybe that is why shops are so suspicious?


----------



## mgk920

Calvin W said:


> In both countries a dollar is still a respective dollar. I guess since it is so easy to counterfeit US money maybe that is why shops are so suspicious?


Also, USA shop keepers are leery of keeping more than a certain amount of cash in the drawer for making change. It's a security thing.

Mike


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> So to summarise your comment: people don't like to be forced to go to the central city, but they aren't forced to go there anyway since there are stops also outside the central city. People don't like to drive an hour or two from the station to where they want to go, but that is no problem because highways are excellent.
> 
> Thanks for the reassurance that California HSR would be fantastic :cheers:


As I noted, no riders at all really since air takes the business people and cars are needed for vacationers.

Just read my posts: drive or Uber to local station; wait for local train; load luggage; ride to US; change trains to express, which makes at least 4 stops (and may not come until after a couple of locals have come and gone first). 

Ironically after going through deserted areas, you now have to switch to car when you get to the horribly crowded central city areas. So you rent a car and get the kids, luggage, sports equipment, gifts, etc., to Pleasanton or Mill Valley or Hayward. It adds up both in time and money.

As the solid progressive Governor of California said to the train advocates: it's time to get real if you want to be taken seriously. It doesn't work.


----------



## pesto

Khaul said:


> HSR is problematic if cities are spread out and car dependent. Maybe better spend the money in urban public transport first? I am not even sure that would work if not coupled with very serious changes in planning (zoning, minimum parking and others).
> 
> However, the trains to Lyon and Marseille tend to depart from, well, Gare de Lyon.


This is correct. Increased rail usage *within *the LA and Bay Areas is a top priority. Basically this is getting people from areas east of the bay to the Peninsula and Silicon Valley, and from the IE and OC to the dense areas of LA/Westside (downtown, Ktown, Hollywood, mid-Wilshire, WeHo, Century City, Culver City, SaMo, LAX, etc.). 

A related phenomenon is that both areas are rapidly developing multiple nodes of high density housing and employment around subways. This fits nicely with intraregional rail but poorly with interregional rail travel. 

Regionalized airports play nicely into this as well. E.g, the major tech companies run air shuttles from Burbank or LAX to SJ airport since these are convenient to their LA creative facilities.


----------



## aquaticko

The truth that we rail people need to accept is that CAHSR was doomed by poor planning and preparation; pushing forward would've given us the system California demands, but at a lot of reputational cost for other, similar projects across the country.

The truth that you anti rail people need to accept is that a system like CAHSR will be necessary eventually (abandon the facile not-for-these-people argument; similarly-scaled systems have become the dominant modes in city pairs like LA-SF across the world, regardless of passenger type), and that the high cost of both high-speed rail and much better urban rail transit are perfectly proportionate to California's GDP. Money exists for both of these things; even in good faith, saying it's one or the other is just a diversion from the task at hand.


----------



## Rover030

del


----------



## Negjana

There is clearly no point in trying to use reason with pesto, please stop trying.


----------



## cheehg

Negjana said:


> There is clearly no point in trying to use reason with pesto, please stop trying.


Totally agree. This is so tired.


----------



## siamu maharaj

TM_Germany said:


> What I don't get about people going on and on about how useless HSR would be because of the last mile problem is how they can simoultaniously completely ignore how that problem doesn't seem to be an issue for airports at all.


It's a problem for both. What you're suggesting is that we spend $100 billion and still not solve the problem. That's a good way to waste $100 billion. Basically you're saying that after spending $100 billion we still have the same problem we had before. Well congrats.

And people are usually more hesitant to travel downtown (where a station would be), as opposed to an airport.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Khaul said:


> Vindobona is not a bad name either. The DR train was pretty cool.


Unlike the speculative name "Vedunia", Vindobona is a well known factual historical name of the city though. The privilegue of living in a former Roman city is having such a Roman name  Btw, the "Vindobona" trains are back, as the Railjet Graz-Wien-Praha are operating under that name. 



> My point is that the existing PT in LA is next to useless to feed an HSR. Metrolink works as an American commuter rail with mostly one way trips to the city in the morning and one way trips to the 'burbs in the afternoon. Most of the bus patronage, actually the main pt mode in LA, comes from people who for some reason cannot drive. The majority would be too poor to afford a car. Illegal immigrants are now allowed to legally drive in California so pt patronage is actually declining, even with the opening of the Expo line. Last time I rode the trams in San Diego I got pretty scared of the shirtless guys with black skull tattoos and the like. Luckily there was a transit office who looked slightly less scary.
> 
> In America the vast majority of HSR users will have drive and park in the station which will then work as airports do. Because HSR only makes sense when it moves a lot more people than air transport, then American HSR stations will have a horrendous footprint carpark footprint. In turn that would compromise the opportunity of developing the surroundings of HSR stations as something more useful (as for instance in Japan).


I have been on the Metro network myself, even though some years ago. I am aware tht it is considered as something no self respecting guy with a decently paying job would ever use. At least that is the reputation where people are coming from historically and it is even way worse for buses, for whatever reason. 

That said, I am not judging the network not by its heritage or outdated views on mobility but by its capabilities and design. the latter two things after all decide what the network could become as those two things are only very difficult to change, while public image or PR can be more easily addressed (even though it is no walk in the park either, merely easier than building hundreds of km of heavy or light rail). 

The point is that Union Station is accessed by both subway lines and will be also well connected to light rail. That covers the connection of a lot urban centres of LA. Of course, it doesn't cover the large areas east of Union Station. The de facto commuter rail needs to be tremendously upgraded. With the necessary finances and will this should be perfectly doable in the time frame of HSR construction though. 

In any case. For being a prober HSR feeder system, one does not need subway frequencies. The frequencies don't need to be better than of the HSR itself. However, the schedules need to be tightly integrated so that transfers are easy and efficient and most importantly, reliable.


----------



## Slartibartfas

siamu maharaj said:


> And people are usually more hesitant to travel downtown (where a station would be), as opposed to an airport.


That argument shows a profound lack of understanding how HSR works. HSR usually does have more stations then just the two terminal stops (Union station isn't even planned to be the terminal stop in the final network). HSR offers a downtown station for the many business passengers having to travel from downtown to downtown. For them such a station is perfectly located. 

For people in their car for the last mile, there are feeder line stations just as well some suburban stops, specifically designed to cater to them. HSR offers way more flexibility for passengers than aviation in this regard. 

Plus, it creates truly new capacities. Unlike aviation which is basically operating at increasingly limited airspace capabilities which are going to get more and more clogged in the decades to come. With redundant short hauls wasting space needed by alternativeless long distance flights. 

But hey, it is not my problem if you lack the foresight and are overtaken one by one by developing nations in terms of quality of transport infrastructure.


----------



## Nacre

My question is “how?” In a democratic country where very literally 99% of the population does not use public transit how can we fund HSR projects? Do we hope that politicians will commit political suicide and pass high taxes on fuels?


----------



## Stuu

Nacre said:


> My question is “how?” In a democratic country where very literally 99% of the population does not use public transit how can we fund HSR projects? Do we hope that politicians will commit political suicide and pass high taxes on fuels?


There are plenty of cities in the US which have built new light rail projects, what percentage of the population in Dallas or Portland used transit before those were built? Obviously something like HSR in California is loads more actual dollars, but the state has access to far more resources as well, so the principle is the same


----------



## Clery

Nacre said:


> @Clery : You are missing my point. I agree that Americans who drive SHOULD be willing to sacrifice heavily to build high speed rail and metro systems to benefit the planet and future generations. But they are NOT willing to do it.


Sorry, but you're obviously missing the point. I've never told anywhere that HSR should be built because it's good for the planet. I've told that HSR should be built because it offers vastly superior services than an aircraft. It is faster, more convenient and I also forgot to mention it's more comfortable, less stressful and offers better services.

When in a plane you're parked like cattle, nearly unable to move from your seat during the whole trip, a standard economy class in a high speed train offers seats of the size you would expect in an airplane business class with a lot more room for legs. You have free wifi connections during the whole trip, you are free to move to the snacking lounge to get a sandwich. And all this for similar price and no time wasted at the airport.

You sound a bit to me like some dude who'll tell that a smartphone is useless because he has the internet WAP service on his nokia phone and he doesn't use it because it's crap.


----------



## Nacre

@Stuu I 100% agree. And that’s why I think it makes more sense to start with rapid transit and then build HSR, rather than build HSR first and rapid transit afterwards.

@Cleri Again, I personally use rail and agree with you. But a large majority of American citizens don’t agree and don’t want to pay for HSR. So what can be done?


----------



## pudgym29

This is the most convoluted thread response I have ever made on the World-Wide Web. I have been out here since *March 1996*. I hope I configured this correctly. :gaah: 


d. s. lewith said:


> {edit}
> 
> 
> bobdreamz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pathetic what America is turning into which is a wealthy oligarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> Courtesy of every American presidency since 1980.
> Now with all that said, the one next thing CAHSR should tackle once Merced-Bakersfield is completed is linking SoCal with the Central Valley. At present, there is no passenger rail link (UPRR refuses to let passenger trains operate on the Tehachapi line because it's way beyond capacity). Instead of detouring through Tehachapi to serve the Antelope Valley, they can instead do the sensible thing and follow I-5 and build through the Tejon Pass. Being that grades will be up to 3%, electric locomotives cannot be used on the line, thus requiring EMUs. To maximize its potential, the Sylmar-Los Angeles rail would have to be rebuilt and electrified. This includes grade separation and electrifying the 8th Street Yard (alternatively, Amtrak can build a new rail yard on the ex-SPRR Taylor Yard and the new yard can be used by both Amtrak and Metrolink).
> This would definitely gain a good amount of ridership as the Tejon tends to get clogged and *closed* during the winter months due to the weather, thus requiring a multi-hour detour through the Techachapi. At 125 mph, people can travel from LA to Bakersfield in around an hour.
Click to expand...




nacre said:


> {edit} It is a waste of money for the people who drive since they don't/won't use the new transit services. And when it comes to a public vote the 97% of people who commute in a car will outvote the 3% who commute on foot, by cycling, or public transit. {edit}


 While I contend with the 97% figure; even if it were 51-49% opposed *or in favor* of HSR or transit build, the refusal to fund, in my vista, is not due to the "_lower class_" refusing to fund transit builds; but the pseudo-"_middle class_", who feel _threatened_ by the "_lower class_" getting any of their money. {They lived in this era - The line in Pink Floyd's "Money" - "*Keep your hands off MY STASH*" is appropriate.} They have opted to not pay for any of this. They will delay and delay this until after they pass away. Then their inheiritors will fight to prevent it. It will *never* be settled. We live in an era where,


Rabbi Adam Jacobs said:


> "Most people are so wholly invested in their way of thinking that no amount of evidence would suffice to disavow them of it."





Nacre said:


> My question is “how?” In a democratic country where very literally 99% of the population does not use public transit how can we fund HSR projects? Do we hope that politicians will commit political suicide and pass high taxes on fuels?


 Yes, this is pretty much how it now has to be. 
I own an automobile [A 1987 Chevrolet Sprint, 5-speed, 3-cyl., naturally aspirated - it needs a new carburetor right now - one is on order]. But I would prefer to not have to drive it. I live in Chicago. Seemingly, this should be possible. But to get into this would take this thread off-topic.
I am booked on a ‘_regular?_’ Amtrak train to Cleveland on 4 April (for Cinema Wasteland - one of the most fun movie expositions I know. :happy If there was a HSR corridor from Chicago to Cleveland, I would definitely ride it more times than I do now.
Adding HSR train options to St. Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis, Dubuque, IA., or Columbus, OH. would attract my attention. 
We have to appeal that more automobiles on the road today, regardless of whether they are autonomous, is not the solution for transporting people from place to place. Electrically-powered vehicles [both autos and buses] do not yet have the capacity to handle numerous rides over a long time span. {I will not get into how the batteries entrusted to power these vehicle seem to be unreliable.} Higher gasoline taxes will push some motorists into the pro-transit side (but not enough). 

I wonder how pesto gets to central Tokyo from Narita Airport? Narita was constructed because NIMBYs in central Tokyo _would not allow Haneda_ to expand to handle more international flights. Even then, Narita was disputed from what we would consider to be both sides of the aisle in Japan: Liberals fought it because it would allow more flights with armaments from the U.S.A. to land, which would then be used in Vietnam. Conservatives fought it because they did not want more flights from distant nations (like the U.S.A.) to be allowed to land in Japan. Yet - somehow, _it was built_. Is there any semblance of a coherent argument today [2019] that Narita should be closed? 
To me, it ultimately comes down to: Legislators are in the pocket of automotive and aerospace firms. Anything that threatens the profitability of either are thrown into the rubbish bin, with barely a semblance of a proper legislative hearing. If anybody was to run who pledged to contend what these two corporational consortia receive, those corporations would spend *millions* to ensure that he would lose. And, as Nacre has illuminated, voters are predisposed to _oppose_ public transportation initiatives.


----------



## Khaul

Slartibartfas said:


> Unlike the speculative name "Vedunia", Vindobona is a well known factual historical name of the city though. The privilegue of living in a former Roman city is having such a Roman name  Btw, the "Vindobona" trains are back, as the Railjet Graz-Wien-Praha are operating under that name.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been on the Metro network myself, even though some years ago. I am aware tht it is considered as something no self respecting guy with a decently paying job would ever use. At least that is the reputation where people are coming from historically and it is even way worse for buses, for whatever reason.
> 
> That said, I am not judging the network not by its heritage or outdated views on mobility but by its capabilities and design. the latter two things after all decide what the network could become as those two things are only very difficult to change, while public image or PR can be more easily addressed (even though it is no walk in the park either, merely easier than building hundreds of km of heavy or light rail).
> 
> The point is that Union Station is accessed by both subway lines and will be also well connected to light rail. That covers the connection of a lot urban centres of LA. Of course, it doesn't cover the large areas east of Union Station. The de facto commuter rail needs to be tremendously upgraded. With the necessary finances and will this should be perfectly doable in the time frame of HSR construction though.
> 
> In any case. For being a prober HSR feeder system, one does not need subway frequencies. The frequencies don't need to be better than of the HSR itself. However, the schedules need to be tightly integrated so that transfers are easy and efficient and most importantly, reliable.


So we both agree with Pesto in that improving urban rail in both San Francisco and Los Angeles is a top priority :banana:. Disagreement comes from whether HSR between the two cities is a good idea at all.


----------



## luacstjh98

pudgym29 said:


> Is there any semblance of a coherent argument today [2019] that Narita should be closed?


Interestingly, it is exactly the rise of HSR and the opening up of Haneda slots that has caused airlines to prefer Haneda as much as possible for Japan O&D. Delta, for one, just applied to move all their Narita flights over.

Getting to the Shinkansen network is just a 15 minute ride on a commuter train from Haneda, whereas it's about an hour from Narita. Neither is Narita taken seriously as a domestic airport due to just how far it is from town - domestic flights out of Narita are either LCCs or international connections.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> @Stuu I 100% agree. And that’s why I think it makes more sense to start with rapid transit and then build HSR, rather than build HSR first and rapid transit afterwards.
> 
> @Cleri Again, I personally use rail and agree with you. But a large majority of American citizens don’t agree and don’t want to pay for HSR. So what can be done?





Khaul said:


> So we both agree with Pesto in that improving urban rail in both San Francisco and Los Angeles is a top priority :banana:. Disagreement comes from whether HSR between the two cities is a good idea at all.


Public transit (bus, train, subway e.t.c.) exist is both metro regions. Its a matter of making them more frequent and somewhat quicker. Waiting for all that to materialize before starting to build an HSR will lead to further delays and cost escalation. 
In case of California and perhaps other parts of the US, it might make sense to get the HSR line started. It will automatically force the respective ,states, metro areas and regions to plan for last mile connectivity including better transit options.
Not doing anything on the HSR front would be like a retreat after things had progressed so much. 
In the case of HSR for California and the US, bolder is better since it forces action. Cautiousness would only breed inaction and inertia which would be difficult to fight off in the future.


----------



## Stuu

Khaul said:


> So we both agree with Pesto in that improving urban rail in both San Francisco and Los Angeles is a top priority :banana:. Disagreement comes from whether HSR between the two cities is a good idea at all.


Transit in SF and the Bay Area is pretty good, at least the infrastructure is there. I know it is not the best run system in the world, but it's a good place to start from. After Caltrain electrification and Bart to San Jose what is really missing?

LA has further to go, but lots of money is being spent and it's heading in the right direction. Even by the most optimistic forecasts the HSR wasn't going to arrive for another decade, by when lots more extensions will have opened. It's also heavily focused on downtown and Union station, so again, what is/will be missing in order to support HSR?


----------



## Khaul

Stuu said:


> Transit in SF and the Bay Area is pretty good, at least the infrastructure is there. I know it is not the best run system in the world, but it's a good place to start from. After Caltrain electrification and Bart to San Jose what is really missing?
> 
> LA has further to go, but lots of money is being spent and it's heading in the right direction. Even by the most optimistic forecasts the HSR wasn't going to arrive for another decade, by when lots more extensions will have opened. It's also heavily focused on downtown and Union station, so again, what is/will be missing in order to support HSR?


How about loads of people in trains? BART, Muni and Caltrain move _very_ few people by international standards. See below. Each of the Wikipedia pages contains a table that can be sorted by patronage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suburban_and_commuter_rail_systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Stuu said:


> Transit in SF and the Bay Area is pretty good, at least the infrastructure is there. I know it is not the best run system in the world, but it's a good place to start from. After Caltrain electrification and Bart to San Jose what is really missing?


A new transbay rail tunnel that would bridge the gap between San Francisco and Oakland for Amtrak and other rail lines and perhaps a new San Jose-Oakland rail line.


----------



## Bear96

Nacre said:


> [R]iding a bicycle to work and living in an apartment are signs of weakness and poverty. My parents, for example, worry that I will be unattractive to a potential wife because I prefer to bike and don't want to own a house.


Truth. I voluntarily gave up being a car owner, and live in a condo in one of the very rare and small urban neighborhoods in a sprawly U.S. metro area (Tampa, FL), even though I could easily afford a house-sized SUV and an ugly and cheaply-built McMansion in the 'burbs. That I chose to live differently is just considered to be _weird_ to most Americans in 2019. (But at least I am already married! )



Nacre said:


> nfortunately our (American) society values conspicuous consumption. People are not unaware that McMansions, SUV's, highways, lawns, et al are a waste of resources. _They want them because they are a waste of resources_. The ability to spend money on an SUV and a sprawling house shows that you have money and status.



Again true, but I think that for many Americans this bias is a bit subconscious. They don't LIKE that they are conspicuous consumers, but when confronted with someone like you or me they have a whiff of, "Hmm, cool (I guess), but something must be wrong with him." Like maybe I don't drive because my license was suspended due to one too many alcohol incidents, or maybe I don't have a McMansion because I can't hold an acceptable (meaning highly-enough-paid) job.

Anyway, to bring this back on topic. I think HSR in the U.S. is doomed, at least in my lifetime (I was born in 1968 so do the math), for the reasons that have been outlined in this thread. Americans have been too addicted to cars and cheap gas for generations; and NIMBY-ism and government-paranoia has made it impossible to acquire land to build any type of right-of-way through the sprawly, car-oriented land use that would be necessary for HSR.

Even additional suburban / commuter or regional, non-high-speed rail will be crippled because of these factors. The parts of the U.S. that drive the economy will just slowly have to grind towards a halt and trigger massive disruption before there is enough popular support to do anything about it. And again, I expect to be long dead by then.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Bear96 said:


> The parts of the U.S. that drive the economy will just slowly have to grind towards a halt and trigger massive disruption before there is enough popular support to do anything about it. And again, I expect to be long dead by then.


And even then they still will learn nothing because "'muh freedom". Americans are really stubborn, spiteful and poisonous, and will use any and _every_ mental gymnastic trick when confronted with facts. They don't just want their piece of the cake and have it; they want the WHOLE cake with no one else having it.


----------



## Nacre

Just for the fun of undermining my own position, one issue that I am not clear about is why freight rail companies don't want Amtrak to exceed 75 mph on their tracks because they are afraid that trains at 90 mph will somehow damage the tracks. I assume that refers to the ties and ballast.

In that case Amtrak would not be able to hit the magical 90 mph max speed needed to make rail as fast as cars (90 mph max speed => roughly 72 mph service speed) without rebuilding tracks. At 75 mph max speed Amtrak would be limited to about 60 mph service speed, which would still be a big improvement but not enough to get people out of their cars.


----------



## aquaticko

Any extra usage is going to pose some wear and tear, and of course schedule changes. All that costs money, and it's steadily getting to the point where that's all anyone in this country cares about. 

It's not the worst of times we live in, but it's not the best, either.


----------



## 00Zy99

Nacre said:


> Just for the fun of undermining my own position, one issue that I am not clear about is why freight rail companies don't want Amtrak to exceed 75 mph on their tracks because they are afraid that trains at 90 mph will somehow damage the tracks. I assume that refers to the ties and ballast.
> 
> In that case Amtrak would not be able to hit the magical 90 mph max speed needed to make rail as fast as cars (90 mph max speed => roughly 72 mph service speed) without rebuilding tracks. At 75 mph max speed Amtrak would be limited to about 60 mph service speed, which would still be a big improvement but not enough to get people out of their cars.


There are three factors here.

Most simply, there is the matter of track quality in general-you need to spend more money to have tighter tolerances in order to go faster safely. 

Second of all, in order to go above 79 mph, Federal regulations require additional signalling and safety systems (which are now actually being more universally mandated, so that's becoming less of an issue). 

The third issue is curves. More specifically, track super-elevation, or banking. To go around a curve quickly, you want to have tracks with greater super-elevation. But when a slower train goes around a curve, it prefers less super-elevation, as the higher angles will produce more wear on both the train and the track. When Amtrak came along in 1971, the railroads no longer had their brand name connected to fast, reliable, passenger service, and many lines no longer had passenger service at all. As a result, they didn't see the need to spend the extra money to allow for higher speeds when there wasn't anything at stake in it for them (Amtrak not being allowed to pay extra for faster running without special authorization of a corridor as "high speed"). Curves all across the country were flattened out, dropping train speeds nation-wide.

Needless to say, it will cost a fortune to tackle these issues.


----------



## Nacre

aquaticko said:


> Any extra usage is going to pose some wear and tear, and of course schedule changes.


This isn't the part of physics I find very interesting, but surely a relatively light passenger train isn't going to cause as much wear and tear as a heavy freight train, right? Especially since rail systems in general have very low friction.



aquaticko said:


> All that costs money, and it's steadily getting to the point where that's all anyone in this country cares about.


What's frustrating for me is that people don't seem to be able to understand that the _austerity is the problem_. It's mind boggling that the two immediate reactions people had to the financial crisis were 1) to begin hoarding their money, and 2) to ask where all of the money in the stock market went. 

And it isn't one group that's to blame. The 1% are buying up treasury bonds instead of investing in the economy. Baby boomers have stashed their cash to save for retirement. Millennials are afraid to invest or spend after seeing the financial crisis. Banks are reluctant to loan out cash. Alternative thinkers hoard their money in bitcoins or gold. We've pinballed from people stupidly buying houses they can't afford to money circulating through the economy at a lower velocity than it did in the great depression. 

Ponying up some tax money for infrastructure development would benefit the economy and everyone's wages in the long run.



00Zy99 said:


> Most simply, there is the matter of track quality in general-you need to spend more money to have tighter tolerances in order to go faster safely.
> 
> Second of all, in order to go above 79 mph, Federal regulations require additional signalling and safety systems (which are now actually being more universally mandated, so that's becoming less of an issue).
> 
> The third issue is curves.


But all of these issues can be addressed with the relatively modest expenditures of medium speed rail. Some new track would have to be built to eliminate (or reduce) curves, but I would rather spend the money to eliminate some curves and add passing loops than build an entirely new line.

Track alloys are something I've never looked into before, and admit could be an issue. I assume high grade track must use chromium, and since we don't have any chromium mines in the states AFAIK it might not be used much in our legacy rail lines.


----------



## aquaticko

Nacre said:


> This isn't the part of physics I find very interesting, but surely a relatively light passenger train isn't going to cause as much wear and tear as a heavy freight train, right? Especially since rail systems in general have very low friction.


True, but it still represents a marginal, incremental cost that freight companies don't really have any interest in absorbing. I have to imagine, too, that if they were to charge a usage fee to Amtrak, it'd be enough to cause ticket price increases disproportionate with the service improvement, and that risks causing ridership decline.



> What's frustrating for me is that people don't seem to be able to understand that the _austerity is the problem_. It's mind boggling that the two immediate reactions people had to the financial crisis were 1) to begin hoarding their money, and 2) to ask where all of the money in the stock market went.
> 
> And it isn't one group that's to blame. The 1% are buying up treasury bonds instead of investing in the economy. Baby boomers have stashed their cash to save for retirement. Millennials are afraid to invest or spend after seeing the financial crisis. Banks are reluctant to loan out cash. Alternative thinkers hoard their money in bitcoins or gold. We've pinballed from people stupidly buying houses they can't afford to money circulating through the economy at a lower velocity than it did in the great depression.
> 
> Ponying up some tax money for infrastructure development would benefit the economy and everyone's wages in the long run.


Hey, we're on the same page there. People really have a hard time wrapping their heads around the difference between micro- and macroeconomy; that the Chicago school's essentially won the debate about microfoundations vis a vis public thought is surely to blame, even if so much of economics is now realizing how problematic it is.

Long story short, all of these are essentially soluble issues, but as Bear96 said, I don't expect to see too much change within my lifetime. Even in these "fast times", culture is slow to change.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> Just for the fun of undermining my own position, one issue that I am not clear about is why freight rail companies don't want Amtrak to exceed 75 mph on their tracks because they are afraid that trains at 90 mph will somehow damage the tracks. I assume that refers to the ties and ballast.
> 
> In that case Amtrak would not be able to hit the magical 90 mph max speed needed to make rail as fast as cars (90 mph max speed => roughly 72 mph service speed) without rebuilding tracks. At 75 mph max speed Amtrak would be limited to about 60 mph service speed, which would still be a big improvement but not enough to get people out of their cars.





aquaticko said:


> Any extra usage is going to pose some wear and tear, and of course schedule changes. All that costs money, and it's steadily getting to the point where that's all anyone in this country cares about.
> 
> It's not the worst of times we live in, but it's not the best, either.


The railroad companies don't want passenger rail period! Not on they tracks and not on someone else's tracks. They see it as a intrusion on their turf territory and a threat to their well being. They want non-timetabled, unregulated operation. The only reason the railroad companies ran passenger services in the past was because they were required to and perhaps for advertisement of their freight services. 
Apart from the railroad companies, the fossil fuel industry and the automobile/new-age transport companies don't want passenger rail. Add to that that a lot of Americans think of transit/passenger rail as a threat to their freedom.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Smooth Indian said:


> Add to that that a lot of Americans think of transit/passenger rail as a threat to their freedom.


Would they call being stuck in traffic for hours and having to deal with airline delays freedom?


----------



## mgk920

Smooth Indian said:


> The railroad companies don't want passenger rail period! Not on they tracks and not on someone else's tracks. They see it as a intrusion on their turf territory and a threat to their well being. They want non-timetabled, unregulated operation. The only reason the railroad companies ran passenger services in the past was because they were required to and perhaps for advertisement of their freight services.
> Apart from the railroad companies, the fossil fuel industry and the automobile/new-age transport companies don't want passenger rail. Add to that that a lot of Americans think of transit/passenger rail as a threat to their freedom.


Again, the big difference between North America (and I include Canada in this, as they and the USA are pretty much the same in this regard) and most of the rest of the World here is in the ownership of the track infrastructure - outside of North America, track is generally considered to be a 'public good', like roads, parks, airports, canals, etc are, whereas in Canada and the USA, track is generally considered to be 'exclusive private property'. This detail would have to be addressed before any meaningful changes can occur in this regard.

hno:

Mike


----------



## pesto

Sorry to troll, but the economics here really has had me in stitches. I love the comments that business people, investment houses, the middle class, etc., don't know what they are supposed to be doing to help the economy. (All they need is a good dictator to force them to look after their own good, eh?)

Seriously, some of the comments are howlers. "Ponying up more taxes is good for the long-run" is about as wrong as any general statement I have ever heard. Try this instead: taxes decrease the incentive to work and invest both for the taxed and for those receiving the taxes." That would be Econ 1, first page, supply and demand.

No comment on rail vs. air vs. cars. Obviously each has its place.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> Seriously, some of the comments are howlers. "Ponying up more taxes is good for the long-run" is about as wrong as any general statement I have ever heard. Try this instead: taxes decrease the incentive to work and invest both for the taxed and for those receiving the taxes." That would be Econ 1, first page, supply and demand.


Well, that explains why Sweden and Japan have such awful economies.


----------



## aquaticko

Speaking seriously, it also explains why Econ doesn't stop at 101.

Things are more complicated than that, my pasta sauce friend.


----------



## Stuu

pesto said:


> taxes decrease the incentive to work and invest both for the taxed and for those receiving the taxes." That would be Econ 1, first page, supply and demand.


Not true. The entire basis of that assumption is that the people object to taxation... which is very obviously false. Apart from a tiny number of libertarian nutjobs everyone agrees that taxation is necessary, it's the level and the use of that which is argued about. But to claim it's a disincentive to working? Only at punitive levels, e.g marginal rates above 60% or something. How many people have ever turned down an extra shift or whatever because they know they will be taxed on the income?


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Smooth Indian said:


> The railroad companies don't want passenger rail period! Not on they tracks and not on someone else's tracks. They see it as a intrusion on their turf territory and a threat to their well being. They want non-timetabled, unregulated operation. The only reason the railroad companies ran passenger services in the past was because they were required to and perhaps for advertisement of their freight services.


This is why America has to nationalize a portion of the rails, at the very least the rails designated as STRACNET tracks. Furthermore, mandate further upgrades to those tracks, including electrification and grade separation.


----------



## Smooth Indian

D.S. Lewith said:


> This is why America has to nationalize a portion of the rails, at the very least the rails designated as STRACNET tracks. Furthermore, mandate further upgrades to those tracks, including electrification and grade separation.


Just doing that would be massive stimulus ( and green new deal) for the economy.


----------



## Nacre

Let's not let this thread devolve into an economics argument. There are clearly thriving advanced economies with high tax rates including the USA - we just spend public money on freeways rather than rail.


----------



## Anday

*State pols make moves to block train's path*




> The proposed high-speed rail line that would carve a path through Madison County as a route between Houston and Dallas faced a couple of turns in the past week.
> 
> State senator Brian Birdwell of Granbury successfully attached a rider to a state budgeting bill that would deny any public monies for the Texas Central Partners’ planned rail line, which Birdwell warns would be unregulated and unapproved by any state or federal entity.


----------



## Anday

*Update on the Bullet Train*




> *From the project's Northern California Regional Director
> *





> As Mark Twain might have said had he witnessed the past couple of months, the reports of the death of California’s statewide high-speed rail system are greatly exaggerated.
> 
> There’s been a good deal of confusion regarding the future of the project in the Bay Area. The confusion is much fueled, it appears, by misunderstanding following Governor Newsom’s State of the State Address.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Anday said:


> *Update on the Bullet Train*


:hmm: sounds familiar...



phoenixboi08 said:


> Headlines by year’s end: “HSR Back On, Newsom Forces Hard Choices, Rework of Plans in LA, SF to Reduce Costs.
> 
> They’re in a bind: They have to build the current IOS or give back Federal funds.
> 
> The IOS is the minimal operating segment.
> 
> Finishing the MOS is a sunken cost that necessitates completing the entire Phase 1.
> 
> What Newsom actually is saying in the announcement is that _*they will a) focus construction for now solely on completing the IOS (ie. not submitting the last 2-3 construction packages for bid), while b) completing the entire, statewide environmental clearances/planning for the rest of the Phase 1 System.
> 
> I’m far more likely to believe the governor wants to reorient the project than cancelling it — if latter, they wouldn’t be finishing the MOS.
> 
> If they don’t come out in 12-18 months and announce that they’ve found an *interim* solution to reach the Bay Area by using an alternative alignment*_ (ie. Altamont, a new Dumbarton crossing, etc), _*I’d be surprised*_. Newsom has had a particular view about how the project should have been proceeding for some time; This was expected — if communicated strangely — and is more about him trying to remake the project as his own, not Brown’s.
> 
> That’s what’s being communicated here...most of the cost was scope creep from the expanding tunneling being required of the Authority to reach SF/LA; the IOS is about $30million/mi (~$3B for current civil works, not including ancillary roadworks, utility relocations, land purchases, etc). There are options to reach the Bay Area in the near term and potential options to reach LA in the meadium-term.
> 
> If cost is his stated concern, cost is what’s going to guide the project going forward...


----------



## urbanflight

*California New High-Speed Rail Plan Cost At $18.3 Billion, With Completion Date Of 2028*


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Article


----------



## mgk920

So it will be a looooooong time before true HSR service reaches the downtown areas of either Los Angeles or San Francisco?

Mike


----------



## urbanflight

It's really disappointing, even more if one take into account that the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is about 600km-700km. Other countries have achieved to build high speed lines of that length in under 10 years and on budget.

Before I though that the distance between SF and LA was really waaaaaay greater, but a distance of 700km is pretty regular.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

urbanflight said:


> It's really disappointing, even more if one take into account that the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is about 600km-700km. Other countries have achieved to build high speed lines of that length in under 10 years and on budget.
> 
> Before I though that the distance between SF and LA was really waaaaaay greater, but a distance of 700km is pretty regular.


The main issue is the political will. Also, strong property rights has made it extremely difficult to gain good ROW. Additionally, NIMBYs will do everything they can to delay something because they don't want a service running through their turf. It would explain why private rail is starting to grow in America since economically (starting in the 80s) America has favored small government libertarianism and they favor private businesses. Ironic as airlines and freeways are heavily subsidized by the government.


----------



## davide84

So, the line will be Merced-Fresno. But what are the planned services for the opening?

Will there be HS trains from Los Angeles to San Francisco using it?

This would be a compromise to use the new stretch and still try to serve the catchment area of the big cities, creating some market...


----------



## GodIsNotGreat




----------



## mgk920

GodIsNotGreat said:


>


A few observations:

China is building new 'interstate style' highways throughout their country at an even more feverish pace than the USA was with the interstates during the 1950s through 1970s, in addition to their HSR ('High Speed Rail') system. OTOH, it is very true that China also does not have the problems with ROW acquisition nor environmental reviews that hobble such projects here in the USA. 'NIMBY' ('Not In My BackYard') is also most decidedly not a problem there.

One *BIG* problem with true HSR in the USA is that wherever it is set up, such service essentially requires a completely new network of dedicated ROW corridors, very akin to a parallel network of interstate and interstate compatible highways, but with much, much more unforgiving design engineering standards. For 350 km/h (+/- 220 MPH) track speed true HSR, the track requires a 7000 meter (+/- 4 miles) minimum horizontal curve radius. IIRC, France's TGV network also has a 4% maximum ruling grade (USA interstate highway standards allow for 6% without a design exception). Anything less and such intercity corridors would be noncompetitive with airlines.

Try to find new-ROW routings for those through the USA's cities, suburbs and exurbs that would allow that.

Another issue, and one that I frequently bring up in these discussions, is that here in North America (USA and Canada), railroad track infrastructure is treated as exclusive private property, while in most of the rest of the World, it is considered a 'public good', much like roads, airports, parks, sewer and water systems, etc are, open to use by anyone who is qualified, their equipment meets minimum technical standards and they can pay the necessary fees and tolls. This will have to be addressed and rectified before any major improvements are possible in this regard.

Mike


----------



## prageethSL

Texas Central Insists 2019 Groundbreaking Still Possible



> Officials behind Texas Central, the private partnership planning a high-speed rail line between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth, remain confident they could begin construction as early as the end of 2019.
> 
> Political and business leaders in Houston and Dallas are supporting the project. But some state legislators and a group advocating for rural landowners are doing their best to slow the company’s momentum, if not stop it altogether.
> 
> Texas Central seeks to design, construct, finance and operate a passenger train service linking the state’s biggest metropolitan regions by a 90-minute commute.
> 
> Such a rail line would have one stop in the Brazos Valley and, as officials and supporters say, would offer a cost-effective alternative to the nearly 50,000 commuters who weekly travel between Dallas and Harris counties.
> 
> If all goes as proposed, construction on the 240-mile line could last five years and cost from $12 billion to $15 billion. The company has raised more than $450 million total in pre-construction private funding.
> 
> Once Texas Central secures safety and environmental clearances–which it hopes happens before the end of 2019–the company will raise the money necessary for construction. Company officials estimate the project will create 10,000 direct jobs per construction year, and 1,500 full-time positions to operate the railway.
> 
> Texas Central is promoting its high-speed rail line as a safe, environmentally efficient system that will help reduce vehicular congestion between the two re-gions. Central Japan Railway Company (JRC), a renowned operator of high-speed passenger rail, is one of the technology advisors on Texas Central’s project.
> JRC will introduce its Shinkansen bullet train technology, which is wholly electric and emits a fraction of carbon that the average commercial jet emits every passenger mile. Since its inception in 1964, more than 5 billion passengers have used the Tokaido Shinkansen system, which links Japan’s biggest metropolitan areas. No accidents have taken place on this system.
> 
> However, as Texas Central works to secure rights-of-way along the proposed path of the rail line, landowner and taxpayer advocates and state lawmakers have thrown up some roadblocks. In early April, state legislators opposed to the project added a rider to the Texas Senate’s proposed 2020-21 state budget.
> 
> The provision would prevent state funds from being used on high-speed passenger rail projects, and would bar the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) from helping Texas Central to coordinate right-of-way acquisitions. No such language exists in the Texas House’s budget.
> 
> Company officials have said the provision, if part of the final approved state budget, could delay construction and spur litigation.


----------



## Slartibartfas

mgk920 said:


> One *BIG* problem with true HSR in the USA is that wherever it is set up, such service essentially requires a completely new network of dedicated ROW corridors, very akin to a parallel network of interstate and interstate compatible highways, but with much, much more unforgiving design engineering standards. For 350 km/h (+/- 220 MPH) track speed true HSR, the track requires a 7000 meter (+/- 4 miles) minimum horizontal curve radius. IIRC, France's TGV network also has a 4% maximum ruling grade (USA interstate highway standards allow for 6% without a design exception). Anything less and such intercity corridors would be noncompetitive with airlines.


So what? How come basically the rest of the developed world can cope with that? At least most countries of the necessary size to have relevant HSR corridors. 



> Try to find new-ROW routings for those through the USA's cities, suburbs and exurbs that would allow that.


That is not the problem. The problem is the fundamental opposition against eminent domain (with proper compensation of course) if it is necessary to build important infrastructure and the owners in questino are not ready to accept a fair deal. 

High speed rail can make use of many existing highway corridors, partially at least. There are lots of them in most cities. Where this is not an option one can build underground access routes, especially on the last stretch. In the case of LA it is actually far easier. There are many very straight former railway corridors that could be relatively easily converted into HSR corridors for substantial parts of the way out of the urban and suburban area.

In Vienna were they did not even construct a true HSR route, but merely a track ready for 200-250 km/h, the main station is accessed by a tunnel of 23 km total length. 




> Another issue, and one that I frequently bring up in these discussions, is that here in North America (USA and Canada), railroad track infrastructure is treated as exclusive private property, while in most of the rest of the World, it is considered a 'public good', much like roads, airports, parks, sewer and water systems, etc are, open to use by anyone who is qualified, their equipment meets minimum technical standards and they can pay the necessary fees and tolls. This will have to be addressed and rectified before any major improvements are possible in this regard.


This is a general issue but only to a lesser extend for HSR as HSR needs new purpose built tracks anyways. This only becomes an issue for connecting stations via non-HSR tracks for hybrid services.


----------



## davide84

Slartibartfas said:


> So what? How come basically the rest of the developed world can cope with that? At least most countries of the necessary size to have relevant HSR corridors.


It has to be said that other countries can exploit synergies with existing networks and build HSR in functional stages. E.g. the new line between Milan and Venice has been built only by 30% due to huge issues with funding and consensus; however it reaches a big city so there's enough potential to generate revenue.
Should it have ended in the countryside, it would have stayed there to rotten.

In Spain this synergy was not possible due to the different gauge, and they had to build up a full network with a few complete lines before the system became sustainable. That's more similar to the US case, I think.



> Where this is not an option one can build underground access routes, especially on the last stretch.


That's freaking expensive... it was a main issue even for Washington's Silver Line connecting the free world capital with its airport...



> This only becomes an issue for connecting stations via non-HSR tracks for hybrid services.


Which is something that allows you to save or postpone 50% of the initial investment... in Europe all cities have urban penetrations from the nineteenth century and they are all public property managed by state-owned companies. Very very few cities have dedicated HS urban penetrations (e.g. Zurich, Bologna...) and where it happened it was extremely costly.

As another example, the European Union officially defines "high speed" as stretches build for at least 250 km/h, or urban stretches with lower speed if they are part of a HS network. The idea that historical urban penetrations will be shared and recycled in the new systems is deeply embedded into the general planning:


> For the purposes of this Directive, the Union's network shall include the following elements:
> ...
> (c) specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, to which the speed must be adapted in each case. This category includes interconnecting lines between high-speed and conventional networks, lines through stations, accesses to terminals, depots, etc. travelled at conventional speed by ‘high-speed’ rolling stock;
> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1557775619773&uri=CELEX:32016L0797, Annex I


Without this possibility HSR in Europe would be as relevant as Maglev - an independent system that never took off.


----------



## Smooth Indian

davide84 said:


> It has to be said that other countries can exploit synergies with existing networks and build HSR in functional stages. E.g. the new line between Milan and Venice has been built only by 30% due to huge issues with funding and consensus; however it reaches a big city so there's enough potential to generate revenue.
> 
> Which is something that allows you to save or postpone 50% of the initial investment... in Europe all cities have urban penetrations from the nineteenth century and they are all public property managed by state-owned companies. Very very few cities have dedicated HS urban penetrations (e.g. Zurich, Bologna...) and where it happened it was extremely costly.
> 
> As another example, the European Union officially defines "high speed" as stretches build for at least 250 km/h, or urban stretches with lower speed if they are part of a HS network. The idea that historical urban penetrations will be shared and recycled in the new systems is deeply embedded into the general planning:


I don't see why interoperability with conventional tracks should be an issue in the US barring for opposition from the class1 railroads themselves.
In fact HSR lines must plan for reach core urban areas via conventional tracks which are modified (doubling/quadrupling with electrification and signaling enhancements).
The planned Texas HSR for instance ends outside the core urban areas of Dallas and Houston. Both terminating stations are close to conventional railway lines and could be linked to allow for extended running into the downtown areas. This doesn't mean that the peripheral stations are not important. Te peripheral stations can provide convenient access for suburban passengers for whom downtown may be a convoluted option. The peripheral stations if properly planned can allow for easy links with future branches /extensions of HSR or semi-HSR tracks. The peripheral stations can also be part of bypass lines which through trains might utilize to avoid slowing down.


----------



## Slartibartfas

davide84 said:


> In Spain this synergy was not possible due to the different gauge, and they had to build up a full network with a few complete lines before the system became sustainable. That's more similar to the US case, I think.


Indeed and it shows that this issue is a complication but hardly an excuse. Spain has it all, difficult geography and a completely isolated HSR network separated by gauge from the regular network. 



> That's freaking expensive... it was a main issue even for Washington's Silver Line connecting the free world capital with its airport...


It ain't cheap but the US has to be a pretty poor place if it can't afford what even China can afford (ie long bridge or tunnel constructions for HSR). Not only China btw, also the developed world, except for the US of course. 

Which is something that allows you to save or postpone 50% of the initial investment... in Europe all cities have urban penetrations from the nineteenth century and they are all public property managed by state-owned companies. Very very few cities have dedicated HS urban penetrations (e.g. Zurich, Bologna...) and where it happened it was extremely costly.

As another example, the European Union officially defines "high speed" as stretches build for at least 250 km/h, or urban stretches with lower speed if they are part of a HS network. The idea that historical urban penetrations will be shared and recycled in the new systems is deeply embedded into the general planning:

Without this possibility HSR in Europe would be as relevant as Maglev - an independent system that never took off.[/QUOTE]

Integration helps, but as Spain was mentioned before, it is obviously not obligatory. I don't like the Chinese network that much btw, because it is basically a land based aviation system. The major stations look and feel like airpots and are located in similar locations far off the center, more often than not. They tend to be connected by metro however, at least they are being connected if they aren't yet.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Slartibartfas said:


> It ain't cheap but the US has to be a pretty poor place if it can't afford what even China can afford (ie long bridge or tunnel constructions for HSR). Not only China btw, also the developed world, except for the US of course.


Apparently the US was OK with blowing away $7 trillion on the unneeded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet they say they can't afford infastructure. "We can't afford _x_" is clearly a codeword for "We don't want _x_ even though it would help us more than pointless wars". It's a matter of political will.


----------



## redspork02

Trump Cancels $929 Million Grant for California Bullet Train - Bloomberg Newd



> (Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration officially canceled $929 million in federal grants earmarked for California’s ambitious high-speed rail project, escalating tensions between the federal government and the most-populous U.S. state.


:soapbox:


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Doesn't really surprise me. His talk about being oh so ambitious even with rail infrastructure, was just a straight lie like everything else he is saying.

He doesn't care about it one second and large parts of his party are dead against modern rail infrastructure due to irrational ideological reasons.


----------



## prageethSL

Next-Generation Acela Rail Cars Taking Shape in N.Y. Factory


----------



## sponge_bob

Acela is not a true HSR, it compares to the HS125 service in the UK which was the best express service in Europe pre real HSR. IIRC it even runs on a slow section of freight railway at some point on its route.


----------



## fkus

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Doesn't really surprise me. His talk about being oh so ambitious even with rail infrastructure, was just a straight lie like everything else he is saying.
> 
> He doesn't care about it one second and large parts of his party are dead against modern rail infrastructure due to irrational ideological reasons.




I believe the issue is different. First, it was the California gov that announced they will not build San Francisco - LA rapid train anymore. They will just finish the pathetic middle patch from nowhere to nowhere. That is the reason the federal gov withdrawal the subsidy.


----------



## mgk920

fkus said:


> I believe the issue is different. First, it was the California gov that announced they will not build San Francisco - LA rapid train anymore. They will just finish the pathetic middle patch from nowhere to nowhere. That is the reason the federal gov withdrawal the subsidy.


I don't have an article cite handy, but from what I read elsewhere, lack of development progress was indeed a major factor in withdrawing the funding.

Mike


----------



## zaphod

sponge_bob said:


> Acela is not a true HSR, it compares to the HS125 service in the UK which was the best express service in Europe pre real HSR. IIRC it even runs on a slow section of freight railway at some point on its route.


It gets up to 150 mph(241 km/h) in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The section between NYC and Philadelphia is being upgraded to 165 mph(265 km/h).

From what I understand there is no "slow section of freight railway". There are some 4-track sections where freight trains may run. The slowest part is around NYC where it shares tracks with commuter trains. There are also slow parts on the line in Connecticut because the line is circuitious and there are movable bridges, but these stay down most of the time. However the northern half of the line doesn't really have the legacy of being a high speed railway the way the original DC to NYC line did.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

zaphod said:


> From what I understand there is no "slow section of freight railway". There are some 4-track sections where freight trains may run. The slowest part is around NYC where it shares tracks with commuter trains. There are also slow parts on the line in Connecticut because the line is circuitious and there are movable bridges, but these stay down most of the time. However the northern half of the line doesn't really have the legacy of being a high speed railway the way the original DC to NYC line did.


There's gonna be a LOT of new construction to build even a 150 mph rail line all the way from NYC to Boston


----------



## Slartibartfas

fkus said:


> I believe the issue is different. First, it was the California gov that announced they will not build San Francisco - LA rapid train anymore. They will just finish the pathetic middle patch from nowhere to nowhere. That is the reason the federal gov withdrawal the subsidy.


Yeah, sure. 

No, seriously. If the US would have any interest in catching up with the developed world, there would surely have been a financial solution to that, especially as the HSR project in California is not only one of the most important potential HSR corridors in the US but also the by far furthest progressed one. Delays, complications and possibly cost overruns can be expected by any major infrastructure program. They are also a direct consequence by the half a**ed financial commitment. All of these things could be resolved if the federal administration would be supportive of the project instead of hostile against it.


----------



## browntown

Slartibartfas said:


> They are also a direct consequence by the half a**ed financial commitment. All of these things could be resolved if the federal administration would be supportive of the project instead of hostile against it.


No, the issue is the half-assed political commitment made by California. They let local municipalities, environmentalists and NIMBYs delay the project for years and demand tens of Billions of dollars in unnecessary bridges and tunnels. If California was actually serious about building HSR they would have stepped in to quash all these lawsuits and much more strictly used eminent domain to acquire land. It is impossible to build this sort of large infrastructure project in a place like California given their excessive regulations and empowerment of NIMBYs. This was obvious from day one and not one thin dime should have been spent on this boondoggle without first reforming all the regulations. The same is true for a major infrastructure push by the federal government; it needs to be contingent on loosening regulations and reducing the power of NIMBY lawsuits.


----------



## mgk920

browntown said:


> No, the issue is the half-assed political commitment made by California. They let local municipalities, environmentalists and NIMBYs delay the project for years and demand tens of Billions of dollars in unnecessary bridges and tunnels. If California was actually serious about building HSR they would have stepped in to quash all these lawsuits and much more strictly used eminent domain to acquire land. It is impossible to build this sort of large infrastructure project in a place like California given their excessive regulations and empowerment of NIMBYs. This was obvious from day one and not one thin dime should have been spent on this boondoggle without first reforming all the regulations. The same is true for a major infrastructure push by the federal government; it needs to be contingent on loosening regulations and reducing the power of NIMBY lawsuits.


Amtrak is also having huge problems with well-off NIMBYs in northern Cook and southern Lake County, IL in trying to just increase the frequency of their über-popular Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha conventional trains from 7 to 10 round trips per day. This is a route that could easily support several times that frequency and still run crowded with longer trains.



Mike


----------



## Bobdreamz

D.S. Lewith said:


> Apparently the US was OK with blowing away $7 trillion on the unneeded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet they say they can't afford infastructure. "We can't afford _x_" is clearly a codeword for "We don't want _x_ even though it would help us more than pointless wars". It's a matter of political will.


More like a matter of *priorities* instead !


----------



## fkus

Slartibartfas said:


> Yeah, sure.
> 
> No, seriously. If the US would have any interest in catching up with the developed world, there would surely have been a financial solution to that, especially as the HSR project in California is not only one of the most important potential HSR corridors in the US but also the by far furthest progressed one. Delays, complications and possibly cost overruns can be expected by any major infrastructure program. They are also a direct consequence by the half a**ed financial commitment. All of these things could be resolved if the federal administration would be supportive of the project instead of hostile against it.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ernor-says-he-s-dropping-high-speed-rail-plan

Read this!


----------



## Slartibartfas

it is behind a pay wall but the bit that is free to read doesn't offer me information I have not known already.

That said, California clearly could be more ambitious as well but the entire legal and political system is designed to frustrate moder passenger railway infrastructure and I wouldn't be surprised if it were like that by design. This can only be changed when state level and federal level really want to change that. The federal level clearly does not want to change that at all, whatsoever.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Slartibartfas said:


> it is behind a pay wall but the bit that is free to read doesn't offer me information I have not known already.
> 
> That said, California clearly could be more ambitious as well but the entire legal and political system is designed to frustrate moder passenger railway infrastructure and I wouldn't be surprised if it were like that by design. This can only be changed when state level and federal level really want to change that. The federal level clearly does not want to change that at all, whatsoever.


And the people that are in office don't even want the roads to be maintained and instead want everything handed to the private sector (which honestly isn't the best for everything). Even when it's pretty clear that they can't add any more lanes to the freeway, they (as well as the auto and oil companies) still don't want alternatives being pursued because of some irrational belief that their power would be taken away and people would lose their freedom (although paradoxically people are confined to gridlock, which is hardly freedom).


----------



## Slartibartfas

It is only in America that you find the crazy thought that railway is veiled communism. Elsewhere, even arch conservatives embrace the technology, sometimes even more than left leaning politicians.


----------



## mgk920

Slartibartfas said:


> It is only in America that you find the crazy thought that railway is veiled communism. Elsewhere, even arch conservatives embrace the technology, sometimes even more than left leaning politicians.


Also, in much of the rest of the World, rail infrastructure is treated as a public good (like roads, airports, parks, etc are), while train operations are like the airlines, bus companies, trucking companies, etc. In North America (Canada is exactly like the USA in this regard), railroad infrastructure is exclusive private property that is mostly usable only by the company that owns whatever particular piece of track.

It is an incredible, almost insurmountable difference in attitude.

Mike


----------



## D.S. Lewith

mgk920 said:


> Slartibartfas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in much of the rest of the World, rail infrastructure is treated as a public good (like roads, airports, parks, etc are), while train operations are like the airlines, bus companies, trucking companies, etc. In North America (Canada is exactly like the USA in this regard), railroad infrastructure is exclusive private property that is mostly usable only by the company that owns whatever particular piece of track.
> 
> It is an incredible, almost insurmountable difference in attitude.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> Both Canada and Mexico used to have nationalized railways (Canadian National and NdeM respectively). Both were privatized in the 1990s. Whilst passenger rail in Canada got saved by VIA Rail, Mexico's went extinct (though there's a Mexico City-Toluca passenger train and a Yucatan Peninsula train under construction)
Click to expand...


----------



## fkus

Slartibartfas said:


> it is behind a pay wall but the bit that is free to read doesn't offer me information I have not known already.
> 
> That said, California clearly could be more ambitious as well but the entire legal and political system is designed to frustrate moder passenger railway infrastructure and I wouldn't be surprised if it were like that by design. This can only be changed when state level and federal level really want to change that. The federal level clearly does not want to change that at all, whatsoever.




It is easy to say it is not my responsibility. It is A,B or C. But the true is California lacked planning, they were kicking their heads to construct a small part of the rail in time, with the price they planned. It was lacked profissionalism there!


----------



## [atomic]

Virgin Trains USA awards Phase 2 construction contracts



> USA: Virgin Trains USA announced the award of contracts for construction of the 270 km West Palm Beach – Orlando International Airport Phase 2 of its inter-city corridor on May 21, saying they represented a total private investment of $4bn.
> 
> Passenger services on Virgin Trains USA’s existing Miami – West Palm Beach route in south Florida are scheduled to be extended north to Orlando in 2022


.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/virgin-trains-usa-awards-phase-2-construction-contracts.html


----------



## Bobdreamz

*Virgin Trains officially begins construction on West Palm Beach-to-Orlando express route.*
BY ROB WILE
MAY 22, 2019 09:37 AM

Virgin Trains USA announced Tuesday construction on its West Palm Beach to Orlando extension had officially begun on what it projects will be a four-year undertaking.

The $4 billion project calls for 170 miles of new track. The company, formerly known as Brightline, projects that by 2022, it will have generated more than 10,000 jobs and more than $650 million in federal, state and local tax revenue.

Digging formally began this week outside Orlando International Airport, where a new connection hub will shuttle passengers from the train’s terminus to airline gates.

The announcement follows years of delays, debate and negotiation over safety, noise and traffic concerns.

Virgin also has named the five contractors who will handle the laying of 490,000 ties and transporting 2.35 million tons of granite and limestone by 20,000 rail cars, and the hammering of two million spikes and bolts over the next 36 months. 

“Connecting Central and South Florida will bring thousands of jobs today and by modernizing infrastructure, we will strengthen Florida’s economy for decades,” said Patrick Goddard, president of Virgin Trains USA, in a statement.

A formal groundbreaking ceremony is slated for the coming weeks.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article230688994.html






:cheers:


----------



## KiKE

D.S. Lewith said:


> mgk920 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Canada and Mexico used to have nationalized railways (Canadian National and NdeM respectively). Both were privatized in the 1990s. Whilst passenger rail in Canada got saved by VIA Rail, Mexico's went extinct (though there's a Mexico City-Toluca passenger train and a Yucatan Peninsula train under construction)
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico sold to Kansas City rail the railways. The toluca-mexico city are new railroads under construction. The Maya train is going to use abandoned railroads and build new ones, this train is going to be a failure is only going to pass thru small towns and the Rivera Maya.
Click to expand...


----------



## D.S. Lewith

**** said:


> Mexico sold to Kansas City rail the railways. The toluca-mexico city are new railroads under construction. The Maya train is going to use abandoned railroads and build new ones, this train is going to be a failure is only going to pass thru small towns and the Rivera Maya.


NDeM got broken up into four companies: Kansas City Southern de Mexico, Ferromex, Ferrosur (which has been in an extremely delayed merger with Ferromex), and (owned jointly by the three companies) Ferrocarril y Terminal del Valle de México


----------



## Basincreek

fkus said:


> I believe the issue is different. First, it was the California gov that announced they will not build San Francisco - LA rapid train anymore. They will just finish the pathetic middle patch from nowhere to nowhere. That is the reason the federal gov withdrawal the subsidy.


Uh, they absolutely do plan to build the whole thing. If you check on what they are doing nothing has slowed down. They just released a whole new EIR last week for the Chowchilla region. They don't have the money right now to go all the way over the Coast Range to SF but as soon as they get that money all the planning will be done.



browntown said:


> No, the issue is the half-assed political commitment made by California. They let local municipalities, environmentalists and NIMBYs delay the project for years and demand tens of Billions of dollars in unnecessary bridges and tunnels. If California was actually serious about building HSR they would have stepped in to quash all these lawsuits and much more strictly used eminent domain to acquire land. It is impossible to build this sort of large infrastructure project in a place like California given their excessive regulations and empowerment of NIMBYs. This was obvious from day one and not one thin dime should have been spent on this boondoggle without first reforming all the regulations. The same is true for a major infrastructure push by the federal government; it needs to be contingent on loosening regulations and reducing the power of NIMBY lawsuits.



Well since none of that is ever happening I guess we should just give up.


----------



## fkus

Basincreek said:


> Uh, they absolutely do plan to build the whole thing. If you check on what they are doing nothing has slowed down. They just released a whole new EIR last week for the Chowchilla region. They don't have the money right now to go all the way over the Coast Range to SF but as soon as they get that money all the planning will be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well since none of that is ever happening I guess we should just give up.




What money? The money in the budget, the money that they already spent (maybe 7x the budget), or the money they will spend to finish the line (maybe 100x the budget)?


----------



## sponge_bob

Why the US has no high speed rail (CNBC) , a history lesson.


----------



## Jordbcn

[atomic] said:


> Virgin Trains USA awards Phase 2 construction contracts
> 
> .
> https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/virgin-trains-usa-awards-phase-2-construction-contracts.html


Awaiting desesperately for the new station in Treasure Coast. Hate driving from Miami Int´l to Vero Beach at rush hour hno:


----------



## urbanflight

Bobdreamz said:


> *Virgin Trains officially begins construction on West Palm Beach-to-Orlando express route.*
> BY ROB WILE
> MAY 22, 2019 09:37 AM


I find it really disappointing that those trains are powered by diesel rather than electricity hno:



> In comparison to the principal alternative, the diesel engine, electric railways offer substantially better energy efficiency, lower emissions and lower operating costs. Electric locomotives are also usually quieter, more powerful, and more responsive and reliable than diesels. They have no local emissions, an important advantage in tunnels and urban areas. Some electric traction systems provide regenerative braking that turns the train's kinetic energy back into electricity and returns it to the supply system to be used by other trains or the general utility grid. *While diesel locomotives burn petroleum*, electricity can be generated from diverse sources including renewable energy.


----------



## BoulderGrad

urbanflight said:


> I find it really disappointing that those trains are powered by diesel rather than electricity hno:


Still far less pollution per person than driving, and requiring electrification probably would have made it cost prohibitive and killed the project in the cradle. Always tradeoffs.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

BoulderGrad said:


> Still far less pollution per person than driving, and requiring electrification probably would have made it cost prohibitive and killed the project in the cradle. Always tradeoffs.


I expect them to make electrification an eventual goal though. If Brightline's ridership get to at least the levels seen on the California Corridor trains then it should eventually become a no-brainer.


----------



## losangelino

Basincreek said:


> Uh, they absolutely do plan to build the whole thing. If you check on what they are doing nothing has slowed down. They just released a whole new EIR last week for the Chowchilla region. They don't have the money right now to go all the way over the Coast Range to SF but as soon as they get that money all the planning will be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well since none of that is ever happening I guess we should just give up.


Isn't Gavin Newsome suing Trump given he pulled the money? I have ridden those in China from Shanghai to Beijing years ago and was so impressed. I said then that it was a shame that we are so far behind China in this area. Then remembered the LA quake and how they incentivized them to rebuild our freeways in months, not years like what was happening in the Bay Area who had the world series quake several months before the LA quake. I said then that HSR was a victim of these construction people. They delay to make more money. LA had to pay them bonuses to build fast, and fast they built. People were shocked as to how fast we were back up and running. They should have done the same thing with HSR. And Gavin needs to make that happen or get the hell out of the way.


----------



## davide84

D.S. Lewith said:


> I expect them to make electrification an eventual goal though. If Brightline's ridership get to at least the levels seen on the California Corridor trains then it should eventually become a no-brainer.


I agree. It's not just about environment or performance: when the number of trains exceeds a certain value an electrified line becomes actually cheaper to operate, and even the cost of installation can be compensated in a couple of decades (which is short when talking about infrastructure).


----------



## mgk920

davide84 said:


> I agree. It's not just about environment or performance: when the number of trains exceeds a certain value an electrified line becomes actually cheaper to operate, and even the cost of installation can be compensated in a couple of decades (which is short when talking about infrastructure).


Straight electric locomotives are also much less expensive to maintain than diesel-electric, due to there being far fewer moving parts inside of them. Another advantage to electric is that it can draw its energy from whatever source is most economical at any given time and in any given location, not beholden to the ups and downs of the market for a single commodity and its transport and processing infrastructure.

Mike


----------



## D.S. Lewith

davide84 said:


> I agree. It's not just about environment or performance: when the number of trains exceeds a certain value an electrified line becomes actually cheaper to operate, and even the cost of installation can be compensated in a couple of decades (which is short when talking about infrastructure).


If we're talking about frequency and ridership then Brightline has 17 round trips Monday through Friday, and ten and nine on Saturdays and Sundays, respectively, and by the end of 2018 it has accumlated a ridership of 579,205 passengers (which is fairly modest for a train service that has just started a year ago but is a far cry from the 240,000 passengers per month by 2020 that investors are aiming for although this could change once the expansion to Orlando opens). Pretty likely the only way electrification could become feasible is once they reach the 240k monthly ridership and complete its future expansions (to Tampa and to Jacksonville). I will say they should focus first on grade-separating their lines to eliminate all grade crossings (which would increase speeds and make the trains more appealing to potential passengers who dont want to waste hours on the freeway) once the Orlando expansion finishes.


----------



## eomer

urbanflight said:


> I find it really disappointing that those trains are powered by diesel rather than electricity hno:


Depends how you produce your Electricity. It was the same story in England just after WWII: wasn't efficient to produce electricity from coal to power trains. In some part of USA, electricity is mostly produced with oil: better use it directly in the locomotive.
Don't forget that bringing electricity along an HSR line may cost a lot in a country as big as USA are.


----------



## annman

I've gone back through the thread a couple months, and cannot find Cascadia Rail mentioned at all. I see a lot of discussion about the lack of political will in the US, and screwed view of rail and what constitutes the 'public good.' However, there is one region of the US that has proven they generally support public transit both in burgeoning ridership and astronomical public expenditure, are not for conspicuous consumption and prefer personal modesty for greater 'public and ecological good': The Pacific Northwest. It's definitely ideologically quite unlike most of the USA.

The State of Washington and Province of British Columbia cooperate on so many levels and both have pledged a million dollars for the scoping study alone. Jay Inslee has proved to be a huge fan of high-speed rail, and in initial studies, found that the cost would be $40-bn for rail between Eugene and Vancouver. This compared with approx. $100-bn to add one lane in each direction on I-5 along the same alignment. 

To put this number in perspective, Seattle's Sound Transit is already investing $53.8-bn in urban light-rail and BRT/Bus transit in phase 3 (in a publicly voted upon tax measure). This is in addition to billions spent in the last decade on phases 1 and 2. 

Route concept is still rough:








_Source: The Urbanist_


----------



## D.S. Lewith

annman said:


> I've gone back through the thread a couple months, and cannot find Cascadia Rail mentioned at all. I see a lot of discussion about the lack of political will in the US, and screwed view of rail and what constitutes the 'public good.' However, there is one region of the US that has proven they generally support public transit both in burgeoning ridership and astronomical public expenditure, are not for conspicuous consumption and prefer personal modesty for greater 'public and ecological good': The Pacific Northwest. It's definitely ideologically quite unlike most of the USA.
> 
> The State of Washington and Province of British Columbia cooperate on so many levels and both have pledged a million dollars for the scoping study alone. Jay Inslee has proved to be a huge fan of high-speed rail, and in initial studies, found that the cost would be $40-bn for rail between Eugene and Vancouver. This compared with approx. $100-bn to add one lane in each direction on I-5 along the same alignment.
> 
> To put this number in perspective, Seattle's Sound Transit is already investing $53.8-bn in urban light-rail and BRT/Bus transit in phase 3 (in a publicly voted upon tax measure). This is in addition to billions spent in the last decade on phases 1 and 2.
> 
> Route concept is still rough:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: The Urbanist_


If there's one thing that has to happen, that's building a whole new set of tracks between Tacoma and Everett because the existing tracks are way too winding for even 125 mph service. Part of the new tracks involves building a new Seattle station as King Street is too constrained for new tracks. Such a new station would be deep underground to avoid conflicting with Link light rail. This new station can be built using the historical Union Station as a base. Upon completion, all Sounder services will be redirected to this new ROW. Amtrak services will continue using the existing King Street Station until the rest of the Cascades corridor is electrified, transferring all services to the new Union Station and retiring King Street.
Along the way, a new ROW more directly paralleling I-90 will also be built (this would mean, however, that a Seattle-Spokane train would have to skip Yakima and the Tri-Cities).


----------



## urbanflight

BoulderGrad said:


> Still far less pollution per person than driving, and requiring electrification probably would have made it cost prohibitive and killed the project in the cradle. Always tradeoffs.


Yeah, but it's still very disappointing for the richest county in the planet to keep building polluting train lines.


----------



## davide84

Disappointing, particularly for new infrastructure. But unfortunately that's also quite normal in the rest of the first world as well, e.g. in Germany, UK or Denmark. Germany has 200 km/h tilting diesel trains, and, IIRC, Virgin UK also has something similar. If you don't need very high speed or top accelerating performances, from a purely operational point of view diesel is still a valid option.
Some of these countries are catching up, though, but will take years. Change is mainly driven by increase in operations, environmental strategies and the need to create more direct connections.

On the other side there's only one country that has electrified 100% of its network: Switzerland. Even most of yards and depots are electrified here, not just the passenger tracks.


----------



## dysharmonica

davide84 said:


> Disappointing, particularly for new infrastructure. But unfortunately that's also quite normal in the rest of the first world as well, e.g. in Germany, UK or Denmark. Germany has 200 km/h tilting diesel trains, and, IIRC, Virgin UK also has something similar. If you don't need very high speed or top accelerating performances, from a purely operational point of view diesel is still a valid option.
> Some of these countries are catching up, though, but will take years. Change is mainly driven by increase in operations, environmental strategies and the need to create more direct connections.
> 
> On the other side there's only one country that has electrified 100% of its network: Switzerland. Even most of yards and depots are electrified here, not just the passenger tracks.



Clarification about Denmark: 
No new non-electrified lines are being built in Denmark anymore. Actually probably in all of Continental EU you're unlikely to see non-electrified line be proposed, approved, and built. But Denmark especially has a long legacy of not investing in electrifying and updating rail and it's been seriously biting them in the butt for the last 20 years. They ARE trying to un-tangle that mess now, but it's pricy, delayed, and a huge frustration 

(It's a huge cluster-cluck of outdated signals that get interference from electrification. Outdated bespoke diesel trains that cannot fit new modern signaling equipment .. meaning that Denmark is re-signaling, electrifying, and replacing running stock all at once in a delicate high risk ballet from hell, because the old systems were all broken in such a way that they worked together, but with nothing else.)

Though I find it disappointing the new line in the US is Diesel, it's better than nothing. The Modern diesel-electric locos they are using are super clean, and yeah .. in a land with no passenger rail (no transit at all), one needs to start somewhere. "Perfect is the enemy of done" is my favorite slogan.


----------



## zaphod

The Pacific Northwest has cheap electricity because of hydro dams. It would think it’s a good place for electrification.


----------



## BoulderGrad

annman said:


> I've gone back through the thread a couple months, and cannot find Cascadia Rail mentioned at all. I see a lot of discussion about the lack of political will in the US, and screwed view of rail and what constitutes the 'public good.' However, there is one region of the US that has proven they generally support public transit both in burgeoning ridership and astronomical public expenditure, are not for conspicuous consumption and prefer personal modesty for greater 'public and ecological good': The Pacific Northwest. It's definitely ideologically quite unlike most of the USA.
> 
> The State of Washington and Province of British Columbia cooperate on so many levels and both have pledged a million dollars for the scoping study alone. Jay Inslee has proved to be a huge fan of high-speed rail, and in initial studies, found that the cost would be $40-bn for rail between Eugene and Vancouver. This compared with approx. $100-bn to add one lane in each direction on I-5 along the same alignment.
> 
> To put this number in perspective, Seattle's Sound Transit is already investing $53.8-bn in urban light-rail and BRT/Bus transit in phase 3 (in a publicly voted upon tax measure). This is in addition to billions spent in the last decade on phases 1 and 2.
> 
> Route concept is still rough:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: The Urbanist_


$40bn for service that is predicted to see only 2mil riders/year per their own study. For comparison, the Cali-HSR system is up to $77bil, and is expected to see 28mil riders per year (and many folks question the financial outlook of that line). Less than a tenth the ridership at more than half the price. 

While the concept is cool, it would be a huuuuge money suck to build a dedicated HSR line in the PNW. 

Would be better to focus instead on 125mph service. You might only see 1-1.5mil ppl/yr instead of the 2mil/yr, but it would likely cost a lot less if they're able to use existing track and do diesel locomotives to start. The big money projects would be new tunnels out of Seattle/Everett, and double tracking through Tacoma.


----------



## siamu maharaj

Given the strict border controls, this train would serve no useful purpose. The route makes no sense. A high-speed rail that spends 30 minutes at the border.


----------



## annman

^^ The train would not be stuck at the actual border... you'd go through customs/passport control at the train station, and it could be pre-check like we have at Canadian airports (allowing you to fly and disembark free of customs control anywhere in the US). So that point is irrelevant. 

I do see the problems with an expensive high-speed service, versus a 125MPH service on mostly existing alignment. However it's owned by a freight rail operator, BNSF. This makes creating a reliable, mid-speed, rail service nearly impossible. American freight rail operators are notoriously obstructionist and habitually hamper passenger rail efforts. I don't know how BNSF is as an rail entity compared to their counterparts in the eastern US like Norfolk-Southern, CSX etc. I have heard rumors that BNSF is the reason Sounder services are not more frequent... correct me if this is wrong. 

In South Africa, most of our rail system is electrified. Frankly, compared to an African nation, America (world's largest economy) has zero excuse other than being politically obstructionist and climate-backward to not follow suit. The Cascades corridor, whether it be mid- or high-speed solution, should be electrified. With our inexpensive, clean hydro power, it should be. With Jay Inslee in charge, it could be a signature project.

Then there's the do nothing scenario. We will get to a point in the very near future, when PNW's growth will warrant rapid intercity connectivity. Salesforce just bought Tableau in Seattle and announced their 2nd HQ would be here. Portland is going to keep growing, Vancouver is going to keep growing, and Seattle certainly seems like there is little slowing in sight. People will increasingly seek affordable housing options in between: like Longview, Olympia, Tacoma, Everett, and Bellingham. I-5 is eventually going to have be widened at a cost of R100-bn throughout its alignment... or we do something like rail? Any other options?

Anyone who is an urban planner knows what will happen with that aforementioned R100-bn... it'll take a decade to widen I-5, and it'll be at capacity already when it's done. Lovely induced demand in an already constrained system. Rail doesn't have that issue... just add another train-car or scheduled service. I believe we have to play the long game in Cascadia, as the US's fastest growing region, or we can kiss our quality-of-life and competitive edge goodbye.


----------



## Slartibartfas

E-cars are the future, but for some mysterious reason, even electrified main rail lines are unaffordable. USA for you. As soon as it comes to passenger rail, the US is the land of the unlimited impossibilities.


----------



## smerfylicious

BoulderGrad said:


> $40bn for service that is predicted to see only 2mil riders/year per their own study. For comparison, the Cali-HSR system is up to $77bil, and is expected to see 28mil riders per year (and many folks question the financial outlook of that line). Less than a tenth the ridership at more than half the price.
> 
> While the concept is cool, it would be a huuuuge money suck to build a dedicated HSR line in the PNW.
> 
> Would be better to focus instead on 125mph service. You might only see 1-1.5mil ppl/yr instead of the 2mil/yr, but it would likely cost a lot less if they're able to use existing track and do diesel locomotives to start. The big money projects would be new tunnels out of Seattle/Everett, and double tracking through Tacoma.




It wasn't a comprehensive study in the least and hyper-conservative. A better study will be released at the end of this month.


On Union Station becoming the terminus...yes please. We need to use that beautiful building for something other than just offices.


----------



## davide84

I think the culprit here is Congress financing work while imposing a construction deadline on an unfinished project.

The European Union does something similar because you just don't give away money for free, but here the deadline is on start of service, and you are usually given a reasonable amount of years (a little more than what you say is needed when you apply for funding).


----------



## dysharmonica

davide84 said:


> I think the culprit here is Congress financing work while imposing a construction deadline on an unfinished project.
> 
> The European Union does something similar because you just don't give away money for free, but here the deadline is on start of service, and you are usually given a reasonable amount of years (a little more than what you say is needed when you apply for funding).


In my view it's also the fact that CA needed to pass a referendum to finance this and they could not just come in and ask fro 500M for planning and later for a 500B for construction or whatever ... they needed one big package that made people excited .. and they had to estimate without sufficient budget for the estimate to be good. 

This is what is so broken in the US. We are asking for infrastructure projects to be passed in a popularity contest instead of trusting the reps we elect to parliament to handle it. It's broken and results in no transit ever getting built as each transit project gets politicized.


----------



## fkus

dysharmonica said:


> Oh please ... clearly you have a bone to pick ... you are entitled to have your opinion, though that does not make it any more valid. Planning starts somewhere and that planning needs money. If you refuse to accept this simple premise, which is all that others are arguing, you're Fox news level irrational in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Should have CA appropriated some 500M USD for planning before setting out on the project overall, perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> But given that projects like these need to go into emotional politicized referendums instead of rational pro-con social-benefit analysis ... like in any civilized country, I understand why they would not do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses also start somewhere ... and they start with a vague idea of project cost ... and then proceed. And I have seen companies commit to project before knowing final costs, in the interest of speed, and because ultimately, the mandate was to get it done ... not pu..yfoot around the budget and pre-analysis for decades before actually doing anything.




You don’t have to label me in any politic spectrum. If you do not have any intelligent arguments to justify California HSR disaster, stay aside. See the auditors report to understand what a mess the people did with lack of report, disclosure, error dealing with suppliers, etc.. be informed.


----------



## mgk920

IMHO, the biggest root cause of this entire mess is the people who were promoting it letting their emotions cloud their views of reality.

hno:

Mike


----------



## ssiguy2

Outside of Bos-NY-Wash, I think HSR in the US is a waste of money and has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with either economics or sustainability. 

Americans don't take trains. Not only do trains have much of the stigma of public transit but also the US has the cheapest gas and air fares on the planet. Bos-NY-Wash {the only place in the US where HSR is viable} not only has the huge population base in close proximity but also very vibrant and large downtowns which few American cities have. HSR is not so much for city to city travel but downtown to downtown. Going downtown or from it when taking a train means taking transit to get to the station and that's where most Americans would balk. For the majority of Americans {and nearly all outside Bos-NY-Wash} any trip that requires any form of public transit usage along the way is a no-go like in stupid plans for Dallas-Houston.


----------



## BoulderGrad

ssiguy2 said:


> Americans don't take trains.


Because the trains here suck... When I traveled in Europe, I took trains all over. When I travel in the US, I don't take trains... because the trains here are awful, not because I have some aversion to them as an American. 

It's the catch 22 of transit. No one will use it if its not extensive/frequent. But because no one uses it, there's a lot of resistance to investing the funds to make it usable... So it never gets to being extensive/frequent, so no one uses it... and because no one uses it... etc etc. 

The opposite is also true. The more transit/train lines you build and the more destinations you connect, the more usable the system becomes, then more ridership you see. And not just the addition of the new segments, but the existing segments also tend to get a ridership boost. 



> Not only do trains have much of the stigma of public transit


Again, Stigma about public transit is because it sucks here. Where its "good" (NYC, DC, etc) it gets used a lot. "good" because even in our transit heavy areas, transit is still awful compared to similar sized cities in Europe.



> but also the US has the cheapest gas and air fares on the planet.


Both not true. 

The haven of low cost airlines is Europe (EasyJet and Ryanair Fairs would make Southwest blush). That's mostly because they have a lot more competition from other country's airlines, and with the rail system. US airfares are quite pricey in comparison: https://www.theglobalist.com/why-airfares-in-europe-are-lower-than-in-the-u-s/

And much of the middle east has cheaper gas than we do. In Europe, while oil prices are a bit higher, the bigger chunk of Europe's gas prices are higher taxes at the pump. 



> Bos-NY-Wash {the only place in the US where HSR is viable} not only has the huge population base in close proximity but also very vibrant and large downtowns which few American cities have. HSR is not so much for city to city travel but downtown to downtown. Going downtown or from it when taking a train means taking transit to get to the station and that's where most Americans would balk. For the majority of Americans {and nearly all outside Bos-NY-Wash} any trip that requires any form of public transit usage along the way is a no-go like in stupid plans for Dallas-Houston.


On a whole, there is a strong shift towards a return to the central city in the US. Cities all along the west coast have much stronger downtowns than they used to, and many rival their east coast counterparts (See Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Chicago, etc). Reconnecting these with rail connections will only speed that up.

As for Dallas and Houston, Dallas currently has the longest light rail system in the country (Its main problem is train frequencies). Houston's is still a work in progress, but has lots of expansion on the horizon. To say transit is a "no go" in those cities is pretty off base. No, they're not exactly New York quite yet, but the work is being done...


----------



## aquaticko

At this point, the only real, genuine hang-ups on vastly improving US rail and public transit and decarbonizing transportation are cultural and bureaucratic. As BoulderGrad said, people don't like to see money invested in these things because they don't use them; they don't use them because they are bad; they are bad because there's little political incentive to improve operations efficiency and coverage because people don't like to see money invested in them; people don't like to see money invested....Bla bla, etc., etc. 

If the U.S. continues to urbanize the way that the structure of the economy suggests it must, improvements in transit will have to take place because auto-centric transportation just takes up to much space to be viable in cities. At this point, the options are either gridlock and stagnation or dramatic reform. I'm not naturally a pessimist, but the former seems at least as likely as the latter right now.


----------



## Nacre

I think this whole debacle is an example of emotions getting the better of people on both sides of the issue.

Splitting the money up into more achievable projects like tram lines for Sacramento and reliable medium speed Amtrak service would have been wiser than one massive shiny "world class" project that could be used as a flag for transit advocates to rally around.

And similarly the people shouting "why should any of my tax dollars go to public transit when I drive a car" are being illogical. It doesn't matter if you don't use mass transit. If other people do then the traffic problem is improved for drivers like you.

Unfortunately we are not living in an era of sober pragmatism, and these same mistakes are likely to be repeated again and again in America.


----------



## davide84

dysharmonica said:


> This is what is so broken in the US. We are asking for infrastructure projects to be passed in a popularity contest instead of trusting the reps we elect to parliament to handle it. It's broken and results in no transit ever getting built as each transit project gets politicized.


I think it also depends on political context. In Switzerland the longest tunnel in the world, roughly 12 billion $, was debated and subject of a popular vote, and then delivered on time and on budget. In Italy the reps are handling the high speed project and Venice has yet to be connected, despite the infrastructural project being launched in 1991 (other cities have been fully connected though, but not on budget).

Regarding the catch-22 dilemma, I want to mention that there are several examples of ridership exploding after the right investment was made. High Speed in France, Spain and Italy is a big success and took away a huge share of the aviation market in addition to attracting new passengers (as an example see https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/italian-high-speed-success). The number of rail commuters in Milan region kind of doubled in one decade, after a more structured and frequent service was gradually introduced. The point being, there is always hope, even in car-loving cultures (as still is the case in Italy).

I think Virgin USA in Florida, with its strategy of smaller increments, may have chosen a more effective path in developing HS market and culture outside the NEC.


----------



## Stuu

Nacre said:


> ...Splitting the money up into more achievable projects like tram lines for Sacramento....


I don't know if it has changed but when I went to Sacramento the light rail seemed a bit of a missed opportunity. They run 3 or 4 car long trains every 15 minutes, when it would attract more riders if they ran 2 car trains every 7.5 minutes. Spending lots on infrastructure but not on actually running a decent service doesn't make a lot of sense. It's the same where I live, capex good, opex bad


----------



## Nacre

Stuu said:


> I don't know if it has changed but when I went to Sacramento the light rail seemed a bit of a missed opportunity. They run 3 or 4 car long trains every 15 minutes, when it would attract more riders if they ran 2 car trains every 7.5 minutes. Spending lots on infrastructure but not on actually running a decent service doesn't make a lot of sense. It's the same where I live, capex good, opex bad


That's my point.

For the same amount of money, I would rather have 150 kph regional train lines and better local transit options than spend it all on a 200 kph train line. Getting existing Amtrak services in California up to the standard of the French Intercites (avg roughly 60 mph w/ stops) and then upgrading local transit services like the light rail/trams in Sacramento is a better use of money than building something equivalent to the French TGV.


----------



## fkus

Nacre said:


> That's my point.
> 
> For the same amount of money, I would rather have 150 kph regional train lines and better local transit options than spend it all on a 200 kph train line. Getting existing Amtrak services in California up to the standard of the French Intercites (avg roughly 60 mph w/ stops) and then upgrading local transit services like the light rail/trams in Sacramento is a better use of money than building something equivalent to the French TGV.




That’s what’s happening in Florida. And with private company’s money, what’s even better!


----------



## Nacre

Yes. Brightline is an example of the kind of project we should be working on, although I doubt it will actually deliver on its stated goals. Brightline's target 80 mph average from Miami to Orlando is the same speed as the Kodama service (stopping at all stations served) on the Tokaido Shinkansen!


----------



## ArtManDoo

Nacre said:


> That's my point.
> 
> For the same amount of money, I would rather have 150 kph regional train lines and better local transit options than spend it all on a 200 kph train line. Getting existing Amtrak services in California up to the standard of the French Intercites (avg roughly 60 mph w/ stops) and then upgrading local transit services like the light rail/trams in Sacramento is a better use of money than building something equivalent to the French TGV.


I is not regional rail vs long distance rail or interstate rail. Both are required, regional don't do what does long distance e.t.c. The same for urban rail and regional rail. And if capacity allows then regional and long distance, both can share the same tracks as well, the different max speeds are not problem. Regional is like Kodama and interstate rail is like Nazomi. The best would be to convert the road 99 or road 5 into new railway, the result would be heavily improved both environment and service.


----------



## Rover030

Nacre said:


> That's my point.
> 
> For the same amount of money, I would rather have 150 kph regional train lines and better local transit options than spend it all on a 200 kph train line. Getting existing Amtrak services in California up to the standard of the French Intercites (avg roughly 60 mph w/ stops) and then upgrading local transit services like the light rail/trams in Sacramento is a better use of money than building something equivalent to the French TGV.


But should you really reward a place that is not willing to make the most of their existing infrastructure with even more infrastructure? It's a conscious choice of Sacramento to run at a 15 minute frequency and not upzone the areas around the light rail, resulting in low ridership. If I were a US or a California legislator, places like Sacramento would be last on my funding list.


----------



## ssiguy2

HSR will never make sense in the US outside Bos-NY-Wash but quality higher speed would in several cases ie LA/SF, CHI/DET/CLE/PIT/PHI, Pacific NW, Florida, and maybe Texas but that's it. Unfortunately improvements to systems don't get political backing as there isn't the ribbon cutting ceremony bonanza that politicians crave. 

Reality is reality and the US will never be a society that really embraces public transit or rail travel. The nation's infrastructure, settlement patterns, and especially cultural and societal views simply don't lend itself to wide scale regional rail much like it doesn't with public transit with only a few niche market exceptions.


----------



## geogregor

ssiguy2 said:


> HSR will never make sense in the US outside Bos-NY-Wash but quality higher speed would in several cases ie LA/SF, CHI/DET/CLE/PIT/PHI, Pacific NW, Florida, and maybe Texas but that's it. Unfortunately improvements to systems don't get political backing as there isn't the ribbon cutting ceremony bonanza that politicians crave.
> 
> Reality is reality and the US will never be a society that really embraces public transit or rail travel. The nation's infrastructure, settlement patterns, and especially cultural and societal views simply don't lend itself to wide scale regional rail much like it doesn't with public transit with only *a few niche market exceptions.*


Maybe niche if you talk geographically. But if you look at population and economic activity the places you mentioned ( Bos-NY-Wash, LA-SF, Florida, Texas Triangle, CHI/DET/CLE/PIT/PH, Pacific NW) are covering huge chunk of the US.

Those places probably create majority of the US GDP and are inhabited by 100+ million people. If you call it "a few niche markets", well, so it be...


----------



## mgk920

This little item on the DFW-IAH 'true' HSR proposal was posted yesterday (2019-10-16):






Not a lot of new stuff in it, but interesting none the less. I have a lot more confidence in this one than I have in that FUBAR in California.

Mike


----------



## kokomo

Hi, I was reading about the Brightline extension to Orlando and I was shocked to see it's not on electrified trainsets but on diesel ones... any explanation about this?


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Hey, what do you think, this is Morocco? No, it is the USA. :troll:


----------



## davide84

ssiguy2 has a point... highways and airlines are massive investments the general public is already used to, they don't need to prove themselves worth like rail has.


----------



## aquaticko

^^The thing is, highways and airports are too space-inefficient to work in urban areas, and urban areas are what's really needed to run efficient service economies. The only reasons U.S. urban areas remain internationally competitive are a.) fixed assets, and b.) strong institutions. The former are increasingly less fixed--less real estate and manufacturing equipment, and more intellectual property rights and educated workforce--and the latter...well, I feel like I shouldn't need to explain. 

The classic, American, autocentric model of development never really worked all that well for everyone, always being too expensive in terms of money and other resources. East Asian density--like you see in Tokyo, Seoul, and Singapore--paired with Western-quality institutions (at least as they are idealized to be) will be what makes urban areas in the 21st century.

And the most way efficient way connect those areas is high-speed rail.


----------



## mgk920

IMHO, we should be concentrating on upgrading existing local and regional passenger routes and re-establishing former local and regional passenger routes that make useful and economic sense. One that I often cite in these sorts of discussions is one that operated up until 'Amtrak Day' in 1971 - Chicago and North Western's Chicago-Milwaukee-Green Bay, WI service via my hometown of Appleton, WI. It was a very popular 'daytrip' route that Amtrak wanted to take over at their startup but was ultimately unable to due to the state politics and general attitudes of the time - the late 1960s were an era of the Apollo Moon missions, airlines buying jet-powered airliners en masse and the period of maximum development activity of the interstate highway system while trains were thought of as being 'quaint' and 'old fashioned'.

As more of these routes are re-opened and brought up to more modern useful standards public demand for even better services like 'true' HSR will take care of the rest.

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

Perhaps it is time to reflag this thread to something like 'UNITED STATES | Passenger Rail' and remove the poll. This is an interesting discussion on modern passenger services in general.

Mike


----------



## BoulderGrad

mgk920 said:


> ------------------------
> 
> Perhaps it is time to reflag this thread to something like 'UNITED STATES | Passenger Rail' and remove the poll. This is an interesting discussion on modern passenger services in general.
> 
> Mike


There's already a thread for that: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=223895

But I agree on removing the poll if we can.


----------



## Nacre

aquaticko said:


> The thing that really bugs me about the whole rail situation in the U.S. is that rail really does work better for people than it does for freight.


1) Moving 80 kg humans takes massively less energy than moving hundreds of tons of gravel, lumber, et al. The energy efficiency of rail vs tires means a lot more to freight rail than it does to human transit.

2) Bulk goods are not very time sensitive while people care a lot about getting to their destinations quickly, so the slow speeds of rail vs air matter are more acceptable for freight rail than for passenger transport. Even in Japan people prefer to fly rather than take the shinkansen if the train takes longer than 3 hours. It would take 24 hours to get from San Francisco to DC by rail even with a very good HSR across America.

How would you move a thousand tons of lumber from the Pacific Northwest to Florida if not by rail?



aquaticko said:


> The classic, American, autocentric model of development never really worked all that well for everyone, always being too expensive in terms of money and other resources. East Asian density--like you see in Tokyo, Seoul, and Singapore--paired with Western-quality institutions (at least as they are idealized to be) will be what makes urban areas in the 21st century.


This is the issue that people seem to miss with public transport. Transit advocates seem to believe that Europe and Asia are urbanized because they have good public transport. It is exactly the opposite. Europe and Asia have good public transit because they have dense urban areas that are close enough to each other that HSR provides faster connection than aircraft do.


----------



## aquaticko

1. Okay....but I'm sure I'm not shedding new light by saying that public transit is much, much more efficient than cars in every way.
2. People adjust their schedules to what transit needs of them. E.g., getting from my hometown of Manchester, NH takes--without traffic-- to Boston takes about an hour. However, people know that congestion is bad enough to often double that, and so will leave here two hours before they need to be there. If you have frequent enough bus or rail service, people can plan to take transit at the appropriate time, for (in the hypothetical that they don't already have a car) much less resource investment than a car necessitates. 

I suppose I'm not advocating for passenger rail vs. freight rail; I'd be thrilled for both. But for whatever reason, people seem to not see the former.

And you can't pretend that it's an entirely one-way street--that good transit only occurs where high population density is. The causal connection there is bidirectional and certainly not fixed; there are many places where transit ought to serve well and doesn't for other reasons, and as evinced by the long-haul Amtrak services, plenty of places where rail transit ought not to be but is (if only just serviceably so).

Really, I'm kind of conflating metro transit and intercity rail AS transit, but they can and do both work best as a single system.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> This is the issue that people seem to miss with public transport. Transit advocates seem to believe that Europe and Asia are urbanized because they have good public transport. It is exactly the opposite. Europe and Asia have good public transit because they have dense urban areas that are close enough to each other that HSR provides faster connection than aircraft do.





aquaticko said:


> 1. Okay....but I'm sure I'm not shedding new light by saying that public transit is much, much more efficient than cars in every way.
> I suppose I'm not advocating for passenger rail vs. freight rail; I'd be thrilled for both. But for whatever reason, people seem to not see the former.
> 
> And you can't pretend that it's an entirely one-way street--that good transit only occurs where high population density is. The causal connection there is bidirectional and certainly not fixed; there are many places where transit ought to serve well and doesn't for other reasons, and as evinced by the long-haul Amtrak services, plenty of places where rail transit ought not to be but is (if only just serviceably so).
> 
> Really, I'm kind of conflating metro transit and intercity rail AS transit, but they can and do both work best as a single system.


One just has to look at Australia, a country which is even thinly populated than the US. Its economy depends on mineral extraction and hence freight railways ae important in order to support such an economy. However all the major Australian metropolitan cities have good dependable commuter train systems and some also have excellent tram/light rail systems. American cities of similar size often have less transit. some Australian states also run regional systems albeit oriented around their capital cities.


----------



## Nacre

aquaticko said:


> 1. Okay....but I'm sure I'm not shedding new light by saying that public transit is much, much more efficient than cars in every way.


I didn't say it wasn't. I was responding to your argument that there is more incentive for passenger rail than freight rail.

Public transport isn't dependent upon rail. There are lots of other options: buses, aerial gondolas, et al. And in fact bicycles are far more energy efficient, healthy, and cheaper than public transit and even faster in most urban areas. Amsterdam has a relatively limited mass transit system for a dense city of its size and the Dutch economy and lifestyle do not suffer from the majority of people in their cities using bikes. 

There isn't a viable alternative to freight rail in North America. The Canadian and American governments are not going to neuter CP, BNSF and Union Pacific in order to institute more passenger traffic by rail. And unfortunately the needs of HSR and freight rail are very different. The freight rail companies want cheap, easily maintained low speed track without the extra expenses needed for HSR.



Smooth Indian said:


> One just has to look at Australia, a country which is even thinly populated than the US. Its economy depends on mineral extraction and hence freight railways ae important in order to support such an economy. However all the major Australian metropolitan cities have good dependable commuter train systems and some also have excellent tram/light rail systems. American cities of similar size often have less transit. some Australian states also run regional systems albeit oriented around their capital cities.


Australia doesn't have HSR either. They have better medium speed rail and commuter rail than North America . . . _and that's precisely what I am arguing for_. We need to set modest, achievable goals for Amtrak and comparing the USA to Japan or France is silly. The Australian comparison is a fair one, and we should aim for similar improvements.

A good example is the use of aircraft style lie-flat seating on the Spirit of Queensland. (They call it RailBed seating.) This would make long distance trips more affordable than Amtrak's roomettes and more comfortable than regular seating.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Nacre said:


> Australia doesn't have HSR either. They have better medium speed rail and commuter rail than North America . . . _and that's precisely what I am arguing for_. We need to set modest, achievable goals for Amtrak and comparing the USA to Japan or France is silly. The Australian comparison is a fair one, and we should aim for similar improvements.


Australia is about 80% the size of the US but has only 7% the population. It is nothing close to an analogous comparison. The reason Australia doesn't have HSR is because there's almost no sufficiently sized cities clustered close enough to connect with an HSR line. The US has no less than 5 or 6 such clusters (Bos-Wash, Chicago spiderweb, Cali, PNW, etc).


----------



## 00Zy99

aquaticko said:


> 1. Okay....but I'm sure I'm not shedding new light by saying that public transit is much, much more efficient than cars in every way.
> 2. People adjust their schedules to what transit needs of them. E.g., getting from my hometown of Manchester, NH takes--without traffic-- to Boston takes about an hour. However, people know that congestion is bad enough to often double that, and so will leave here two hours before they need to be there. If you have frequent enough bus or rail service, people can plan to take transit at the appropriate time, for (in the hypothetical that they don't already have a car) much less resource investment than a car necessitates.


Fact: The run to Concord, NH (which is further than Manchester) was once done in 75 minutes, iirc (90 definitely). Yes, rail can be time-competitive to a surprising degree.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> Australia doesn't have HSR either. They have better medium speed rail and commuter rail than North America . . . _and that's precisely what I am arguing for_. We need to set modest, achievable goals for Amtrak and comparing the USA to Japan or France is silly. The Australian comparison is a fair one, and we should aim for similar improvements.
> 
> A good example is the use of aircraft style lie-flat seating on the Spirit of Queensland. (They call it RailBed seating.) This would make long distance trips more affordable than Amtrak's roomettes and more comfortable than regular seating.


My response was about public transportation in general not needing dense urban cores to be of good quality. A less densely populated country can also have good public transport (particularly rail based) if it gets its policy/priorities/funding right. Big freight railroads need not be an impediment if the public and policy makers are firm on having good quality passenger rail transport including HSR(wherever applicable).



Nacre said:


> This is the issue that people seem to miss with public transport. Transit advocates seem to believe that Europe and Asia are urbanized because they have good public transport. It is exactly the opposite. Europe and Asia have good public transit because they have dense urban areas that are close enough to each other that HSR provides faster connection than aircraft do.


----------



## 00Zy99

Re-checked: Boston to Manchester in 64 minutes in 1957. With modern technology, you could probably shave ten minutes off of that.


----------



## hammersklavier

BoulderGrad said:


> Australia is about 80% the size of the US but has only 7% the population. It is nothing close to an analogous comparison. The reason Australia doesn't have HSR is because there's almost no sufficiently sized cities clustered close enough to connect with an HSR line. The US has no less than 5 or 6 such clusters (Bos-Wash, Chicago spiderweb, Cali, PNW, etc).


But this is making the same mistake that critics do when they claim that the US is not dense enough for modern rail infrastructure: ignoring that Australia's population is not spread in one farmsteader schmear across the Outback but rather concentrated in an urban corridor in the country's southeast, running from Adelaide through Melbourne, Canberra, and Sydney to the Gold Coast and Brisbane. While the region outside of this corridor only has a tiny handful of major conurbations, this corridor _does_ have potential for high speed rail and has been studied for such in the past. Australia is much akin to Canada in that the bulk of its population lives in one relatively small part of the country while the rest is borderline uninhabitable (hot desert, frigid taiga, both yield the same results here).


Nacre said:


> There isn't a viable alternative to freight rail in North America. The Canadian and American governments are not going to neuter CP, BNSF and Union Pacific in order to institute more passenger traffic by rail. And unfortunately the needs of HSR and freight rail are very different. The freight rail companies want cheap, easily maintained low speed track without the extra expenses needed for HSR.


Recall here that historically the same railroads which were the ancestors of modern American and Canadian railroading were on the forefront of high-speed rail. Trains like the Hiawatha routinely ran at 100 mph or better, and first modern trainset in the world was the Burlington Route's Pioneer Zephyr. When one looks at legacy alignments, especially in flatter parts of the country, one sees relatively few impediments to developing HSR in terms of extant line geometry.

And here's the crux of the problem: Higher-speed passenger service is going to require improving corridors shared with freight. There's no two ways around it. For as much of a hassle as dealing with the freight companies is, it's still much easier than trying to lay greenfield rail the way we lay roads. The real political issue is that, if we are going to have good-quality commuter and regional rail (which I completely agree is the precursor to proper HSR) in this country, we are going to either have to work with the freight railroads for our goals (say, with carrots like tax breaks for providing pax slots) or tee off against them.


----------



## Basincreek

Nacre said:


> That's my point.
> 
> For the same amount of money, I would rather have 150 kph regional train lines and better local transit options than spend it all on a 200 kph train line. Getting existing Amtrak services in California up to the standard of the French Intercites (avg roughly 60 mph w/ stops) and then upgrading local transit services like the light rail/trams in Sacramento is a better use of money than building something equivalent to the French TGV.


How do you do that? Take the Central Valley situation we are talking about. You can't upgrade the existing rail lines because their owners, UPRR and BNSF, hate passenger trains on their rail lines and while BNSF currently begrudgingly allows AMTRAK to run some services it does so only so long as it doesn't require any modifications to its infrastructure. 

So, if you want faster passenger trains you are forced to build an entirely new line in its own right of way. If you are already doing that you might as well make it a 200 mph line.


----------



## Nacre

Basincreek said:


> How do you do that?


* signaling upgrades
* eliminate crossings at grade with viaducts and/or bridges
* more passing loops
* build new track to replace sharp curves (like this one)
* battery-electric multiple unit cars for Amtrak
* electrification at railroad stations for recharging BEMU cars

It is much easier to convince freight rail companies to go along with those changes than it is to rebuild entire lines with concrete sleepers, class 6 track, etc.

These upgrades wouldn't be _cheap_ either. I am not suggesting zero government subsidy for Amtrak. I want a very large investment and public subsidy. But this amount of investment is actually feasible; even a blue state like California isn't going to hand Amtrak the blank check it needs to get HSR done.


----------



## prageethSL

Construction of Southern California – Las Vegas high-speed line to start next year



> The approximately 270km line will have a *maximum speed of 290km/h*, Mr Bob O’Malley, Virgin Trains’ vice-president of corporate development, told the Clark County Commission earlier this week, and will run from a station on Las Vegas Boulevard, between Warm Springs and Blue Diamond roads, to Victorville, about 137km northeast of Los Angeles. Future plans would see the line extended to Union Station in central Los Angeles.
> 
> Services will operate at a frequency up to 45 minutes.
> 
> Las Vegas Review-Journal reports Virgin Trains is seeking the backing of the Clark County Commission before going in front of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry next month.
> 
> Virgin Trains USA confirmed in September 2018 that it had acquired XpressWest, which has rights to develop the line, and announced in August it was seeking approval from the states of California and Nevada to raise as much as $US 3.6bn in tax-exempt bonds for the high-speed line.
> 
> California last month approved $US 300m in tax-exempt, private activity bonds to help finance the project.
> 
> Virgin Trains USA currently operates a passenger services between Miami and West Palm Beach in Florida, with an extension to Orlando under construction. A major aspect of Virgin Trains USA’s business plan involves developing retail and office space around the station, and the company plans to emulate this in Las Vegas.


----------



## aquaticko

Nacre said:


> * signaling upgrades
> * eliminate crossings at grade with viaducts and/or bridges
> * more passing loops
> * build new track to replace sharp curves (like this one)
> * battery-electric multiple unit cars for Amtrak
> * electrification at railroad stations for recharging BEMU cars
> 
> It is much easier to convince freight rail companies to go along with those changes than it is to rebuild entire lines with concrete sleepers, class 6 track, etc.
> 
> These upgrades wouldn't be _cheap_ either. I am not suggesting zero government subsidy for Amtrak. I want a very large investment and public subsidy. But this amount of investment is actually feasible; even a blue state like California isn't going to hand Amtrak the blank check it needs to get HSR done.


My only major objection to this approach is that each individual step presents opportunities for delays (of every origin) and cost overruns. If the U.S. is internationally bad at keeping any singular project on time and on budget, then a good way to exacerbate that problem is to create lots of individual projects to accomplish a single goal.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Nacre said:


> * build new track to replace sharp curves (like this one)


Hmm... Ironic example, as that was on a new section of track that was built to help speed up and improve reliability on the Amtrak Cascades line (Point Defiance Bypass).


----------



## Basincreek

Nacre said:


> * signaling upgrades
> * eliminate crossings at grade with viaducts and/or bridges
> * more passing loops
> * build new track to replace sharp curves (like this one)
> * battery-electric multiple unit cars for Amtrak
> * electrification at railroad stations for recharging BEMU cars
> 
> It is much easier to convince freight rail companies to go along with those changes than it is to rebuild entire lines with concrete sleepers, class 6 track, etc.
> 
> These upgrades wouldn't be _cheap_ either. I am not suggesting zero government subsidy for Amtrak. I want a very large investment and public subsidy. But this amount of investment is actually feasible; even a blue state like California isn't going to hand Amtrak the blank check it needs to get HSR done.


Well, let us take Fresno as a case study. Two rail lines traverse it, the BNSF line currently takes Amtrak but it is very curvy and all trains are limited to 25 mph through the city. UPRR has a straight shot but has declared they will never allow passenger trains on their Central Valley tracks. 

So we now have two options: (1)Upgrade the BNSF tracks or (2) build a new rail line. BNSF would welcome a certain number of upgrades but we have the issue that their Central Valley line is very curvy and Fresno is the worst. In order to get even up to 110 mph service you would have to deviate from the existing tracks so much that you are essentially constructing a totally new rail line. Worse you'd be driving it through densely populated working class neighborhoods displacing tens of thousands of financially strapped people. 

Okay, so possibly you could just build an entirely new line and make up for the displacements by moving BNSF to the new line as well and then using their now abandoned right of way to build new housing. What would that cost?

Oh...wait.....CAHSR ended up studying all this when they were planning the Fresno route and determined that it would cost just as much to do that as it would to build a new 200 mph line roughly adjacent to the UPRR on a new right of way. Which is what they ended up building.

Look, if I'm testy it is because I've been intimately involved with the planning from the beginning. I get that people have their own ideas on how it should have been done but I assure you that just about everything was studied and vetted. What ended up happening seemed to be the best value in getting a new electrified passenger rail line in the Central Valley.


----------



## Nacre

BoulderGrad said:


> Hmm... Ironic example, as that was on a new section of track that was built to help speed up and improve reliability on the Amtrak Cascades line (Point Defiance Bypass).


It is a perfect example of how the USA screws up the basics of passenger rail. Fighting between the railroads, congress, Amtrak and the State of Washington meant that we weren't able to deliver on either straightening the track or positive train control. There is massive scope for improvement in rail transit just by fixing very elementary problems.



Basincreek said:


> UPRR has a straight shot but has declared they will never allow passenger trains on their Central Valley tracks.


Congress can use eminent domain to solve that problem if they aren't willing to be reasonable. The courts can force them to accept a fair fee to let Amtrak use their existing track. 

But if government use of a property renders it unfit for the owner, then the gov't has to buy it outright. That's the problem with HSR; to make that kind of drastic change the government would have to buy the freight companies outright because maintaining HSR track isn't compatible with the railroads' business model. (Incidentally the reason this isn't an issue in Japan is that less than 1% of goods are shipped by rail in Japan. It's >15% in the USA.)


----------



## The Polwoman

hammersklavier said:


> But this is making the same mistake that critics do when they claim that the US is not dense enough for modern rail infrastructure: ignoring that Australia's population is not spread in one farmsteader schmear across the Outback but rather concentrated in an urban corridor in the country's southeast, running from Adelaide through Melbourne, Canberra, and Sydney to the Gold Coast and Brisbane. While the region outside of this corridor only has a tiny handful of major conurbations, this corridor _does_ have potential for high speed rail and has been studied for such in the past. Australia is much akin to Canada in that the bulk of its population lives in one relatively small part of the country while the rest is borderline uninhabitable (hot desert, frigid taiga, both yield the same results here).


Yet, the Canadian railways still miss out on a lot of potential, in which services in the Toronto area are still limited (especially compared to Sydney and Melbourne), there's barely any electrified railway line even for commuter rail, while long-distance rail misses out even on large metropolises like Calgary which could easily be connected to Edmonton. Also note that Canada has 1.5x the population of Australia. Meanwhile, Australia, first misses out at Sunshine Coast by a small margin and after that on Hobart which is obviously too far away from the mainland. Both haven't remotely the size of Calgary, or, for my part, Phoenix.

So yes, given that answer of Phoenix, plus a lot of important 50k+-suburbs not being served by railways* the USA seems lagging the most from all of them, especially since it's population density is comparable to Scandinavia where rail connections are excellent. Only in and around a few cities the network is of a high standard, comparable to Australia and some parts of Europe, and better than anywhere in Canada.

_*that 50k population is for my reference. In the Netherlands, we miss out on Oosterhout being the largest city without any rail connection while it easily could have been different with good policy._


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> It is a perfect example of how the USA screws up the basics of passenger rail. Fighting between the railroads, congress, Amtrak and the State of Washington meant that we weren't able to deliver on either straightening the track or positive train control. There is massive scope for improvement in rail transit just by fixing very elementary problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Congress can use eminent domain to solve that problem if they aren't willing to be reasonable. The courts can force them to accept a fair fee to let Amtrak use their existing track.
> 
> But if government use of a property renders it unfit for the owner, then the gov't has to buy it outright. That's the problem with HSR; to make that kind of drastic change the government would have to buy the freight companies outright because maintaining HSR track isn't compatible with the railroads' business model. (Incidentally the reason this isn't an issue in Japan is that less than 1% of goods are shipped by rail in Japan. It's >15% in the USA.)


The Federal Govt can buy the ROW/land on the Main corridors (not all routes) from the railroad companies. It doesn't have to buy the entire company. The railroad companies can continue to exist separately, can maintain their tracks on federal land and own trackage/land apart from the main corridors. Amtrak can then setup its facilities on the main corridors and/or jointly main tracks with the railroad companies.


----------



## Nacre

The Polman said:


> the USA seems lagging the most from all of them, especially since it's population density is comparable to Scandinavia where rail connections are excellent. Only in and around a few cities the network is of a high standard, comparable to Australia and some parts of Europe, and better than anywhere in Canada.


1) I agree that North America has terrible support for rail transport.
2) I do not believe that high speed rail is the solution to this problem.


----------



## NCT

There appear to be lot of opportunities for HSR which would work wonders for reducing air and car traffic. I can see the following lines having the potential of being viable

* Boston - New York - DC 

* New York - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Chicago (branch to Detroit)

* Pittsburgh - Columbus - Indianapolis - St Louis - Kansas City

* Columbus - Cincinnati - Louisville - Nashville

* Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville

* Pittsburgh - DC

New York - Chicago can be done in about 4 hours - city sizes and distances are almost exactly the same as Beijing - Shanghai. This city pair alone should sustain two trains per hour. The New York - Pittsburgh section could sustain up to 10 trains per hour.

Alas pig will probably fly before the US could go through the kind of political sea-change required to make this scale of infrastructure investment happen.


----------



## aquaticko

Nacre said:


> 1) I agree that North America has terrible support for rail transport.
> 2) I do not believe that high speed rail is the solution to this problem.


It may not be *the* solution, and I also agree that urban rail system improvements should come first, and that operations practices and bureaucratic issues greatly (probably most significantly) inhibit railways working in the U.S. 

However, I do believe that we shouldn't _not_ pursue avenues of short-term improvement that are contiguous with long-term improvements. That includes building high-speed rail.


----------



## Smooth Indian

NCT said:


> There appear to be lot of opportunities for HSR which would work wonders for reducing air and car traffic. I can see the following lines having the potential of being viable
> 
> * Boston - New York - DC
> 
> * New York - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Chicago (branch to Detroit)
> 
> * Pittsburgh - Columbus - Indianapolis - St Louis - Kansas City
> 
> * Columbus - Cincinnati - Louisville - Nashville
> 
> * Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville
> 
> * Pittsburgh - DC
> 
> New York - Chicago can be done in about 4 hours - city sizes and distances are almost exactly the same as Beijing - Shanghai. This city pair alone should sustain two trains per hour. The New York - Pittsburgh section could sustain up to 10 trains per hour.


Something like the NE corridor can be created along these corridors. It can be quadruple track in and around metropolitan areas and double track in exurban-rural areas. It can support both intercity/high speed trains as well as regional trains (commuter services in quadruple sections). Even the California, Texas, Southeast, Florida, Southwest and Pacific Northwest corridors can be developed similarly.


----------



## NCT

If you are going to do high speed rail you either do it properly or you don't do it at all.

The operating requirements of high speed passenger trains and freight is so different, the two just don't lend themselves to sharing infrastructure.

If the objective is to remove air travel (I know, we are talking about the US here, but even so), then given the distances between major cities, you'd want to build your high speed infrastructure to be as straight and as fast as possible. High speed trains would only serve a small number of big cities, which means most of the infrastructure should go through the countryside rather than through the centres of town and small cities along the way. I see absolutely no advantage in new tracks following the alignment of existing ones.

If you compromise on track geometry and have passenger services sharing tracks with freight, then there is no cat in hell's chance of achieving a 2-tph 4-hr journey time service between New York and Chicago.


----------



## mgk920

NCT said:


> If you are going to do high speed rail you either do it properly or you don't do it at all.
> 
> The operating requirements of high speed passenger trains and freight is so different, the two just don't lend themselves to sharing infrastructure.
> 
> If the objective is to remove air travel (I know, we are talking about the US here, but even so), then given the distances between major cities, you'd want to build your high speed infrastructure to be as straight and as fast as possible. High speed trains would only serve a small number of big cities, which means most of the infrastructure should go through the countryside rather than through the centres of town and small cities along the way. I see absolutely no advantage in new tracks following the alignment of existing ones.
> 
> If you compromise on track geometry and have passenger services sharing tracks with freight, then there is no cat in hell's chance of achieving a 2-tph 4-hr journey time service between New York and Chicago.


Any intermediate stations also have to be set up so that trains that are running 'express' (non-stop between their terminal stations) can safely blow through them at full track speed. *Any* stops along their ways will render them non-competitive with airlines.

Also, it is likely a good idea to have periodic crossovers with conventional surface lines for use as needed, like with the French TGV.

Remember, too, that a 350 km/h (220 MPH) track speed requires a 7000 m (+/- 4 miles) minimum horizontal curve radius and a similarly gradual minimum vertical curve radius. An acceptable ROW for this is much more difficult to locate than would be one for a new highway that is built to 'interstate' design standards, especially in urbanized areas.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

NCT said:


> If you are going to do high speed rail you either do it properly or you don't do it at all.


Part of the problem may simply be in defining what counts as high speed rail.

TGV Paris-Lyon express: 250 kph/155 mph avg
Tokaido Shinkansen (Nozomi): 200 kph/124 mph avg
Tokaido Shinkansen (Kodama): 130 kph/81 mph avg
Amtrak's Acela Express: 108kph/67 mph avg
TER Bourgogne-Franche-Comte: 101.2 kph/63 mph avg
Amtrak's Empire Builder: 72 kph/45 mph avg (from Chicago to Seattle)

The Kodama service on the Tokyo-Osaka line isn't much faster than regional rail or Acela Express anyway. Does it still count as high speed rail?


----------



## Attus

Nacre said:


> defining what counts as high speed rail. (...) Does it still count as high speed rail?


Usually railway lines having a speed of 200 km/h (~ 125 mph) are considered as high speed line. Average speed is heavily influenced by the number of stops, rather than by the speed of the line. So basically it is not a service but a railway line which is considered as high speed, no matter what kind of trains use it.


----------



## Nacre

Attus said:


> Usually railway lines having a speed of 200 km/h (~ 125 mph) are considered as high speed line. Average speed is heavily influenced by the number of stops, rather than by the speed of the line. So basically it is not a service but a railway line which is considered as high speed, no matter what kind of trains use it.


I agree that this is the technical definition, but it is a little silly from the perspective of the traveler.

Acela Express is technically high speed rail as a few parts of the line are capable of 240 kph. But in practice it is only a little faster than French regional lines.


----------



## Stuu

Nacre said:


> The Kodama service on the Tokyo-Osaka line isn't much faster than regional rail or Acela Express anyway. Does it still count as high speed rail?


The Kodama is slow end to end, but it is still very fast between stops, it provides a high speed service for the smaller cities who can then change to faster services for longer journeys. I checked a random pair of kodama stations (Kakekawa to Shizuoka), and the _average_ speed is over 140mph


----------



## NCT

It depends on what your objectives are - providing a serious alternative to air travel should be among the top priorities. Given the size of the US, one should looking to reduce the furthest origin-destination pair to 4-hour and 3-hour journey times. 4 hours is where you make significant inroads to attracting passengers from air; 3 hours is where rail becomes the dominant mode.

Starting from New York, a conventional inter-city rail line will give you a 3-hour journey time to only Pittsburgh, which doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Given the current state of rail infrastructure in America, the threshold for needing new lines is pretty low - even a continuous 100mph operation means your passenger traffic needs to be segregated from freight if you want to run a sensible frequency. Large parts of America's geography is large cities that are relatively far away from each other with not much in between, so finding a relatively straight alignment would be relatively easy.

In the context of radiating out of New York - the difference in prize between a 125mph railway and a 225mph railway is huge.


----------



## Nacre

Even a relatively straight New York - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Columbus - Indy - Chicago route would require the train to travel at 506 kph/319 mph with stops (and perhaps 580 kph/360 mph average speed without stops) to reach Chicago from New York in three hours. We would need to build a fully tunneled maglev line to achieve that. In terms of cost/benefit, it is easier to achieve zero-carbon travel with algae biofuels than it is to build 600 kph rail lines across North America.

I don't think people understand the geographic realities of North America. Traveling in a straight line San Francisco to Washington, DC is farther than London to Tel Aviv. High speed rail simply isn't going to be both cost and time effective over such massive distances.


----------



## snot

Nacre said:


> Even a relatively straight New York - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Columbus - Indy - Chicago route would require the train to travel at 506 kph/319 mph with stops (and perhaps 580 kph/360 mph average speed without stops) to reach Chicago from New York in three hours. We would need to build a fully tunneled maglev line to achieve that. In terms of cost/benefit, it is easier to achieve zero-carbon travel with algae biofuels than it is to build 600 kph rail lines across North America.
> 
> I don't think people understand the geographic realities of North America. Traveling in a straight line San Francisco to Washington, DC is farther than London to Tel Aviv. High speed rail simply isn't going to be both cost and time effective over such massive distances.


A line NYC - Chicago would primarely benefit the stops in between those cities to both mayor centers. Even if NYC Chicago takes 7 hours it will attract many passengers, especially if the train stops in the city center. A train gives much more comfort than a plane.
But I don't want to deny your argument. US is not Europe or East Asia, that doesn't mean it hasn't highspeedrail potential at all. Even a line Boston-Miami could have a huge potential, not for linking both cities but for linking mayor centers in between.


----------



## Rauth98

Really should build an elevated test line from chicago to st louis. Its all flat farmland.


----------



## NCT

Algae biofuels are a damp squib - real-life conversion rates have been far lower than expected, and pretty much all the algae bio-fuel companies have switched to other business activities.

You don't need sub 3 hours - 4 hours between NYC and Chicago is perfectly possible with current HSR technology - you might not achieve dominant market share but you can get around half if you do it right. The market is sufficient to run dedicated non-stop trains (2 per hour) and they will be busy. Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh are also big traffic generators to both NYC and Chicago and these can achieve HSR-monopolising journey times.

And nobody is talking about coast to coast journeys as target markets for HSR.


----------



## Nacre

NCT said:


> Algae biofuels are a damp squib - real-life conversion rates have been far lower than expected, and pretty much all the algae bio-fuel companies have switched to other business activities.


This is almost entirely due to the current cheap cost of non-renewable fuels. If non-renewable fuels had the cost of their carbon capture included in the price, algae fuels would be more affordable than drilling for oil.



NCT said:


> You don't need sub 3 hours - 4 hours between NYC and Chicago is perfectly possible with current HSR technology - you might not achieve dominant market share but you can get around half if you do it right.


Under the most optimistic routing possible the New York to Chicago route through Pennsylvania is 1,390 km long. For a three hour trip that is 463.3_ kph _without_ stops under the most ideal situation possible.

The highest speed achieved by conventional HSR in service is 350 kph.



snot said:


> A line NYC - Chicago would primarely benefit the stops in between those cities to both mayor centers. Even if NYC Chicago takes 7 hours it will attract many passengers, especially if the train stops in the city center. A train gives much more comfort than a plane.


I agree, but that is precisely my point.

I use bicycles and rail for transport in America now, and I don't need Amtrak Cascades to travel at 200+ kph. I only need it to be 140 kph (or 100 kph with stops), offer frequent service times and run on time reliably.


----------



## NCT

Nacre said:


> This is almost entirely due to the current cheap cost of non-renewable fuels. If non-renewable fuels had the cost of their carbon capture included in the price, algae fuels would be more affordable than drilling for oil.


Nope. The land take requirement for algae fuel is pretty much the same as for crop-based bio fuel which is widely accepted as being not very environmentally sustainable at all.



> Under the most optimistic routing possible the New York to Chicago route through Pennsylvania is 1,390 km long. For a three hour trip that is 463.3_ kph _without_ stops under the most ideal situation possible.


Again, whoever said anything about 3 hours? And why is this the most optimistic routing possible? NY - Pittsburg - Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago seems much more obvious to me.


----------



## Aujen

NCT said:


> The operating requirements of high speed passenger trains and freight is so different, the two just don't lend themselves to sharing infrastructure.


Actually it's not that true 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contournement_Nîmes_–_Montpellier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpignan–Barcelona_high-speed_rail_line

(it might be different in the american context though)


----------



## dysharmonica

Gusiluz said:


> The *Barcelona-Perpignan line is partially mixed*: 132 km in Spain from Mollet. From the port of Barcelona to Mollet, freight trains run on conventional mixed gauge lines (with third rail). There is also another mixed gauge section from Girona to Figueres-Vilafant, but it is no longer used for freight trains.
> 
> The Renfe S-103 and SNCF Euroduplex 2N2 3UH trains run at 200 km/h all along the route for the possibility of crossings with freight trains (the line is designed for 300 although the average speed is quite low because it is a very mountainous area), and this despite the fact that only carry containers (at least the ones I know). The distance between the track axles is 4.7 metres.
> They made train crossing tests in 2013 in the section Llinars AV-Viloby d'Onyar (between Mollet and Girona), but nothing changed.
> 
> Apart from the danger of the displacement of the load, there are big differences between the lines for freight and for HST: obviously the speed, mixing trains at 300 and 100 kmh is a bad idea for the latter, you have to make stations with 750 meter tracks, the maintenance has to be much greater, and the technical requirements are completely different: the cant of the curves, the climb of ascent (in HST the percentage can be very high)...


I can confirm this. I rode this line. the trains run at 300 km/h on France, but at 200 km/h in Spain .. and now I know why!


----------



## Jordbcn

.....


----------



## Swede

aquaticko said:


> It's hardly a secret that any NEC capacity constraints are ultimately _way_ more the fault of infrastructure deficiencies than rolling stock. You could put some CHSR CR400's or N700 Shinkansen on there, and things would only change so much; without better track, the real potential of this rail corridor will always be unmet.


If the slowest* parts of the line were upped to even 100mph, that would increase not just speed but also capacity. They'd be able to run more services with the same number of train sets. 


* as in: everywhere the line has a limit under 100, it'd be improved to 100.


----------



## Nacre

Unfortunately even 161 kph/100 mph cannot be supported by the vast majority of the existing track owned by the freight rail companies. The maximum speed allowed for class 5 track in the USA is 145 kph/90 mph.

To achieve HSR I think the USA would need to mass produce tunnel boring machines and build lines separated from freight rail that are tunneled through urban areas. And a fully tunneled maglev line would enable the kind of speed necessary to achieve 3 or 4 hour journeys from New York to Chicago. 400 kph/250 mph cruising speed should be achievable for a fully tunneled maglev line even if it does not travel through a vacuum.


----------



## Bhurki18

Nacre said:


> To achieve HSR I think the USA would need to mass produce tunnel boring machines and build lines separated from freight rail that are tunneled through urban areas. And a fully tunneled maglev line would enable the kind of speed necessary to achieve 3 or 4 hour journeys from New York to Chicago. 400 kph/250 mph cruising speed should be achievable for a fully tunneled maglev line even if it does not travel through a vacuum.


Tunnelling costs $100m/mile even in China. Building entire route through tunnels would make it cost over $100B.


----------



## davide84

400 kph was achieved in China conventional HS network, reduced to 300/320 kph after two trains crashed. Italy's latest HS train run at 396 kph in commercial conditions during the certification.

At the moment it's common opinion that 400 kph is too expensive of a speed for the benefits it provides, at least in Europe.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ In China, HST (CRH380A, B, C and D) were homologated at 380 kmh (418 kmh maintained with a climb gradient of 3 mm), although they did not circulate in commercial service at that speed due to the destitution of the former Minister of Railways. The maximum speed was reduced to 300 kmh (formally, in fact: 309 kmh) until 21 September 2017 when the new Fuxing Hao trains were authorized at 350 kmh.

First there was the change in the _Speed and Price Policy_ of the new minister (April 2011), and then the accident (23 July).


Gusiluz said:


> "Everyone" believes that, but it does not mean it's true. I will with my bad English. Sorry
> 
> Reducing the maximum speed in China and (null) regarding the accident of Wenzhou:
> 
> Following the destitution (February 2011) for corruption of former Minister of Railways, his successor announced in April a change in policy on HSR: the fastest routes will be cut from 350 kph (220 mph) to 300 kph (190 mph) as of July 1, 2011, and the rest of PDL from 250 to 200. The reasons given were: reducing energy consumption, lowering prices to fill the trains and for safety !!. Shortly after, an "adjunct" nuance the words of his boss: the speed reduction would be only on lines with low occupancy and "of course" had nothing to do with security.
> 
> Meanwhile, on June 30, the Beijing-Shanghai line was inaugurated. It is the only projected to 380 km/h, but after many problems during testing was commissioned in 300, announcing the 350 "before year end" and 380 "some time later". In July presented problems of signaling and problems with the new CRH380A trains.
> July 1 became effective speed reduction on lines with low occupancy.
> 23 of the same month the accident Wenzhou. In this accident he had nothing to do speed, so they have told: there was a storm, the first train (CRH1B # 46) stopped by a failure in a substation, signals broke down, it was getting dark ... and the second train ( the CRH2E No. 139, both entitled to 250 km/h) hit the first train.
> 
> In that vein, the SE Coastal PDL, full speed before July 1 was 250, and at that time was reduced, so the accident occurred in a limited line to 200 km/h. I do not know how fast the scope occurred, although it would not be too high: they derailed the last 2 and the first 4 cars; the problem is that it was on a viaduct and 3 of them fell into the void.
> 
> After the accident the maximum speed of 350 km/h was not reduced immediately, but in stages: during August fell at least between Beijing and Tianjin (the 16), Shanghai-Hangzhou and Wuhan-Guangzhou (the 28). Also in August, but nothing seems to indicate a relationship, all trains were CRH380A to factory to make changes, since continued to fail.
> 
> Sources (in English, although the entrance is in Spanish: Alta velocidad ferroviaria en China)


Sources:
«China's former Railways Minister Liu Zhijun receives suspended death sentence for bribery and corruption The Independent».
«China slows down showcase bullet trains Bloomberg April 13, 2011».
«World's longest high-speed train to decelerate a bit People Daily April 15, 2011».
«The Backlash Is Brewing Against Chinese High-Speed Rail: Here's Why It's In Trouble Business Insider April 17, 2011».
«China slows down showcase bullet trains Bloomberg Businessweek April 17, 2011».
«China not slowing high-speed rail construction Chinadaily.com.cn June 7, 2011».
«China train crash: officials blame signal flaw Reuters 28 Jul 2011».


----------



## Qtya

*Texas Central selects railway systems supplier*

TEXAS Central, which is developing a new high-speed railway between Dallas and Houston, has signed an early contract involvement agreement with Mass Electric Construction for installation of all necessary power, signalling and communications equipment for the 385km project.

Under the contract, the Kiewit subsidiary will define the scope, execution plan, schedule and price for *a design-build contract, which is expected to be signed by the end of the year.*

...

From the beginning of the project, construction on which is expected to start next year, everything – the trains, infrastructure, and supporting high-speed technologies – is designed to work together as an integrated unit, mirroring the approach used on Japanese Shinkansen lines.

Central Japan Railway (JR Central) is a financial backer of the Texas project and the US railway is based on the Tokaido Shinkansen. The 320km/h line will deploy rolling stock based on the railway’s latest mode, the N700s, which is scheduled to enter service in Japan next summer.

*Texas Central awarded a design-build contract for the $US 20bn project to Salini Impregilo and its US subsidiary Lane Construction in September.*

...

https://www.railjournal.com/news/texas-central-selects-railway-systems-supplier/


----------



## Nacre

Bhurki18 said:


> Tunnelling costs $100m/mile even in China. Building entire route through tunnels would make it cost over $100B.


In 1900 mass tourism by aircraft was too expensive. In 2100 we may be able to mass produce automated tunnel boring machines and track-laying machines to construct a fully tunneled line at much lower cost than today's construction costs.

The problem for the USA and Canada is simple. The distances traveled are not suitable for conventional HSR as it exists today. HSR outcompetes private motor vehicles and aircraft over distances of 150-700 km. But long distance passengers in North America travel further than this. Getting North Americans to use rail instead of aircraft for trips like New York to Chicago will require more advanced technology than conventional high speed rail.

In the short term I think it is wisest for North America to continue to build better urban transit systems with modest investment in intercity rail to bring Amtrak and Via Rail up to the standard of Duetsche Bahn's Intercity or SNCF's Intercites.


----------



## mgk920

In 1900 air travel was impossible - the Wright Brothers' first successful three-axis controlled powered flight was in 1903.

Scheduled common carrier passenger aviation wasn't started until the late 1920s.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

Of course you're right. I was thinking aircraft were developed in the 1890's since military aircraft were used in WW1.

But the point stands. What is not feasible today may become feasible later.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> The problem for the USA and Canada is simple. The distances traveled are not suitable for conventional HSR as it exists today. HSR outcompetes private motor vehicles and aircraft over distances of 150-700 km. But long distance passengers in North America travel further than this. Getting North Americans to use rail instead of aircraft for trips like New York to Chicago will require more advanced technology than conventional high speed rail.


A lot of American long-distance journeys are made in the 150-700 km range. A hypothetical NYC-Chicago would still cover multiple city pairs. Noto everyone has to travel from NYC to Chicago to make it feasible. As long as the combination of individual journey lengths is sufficient the HSR link will endure. And some some would still prefer to travel end-to-end on the train.


----------



## davide84

Nacre said:


> But the point stands. What is not feasible today may become feasible later.


Just as a side note, I wouldn't say it's necessarily a general rule. Sometimes there is a huge room for improvement on the technology side and a new market can flourish (steam power, flights, personal computers...) but some other times technology is kind of established but the concept is just not winning because of many other factors (think of supersonic flight). Technology is just one variable in the equation, altough very important.

There's also another side of the story: even when assuming technological advancement makes all the difference, advancements can happen in different directions than expected. Computer forecasts in the '40s were based on improvements in vacuum tube technology, then the transistor arrived. In the '70s it looked like rail had reached an end and maglev was the way to go with just a little more research, in 2019 maglev is there and works but 99% of high speed trains are still build on rails.
In our example tunnel boring might become cheaper due to automation, but track laying and viaduct building might become even cheaper due to similar research, keeping tunnels as the less convenient options.

All this does not say where US rail is going, I'm just inviting you to consider many variables when looking forward


----------



## prageethSL

Latest renderings of the three Texas High speed rail stations has been released







































> Texas Central says the concepts are the result of $3 million of engineering work and represent the best visualizations to date of how the project might look.


----------



## prageethSL

Early construction work for the Texas high speed rail has begun. 



> Work is moving ahead on the planned high-speed train between Dallas and Houston.
> Texas Central, the private company behind the project, said it is essentially ready to begin construction."It is shovel ready without a doubt," CEO Carlos Aguilar said.
> In offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, approximately 250 people are working on the project. Crews are also busy doing some early work in the field.
> "The logistics involved are just monumental," Aguilar said.
> 
> Aguilar showed NBC 5 the newest conceptual renderings of the train system's three stations in Dallas, Grimes County and Houston. They are more than ideas from an artist's imagination.
> There's more than $3 million worth of engineering backing the designs," Aguilar said.
> 
> The train itself is taking shape. It is the newest version of the famous Japanese Shinkansen bullet train.
> 
> Engineers are busy customizing the technology for Texas.
> 
> For instance, they've made adjustments to account for the heat of Dallas and the humidity of Houston. They've also made the seats more comfortable for passengers in the U.S.
> 
> *Out in the field, crews are doing early work to prepare for construction of the viaducts and earthen berms that will support the tracks along its entire 240-mile route.*
> They are taking hundreds of soil samples that will help engineers design structures that will remain sturdy for at least a century.
> 
> The project still faces hurdles. Texas Central is waiting on green lights from the federal government.
> 
> The company must also finish acquiring land and financing. And there are ongoing legal battles with opponents of the train. But Aguilar remains confident.
> 
> "I still can say we're absolutely sure it's going to happen," he said.
> 
> Texas Central hopes to break ground as soon as June of next year.
> 
> It would be approximately six years before the first passengers could take the high-speed train between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> The trip would take 90 minutes at a speed of nearly 200 mph.


----------



## mgk920

Will this intermediate station be set so as to allow trains that are running 'express' (non-stop between the two terminal stations) to safely blow through it at full track speed?

BTW, 90 minutes between the terminals would certainly be competitive with airlines.

:yes:

Mike


----------



## ArtManDoo

Congrats!

Finally more than one corridor for modern HS service to be under construction very soon in US.


----------



## Basincreek

Nacre said:


> Congress can use eminent domain to solve that problem if they aren't willing to be reasonable. The courts can force them to accept a fair fee to let Amtrak use their existing track.


That will happen when pigs fly. Even if you could get the House to support rail passenger transport the Senate (controlled by mostly empty Republican states) would never ever allow it _even if all the studies said they should_ because they are much more interested in being mean to liberals.

The states are on their own here and have to do what is within their control. This, at the moment, means pretending the existing rail lines don't exist and building mostly new.


----------



## Anday

*Virgin Trains updates timeline for Las Vegas-to-Southern Cal train*




> While construction on the long-talked about high-speed train between Las Vegas and Southern California is slated to begin next year, work probably won’t start in Nevada until the following year.
> 
> Virgin Trains USA could break ground in the second half of 2020 on the 170-mile route between Southern Nevada and the Victor Valley area of Southern California, according to Ben Porritt, Virgin Trains spokesman.


----------



## UrbanImpact

ArtManDoo said:


> Congrats!
> 
> Finally more than one corridor for modern HS service to be under construction very soon in US.


There will be three - Acela in the North East, Virgin in Florida, and now Texas.


----------



## fkus

UrbanImpact said:


> There will be three - Acela in the North East, Virgin in Florida, and now Texas.




Do not forget the Las Vegas - South California!


----------



## Gusiluz

*Texas Central, Lone Star HSR*

The Spanish operator Renfe will operate the first HSR in America from 2026 to 2042 after one year as a consultant


----------



## Sunfuns

I hope it really does get built, but I'm not yet 99% convinced it will.


----------



## UrbanImpact

Gusiluz said:


> The Spanish operator Renfe will operate the first HSR in America from 2026 to 2042 after one year as a consultant


How is Texas the first HSR in America??? Especially in 2026?


----------



## Nacre

Basincreek said:


> That will happen when pigs fly. Even if you could get the House to support rail passenger transport the Senate (controlled by mostly empty Republican states) would never ever allow it _even if all the studies said they should_ because they are much more interested in being mean to liberals.
> 
> The states are on their own here and have to do what is within their control. This, at the moment, means pretending the existing rail lines don't exist and building mostly new.


I don't know if this is really true. The biggest beneficiaries of Amtrak's long distance services are red states that don't have the population to support high volume air service. It is really expensive to fly out of small city airports like Fargo or Jackson. From a purely economic perspective blue states need long distance rail services much less than red states do.

Taxing the coastal blue states to fund the manufacturing of hybrid electric rolling stock built in red states (Motive Power, GE, et al) to provide improved transportation services for red states should be an easy sell for the Republicans.

Right now Republican reps try to have their cake and eat it too by cutting Amtrak's funding yet still requiring it to operate loss-making routes to their states. But if faced with the withdrawal of rail service for their constituents, I think their attitude would quickly change.


----------



## aquaticko

So, what I'm hearing is that service in the populated areas will continue to be dragged down (dysfunctional organizational structures aside) by having to pay for service to the exact constituents who deride us "urbanites" for taking "socialist" trains that _they_ disproportionately benefit from?

....I'm getting really tired of having to protect half of America from itself.


----------



## Smooth Indian

aquaticko said:


> So, what I'm hearing is that service in the populated areas will continue to be dragged down (dysfunctional organizational structures aside) by having to pay for service to the exact constituents who deride us "urbanites" for taking "socialist" trains that _they_ disproportionately benefit from?
> 
> ....I'm getting really tired of having to protect half of America from itself.


And the ones defending the long distance rail services would also be left-liberals.:nuts:

This is comic on many levels.


----------



## Sunfuns

I suspect they are going to sue, sue and sue again until the costs are double and no stinking railway runs between Dallas and Houston. Not in my back yard - a glorious American tradition...

https://texasmonitor.org/high-speed...s-private-records-and-public-land-grab-power/

It being a privately financed project will make no difference whatsoever.


----------



## Nacre

aquaticko said:


> So, what I'm hearing is that service in the populated areas will continue to be dragged down (dysfunctional organizational structures aside) by having to pay for service to the exact constituents who deride us "urbanites" for taking "socialist" trains that _they_ disproportionately benefit from?


Maybe not for long.

Amtrak makes money on shorter routes in densely populated areas like the Acela Express and Cascades. (I think some Californian services might be profitable too but haven't checked.) It loses massive gobs of money operating long distance routes.

So the natural result of forcing Amtrak to operate as a profit-making enterprise is that it is currently trying to ditch its unprofitable long distance routes. And right now Republican leadership agrees with them. But many Republican congressional reps and senators serve districts without affordable air service, and thus may vote in favor of subsidies for Amtrak if faced with the reality that they either have to vote for subsidies or rail service will be withdrawn from their constituents.


----------



## Dale

Sunfuns said:


> I suspect they are going to sue, sue and sue again until the costs are double and no stinking railway runs between Dallas and Houston. Not in my back yard - a glorious American tradition...
> 
> https://texasmonitor.org/high-speed...s-private-records-and-public-land-grab-power/
> 
> It being a privately financed project will make no difference whatsoever.


If the Florida experience is any indication, lawsuits will delay timeline, but will ultimately be beaten down.


----------



## Sunfuns

Dale said:


> If the Florida experience is any indication, lawsuits will delay timeline, but will ultimately be beaten down.


How much new greenfield construction was carried out in Florida?


----------



## mgk920

Basincreek said:


> That will happen when pigs fly. Even if you could get the House to support rail passenger transport the Senate (controlled by mostly empty Republican states) would never ever allow it _even if all the studies said they should_ because they are much more interested in being mean to liberals.
> 
> The states are on their own here and have to do what is within their control. This, at the moment, means pretending the existing rail lines don't exist and building mostly new.


The logical breakdown, and remember that my general lines are a melding of (small 'c') conservative and (small 'l') libertarian, is that all of the other transport modes relay on what some would call 'socialistic' and what I call 'public goods' infrastructure - public roads (trucking and bus companies), airports (airlines), seaports, etc.

Rail in North America, and yes, Canada is included here, would be vastly different today if it also operated in that same manner, with train operations being completely separate from the infrastructure.

Mike


----------



## Jordbcn

Sunfuns said:


> How much new greenfield construction was carried out in Florida?


I could see last week, just paralel to existing track between Vero Beach and Melbourne, works in progress. Had no phone at that moment but since I suspect that no plans to double track the area are layed, I believe that works belong to Brightline extension from West Palm Beach to Orlando.

About results in courts, the cities of Vero Beach and Stuart, after battling during four years the extension to Orlando - and spending some millions of USD from the taxpayer with zero results after being defeated in court- only the former continues ramming against the wall, while the later has applied to Brightline to get a station there.

Miracle!!


----------



## davide84

I think it's good news. The time saved with High Speed makes more sense when transportation is integrated at destination.


> Tri-Rail will open a 14.5km extension to connect with the Virgin Trains USA’s Miami Central station in the autumn.
> https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/commuter-rail/tri-rail-notches-ridership-record/


----------



## urbanflight

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216449048112091137


----------



## zergcerebrates

Any news regarding to the proposed HSR for the Cascadia Region? Oregon, Seattle and Vancouver?


----------



## Smooth Indian

davide84 said:


> I think it's good news. The time saved with High Speed makes more sense when transportation is integrated at destination.


It would make sense if VirginUSA would extend some services to Miami. Similarly the Texas Central Railway should work with transit agencies/railroad companies to extend services to downtown Dallas and downtown Houston.


----------



## davide84

I guess the point was the opposite: as long as there is interchange with local services, the high speed companies do not need to extend their services to already covered areas.

Unless I got it wrong, and the current Virgin terminal in Miami is not really useful even with TriRail connection... I'm not that of an expert of Florida  From Google Maps it looks like from Miami Central you can walk to Government Center and there take some MetroMover to downtown; TriRail extension will cover the connection with the north-west quadrant.


----------



## BoulderGrad

zergcerebrates said:


> Any news regarding to the proposed HSR for the Cascadia Region? Oregon, Seattle and Vancouver?


No. WSDOT puts out a yearly study. That is all.


----------



## Smooth Indian

davide84 said:


> I guess the point was the opposite: as long as there is interchange with local services, the high speed companies do not need to extend their services to already covered areas.
> 
> Unless I got it wrong, and the current Virgin terminal in Miami is not really useful even with TriRail connection... I'm not that of an expert of Florida  From Google Maps it looks like from Miami Central you can walk to Government Center and there take some MetroMover to downtown; TriRail extension will cover the connection with the north-west quadrant.


The high speed companies need not extend all services into city centers. Having some key services from downtown will make the high speed services more attractive to customers.


----------



## 00Zy99

The track banking is one of the reasons that most intercity passenger trains today are slower than they were before Amtrak. 

Taking the Chicago & Northwestern and Illinois Central East-West routes across northern Illinois as an example, the trains on those lines used to hit 90+ mph routinely. But once passenger trains were withdrawn, maintenance could be downgraded, restricting the freight trains to little more than half that.

When they ran their own passenger trains, the railroads kept the tracks set up for the higher speeds because they had a stake in keeping the schedules tight.

But the more banked a track is, the worse it is for freight, increasing wear on wheels and rails. 

But when Amtrak came along, the railroads no longer had anything like the same obligation to maintain schedules, so all of the curves were flattened out to make them more suitable for slower freight traffic.


----------



## M-NL

00Zy99 said:


> But the more banked a track is, the worse it is for freight, increasing wear on wheels and rails.


Banking is always a compromise, so worse is a misnomer here. Too little will cause extra wear on the outer rail and limit cornering speeds for fast trains. Too much will cause extra wear on the inner rail and cause problems for slow or stopped trains.

Is anybody surprised that railroads optimise their infrastructure for their purposes (and not for 'guest users')? I'm not.


----------



## Suburbanist

Are you talking about superelevation or cant deficiency?


----------



## M-NL

Yes, both cant deficiency and excess actually.


----------



## Swede

M-NL said:


> Banking is always a compromise, so worse is a misnomer here. Too little will cause extra wear on the outer rail and limit cornering speeds for fast trains. Too much will cause extra wear on the inner rail and cause problems for slow or stopped trains.


This is one of the reasons that having separate tracks for the slower & heavier freight trains and for the fast & lighter passenger express trains is great.


----------



## GreenHornet553

@Swede

Yes but the questions with building all of the tracks will always be where will it go, how long will it take and how much will it cost, especially in the case of Amtrak.

It's easy to say that he best way to fix the issues with rail transport is to build new rail links but the sad thing is space is becoming a factor to get said projects done so that a company like Amtrak doesn't have to rely on freight rails they don't directly control, never mind having to work in a way that doesn't violate property rights. Now one thing that could work in their favor when making these new rail lines is building it all along the interstate highway route map as there is a decent amount of space to construct it in between existing road networks and possibly reduce traffic and commute times without people upsetting their patterns and habits too drastically. But then the issue of cost comes into play. And with the California High Speed Rail project going slower than drying paint and costing treasure troves of gold to get done, it would take a lot to convince people that high speed rail is the answer. 

It's why I hope that the private high speed rail projects like Virgin Rail USA and Texas Central Rail succeed.


----------



## Nacre

GreenHornet553 said:


> It's easy to say that he best way to fix the issues with rail transport is to build new rail links but the sad thing is space is becoming a factor to get said projects done so that a company like Amtrak doesn't have to rely on freight rails they don't directly control, never mind having to work in a way that doesn't violate property rights.


This is an issue that many transit advocates don't seem to understand.

NIMBYs in the greater Vancouver area have pushed to keep Amtrak Cascades very, very slow through their neighborhoods because they don't want to be bothered with vibrations and noise. If we can't convince people in suburban Canada to accept low speed rail how will they react to 80+ decibel high speed trains?

Getting public works projects done in Common Law countries like the UK, USA and Canada is a lot harder than in countries like China or France where the central government has more authority to push through locally unpopular policies.

Razing homes to make way for infrastructure projects is very difficult here even when that project serves the established transportation system. Just look at the third runway for Heathrow, or the nearly two decades it took to built the third runway at SeaTac. Tearing down homes for railways when 99% of the population does not use rail transport is just that much harder.


----------



## davide84

I agree in general but I also think that the issues of noise, vibrations and "razing homes" are overestimated or at least misrepresented. E.g. the transit of passenger trains is usually relatively quiet and can be mostly compensated, provided that the rail infrastructure is not crap. I can only imagine the situation of Amtrak Cascades, but modern passenger trains on good maintained lines usually pass with a distinct but totally bearable "whooosh".


----------



## luacstjh98

davide84 said:


> I agree in general but I also think that the issues of noise, vibrations and "razing homes" are overestimated or at least misrepresented. E.g. the transit of passenger trains is usually relatively quiet and can be mostly compensated, provided that the rail infrastructure is not crap. I can only imagine the situation of Amtrak Cascades, but modern passenger trains on good maintained lines usually pass with a distinct but totally bearable "whooosh".


Well, it's an issue in Japan too.

The Shinkansen is only limited to ~110kph around Tokyo for noise reasons, apparently due to vibrations from trains passing the structure.


----------



## MrAronymous

Amtrak Acela Alstom Avelia Liberty says hi


----------



## Tower Dude

Wow, I cannot wait to see her at speed. It's going to be incredible.


----------



## urbanflight

Those trains are fossil fuel powered?! :no:


----------



## lunarwhite

urbanflight said:


> Those trains are fossil fuel powered?! :no:


No, they are electric like the current Acela trains. This train is being moved with diesel locomotives from the factory in New York to the test track in Colorado. In the video the paragraph is fully retracted or will be installed in Colorado.


----------



## urbanflight

^^

It's nice to know. It could have been infuriating if those new trains were fossil fuel powered. But it's frustrating to see that there still are large unelectrified rail tracks.


----------



## mgk920

Well, 'electric' could very well be 'fossil fuel' powered.

Mike


----------



## prageethSL

Why they couldn't streamline the power units with passenger coaches?
The power units look like they don't belong on the rest of the train.hno:


----------



## M-NL

urbanflight said:


> But it's frustrating to see that there still are large unelectrified rail tracks.


They always quote the large distances and the dual stack container trains in the USA as the main reason for that. The Trans-Siberian railway is the longest railway line in the world and is electrified. In India they run dual stack container trains on regular flatbed cars (instead of well cars!) with electric traction. Granted, it looks a bit weird because of the long pantograph, but still, the USA is running out of excuses not to do the same.


----------



## Suburbanist

The Seattle-to-Minneapolis transcontinental route was once electrified, I think, but electrification was removed in the 1970s. 

A random pic I found on Wikimedia


----------



## mgk920

The entire Milwaukee Road route was not electrified, only a few parts in the mountains. Much of that route was fully abandoned in about 1980.

BNSF's former Great Northern Cascade Tunnel line was electrified between Wenatchee and Skykomish, WA until the tunnel was ventilated in in 1956.

Mike


----------



## M-NL

mgk920 said:


> The entire Milwaukee Road route was not electrified, only a few parts in the mountains.


And that should be good a strategy to start from. With todays dual mode locomotives, with the Stadler Euro Dual as a good example of what is possible, they packed 6 MW of electric and 2.8 MW of diesel power into a 120 metric ton european loading gauge locomotive. Imagine what you could build if you have the US loading gauge and 200 metric tons to play with.

Start of with putting overhead lines where you need the power, like steep slopes and around yards for getting trains up to speed, and run the flat sections on diesel. The fact that you can also feed the regenerative brake power back into the overhead lines is an added bonus.


----------



## MarcVD

mgk920 said:


> The entire Milwaukee Road route was not electrified, only a few parts in the mountains. Much of that route was fully abandoned in about 1980.
> 
> BNSF's former Great Northern Cascade Tunnel line was electrified between Wenatchee and Skykomish, WA until the tunnel was ventilated in in 1956.
> 
> Mike


Two sections of the Milwaukee road, one at the east of the line, and the other one at the west, were electrified, for a total of more than 1000 km under wire. The decision to scrap it is today considered as one of the worst ever made, and directly led to the bankruptcy of the company.

There were other examples of electrified tunnels, like Hoosac tunnel on the Boston & Maine.


----------



## TER200

M-NL said:


> And that should be good a strategy to start from. With todays dual mode locomotives, with the Stadler Euro Dual as a good example of what is possible, they packed 6 MW of electric and 2.8 MW of diesel power into a 120 metric ton european loading gauge locomotive. Imagine what you could build if you have the US loading gauge and 200 metric tons to play with.
> 
> Start of with putting overhead lines where you need the power, like steep slopes and around yards for getting trains up to speed, and run the flat sections on diesel. The fact that you can also feed the regenerative brake power back into the overhead lines is an added bonus.


For heavy, slow trains the limit for modern locomotives is tractive effort, not much power. 
Should you double the power of a locomotive, it would still not allow to increase the mass of the train it pulls because this is only limited by the tractive effort, which is basically proportional to the locomotive's weight.
The Eurodual won't haul more than the Euro4001, it will just be faster.

In Europe we need power to move the freight trains fast (well, I mean not too slowly) in order to mix with faster passenger trains. In America, the railways are only oriented towards freight, and they are good at it. Railways probably calculated the investment for electrification (including in many deserted places where you need to build the power lines also) does not pay off.


----------



## krnboy1009

I believe only electrified railroads thats not rapid transit or light rail, thats outside Northeast USA, is Metra Electric/North Shore line, Denver airport line, and soon Caltrain.


----------



## mgk920

MarcVD said:


> Two sections of the Milwaukee road, one at the east of the line, and the other one at the west, were electrified, for a total of more than 1000 km under wire. The decision to scrap it is today considered as one of the worst ever made, and directly led to the bankruptcy of the company.
> 
> There were other examples of electrified tunnels, like Hoosac tunnel on the Boston & Maine.


IIRC, in the late 1960s, General Electric offered to upgrade the MILW's electrification from their old 3kVDC to a more modern 25kVAC(?), connect the two separate sections and extend it eastward as far as perhaps their major shop yard at Miles City, MT _at their expense_. Just imagine how well they would have been set when the Arab Oil Embargo hit in 1973 had they accepted GE's offer....

:shocked:

Mike


----------



## Smooth Indian

TER200 said:


> For heavy, slow trains the limit for modern locomotives is tractive effort, not much power.
> Should you double the power of a locomotive, it would still not allow to increase the mass of the train it pulls because this is only limited by the tractive effort, which is basically proportional to the locomotive's weight.
> The Eurodual won't haul more than the Euro4001, it will just be faster.
> 
> In Europe we need power to move the freight trains fast (well, I mean not too slowly) in order to mix with faster passenger trains. In America, the railways are only oriented towards freight, and they are good at it. Railways probably calculated the investment for electrification (including in many deserted places where you need to build the power lines also) does not pay off.





krnboy1009 said:


> I believe only electrified railroads thats not rapid transit or light rail, thats outside Northeast USA, is Metra Electric/North Shore line, Denver airport line, and soon Caltrain.


I suppose electrification can begin with the commuter regions which are also huge metropolitan areas. Commuter networks need to be expanded and electrified. Once electrification is prevalent in the metro areas it can expand across states/regions.


----------



## Arnorian

All of the US infrastructure is in stupor. A world superpower unable to build one vital replacement tunnel under the Hudson. Gods, it will be a sh*t show when the existing one fails.


----------



## Nacre

Smooth Indian said:


> I suppose electrification can begin with the commuter regions which are also huge metropolitan areas. Commuter networks need to be expanded and electrified. Once electrification is prevalent in the metro areas it can expand across states/regions.


Economically it simply does not make sense for full electrification of a >1,000 km long line that hosts one passenger train per day each direction.

For example at roughly $100,000 / km to install electrical wiring along a single track, it would cost a minimum of $392.4 million to electrify the California Zephyr's 3,924 km route from San Francisco to Chicago. With an annual ridership of 417,322 passengers, if we spread the cost of the upgrade over ten years, it would cost $94.03 per passenger even before we consider maintenance costs. For the average passenger traveling from San Francisco to Reno or Denver to Vail that would roughly double the ticket price and make it much cheaper to drive a car instead of using rail.

It simply is not possible to support electrification over the long routes Amtrak is forced to serve without very heavy government subsidy. And since the government wants to cut the relatively meager subsidies they already provide that isn't likely to happen.


----------



## prageethSL

First Look: Texas High-Speed Train’s Interiors








































> No worries about getting stuck in one of those dreaded middle seats on the high-speed train connecting Dallas and Houston. Texas Central has released details about seating configurations on its planned trains, and the cars feature either two-seat doubles or a double and a single. (See renderings below.)
> 
> Dallas-based Texas Central is customizing Central Japan Railway’s Shinkansen N700S, making its debut this year. The company says the layout will provide travelers with an extra foot of legroom when compared to flying coach. Here are more details:
> 
> Interior features onboard the train cars include:
> 
> Two classes of service: 2/2 and 2/1 seat configuration
> Free Wi-Fi: Integrated, high-speed wi-fi to provide the fastest, most reliable wireless connection of any train in the world
> The ability to configure some of the 8-cars to “quiet cars” using variable lighting and restrictions on cell phone usage
> Full access for all: the train will meet or exceed all ADA specifications
> 
> First-class comfort, with even more space:
> 
> Wide aisles: 32 inches (wider than a regional jet)
> Ample space: 32 inches of legroom and 41-inch seat pitch (nearly two feet of total added space compared to flying First Class)
> A great view from any seat: 20-inch x 20.5-inch windows (twice the width of airplane windows)
> 
> Additionally, Texas Central says all seats will recline and are “optimized to offer the best recline without disturbing the passenger in the rear.” That should prevent another one of those polarizing Twitter wars.
> 
> The company recently inked a preconstruction contract with a Kiewit Corp. subsidiary. The high-speed rail is projected to generate $36 billion in economic benefits statewide over the next 25 years, creating 10,000 direct jobs per year during peak construction and 1,500 permanent jobs when fully operational.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1230465096079609856


----------



## M-NL

Nacre said:


> Economically it simply does not make sense for full electrification of a >1,000 km long line that hosts one passenger train per day each direction.


How about electric traction for all those freight trains on the same route?


----------



## RyukyuRhymer

hi prageeth, mind if i repost it in the Japan section?


----------



## cheehg

M-NL said:


> How about electric traction for all those freight trains on the same route?


It may limit the capacity of the freight. They couldn't use double stack container trains.


----------



## Stuu

cheehg said:


> It may limit the capacity of the freight. They couldn't use double stack container trains.


Why not? India does


----------



## mgk920

Stuu said:


> Why not? India does


There is only so much available vertical space between the rails and the top of an existing tunnel or other overhead structure (ie, a bridge). Several major tunnels (ie, BNSF's ex GN Cascade tunnel) had to be 'notched' to clear double stacked containers with ventilated diesel locomotives. They would have to add perhaps as much as a meter of additional vertical clearance to safely clear those double stacks with a 25kVAC catenary wire thrown in.

Mike


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> Economically it simply does not make sense for full electrification of a >1,000 km long line that hosts one passenger train per day each direction.
> 
> For example at roughly $100,000 / km to install electrical wiring along a single track, it would cost a minimum of $392.4 million to electrify the California Zephyr's 3,924 km route from San Francisco to Chicago. With an annual ridership of 417,322 passengers, if we spread the cost of the upgrade over ten years, it would cost $94.03 per passenger even before we consider maintenance costs. For the average passenger traveling from San Francisco to Reno or Denver to Vail that would roughly double the ticket price and make it much cheaper to drive a car instead of using rail.
> 
> It simply is not possible to support electrification over the long routes Amtrak is forced to serve without very heavy government subsidy. And since the government wants to cut the relatively meager subsidies they already provide that isn't likely to happen.


-I am suggesting electrify the heavily trafficked corridors. It can be started in the commuter networks around major population centers and progress as in the hinterland as justified by economic viability.
-While electrification proceeds, dual mode freight locomotives/passenger trainsets can be introduced so that trains can seamlessly move from electrified routes to non-electrified routes. 
-Dual mode locomotives are thing in the USA and can be made on existing EMD/GE platforms. 
-Dual mode high speed trainsets are now a reality in the UK i.e. Class 800/801 Azuma trains.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Smooth Indian said:


> -I am suggesting electrify the heavily trafficked corridors. It can be started in the commuter networks around major population centers and progress as in the hinterland as justified by economic viability.


Some places to start
* BNSF
** Southern Transcon in its entirety (this includes the split to Albuquerque and the link to the Tehachapi line)
** The CBQ trackage between Lincon and the State of Wyoming and Laurel, MT
* UP
** The SP Sunset Route between Los Angeles and El Paso (this also includes the Cajon Pass-Tehachapi Pass track)
** The Tehachapi Pass
** The DRGW tracks between Salt Lake City and Denver
** The historic main line between Salt Lake City and Omaha (this also includes the CNW line between Nebraska and Chicago, and the branch to Pocatello, ID)



Smooth Indian said:


> -Dual mode high speed trainsets are now a reality in the UK i.e. Class 800/801 Azuma trains.


Amtrak has been looking at using Azuma-esque trains for the Northeast Regional.


----------



## dysharmonica

M-NL said:


> How about electric traction for all those freight trains on the same route?


You can bet all the money you own that the owners did the math and it does not make financial sense to them. If we priced carbon appropriately perhaps it would, but maintaining catenary on 1000 mile track often hours from any civilization is costly. It also poses additional risks to reliability. It's why battery trains are of interest now that batteries are maturing.

PS: NEC is electrified and allows for double-stacked containers.


----------



## tytusdezoo

California High Speed Rail gets funding!
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/communication/news_room/news_releases/?id=35


----------



## fkus

Let’s hope the CHSR will work with a budget and deliver in time without more excuses. All the money isn’t enough without planning.


----------



## GreenHornet553

One high speed rail route I never hear get brought up is the possible route from DC to Charlotte to Atlanta. Like, how has no one thought to make that a thing? Especially as a connection to those looking to go further south bound from the Acela Express.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

GreenHornet553 said:


> One high speed rail route I never hear get brought up is the possible route from DC to Charlotte to Atlanta. Like, how has no one thought to make that a thing? Especially as a connection to those looking to go further south bound from the Acela Express.


The Commonwealth of Virginia just purchased tracks that stretch from DC down to Richmond and further south to Ridgeway NC.


----------



## Smooth Indian

GreenHornet553 said:


> One high speed rail route I never hear get brought up is the possible route from DC to Charlotte to Atlanta. Like, how has no one thought to make that a thing? Especially as a connection to those looking to go further south bound from the Acela Express.


I suppose that would be an extension of the NEC. I feel Atlanta (as well as Dallas) is well positioned to be a HSR hub in its region with a number of metro areas within striking distance.


----------



## phoenixboi08

D.S. Lewith said:


> The Commonwealth of Virginia just purchased tracks that stretch from DC down to Richmond and further south to Ridgeway NC.


Additionally, the _SE[HSR]C_ - the southern analog to the NEC - has been an initiative for a _while_ now. It starting initially as extending the NEC to Richmond (in the 90s, I believe?) and has since been expanded substantially, which conceptually makes a lot of sense in terms of coordinating investments and improvements (_ie_ The recent decision by VA to purchase that ROW)










Most of the subsequent planning is in various stages across NC-SC-GA (that url handily has links towards the bottom to other landing pages for the aforementioned state initiatives - there used to be a nice FRA dashboard, but it no longer exists; or I can't locate it).

Originally, I think there was some idea to combine long-term planning for this with other regional reactivations/improvements along corridors such as Birmingham-Meridian-Shreveport-Dallas and Birmingham-Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans-Houston, but AL has not had any cooperative governments in the preceding decades. 

Otherwise, by now we would see emerging a quite nice opportunity given the Texas Central project, the emergence of Brightline-Virgin USA, etc.

In any case, _this_ kind of process is the real success of the previous administration. The lead time in getting these types of programs into final stages - as well as the inter-state coordination to achieve them - was helped immensely by having a federal government that was extremely capable on policy even if funding wasn't forthcoming from Congress. 

The test will be what comes of those further south as they clear final environmental review. It would certainly be nice if AL played ball eventually, but they're a bit busy I guess. 

Otherwise, it's a bit frustrating that the stuff in TX hasn't yet appeared to be more broadly conceptualized as part of these long-range plans (or even with existing state initiatives). Obviously, in terms of regional connectivity; less so running Acelas/TX Central services between DC/Houston and more in terms of connecting Atlanta/Charlotte to the Texas Triangle via AL-MS-LA. Could ultimately replace a _lot_of regional flights...


----------



## phoenixboi08

tytusdezoo said:


> California High Speed Rail gets funding!
> https://www.hsr.ca.gov/communication/news_room/news_releases/?id=35


Unfortunately, unless things dramatically change come November, it is likely dead in the senate...
Although, I can see a cynical version of this bill that is amended so as to preclude any projects in "_certain regions_" (_eg_. CAHSR, Gateway, etc) being awarded any of the funds.

In any case, establishing a body - say an investment vehicle some might refer to as a _"bank"_ - under the auspices of the Treasury and Fed that can simply extend financing regardless of the fiscal budget would be a better route to take, as constant reauthorizations of programs like this is always going to become heavily contentious.

Policywise, actual needs should dictate available funding, not the inverse.


----------



## Gusiluz

*Texas Central and Renfe*

I insist on it:
We are celebrating that RENFE is launching operations in the USA with a contract worth 6 billion dollars Spanish Minister for Development 02/20/2020 

Renfe inks $6 bn deal to build first high-speed train in US Radio France Internationale 02/20/2020


> Spanish train operator Renfe on Thursday said it had signed a $6-billion deal with US rail developer Texas Central to design, build and run the United States' first-ever high-speed rail line
> In a statement, Spain's transport ministry said the 5.5-billion-euro agreement would see Renfe working alongside its US partner to develop and operate a line between Houston and Dallas which would begin operating in 2042.
> The two firms have signed a preliminary agreement but it is still in draft phase, said Renfe, Spain's national rail operator.
> For Renfe, the design and construction phase of the contract, which will run to 2026, is worth some $311 million, while the operation and maintenance of the line between 2026 and 2042 will bring in some $5.6 billion.


Today it was approved by Renfe's board of directors, although the official signing of the contract with Texas Central Partners will be in the summer.


Source 

According to Renfe on their internal website:


> The Italian construction company Salvini will be in charge of building the infrastructure it plans to have ready in 6 years. Later, Renfe will be in charge of its maintenance and operate the trains between both Texas cities from 2026 to 2042. Renfe will be in charge of operating and maintaining the trains between both Texan cities until 2042.


It seems difficult for Renfe of America LLC to take care of the maintenance of the line, since that is Adif's job. That's how it is now in Arabia.
Since 2018, Renfe has been working as advisor and director of design, planning and construction of the Texas line, supported by Adif and the public engineering company Ineco. 
Adif's internal website congratulates Renfe, so it does not participate in the project.

In the design and construction phase (until 2026) Renfe will obtain 311 million dollars in infrastructure supervision and consultancy, and during the years of operation and maintenance (between 2026 and 2042) the expected revenues amount to 5,611 million dollars (351 per year, with estimated operating costs of 292).

From 2025 to 2042 Renfe will employ 1,281 local employees, and a maximum of 34 Spanish managers and experts in the same year.


The project could be increased with another line of more than 300 km from Houston to Austin and San Antonio.

…
Message posted in this Thread on December 20:


Gusiluz said:


> The Spanish operator Renfe will operate the first HSR in America (Texas Central) from 2026 to 2042 after one year as a consultant


Only answer to my message:


UrbanImpact said:


> How is Texas the first HSR in America??? Especially in 2026?


According to the UIC in the USA there is an HSR: the Northeast Corridor, although it also says that the MiniShinkansen are HSR, with a maximum speed of 130 km/h. The NEC has a maximum speed of 241 km/h in about 56.3 km between Boston and New Haven, the maximum between New York and Washington is 217 km/h, but the most interesting thing is that the best average is only 129 km/h (New York-Washington). In 1934 the Western Union Zephyr covered the 1,633 km between Denver and Chicago in 13 hours, at an average speed of 125 km/h.
Miami-Orlando will reach that average speed when it is completely finished, with a maximum of 201.
Both lines have mixed traffic including freight trains.

The other real HSR will be the one in California, but its last update (May 2019) says that completion of testing in the Merced-Fresno-Bakersfield (Central Valley) segment will occur in 2027/2028 (page 39), and the first six trains in 2028 ... if the calendar is fully realized.
And how will the Initial Construction Segment (ICS) be connected to the line's destinations?


> This is achieved by extending the route to connect urban centers (Merced-Fresno-Bakersfield) and to provide important transit connectivity to the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and Amtrak traveling to the Bay Area as well as Sacramento in the north and to bus services traveling from Bakersfield to Los Angeles in the south.


California high speed rail plan scaled back. Railway Gazette 12 February 2019


> Governor Gavin Newsom said the project 'as currently planned' would 'cost too much and take too long', and added that there had been too little oversight and not enough transparency. 'There simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to Los Angeles', he said, and thus the north and southern sections of the proposed route would not be built.


Spending for California’s bullet train divides state leaders as never before. Los Angeles Times 15 November 2019


> The bullet train would terminate in Merced, where passengers could transfer to San Francisco on the Altamont Corridor Express, a diesel-powered commuter train.


Another alternative would be:


> running 125 mph diesel trains in the Central Valley on the high-speed track would not require a change of train in Merced to continue to the Bay Area, resulting in a bigger passenger draw and a faster trip than having a somewhat faster electric train at 170 mph that would require a transfer. And until the line in the Central Valley is ready to hook up with electric trains traveling through mountain tunnels from San Francisco to Los Angeles, the investment does not make sense.


I add that a third alternative would be to use hybrid (dual mode) trains such as the Talgo 730 series (or other manufacturer's) trains capable of running at 300 km/h (now 250 in service) under 25 kV and at 200 km/h (180) in diesel.


It seems pretty clear that -unfortunately- there will be no HSR in California for the next decade.


----------



## Sunfuns

I'm a bit confused here... Wasn't Texas high speed rail to be built by Japanese using Shinkansen technology?


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Financing (Japan Bank for International Cooperation and Japan Overseas Infrastructure) and trains (N700-i) do.

They have always said it will be the N700-i (international), not the N700S (Supreme) for JR Central: Shinkansen Tokaido and Sanyo. They are manufactured by JR Tokai (Kawasaki, Hitachi, Nippon Sharyo and Kinki Sharyo) for export, like the THSR 700T for Taiwan. With lithium batteries for backup.


----------



## fkus

It seems pretty clear that -unfortunately- there will be no HSR in California for the next decade.[/QUOTE]

With all the money already spent, it will be a shame not to build the HSR in California.


----------



## dysharmonica

> fkus said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems pretty clear that -unfortunately- there will be no HSR in California for the next decade.
> 
> 
> 
> With all the money already spent, it will be a shame not to build the HSR in California.
Click to expand...

They are building it, but it is slow going. It will likely not reach operations before 2030. One thing to keep in mind that besides all the usual right-wing talking point about transit, no one in CA wants to spend money on Central Valley. Had CAHSR tackled LA to SD or SF to SAC first, there would have been way more support to go around, but both seats of power are pissed that CAHSR is instead doing the sensible thing and investing in the section of the state that has the most to gain from the service ... and is necessary to join up the two halves. CAHSR is progressing, but the stupid political headwinds are crazy. 

Even Texas Central is facing political headwinds and it is a private railroad in a state that worships private railroads - but this one moves people, not cargo, so the right wing has to hate on it. It's just ridiculous.


----------



## M-NL

Texas Central unveils interior layout for US high-speed fleet
I like the seating space comparison (with a Boeing 737 it seems).
Any info on the loading gauge and platform height they intend to use? Standard Shinkansen is 3,34m wide, while a standard US passenger car is 3,2m.


----------



## dysharmonica

M-NL said:


> Texas Central unveils interior layout for US high-speed fleet
> I like the seating space comparison (with a Boeing 737 it seems).
> Any info on the loading gauge and platform height they intend to use? Standard Shinkansen is 3,34m wide, while a standard US passenger car is 3,2m.


They are using Shinkansen specs for platform height and loading gauge. Thatis the goal .. partly so their investors secure train orders for the future.


----------



## Basincreek

> They are building it, but it is slow going. It will likely not reach operations before 2030. One thing to keep in mind that besides all the usual right-wing talking point about transit, no one in CA wants to spend money on Central Valley. Had CAHSR tackled LA to SD or SF to SAC first, there would have been way more support to go around, but both seats of power are pissed that CAHSR is instead doing the sensible thing and investing in the section of the state that has the most to gain from the service ... and is necessary to join up the two halves. CAHSR is progressing, but the stupid political headwinds are crazy.
> 
> Even Texas Central is facing political headwinds and it is a private railroad in a state that worships private railroads - but this one moves people, not cargo, so the right wing has to hate on it. It's just ridiculous.


Starting in the Central Valley wasn't even a CAHSR decision. It happened because the Obama Adminstration had billions to spend on HSR and needed it spent soon. Thus they were forced to push into construction the only sections that had any planning complete or almost complete. Heck, all these years later and they still have no idea how they are going to get the train over the mountain ranges between Bakersfield and LA. They keep drilling and modifying the plans only to find new geological or political hurdles that set them back.


----------



## czm3

"The two firms have signed a preliminary agreement but it is still in draft phase, said Renfe, Spain's national rail operator."

Lets not get carried away till there is something more binding in place...


----------



## Smooth Indian

Gusiluz said:


> I insist on it:
> We are celebrating that RENFE is launching operations in the USA with a contract worth 6 billion dollars Spanish Minister for Development 02/20/2020
> 
> Renfe inks $6 bn deal to build first high-speed train in US Radio France Internationale 02/20/2020
> 
> Today it was approved by Renfe's board of directors, although the official signing of the contract with Texas Central Partners will be in the summer.
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> According to Renfe on their internal website:
> 
> 
> It seems difficult for Renfe of America LLC to take care of the maintenance of the line, since that is Adif's job. That's how it is now in Arabia.
> Since 2018, Renfe has been working as advisor and director of design, planning and construction of the Texas line, supported by Adif and the public engineering company Ineco.
> Adif's internal website congratulates Renfe, so it does not participate in the project.
> 
> In the design and construction phase (until 2026) Renfe will obtain 311 million dollars in infrastructure supervision and consultancy, and during the years of operation and maintenance (between 2026 and 2042) the expected revenues amount to 5,611 million dollars (351 per year, with estimated operating costs of 292).
> 
> From 2025 to 2042 Renfe will employ 1,281 local employees, and a maximum of 34 Spanish managers and experts in the same year.
> 
> 
> The project could be increased with another line of more than 300 km from Houston to Austin and San Antonio.
> 
> …
> Message posted in this Thread on December 20:
> 
> 
> Only answer to my message:
> 
> According to the UIC in the USA there is an HSR: the Northeast Corridor, although it also says that the MiniShinkansen are HSR, with a maximum speed of 130 km/h. The NEC has a maximum speed of 241 km/h in about 56.3 km between Boston and New Haven, the maximum between New York and Washington is 217 km/h, but the most interesting thing is that the best average is only 129 km/h (New York-Washington). In 1934 the Western Union Zephyr covered the 1,633 km between Denver and Chicago in 13 hours, at an average speed of 125 km/h.
> Miami-Orlando will reach that average speed when it is completely finished, with a maximum of 201.
> Both lines have mixed traffic including freight trains.
> 
> The other real HSR will be the one in California, but its last update (May 2019) says that completion of testing in the Merced-Fresno-Bakersfield (Central Valley) segment will occur in 2027/2028 (page 39), and the first six trains in 2028 ... if the calendar is fully realized.
> And how will the Initial Construction Segment (ICS) be connected to the line's destinations?
> 
> California high speed rail plan scaled back. Railway Gazette 12 February 2019
> 
> Spending for California’s bullet train divides state leaders as never before. Los Angeles Times 15 November 2019
> 
> Another alternative would be:
> 
> I add that a third alternative would be to use hybrid (dual mode) trains such as the Talgo 730 series (or other manufacturer's) trains capable of running at 300 km/h (now 250 in service) under 25 kV and at 200 km/h (180) in diesel.
> 
> 
> It seems pretty clear that -unfortunately- there will be no HSR in California for the next decade.


If they are going to depend on the ACE corridor then they could make it electrified double track and rebuild the Dumbarton bridge so that the train can reach SF. Terminating the train in Merced really defeats its purpose. It is also remarkably stupid to expect people to transfer to another train which itself doesn't run directly too SF. 
Dual mode like Talgo 730 are a good suggestion since these can be used to run on connecting unelectrified sections. Talgo can also maximize the high speed potential of the track.


----------



## davide84

How do we know that the trains will terminate in Merced? Isn't there some confusion between infrastructure and services?


----------



## phoenixboi08

davide84 said:


> How do we know that the trains will terminate in Merced? Isn't there some confusion between infrastructure and services?


As of the 2020 draft business plan, they have officially decided to *not* dedicate any additional funds to bookend infrastructure, other than to advance/complete the EIS for those project sections (this, btw, is what Gavin's announcement a while back was _actually_ about, but he bungled it struck the media's erogenous zone regarding this program).

There are some long, drawn out reasons for this, but it's been telegraphed since virtually 2011-2012ish that they will attempt to bank as much cash as they can, while completing the IOS.


----------



## davide84

So they won't even build minimal connections?


----------



## phoenixboi08

davide84 said:


> So they won't even build minimal connections?


You're beginning from the assumption those connections aren't already envisioned to exist...?

The "_contingencies_" for interim service have been in place for a while now and are planned to be implemented in conjunction with the phase 1 interim operating segment (IOS): service will simply operate with transfers to regional service, *at minimum*. They have committed funding to make inter-operation with ACE and Amtrak happen, and these projects are already underway, construed as part of the HSR program, and expected to be completed in conjunction with the IOS.

By "_bookends_," I mean the connections from Merced-Gilroy-San Jose (and Bakersfield-Burbank-LA-Anaheim, in the south).

Again, this is the *base scenario*: The desire to not commit additional funds to the _"bookend"_ projects (beyond advancing them out of environmental clearance) is derived from a reasonable expectation that the budget projections for completing the IOS - and implementing revenue service - leaves the Authority with surplus funds.

The Authority still officially construes the Central Valley IOS _and_ the Silicon Valley connection (ie. Merced-Gilroy-San Jose link) as *one* program (ie. "Central Valley-Silicon Valley" in official documents) from the perspective of capital planning/asset delivery; but they are now - and have been for a while - entirely separate in terms of [interim] operations planning. That distinction matters in terms of how the Authority prioritizes funds.

This is what Gov. Newsom attempted to communicate some time back, but instead ended up stroking the media's erogenous zone for gloom and doom with this program: The reality is that nothing changed on the operations side, but rather had implications on how the Authority was going to manage the delivery of those program assets, going forward.


----------



## davide84

phoenixboi08 said:


> You're beginning from the assumption those connections aren't already envisioned to exist...?


Sorry, for some reason I got lost and I was not getting the "bookend" concept/terminology at all, and maybe something else... Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## 2mchris

I will never understand, that they didn't already develop HSR connections between the cities like Dallas and Houston (as shown in #7871). The lobbies must be that powerful, that it is easier to ignore the necessities and the need of alternatives to the airplanes.


----------



## mgk920

2mchris said:


> I will never understand, that they didn't already develop HSR connections between the cities like Dallas and Houston (as shown in #7871). The lobbies must be that powerful, that it is easier to ignore the necessities and the need of alternatives to the airplanes.


The very outgoing and popular Herb Kellerher, former chair and CEO of Southwest Airlines, was a BIG wheel in Texas politics until he died in early 2019.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

2mchris said:


> I will never understand, that they didn't already develop HSR connections between the cities like Dallas and Houston (as shown in #7871). The lobbies must be that powerful, that it is easier to ignore the necessities and the need of alternatives to the airplanes.


The problem for regional rail in North America is urban sprawl and cars, not aircraft. (Canada is almost as bad as the USA. Calgary is not connected to the national passenger rail network, for example.) If you are traveling between suburban Houston and suburban Dallas it is faster to drive from your origin to your destination than to use public transport even if our trains were much faster.

Imagine traveling from Frankfurt to Hamburg. And then compare that to traveling from Rodgau to Kirchgellersen. Even with ICE the car is as fast from Rodgau to Kirchgellerson as public transport. And the football stadium in Arlington is even farther from Dallas than Rodgau is from Frankfurt!

In a better alternate world the USA would have used its wealth in the 1950's and 1960's to build rapid transit systems for its cities. But instead the USA chose suburbanization, urban decay and white flight. Our failures in urban planning created future failures in public transport.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> The problem for regional rail in North America is urban sprawl and cars, not aircraft. (Canada is almost as bad as the USA. Calgary is not connected to the national passenger rail network, for example.) If you are traveling between suburban Houston and suburban Dallas it is faster to drive from your origin to your destination than to use public transport even if our trains were much faster.


Sprawl is only a part of the problem. Even in mid-size metropolitan areas it should be possible to sustain decent commuter railway systems. Commuter trains 
need not be bi-level monsters. Modest single-decker trainsets with 3-4 cars and their multiples combined with smart network arrangement, dependable frequency/speed will do the job in many cases. What we have is that big metro areas such as Atlanta and Dallas lack a decent commuter railway network.
Additionally regional rail is absent in most states in the US. Linking the major metro areas with striking distance of each other with good planning and operation will make them sustainable


Nacre said:


> In a better alternate world the USA would have used its wealth in the 1950's and 1960's to build rapid transit systems for its cities. But instead the USA chose suburbanization, urban decay and white flight. Our failures in urban planning created future failures in public transport.


The USA should have kept and modernized its rail transit systems that existed until WW2; e.g. suburban, regional and interurban trains existed till them in abundance all over the states. Just keeping them alive and healthy with reasonable improvements to incorporate modern technology would have been enough. Keeping the rail-transit options working would have ensured dedicated patronage and a more supportive attitude in society.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

Now that he's essentially the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, it may be worth looking at Joe Biden's thoughts on high-speed rail.



> *Rail*
> 
> • *Spark the second great railroad revolution.* Two centuries ago, the first great railroad expansion drove our industrial revolution. Today, the U.S. is lagging behind Europe and China in rail safety and speed. A 21st-century passenger rail system that connects people across our nation is essential to our competitiveness, to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to giving more Americans the freedom and flexibility to travel. Biden will make sure that America has the cleanest, safest, and fastest rail system in the world—for both passengers and freight. As president, he will invest in high-speed rail. He’ll start by putting the Northeast Corridor on higher speeds and shrinking the travel time from D.C. to New York by half – and build in conjunction with it a new, safer Hudson River Tunnel. He will make progress toward the completion of the California High Speed Rail project. He will expand the Northeast Corridor to the fast-growing South. Across the Midwest and the Great West, he will begin the construction of an end-to-end high speed rail system that will connect the coasts, unlocking new, affordable access for every American. A Biden Administration will also support freight projects, including a truck and rail-transit bridge linking Oregon to Washington State, and Chicago’s CREATE project, which has the potential to halve transit times for goods moving across the country. Overall, Biden’s rail revolution will reduce pollution, connect workers to good jobs, slash commute times, and spur investment in communities that will now be better linked to major metropolitan areas. To speed that work, Biden will tap existing federal grant and loan programs at the U.S. Department of Transportation, and improve and streamline the loan process.
> 
> • *Electrify the rail system.* As president, Biden will work with Amtrak and private freight rail companies to further electrify the rail system, reducing diesel fuel emissions.


Source: https://joebiden.com/infrastructure/


----------



## Nacre

Smooth Indian said:


> Sprawl is only a part of the problem. Even in mid-size metropolitan areas it should be possible to sustain decent commuter railway systems. Commuter trains need not be bi-level monsters. Modest single-decker trainsets with 3-4 cars and their multiples combined with smart network arrangement, dependable frequency/speed will do the job in many cases. What we have is that big metro areas such as Atlanta and Dallas lack a decent commuter railway network.


The problem is that cars are faster than commuter rail. The average speed of commuting by car in the USA is 37.6 mph. The average speed of commuter rail is about 30 mph. And intermodal transit, line transfers and service intervals are not a problem for drivers but add lots of dead time for public transit users.

Other issues for the average American working class commuter are cargo space for shopping at big box stores and the "last mile" problem. In fact the shopping issue is a major reason I commute by bike instead of bus. I can fit four shopping bags in panniers on my bike whereas I can only take two on the bus, which is a massive savings on shopping trips in suburbia where there are no corner markets.

Highways and cars are good for individual commuters and bad for communities. Trains and buses are good for communities and not so great for individuals. The challenge is getting people to make a personal sacrifice (to take a slower form of transport) for the good of society as a whole. And that's why I think bicycles and medium speed rail are an easier sell to American commuters than jumping straight to high speed rail.


----------



## Macca-GC

Nacre said:


> Highways and cars are good for individual commuters and bad for communities. Trains and buses are good for communities and not so great for individuals. The challenge is getting people to make a personal sacrifice (to take a slower form of transport) for the good of society as a whole. And that's why I think bicycles and medium speed rail are an easier sell to American commuters than jumping straight to high speed rail.


I completely agree with this assessment. In places like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (examples used only because they're ones I'm generally familiar with - apologies that this is anglosphere-centric), the greatest return on investment in terms of changing people's mindsets regarding sustainable travel (i.e. active and public transport) is to be gained from cycling and medium speed rail (up to 100-200km/h).

Only then can we build up towards HSR. As an exemplary exception within the US, the NE Corridor is actually a pretty good example where the community is ready for HSR because there's already a well established and valued commuter and medium speed rail network. CAHSR and Texas Central are great, but there'd be much less community opposition to the principle of HSR (there may still be discussion regarding localised impacts of any project).


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> The problem is that cars are faster than commuter rail. The average speed of commuting by car in the USA is 37.6 mph. The average speed of commuter rail is about 30 mph. And intermodal transit, line transfers and service intervals are not a problem for drivers but add lots of dead time for public transit users.
> 
> Other issues for the average American working class commuter are cargo space for shopping at big box stores and the "last mile" problem. In fact the shopping issue is a major reason I commute by bike instead of bus. I can fit four shopping bags in panniers on my bike whereas I can only take two on the bus, which is a massive savings on shopping trips in suburbia where there are no corner markets.
> 
> Highways and cars are good for individual commuters and bad for communities. Trains and buses are good for communities and not so great for individuals. The challenge is getting people to make a personal sacrifice (to take a slower form of transport) for the good of society as a whole. And that's why I think bicycles and medium speed rail are an easier sell to American commuters than jumping straight to high speed rail.


I would say 30 mph by commuter rail as against 37 mph by car is pretty damn good. I am not expecting commuter trains to surpass cars. Cars have their own conveniences and their own shortcomings. But the commuter/suburban train vs car need not be a zero sum game. A car user may still use trains some times. Regular train users may also have cars which may be used as per convenience. A commuter system needs relatively less investment since much of the ROW it will use already exists. If trains of modest capacity (100-200) can run 2-4 tph during peak hours and 1-2 tph during other times then I would think it would be reliable service. If the areas around key suburban/uptown/small town stations are allowed some housing and commercial/office development, then even better.
The Austin Metrorail comes to my mind. It uses smaller trains (Stadler GTW) on existing tracks. Its a good template to develop train service outside of the big cities.


----------



## Joakim3

prageethSL said:


> Why they couldn't streamline the power units with passenger coaches?
> The power units look like they don't belong on the rest of the train.hno:


Because the US wanted wider seats/cabins compared to the narrow European carriages and the cars can tilt. The power units are homologated TGV (Avelia Horizon) & Pendolino hybrids.

Besides it's barely noticeable when the trains are moving (second train-set on it's way to begin testing in Philly) on the NE corridor.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ I guess what you mean is that the power units are the same as those of the TGV Duplex (they even have the same power: 9280 kW) with a different aesthetic, more like the Avelias, while the trailers are New Pendolino (Italian ETR 600 and Swiss Astoro RABe 503 exETR 610 Cisalpino), even with the same tilting: Alstom Tiltronix 8º. 

The New Pendolino do not circulate in France. 
The 100 Avelia Horizon trains ordered from Alstom are the evolution of the Euroduplex, and also have two floors.


----------



## Gusiluz

I actually came here for another matter:



czm3 said:


> "The two firms have signed a preliminary agreement but it is still in draft phase, said Renfe, Spain's national rail operator."
> 
> Lets not get carried away till there is something more binding in place...


Spain: Renfe clinches $6 billion railway contract launching its business in the US
Tuesday 17 March 2020. UIC website.


> The deal between Renfe and Texas Central concluded in 2019 for the development of a high-speed rail project linking Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth in Texas, USA, is set to bring in $6 billion for the Spanish railway operator.
> 
> The alliance, for which a pre-agreement has already been signed whilst waiting for the full contract to be finalised, will see Renfe working with the largest privately-owned railway undertaking in the world, Texas Central, until 2042.
> This contract cements Renfe’s participation in the landmark US railway project, and falls in step with the company’s strategy to grow through international development, drawn up by its CEO Isaías Táboas.
> 
> The Renfe of America team, a company specially set up to manage development projects such as this in the Americas, has been working since last year on the consultation phase of the proposed railway link. Tábaos in fact had just returned from a meeting held with Texas Central at the end of January to go over progress being made in this work.
> 
> The civil engineering contractor Salini Impregilo has been tasked with building the infrastructure for the line, which it says will be finished in 6 years. Renfe will then take over maintenance and will operate trains running between the two Texan cities between 2026 and 2042.
> 
> The design and construction phases (up to 2026) are set to net Renfe $311 million in income whilst the maintenance and operation period (from 2026 to 2042) is forecast to bring in approximately $5.611 million in revenue.
> The private consortium, Texas Central may also have plans to extend the high-speed link to Austin and San Antonio, which could also lead to further cooperation between the two companies.
> 
> First high-speed train in the USA
> The Houston-Dallas high-speed link will be the first of its kind in the United States, joining the two cities that lie 386 kilometres (240 miles) apart, in less than 90 minutes.
> In addition to the stations in Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston, the line will have one intermediary stop in Brazos Valley. All the stations will be connected to the highway system and public transport networks, and offer ample parking.
> 
> The Texas high-speed line will be the first ever wholly privately-owned high-speed project in the world, evidencing the viability of high speed as a business. In addition, Texas, which has long been a state associated with the development of fossil fuels will now be a pioneer in the United States, in banking on sustainable transport solutions, and marking a turning point that reflects sociocultural trends currently emerging around the globe.
> 
> (Source: Renfe)


According to my sources, who confirmed this contract to me in December (and I posted it in this Thread), the official signature will take place in the summer, when the funding round concludes.

More information on this topic.


----------



## TER200

Joakim3 said:


> Because the US wanted wider seats/cabins compared to the narrow European carriages and the cars can tilt. The power units are homologated TGV (Avelia Horizon) & Pendolino units that are replacing France's own TGV's.
> 
> Besides it's barely noticeable when the trains are moving (second train-set on it's way to begin testing in Philly) on the NE corridor.





Gusiluz said:


> ^^ I guess what you mean is that the power units are the same as those of the TGV Duplex (they even have the same power: 9280 kW) with a different aesthetic, more like the Avelias, while the trailers are New Pendolino (Italian ETR 600 and Swiss Astoro RABe 503 exETR 610 Cisalpino), even with the same tilting: Alstom Tiltronix 8º.
> 
> The New Pendolino do not circulate in France.
> The 100 Avelia Horizon trains ordered from Alstom are the evolution of the Euroduplex, and also have two floors.


The new Avelia (Liberty & Horizon) power cars seem structurally identical (hence the narrower with than the trailers), however they are very different form current TGV's. They are 4 meters shorter, have different systems, and the french version (at least) should have a different power (under 8 MW).
The trailers of the Avelia Liberty are articulated, not much in common with the Pendolino non-articulated EMU.


----------



## Joakim3

Gusiluz said:


> ^^ I guess what you mean is that the power units are the same as those of the TGV Duplex (they even have the same power: 9280 kW) with a different aesthetic, more like the Avelias, while the trailers are New Pendolino (Italian ETR 600 and Swiss Astoro RABe 503 exETR 610 Cisalpino), even with the same tilting: Alstom Tiltronix 8º.
> 
> The New Pendolino do not circulate in France.
> The 100 Avelia Horizon trains ordered from Alstom are the evolution of the Euroduplex, and also have two floors.


So Liberty's are essentially a homologated Avelia Horizon's with Pendolino tilting mechanisms installed, got ya. Either way..... they're lightyears ahead of the current Acela's in every shape and from so I'm not even going to try and start nitpicking them. 

The US should be thanking our lucky starts we even got new replacement units let alone brand spanking new cream of the crop models.


----------



## SiMclaren

Electrical systems, structural design and the outer shell are totally independent and modular depending on the requirement. The US has different rules for structural and crash resistance than EU, so the trains might be packing a completely new design under the same exterior shell.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Temporarily Exiled said:


> Now that he's essentially the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, it may be worth looking at Joe Biden's thoughts on high-speed rail.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: https://joebiden.com/infrastructure/


The real question (that Biden himself keeps asking when he comes with Medicare for All and clearing college debt): How will we fund it? But I think the answer would be taxing Wall Street as opposed to having to rely on foreign agents (i.e. China and Russia cuz they're investing heavily in modernizing Africa's railways).

Also on the subject of electrification the rails, the reason freight rails have been so hesistant on electrifying their tracks is fuel surcharge covering the costs of using diesel fuel, and risks of double stack cars arcing (thus requiring rebuildings of numerous bridges and tunnels). The reason why they're going with battery trains is because they don't want to spend the money on traditional electrics. Although BNSF could actually electrify on their own cuz they have a money pool from Berkshire Hathaway.


----------



## Nacre

D.S. Lewith said:


> The real question (that Biden himself keeps asking when he comes with Medicare for All and clearing college debt): How will we fund it? But I think the answer would be taxing Wall Street as opposed to having to rely on foreign agents (i.e. China and Russia cuz they're investing heavily in modernizing Africa's railways).


The very obvious answer is to increase fuel taxes to match the rest of the developed world other than our similarly train-averse siblings to the north.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/widgets/10327

_The problem, as with all public transit issues, is that this would be very unpopular_. Which is why both parties prefer the current system of promising people free money. (Republican version = cut taxes and fund auto infrastructure while ignoring the fact that auto infrastructure is more expensive than cycling and public transit infrastructure and thus puts a higher burden on the public purse rather than a smaller burden. Democratic version = promise to rob the rich to fund the programs while ignoring the fact the USA already has the most progressive tax structure in the developed world, and that going even higher will result in capital flight and actually decrease tax revenue. In politics ideology + emotion > reason every single time. *sigh*)


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Nacre said:


> The very obvious answer is to increase fuel taxes to match the rest of the developed world other than our similarly train-averse siblings to the north.
> 
> https://afdc.energy.gov/data/widgets/10327
> 
> _The problem, as with all public transit issues, is that this would be very unpopular_. Which is why both parties prefer the current system of promising people free money. (Republican version = cut taxes and fund auto infrastructure while ignoring the fact that auto infrastructure is more expensive than cycling and public transit infrastructure and thus puts a higher burden on the public purse rather than a smaller burden. Democratic version = promise to rob the rich to fund the programs while ignoring the fact the USA already has the most progressive tax structure in the developed world, and that going even higher will result in capital flight and actually decrease tax revenue. In politics ideology + emotion > reason every single time. *sigh*)


America was better appropriate at taxing the rich during the 50s-70s (it's how we got the Interstate Highway System). Then the 80s came and we got rich people getting taxed less and less. Meanwhile, America has no problem with throwing away money on tax cuts and military budget increases that would pay for a modernized Euro-standard rail network numerous times over. It's clearly priorities.

The only way to reliably tax gas/diesel usage is to encourage subsidies for battery-powered (as well as non-diesel) vehicles, as well as encouraging people to buy such vehicles. That way once ~75% of the vehicles people drive are non-gas/diesel we can put in the tax.


----------



## davide84

D.S. Lewith said:


> That way once ~75% of the vehicles people drive are non-gas/diesel we can put in the tax.


Unfortunately at that point there would not be much left to tax...


----------



## D.S. Lewith

davide84 said:


> Unfortunately at that point there would not be much left to tax...


yet at the same time people dont want diesel/gas usage to be taxed


----------



## Stuu

D.S. Lewith said:


> Also on the subject of electrification the rails, the reason freight rails have been so hesistant on electrifying their tracks is fuel surcharge covering the costs of using diesel fuel, and risks of double stack cars arcing (thus requiring rebuildings of numerous bridges and tunnels). The reason why they're going with battery trains is because they don't want to spend the money on traditional electrics. Although BNSF could actually electrify on their own cuz they have a money pool from Berkshire Hathaway.


That might be the case in some areas but there are huge parts of the midwest where there isn't a single overbridge for 100 miles, and the bridges that do exist are mostly modern so may well have space already. 25kV wires need about 200mm to avoid arcing. Also it will be a long time before a double-stack train is pulled by a battery locomotive. 

The big problem is that electrification is a long-term investment, something which lots of corporations and more importantly there investors are averse to


----------



## fkus

davide84 said:


> Unfortunately at that point there would not be much left to tax...




Unfortunately it is not just tax. California proved that in spite of high taxes we need a good planning to have HSR. Let’s wait for Texas.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

Stuu said:


> That might be the case in some areas but there are huge parts of the midwest where there isn't a single overbridge for 100 miles, and the bridges that do exist are mostly modern so may well have space already. 25kV wires need about 200mm to avoid arcing. Also it will be a long time before a double-stack train is pulled by a battery locomotive.


Thought it required more clearance but ok. Also BNSF is going to be testing a mainline battery locomotive (https://www.railjournal.com/locomot...to-trial-battery-electric-locomotive-in-2020/)



Stuu said:


> The big problem is that electrification is a long-term investment, something which lots of corporations and more importantly there investors are averse to


They only care about short-term everything, never mind that they're pretty profitable as is and can actually afford it really. Seems only government involvement will convince them to electrify.



fkus said:


> Unfortunately it is not just tax. California proved that in spite of high taxes we need a good planning to have HSR. Let’s wait for Texas.


California's is public whilst Texas's is private.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I think you misunderstood me. I am not talking about the corridors with no alignment. I fully understand that it makes sense to build the Las Vegas link merely as enhanced intercity connection with moderately elevated speeds somewhere around 200 km/h or slightly higher.

I was not talking about a separate link between SF and Las Vegas either. What I meant was planning a joint corridor for both projects along that part where they can be naturally aligned anyway. If the High speed rail from SF to LA gets new HSR infrastructure also along this shared corridor north of Union station, it would make little sense to route the Las Vegas train over some old slow corridors instead.

I doubt that central corridor would allow for speeds far above 200 km/h but even if it should, having train sets capable of the necessary speeds isn't the big problem I suppose, even if the capabilities were only used on that part.


----------



## mgk920

OTOH, at Tehachapi Pass, the existing freight line has a maximum of about a 2.2%(?) grade while IIRC, the LAX-SFO high-speed line proposals (they use that pass, too) that I have seen are looking at a much steeper ruling grade (4%+) that completely avoids the seriously curvy freight route. The curvyness of the freight line was to keep the grade at a manageable level for heavy freight use back in the steam locomotive era.

Also, IIRC, France's TGV system has a maximum ruling grade of about 4%, this due to the trainsets' relatively light weight and immense tractive power to weight ratio.

Mike


----------



## davide84

Just as a reference, 2.5% is still the design limit for railway lines with freight traffic in Italy (and I believe in most of Europe as well).

This includes the Italian HS network, since the promise of freight traffic was used to get the HS project funded in the '90es.


----------



## TM_Germany

4% is alright as long as it is only used by high-speed trains. The HSL Frankfurt-Cologne was built with such gradients.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

fieldsofdreams said:


> The Las Vegas to LA link _might_ utilize the existing Metrolink tracks in San Bernardino County en route to LA Union Station since it is currently underutilized, especially during the midday and weekends. There are two ways to get to Union Station from San Bernardino:
> 
> North Route via Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Montclair, and El Monte
> South Route via Downtown Riverside, Downtown Pomona, and Ontario (with airport connection)
> I wouldn’t be surprised if it uses the alignment along Hwy 91 (via Riverside), especially I can see intense development along the South Route. However, the North Route has immense potential for further growth, especially between the San Bernardino Valley and El Monte with the future LA Metro Gold Line extension. If, however, the South Route is chosen, there is immense industrial and cargo traffic, especially for trains heading to and from the ports in Long Beach. Regardless, passing tracks may be necessary to allow speedy operations on either route.


Most likely they're gonna use the North Route (the San Bernardino line), given that Metrolink owns the tracks and there's not that much freigh traffic. There's also the issue of the Cajon Pass crossing that the train has to take to get into San Bernardino. It does have tracks (BNSF's triple-track line) but I don't think BNSF will easily let overhead wires be laid on their tracks just for a train that they don't own or operate. They could get a diesel locomotive to haul the train down the Cajon into San Bernardino but speeds on the BNSF Cajon tracks are too slow to make it competitive against the freeways. This means the only other way is to build a new Cajon Pass rail crossing, which from what I've heard is incredibly expensive (perhaps moreso than a theoretical Tejon Pass rail crossing), even though the Cajon Pass is the heaviest in road traffic on I-15 between SoCal and Vegas and building a fast passenger line could siphon off a good deal of freeway traffic.



fieldsofdreams said:


> As for HSR following the Caltrain alignment, I have no issue with that at all. You already have passing loops available at Bayshore and Lawrence stations, and cargo traffic is limited on that line as most would travel via Fremont and Oakland instead. So I’ll still support the mixed configuration of local and express trains along Caltrain. My biggest worry remains with the Downtown Extension (DTX) project, which requires closing 4th & King for a while while the tracks are repositioned and realigned to go underground.


Personally I rather they build a new tunnel beginning from north of Bayshore station that largely parallels US-101 into Transbay Terminal. It will be longer yes but the tunneling would start near Bayshore station, away from the CBD and thus less disruptive to street traffic.


----------



## mgk920

I seriously doubt that any of those recent proposals would touch the existing freight lines over Cajon Pass. Amtrak does use them for their Southwest Chief long distance trains (Amtrak 3 and 4), but they are not a serious impediment to the seriously heavy freight traffic that currently uses those tracks.

Yes, I-15 normally carries a very heavy four lanes of traffic in each direction over Cajon Pass, especially on weekends. That eight lanes splits at I-15/I-40 in Barstow.

Mike


----------



## D.S. Lewith

mgk920 said:


> I seriously doubt that any of those recent proposals would touch the existing freight lines over Cajon Pass. Amtrak does use them for their Southwest Chief long distance trains (Amtrak 3 and 4), but they are not a serious impediment to the seriously heavy freight traffic that currently uses those tracks.


As of current, none of the XpressWest proposals touch Cajon (they're instead planning on detouring to Palmdale). Any attempts at more passenger rail through the Cajon will require completely new tracks, and it's gonna be pretty expensive to build those new tracks.


----------



## GreenHornet553

D.S. Lewith said:


> The US has a bias in favor of anything private and a bias against anything public


Because the vast majoriy of our public infrastructure that we have which is still a key part of the backbone of transportation and commerce in the US today was built up by people in the private sector first and any attempt to use public funds to build infrastructure projects causes them to be overpriced albatrosses that can vary in terms of quality. One merely has to look at the corruption and bloated budgets that came from the Big Dig in Boston to see why public works projects in this country are almost universally hated in the United States.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

GreenHornet553 said:


> Because the vast majoriy of our public infrastructure that we have which is still a key part of the backbone of transportation and commerce in the US today was built up by people in the private sector first and any attempt to use public funds to build infrastructure projects causes them to be overpriced albatrosses that can vary in terms of quality. One merely has to look at the corruption and bloated budgets that came from the Big Dig in Boston to see why public works projects in this country are almost universally hated in the United States.


What do you think is it that's hampering public works projects here in the states?


----------



## davide84

GreenHornet553 said:


> Because the vast majoriy of our public infrastructure that we have which is still a key part of the backbone of transportation and commerce in the US today was built up by people in the private sector first


According to Wikipedia, this is not true for the Interstate Highway System.

I think here we're overlapping two concepts, which are not 100% the same: public transport and public funding/property. Virgin Trains USA is public transport but private ownership. The Interstate Highways are a private transport infrastructure with public funding and ownership.


----------



## Slartibartfas

GreenHornet553 said:


> Because the vast majoriy of our public infrastructure that we have which is still a key part of the backbone of transportation and commerce in the US today was built up by people in the private sector first and any attempt to use public funds to build infrastructure projects causes them to be overpriced albatrosses that can vary in terms of quality. One merely has to look at the corruption and bloated budgets that came from the Big Dig in Boston to see why public works projects in this country are almost universally hated in the United States.


Indeed. I have also always thought that the interstate network in the US is a ridiculously underused but overpriced white elephant...

It clearly shows that critical interstate and medium to long distance infrastructure should never be publicly constructed and owned. I mean just think of it, in the end this could mean a working passenger rail network beyond individual metropolitan areas and with HSR where it makes sense. We clearly don't want that, do we?


----------



## GreenHornet553

Slartibartfas said:


> Indeed. I have also always thought that the interstate network in the US is a ridiculously underused but overpriced white elephant...
> 
> It clearly shows that critical interstate and medium to long distance infrastructure should never be publicly constructed and owned. I mean just think of it, in the end this could mean a working passenger rail network beyond individual metropolitan areas and with HSR where it makes sense. We clearly don't want that, do we?


An Interstate Highway System that was primarily built by privately contracted construction firms in a time when labor unions weren't corrupt racketeering outfits posing as groups that pretend to care about worker's rights. That and your sarcasm aside though, the Interstate Highway System is the exception to the rule when it comes to transport infrastructure. Name me one modern day 100% publicly funded infrastructure project that has had the economic benefits equivalent to what the private rail systems have been able to accomplish with the cargo rail network.


----------



## GreenHornet553

D.S. Lewith said:


> What do you think is it that's hampering public works projects here in the states?


Primarily I would say modern unions. I think a lot of unions are grotesque, money hungry groups that give little to no care about the main people who comprise the union and only want to help the union bosses. Other than that, I would say it is a combination of regulations and lack of financial initiative. If the amount of money made back by any given railroad is not going to register a profit capable of decently offsetting the costs to build the rail network, then what's the point of making the investment?


----------



## Slartibartfas

GreenHornet553 said:


> An Interstate Highway System that was primarily built by privately contracted construction firms in a time when labor unions weren't corrupt racketeering outfits posing as groups that pretend to care about worker's rights. That and your sarcasm aside though, the Interstate Highway System is the exception to the rule when it comes to transport infrastructure. Name me one modern day 100% publicly funded infrastructure project that has had the economic benefits equivalent to what the private rail systems have been able to accomplish with the cargo rail network.


So the construction firms of the HSR in California are state owned? Or what is your point there?
Pretty gigantic exception to your rule I would say and one in the same category as HSR: transport infrastructure of nation wide importance, benefitting largely from a nation wide network plan.

I find it pretty fascinating when US Americans seem to think transport infrastructure can only have the value that the free market attributes to them. When it comes to national defense that flawed thought pattern doesn't exist at all. But just because mobility infrastructure has an actual income, contrary to waging war (profitable war crimes aside), it is a pretty short sighted view that it must be profitable on the free market to be worth its money. The idea that the system has national significance and benefits the market does not reward directly, like the interestate system which does have a considerable strategical defense value, is beyond most Americans it seems.To my knowledge the interstate system is also not profitable, maybe I am wrong there but in either case it is certainly worth itself.

Private freight rail is fine, I have nothing against it and as it works fine, there is also no need for public intervention. The US needs a capable passanger rail system for those corridors where it makes sense, in a way that it does not clash with freight rail service, like any other major developed country on earth. But I suppose all those other countries are completely different and not comparable as the US is totally unique, or they are all crazy sinking fortunes in some white elephant system. Or both.


----------



## binhai

Unions fought for the weekend. Show some respect.


----------



## Stuu

GreenHornet553 said:


> Name me one modern day 100% publicly funded infrastructure project that has had the economic benefits equivalent to what the private rail systems have been able to accomplish with the cargo rail network.


The entire highway system of the US? The airports of the US? The whole notion of 100% private infrastructure is a nonsense, as it relies on so many things provided by the state, first and foremost the rule of law


----------



## fieldsofdreams

If there is privately-built infrastructure, then it would more likely be a PPP (public-private partnership) wherein the private sector could fund, construct, and operate the new road or structure for a finite amount of time. Afterwards, it will be handed over to the government as it has the economies of scale to manage such a project in the long run at a lower cost.

Certain functions at airports, for example, can be contracted out to the private sector (e.g. concessionaires, maintenance, gate staff, aircraft management, etc.). However, vital functions like air traffic control, runway management, gates and routing assignments, and others are handed by their respective airport authorities, which is the public sector. A similar setup can be had if the US does build its HSR network; although, it can emulate the JR East Japan Railways Corporation model to successfully operate the intercity rail network without breaking Washington’s coffers.


----------



## SSCreader

fieldsofdreams said:


> It can emulate the JR East Japan Railways Corporation model to successfully operate the intercity rail network without breaking Washington’s coffers.


You don't know how the JR system is financed, do you? Before privatisation, the Shinkansen network was built at an enormous cost, and normal lines stopped being profitable due to competition from cars, trucks and planes. When starting the privatisation in 1987, the JNR had enormous debts. To try to cover those debts, the profitable companies were spun off, and bought the existing lines in exchange for long-term debts. But in 1998, the remaining JNR still had $300 billion of debt, no way to pay them, and the Japanese state took over those debts.

With this, the private JR companies bought the existing lines at a very steep discount. But even today, the Hokkaido and Shikoku companies, as well as the freight company are still public as they cannot make a profit. And for the profitable companies, lines built since 1988 are constructed by a state agency called JRTT, and only leased to them with a rate this is not connected to the construction cost. The leasing cost is calculated from the potential revenue of the line, and adjusted to reduce the windfall due to the transfer of the loss-making local lines to the regional authorities.

Railways have been breaking Tokyo's coffers since forever, but the public doesn't care.


----------



## Smooth Indian

GreenHornet553 said:


> Name me one modern day 100% publicly funded infrastructure project that has had the economic benefits equivalent to what the private rail systems have been able to accomplish with the cargo rail network.


The private railways built throughout the 19th centuries were granted land in return for laying down track. They also received huge chunks of land adjacent to the track which they monetized and perhaps paid the cost of laying the track (Build, Operate, Own Transfer model). Additionally, much of the land was available for track and monetization was cleared of any tribes and settlements by the US govt and army (Govt subsidies).


fieldsofdreams said:


> If there is privately-built infrastructure, then it would more likely be a PPP (public-private partnership) wherein the private sector could fund, construct, and operate the new road or structure for a finite amount of time. Afterwards, it will be handed over to the government as it has the economies of scale to manage such a project in the long run at a lower cost.
> 
> Certain functions at airports, for example, can be contracted out to the private sector (e.g. concessionaires, maintenance, gate staff, aircraft management, etc.). However, vital functions like air traffic control, runway management, gates and routing assignments, and others are handed by their respective airport authorities, which is the public sector. A similar setup can be had if the US does build its HSR network; although, it can emulate the JR East Japan Railways Corporation model to successfully operate the intercity rail network without breaking Washington’s coffers.


One has to think about who ultimately takes the ownership and responsibility of the infrastructure especially when it isn't returning sufficient profits . Contracting out functions to private players is really just private participation; I don't think the private contractors take responsibility/ownership or that particular infrastructure. When the losses arise the contractors simply walk away.


SSCreader said:


> You don't know how the JR system is financed, do you? Before privatisation, the Shinkansen network was built at an enormous cost, and normal lines stopped being profitable due to competition from cars, trucks and planes. When starting the privatisation in 1987, the JNR had enormous debts. To try to cover those debts, the profitable companies were spun off, and bought the existing lines in exchange for long-term debts. But in 1998, the remaining JNR still had $300 billion of debt, no way to pay them, and the Japanese state took over those debts.


Often what is considered as privatization is just reorganization with only part of the ownership passing on to private hands. The govt still owns sufficient stock to effect changes.


----------



## GreenHornet553

Slartibartfas said:


> So the construction firms of the HSR in California are state owned? Or what is your point there?
> Pretty gigantic exception to your rule I would say and one in the same category as HSR: transport infrastructure of nation wide importance, benefitting largely from a nation wide network plan.


My point is that the Interstate Highway System, and I will also grant the building of our airports, has generally been the only mass publicly funded projects that has been a resounding success and the financial benefits were seen immediately. Very few if any public infrastructure projects from that point since have been able to justify their exorbitant costs and why they go over budget at the expense of US taxpayers.



Slartibartfas said:


> I find it pretty fascinating when US Americans seem to think transport infrastructure can only have the value that the free market attributes to them. When it comes to national defense that flawed thought pattern doesn't exist at all. But just because mobility infrastructure has an actual income, contrary to waging war (profitable war crimes aside), it is a pretty short sighted view that it must be profitable on the free market to be worth its money. The idea that the system has national significance and benefits the market does not reward directly, like the interestate system which does have a considerable strategical defense value, is beyond most Americans it seems.To my knowledge the interstate system is also not profitable, maybe I am wrong there but in either case it is certainly worth itself.


Except the size of our military does justify its cost. The US Navy's budget guarantees that it can effectively implement the freedom of the seas which keeps cargo shipping lanes open to all peoples and for free market capitalism and global trade to take place so that it not only economically just benefits the United States, but enriches all nations instead of enriching one at the expense of others. Same can be said with the investment the US has made with the US Air Force, as the freedom of the skies allows for cargo planes to go virtually anywhere without the fear of getting shot down and allows for a level of freedom of movement not seen in human history until now. Without the US Air Force and US Navy, we would not be enjoying the fruits of free market global trade and freedom of movement we have now.



Slartibartfas said:


> Private freight rail is fine, I have nothing against it and as it works fine, there is also no need for public intervention. The US needs a capable passanger rail system for those corridors where it makes sense, in a way that it does not clash with freight rail service, like any other major developed country on earth. But I suppose all those other countries are completely different and not comparable as the US is totally unique, or they are all crazy sinking fortunes in some white elephant system. Or both.


The thing that makes this difficult is the spread out nature of the United States and the historic lack of demand from the American public for passenger rail service because the car and plane was thought to have usurped it. Now there is an actual need for passenger train technology but the federal government is such a tangled bureaucratic mess when it comes to solving domestic problems that it would be impossible for them to implement it competently. It's why I personally want it to be done via the private sector because it can be done on time, within budget, and efficiently.


----------



## Nacre

GreenHornet553 said:


> My point is that the Interstate Highway System, and I will also grant the building of our airports, has generally been the only mass publicly funded projects that has been a resounding success and the financial benefits were seen immediately.


You have a right to your anarcho-capitalist ideology. But saying that there were no public sector successes in infrastructure before highways and airports is simply not true. Every major American infrastructure project has required government support. Consider for example the Eerie Canal in 1817.

Infrastructure has historically required public funding. The original transcontinental railroad was built because the Pacific Railroad Acts gave the private railroad companies funding for construction in the 1860's.


----------



## fkus

METRO MIAMI | Miami Central-Virgin Trains
https://www.latimes.com/california/...-high-speed-train-project-moving-after-delays

Las Vegas high-speed train project, once stuck in low gear, is now moving forward
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eskyscrapercity%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fposts%2F167774256%2F&share_tid=1690980&share_fid=68605&share_type=t&share_pid=167774256


----------



## Slartibartfas

GreenHornet553 said:


> My point is that the Interstate Highway System, and I will also grant the building of our airports, has generally been the only mass publicly funded projects that has been a resounding success and the financial benefits were seen immediately. Very few if any public infrastructure projects from that point since have been able to justify their exorbitant costs and why they go over budget at the expense of US taxpayers.


So for two out of the 3 major passenger transportation modes, public driven systems have been a huge success, while for the third, passenger rail, it has never been attempted to build a proper contemporary system. 
Maybe it is just me, but that is a pretty darn good track record for the area of mobility infrastructure. 

And please, don't respond with "But theres the big failure Amtrak". Amtrak has never been the attempt of a proper passenger rail network. It is merely the liquidation mass of railwy kept on a minimal budget life line. Rail never saw even remotely the investments that road or air got in the 20th century. If it had, the US would today have a well functioning HSR network like most other major developed countries in the world. There is really no reason why it could or would not.





> Except the size of our military does justify its cost.


What is that nonsensical argument? If the US woudl put merely a share of its defense fundings into passenger rail infrastructure it could have the worlds largest HSR network as well and that would actually deliver a direct benefit to many US Americans, at least those living in one of the larger metropolitan areas, which how many? 1/3 at least, isn't it?



> The thing that makes this difficult is the spread out nature of the United States


Just because this argument is repeated ad finitum, doesn't mean it is not completely missing the point or even outright wrong. The US has plenty of potential HSR corridors and there are numerous studies out there identifying. In fact the US has more of these corridors than many other developed countries in the world. Chicago-NYC could be a NYC trip away from each other. The entire east coast is one big corridor, so is the West Coast and then there are a number of individual corridors that make a lot of sense, eg in Texas. 

Add all of that together and you'd end up with easily more km of track than Japan. Also the spread out nature of US cities doesn't cut it. HSR can function just like airports and they obviously do function on the same corridors which could be served by HSR as well. HSR has the advantage of being more flexible in fact. It can serve downtowns as well as suburban hub stations at the same time and still offer much higher capacities than airports.


----------



## GreenHornet553

Nacre said:


> You have a right to your anarcho-capitalist ideology. But saying that there were no public sector successes in infrastructure before highways and airports is simply not true. Every major American infrastructure project has required government support. Consider for example the Eerie Canal in 1817.
> 
> Infrastructure has historically required public funding. The original transcontinental railroad was built because the Pacific Railroad Acts gave the private railroad companies funding for construction in the 1860's.


I'm not trying to be AnCap here. I am just saying that there have been rare occasions in modern day where public works projects have worked due to the gross bureaucracy around most projects.


----------



## Slartibartfas

The rare occasions being the core infrastructure networks of 2 ot of 3 main modes of mobility. The 3rd one being rail where, due to ideological reasons, the state failed to invest to the extend it has in the other two areas.
Btw, the new main station of Vienna (which did no less than connecting a previous terminal stop chaos, like in Paris or London, into one central hub) was realized on time and on budget. Is the US incapable of doing what other developed countries seem to manage just fine, is that's what you are saying?


----------



## Nacre

Slartibartfas said:


> Is the US incapable of doing what other developed countries seem to manage just fine, is that's what you are saying?


Unfortunately unions and public servants in the USA do indeed work differently than in Germanic and Scandinavian countries. For example it cost about eight times as much to dig the Second Avenue Subway in New York ($1.26 billion/km) as a comparable project in Europe. And the Big Bertha TBM had nearly three times as many staff as a comparable project in Germany.


----------



## Smooth Indian

GreenHornet553 said:


> I'm not trying to be AnCap here. I am just saying that there have been rare occasions in modern day where public works projects have worked due to the gross bureaucracy around most projects.


I would imagine that even if the private consortium were to build an HSR section (Nevada and Texas come to my mind) they will have to grapple with permits and regulations; An unfriendly govt would use those as tools to block the project. Special interests would also come up with lawsuits to get their pound of flesh. The private sector also has to grapple with unions. Wherever unions are weaker, there public and private investment both would have one less obstacle to surmount (Note - This is not a comment on unions). If the private sector was that efficient they would have figured out a way to build and complete a few HSR routes by now. The fact that they didn't indicates that the task is very capital-intensive with returns on investments taking much longer than lets say investments in factories, R&D centers, supply chain facilities. And even the latter often comes with incentives from the govt.
IMHO private participation is welcome wherever it can be obtained. But denying the role of the govt as a facilitator at the least won't help. A supportive govt at various levels need not always spend huge amounts of taxpayer money; It can get the HSR projects rolling by making attractive incentives/provisions for the private sector and some smart coordinating.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Nacre said:


> Unfortunately unions and public servants in the USA do indeed work differently than in Germanic and Scandinavian countries. For example it cost about eight times as much to dig the Second Avenue Subway in New York ($1.26 billion/km) as a comparable project in Europe. And the Big Bertha TBM had nearly three times as many staff as a comparable project in Germany.


Well situation in NYC is a quite peculiar one by itself indeed. Digging in Manhattan is probably a lot more challenging than in many other cities even in the urban core. That said, I would not be surprised if mismanagement would be a big factor as well.

Big projects always are in risk of these things. I am slightly amused by the widely held belief in the US that this is something primarily found with public actors. If we look take a closer look at PPP-projects, there is just as much if not more nasty stuff to be found and purely private actors have in some sectors an incredibly poor track record, especially if the "invisible hand" is guiding them into a direction which is going against public interest. Yes behold and beware, that is actually possible, believe it nor not.


----------



## TM_Germany

I don't remember the exact details but I've read an article about the 2nd Ave subway some time ago. The solid rock of Manhattan is actually very convenient for tunnel digging, as you don't have to worry about the ground above subsiding. American Unions are not equivalent to Northern European ones, they are often extremely toxic and literally (!) run like and by the mafia. In the article I read, it stated that Unions in NY have the power to make the relevant contracts for the construction process, i.e. they can dictate how many men are to be hired for any job they like. This can result in TBMs which only need a handful of people to be operated being staffed by multiple dozens, each receiving a salary of more than a 100,000$. 
While I am not an expert on the topic, this would also explain why the Union heavy northeast has such huge problems with cost overruns (on already huge budgets) and delays on any public project, while in Texas, where Unions have little or no influence, huge public infrastructure projects get churned out in short timespans in reasonable budgets. So while workers rights and representation are certainly important, criticising the Unions and management is certainly valid.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I am not saying it isn't.
I would be however surprised if constructing subways under such heavily built up real estate would be simple. Of course if one builds very deep and in solid rock it could be, but then the station buildings will be large and expensive.



GreenHornet553 said:


> My point is that the Interstate Highway System, and I will also grant the building of our airports, has generally been the only mass publicly funded projects that has been a resounding success and the financial benefits were seen immediately. Very few if any public infrastructure projects from that point since have been able to justify their exorbitant costs and why they go over budget at the expense of US taxpayers.


But that is the critical backbone of 2 out of 3 major passenger transportation systems. Calling that an exception is ludicrous. The third one being exactly the one where no substantial public investment has ever taken place when the rest of the developed world and even some of the developing countries have started to take the next step. So the third one should not be invested because the other two worked out great. Makes sense.



> Except the size of our military does justify its cost.


So would the investment in a proper HSR network. The size of that network and its game changing nature for mobility and connectino of cities, would merit the investment. That's the point.
You argument seems to be, the infrastructure does not exist, as the investment has not happened and therefore the investment is not justified.



> The thing that makes this difficult is the spread out nature of the United States


That argument was always BS. The real argument was that passenger rail was disinvested for political and ideological reasons, ie because cars and planes were seen as the future and rail as the past, on top of that there were wested corporate intersests at play as well.

I think your argument regarding the private sector is missing the point. One realize HSR and modern passenger rail with a varying degree of private sector involvement. The construction companies will be private anyway. One can also construct the corridors in PPP projects and have private operators. However, having private infrastructure companies has been shown to be a rather poor choice, unless there is strict regulation.


----------



## D.S. Lewith

TM_Germany said:


> I don't remember the exact details but I've read an article about the 2nd Ave subway some time ago. The solid rock of Manhattan is actually very convenient for tunnel digging, as you don't have to worry about the ground above subsiding. American Unions are not equivalent to Northern European ones, they are often extremely toxic and literally (!) run like and by the mafia. In the article I read, it stated that Unions in NY have the power to make the relevant contracts for the construction process, i.e. they can dictate how many men are to be hired for any job they like. This can result in TBMs which only need a handful of people to be operated being staffed by multiple dozens, each receiving a salary of more than a 100,000$.
> While I am not an expert on the topic, this would also explain why the Union heavy northeast has such huge problems with cost overruns (on already huge budgets) and delays on any public project, while in Texas, where Unions have little or no influence, huge public infrastructure projects get churned out in short timespans in reasonable budgets. So while workers rights and representation are certainly important, criticising the Unions and management is certainly valid.


There's also that the area surrounding the NEC is extremely built around, whereas between Houston and Dallas, there's barely anything around (and it's flat) so obviously costs are going to be considerably reduced.


----------



## Stuu

GreenHornet553 said:


> I'm not trying to be AnCap here. I am just saying that there have been rare occasions in modern day where public works projects have worked due to the gross bureaucracy around most projects.


As an outsider it does appear that the void between the main political parties is a massive issue in the US - how many times does the administration change hands and want to change everything, for the sake of it? Yes that does happen elsewhere, but the US seems to be a lot worse. Self-inflicted wounds really


----------



## GreenHornet553

Stuu said:


> As an outsider it does appear that the void between the main political parties is a massive issue in the US - how many times does the administration change hands and want to change everything, for the sake of it? Yes that does happen elsewhere, but the US seems to be a lot worse. Self-inflicted wounds really



It really is a big pain in the ass.


----------



## TM_Germany

D.S. Lewith said:


> There's also that the area surrounding the NEC is extremely built around, whereas between Houston and Dallas, there's barely anything around (and it's flat) so obviously costs are going to be considerably reduced.


That will surely help with HSR but Texas also manages large urban infrastructure projects in Dallas or Houston much better than in the Northeast.


----------



## davide84

Stuu said:


> how many times does the administration change hands and want to change everything, for the sake of it?


Not just this. Sometimes it looks like the distribution of power and the election calendars are designed to give every president a Congress controlled by the opposite party...


----------



## Smooth Indian

davide84 said:


> Not just this. Sometimes it looks like the distribution of power and the election calendars are designed to give every president a Congress controlled by the opposite party...


I think it was made amply clear by many during Obama's 1st term that the US political system is designed for grid lock and to check any momentary spike in public preference. Any step forward would therefore need a serious landslide towards one political disposition or through painstaking negotiations towards a broader consensus.


----------



## mgk920

And yet, if a true need arises, the USA's 'republic' system can quickly respond to it.

My biggest beef with parliamentary systems is that they often act too quickly for their own good and that they can go 180 degrees back and forth, like a clock pendulum, on the whole slate of governing policies with astonishing rapidity based on the latest shifting whims and fads of the voters.

Mike


----------



## Smooth Indian

mgk920 said:


> And yet, if a true need arises, the USA's 'republic' system can quickly respond to it.
> 
> My biggest beef with parliamentary systems is that they often act too quickly for their own good and that they can go 180 degrees back and forth, like a clock pendulum, on the whole slate of governing policies with astonishing rapidity based on the latest shifting whims and fads of the voters.
> 
> Mike


In parliamentary systems, the upper house and the bureaucracy operate at different timetables and act as buffers against whims and fads. And often the public returns a hung parliament with gridlock and the need for painstaking negotiations. Ousting an unpopular leader can be done more quickly. In the US system (other presidential systems might bt different) a bad executive can easily break things while a good executive will have to try much harder to fix or build. 



mgk920 said:


> And yet, if a true need arises, the USA's 'republic' system can quickly respond to it.


I think a unified response could be insufficient/botched if the executive and legislature (or part of it) are at war with each other or have an interest in each others failures. 

Parliamentary systems come up with their own myriad shortcomings. However the US system has its own quirks such as the 'electoral college'; The electoral college I believed acted as an bulwark against minority/limited issue vote banks. Not sure that is the case now.


----------



## Nacre

I don't think parliamentary systems vs presidential systems have much to do with rail services. The UK has a parliamentary system and yet has relatively poor rail performance compared to most of Western Europe.






The real issues in the Anglosphere are 1) the Common Law system, 2) an individualist culture unwilling to work for the common good as in Germany, Scandinavia and East Asia, 3) relatively old and cost-inefficient rail infrastructure.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Nacre said:


> I don't think parliamentary systems vs presidential systems have much to do with rail services. The UK has a parliamentary system and yet has relatively poor rail performance compared to most of Western Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issues in the Anglosphere are 1) the Common Law system, 2) an individualist culture unwilling to work for the common good as in Germany, Scandinavia and East Asia, 3) relatively old and cost-inefficient rail infrastructure.


😬Someone switched us on the track to P-town and me and couple of other willingly obliged.


----------



## Stuu

Nacre said:


> I don't think parliamentary systems vs presidential systems have much to do with rail services. The UK has a parliamentary system and yet has relatively poor rail performance compared to most of Western Europe.


It's not really true though, although there was a long period of underinvestment in rail services in the UK that is now a thing of the past and has been for at least a decade - both main parties are much more committed to infrastructure and rail in particular than in the past. The biggest problem now (until recently) was too many people wanting to use the trains. The US, and the GOP in particular, is an outlier in the western world for not supporting infrastructure development


----------



## prageethSL

Finally some good news 

*High-Speed LA-To-Las Vegas Virgin Train Wins $600 Million California Bond Allocation*



> Amid the broad economic slowdown triggered by the coronavirus, California has approved a $600 million private activity bond allocation for construction of the $5 billion Virgin Trains-Brightline railway that within four years could be whisking passengers from Las Vegas to a (distant) Los Angeles suburb at speeds of up to 200 miles an hour.
> 
> Approved unanimously in Sacramento on Tuesday by a committee overseen by California Treasurer Fiona Ma, Virgin Trains-Brightline can sell up to four times the allocation amount, raising as much as $2.4 billion for the project. The company, which operates the Brightline rail service in South Florida, is also awaiting word on a $200 million private activity bond allocation from Nevada that would raise an additional $800 million. The U.S. Department of Transportation last month provisionally awarded the project $1 billion of private activity bonds, raising potential funding for the 180-mile-long project to $4.2 billion. That’s just $800 million shy of the railway’s $5 billion construction tab.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250148267796639748


----------



## Nacre

LA-Vegas is honestly the best location for HSR outside of the Northeast Corridor. Las Vegas doesn't have much public transport for residents, but for tourists (like people from LA) it's already a very walkable destination if you stick to the casinos. And there are a huge number of travelers to provide fares.

A station outside of downtown Los Angeles doesn't make sense for interconnectivity with other rail services, but it does for attracting passengers as most people would drive to the station.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Very walkable? In my view it was an absolute nightmare to navigate as pedestrian, also and especially at the strip. Not that there were not quite attractive walkways and such and one can actually walk along the strip even on a longer distance. The path is however beyond arcane and confusing. You are forced into casinos and out, cross randomly the street on overpasses than there are stretches of regular (spacious) walkways along the street. It really feels not like walking along a street but just within a long Casino complex... which it actually is I suppose. 

From an urban street I would expect however, that one can just walk along, straight, without substantial in-building detours. That is not possible there and the public transportation for tourists is maybe sufficient but hardly to write home about, whatsoever. As such, this is certainl not a great starting position for a HSR station. However, things are not set in stone. If a HSR route is possible surely an improvement of the local PT should not be impossible either.


----------



## 437.001

prageethSL said:


> Finally some good news
> 
> *High-Speed LA-To-Las Vegas Virgin Train Wins $600 Million California Bond Allocation*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250148267796639748


California approves, yes, okay… but what about Nevada?

ps (just in case) - Sorry if I crash in by missing out on stuff, I haven't followed the thread for long.


----------



## Nacre

Slartibartfas said:


> Very walkable? In my view it was an absolute nightmare to navigate as pedestrian, also and especially at the strip. Not that there were not quite attractive walkways and such and one can actually walk along the strip even on a longer distance. The path is however beyond arcane and confusing. You are forced into casinos and out, cross randomly the street on overpasses than there are stretches of regular (spacious) walkways along the street. It really feels not like walking along a street but just within a long Casino complex... which it actually is I suppose.


1) I agree. Las Vegas is my least favorite American city. It is not really a city at all, but a theme park for waste, gambling, gluttony, alcoholism, and sexually-transmitted diseases.

2) For tourists who actually want to go into casinos Las Vegas can easily be enjoyed without a car.


----------



## Gusiluz

437.001 said:


> California approves, yes, okay… but what about Nevada?
> 
> ps (just in case) - Sorry if I crash in by missing out on stuff, I haven't followed the thread for long.


According to _Las Vegas Review-Journal_, the final step to get the high-speed project underway is for Nevada to approve $US 200m in bonds from the state’s debt limit allocation, which would allow Virgin to market $US 800m in bonds for the project.



> Terry Reynolds, director of Nevada’s Department of Business, said it is still waiting for various agreements to be finalized before any decision is made.
> “We still need the Nevada Department of Transportation agreement finalized, final environmental determination, evidence that the FRA will issue the record of decision, and (financial adviser) David Robertson’s due diligence on the financial side before we can issue a finding of fact,” Reynolds said.
> There is no meeting set to discuss the bond approval in Nevada, and one won’t be set until all outstanding items are completed.
> “We hope in the future we can turn our attention back to this project,” Reynolds said.





> Both bond approvals are reliant upon all Virgin bonds being issued by Sept. 30. If they are not, California will put the $600 million it approved into the state’s new construction pool for affordable housing.


Source: IRJ Apr 16, 2020:


> Construction could start later this year provided the Nevada bond is approved and depending on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the project


----------



## Slartibartfas

Nacre said:


> 2) For tourists who actually want to go into casinos Las Vegas can easily be enjoyed without a car.


Well, if you don't mind in which casino you are or how to get anywhere specifc, yes. However, even as a tourist to Las Vegas I wanted to get to specific places, not just float around arbitrarily. I am sure other tourists think like that as well, even in Las Vegas. I guess you are supposed to take those buses on the Strip if you want to get anywhere else on the strip. maybe that works but that can't be much more than stitchwork if I think of the number of people on the strip and the capacity of that bus line. The people mover on the other side is not much more than a toy as the locations it gets you to is limited and it is adding even more confusion to the layout as it is hidden rather well from the strip.


----------



## sebass123

does anyone know what would be the operating speed of the LA-Las Vegas rail? are there any more details?


----------



## Gusiluz

In my notes I have 290 km/h as maximum commercial speed, and they say it will take an hour and a half to cover the 299 km between Las Vegas and Victorville, which would mean 199 km/h on average.

When Virgin wasn't around yet and it was called XpressWest the project was more modest, although I have a maximum speed of 241 km/h and a time of only 1 h 24 m, at 214 on average


----------



## WillBuild

Slartibartfas said:


> Well, if you don't mind in which casino you are or how to get anywhere specifc, yes. However, even as a tourist to Las Vegas I wanted to get to specific places, not just float around arbitrarily. I am sure other tourists think like that as well, even in Las Vegas. I guess you are supposed to take those buses on the Strip if you want to get anywhere else on the strip. maybe that works but that can't be much more than stitchwork if I think of the number of people on the strip and the capacity of that bus line. The people mover on the other side is not much more than a toy as the locations it gets you to is limited and it is adding even more confusion to the layout as it is hidden rather well from the strip.


Or, you know, walk.

Most of the Strip is pretty walkable, 45 minutes from Mandalay Bay to the Mirage with lots to see (obv.), for most of the year. In summer in the middle of the day, walk through the casinos.

I cannot imagine renting a car just to get between casinos. Though I know as well that that is what lots of people at McCarran do.

Off strip, yeah, Uber will get you to some destinations. But you'll need a car to go anywhere farther out.


----------



## prageethSL

Gusiluz said:


> In my notes I have 290 km/h as maximum commercial speed, and they say it will take an hour and a half to cover the 299 km between Las Vegas and Victorville, which would mean 199 km/h on average.
> 
> When Virgin wasn't around yet and it was called XpressWest the project was more modest, although I have a maximum speed of 241 km/h and a time of only 1 h 24 m, at 214 on average


Any idea what type of rolling stock they will use?


----------



## Gusiluz

No, I've never heard of any particular train since Virgin was in charge, only that the trains would have about 600 seats.

In 09/2015 there was an agreement with Chinese CRI (CRRC), but since it is controlled by Virgin I didn't write anything down.


----------



## Slartibartfas

WillBuild said:


> Or, you know, walk.
> 
> Most of the Strip is pretty walkable, 45 minutes from Mandalay Bay to the Mirage with lots to see (obv.), for most of the year. In summer in the middle of the day, walk through the casinos.
> 
> I cannot imagine renting a car just to get between casinos. Though I know as well that that is what lots of people at McCarran do.
> 
> Off strip, yeah, Uber will get you to some destinations. But you'll need a car to go anywhere farther out.


I walked the Strip. The entire part of it before it starts to get patchy and mixed with empty lots.
It is very "strollable" but it is not very walkable.

Like I said above, if you want to get to a specific place, without being directed into a casino at every second crossing, struggling to figure out the way, the Strip is pretty bad. If you just wander around floating from whatever Casino to whatever comes next, it is a nice experience.

What the strip would need is much more pedestrian crossings at street level, yes, even if that means that cars have to wait from time to time and where overpasses are still necessary they need to offer a straightforward path along the strip. Than we could start talking about the Strip being walkable in urban terms.


----------



## prageethSL

*FRA seeks public comments on safety standards for Dallas-Houston high-speed line*


> The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has announced that it is accepting public comments on proposed safety standards (called a ‘rule of particular applicability’) that will permit Texas Central to build its planned Dallas to Houston high-speed line according to the Japanese high-speed rail model.
> 
> The high-speed line will feature an adapted version of the trains used on the Tokaido Shinkansen line – a high-speed service that runs from Tokyo to Osaka and has not had a passenger fatality or injury since beginning operation in 1964.
> 
> Like the Tokaido Shinkansen, the Texas Central high-speed line will be a standalone system, with no freight trains or highway crossings, and will be completely fenced off. Due to the system’s safety features, the trains can be lighter than current U.S. standards allow and will run at maximum speeds of 205mph.
> 
> The lighter trains also translate into lower operating costs, lower track maintenance costs and better acceleration – all are improvements that will increase the system’s overall performance and economic viability. This is important progress for the high-speed line, as it sets the stage for new FRA standards that permit lighter trains on a wider scale. That reform is key to the adoption and flourishing of high-speed rail across the U.S.


----------



## Gusiluz

Thanks for the news!

Not only Tokaido, all Shinkansen is independent, except for the Mini-Shinkansen (to the east).

Until now I thought they might have to start at 300 km/h because they didn't get in time to the new FRA regulation in December 2018.
Similar trains (N700i) run in Taiwan at 300 km/h (the last three trains, the previous 30 are very similar: 700 series), as well as the current N700/N700A/N700S from JR Central, JR West and JR Kyushu only on the Sanyo Shinkansen (at 285 on the Tokaido Shinkansen, and 260 on the Kyushu Shinkansen).


----------



## davide84

> a standalone system, with no freight trains or highway crossings, and will be completely fenced off


According to this definition most HS systems are independent, by design (French TGV) or at least _de facto_ (Italy).

Actually, no HS system and very few modern railways are built with crossings nowadays, and (at least in Europe) the existing crossings are being replaced or suppressed at the first occasion...


----------



## mgk920

There are crossovers to conventional rail lines on some of these overseas high-speed system (ie, TGV) for either short notice detour use or to allow more remote existing conventional stations access to the true high-speed system, even though they were not important enough to warrant construction of full new-ROW high-speed lines to directly serve them.

Mike


----------



## Gusiluz

In France and Italy new HS lines are made separated from the rest outside the cities. Access to the cities is usually by traditional tracks, which are often shared with other types of traffic, usually not freight.
However, HSR should not be confused with the route of HSTs, e.g. TGVs (and italian HST) normally run on conventional routes with level crossings.

Completely separated in all its route is usually because of the gauge (Shinkansen, Taiwan, Spain).

Here we are talking about a system completely separate from the rest by reason of the owner.


----------



## TER200

mgk920 said:


> There are crossovers to conventional rail lines on some of these overseas high-speed system (ie, TGV) for either short notice detour use or to allow more remote existing conventional stations access to the true high-speed system, even though they were not important enough to warrant construction of full new-ROW high-speed lines to directly serve them.
> 
> Mike


And so, at the normal speed there (or slightly higher, ex. 220 km/h instead of 200, thanks to better brakes). But those lines are not to be considered as part of HSR, as Gusiluz explained.


----------



## navyou14

Building a state/local HSR -network is a bad investment, a federal network layout should have been proposed instead, hence carefully studied to find the most profitable corridors. CAHSR is a little exception considering how it will alleviate some of the congestion between the major cities, the future for the Texas HSR looks dark to me though. The Texas HSR is not profitable enough because the network is too localized this will become a major debt burden as ridership may not be as high as some of us expect to be.


----------



## Smooth Indian

navyou14 said:


> Building a state/local HSR -network is a bad investment, a federal network layout should have been proposed instead, hence carefully studied to find the most profitable corridors. CAHSR is a little exception considering how it will alleviate some of the congestion between the major cities, the future for the Texas HSR looks dark to me though. The Texas HSR is not profitable enough because the network is too localized this will become a major debt burden as ridership may not be as high as some of us expect to be.


What in your opinion needs to happen or change so that the Texas HSR routes or other regional HSR routes become more viable?


----------



## Vishek

mgk920 said:


> They will likely be using the proposed CAHSR (California High Speed Rail) line between Palmdale and Los Angeles Union Station when it is built. The LAX-LAS line would then run between Palmdale and Victorville roughly along the CA 18 and CA 138 corridor.
> 
> The CAHSR guys are currently studying alternatives for their line between Palmdale and about Burbank in the Soledad Canyon/CA 14 freeway corridor, all of which will involve extensive tunneling. The part from Burbank to Los Angeles Union has pretty much been set.
> 
> I'm kind of curious as to why the Palmdale-Victorville part is not included in this current construction proposal.
> 
> Mike


The German model is where you build from the outskirts of one city to the outskirts of another city, as opposed to the other models where you build entirely new stations and urban track (though the urban situation is much better in Germany than India or the UK). The problem with the CaliHSR is that there isn't really that much urban public transport infrastructure in either San Francisco or Los Angeles to be able to say it isn't cost effective. And in terms of the LAS line, do they expect the public to drive to Victorville whilst CaliHSR is being built?

I guess the entire concept of _driving_ to railway stations is really untested because usually a significant public transport system exists on either ends of a high speed railway line. It exists in some rural areas but that's because the distances are too short for a plane to be efficient.


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## aquaticko

navyou14 said:


> Building a state/local HSR -network is a bad investment, a federal network layout should have been proposed instead, hence carefully studied to find the most profitable corridors. CAHSR is a little exception considering how it will alleviate some of the congestion between the major cities, the future for the Texas HSR looks dark to me though. The Texas HSR is not profitable enough because the network is too localized this will become a major debt burden as ridership may not be as high as some of us expect to be.


I don't think you're looking at things accurately. A truly national HSR network is not--barring truly dramatic increases in population which seem unlikely given America's rightfully declining reputation--ever going to be feasible. The gaps between the populated regions of the U.S. are simply too large.

However, a comprehensive system in Texas, California, the Pacific Northwest, and most of the country east of the Mississippi River works. What could work--especially given the decreasing capacities of the federal government--is much-increased interstate and regional cooperation. New England could and should be very connected with the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states, which could and should be very connected with the South.

I remember seeing that the population density of the U.S. east of the Mississippi is about the same as that of Western Europe. The only real difference in terms of applicability and probable success of intercity rail service is how suburbanized the U.S. compared to Europe. Truthfully, that's where the really heavy work of reform U.S. transportation networks is.


----------



## Nacre

navyou14 said:


> Building a state/local HSR -network is a bad investment, a federal network layout should have been proposed instead, hence carefully studied to find the most profitable corridors.


Keep in mind that the different states/provinces of North America are as large as many European nations.

Italy: 301,338 km^2
Germany: 357,386 km^2
_California_: 423,970 km^2
Sweden: 450,295 km^2
Spain: 505,990 km^2

The real problem with HSR in North America are 1) the lack of good public transport systems to connect to the rail lines, and 2) the huge distances between cities at a national level. San Francisco to Washington DC is farther than Stockholm to Tehran.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Navyou is right though. The EU has a hard time transforming all those national networks into something that also makes sense on a European level, connecting those isolated network islands. Some progress has been made already (link Barcelona to Marseille and Lyon. In the Benelux region there had been border crossing planning right from the start and so there the situation is good as well. Between France and Germany, the French side is alreayd fine but the DB on the German side is dragging its feet, like with almost any cross border project, even where they legally bound themselves to build something to a certain deadline.

The Italian network is still terribly connnected to others. There is a very controversial game changing project planned which would creaet a HSR link between Torino and Lyon, finally creating a powerful link between the Italian and French network.
...
The list could go on. The US would be well advised to have a federal plan on important corridors right away. The total area of territories is pretty much of no consequence, it is all about potential corridors and their length and if connections across state borders make sense.

PS: No one is suggesting DC to SF. That's a straw man brought up only by opponents of HSR. However NYC to Chicago would be actually still feasible. Both are huge metropolitan areas and distances like that can be found in HSR networks around the world.


----------



## chaser9

Yeah the part about trying to connect a hodgepodge of networks after the fact is a serious and expensive issue. Hence the low average speeds across most of Europe's HSR systems compared to China where HSR covers vast distances across dense urban populations very high average speeds. The US should plan the network at a national level so important junctions can be designed up front. Then the most trafficked routes should be built first and extensions built later.

Right now you have California HSR that has a capacity handicap fully baked into it at the transbay terminal. Then there's the isolated Texas HSR designed with stub ended stations with plans for extension even within Texas. North East corridor is just a hot mess. New York to Chicago (792miles/1275km), New York to Atlanta (866miles/1394km) and Chicago to Atlanta (717miles/1154km). All these routes can be a thing. They are not too far off from Beijing to Shanghai (808miles/1302km) which the fastest train covers in 4:24 and has about 70% HSR dominance compared to Air travel.

The Interstate highway system was done at a national level, so the HSR should be planned at a national level. Unfortunately, the US just does not have the political will to be that ambitious about HSR.


----------



## Attus

Nacre said:


> They are not too far off from Beijing to Shanghai (808miles/1302km) which the fastest train covers in 4:24 and has about 70% HSR dominance compared to Air travel.


True. However, both Beijing and Shanghai have a population of more than 20 millions. Chicago metropolitan region is around 10M. That's a huge difference. But what's even more important: along the Beijing - Shanghai Railway line there are cities line Tianjin (14 millions), Jinan (8M), Xuzhou (8M), Nanjing (8M), Suzhou (10M), etc. Only a minority of passangers travels between Shanghai and Beijing, the majority uses at least one station between them.
Between NY and Chicago you have Indianapolis, Pittsburgh or Cleveland, they look like villages, compared to those Chinese cities.

True, however, that the Chinese built high speed lines in much more sparsely populated regions as well. But most of them must be subsidied by the state in order not to be closed, incomes do not cover the operating costs.


----------



## aquaticko

I still think that misses the point. First of all, there are exogenous reasons that China's HSR network is the way it is and why its per capita ridership is--when adjusted for GDP/PPP--fairly high. Inarguably, yes, the comprehensiveness of the system is important, but much-diminished domestic air travel plays an obvious role. Also, car ownership in China still hasn't reached the numbers of Western Europe, to say nothing of the situation 20-40 years ago when (figuratively speaking) no one in China had a car and the only real means of intercity travel was trains; China was primed for HSR to an extent nowhere outside of pre-Shinkansen Japan was.

Additionally, the HSR markets of Europe are still, individually, very healthy. Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, and France all have rail ridership numbers that--individually--positively dwarf those of the U.S. And in a similar analogue to above, car ownership numbers and (perhaps more tellingly in this example) vehicle miles traveled have always been and continue to be much greater in the U.S. than in Europe. (Interregional travel in the U.S. is also much more common than in Europe--no language barriers; while that suggests that an interregional rail system would do well, it doesn't discredit the importance of good individual systems.)

My only idea is that the transportation systems and land development patterns of the U.S. are so messed up that there is scarcely any better or worse way to start changing things for the better; most plausible early attempts are roughly equally likely to fail, but when things are as bad as they are now, the risk of failing in a way that actually worsens the situation is very small.


----------



## kunming tiger

Also, car ownership in China still hasn't reached the numbers of Western Europe, to say nothing of the situation 20-40 years ago when (figuratively speaking) no one in China had a car and the only real means of intercity travel was trains; China was primed for HSR to an extent nowhere outside of pre-Shinkansen Japan was. 

The national expressway system in China is a system based on tolls. The tolls are quite expensive to the point that it is cheaper to fly or go by HSR for individual travelers for distances that exceed 300 kms this goes some way to encouraging the use of HSR over private vehicles.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I doubt the big competitor for a route NYC-Chicago would be the car. It would be rather aviation.

It is not the most competitive corridor of course at is already rather on the longer side. However it is still a feasible distance and it would connect some of the most significant metropolitan areas of the US.


----------



## 437.001

chaser9 said:


> New York to Chicago (792miles/1275km), New York to Atlanta (866miles/1394km) and Chicago to Atlanta (717miles/1154km). All these routes can be a thing.


I'm not sure.

Each of the cities you mention create demand by themselves, that's obvious.

But, aside from New York to Atlanta, as that would use much of the North Eastern corridor (New York to Washington DC, which is pretty busy and has a huge potential by itself), all the other corridors, and the Washington DC to Atlanta bit, would need to rely a lot on the intermediate stops for demand.

I mean, New York to Chicago is a similar distance than Barcelona to Paris or Barcelona to Seville, which take over 5 hours by train today each, and there's only a handful of trains per day and direction (no more than four trains by now, and its number changes through the seasons).
And we're talking Spain and France, where train ridership is much higher than in the US.

Not to talk about another of the big question marks.

Let's figure out the US builds a HSL to New York (at federal level or interstate pact, or private capital, or some in between idea).

On paper, okay.

But... where in New York would you build a new HSR station?
Under Central Park?

Because I don't think Penn Station of Grand Central Station could cope with it.
Not to say that the tunnel under the Hudson between New York and New Jersey is extremely strained even now, as there are only two tracks, which is a big problem for there's a lack of capacity.

And then there's the really big question mark, its cost.

And I don't think I'd be very misled if I said that what applies to New York also applies to Chicago.
Although it's true that outside New York, and maybe San Francisco (but that's the West, which is a different planet), there aren't such dense cities.
HOWEVER, in Europe and in much of Asia, stations have the advantage (over aviation) of being in central locations (take Waterloo station in London, which is a short walk away from the Big Ben, or Gare de Lyon station in Paris, which is not a very long walk from Notre Dame).

Can you do this everywhere in the US without spending crazy amounts of money on new infrastructure (much of it probably underground), or without saturating existing railway lines?
I have my doubts.


----------



## chaser9

The same skeptical sentiment was spewed around in the western media with 1001 reasons why China building HSR was a waste of resources and how the people are too poor to use such a system at the initial onset of the network build out. Fast forward to today and the rhetoric has shifted to, it's successful in some parts because of the high population density and it won't work in the US because that level of density is not present. 

Regarding Penn Station. There is enough space at Penn station, it's just currently poorly arranged and utilized. Yes new tunnels would be required if you want a dedicated network, but the tunnels towards and out of Penn station would be short.

In regards to station locations. Only Europe and Japan have extensive city center HSR stations. China on the other hand have stations far away from city center which is not ideal, but it shows that not having a city center station is not that much of a deal breaker in the US because most cities (excluding NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco) have weak centers to begin with. 

Cost is a major issue and that is a huge impediment. The US has to do something about it's infrastructure costs and bring them down to global norms if there's going to be any possibility of building out a nationwide network. At current US costs, its like unfeasible, but not impossible. Because even at the current high costs, it's still cheaper than constantly subsidizing the highways. The US has chosen a policy of subsidizing highways and suburbanization while other developed countries have adopted a policy of subsidizing their passenger rail.


----------



## kunming tiger

In regards to station locations. Only Europe and Japan have extensive city center HSR stations. China on the other hand have stations far away from city center which is not ideal, but it shows that not having a city center station is not that much of a deal breaker in the US because most cities (excluding NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco) have weak centers to begin with. 

In major urban areas in china such as Guangzhou there are multiple HSR terminus located out of the city center, Guangzhou South, North, Baiyun, East etc. Due to high population density the existence of large cities located around it and the need to integrate HSR terminals into aviation hubs the model of a single standalone HSR terminus located centrally does not make a lot of sense. All HSR stations are connected to the local metro and expressways 

Outside of Asia I doubt this model would be feasible .


----------



## GuyTP81

Airports are also not in city centers. Why would an HSR station be less succesful than an airport in the same type of location? Both facilitate long distance travel. For commuting, a central location is important, but not for long distance.


----------



## ArtManDoo

chaser9 said:


> The same skeptical sentiment was spewed around in the western media with 1001 reasons why China building HSR was a waste of resources and how the people are too poor to use such a system at the initial onset of the network build out. Fast forward to today and the rhetoric has shifted to, it's successful in some parts because of the high population density and it won't work in the US because that level of density is not present.
> 
> Regarding Penn Station. There is enough space at Penn station, it's just currently poorly arranged and utilized. Yes new tunnels would be required if you want a dedicated network, but the tunnels towards and out of Penn station would be short.
> 
> In regards to station locations. Only Europe and Japan have extensive city center HSR stations. China on the other hand have stations far away from city center which is not ideal, but it shows that not having a city center station is not that much of a deal breaker in the US because most cities (excluding NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco) have weak centers to begin with.
> 
> Cost is a major issue and that is a huge impediment. The US has to do something about it's infrastructure costs and bring them down to global norms if there's going to be any possibility of building out a nationwide network. At current US costs, its like unfeasible, but not impossible. Because even at the current high costs, it's still cheaper than constantly subsidizing the highways. The US has chosen a policy of subsidizing highways and suburbanization while other developed countries have adopted a policy of subsidizing their passenger rail.


Yes. Some US moneyeatinggigants just try to show how bad rail is nevertheless on which country. They do it for stop rail development in US as much as possible. During last three decades car and aviation industry has put lot's of money taken from taxpayers for slow the rail development as much as possible that people wouldn't get the really good connections.

And yes the correct way would be to cancel all the interstate/highway widenings which is just waste of money and transfer the money into railway projects.


----------



## ArtManDoo

437.001 said:


> And I don't think I'd be very misled if I said that what applies to New York also applies to Chicago.
> 
> Can you do this everywhere in the US without spending crazy amounts of money on new infrastructure (much of it probably underground), or without saturating existing railway lines?
> I have my doubts.


New York could be interesting to be entered, but I am sure there will be solutions for to do that pretty feasible.

About Chicago, there should be rather good options to bring the HS lines straight into the heart.

Anyway if to look on the map, for me it is clear just start from Chicago side Chicago - Indianapolis - Columbus - Pittsburgh should be achieved rather fast only if there is some will.


----------



## Slartibartfas

437.001 said:


> I mean, New York to Chicago is a similar distance than Barcelona to Paris or Barcelona to Seville, which take over 5 hours by train today each, and there's only a handful of trains per day and direction (no more than four trains by now, and its number changes through the seasons).
> And we're talking Spain and France, where train ridership is much higher than in the US.


Your comparison is a very flawed one though. Barcelona-Paris is an international connection and those have a much lower traffic volume than domestic connections. It is not just the distance here. 5h is still fine but not where HSR is the most competitive. Until 6 h HSR is still quite feasible and competitive, even if it isn't dominating anymore as it is with connections below 4 h.

NYC - Chicago is not only a domestic connection it is a very important domestic connection as well with lots of traffic.



> But... where in New York would you build a new HSR station?
> Under Central Park?


Manhattan is a vast place, even if it is an expensive one. I doubt it would be the hardest aspect of such a HSR project to find a place for a terminal HSR station. HSR doesn't need that much capacity, quite a modest amount compared to commuter rail. If Manhattan's system is so strained that it can't cope with that extra needs, then there is a clear need for additional tunnels and stations even without HSR around. So this really is a different issue here, one that the US is incapable of building the needed rail capacities even in places like NYC.

They are currently rebuilding Penn Station aren't they? This would have been the chance to radically redesign the layout and possibly add another railway layer or whatever is needed. Of course, that chance is gone by now.



> HOWEVER, in Europe and in much of Asia, stations have the advantage (over aviation) of being in central locations (take Waterloo station in London, which is a short walk away from the Big Ben, or Gare de Lyon station in Paris, which is not a very long walk from Notre Dame).


NYC has a number of pretty big stations as well, I think you are constructing there a big difference which isn't there, other than maybe NYC having not invested enough to keep capacities up with what would be needed.
Tracks and stations in those European cities aren't exactly underused either so a lot of the challenges are actually quite similar.


PS: Of course HSR is vastly expensive and challenging to construct but many places, also dense, also geographically very difficult ones have managed to pull it of. Places a lot less affluent than the US. If the US is really that incapable of doing at least as much as those, then it is not quite the country of unlimited possibilities but rather the country of unlimited impossibilities. In the end it isn't about the US not being able to pull it of, it is about ideology (anti-rail, anti-public led projects, increasing short-termism etc).


----------



## aquaticko

Most of the issues with integrating rail lines which aren't integreated from the outset is that they aren't _designed_ to be integrated. There's no rule I know of that says you couldn't build rail lines such that they could all be connected in the future (e.g., same gauge/voltage/platform heights).


----------



## Nacre

chaser9 said:


> The same skeptical sentiment was spewed around in the western media with 1001 reasons why China building HSR was a waste of resources and how the people are too poor to use such a system at the initial onset of the network build out. Fast forward to today and the rhetoric has shifted to, it's successful in some parts because of the high population density and it won't work in the US because that level of density is not present.


The difference is that the Chinese government can force people to act in favor of society as a whole instead of making selfish personal decisions. Governments in North America cannot do that.

I fully agree that a national high speed rail network for the USA is in the long term interests of humanity. But most voters do not care about the long term interests of humanity. They care about what benefits them individually today. If people do not want to provide adequate government funding for Acela Express - a route that runs at a profit and has high ridership - how are we going to get funding for national rail lines across vast distances that will never run at a profit?


----------



## davide84

Well, platform height has a law in the US IIRC... gauge is in practice never an issue in North America, and voltage can be handled on the engines if needed.
One has really to push for it, to make a railway that cannot be integrated...


----------



## Smooth Indian

ArtManDoo said:


> Yes. Some US moneyeatinggigants just try to show how bad rail is nevertheless on which country. They do it for stop rail development in US as much as possible. During last three decades car and aviation industry has put lot's of money taken from taxpayers for slow the rail development as much as possible that people wouldn't get the really good connections.
> 
> And yes the correct way would be to cancel all the interstate/highway widenings which is just waste of money and transfer the money into railway projects.


The airline industry is already in doldrums with COVID and other issues. They might even cede the short/medium distance market to the trains. As for interstate highways,they can be tolled throughout after reduction in gas and other taxes. Don’t know how the public will react, but if successfully done, it will force the motorists to pay the cost of the highways directly and allow trains to be more competitive.


----------



## M-NL

ArtManDoo said:


> And yes the correct way would be to cancel all the interstate/highway widenings which is just waste of money and transfer the money into railway projects.


I would do something similar to what Japan did: Keep the interstate/highway widenings, turn them all into, preferably expensive, toll roads to discourage their use and use the revenue for railway projects.
The weird thing with the US society remains that everybody understands and agrees with the leave-nobody-behind philosophy the military uses, but when taken out of military context that exact same philosophy is considered socialist or even communist all of a sudden. In the case of choosing between road or rail those in power pretty much exclusively travel by road (and air) and wouldn't consider to use any type of public transport. They're never going to use a train them self, so they'll never agree to such a scheme. That a large part of society would benefit from rail is not important to them. That's a barrier that needs to be broken first.


----------



## 437.001

chaser9 said:


> The same skeptical sentiment was spewed around in the western media with 1001 reasons why China building HSR was a waste of resources and how the people are too poor to use such a system at the initial onset of the network build out. Fast forward to today and the rhetoric has shifted to, it's successful in some parts because of the high population density and it won't work in the US because that level of density is not present.


I'm not saying it wouldn't work in the US!
What I mean is that you have to look at all the issues.
And that will be a big one.



chaser9 said:


> Regarding Penn Station. There is enough space at Penn station, it's just currently poorly arranged and utilized. Yes new tunnels would be required if you want a dedicated network, but the tunnels towards and out of Penn station would be short.


Yes, but you have to see the bigger picture.
Penn Station is used by a number of trains nowadays. And there's need for extra capacity for regional and commuter rail, and I think you won't counter that, just as much as two extra tracks in the tunnel under the Hudson.
That's needed for now, without HSR.

But then let's figure out the US goes and builds a good HSR network in the East.
New York would obviously be the centre of that.
And there's little room there.



chaser9 said:


> In regards to station locations. Only Europe and Japan have extensive city center HSR stations. China on the other hand have stations far away from city center which is not ideal, but it shows that not having a city center station is not that much of a deal breaker in the US because most cities (excluding NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco) have weak centers to begin with.


Slarti says "there are other New York stations"... well yes, but not in Manhattan!!!
There's little sense in putting a HSR station in Queens if the main of the passengers will be business passengers heading to Manhattan.
That's what I mean by the cost problem.
Yes, you could always try the Chinese approach, but China is China, it is much more populated than the US, and can afford that because trains will be packed no matter what. I'm not sure the US could, though.

And please note that I'm talking main cities here (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles... and not many more), because in smaller cities there is not such a problem (Philadelphia station is widely underused, for instance).

I mean, a station in Manhattan would have to be in Midtown, otherwise it makes little sense, unless someone planned to completely transform Harlem or etc.
What would be the cost of such a station (or an upgrade of an existing one)? Other than Central Park, I fail to think about any other "easy" location.



chaser9 said:


> Cost is a major issue and that is a huge impediment. The US has to do something about it's infrastructure costs and bring them down to global norms if there's going to be any possibility of building out a nationwide network. At current US costs, its like unfeasible, but not impossible. Because even at the current high costs, it's still cheaper than constantly subsidizing the highways. The US has chosen a policy of subsidizing highways and suburbanization while other developed countries have adopted a policy of subsidizing their passenger rail.


What I don't understand is why in the US and the UK everything is so expensive.

The UK, okayish (not, but yes if you compare to the Americas).
But... the US? I really don't get it.
Of course there are also plenty of listed things in the Americas, but still...


----------



## Nacre

437.001 said:


> What I don't understand is why in the US and the UK everything is so expensive.


1. Both the USA and UK have the common law system where we have years of lawsuits before anything can be accomplished.
2. In most Anglo countries there is a toxic relationship between unions and management with both trying to take as much as they can get. 
3. The British pound and then the US dollar are the world's primary reserve currencies, which results in an artificially high exchange rate. This increases purchasing power for consumers but also increases the local cost of labor.


----------



## kerouac1848

2 and 3 don't apply to Britain. In fact, point 3 is kind of the opposite - the low value of Sterling (since 2008) has made imports of materials and machinery expensive, which has definitely pushed up construction costs. Labour costs in construction are nowhere near as high here as somewhere like NYC and unions aren't powerful.

The two big costs here are high land prices, especially in London, and the way projects are budgeted. Any public scheme will need to include amounts for predicated overspend and this can add 40-45% to the total. There are also requirements which some think add significant costs due to unnecessary specifications - gold-plating as we often call it.


----------



## prageethSL

*Work to begin this year on Virgin’s LA to Las Vegas high speed rail*


> *XpressWest, a subsidiary of Virgin Trains USA, has announced that construction work on a high-speed rail link between Las Vegas to Southern California will begin this year.*
> 
> When trains start running in the second half of 2023, the 274km journey will take 85 minutes. In a press release on its website, XpressWest says taking the privately financed rail option will be twice as quick as driving, and a station will be located on the I-15, the only direct route to Las Vegas by car.
> 
> The company adds that the price of a ticket will be comparable with the cost of gas and parking.
> 
> Fiona Ma, California’s state treasurer, said: “This will transform transportation in Southern California and Las Vegas for generations by providing a fast and efficient connection that gets people out of their cars, reduces traffic congestion and decreases air pollution.”
> 
> A possible extension for the line could be approved in the future in southern California, linking the line with communities in Palmdale and Rancho Cucamonga.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1278753962460688385


----------



## 996155

How does it take 3 years to construct this but nearly 15 to construct the north to south rail-line??


----------



## Nacre

kerouac1848 said:


> 2 and 3 don't apply to Britain. In fact, point 3 is kind of the opposite - the low value of Sterling (since 2008) has made imports of materials and machinery expensive, which has definitely pushed up construction costs. Labour costs in construction are nowhere near as high here as somewhere like NYC and unions aren't powerful.


The pound was the world's primary reserve currency until around WW2. That made it tougher for Britain to rebuild its Victorian-era infrastructure from around 1900-1950, the legacy of which is still felt today. (Of course the cost of war did not help either.) See for example the small size of the Victorian tunnels for railroads, or the diameter of the tunnels of the Glasgow Subway.

My point about labor relations in Anglo countries is not about the power of unions vs management, but the (lack of) willingness to cooperate for mutual benefit. In Scandinavia and Germany unions and management work together for the health of the company instead of narrow parochial interests, which is why Germany and Scandinavia have healthier manufacturing sectors.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Hugh G. Reukshin said:


> How does it take 3 years to construct this but nearly 15 to construct the north to south rail-line??


Because this is going along an existing right of way through... well... nothing really... The land I-15 runs through is flat, open, and largely empty. CalHSR has to run through 2 mountain ranges, and 2 of the most densely populated regions in the country.


----------



## mgk920

Hugh G. Reukshin said:


> How does it take 3 years to construct this but nearly 15 to construct the north to south rail-line??


IMHO, the main reason is that the LAX-LAS line is being privately developed while the LAX-SFO line is not.

Mike


----------



## 996155

BoulderGrad said:


> Because this is going along an existing right of way through... well... nothing really... The land I-15 runs through is flat, open, and largely empty. CalHSR has to run through 2 mountain ranges, and 2 of the most densely populated regions in the country.





BoulderGrad said:


> Because this is going along an existing right of way through... well... nothing really... The land I-15 runs through is flat, open, and largely empty. CalHSR has to run through 2 mountain ranges, and 2 of the most densely populated regions in the country.


Doesn't LA have a mountain range between it and Las Vegas: Also there's the long ass desert between it with hills everywhere. 3 years just seems too soon for cities that are over 500 km apart.


----------



## Vishek

chaser9 said:


> In regards to station locations. Only Europe and Japan have extensive city center HSR stations. China on the other hand have stations far away from city center which is not ideal, but it shows that not having a city center station is not that much of a deal breaker in the US because most cities (excluding NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco) have weak centers to begin with.
> 
> Cost is a major issue and that is a huge impediment. The US has to do something about it's infrastructure costs and bring them down to global norms if there's going to be any possibility of building out a nationwide network. At current US costs, its like unfeasible, but not impossible. Because even at the current high costs, it's still cheaper than constantly subsidizing the highways. The US has chosen a policy of subsidizing highways and suburbanization while other developed countries have adopted a policy of subsidizing their passenger rail.


This is wrong. 

China runs high speed trains on legacy tracks to major train stations and usually a city already has several train stations (think London with its numerous stations) so the "new" station you're talking about isn't actually far out. I can't remember any out-of-town HSR stations.

In terms of the cost of infrastructure in the US, one thing that the US has an advantage on is the seemingly bottomless pot of money from which to draw from.


----------



## TM_Germany

Isn't the case of China just that they built new stations out of town and the city then grew to swallow those areas up? China had hardly any legacy stations that could take on the volume of passengers of the new HSR network afaik.


----------



## Vishek

TM_Germany said:


> Isn't the case of China just that they built new stations out of town and the city then grew to swallow those areas up? China had hardly any legacy stations that could take on the volume of passengers of the new HSR network afaik.


Where are all these out-of-town high speed train stations though? From my perspective it just comes across as a city with multiple stations (Gare du Nord, Gare du Lyon...), as opposed to the situation in New York or Germany where they have one "central" station.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Depends on the definition of "out of town". Lots of new HSR station in China are in a fair distance to the very city centres. Most of them are connected to the local metro network. Their location is however on the edge of established urban structures. Those structures are expanding fast though and many stations will be solidly in dense urban area in the near future.

That said, those stations often function like islands, connected tot he high priority PT and big roads. In that regard they feel and work more like compact airports than traditional railway stations. Also the stations are often not the heart of bustling urban life but have huge but fairly empty squares in front. The developments around them are often separated by huge streets and not really oriented towards the station. Either that or distances and road obstacles are so large that it doesn't function as such.

China is rather special in this regard. I don't know if I am big fan of that aspect, even if I do understand the idea behind it. Still I think China could have done more of integrating those stations into a direct urban neighbourhood, especially as those neighbourhoods would often be built from scratch anyway. Btw, there are exceptions, Some central stations were upgraded to become HSR hubs and they often do still work like classic hubs of urban life.

PS: NYC has several important stations, it is merely the case that one of them is called "central".


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ World Bank: China´s High Speed Rail Development

"The massive development of HSR goes hand in hand with the massive development of new urban areas, especially in small to medium-sized cities. The municipal government often put the new HSR station in an undeveloped area and bundled it with an urban development plan of the “HSR new town.” This model brought the municipal government significant fiscal revenues through land sales to real estate developers. There are at least 139 cities with at least one HSR new town in China (Chen and Haynes 2019). Chen and Haynes’s study showed that the development of the HSR station contributes to about 3–13 percent of land value increase of the nearby area, and the effect is stronger if the land is closer to the HSR station. The outcome of such urban development associated with new HSR lines and stations, however, varies among cities. With integrated urban development around the new stations, some HSR new towns, such as Bengbu, turned into vibrant urban spaces. Meanwhile, many others failed because of the isolation from existing urban areas, lack of public infrastructure, and the oversupply of real estate properties."

The ones in the red square are the HSR ones:


----------



## Stuu

Vishek said:


> This is wrong.
> 
> China runs high speed trains on legacy tracks to major train stations and usually a city already has several train stations (think London with its numerous stations) so the "new" station you're talking about isn't actually far out. I can't remember any out-of-town HSR stations.


No it isn't, most Chinese new stations on HSR have been well away from established city centres. Try following the Beijing-Shanghai railway - Nanjing is a good example. The cities are expanding to include the stations in a lot of places, but they are still a long way from the traditional city centres


----------



## Nacre

Slartibartfas said:


> China is rather special in this regard. I don't know if I am big fan of that aspect, even if I do understand the idea behind it. Still I think China could have done more of integrating those stations into a direct urban neighbourhood, especially as those neighbourhoods would often be built from scratch anyway. Btw, there are exceptions, Some central stations were upgraded to become HSR hubs and they often do still work like classic hubs of urban life.


But is it not important to manage traffic volume at these stations? For example Paris spreads travelers among six stations instead of a single central rail station.

Most American cities only have a single rail station. Even New York only has two (plus an additional station in an adjacent state). For a dramatic increase in traveler volume I think new stations would have to be built for HSR. And in fact I think many of the existing stations are inadequate even for slow rail lines. Atlanta's station is little more than a glorified shed.


----------



## Vishek

Stuu said:


> No it isn't, most Chinese new stations on HSR have been well away from established city centres. Try following the Beijing-Shanghai railway - Nanjing is a good example. The cities are expanding to include the stations in a lot of places, but they are still a long way from the traditional city centres


It's not "most" new high speed stations. Nearly every high speed station I can think of in China is still located within the city. It's not any different to the train station layout in London or Paris.


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## Vishek

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Depends on the definition of "out of town". Lots of new HSR station in China are in a fair distance to the very city centres. Most of them are connected to the local metro network. Their location is however on the edge of established urban structures. Those structures are expanding fast though and many stations will be solidly in dense urban area in the near future.
> 
> That said, those stations often function like islands, connected tot he high priority PT and big roads. In that regard they feel and work more like compact airports than traditional railway stations. Also the stations are often not the heart of bustling urban life but have huge but fairly empty squares in front. The developments around them are often separated by huge streets and not really oriented towards the station. Either that or distances and road obstacles are so large that it doesn't function as such.
> 
> China is rather special in this regard. I don't know if I am big fan of that aspect, even if I do understand the idea behind it. Still I think China could have done more of integrating those stations into a direct urban neighbourhood, especially as those neighbourhoods would often be built from scratch anyway. Btw, there are exceptions, Some central stations were upgraded to become HSR hubs and they often do still work like classic hubs of urban life.
> 
> PS: NYC has several important stations, it is merely the case that one of them is called "central".


What I don't understand is where these out-of-town high speed train terminus are. I can't remember ever using an out-of-town train station in China and I never once felt as if I was going to a train station far out of the city, but maybe I'm used to the London/Paris model of train stations.

The examples posted on this thread by another user clearly show that virtually all cities have high speed trains at their existing legacy stations. Though there are many out of town train stations, they is always an urban alternative.


----------



## Vishek

In other words, during my travels in China, I never once had the idea that I was going to an out-of-town train station. I'm sure that there are plenty of out-of-town HSR stations in China, but the point is that most cities have HSR trains going to their existing train stations or new urban train stations. It's rare for a city to only have an out-of-town HSR station (as is the case in Taiwan or what's being proposed in the US). The layout of the train stations reminds me of how London or Paris has multiple train stations. It's also important to account for city growth in building new train stations considering the US isn't going to have a same urban growth as China.


----------



## Stuu

Vishek said:


> It's not "most" new high speed stations. Nearly every high speed station I can think of in China is still located within the city. It's not any different to the train station layout in London or Paris.


Yes it is! Here is a 47 page thread about high speed stations in China. Virtually every single one is outside the city *centre. *They may still be within the city limits, and the cities are developing around them, but they are mostly a long way out from the traditional centres of the cities.

Anyway this has nothing to do with the USA so I'll leave it there


----------



## TM_Germany

You are repeating yourself. It has been said multiple times that the stations were built outside the city and then the city grew around them. So those stations aren't out of town anymore but they were once on greenfield sites. So it's definitely wrong to say that they used legacy stations for HSR. I'm not sure if the stations in London or Paris were once greenfield sites but they might have been. But since the cities grew around them for a hundred years now, they are pretty much in the center now.


----------



## davide84

Stations in Italy were often greenfield sites just outside of the city walls / center... but since this happened in the 1800s they are now considered central, because they were the transportation hub and for at least 100 years cities have expanded around them.


----------



## Vishek

Stuu said:


> Yes it is! Here is a 47 page thread about high speed stations in China. Virtually every single one is outside the city *centre. *They may still be within the city limits, and the cities are developing around them, but they are mostly a long way out from the traditional centres of the cities.
> 
> Anyway this has nothing to do with the USA so I'll leave it there


You're mixing up having stations on the outskirts vs stations were the train terminates. In nearly all those cases, the trains will travel to other urban stations as well including legacy stations. And none of those stations are as far out as what's being proposed in the US.

If you're looking for a more similar example to the US, a lot of the high speed stations in Taiwan are isolated and only connected by buses.


----------



## Vishek

TM_Germany said:


> You are repeating yourself. It has been said multiple times that the stations were built outside the city and then the city grew around them. So those stations aren't out of town anymore but they were once on greenfield sites. So it's definitely wrong to say that they used legacy stations for HSR. I'm not sure if the stations in London or Paris were once greenfield sites but they might have been. But since the cities grew around them for a hundred years now, they are pretty much in the center now.


China built stations in the outskirts of the city, but high speed trains still serve other more urban stations. You're saying that the Chinese build outlying stations such as Dalian North, but I'm saying that the train actually terminates at Dalian Station via Dalian North.


----------



## 437.001

Nacre said:


> But is it not important to manage traffic volume at these stations? For example Paris spreads travelers among six stations instead of a single central rail station.
> 
> Most American cities only have a single rail station. Even New York only has two (plus an additional station in an adjacent state). For a dramatic increase in traveler volume I think new stations would have to be built for HSR. And in fact I think many of the existing stations are inadequate even for slow rail lines. Atlanta's station is little more than a glorified shed.


This is exactly what I meant.

It struck me that Wilmington station (in Delaware's main city) was really so small, three tracks and on a viaduct that's extremely expensive to enlarge.

Okay, Wilmington is not New York, but that gives an idea...


----------



## Slartibartfas

TM_Germany said:


> You are repeating yourself. It has been said multiple times that the stations were built outside the city and then the city grew around them. So those stations aren't out of town anymore but they were once on greenfield sites. So it's definitely wrong to say that they used legacy stations for HSR. I'm not sure if the stations in London or Paris were once greenfield sites but they might have been. But since the cities grew around them for a hundred years now, they are pretty much in the center now.


Have a look at the stations yourself. The city does grow around most of them, however it does in a way that more often than not does not entice bustling urban life with the station right in the middle. Usually those stations are isolated by huge streets and feature gigantic squares (which do have their use as buffer areas during the holiday superrush hours or days.) with absolutely noting to see or do other than having a place to queue and wait and some greenery or other nice things so that the square isn't too hard on the eye.

I don't know how people define urban design or even urban centres but those stations more often than not seem to continue to function primarely as subway connected station islands, not much different from an airport in this regard (however much more compact than one of course). Those which are still surrounded by fields function barely any different than those which are surrounded already by big streets and tower blocks. That is not by necessity but by design.

Mind you, there are exceptions to that also in China and I find it a pity that they are the exception rather than the rule.

PS: I don't know about the timetables of the Chinese HSR network, if a lot of HSR is not terminating at those huge peripheral stations but continuing to central stations, this is a great thing. This can only be a certain share of them however, there is no way those older stations could cope with all those trains that those gigantic stations can.


----------



## zaphod

I think if going forward the main rationale for investing in HSR is to replace some kinds of air travel because jet aircraft cannot be feasibly replaced by anything that doesn’t produce CO2, then the orthodox stance we absolutely always need stations downtown can be dumped. Because airports aren’t downtown and people have to rent cars or take taxis or a bus at the airport and yet that somehow works fine.

In the USA I think we’d be more likely to get HSR off the ground if we could put the stations in suburbs rather than hard to reach core locations and saved immensely on the cost of viaducts and tunnels just to penetrate those last few miles into a CBD.

That said projects like xpresswest are pushing the limit by proposing a station a 30 min drive from the suburban edge and an hour to the core.

But say I’m you built HSR from say, DFW airport, stopping in Robinson(Waco), Pflugerville(Austin North), Bergstrom Airport(Austin), San Marcos, and ended it in Schertz(San Antonio) it might better than anyone thinks while having a much easier time acquiring land. Just saying.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ The "beet stations" ("gare de _betteraves"_ as they are known in France) outside chinese cities are used for passing trains with other destinations.
Beijing, Shanghai and others have central stations where long-distance trains depart and arrive.
Maps of various cities

Texas Central HSR will have a station in Houston's outer ring, a similar distance to the first airport but closer than the main airport, and another centrally located in Dallas

And so we return to the theme of the Thread


----------



## mgk920

Chicago once had multitudes of stations in its downtown area, now there are three, plus the CTA 'Loop' elevated and subway.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

zaphod said:


> I think if going forward the main rationale for investing in HSR is to replace some kinds of air travel because jet aircraft cannot be feasibly replaced by anything that doesn’t produce CO2, then the orthodox stance we absolutely always need stations downtown can be dumped.


The problem is that until a ruthless approach to environmentalism can be adopted, this will not be successful. And in a democratic country this is opposed by the public. People want to fly around the world going on holiday. They should not; mass tourism is figuratively destroying many cities and literally destroying Venice. But they do.

Rail travel will not be able to outcompete air travel on long distance routes (>1,000 km) unless jet fuel is very expensive. Yet even the moderate fuel taxes in Europe have resulted in protests. In the USA where jet fuel was about $0.45 per liter before the coronavirus hit, there is no hope for trains to compete with aircraft on price on these routes (without very heavy government subsidies). In short the USA needs to harshly tax carbon pollution before rail can become economically viable. And there will not be enough votes for such a policy because people really, really love cheap airfares.

But I agree that if air travel is banned or made very expensive, then downtown stations are not needed.


----------



## Vishek

Slartibartfas said:


> PS: I don't know about the timetables of the Chinese HSR network, if a lot of HSR is not terminating at those huge peripheral stations but continuing to central stations, this is a great thing. This can only be a certain share of them however, there is no way those older stations could cope with all those trains that those gigantic stations can.


A city usually has several train stations and CRH runs high speed trains to most of them, although most often than not all trains will call at the new "out-of-town-that-has-now-become-urban" train station you're talking about. I'm quite sure that some trains will terminate at these new stations, just as some will terminate at existing stations, because most of these new stations actually come across as being just another urban station (similar to the situation found in Paris and London).

You're also talking about a diverse range of stations. Some cities have a segregated high speed railway station but they're located within the urban limits of the city, whereas other cities have out-of-town-but-now-urban stations that aren't the final destination, whilst still others have the type of stations that @Gusiluz talked about. It's not similar to the situation being proposed in the US. Traveling in China doesn't feel that different to how train stations in Europe are situated out.

I agree that the Chinese have a lot of "Dalian North" stations, but these trains don't terminate there but continue on into the city, or alternatively do the opposite direction depending on geography.


----------



## Smooth Indian

zaphod said:


> In the USA I think we’d be more likely to get HSR off the ground if we could put the stations in suburbs rather than hard to reach core locations and saved immensely on the cost of viaducts and tunnels just to penetrate those last few miles into a CBD.
> 
> That said projects like xpresswest are pushing the limit by proposing a station a 30 min drive from the suburban edge and an hour to the core.
> 
> But say I’m you built HSR from say, DFW airport, stopping in Robinson(Waco), Pflugerville(Austin North), Bergstrom Airport(Austin), San Marcos, and ended it in Schertz(San Antonio) it might better than anyone thinks while having a much easier time acquiring land. Just saying.


I agree on the need for stations in the suburbs; But city center stations are also needed IMHO. It all depends on which city we are talking about. Just thinking of HSR as replacement for short distance flights won't do. HSR also works as a fast regional/commuter rail for those living in the vicinity of a large city. A lot of people living in small towns nearby I-45 in Texas might find the Texas Central HSR useful to get to Houston or Dallas quickly. Similarly, quite a few people living in the Central Valley could find the CAHSR useful to get to downtown LA or the Bay Area city centers. Some city centers can be linked to by upgrading/expanding conventional rail lines for short urban stretches.


----------



## Vishek

TM_Germany said:


> You are repeating yourself. It has been said multiple times that the stations were built outside the city and then the city grew around them. So those stations aren't out of town anymore but they were once on greenfield sites. So it's definitely wrong to say that they used legacy stations for HSR. I'm not sure if the stations in London or Paris were once greenfield sites but they might have been. But since the cities grew around them for a hundred years now, they are pretty much in the center now.


The Great Western Railway had its London terminus on the edge of London (or suburbs). The London Underground was invented to take passengers from Paddington Station to the City of London. It's now firmly a central London station.

I'm also quite sure that CRH runs high speed trains to legacy stations because I've experienced it myself. In places where the HSR doesn't run to legacy station, the HSR station is in an urban area and it feels similar to the situation in Paris or London.


----------



## aquaticko

I still think the underlying factor working against successful mass transit generally--and that includes HSR--is how suburbanized, undense, and autocentric even our relatively dense areas are. I speak at least partly from personal experience; living in southern New Hampshire, barely an hour's drive north of Boston, there is essentially no public transit, and only the old mill towns have anything that might be reasonably called a downtown, in which a rail station ought to be around which that downtown ought to grow. Most of the towns in which people live--and even most parts of the nominal "cities" in which many others do--are too weakly centered for any form of mass transit to effect a modal shift, even the most piddling bus services. However, I don't live in even close to the worst, prototypical American autocentric city. Younger parts of the country, like the West and even much of the South, are even less well-formed to work with public transport.

It's off-topic, but the first and most dire need our country has to make us more sensibly oriented around mass transit is dramatically higher fuel taxes; especially given that the single largest contribution to CO2 emissions in the U.S. is light-duty vehicle emissions: cars. That, and a slightly less gross culture of consumption-as-virtue.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Vishek said:


> A city usually has several train stations and CRH runs high speed trains to most of them, although most often than not all trains will call at the new "out-of-town-that-has-now-become-urban" train station you're talking about. I'm quite sure that some trains will terminate at these new stations, just as some will terminate at existing stations, because most of these new stations actually come across as being just another urban station (similar to the situation found in Paris and London).
> 
> You're also talking about a diverse range of stations. Some cities have a segregated high speed railway station but they're located within the urban limits of the city, whereas other cities have out-of-town-but-now-urban stations that aren't the final destination, whilst still others have the type of stations that @Gusiluz talked about. It's not similar to the situation being proposed in the US. Traveling in China doesn't feel that different to how train stations in Europe are situated out.
> 
> I agree that the Chinese have a lot of "Dalian North" stations, but these trains don't terminate there but continue on into the city, or alternatively do the opposite direction depending on geography.


I know that the situation is divers, I am not really talking about those new HSR station which are in a traditional urban setting nonetheless. They are not the rule as far as I can see even if they exist as well.
It is not the same as in Europe if a large share of HSR end at peripheral stations, even if they are surrounded by tower blocks and connected to the metro. And honestly I can't see how the majority of those servicies not to end at the large HSR stations, how could you possilby fit them all into limited older central stations on top of other services?

The question is if those central services are enough to cater for the demand to these central locations or if people who actually want to go to the very centre have to deviate to services ending prematurely because capacities are simply not there for getting all the trains where till the very end.

From everything I have seen the modern HSR stations of China feel very different from most European HSR stations. Not necessarily worse, just very different, more airport like, that starts with their immense scale and ends with the system of platform access which reminds me more of gates and check-ins at an airport than a traditional European HSR station with publicly accessible platforms with no checks. (Mind you, there exist of course exceptions to that in Europe as well)

Given the location, PT access and urban developments, the periperal stations of China can't be really compared to the crazy remote stations which are planned in some parts of the US, especially that one barely in the vicinity of LA. That one is even remote for airport standards.



aquaticko said:


> I still think the underlying factor working against successful mass transit generally--and that includes HSR--is how suburbanized, undense, and autocentric even our relatively dense areas are.


This is a factor but it does not explain the utter lack of HSR. HSR stations can as mentioned above function fairly similar to airports. Airports obviously function just fine in the US.
Of course, you don't use HSR to its full potential if you design the stations as being only effeciently connected to car infrastructure but that is nother story, which I was debating just above. You can certainly build car oriented HSR first with the clear perspective of upgrading it with PT access and growing the PT network around it or even starting it from there. It will enhance the HSR service but it is not completely essential for it.

The reason there is no HSR in the US is not because it is not suitable but because there is an openly hostile ideology at work against it (on one side, open fundamental opposition to passenger rail on a matter of principle and deeply rooted opposition to public investment in infrastructure, at least if it is rail). It is also a bipartisan and therefore highly controversial issue.


----------



## Vishek

M-NL said:


> Just a bunch of random statements related to this subject:
> 
> Like it or not but an airport, especially an international one, just has a higher prestige then any kind of train station will ever have.


Is your statement peculiar to the situation in the US? I would argue that train stations _do _have higher prestige in many countries.


----------



## GuyTP81

Orlando is building their intercity rail station at the airport which I think is an interesting concept, making the airport an intermodal hub. I will be very interested in how this will work out. It could be very successful.


----------



## naruciakk

M-NL said:


> Like it or not but an airport, especially an international one, just has a higher prestige then any kind of train station will ever have.


Maybe if the area is poor and secluded, if not it's just regular utility infrastructure



M-NL said:


> An airport employs a lot more people.


And covers the whole region, the area larger than the area served by one railway station. Also, especially in places where the labour is expensive that's actually disadvantage – the less people are needed to operate a transportation mode the better.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Airports being a matter of prestige? That view sounds a bit dated. It is an important piece of transport infrastructure but increasingly as glamorous as a highway.


----------



## aquaticko

Airports require far less physical infrastructure complexity than railways, and being so, are naturally far less permanent. Personally, I'd argue they also require far less social complexity--there are airstrips in the middle of the Amazon which you could technically call airports; railways require far more social activity to justify, so stations suggest greater importance than airports do.


----------



## Nacre

Technically an empty grass field can be used as an airfield while railroad stations always require tracks, so that is somewhat true.

But major airports have continuous maintenance on the runways, very frequent maintenance on aircraft, radar systems, radio systems far more advanced than railways, more advanced baggage carousels, et al. Trains require far less supervision and care than aircraft because they travel linearly rather than in 3 dimensions, use less complicated propulsion systems, are much less weight sensitive, do not have wings and are much less affected by weather and birds.


----------



## M-NL

Being from the Netherlands that may skew my views a bit on things like the prestige of a facility.
In the Netherlands pretty much every major city has at least one train station that could handle up to 400 meter long high speed trains, like Thalys or ICE (I would guess a hundred or so stations). Many of those station also do handle regular international traffic. There is nothing special about an international train in the Netherlands.
Their airport equivalent would be an airport with concrete/tarmac runways and able to handle scheduled commercial passenger planes 100 seats and up. In the Netherlands we have 6 of those active, so they're 'special'. All of them pretty much only carry international traffic only. There are basically no services between those airports. They've tried, but the Netherlands is just to small to make that viable.


----------



## Vishek

M-NL said:


> Being from the Netherlands that may skew my views a bit on things like the prestige of a facility.
> In the Netherlands pretty much every major city has at least one train station that could handle up to 400 meter long high speed trains, like Thalys or ICE (I would guess a hundred or so stations). Many of those station also do handle regular international traffic. There is nothing special about an international train in the Netherlands.
> Their airport equivalent would be an airport with concrete/tarmac runways and able to handle scheduled commercial passenger planes 100 seats and up. In the Netherlands we have 6 of those active, so they're 'special'. All of them pretty much only carry international traffic only. There are basically no services between those airports. They've tried, but the Netherlands is just to small to make that viable.


Do you not have any major train terminus? Tokyo, Moscow, London etc... all have ornate railway stations with hotels etc... which are a tourist destination in their own right.


----------



## 437.001

M-NL said:


> Being from the Netherlands that may skew my views a bit on things like the prestige of a facility.
> In the Netherlands pretty much every major city has at least one train station that could handle up to 400 meter long high speed trains, like Thalys or ICE (I would guess a hundred or so stations). Many of those station also do handle regular international traffic. There is nothing special about an international train in the Netherlands.


Yeah, but the Netherlands are as big as... Massachusetts and Rhode Island put together, more or less?
But with the population of New York State, which changes many things in comparison to almost anywhere in the US.

The Netherlands are rather dense, and the only high-speed rail it needs is between Amsterdam, Rotterdam and maybe The Hague, everything else requiring high-speed is international travel.

Compare with France, Spain, Italy or the UK, and it's quite a different picture.

Or Germany, exception made of North Rhein-Westphalia, which is a mini-Netherlands within Germany, density-wise.

I think interstate HSR in the US could attract more passengers than Barcelona to Paris, but unless it were something along the East Coast Corridor (Boston to New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington DC), I don't see many other lines that could equal Thalys or Eurostar in ridership. I guess in the east of the Mississippi it could be a little more than Barcelona to Seville, or Paris to Barcelona, but not much more.

Quite another thing is intrastate travel, such as Houston to Dallas, or Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Or neighbouring interstate (dunno, like Detroit to Chicago, to name but one).



M-NL said:


> Their airport equivalent would be an airport with concrete/tarmac runways and able to handle scheduled commercial passenger planes 100 seats and up. In the Netherlands we have 6 of those active, so they're 'special'. All of them pretty much only carry international traffic only. There are basically no services between those airports. They've tried, but the Netherlands is just to small to make that viable.


The thing is that the Netherlands are pretty much in the economic core of the EU, the infamous Blue Banana.
This means that you have Belgium, Northern Germany, Northern France, Denmark, and even the UK within train distance.
Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic are already quite farther away.

This can only be compared to the East Coast north of Washington DC.


----------



## M-NL

437.001 said:


> The thing is that the Netherlands are pretty much in the economic core of the EU, the infamous Blue Banana.
> This means that you have Belgium, Northern Germany, Northern France, Denmark, and even the UK within train distance.
> Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic are already quite farther away.


Exactly. Sometimes I need to remind myself that I live in a unique part of the world.
Basel can be reached by train from the Netherlands in a little over 7 hours, Prague in 9h, Vienna in 10h, Warsaw and Malmö in 11h, so perfectly viable, but a plane is probably quicker.


----------



## Vishek

M-NL said:


> Exactly. Sometimes I need to remind myself that I live in a unique part of the world.
> Basel can be reached by train from the Netherlands in a little over 7 hours, Prague in 9h, Vienna in 10h, Warsaw and Malmö in 11h, so perfectly viable, but a plane is probably quicker.


I believe this is one of the reasons why France built the TGV. It's got major cities in every direction from Paris and it's international links are tremendous. Compared with UK or Spain where there's only one direction for sizable international traffic.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I don't get that reasoning. When you only have one big linear corridor that is not an argument against HSR, to the contrary it is one in favour of it. It is only an argument against a star shaped network style.

Both, Spain and the UK have great credentials for HSR. In case of the UK they thought they could cut the corner and show those pesky continentals how one could high speed while investing nothing into an outdated rotting rail network. That didn't quite work out, did it though. The Plan B then was the Intercity network, a modest HSR light which really does not do the area justice.

In Spain on the other side they were late comers but then went full into it building a network which is arguably even creating an oversupply. It is great to use though and helped transforming the country to the better.


----------



## Stuu

Slartibartfas said:


> Both, Spain and the UK have great credentials for HSR. In case of the UK they thought they could cut the corner and show those pesky continentals how one could high speed while investing nothing into an outdated rotting rail network. That didn't quite work out, did it though. The Plan B then was the Intercity network, a modest HSR light which really does not do the area justice.


Not really sure what you mean by Plan B. A lot of money has been spent making a large part of the main lines suitable for 200 km/h running, which started 40 years ago. There are very few countries that run trains as frequently as between London, Birmingham and Manchester - every 20 minutes all day. The popularity of the railways is the main reason for finally building proper HSR

It is entirely fair to say that not enough money was invested in the period 1960-2000, but there has been significant investment since - its about £10bn a year at the moment, excluding HS2


----------



## Vishek

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't get that reasoning. When you only have one big linear corridor that is not an argument against HSR, to the contrary it is one in favour of it. It is only an argument against a star shaped network style.
> 
> Both, Spain and the UK have great credentials for HSR. In case of the UK they thought they could cut the corner and show those pesky continentals how one could high speed while investing nothing into an outdated rotting rail network. That didn't quite work out, did it though. The Plan B then was the Intercity network, a modest HSR light which really does not do the area justice.
> 
> In Spain on the other side they were late comers but then went full into it building a network which is arguably even creating an oversupply. It is great to use though and helped transforming the country to the better.


I've said several times that I believe the north-east corridor is well positioned in terms of geography and public mentality to hold a successful high speed railway, so I agree with your reasoning about cities in a straight line.

The UK doesn't have any corridor on the scale of France.

LGV Nord (London, Brussels, Netherlands)
LGV Sud-Est (Southern France, Alps, Italy)
LGV Sud (Southern France, Spain, Portugal)
LGV Ouest (under construction)
LGV Est (Strasbourg, Germany, Luxembourg)
The only comparable route in the UK would be HS1 (France) which runs through the most prosperous part of England. HS2 has a sizable population but its catchment area would still be smaller than any French high speed line except LGV Ouest.

Spain has more corridors than the UK, but apart from the Madrid to Barcelona route, most cities are scattered along the coast line and are hard to connect to major cities using a direct HSR. The UK has more cities in a straight line for example.

I don't believe that these are good reasons to _not_ build a high speed railway, but I'm suggesting reasons as to why the high speed railway was built in France before other places in Europe.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Vishek said:


> I've said several times that I believe the north-east corridor is well positioned in terms of geography and public mentality to hold a successful high speed railway, so I agree with your reasoning about cities in a straight line.
> 
> The UK doesn't have any corridor on the scale of France.
> 
> LGV Nord (London, Brussels, Netherlands)
> LGV Sud-Est (Southern France, Alps, Italy)
> LGV Sud (Southern France, Spain, Portugal)
> LGV Ouest (under construction)
> LGV Est (Strasbourg, Germany, Luxembourg)
> The only comparable route in the UK would be HS1 (France) which runs through the most prosperous part of England. HS2 has a sizable population but its catchment area would still be smaller than any French high speed line except LGV Ouest.
> 
> Spain has more corridors than the UK, but apart from the Madrid to Barcelona route, most cities are scattered along the coast line and are hard to connect to major cities using a direct HSR. The UK has more cities in a straight line for example.
> 
> I don't believe that these are good reasons to _not_ build a high speed railway, but I'm suggesting reasons as to why the high speed railway was built in France before other places in Europe.


The claim that the corridor London-Birmingham(-Manchester/Liverpool) could not be every bit as strong as the core line of the TGV network which is Paris-Lyon(-Marseilles) is something I would like you to explain in more detail.


In the US the East corridor is only the most obvious potential HSR corridor, there are several more potentially strong corridors, eg California and the great Lakes. The latter could connect to the east coast with sufficient will.


----------



## Vishek

Slartibartfas said:


> The claim that the corridor London-Birmingham(-Manchester/Liverpool) could not be every bit as strong as the core line of the TGV network which is Paris-Lyon(-Marseilles) is something I would like you to explain in more detail.


I support the high speed two project, I'm just thinking about why the French got there before the rest of Europe.

I think part of the allure of the LGV Sud-Est is that it connects:

two of the largest and wealthiest population centers in France
top three tourist destinations in France (Paris, Alps, Rivera)
Switzerland and Italy
While the Midlands is very populous at around ten million people, around eighteen million people live in the three south-eastern provinces of France, excluding the regions that the LGV travels through and the regions that one can connect from it. 

There's also very little tourist movement between the two regions - there's no snow or sun in the Midlands. Most travel is by Midlanders to London rather than vice versa. It's also not anywhere near as economically prosperous as southern France.

And my point was that there's also no significant international destinations from the UK except to France. If there was a Brussels somewhere in Glasgow, I'm quite sure that a high speed railway would have come sooner.



> In the US the East corridor is only the most obvious potential HSR corridor, there are several more potentially strong corridors, eg California and the great Lakes. The latter could connect to the east coast with sufficient will.


For me a big factor to consider is the prevalence of public transport and car usage. The vast majority of New Yorkers use public transport, significant percentages use the public transport systems of Boston and Washington D.C. These are places where public planners should be looking at and saying that a high speed railway is a _public need._ It requires no social change, the railway is fulfilling a demand rather than trying to compete with another mode of transport. 

In the rest of the US, you need to convince people to use urban public transport first. If the roads in Los Angeles are gridlocked, then you need to build urban public transport to fix that issue before building a high speed rail. If people are already using public transport significantly, then they'd welcome an easy transfer from urban train to another train for high speed long distance journeys. From my perspective there aren't many cities outside the north-east that have suitable public transport.

i.e. build a successful urban public transport network before you embark on a long distance high speed railway


----------



## Stuu

Vishek said:


> There's also very little tourist movement between the two regions - there's no snow or sun in the Midlands. Most travel is by Midlanders to London rather than vice versa. It's also not anywhere near as economically prosperous as southern France.


This is just isn't true. The West Midlands PPS per capita in 2018 was €27100, the surrounding counties is €31,000. For Provence-Alpes-Cote D'Azur was €29500, Rhone Alpes is €32,200, while Languedoc-Roussillon is only €23,600 . Have you got any statistics to back up the travel statement?


----------



## Slartibartfas

Vishek said:


> I support the high speed two project, I'm just thinking about why the French got there before the rest of Europe.
> 
> I think part of the allure of the LGV Sud-Est is that it connects:
> 
> two of the largest and wealthiest population centers in France
> top three tourist destinations in France (Paris, Alps, Rivera)
> Switzerland and Italy


Tourism can drive travel, for example the tourism hotspot London, also Paris could be connected. If the HSR corridor would be expanded to its full length also the Scotland would attract a lot of people. One could extend trains on existing line to popular sea towns in the south, if need be. Lots of tourism potential if you ask me and that does not take into account that the secondary cities of the UK are increasingly emancipating from London and becoming increasingly much more interesting destinations in their own place also for tourists. That said, business is far more important than tourism for city to city travel.

International travel is important from an international point of view but it is not really that important for an HSR network as such. That is also why most networks were originally designed as purely national ones.


> While the Midlands is very populous at around ten million people, around eighteen million people live in the three south-eastern provinces of France, excluding the regions that the LGV travels through and the regions that one can connect from it.
> 
> There's also very little tourist movement between the two regions - there's no snow or sun in the Midlands. Most travel is by Midlanders to London rather than vice versa. It's also not anywhere near as economically prosperous as southern France.


The English part of below map contains 56 mio people. The corridor London-Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool goes straight through the heart of it, with the additional branch to Leeds we are talking about linking up the majority of the people of England, and with the extension to Scotland one could attach almost the complete population of Scotland as well with a single line (have a look at this map for reference:


https://external-preview.redd.it/JPch58FtFBTiO8BukuTwZqfAQaPxV4unAqjoOemRSEI.jpg?auto=webp&s=a4e29f0b233cb6f9a42e9e9e819af60d24cb930f


). You are seriously telling me that is less population than along the extended LGV Sud Est corridor?

The heart and most important part of the entire LGV network is the single route Paris-Lyon btw, not the connection to Marseille or other Mediterranean metropoles. How is London-Birmingham any less attractive?


----------



## Nacre

Slartibartfas said:


> Tourism can drive travel, for example the tourism hotspot London, also Paris could be connected.


It is worth noting that >80% of French people go on holiday within their own country, while Britons prefer to go on holiday in Spain. In the USA there is also a strong movement of people from northern/cold weather places to California, Hawaii and Florida. That is one of the reasons that HSR works well in France: there is a lot of medium distance tourism travel in France suitable for HSR. Manchester to Alicante or Minneapolis to Los Angeles is much harder to serve with trains.

We (the USA) should push for more night trains. If people board a train traveling from New York to Orlando at 125 kph/78 mph after work, that is fast enough to arrive late in the morning the next day. That is good enough for a family planning to spend their holiday in Florida.


----------



## mgk920

Nacre said:


> It is worth noting that >80% of French people go on holiday within their own country, while Britons prefer to go on holiday in Spain. In the USA there is also a strong movement of people from northern/cold weather places to California, Hawaii and Florida. That is one of the reasons that HSR works well in France: there is a lot of medium distance tourism travel in France suitable for HSR. Manchester to Alicante or Minneapolis to Los Angeles is much harder to serve with trains.
> 
> We (the USA) should push for more night trains. If people board a train traveling from New York to Orlando at 125 kph/78 mph after work, that is fast enough to arrive late in the morning the next day. That is good enough for a family planning to spend their holiday in Florida.











Auto Train: Travel for You & Your Car | Amtrak


The Amtrak Auto Train runs non-stop to get both you and your vehicle from the DC area to just outside Orlando, Florida. Pack your car like luggage and relax.




www.amtrak.com





One BIG problem in the northeastern USA is that any geographically attractive potential true HSR routes are lined with well off NIMBYs who are not afraid to spend that money to maintain the bucolic nature of their local areas. Its why the NEC is so over the top curvy between NYC and Providence, RI.

Mike


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I suppose one can add that Nimbyist opposition on top of the general politicized and anti-passenger rail ideology which is mainstream in the US, even if not as strongly maybe on the east coast. 
For essential public infrastructure, eminent domain needs to be an option of last resort and in a proper democracy that tool isn't used exclusively on poor neighbourhoods either (the US has a fine tradition of plowing its vast infrastructure projects by coincidence through all those neighbourhoods which local politicians would like to see vanished). That said, the impact needs to be minimized as much as possible but that is the point, as far as possible and not up to the impossible.



Nacre said:


> It is worth noting that >80% of French people go on holiday within their own country, while Britons prefer to go on holiday in Spain. In the USA there is also a strong movement of people from northern/cold weather places to California, Hawaii and Florida. That is one of the reasons that HSR works well in France: there is a lot of medium distance tourism travel in France suitable for HSR. Manchester to Alicante or Minneapolis to Los Angeles is much harder to serve with trains.
> 
> We (the USA) should push for more night trains. If people board a train traveling from New York to Orlando at 125 kph/78 mph after work, that is fast enough to arrive late in the morning the next day. That is good enough for a family planning to spend their holiday in Florida.


I doubt that makes such a big difference. Tourism is not the main driver of HSR. Business and regular intercity travel are.

Regarindg night coaches. I am all for them. I don't see an either/or situation here however, even if sadly countries big on HSR like France seem outright hostile towards night trains. You do need a proper and up to date fleet for an attractive night train service and of course the necessary capacities.

All in all I think it is important to keep in mind that neither HSR or night trains are supposed to be a solution for all (neither are car or plane btw and no one expects that either), they also do not have to be to be viable mobility options.


----------



## Vishek

Stuu said:


> This is just isn't true. The West Midlands PPS per capita in 2018 was €27100, the surrounding counties is €31,000. For Provence-Alpes-Cote D'Azur was €29500, Rhone Alpes is €32,200, while Languedoc-Roussillon is only €23,600 . Have you got any statistics to back up the travel statement?


Do you think the likes of the French Rivera, Monaco and the Alps are poorer than the Midlands? This area contains some of the richest people in the world.



> Unsurprisingly, the greater Paris region of Ile-de-France is the richest in the country, even though the gap between richest and poorest is more striking than elsewhere.
> 
> INSEE reported that Ile-de-France’s GDP per capita was €67,926 in 2018, far ahead of the country’s Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region which came second with €42,617.
> 
> Next in line on the GDP per capita list were Midi-Pyrénées with €37,441, Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur with €37,337 and Brittany with €36,748.
> 
> In terms of the regions where fewest people are struggling Pays de la Loire and Brittany have the lowest rate of people living under the poverty line.
> 
> The following heat map of France with INSEE data illustrates wealth distribution across L'Héxagone, the darker reds showing where people have a higher quality of life due to more disposable annual income.





http://www.thelocal.fr/20190222/members-qa-what-are-the-richest-and-poorest-areas-of-france


----------



## Stuu

Vishek said:


> Do you think the likes of the French Rivera, Monaco and the Alps are poorer than the Midlands? This area contains some of the richest people in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thelocal.fr/20190222/members-qa-what-are-the-richest-and-poorest-areas-of-france


Of course places like St Tropez don't have an equivalent in the Midlands, but there aren't actually very people who are that wealthy. Many, many more people in Marseilles and Nice are very poor. That's why the regional PPS figures are broadly similar, and so the statement that Southern France is much more prosperous than the English Midlands isn't true when you consider the whole region. The very rich are also less likely to use public transport


----------



## Vishek

Stuu said:


> Of course places like St Tropez don't have an equivalent in the Midlands, but there aren't actually very people who are that wealthy. Many, many more people in Marseilles and Nice are very poor. That's why the regional PPS figures are broadly similar, and so the statement that Southern France is much more prosperous than the English Midlands isn't true when you consider the whole region. The very rich are also less likely to use public transport



















Most of Britain is poorer than the European average, and other things we learned from this map


So there’s a map of Europe doing the rounds on the Twitters this morning, one which never ceases to fascinate me. There’s an extract of it above; the




www.citymetric.com





Monaco is USD $115,700, West Midlands had a GDP PPP of EUR 25,100 in 2018. Yorkshire is EUR 18,564.

Furthermore, the Alps-Mediterranean Euroregion has a GDP per capita of more than 30,000 EUR.


----------



## Vishek

Nacre said:


> We (the USA) should push for more night trains. If people board a train traveling from New York to Orlando at 125 kph/78 mph after work, that is fast enough to arrive late in the morning the next day. That is good enough for a family planning to spend their holiday in Florida.


One of the only issues with the current crop of night trains is, what do you do when you reach your destination at 7 am in the morning? There is a lack of facilities at the station to cater for people like that. You need desks, showers etc... so people can pull themselves together.


----------



## Slartibartfas

This region vs region is a bit silly. If above EU average GDP per capicta (PPP) were deciding about the viability of HSR, China would have few lines. Actually the UK would have little infrastructure going beyond Greater London whatsoever. That would be of cousre nonsense. Ironically it would also mean that the largest parts of the LGV network were a mistake, including the most frequented part of it.

Mobility infrastructure is also a strategical decision to boost struggling regions with great potential by connecting them much more efficiently to the thriving centers. This is a tried and tested strategy. I has worked in Spain for example.



Vishek said:


> One of the only issues with the current crop of night trains is, what do you do when you reach your destination at 7 am in the morning? There is a lack of facilities at the station to cater for people like that. You need desks, showers etc... so people can pull themselves together.


That is one option, another one is to upgrade the night trains. The 1st class night train cabins on the ÖBB Nightjet come with a shower and a basin and all of the classes come with a breakfeast. While can a bit adventerous to prepare your bread rolls, it is a really great thing that vastly improves the experience in my opinion.

If you take a shower before departig home and you have your basin and mirror in your cabin, you can really civilize yourself sufficiently till you make it to a hotel room however. That's what probably most people do.


----------



## Vishek

Slartibartfas said:


> This region vs region is a bit silly. If above EU average GDP per capicta (PPP) were deciding about the viability of HSR, China would have few lines. Actually the UK would have little infrastructure going beyond Greater London whatsoever. That would be of cousre nonsense. Ironically it would also mean that the largest parts of the LGV network were a mistake, including the most frequented part of it.
> 
> Mobility infrastructure is also a strategical decision to boost struggling regions with great potential by connecting them much more efficiently to the thriving centers. This is a tried and tested strategy. I has worked in Spain for example.


I agree with your arguments.

I'm not arguing against building high speed 2. I'm pondering why the TGV was built so early on, in which a major reason is that both ends of the railway line are significantly wealthy (note that Geneva is only a stone's throw away from Lyon).



> That is one option, another one is to upgrade the night trains. The 1st class night train cabins on the ÖBB Nightjet come with a shower and a basin and all of the classes come with a breakfeast. While can a bit adventerous to prepare your bread rolls, it is a really great thing that vastly improves the experience in my opinion.
> 
> If you take a shower before departig home and you have your basin and mirror in your cabin, you can really civilize yourself sufficiently till you make it to a hotel room however. That's what probably most people do.


What I mean is that I usually head to a cafe/restaurant in order to compose myself and arrange my luggage etc... and I'd rather have access to a shower and a desk where I can repack my luggage and orientate myself before I head to a hotel to drop my luggage off.

At 7 am there's usually very little to do at the city. You need to be able to waste a couple of hours somewhere until the shops and facilities open.

Just give everyone on a night train free access to a station lounge (showers, breakfast, etc...) for a few hours in the morning, maybe between 05:00 and 08:30 after which they can head off to the hotel to drop luggage off.


----------



## dyonisien

Vishek said:


> [...] I'm pondering why the TGV was built so early on, [...]


The first LGV (=TGV line) in France was built, in the first place, because the historical line Paris-Lyon was both saturated AND unable to allow for any improvement in speed facing the developing short haul flights. At the same time (mid seventies) the SNCF (French railway company) had accumulated a lot of experience in high speed on rail (at that time high speed trains were not to be bought from the shelf). The Japanese Tokaido Shinkansen was considered as barely transposable in zones lacking the population density of Japan.
At that time rail planners (wrongly but insistently) considered passenger rail as 'has been', rail being just good enough for freight ("just look over the Atlantic", they said, ignoring the huge differences between the regions...).
The SNCF showed that a new short cut line built just for high speed could avoid much engineering work and in the end would be no more costly than adding tracks to the historical line, while bringing 'incredible' speed progression (Paris-Lyon in 2 h against 3h45 for a few better trains). They had to defend the case in the planning circles. In the end they succeeded.
Patronage was overwhelming. One reason was the compatibility of the trains withe the existing network, allowing high speed trains to use existing stations and to proceed on existing lines, beyond the existing line (e.g. Paris-Marseille in 4h40 instead of 6h40). In civilized countries the train cannot be ignored anymore, especially now, when CO2 emissions are an issue.
NOW the situation has improved : many countries have acquired extensive knowledge in high speed trains. The common knowledge in high speed railways is huge. But conditions remain the same : taking general interest into account and allowing for middle term planning, which some ideologies unfortunately forbid.


----------



## 437.001

Vishek said:


> I believe this is one of the reasons why France built the TGV. It's got major cities in every direction from Paris and it's international links are tremendous. Compared with UK or Spain where there's only one direction for sizable international traffic.


In the case of Spain, two. France, and (coming soon) Portugal.

However, there used to be night trains between Barcelona (Spain) and Zurich (Switzerland), and also between Barcelona (Spain) and Milan (Italy).
Spain to Italy is not an option for high-speed from Spain right now because of the Alps barrier, at least until the new Mont Cenis base tunnel gets built. And even then you'd have to think of it very carefully as a detour via Grenoble would probably be not very short.
As for Spain to Switzerland... the Swiss don't want to because of capacity at Geneva station, they say, and because they have an all-Swiss bus line that is earning lots of money (or so I was told). Otherwise it's perfectly feasible in high-speed.

Another problem is the capacity between Paris and Lyon, the current high speed line is bordering saturation.
So routes such as Barcelona to Brussels (which is feasible) are not used.
Barcelona to London could be feasible IF France finished their stretch of high-speed line betweeen Montpellier and Perpignan.
Maybe also Germany (Stuttgart and/or Freiburg) IF France finished the Montpellier-Perpignan thing.

Rail-wise, Morocco is still not an option from Spain.


----------



## 437.001

Vishek said:


> The UK doesn't have any corridor on the scale of France.
> 
> LGV Nord (London, Brussels, Netherlands)
> LGV Sud-Est (Southern France, Alps, Italy)
> LGV Sud (Southern France, Spain, Portugal)
> LGV Ouest (under construction)
> LGV Est (Strasbourg, Germany, Luxembourg)


Spain is reached from Paris via two routes.

-LGV Sud-Europe-Atlantique from Paris Montparnasse station to the Basque Country. It's in works on the Spanish side.
Currently TGV trains reach Hendaye on the French side of the border (not sure whether they still enter Irun station on the Spanish side -which in the current situation is not much of a problem as very frequent commuter Spanish trains reach Hendaye). So Madrid is still not within direct reach from Paris. Portugal from France by hugh-speed rail... that's a big if, at this point in time.

-LGV Sud-Est from Paris Gare de Lyon, which is the one used by the Paris-Barcelona TGV's.

As an aside, the "LGV Ouest" (actually called LGV Bretagne-Pays de la Loire) is already open. It's the line linking Paris to Brittany and the west of the Loire Valley (Rennes, Nantes, Brest, etc).


----------



## Stuu

Some actual California HSR construction photos:


----------



## 437.001

🔼🔼🔼
Great! I thought they were less advanced.
Is this the Fresno to Bakersfield stretch, then?



Nacre said:


> That is one of the reasons that HSR works well in France: there is a lot of medium distance tourism travel in France suitable for HSR. Manchester to Alicante or Minneapolis to Los Angeles is much harder to serve with trains.


Not Manchester to Alicante, but London to Barcelona could be feasible with a few tweaks on the French side.



Nacre said:


> (the USA) should push for more night trains. If people board a train traveling from New York to Orlando at 125 kph/78 mph after work, that is fast enough to arrive late in the morning the next day. That is good enough for a family planning to spend their holiday in Florida.


That's not a bad idea for certain trips.

That said, and like other forumers have just said, the main aim of high-speed raail is business passengers.
Routes such as the East Coast Corridor (Boston to New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington DC) are ideal for that.
Also other "smaller" routes such as Houston to Dallas, Miami to Orlando, Detroit to Chicago, maybe also Washington DC to Charlotte, and similar ones.



mgk920 said:


> One BIG problem in the northeastern USA is that any geographically attractive potential true HSR routes are lined with well off NIMBYs who are not afraid to spend that money to maintain the bucolic nature of their local areas. Its why the NEC is so over the top curvy between NYC and Providence, RI.


Yeah, but I take it that railway lines in Rhode Island were built in the 19th century, weren't they?
So, what keeps them from building a new high speed line on an entirely new alignment?
Particularly when you know that road transit can hardly improve any more?



Vishek said:


> One of the only issues with the current crop of night trains is, what do you do when you reach your destination at 7 am in the morning? There is a lack of facilities at the station to cater for people like that. You need desks, showers etc... so people can pull themselves together.


The few still existing Spanish night trains have showers in the compartments.
All of them? At least on Preferente (would-be 1st class) they certainly do on each compartment.


----------



## Stuu

437.001 said:


> 🔼🔼🔼
> Great! I thought they were less advanced.
> Is this the Fresno to Bakersfield stretch, then?


Yes, if you look here you can trace the route south pretty much the whole way to Bakersfield



437.001 said:


> Not Manchester to Alicante, but London to Barcelona could be feasible with a few tweaks on the French side.


We discussed this on the UK forum the other day. London to Barcelona is feasible for train travel, but there are 92 flights on average _every day_, which is ~16000 seats. It is impossible to run anything like enough trains to match that demand with the current infrastructure. The situation on the US eastern seaboard is going to be exactly the same


----------



## GojiMet86

437.001 said:


> Yeah, but I take it that railway lines in Rhode Island were built in the 19th century, weren't they?
> So, what keeps them from building a new high speed line on an entirely new alignment?
> Particularly when you know that road transit can hardly improve any more?


People really underestimate the severity of the NIMBY phenomena in the US.

Just alone in NYC there is this one lawyer whose sole purpose in life is to block bus lanes from being implemented.
Now imagine that, but multiplied by hundreds along the wealthiest corridor (or historically at least, now that Silicon Valley is strong now) in the country, Westchester to Connecticut to RI.


----------



## aquaticko

I think, too, that considering how...I don't want to say "fragile" the case for HSR is in the U.S., but how susceptible it is to facile but not outright-wrong arguments there are against developing it (e.g., suburbanization, high preexisting investment in [read: ownership of] private automobiles, the [misguided] perception among many lay people that the situation is fine as-is and HSR isn't necessary), any means of reasonably increasing ridership projections--such as by building through still-alive city centers along existing rail ROW--is important. The simple truth is that eminent domain has historically been used almost exclusively against those too poor to defend themselves against it; toss a couple of rich people who don't like change into the situation, and you have the current situation where just a handful of very wealthy individuals can mess up the situation for everyone else. Really, it's very on-brand for the U.S. at this point.


----------



## Nacre

Vishek said:


> One of the only issues with the current crop of night trains is, what do you do when you reach your destination at 7 am in the morning? There is a lack of facilities at the station to cater for people like that. You need desks, showers etc... so people can pull themselves together.


It is fairly easy to install showers in a train station. Both Paddington and King's Cross in London have showers available for a fee. I am sure there are other examples around the world. 

Seattle's King Street Station has temporary showers now, although this is intended to provide shower facilities to the homeless rather than commuters.


----------



## 437.001

Stuu said:


> Yes, if you look here you can trace the route south pretty much the whole way to Bakersfield


Great link, thank you Stuu! 

It all seems much more advanced than I thought. 



Stuu said:


> We discussed this on the UK forum the other day. London to Barcelona is feasible for train travel, but there are 92 flights on average _every day_, which is ~16000 seats. It is impossible to run anything like enough trains to match that demand with the current infrastructure.


Of course it can never match it, but on such long routes that mustn't be the main aim.

But there is a niche for passengers.
Intermediate trips, and people who are afraid of, can't, or don't like flying, and tourists, basically...



Stuu said:


> The situation on the US eastern seaboard is going to be exactly the same


Dunno, I watched a full cab ride from New York City to Washington DC, and at least that part didn't seem to be as long, quite the contrary, it was more of a Barcelona to Alicante or London to Newcastle kind of distance.
Maybe even less.

The difference is that on New York City to Washington DC the population is much, much higher.

Of course Boston to Washington DC is much longer, that's obvious.
And (correct me if I'm wrong) probably less busy north of New York City.

But at least having the busiest part of it, which is New York City to Washington DC, with a HSR, seems to me quite feasible... on paper at least, of course.
Because I'm not counting NIMBY's not the trickiness of interstate/federal stuff and their interacions (it would run through five states and the DC, no less).
Or the access by tunnel to Manhattan and the big question marks of where to put the station and how big should it be, which will quite probably be the most expensive parts.

But you're right in that other "smaller" long (or long-ish) routes in the US will have it more difficult once we throw in the distance.

Maybe, _only maybe_, a route from Chicago to Fort Wayne (Indiana), then to Toledo, and from there a Y, with one branch going to Detroit and the other to Cleveland could be something.
Mainly because Chicago is big enough, and Detroit could sell it as a "boost to the city". I've added Cleveland to make the line even busier and also because I sense that Ohio authorities wouldn't be okay with a HSL crossing much of Ohio without calling at one of their three main cities.

But well, now that the California HSL is in works, let's wait and see what happens with it.
Will they get bi-mode rolling stock, by the way?



GojiMet86 said:


> People really underestimate the severity of the NIMBY phenomena in the US.
> 
> Just alone in NYC there is this one lawyer whose sole purpose in life is to block bus lanes from being implemented.
> Now imagine that, but multiplied by hundreds along the wealthiest corridor (or historically at least, now that Silicon Valley is strong now) in the country, Westchester to Connecticut to RI.


OUCH!


----------



## davide84

437.001 said:


> the main aim of high-speed raail is business passengers.


I would say this is a bit of an oversimplification.

In Italy high speed is the backbone of national rail transportation, having mostly replaced intercity trains. They still exists but they mainly complement the HS network, and where they overlap few want to spend one or two extra hours to save ten bucks.


----------



## Gusiluz

Stuu said:


> Yes, if you look here you can trace the route south pretty much the whole way to Bakersfield
> ...


There is no change that they are only building the Initial Construction Segment (ICS)?









Which is 119 miles, even though they want to do Merced-Bakersfield, which is 171.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I had a look at Fresno out of curiosity and I have to say I am shocked. This is a city way larger than I assumed with a population of half a million and a metro population of almost 1 million. Yet, almost Texas style, the downtown area is at best a sad shadow of its past, borderlining towards a ghost town mostly kept afloat by public buildings and the city life they attract and Fulton street, which manages on a few blocks length to create the impression of an intact urban city scape. Unlike other US cities downtown redevelopment hasn't really visibly taken off yet and shockingly most residential developments even in the centre seem to be semidetached 2-3 storey buildings. Those are very strange projects in fact as those detached homes are cramped together at armlength distance. Even when developing at the same density, with a single urban block one could retain a generous central green courtyard, instead of the only free space in the block being parking lots.

Bakersfield is roughly half the size of Fresno and doesn't seem to feature even those weak signs of urbanity. Downtown has several buildings of interests but has very few individual spots, let alone streets with a remotely urban feel. Much of the recent downtown development even looks desisively suburban. Like in the case of Fresno the centre looks pretty much depopulated. I digress.

The new HSR stations will be at least right in the "centres" of those "cities". This will be a steep way but HSR could at least support the reestablishment of urban structures in both places and also support the ugprading of local PT infrastructure wich I suppose is rather in a sad state as well.


----------



## mgk920

Gusiluz said:


> There is no change that they are only building the Initial Construction Segment (ICS)?
> View attachment 317789
> 
> 
> Which is 119 miles, even though they want to do Merced-Bakersfield, which is 171.


They're still working on engineering and routing options for the part through Bakersfield, Tehachapi Pass and Soledad Canyon. This will be including extensive tunneling, especially on the section between Palmdale and Burbank (Soledad Canyon).

Mike


----------



## zaphod

I haven't really kept up with CAHSR except for when it lost a lot of its funding. Is there any realistic hope that they will connect to either major city by the end of this decade? Seems like a high speed train across the central valley by itself is a waste.

What about re-routing the San Joaquins onto this corridor and letting the engineer step on the gas? I think the new Siemens Charger locomotives and viaggio coaches can do up to 125 mph(220 km/h). A combination of new modern coaches and an hour or so off the schedule would make that a very attractive regional service for the time being, and help maintain political interest in finishing the project.


----------



## dyonisien

The disappearance of night trains is partially a consequence of the arrival of high speed connections. Once two towns are in the 3h/4h range of one another and IF early morning AND late evening trains are provided, very few passenger will travel overnight, thus "killing" night trains. BUT the managers in most railways companies in western Europe (not in Austria !) have decided to kill night trains (which by the way bring less passenger·km than fast day trains and suffer from tax free fuel air competition). An example is the cancellation of Paris-Barcelona and Paris-Madrid night trains which were well patronized and enjoyed a good reputation until their cancellation following the introduction of "high" speed day trains between Paris and Barcelona. On those distances hight speed day trains are no competitors to night trains. You can perfectly travel one way by a day train and return overnight. But managers decided otherwise. They just sort of told the rail passengers to fly.
In Europe many night trains could serve million wise populated cities betweens 20h and 24h and reach equally million wise populated cities overnight (arrival between 6h and 10h). The German rail company (DB) has even envisaged sleeper night trains (as in China) which would allow night trains to reach the 2000km range. But such trains would require cooperation between rail companies (which is fading away) and a fair taxation of air fuel (unless we applaud CO2 production).


----------



## Slartibartfas

It is obvious that you don't need night trains on fast HSR connections (3-4h), especially if there are late evening trains provided. The point are those connections which are going beyond that. Like you described, in many countries rail operators decided to deliberately kill those connections which were served by night trains. Rail being dead beat on destroying rail, even if there is actually good demand for that product. It's crazy. I am very glad at least the ÖBB did not join that trend. It does of course help that the ÖBB does not operate a true HSR network so it never felt the flawed urge to boost HSR by destroying night trains. For all I know, the US might have a better night train network today than Europe.

The good news is that the ÖBB is not only maintaining its night train network. It is expanding it and on top of that brand new sleeper waggons are ordered which seem also fairly innovative as well. If those operations are only moderately successful I am sure the pressure on other operators will grow to reverse their agenda and either stop destroying night train services or even reestablish them slowly. After all it is also a matter of PR. Telling people they should get lost and take the plane because night train services were cancelled even as there was demand for them doesn't sound that well, does it?


----------



## Nacre

My point was that since the USA does not have high speed rail, night trains are a logical second choice. New York-Chicago and New York-Atlanta are good examples of routes for a night train if the USA merely improves its rail network to a reliable medium speed network. Those are very achievable goals for the USA in the short term.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Slartibartfas said:


> It is obvious that you don't need night trains on fast HSR connections (3-4h), especially if there are late evening trains provided. The point are those connections which are going beyond that. Like you described, in many countries rail operators decided to deliberately kill those connections which were served by night trains. Rail being dead beat on destroying rail, even if there is actually good demand for that product. It's crazy. I am very glad at least the ÖBB did not join that trend. It does of course help that the ÖBB does not operate a true HSR network so it never felt the flawed urge to boost HSR by destroying night trains. For all I know, the US might have a better night train network today than Europe.


I feel if suitably-engineered night trains can utilize the high speed corridors. If necessary the trains can be given 2 hour layovers in the middle of the night to accommodate nightly maintenance blocks on HSR tracks. Something similar can be planned in the US if HSR sections get completed in the the different mega regions


Nacre said:


> My point was that since the USA does not have high speed rail, night trains are a logical second choice. New York-Chicago and New York-Atlanta are good examples of routes for a night train if the USA merely improves its rail network to a reliable medium speed network. Those are very achievable goals for the USA in the short term.


I guess Chicago-Atlanta, Chicago-Minneapolis Atlanta-Miami and Atlanta-Dallas as well as the entire Pacific corridor are also good examples for such a medium speed network.


----------



## Gusiluz

^^ Here we have mentioned the night trains Paris-Barcelona and Paris-Madrid (sold under the brand name Elipsos).

The year before their disappearance they only covered 55% of their costs and generated annual losses of 8.4 M (at the bottom)


----------



## Stuu

zaphod said:


> I haven't really kept up with CAHSR except for when it lost a lot of its funding. Is there any realistic hope that they will connect to either major city by the end of this decade? Seems like a high speed train across the central valley by itself is a waste.


I imagine the outcome of November's election will be the most important factor deciding what gets done in the near future


----------



## Slartibartfas

Smooth Indian said:


> I feel if suitably-engineered night trains can utilize the high speed corridors. If necessary the trains can be given 2 hour layovers in the middle of the night to accommodate nightly maintenance blocks on HSR tracks. Something similar can be planned in the US if HSR sections get completed in the the different mega regions


I am not an expert. I think no matter how you design layovers, night trains make maintenance less flexible and more expensive. HSR and night trains do not combine that well I think.
If one could combine them however they would make an awesome mode of transportation in larger connected HSR networks. Especially in the US there would be awesome possibilities.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Gusiluz said:


> ^^ Here we have mentioned the night trains Paris-Barcelona and Paris-Madrid (sold under the brand name Elipsos).
> 
> The year before their disappearance they only covered 55% of their costs and generated annual losses of 8.4 M (at the bottom)
> View attachment 321111
> 
> 
> View attachment 321110


How many HSR corridors are profitable in Spain?
Are you supporting shutting down every HSR line that is not being profitable as well?


----------



## Mansa Musa

HSRs aren't supposed to be profitable in theory, but the ones proposed in America will most likely be extremely profitable simply because American metros are much larger and faster growing than european ones. 

SF to LA is projected to have 30 million riders annually, and LA to vegas another 20-30 million projected. These two corridors alone will bring in a pleuthora amount of cash to california and nevada.

Also taking a look at other profitable corridors such as ATL to Charlotte, NYC - Phil - Boston, KC - STL - CHI, Lastly the Texas triangle corridor (fastest growing metro in the western hemisphere) will be extremely profitable potentially with 30+ million riders every year.


----------



## prageethSL

https://buildhsr.com/pdfs/construction_update/final_construction_update_july_2020.pdf


----------



## N830MH

I was wondered if they have HSR from Phoenix to Florida? I hope Brightline or Virgin Trains will extend from Las Vegas to Phoenix and then Tucson, AZ. That will be a logical choice. Easy ride. No need take a flight.


----------



## prageethSL

*Virgin Trains moves closer on financing for high-speed rail between Las Vegas and Victorville *


> Clark County Commissioners on Tuesday unanimously approved state findings related to financing for the high-speed rail project.
> According to a news release, *the commission voted 7-0 *today to approve the findings made by the Nevada Department of Business and Industry related to the financing of the project being proposed by DesertXpress Enterprises.
> “We have been working to achieve high-speed rail between Clark County and Southern California for decades and today’s approval marks a significant milestone in that long process,” said Commissioner Michael Naft, whose district includes the land for the future rail line and the Las Vegas train station. “This project does not use one penny of taxpayer money, has a track record of success, and will put 30,000 men and women to work in a time when we need jobs and economic investment. When finished, we expect this new train will remove 3 million vehicles from our roads every year, which will lower our CO2 emissions by 100,000 tons annually. I am grateful to the team at Clark County who helped make this happen and appreciate Gov. Steve Sisolak, Treasurer Zach Conine, and the State of Nevada for their work to make today’s approval possible.”
> According to Clark County, the project will create 30,000 jobs and reduce traffic on the Interstate 15 through Las Vegas by 3 million cars a year.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1285634538786488320


----------



## Mansa Musa

Would be better for it to be a public-private partnership to steer away from price hiking due to the upcoming monopoly. I can definitely see 100+ dollar tickets if this is realized which won't really steer most people away from flying or driving from these two cities.


----------



## Bikes

I couldn't find the right topic for this, but maybe here it's the most relevant.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/hwem33


----------



## Stuu

Mansa Musa said:


> Would be better for it to be a public-private partnership to steer away from price hiking due to the upcoming monopoly. I can definitely see 100+ dollar tickets if this is realized which won't really steer most people away from flying or driving from these two cities.


The tickets will need to be priced to fill the trains, otherwise they will lose their investment. If it's not competitive with driving or flying no one will use it


----------



## fkus

Mansa Musa said:


> Would be better for it to be a public-private partnership to steer away from price hiking due to the upcoming monopoly. I can definitely see 100+ dollar tickets if this is realized which won't really steer most people away from flying or driving from these two cities.


They have competition: airlines, car, and bus. As a private investment, they need to find the best equation to get their money back and please their customers. And we could sleep, it is not our money. I would be worried living in California and seeing my money going to nowhere, from nowhere.


----------



## prageethSL

*Los Angeles-To-Las Vegas High-Speed Train Wins $200 Million Nevada Bond Allocation*


> XpressWest, a high-speed rail line that will connect Southern California to Las Vegas, won $200 million of private activity bonds from Nevada, a critical final public allocation that allows the company owned by Wall Street investor Wes Edens to raise an additional $800 million for the project.
> The Nevada State Board of Finance’s approval for the project, a unit of Edens’ Florida-based Brightline passenger rail service, comes after California awarded it $600 million of private activity bonds in April. XpressWest can sell four times the value of the awards as tax-exempt bonds to private investors, meaning it’s now lined up $3.2 billion of funding from the two states. Including a $1 billion U.S. Department of Transportation allocation in March, XpressWest has lined up $4.2 billion of the 170-mile rail line’s total $5 billion construction cost.
> “This plan creates jobs without using taxpayer dollars and without impacting our state's ability to finance future projects, and will allow a new, convenient mode of transportation between Nevada and California,” Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak said. XpressWest says the project will create a total of 30,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs in the neighboring states once the line is up and running in a few years.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Good news, now they just have to work on extending the stump line to actually connect to Los Angeles as well. In reality and not just in the title.


----------



## Nacre

The problem with this idea, and with a Bering straight bridge, is that ships are simply cheaper to operate than freight trains. Rail is only preferable to ships for time sensitive cargo, but for those goods road and air freight are even faster. That's why, for example, <1% of freight is carried by rail in Japan.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Nacre said:


> The problem with this idea, and with a Bering straight bridge, is that ships are simply cheaper to operate than freight trains. Rail is only preferable to ships for time sensitive cargo, but for those goods road and air freight are even faster. That's why, for example, <1% of freight is carried by rail in Japan.


What you ignore is that rail is a compromise of speed, capacity and price which neither of your alternatives can offer. That does not necessarily justify the probably mind boggling price tag of a Bering straight bridge but it does make a case for upgrading long distance rail traffic in Eurasia, in the long term you can add Africa to that on top of it all. Of course, islands like Japan have geographical reasons why that does not to them or only to a much lesser extend as ships routes of substantial distance are needed anyway, unless you are usuing aviation straight away.

I expect that rail will add a lot of capacity over the coming years on some major long distances routes which were virtually inexistend a decade or two ago. I am talking about the route China-Europe of course.


----------



## Canucklehead83

Slartibartfas said:


> What you ignore is that rail is a compromise of speed, capacity and price which neither of your alternatives can offer. That does not necessarily justify the probably mind boggling price tag of a Bering straight bridge but it does make a case for upgrading long distance rail traffic in Eurasia, in the long term you can add Africa to that on top of it all. Of course, islands like Japan have geographical reasons why that does not to them or only to a much lesser extend as ships routes of substantial distance are needed anyway, unless you are usuing aviation straight away.
> 
> I expect that rail will add a lot of capacity over the coming years on some major long distances routes which were virtually inexistend a decade or two ago. I am talking about the route China-Europe of course.


Bingo. It's a weird paradox where's it slower than air shipment yet faster than cargo ship... And while it's double the cost of shipping via sea, it's still like 1/20th that of air. And since the cost is so low (An i-pad costs 0.05c to ship from China to anywhere in the world for example) there are plenty of people who want that sweet spot trade off... 

EXAMPLE: 
Say you wanted a new 4K projector from Amazon. It could ship in 6 weeks at $1.00, 1 week at $2.00 or overnight at $50.00. Which are you going to order? Are you so cheap you'd be willing to wait 5 more weeks to save a dollar? Or spent 48 more to get it now? Nope... You're most likely to split the difference and go via rail...


----------



## Canucklehead83

A great video that explains it better than I can...


----------



## mgk920

Assuming that such a connection is built, IMHO, the most major delay in getting a container or carload between somewhere in North America and somewhere deep in Asia or Europe via the Bering Strait will likely be in crossing the breaks in railroad standards. Remember that Russian railroads are 100% incompatible with those in North America, Europe, China and India.

Mike


----------



## Slartibartfas

mgk920 said:


> Assuming that such a connection is built, IMHO, the most major delay in getting a container or carload between somewhere in North America and somewhere deep in Asia or Europe via the Bering Strait will likely be in crossing the breaks in railroad standards. Remember that Russian railroads are 100% incompatible with those in North America, Europe, China and India.
> 
> Mike


Doesn't stop the New Silk Road from China to Europe, does it?
There are of course challenges, without them, the train would be even considerably faster but none of them are unsurmountable, in fact they are overcome routinely already on said route. A recently speeded up train connection manages to make it in 10 days (Xi'an-Budapest), compared to 40 days by ship between China and Europe. If I am not mistaken broad gauge is handled with transfer stations. The goods are container based anyway. 

If there were a rail connection across the Bering straight broad gauge wouldn't be a a deal breaker for sure.


----------



## Canucklehead83

It's almost like someone invented a solution! Dual gauge - Wikipedia


----------



## Canucklehead83

Slartibartfas said:


> Doesn't stop the New Silk Road from China to Europe, does it?
> There are of course challenges, without them, the train would be even considerably faster but none of them are unsurmountable, in fact they are overcome routinely already on said route. A recently speeded up train connection manages to make it in 10 days (Xi'an-Budapest), compared to 40 days by ship between China and Europe. If I am not mistaken broad gauge is handled with transfer stations. The goods are container based anyway.
> 
> If there were a rail connection across the Bering straight broad gauge wouldn't be a a deal breaker for sure.


Bingo. If China can now have cargo reach the UK within 14 days or so now... Shit! 

For all the negative toxic American naysayer shitting on everything because their nation is a flaming dumpster fire of their own making they soon forget the rest of the world and its 200+ nations are moving on without y'all... Especially those with congenial relations to OTHER world powers with better tech than yours... Enjoy being trapped behind your self-imposed COVID curtain, 'murica. ;-)


----------



## mgk920

My best guess is that it would be standard gauge/AAR couplers between the Strait and China, with transloading facilities where it meets existing broad gauge tracks in Russia. Railroad standards between North America and China are nearly identical, with the main difference appearing to me to be in allowed loading gauges - Chinese railroads will not clear the tri-level auto racks and double-stacked containers that are common in North America.

The difference in track gauge between Russia and North America/China/Europe is only 85 mm (1435 v. 1520 mm), too far apart to allow running directly between them and too close togther to allow for an easy upgrade to dual gauge track by laying a third running rail. Dual gauge track will have to have four running rails.

Mike


----------



## Bikes

__ https://www.facebook.com/maglevnet/posts/3541221402601350


----------



## Canucklehead83

Bikes said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/maglevnet/posts/3541221402601350


Didn't Japan offer to help finance a starter line using their Maglev tech? It's a shame the US never responded... Because by now you'd be zipping between Boston, New York and Washington DC at 600 km/h by now...


----------



## Bikes

They did and the project is underway: Northeast Maglev - DC to NYC in One Hour


----------



## Canucklehead83

Bikes said:


> They did and the project is underway: Northeast Maglev - DC to NYC in One Hour


Thanks for the info! I hadn't heard anything in quite a while and got real sad there.. It's a shame that it's not getting the same media attention as Brightline and Xpresswest since this is MUCH more revolutionary if and when it opens...


----------



## davide84

Bikes said:


> They did and the project is underway: Northeast Maglev - DC to NYC in One Hour


I wouldn't exactly say it is "underway". On the website it says some authorities are evaluating the potential impact of constructing it... to me it looks just a bit more advanced than Hyperloop.


----------



## Nacre

Slartibartfas said:


> Doesn't stop the New Silk Road from China to Europe, does it?


We are not talking about China to Europe, but connecting Alaska, Canada and Siberia. And the enormous cost of building rail connections in Alaska is not justified by any cost savings when shipping is much cheaper than rail anyway.

For oil in particular the Alaskan oil is refined north of Seattle and requires access by ships. It makes no sense to send the oil to Alberta, then to British Columbia to be loaded on a ship and then moved to the refineries in Puget Sound when it can simply be shipped from Alaska straight to the refineries on Puget Sound.

Consider than almost no fruits, vegetables or seafood are shipped by rail. Those industries _prefer_ to use ships, trucks and aircraft.

I am not completely opposed to building a rail line connecting the mainland USA to Alaska. But it is not justified purely by market forces; even if the rail line is built Alaska's oil and seafood would very likely continue using air and sea transport.


----------



## Bikes

davide84 said:


> I wouldn't exactly say it is "underway". On the website it says some authorities are evaluating the potential impact of constructing it... to me it looks just a bit more advanced than Hyperloop.


Considering Northeast Maglev LLC was founded 10 years ago and they made quite a progress I would say it is underway. If you mean it's not under construction, that is correct. The current status is that it's undergoing an environmental evaluation.

Maglev is a hyperloop without the vacuum tunnel. So technologically less advanced, but much more proven. It has done millions of miles of testing in Japan without any accident at all.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Nacre said:


> We are not talking about China to Europe, but connecting Alaska, Canada and Siberia. And the enormous cost of building rail connections in Alaska is not justified by any cost savings when shipping is much cheaper than rail anyway.
> 
> For oil in particular the Alaskan oil is refined north of Seattle and requires access by ships. It makes no sense to send the oil to Alberta, then to British Columbia to be loaded on a ship and then moved to the refineries in Puget Sound when it can simply be shipped from Alaska straight to the refineries on Puget Sound.
> 
> Consider than almost no fruits, vegetables or seafood are shipped by rail. Those industries _prefer_ to use ships, trucks and aircraft.
> 
> I am not completely opposed to building a rail line connecting the mainland USA to Alaska. But it is not justified purely by market forces; even if the rail line is built Alaska's oil and seafood would very likely continue using air and sea transport.


China to Europe is very relevant as it faces the same issues with broad gauge, as a potential land connection to Alaska.
You are right of course, that it would an enormous investment for the link on the Bering straight and in Alaska. (I doubt the part in Alaska is a bigger deal than the Bering straight itself though). Rail does offer however something neither ship nor air freight can offer and again, China to Europe is evidence for that. The number of freight train connections are exploding righ now, starting from pretty much no trains at all just around 10 years ago. This shows that the potential is more than just substantial and I fail to see why the theoretical freight potential would be any lower for the US.

Now, the question is if that big freight travel potential is worth the much higher investment compard to the China-Europe connection. I lack the in depth expertise to make that judgment.

In any case. Such a rail line would not be about Alaska, not really. I think you are look at it from the wrong angle. Better connection of Alaska would only be a nice extra.

Another issue is geostrategical. The China-Europe rail connection can use Russia, but can also sideline if need be. For the US-China connection that is not the case. Therefore such a huge investment would come with a huge strategical risk, given Russias imperial ambitions and elbow diplomacy.



Bikes said:


> Considering Northeast Maglev LLC was founded 10 years ago and they made quite a progress I would say it is underway. If you mean it's not under construction, that is correct. The current status is that it's undergoing an environmental evaluation.
> 
> Maglev is a hyperloop without the vacuum tunnel. So technologically less advanced, but much more proven. It has done millions of miles of testing in Japan without any accident at all.


Maglev has been decades development, there are certain variants which are not even that but fully operational already and in use. Others are being developed, including that Northeast Maglev project.
To compare it to the airy Hyperloop hype is almost insulting. Not only is it very concrete and far progressed, it also faces a lot of challenges less than Hyperloop.


----------



## davide84

I totally agree that Maglev is reality and Hyperloop is not. I was comparing them in terms of advancement of the process: in the US both Maglev and Hyperloop are currently in the planning and authorization stage, or in other words no construction started and unlikely to start in 2021.

Of course Maglev is technically proven, but I haven't seen any form of approval for it in the US. Their latest news on the site is a mask giveaway event, while CAHSR is under construction and other projects are rapidly securing bonds. Hence my comment.

But, hey, not my intention here to fight the project, don't get me wrong


----------



## Nacre

Slartibartfas said:


> Rail does offer however something neither ship nor air freight can offer and again, China to Europe is evidence for that.


Sea traffic from China to Europe must either pass through the Suez Canal (at higher cost and limited capacity) or go on a long voyage around Africa. The shortest route from China to Western Europe is through Russia, as seen on the great circle mapper. So there is substantial benefit to using rail transport through Russia to move goods between China and Europe.

The Pacific Ocean offers a relatively direct route from Alaska to the mainland USA, as seen on the great circle mapper. Traversing through Canada would add distance to the route, not reduce the travel distance.


----------



## mgk920

Nacre said:


> Sea traffic from China to Europe must either pass through the Suez Canal (at higher cost and limited capacity) or go on a long voyage around Africa. The shortest route from China to Western Europe is through Russia, as seen on the great circle mapper. So there is substantial benefit to using rail transport through Russia to move goods between China and Europe.
> 
> The Pacific Ocean offers a relatively direct route from Alaska to the mainland USA, as seen on the great circle mapper. Traversing through Canada would add distance to the route, not reduce the travel distance.


Al lot of (most?) China <-> central/western Europe container traffic now transits North America using ship -> rail -> ship. That volume is likely to decline somewhat as current projects to expand the Panama Canal come on line.

Remember that the current proposal for a rail line between Fort McMurray, AB and Delta Junction, AK is to allow Canada an export route for the oil from their tar sands fields in northeastern Alberta. I have read articles in recent years that alluded to an expected traffic volume that could require that that line be built as double track.

Mike


----------



## ArtManDoo

Nacre said:


> I 100% agree.
> 
> But any North American governor/premier who demolishes freeways or installs tolls on freeways will lose their next election in a landslide. It is a political suicide mission. Even progressive leaders like Gavin Newsome are not going to enrage suburban voters and their cars.


In the other hand there are freeways which have been demolished in US. I am quite sure it is possible to reduce the crazy amount of subsidy at moment flowing into car transport but probably just the status-quo is still too comfortable.


----------



## M-NL

fkus said:


> The problem in the US is not technology, is the lack of planning. When the most expensive project (California) spends many times what was originally in their budget and turn to an endless project, other states get worried.


There are a few things all big expensive projects around the world, not just the US, have in common:

If you would start of with a realistic planning and budget the project would have never gotten approved. So you start of with an optimistic planning and minimalist budget and hope your project reaches the point of no return before it get killed because of cost and time overruns
Every first of its kind (in a country) project must take unforseen hurdles
Forseen hurdles are downplayed as much as possible
Our project is special, so we ignore the knowledge gained from other similar projects, especially when they were foreign


----------



## fkus

M-NL said:


> There are a few things all big expensive projects around the world, not just the US, have in common:
> 
> If you would start of with a realistic planning and budget the project would have never gotten approved. So you start of with an optimistic planning and minimalist budget and hope your project reaches the point of no return before it get killed because of cost and time overruns
> Every first of its kind (in a country) project must take unforseen hurdles
> Forseen hurdles are downplayed as much as possible
> Our project is special, so we ignore the knowledge gained from other similar projects, especially when they were foreign


So let’s cheating who are paying our wages, get the project approved, take money from people who do not live in the state knowing that it will be just the start, and after we will figured out how to ask for more money. 

Probably it is the reason the internal audit of California disapproved the process. For me, the responsible for planning needs to go to jail or at least be fired. It is public money and cheating with public money must be accountable.


----------



## Qtya

Construction of Texas high-speed line due to start in 2021


Construction of the Dallas - Houston high-speed line is due to begin in the first half of next year following the publication of two key federal decisions.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## Qtya

FRA approvals pave way for Texas high speed line construction


USA: Construction of the Texas Central high speed line linking Houston with Dallas is expected to start in the coming months following completion of the regulatory approval process. This concluded on September 21 when the Federal Railroad Administration released a pre-publication version of its...




www.railwaygazette.com


----------



## M-NL

fkus said:


> So let’s cheating who are paying our wages, get the project approved, take money from people who do not live in the state knowing that it will be just the start, and after we will figured out how to ask for more money.


Basically yes. And this mode of operation is also known by another name: Politics. And the biggest problem in the US is that there are essentially just two completely opposed parties, so any decision made now is very likely to be rolled back in a few years when the opposing party gets a term. How the US gets anything done that takes more then one office term to complete is a mystery to lot of people.


fkus said:


> Probably it is the reason the internal audit of California disapproved the process. For me, the responsible for planning needs to go to jail or at least be fired. It is public money and cheating with public money must be accountable.


As I said, pretty much every project works like this, so it can't come as a surprise to anybody. You should actually send the members of the legislative branch that knowingly voted in favour of the plans to jail, not those that presented the plans. Instead most of those members will probably be reelected and make their next stupid decision.


----------



## davide84

fkus said:


> So let’s cheating...


Partly, yes. But on the other side, it wouldn't be that fair to plan the budget under the worst case scenario either... in addition, if delays and extra costs are caused by political changes (e.g. in Italy some parties like to suspend and review ongoing works when they go to power) that should not be blamed on the original planners.
I understand, and as a taxpayer I also accept to some extent, when planners incorporate a bit of optimism into their proposals.


----------



## Qtya

High-speed train between Dallas and Houston gets federal approval


The railroad plans to connect Texas' two biggest cities within 90 minutes. Construction could begin in the first half of next year.




www.texastribune.org


----------



## Nacre

An unfortunate problem in democracies is that people would rather spend money on themselves today than invest in public infrastructure for future generations. Why give the government tax money to build a new school, hospital or rail line when you can use that money on a vacation in Hawaii or the Bahamas?

So governments can either 1) neglect to invest in public infrastructure, 2) increase taxes without any public input, or 3) lie about the costs and benefits of public infrastructure to get more votes.


----------



## SiMclaren

Nacre said:


> An unfortunate problem in democracies is that people would rather spend money on themselves today than invest in public infrastructure for future generations. Why give the government tax money to build a new school, hospital or rail line when you can use that money on a vacation in Hawaii or the Bahamas?
> 
> So governments can either 1) neglect to invest in public infrastructure, 2) increase taxes without any public input, or 3) lie about the costs and benefits of public infrastructure to get more votes.


The answer would be not to make those vacations in Hawaii or Bahamas cheaper by creating lots of airports and highways with tax money. Railways were profitable before government entered the sector, and still are where at places where the government has minimum intervention (Japan).

Its not a railway, highway or airport problem, its a political issue. You cannot solve political issues with infrastructure programs, rail, (electric) car or anything other.


----------



## aquaticko

^^That's an oversimplification of the Japanese situation by quite a bit. The JR companies were government owned, and it was under government ownership that the vast majority of the current infrastructure--including the most heavily-used Shinkansen lines in the country--were built. Japanese National Railways (JNR) was then split up, with an entirely separate entity owning the massive debt built up from all that infrastructure construction, and the JR companies were thereby allowed to flourish. 

It's not that government is the problem. I'd argue that even the politics isn't the heart of the problem. It's definitely a big part; there's been an obvious scheme to tell people that taxation is useless/theft/whatever, make sure that the government is ineffectual at providing the services taxation would normally provide, point to those failures, and then say that government is inherently bad, and therefore taxation is useless/theft/whatever, ad infinitum.

America has cultural problems so deep it's amazing we're not already openly fighting one another...though who knows what the future holds. All this is O/T stuff, to say the least.

What America needs for its rail projects is to consult countries where rail is built cheaply--e.g. South Korea, Spain, Turkey...a lot of other places--and listen to what they have to say.


----------



## Nacre

SiMclaren said:


> The answer would be not to make those vacations in Hawaii or Bahamas cheaper by creating lots of airports and highways with tax money. Railways were profitable before government entered the sector, and still are where at places where the government has minimum intervention (Japan).


That is my opinion as well. It is not a popular one.



aquaticko said:


> What America needs for its rail projects is to consult countries where rail is built cheaply--e.g. South Korea, Spain, Turkey...a lot of other places--and listen to what they have to say.


We already know the answers.

years of costly lawsuits prior to a shovel touching the ground
massive overstaffing compared to similar projects in Asia and Europe (for example NYC's subway still uses two drivers on most trains, and Seattle's TBM used about 2.5x the number of workers as a project in Spain or Germany)
our rail network is owned by private companies who have a vested interest in blocking passenger transport, while rail networks in Asia and Europe are mostly owned by governments who have a vested interest in promoting passenger transport
the idiotic notion that funding should come from the private sector (in fact the opposite is true: governments are able to borrow money at lower rates than private sector entities)
anti-rail politicians deliberately sabotaging rail transit projects
The problem is politics. If NYC went with automated trains on the subway they would save a huge amount of money. But that means making the train drivers unemployed and triggering a strike by the transit union. Similarly stopping NIMBY's from filing lawsuits or nationalizing the railroads would be a massive political battle.


----------



## aquaticko

But let's be honest, here. Say we did manage to nationalize all of our railways; where--in America--do we get the expertise to run them efficiently for passenger service?The MTA? Amtrak? Really? Say we managed to pass the political problems of automating NYC subways; who's going to do the work of upgrading signaling systems? What American company knows how to do that cost and time-efficiently? 

Crappy politics is both the progeny and parent of crappy culture. Our crappy rail systems is just one of those many crappy children on the American family tree, borne of our self-hating politics, grandchild of our power-worshipping culture.


----------



## Nacre

Again I do not really disagree. But the hard part is finding solutions - finding the problems is easy.


----------



## M-NL

Nacre said:


> Our rail network is owned by private companies who have a vested interest in blocking passenger transport, while rail networks in Asia and Europe are mostly owned by governments who have a vested interest in promoting passenger transport


All long distance services were transferred to Amtrak. But what if BNSF or UP wanted to do those services themselves again. Could they?

Stupid idea: Even freight runs on a timetable these days. Couldn't you attach some passenger cars to one of the high speed freight services? Think in terms of the Tropicana Juice train, with passenger cars attached.



Nacre said:


> The problem is politics. If NYC went with automated trains on the subway they would save a huge amount of money. But that means making the train drivers unemployed and triggering a strike by the transit union.


Bar a few exceptions a lot , if not most automated services still have a 'driver'. A human operator can handle situations in which the only reaction of a computer would be 'I don't know what to do, so I'm bringing this train to a halt right here, right now and do nothing.'. The tech needed to run an automated trains doesn't run by itself either (different union?).


----------



## Fan Railer

More testing tonight.


----------



## bifhihher

M-NL said:


> Stupid idea: Even freight runs on a timetable these days. Couldn't you attach some passenger cars to one of the high speed freight services? Think in terms of the Tropicana Juice train, with passenger cars attached.


Wouldn't that be highly inefficient ?
Aren't there also not rules to make stations and trains more accessible, making the costs for these private rail entities enormous ?
I mean, there is a huge potential to make a few stations at strategic positions along freight lines and have a fairly good timetable, but I think all the rules would make it too expensive.
In the past a simple wooden bench and a low platform was ok, people had to climb in the train, doesn't fly today!


----------



## Smooth Indian

M-NL said:


> All long distance services were transferred to Amtrak. But what if BNSF or UP wanted to do those services themselves again. Could they?


It was BNSF and UP who requested the federal govt to get rid of the requirement that they provide minimum passenger services on their routes. Amtrak was formed to make up for the loss in passenger services after the above mentioned requirement was rescinded. AFAIK BNSF and UP can run commercial passenger services if they want. I don't think there is any legal restriction as such. Its just that they are not interested and perhaps they believe passenger travel happen on roads or in the air.


----------



## Smooth Indian

SiMclaren said:


> The answer would be not to make those vacations in Hawaii or Bahamas cheaper by creating lots of airports and highways with tax money. Railways were profitable before government entered the sector, and still are where at places where the government has minimum intervention (Japan).
> 
> Its not a railway, highway or airport problem, its a political issue. You cannot solve political issues with infrastructure programs, rail, (electric) car or anything other.


Simply the govt had to do is treat all modes equally. Multilane highways should have been tolled. Beyond basic airstrips/runways and remote airports, all other airports should have been required to finance themselves through user fees, just as today passenger railway projects are expected to recover their costs.


----------



## davide84

A little OT, but...


M-NL said:


> Bar a few exceptions a lot , if not most automated services still have a 'driver'.


Not onboard, and certainly not one per train. In modern automated metro lines (e.g. Turin, Milan, Brescia, Rome just in Italy) there are just a few traffic managers in the control room. The cockpit is replaced by passenger seats, an emergency reduced control panel is hidden below the window.
This for metros; the automation in railways has not yet been implemented to this level.


----------



## M-NL

davide84 said:


> In modern automated metro lines
> ...
> the automation in railways has not yet been implemented to this level.


Which are mostly segrgated lines that were designed like that from the start. The NY subway wasn't and has all the features you don't want/need in an automated subway.

Fully automated train operation under ERTMS has been tested and works, so there is no reason why it couldn't.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308101448966836226


----------



## prageethSL

Deleted.


----------



## robincole

A number of US cities have demolished freeways in recent years.


----------



## prageethSL

*Rail Startup Brightline Kicks Off $3.2 Billion Bond Sale For LA-To-Vegas High-Speed Train*

*









*


> Brightline, the only private passenger rail service in the U.S., is moving ahead with an offering of up to $3.2 billion of tax-exempt bonds for a high-speed train line connecting Las Vegas to Southern California. *The company also has a new plan to run trains directly into Los Angeles*.
> 
> *Industrial giant Siemens, which builds the locomotives that pull Brightlines’ Florida trains, will supply high-speed electric trains for the West Coast project*.
> 
> The tax-exempt debt from Florida-based Brightline Holdings is based on private-activity bond allocations of $2.4 billion from California and $800 million from Nevada to fund construction of the 260-mile line between the West Coast cities. The bonds are unrated and the coupon rate and expected yield won’t be set until marketing starts, the company said. Brightline has an additional $1 billion private activity bond allocation from the U.S. government that isn’t part of this offering.
> 
> *Groundbreaking is set for late this *year with a goal to complete construction in three years so that trains can start running by 2024, says Wes Edens, cofounder and co-CEO of Fortress Investment Group, the private equity firm that owns Brightline. The original plan was for a 169-mile line running from California desert communities Victorville and Apple Valley to Las Vegas at speeds of up to 200 miles per hour, but Brightline is in negotiations to lengthen it by 90 miles to get to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles.


----------



## prageethSL

Brightline West is going to use *Siemens Velaro* rolling stocks.


----------



## 437.001

Er... which one is _"the entertainment capital of the world"_, the Hollywood one, or the casino one?


----------



## Shenkey

Macau turns much more casino money than Vegas, so probably the movie one.


----------



## zaphod

Getting the line to Rancho Cucamonga would be a good start.

Apple Valley only makes sense if the CAHSR is ever built to completion according to its original plans but the hardest obstacle by far for it is going to be that tunnel from Burbank to Palmdale.


----------



## M-NL

prageethSL said:


> Brightline West is going to use *Siemens Velaro* rolling stocks.


Is there more info on what variant? The BR407/E320 width is just 2.924m wide, while there a wider Velaros (Sapsan and CRH3 at 3.3m). As most coaches and the current Acela are in the 3.1m to 3.2m range I would use that width as a reference. And of course there is the new generation Velaro Novo, which is said to be available starting 2023.


----------



## GojiMet86

The Alstom Avelia Liberty being tested on the Northeast Corridor. Today was the first day it went north of Penn Station to Boston. It is pictured here along with the NYC subway's N line.



IMG_6918 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_6916 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_6909 by GojiMet86, on Flickr


----------



## Fan Railer

Compilation of daylight Avelia Liberty shots from this past week:


----------



## GojiMet86

On Friday the Avelia Liberty came back from Boston to return to Philadelphia.






IMG_6934 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_6936 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_6939 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_6943 by GojiMet86, on Flickr


----------



## 437.001

🔼 🔼 🔼
Are these NYC pics taken in Queens, GojiMet86?

I find this Avelia train a bit odd. I like it though.
The carriages are like Eurostar cars, but painted the American way, while the loco at each end looks like a mix between an AVE and an Alvia... and a zest of TGV.


----------



## GojiMet86

437.001 said:


> 🔼 🔼 🔼
> Are these NYC pics taken in Queens, GojiMet86?
> 
> I find this Avelia train a bit odd. I like it though.
> The carriages are like Eurostar cars, but painted the American way, while the loco at each end looks like a mix between an AVE and an Alvia... and a zest of TGV.


Yes, up in Queens. My one eeny teeny weeny problem, as a railfan and not as a potential passenger, is the number board in front, because I can't see what the number of the train is (the power cars in this set are 2102 and 2103).


----------



## Smooth Indian

437.001 said:


> 🔼 🔼 🔼
> Are these NYC pics taken in Queens, GojiMet86?
> 
> I find this Avelia train a bit odd. I like it though.
> The carriages are like Eurostar cars, but painted the American way, while the loco at each end looks like a mix between an AVE and an Alvia... and a zest of TGV.


In a away makes sense. Different parts of the current US were colonized by different european powers v.i.z. The English, French, Spanish and Dutch. So the trains can also influenced by designs from such countries 😎


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## Nacre

It's a shame that a beautiful train will ultimately be deeply constrained by the lack of right of way. It must be frustrating to build, own or operate a trainset capable of 300 kph that will average about 110 kph (with stops) in service.


----------



## Buffaboy

Nacre said:


> It's a shame that a beautiful train will ultimately be deeply constrained by the lack of right of way. It must be frustrating to build, own or operate a trainset capable of 300 kph that will average about 110 kph (with stops) in service.


Has anyone proposed solutions to this, whether they're likely to happen or not?


----------



## JohnDee

Buffaboy said:


> Has anyone proposed solutions to this, whether they're likely to happen or not?


yeah, but unlikely to happen. amtrak had a proposal but its not happening.

Their proposal was so expensive and its got no funding.


----------



## JohnDee

The chances of that happening are really low.


----------



## mgk920

It would be like building a major new corridor interstate highway, but with much more unforgiving engineering constraints (mainly centering on minimum required horizontal curve radii) through some of the most expensive real estate on the planet. And that real estate is heavily populated with high-end lawyers.

<sigh....>

Mike


----------



## lawdefender

davide84 said:


> A little OT, but...
> 
> Not onboard, and certainly not one per train. In modern automated metro lines (e.g. Turin, Milan, Brescia, Rome just in Italy) there are just a few traffic managers in the control room. The cockpit is replaced by passenger seats, an emergency reduced control panel is hidden below the window.
> This for metros; the automation in railways has not yet been implemented to this level.


*World’s fastest driverless bullet train launches in China*

Thu 9 Jan 2020 15.37 GMT

A new driverless bullet train connecting the Chinese cities of Beijing and Zhangjiakou is capable of reaching a top speed of up to 217mph (350km/h), making it the world’s fastest autonomous train in operation.

The new service, launched in the build-up to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic and Paralympic games, will reduce travel time between the capital and Zhangjiakou, which will stage most of the skiing events, from three hours to less than one. Some trains will complete the 108-mile routein 45 minutes. The original Beijing-Zhangjiakou line opened in 1909, when the same journey took around eight hours.

The trains will start and stop at stations automatically to a precise timetable, and change speed depending on limits between stations. However, a monitoring attendant will still be on board in case of emergencies.

Cabins on the “smart” autonomous trains have large storage areas for winter sports equipment, seats with 5G touchscreen control panels, intelligent lighting, thousands of real-time safety sensors and removable seats for passengers in wheelchairs. Facial-recognition technology and robots will be used in stations to assist with directions, luggage and paperless check-in.









World’s fastest driverless bullet train launches in China


New service launches ahead of the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022, with trains making the 108-mile trip from the capital to ski slopes in only 45 minutes




www.theguardian.com


----------



## davide84

Very interesting! This has not yet happened in the West, although it's being tested: Dutch conduct first ATO trial with passengers - International Railway Journal

I guess here the bigger issues are related to procedures and union resistance to workforce-impacting changes...


----------



## M-NL

Driverless trains are only viable when your complete rail network is devoid from any crossing with other modalities. So far, as far as high speed goes, only Japan and China have that. In North America and Europe, at least for the time being, there will remain that last mile that has railway crossings. It will only mean the driver will become more of an supervisor, but don't see complete elimination any time soon yet.


----------



## davide84

The separation does not have to be complete on the entire network, single corridors would be enough. Italian HS lines have this separation by design, contrarily e.g. to the French HS network.


----------



## Suburbanist

mgk920 said:


> It would be like building a major new corridor interstate highway, but with much more unforgiving engineering constraints (mainly centering on minimum required horizontal curve radii) through some of the most expensive real estate on the planet. And that real estate is heavily populated with high-end lawyers.
> 
> <sigh....>
> 
> Mike


This is not a fair comparison, as high-speed rail in these conditions take extensive advantage of tunneling. Just look at the Italian's main axis (Torino-Milano-Bologna-Firenze-Roma-Napoli-Salerno), where the Firenze-Roma segment has been in operation from the 1970s-1990s and the rest from the mid-late 2000s.

Long-distance tunneling is not that expensive these days.

In any case, the problem with Amtrak alignment is that even a many of relatively cheaper fixes gets bogged down on political bickering. Things like replacing some old bridges and straightening just a couple dozen miles between New York and New Haven or, even more urgent, fixing the horrible tunneling situation in Baltimore and between New York and New Jersey.

Construction of new railways in the US, of any type, is also insanely expensive due to extremely outdated FRA regulations. And, differently than their European counterparts, American heavy construction unions are hell-bent on one outcome: maximizing workforce use, instead of upscaling the jobs and guaranteeing more projects. Tram/light rail projects in US cost a fortune, even if wide roads and far less old infrastructure to relocate would make places like Los Angeles, Denver, Washington DC ideal areas for such projects. Freight rail comes expensive too: the few bypasses here and there (such as the new tranches - not even tunnels - connecting the Los Angeles Port to the rail outside central Los Angeles), fully financed by the private railway owners, cost an insane amount to build. Honolulu is building a new automated grade-separated metro, entirely above ground, at costs that would suffice for fully underground heavy metro elsewhere.


----------



## Suburbanist

Attaching passenger cars to freight trains is a major no-go, for several safety and operational reasons. This being said, there is nothing to prevent e.g. BNSF from operating their own passenger services, if they so wished.


----------



## Suburbanist

The All Abroad Florida / Virgin trains is a good example of ancillary costs. It is a medium-speed railway, fitted over a pre-existing alignment that never ceased to operate, built/retrofitted with private money/investors.

Yet, they still have to constantly fight with neighborhood lawsuits who ambush them, wanting trains to lower speeds to reduce noises (although there is full signaling all around), or to enter some consent decree limiting the maximum number of trains per direction to as few as 10 as one of the cities on the line asked for. And the local mayors do not even hide their intent: prevent a higher-speed operation from becoming "the norm" that makes them impossible, politically, to shut down through the legislature later on. All because a bunch of retirees over-leveraged themselves buying houses/condos and nothing scares them more than their idea of what makes their house "always increase in price" decreasing a bit instead due to highway proximity.


----------



## pietje01

M-NL said:


> Driverless trains are only viable when your complete rail network is devoid from any crossing with other modalities. So far, as far as high speed goes, only Japan and China have that. In North America and Europe, at least for the time being, there will remain that last mile that has railway crossings. It will only mean the driver will become more of an supervisor, but don't see complete elimination any time soon yet.


If "crossing with other modalities" means with cars, lorries, pedestrians, cyclists,... then I'm fairly sure HS rail in Belgium has no level crossings.
Even the stretches on classic rail don' have any road crossing.

The only issue I see might be thet on that classic rail, the HST's pass at passenger platforms, crowded with passengers waiting for the next domestic train, at speeds of up to 160 km/h
But then again: If you are nearing such a platform at 160 km/h and you apply the emergency brake because you see something dangerous ahead, you will be way beyond the platform before you are fully stopped

I assume the problem is more in the fact that rebuilding rail signalling for driverless trains, is something that is easier done when building a network from scratch than adapting a part of a busy network to enable this.


----------



## davide84

pietje01 said:


> I assume the problem is more in the fact that rebuilding rail signalling for driverless trains, is something that is easier done when building a network from scratch than adapting a part of a busy network to enable this.


Europe is slowly migrating to ETCS/ERTMS, which in addition to other features should also allow ATO almost natively, e.g. see:








Rio Tinto completes automation of Pilbara rail network


Rio Tinto announced on December 28 that it has successfully completed its $US 940m AutoHaul project to automate its 1700km Pilbara heavy-haul network in Western Australia




www.railjournal.com





To my knowledge, China is actually using a variant/dialect of ERTMS on its High Speed network.

I don't know the signalling situation in the USA (which I imagine having on average different requirements) but in Europe the transition to a modern system was happening anyway - national "legacy" systems had often reached their development limits in both speed and capacity.


----------



## MarcVD

pietje01 said:


> The only issue I see might be thet on that classic rail, the HST's pass at passenger platforms, crowded with passengers waiting for the next domestic train, at speeds of up to 160 km/h.


Not even really. There are only two non HSL line segments where TGVs travel at speed : line 96N between Halle and Bruxelles, and line 36N between Haren and Leuven. Both segments have 4 tracks, and platforms are either located on tracks not used by TGVs (line 96) or closed (fenced) on the high speed side. As far as I can remember, the situation described above only exists in Leuven.


----------



## davide84

In Italy speeds up to 199 km/h are allowed within stations with platforms (e.g. Padova - Bologna).
Starting from 200 km/h max design speed a line must not have platforms nor any crossing.


----------



## hkskyline

* Fortress Plans to Sell $2.4 Billion for Vegas Rail, Still Record *
Bloomberg _Excerpt_
Oct 20, 2020

Fortress Investment Group cut the size of its municipal bond sale for for a passenger railroad between California and Las Vegas by $800 million to $2.4 billion, seeking to draw enough buyers to finance the speculative project.

The size of the offering of unrated securities was included in a preliminary pricing wire viewed by Bloomberg. While it’s less than the $3.2 billion the company had intended to sell, it would still be the largest ever offering of unrated municipal securities. They are expected to price this week.

Yields range from 7% to 7.5% depending on the call dates, with final maturity in 2050, in line with earlier price guidance although the call features differ. That yield on a 30-year bond would be about four times what the highest rated state and local governments pay, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

More : Fortress Plans to Sell $2.4 Billion for Vegas Rail, Still Record


----------



## RyukyuRhymer

Critics of high-speed rail project say Texas governor was misinformed


Governor Greg Abbott is giving the Texas Central high-speed rail project another look after obtaining new information provided by opponents of the project.




www.kbtx.com


----------



## zaphod

So let me get this straight: the anti-HSR people would rather the project not be granted permits, because it does not have them yet? Also this seems to be hair-splitting. My impression is that they have what they need from the feds, there might be other permits, but that isn't so much malicious lies as some PR person not understanding the byzantine rules and regulations of a massive construction projects.

Seems like a lot of nothing, if you ask me.


----------



## Bikes

__





Maglev In The USA






www.maglev.net


----------



## JohnDee

It would be ironic if Texas was the first place to get HSR. After all, there is the NEC the place most suited for HSR in the nation with densities comparable to European areas and a much bigger population. And Cali is also a better market. Now, what a joke that this rail that goes through farmland for miles on end would be the first and not to mention that the average Texan hates "commie" rail. (not much density in Texas). If they had just gone and built an NEC rail line, they would see massive ridership but the the government made a total **** up there. The Texas one is bound to fail because Texas is not a rail place, sorry.


----------



## JohnDee

Bikes said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maglev In The USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.maglev.net


This won't happen, the hyperloop has a better chance to get built at this rate. Maglev is just too expensive for America to build these days.


----------



## Tower Dude

zaphod said:


> So let me get this straight: the anti-HSR people would rather the project not be granted permits, because it does not have them yet? Also this seems to be hair-splitting. My impression is that they have what they need from the feds, there might be other permits, but that isn't so much malicious lies as some PR person not understanding the byzantine rules and regulations of a massive construction projects.
> 
> Seems like a lot of nothing, if you ask me.


The anti-HSR people here are dogmatic morons, this is par for the course.


----------



## Mansa Musa

prageethSL said:


> *Brightline reveals more details about Vegas-to-LA high-speed rail line*


Not the biggest fan of the design and colors, however, I'm excited for all HSR developments in the country.


----------



## JohnDee

^^^That's the way Siemens trains look.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I think Alstom trains look more up to date, Siemens trains are a bit dated in their look to me. 
However that is very much subject to personal taste. In the end it really is the least of our concerns really. 

I have one question though. Will this be a single track HSR? Maybe I am ignorant but I can only remember having seen double track HSR lines so far.


----------



## davide84

You can do single-track HS but you kill capacity. Even if you build sidings here and there you end up with a very rigid and delay-sensitive timetable.

IIRC Spain has some single-track HS stretches (e.g. Antequera-Granada), but frequency is quite low and the plan still calls for double track.


----------



## SiMclaren

People seem to only judge this project based on looks. Quite weird for a engineering forum...


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ If that is addressed to my comment, you are wrong. I am not judging the project based on the looks. 
The way it stands now, it is merely a rump corridor of limited use, I seriously hope they can rectify that. Well, first I hope they can manage to build even what they propose now of course.


----------



## davide84

SiMclaren said:


> People seem to only judge this project based on looks.


If the company releases a graphical render then aesthetical comments are to be expected... as long as it's not just that it should be ok  and of course looking foward to see more technical details like actual route, power&signalling, draft timetable...


----------



## lunarwhite

Well, Brightline West's new construction page is going to be dormant for quite a while. The project has been postponed because they were not able to sell the bonds. Just click on the robot question and the article will come up.









Fortress Fails to Sell Record Bond Deal for Las Vegas Rail


Fortress Investment Group is postponing its plan to build a train to Las Vegas from Southern California after failing to sell a record amount of unrated municipal debt to finance the speculative project, showing the limits of investor appetite amid an economic downturn.




www.bloomberg.com


----------



## JohnDee

Slartibartfas said:


> I think Alstom trains look more up to date, Siemens trains are a bit dated in their look to me.
> However that is very much subject to personal taste. In the end it really is the least of our concerns really.
> 
> I have one question though. Will this be a single track HSR? Maybe I am ignorant but I can only remember having seen double track HSR lines so far.


They look like bigger nose, but some like that....


----------



## JohnDee

lunarwhite said:


> Well, Brightline West's new construction page is going to be dormant for quite a while. The project has been postponed because they were not able to sell the bonds. Just click on the robot question and the article will come up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortress Fails to Sell Record Bond Deal for Las Vegas Rail
> 
> 
> Fortress Investment Group is postponing its plan to build a train to Las Vegas from Southern California after failing to sell a record amount of unrated municipal debt to finance the speculative project, showing the limits of investor appetite amid an economic downturn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com


Typical. American HSR development is a joke, it raises your hopes and then drops them hard into the abyss, just like the mafia did with weighted bodies into NY harbor. Awful news.


----------



## GojiMet86

https://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0006908353




*



‘Texas Shinkansen’ using JR Tokai’s trains cleared by U.S.

Click to expand...

*


> 3:08 pm, November 05, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Yomiuri ShimbunThe U.S. government announced Tuesday it had drawn up safety standards and completed procedures for an environmental impact assessment for a high-speed rail project in Texas that will be supported by Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai).
> 
> The document was published in the Federal Register, the official U.S. government gazette, and the rule described will come into effect on Dec. 3.
> 
> “It is epoch-making because the safety of the Tokaido Shinkansen line was recognized by a U.S. authority,” a JR Tokai official told The Yomiuri Shimbun.
> 
> JR Tokai intends to export its new N700S series trains.
> 
> The “Texas Shinkansen” project is for a 385-kilometer-long high-speed rail system connecting Dallas and Houston. U.S. company Texas Central is expected to start construction next year, aiming for the line to start operations in 2026.
> 
> Funding for the project, which is expected to cost $20 billion (about ¥2.1 trillion), might face challenges due to the spread of the novel coronavirus pandemic.


----------



## hammersklavier

JohnDee said:


> It would be ironic if Texas was the first place to get HSR. After all, there is the NEC the place most suited for HSR in the nation with densities comparable to European areas and a much bigger population. And Cali is also a better market. Now, what a joke that this rail that goes through farmland for miles on end would be the first and not to mention that the average Texan hates "commie" rail. (not much density in Texas). If they had just gone and built an NEC rail line, they would see massive ridership but the the government made a total **** up there. The Texas one is bound to fail because Texas is not a rail place, sorry.


It's not really ironic at all though. Most city pairs in the Northeast are in different states, with still more states between them (4 states along the NYC-Boston route, 3 on NYC-Philly). This geography also extends to the Midwest, where several states only have one meaningful city (MI, MN, IL, IN).

The interstate politics involved in building anything at all are pretty intense. 

By contrast, both Houston and Dallas are large metros that just so happen to be in the same state with easy terrain (compared to California) between them. It's actually a much more obvious for the first true HSR line in the US, if the line is being built according to the prevailing local ideology (which the TX Central project is).

People also seem to forget that individual states were building "turnpikes", "expressways", and "parkways" before the Interstate Highway act. Many of these turnpikes and expressways got integrated into the later Interstate system. 

Strong Federal guidance is likely necessary for true HSR, and right now the entire rail investment convo in the US is focused on chasing one silver bullet or another (HSR, Maglev, Hyperloop) instead of improving existing intercity rail corridors and opening new ones on existing alignments, both much lower hanging fruit achievable by the state.


----------



## urbanflight

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325147894966607872


----------



## browntown

Most of those routes honestly just don't make any sense. HSR up each coast and in Texas might work but those routes through the heartland are better served by planes.


----------



## Buffaboy

I wonder if Amtrak's #1 fan, Joe Biden, will be able to get high speed rail done. We'll see.


----------



## browntown

Buffaboy said:


> I wonder if Amtrak's #1 fan, Joe Biden, will be able to get high speed rail done. We'll see.


Even if the federal government provides the money the problems are all at the state and local levels where NIMBYs tie every project up in the courts for years (sometimes decades). Not to mention powerful unions in the NorthEast which drive the costs of construction up to 10x higher than anywhere else in the world.


----------



## Smooth Indian

urbanflight said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325147894966607872





Buffaboy said:


> I wonder if Amtrak's #1 fan, Joe Biden, will be able to get high speed rail done. We'll see.


It may makes sense for Biden to get some federal dollars into improving existing and creating new regional/commuter lines out of the big cities such as Chicago, Atlanta, LA, SF, Dallas, Seattle, DC, Boston and Miami. Electrification, Signalling/Speed upgrades and standardization of rolling stock/platform heights should top the agenda. This is politically palatable and can be done through stimulus. It will also serve as a good foundation to attract investment into individual HSR/medium speed routes such as LA-Las-Vegas, Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh, Philly-Pittittsburgh, Chicago-Cleveland/Detroit-Pittsburgh, Seattle-Portland.




browntown said:


> Most of those routes honestly just don't make any sense. HSR up each coast and in Texas might work but those routes through the heartland are better served by planes.


As I have said the triangle formed between Chicago, NYC and Atlanta is fair game for continuous HSR network. Beyond that the west coast with a branch to Las Vegas, the Dallas hub with possible extension to Atlanta, extensions into Canada (Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto) will also be feasible if they are pursued systematically.


----------



## naruciakk

browntown said:


> Even if the federal government provides the money the problems are all at the state and local levels where NIMBYs tie every project up in the courts for years (sometimes decades). Not to mention powerful unions in the NorthEast which drive the costs of construction up to 10x higher than anywhere else in the world.


I just got a stupid but maybe feasible idea – can the US federal government build the National High Speed Rail Network (similar in name to The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) mostly on federal land? AFAIK it is exempt from state planning issues etc.


----------



## cuartango

hammersklavier said:


> By contrast, both Houston and Dallas are large metros that just so happen to be in the same state with easy terrain (compared to California) between them. It's actually a much more obvious for the first true HSR line in the US, if the line is being built according to the prevailing local ideology (which the TX Central project is).


I agree. But I really doubt that for example TX Central project can be done with no public fundings at all. What do you guys think about this?.



hammersklavier said:


> and right now the entire rail investment convo in the US is focused on chasing one silver bullet or another (HSR, Maglev, Hyperloop) instead of improving existing intercity rail corridors and opening new ones on existing alignments, both much lower hanging fruit achievable by the state.


Improving existing infrastructure is a good way to go when there has been a previous periodic investment throughout the years, which does not seem the case in most of the US railways (passenger service).


----------



## M-NL

naruciakk said:


> I just got a stupid but maybe feasible idea – can the US federal government build the National High Speed Rail Network (similar in name to The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) mostly on federal land? AFAIK it is exempt from state planning issues etc.


Does the federal government have enough and as contiguous as possible land in the right places to make this feasible? Any rail network, especially a high speed one, needs to be as straight as possible after all.


----------



## TM_Germany

There is hardly gonna be any federal land left where it woukd make sense to build HSR. Most federal land is out west in the sticks.


----------



## Stuu

cuartango said:


> I agree. But I really doubt that for example TX Central project can be done with no public fundings at all. What do you guys think about this?.


Busy high speed railways are profitable, so it's possible. It is very expensive though, and potentially risky, so maybe the state or federal government might need to back the bonds/loans to lower the risk


----------



## JohnDee

Joe Biden should implement the NEC Amtrak plan. NY=DC in 2 hours or less.

Also gateway project in NY is vital.

And CAHSR should be funded.

Sadly, Mitch McConnel will probably mean that this won't happen.


----------



## davide84

Maybe it would be easier to "simply" fund properly Amtrak and let it handle stages of HS projects together with normal maintenance and improvements...? I don't know if that makes sense for the US, but that's what happened in Italy after the separate HS initiative became an easy target for oppositions - the HS consortium was closed and its functions absorbed by the network management entity.


----------



## Smooth Indian

👆 👆 👆 
Lets see if the both the Georgia Senate races go in favor of the democrats. A 50-50 tie would still mean budget proposals can get passed with Kamala's vote breaking the tie.


----------



## mgk920

naruciakk said:


> I just got a stupid but maybe feasible idea – can the US federal government build the National High Speed Rail Network (similar in name to The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) mostly on federal land? AFAIK it is exempt from state planning issues etc.


The original interstates were built by the individual states, but with a 90%/10% federal/state funding mix. The states were responsible for everything beyond that, although the feds do chip in on major maintenance work.

Mike


----------



## naruciakk

mgk920 said:


> The original interstates were built by the individual states, but with a 90%/10% federal/state funding mix. The states were responsible for everything beyond that, although the feds do chip in on major maintenance work.


Yeah, I know, I was just comparing the HSR system to interstates in they form, but I remember that they were built by states. But the times are different 
There is no option to create new federal land, is there?


----------



## mgk920

urbanflight said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325147894966607872


That line running west from Chicago, aside from a small handful of small to medium sized metros (Des Moines, Omaha and Lincoln, NE) is a whole bunch of nothing until Denver. West of Denver it _IS_ nothing until Las Vegas, NV, and it would have to go through some of the most rugged landscape in North America the whole way. At least it is mostly flat and easy going east of Denver.

Mike


----------



## mgk920

naruciakk said:


> Yeah, I know, I was just comparing the HSR system to interstates in they form, but I remember that they were built by states. But the times are different
> There is no option to create new federal land, is there?


Well, the feds could buy it like with any other needful property takings (see: 'Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment V').

Mike


----------



## mgk920

TM_Germany said:


> There is hardly gonna be any federal land left where it woukd make sense to build HSR. Most federal land is out west in the sticks.


And a LOT of it has been locked up over the years as national parks, monuments, highly restrictive 'wilderness', etc, in many places solely to prevent any development of any kind on it. Many western states are still royally POed at a lot of those restrictions, too. Something like 90% of the land area of Nevada is owned by the feds.

Mike


----------



## [email protected]




----------



## Sallonian

I think we only need one High Speed Rail line to come online, it proves its potential and then we have more and more lines nationwide. Whether it is Califonia or Texas Central or Northeast Corridor or Northwest or Las Vegas. Biden has to ensure that he has a line funded and built and then I'm sure more states will invest on High-Speed Rail.


----------



## browntown

Sallonian said:


> I think we only need one High Speed Rail line to come online, it proves its potential and then we have more and more lines nationwide. Whether it is Califonia or Texas Central or Northeast Corridor or Northwest or Las Vegas. Biden has to ensure that he has a line funded and built and then I'm sure more states will invest on High-Speed Rail.


Except the level of regulations in the US these days would mean it will take decades to actually build a line. And Biden is only pushing for MORE regulations so there's no way it could ever be completed during his Presidency. CAHSR was approved in 2008 and so far it's maybe 5% complete at best. Probably even less considering that construction has only even started on the very easiest parts of the route.


----------



## naruciakk

browntown said:


> Except the level of regulations in the US these days would mean it will take decades to actually build a line. And Biden is only pushing for MORE regulations so there's no way it could ever be completed during his Presidency.


On the other hand, not all regulations are created equal and some of them might impact the construction of the HSR in the US, some won't, some might even be lifted if there's need.


----------



## Smooth Indian

browntown said:


> Except the level of regulations in the US these days would mean it will take decades to actually build a line. And Biden is only pushing for MORE regulations so there's no way it could ever be completed during his Presidency. CAHSR was approved in 2008 and so far it's maybe 5% complete at best. Probably even less considering that construction has only even started on the very easiest parts of the route.


CAHSR has a funding issue that's holding it back. If $19 billion of the $38 billion original price tag would have been dedicated by the Feds in 2009 then an equivalent amount could have been generated through selling bonds. Carbon trading would also generate some money for buffer. Absent enough funding the project slowed down with or without legal hurdles. Most of the legal challenges were surmounted in the 2010-14 period. The cost increased as well during the delay.


----------



## browntown

Can't blame a 500% price increase on 10 years of low inflation. And TBH nobody really knows the cost because that's mostly going to depend on the tunneling and urban construction.


----------



## Stuu

browntown said:


> Can't blame a 500% price increase on 10 years of low inflation. And TBH nobody really knows the cost because that's mostly going to depend on the tunneling and urban construction.


Construction cost inflation, certainly in Europe, is much higher than general inflation. I would also guess that the uncertainty over funding has a big impact on cost efficiency: they would probably have a completely different approach to building it if a larger portion of funding was guaranteed. I wouldn't be surprised if the risk of cancellation meant contractors put in higher bids to cover the risk as well. The whole project is a great example of how not to manage a project


----------



## fkus

Stuu said:


> Construction cost inflation, certainly in Europe, is much higher than general inflation. I would also guess that the uncertainty over funding has a big impact on cost efficiency: they would probably have a completely different approach to building it if a larger portion of funding was guaranteed. I wouldn't be surprised if the risk of cancellation meant contractors put in higher bids to cover the risk as well. The whole project is a great example of how not to manage a project


100% agreed. That was an example of ugly planning and bad management of tax payers’ money.


----------



## Clery

Sallonian said:


> I think we only need one High Speed Rail line to come online, it proves its potential and then we have more and more lines nationwide. Whether it is Califonia or Texas Central or Northeast Corridor or Northwest or Las Vegas. Biden has to ensure that he has a line funded and built and then I'm sure more states will invest on High-Speed Rail.


I've always thought the same. For now, the only US point of reference for "high speed rail" is Acela, with a commercial speed of 82 mph (132 kph). A modern dedicated HSR can reach a commercial speed of 220 mph (350 kph), nearly 3 times faster.

Once Americans will be able to experience domestically a real high speed rail, I'm sure they'll be as convinced as anyone else, and suddenly all the NIMBYism and construction costs difficulties will evaporate. After all, they don't have difficulties to acquire lands in order to build motorways, I believe this is mostly a matter of motivation.


----------



## DCUrbanist

Clery said:


> I've always thought the same. For now, the only US point of reference for "high speed rail" is Acela, with a commercial speed of 82 mph (132 kph). A modern dedicated HSR can reach a commercial speed of 220 mph (350 kph), nearly 3 times faster.


There are plenty of reasons how/why CAHSR has exploded in cost, including incomplete geotechnical estimations, poor contracting management practices, political considerations around avoid certain powerful landowners' properties, etc. But I think it's important to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here. Acela's _average_ speed is 82mph, and modern dedicated HSR has a _maximum_ speed of 220mph. Including stops, dedicated HSR, while much faster than Acela, would still be considerably slower than that. On (unacceptably short) stretches of track, Acela does reach 150-160mph. It's sort of like people comparing The Boring Company's only somewhat lower tunnel boring costs of tiny bores with the total costs of bigger projects that include tunnel fit-out, station caverns, emergency access, safety systems, etc.


----------



## Clery

DCUrbanist said:


> But I think it's important to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here. Acela's _average_ speed is 82mph, and modern dedicated HSR has a _maximum_ speed of 220mph.


You're correct, I've been mislead by my source which was stating wrong. If I take Paris-Lyon, Paris-Bordeaux, Paris-Marseille or Paris-Strasbourg, the commercial speed is actually of 162 mph / 260 kph. That's still twice faster than Acela. With such a commercial speed, we could go from LA to San Francisco in 2h20 and from NYC to DC in 1h20.


----------



## DCUrbanist

Clery said:


> You're correct, I've been mislead by my source which was stating wrong. If I take Paris-Lyon or Paris-Strasbourg, the commercial speed is actually of 162 mph / 260 kph. That's still twice faster than Acela. With such a commercial speed, we could go from LA to San Francisco in 2h20 and from NYC to DC in 1h20.


I think you're still confusing maximum speed with average speed. The maximum speed of Acela is currently 150mph. It doesn't reach that speed on most of the track. A 2h45 DC-NYC trip averages 82mph. The most aggressive (and overbuilt) HSR plans for the Northeast would increase that commercial speed to 189mph and make the trip in 1h30, or an average speed of 137mph.

Paris-Lyon is 264mi and takes 1h56 nonstop, giving it an average speed of 137mph. So we're just trying to have what you've had for decades.


----------



## Clery

DCUrbanist said:


> I think you're still confusing maximum/commercial speed with average speed.


No I don't, you can calculate it by yourself:

*Paris-Bordeaux: *2h14 for 583 km / 362 miles making a commercial speed of 261 kph / 162 mph
*Paris-Strasbourg:* 1h55 for 491 km / 305 miles making a commercial speed of 256 kph / 159 mph
*Paris-Marseille: *3h05 for 775 km / 482 miles making a commercial speed of 251 kph / 156 mph
*Madrid-Barcelona: *2h30 for 615 km / 382 miles making a commercial speed of 246 kph / 153 mph
*Paris-Rennes: *1h25 for 346 km / 215 miles making a commercial speed of 244 kph / 152 mph
Just to be clear, my point is certainly not to bash Acela. I've even used it from Boston to NYC. However, I believe considering it "high speed rail" is counter-productive as to many Americans, it gives the illusion they already know what it is, whereas it's considerably more limited than what exists in Europe or Asia-Pacific. It's only once the US will have a full-capacity HSR, no matter if it's in California, Texas, the Northeast corridor or even Florida, that many will realize it can be a lot more efficient than they initially thought.


----------



## browntown

At any rate rebuilding the entire NEC is pointless. Simply straightening out the worst curves would help a lot. Unfortunately the US seems loathe to use eminent domain even when it's clearly the right call.


----------



## davide84

Commercial speed _is_ average speed. It's the speed "commercially sold" to a passenger, depending on the overall time it takes to go from A to B, including intermediate stops.

E.g. see the abstract of Commercial bus speed diagnosis based on GPS-monitored data


----------



## Clery

davide84 said:


> Commercial speed _is_ average speed. It's the speed "commercially sold" to a passenger, depending on the overall time it takes to go from A to B, including intermediate stops.
> 
> E.g. see the abstract of Commercial bus speed diagnosis based on GPS-monitored data


I'm perfectly aware of that. What I've been posting above are indeed *commercial speeds*. I've found them in checking next monday's proposed offers. TGV top speed on commercial service is 320 kph / 200 mph.


----------



## davide84

I agree with your previous posts, I just wanted to report the official definition of commercial speed so that everybody can agree on the terms


----------



## 33Hz

Call me a cynic, but I've been hearing about high speed rail being about to happen in the US for 30 years (Florida Overland eXpress or Texas TGV anyone?). Since then we've had 2 two-term Democrat presidents - what will make it different this time?


----------



## browntown

33Hz said:


> Call me a cynic, but I've been hearing about high speed rail being about to happen in the US for 30 years (Florida Overland eXpress or Texas TGV anyone?). Since then we've had 2 two-term Democrat presidents - what will make it different this time?


If anything all these failed projects only make it that much harder. When most Americans think "HSR" they think of a white elephant like nuclear fusion.


----------



## Smooth Indian

33Hz said:


> Call me a cynic, but I've been hearing about high speed rail being about to happen in the US for 30 years (Florida Overland eXpress or Texas TGV anyone?). Since then we've had 2 two-term Democrat presidents - what will make it different this time?


If something different happens this time it will be because of what is at stake and what appears like a compromise. If people are pushing the green new deal with heavy taxes on gas and driving, then individual HSR projects with mostly private funding is compromise. It also depends on the mood of the side promoting the HSR projects and how this side doesn't shy away from pushing its agenda. 
A soccer team playing with a 1-0 lead will often try and just hold onto the lead and might inadvertently allow the other side to become more aggressive. Contrastingly the same side when it is down 0-1 won't shy away from being aggressive and try harder to close the gap. Which side shows up in the next 2 years is there to see.


----------



## Mansa Musa

33Hz said:


> Call me a cynic, but I've been hearing about high speed rail being about to happen in the US for 30 years (Florida Overland eXpress or Texas TGV anyone?). Since then we've had 2 two-term Democrat presidents - what will make it different this time?


Conservative states purposely caused the previous HSR funding to go to waste. For some reason conservatives hate progress.

California (well I've already made my opinion on that several times).
NorthEast corridor is looking promising
STL to KC had promise before conservatives shelved it. 
Texas and Florida have bright futures.


----------



## davide84

Particularly Florida... while not truly HS, it's operating, privately-run and being extended. This alone makes a huge difference compared to the same discussions from 10 or 20 years ago - there is finally a working example in the USA other than the NEC, which is kind of a special case...


----------



## 33Hz

davide84 said:


> Particularly Florida... while not truly HS, it's operating, privately-run and being extended. This alone makes a huge difference compared to the same discussions from 10 or 20 years ago - there is finally a working example in the USA other than the NEC, which is kind of a special case...


I think it undermines the case. It's far from high speed most of the way and the new build on the last section doesn't count as high speed either. It has taken years to get it to this point, it's existence makes the business case harder for anyone else that wanted to build a true high speed line and it gives the impression to anyone not familiar with true high speed rail elsewhere in the world that HSR is diesel and barely competitive time wise with the car.


----------



## davide84

I totally see your point. And I might add, it's single track with limited frequencies and small interchanges.

But at least Brightline is running, and it did not cost a fortune. When HS critics say it will never work, you can point to Brightline and say "and just imagine if there was just a little more public contribution...". It's a big compromise, I know...


----------



## fkus

davide84 said:


> I totally see your point. And I might add, it's single track with limited frequencies and small interchanges.
> 
> But at least Brightline is running, and it did not cost a fortune. When HS critics say it will never work, you can point to Brightline and say "and just imagine if there was just a little more public contribution...". It's a big compromise, I know...


And really works. It links three cities: Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, and it is a better way to avoid I-95. And is already a success: they are expanding to Orlando and Tampa. Totally different from the California goofy example, that burned a lot of money to link nowhere to nowhere!


----------



## TM_Germany

How is it a success? Genuinly asking. Were the trains full pre-Covid? Florida's urban environment is extremely sprawly and even Miami's center is really small. From where to where would you take the train? How would you get to and away from the stations?


----------



## JohnDee

TM_Germany said:


> How is it a success? Genuinly asking. Were the trains full pre-Covid? Florida's urban environment is extremely sprawly and even Miami's center is really small. From where to where would you take the train? How would you get to and away from the stations?


I'm getting a very negative picture from you on this rail line even before the entire thing is finished. You are jumping the gun. So what if the rail line is not yet producing max returns as of recent history? It's a young line in a car state, give it time. This is a long journey. A journey to change the perception that people have of rail in the sunbelt. An area of only driver types.

Why are you complaining, this is a tremendous leap forward for a place like Florida, and will change the perception of rail there over time and may make people like rail again. It's a solid medium speed rail line. Have you even tried it yet? I don't see why you're asking these pointless questions, did you really think that they would build HSR in Florida on the governments dime? Do you think Florida is going to have world class transit in their cities? You don't know much about American politics, do you?

You should wait until the entire line opens, this is only phase 1. Orlando airport/Disneyland will bring a lot more traffic. Again why do you think it matters if Miami's center isn't big? The primary goal was to shuttle tourists from Orland to Miami and make money of real estate. That's the business plan. It would save 1 hour on driving and be more relaxing for people than driving on congested highways. Many people who would usually drive may consider this, especially if they have a family and kids who don't want to sit in a car for 4 hours. Again, wait, the entire thing isn't open yet. Your euro centric view of rail won't work in Florida. It's a different kettle of fish down there. You're never going to get European style transit in Florida, but that doesn't mean rail can't work there.

This is the best you're going to get in the red state, Florida. So, No TGV style trains. The government already showed that it won't spend on rail years ago. Private sector is all they have now. The right wing government is not going to spend when they have to please their rural constituency who value things like low-taxes, guns and they are certainly anti-urban and anti rail.


----------



## JohnDee

browntown said:


> At any rate rebuilding the entire NEC is pointless. Simply straightening out the worst curves would help a lot. Unfortunately the US seems loathe to use eminent domain even when it's clearly the right call.


It won't do anything of consequence. Straightening a few curves won't turn the Acela into a real HSR (European or Asian). It may save a few minutes, but that's not good enough. You don't know much about trains, do you. If you really think that fixing "a few curves" is going to make much of a difference and maximize the right of way in the densest area of the USA I've a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell to you. Anyway, Amtrak disagrees with you. Read their plan. I'm more inclined to trust a rail department than a guy like you who has constantly thrown shade on HSR projects for years on this forum.

Building the HSR in the NEC is hardly pointless. It's quite obvious you are anti-rail if you could say such a thing. Nobody who values rail and urbanity would ever say such a thing. The NEC has the most potential of any place in the country for real HSR and most profit potential. It's the only area of the USA that can really match Europe in density. Moreover, there are 6 dense cities on that corridor. and three very rich and important cities including the capital of the free world and the world's commercial capital. Right now the Acela is ridicously slow, it's not real HSR. It needs to be upgraded to match European speeds to make the most of the line. That will allow the NEC to become far more intertwined and function as an economic single economic market and people will be able to live anywhere and work anywhere on the path.

I notice a lot of negativity in your posts about HSR, especially you moaning on about boondoggles and "wastes of money". I have a feeling you're probably the kind that will turn a blind eye conveniently when the military wastes billions on vanity projects or the highway folks build another mega highway to nowhere  And fusion is good. Cutting edge Science is always worth investing in, even if it's a long term endeavor. Again, with that and the constant rail bashing, I am getting a good profile of you now and I'm done talking to you and your ilk. Sorry, you lost, grin and bear it for another 8 years!


----------



## browntown

JohnDee said:


> It won't do anything of consequence. Straightening a few curves won't turn the Acela into a real HSR (European or Asian). It may save a few minutes, but that's not good enough. You don't know much about trains, do you? I notice a lot of negativity in your posts when rail comes up here, especially you moaning on about boondoggles and "wastes of money". That's all very well and good, but I have a feeling you're probably the kind that will turn a blind eye conveniently when the military wastes billions on vanity projects or the highway folks build another mega highway to nowhere.


Dude, both your posts above are just way too aggressive and presumptuous for no reason. As if wanting to be financially responsible were some sin. Projects should be funded based on what provides the most bang for the buck, not based on your politics or personal preference for one mode of transportation over another.


----------



## JohnDee

33Hz said:


> I think it undermines the case. It's far from high speed most of the way and the new build on the last section doesn't count as high speed either. It has taken years to get it to this point, it's existence makes the business case harder for anyone else that wanted to build a true high speed line and it gives the impression to anyone not familiar with true high speed rail elsewhere in the world that HSR is diesel and barely competitive time wise with the car.


Florida is a sun belt state. Go there and see if HSR would be worth it right now? No, and the government is republican with Marco Rubio and that idiot governor, they would never ever ever spend a DIME on HSR.

This rail line is basically free for the people, it's all paid for. Florida is not the place for easy HSR builds. It is a suburban area the entire way up the coast, which prevents easy rail building like in Texas for example. Try it before you knock it. It's the first stage of the journey. HSR is not needed in Florida right now, the people are far too car centric. It will take a while before that attitude changes.


----------



## TM_Germany

Are you missing some meds? I even explicitly wrote that I was genuinly asking _because _I don't know. Interestingly enough, afterwards you point out how suburban and unsuitable Florida is for rail... which means Brightline is a success? If this project fails, it's gonna paint a bad picture on rail projects in general.


----------



## Smooth Indian

JohnDee said:


> Florida is a sun belt state. Go there and see if HSR would be worth it right now? No, and the government is republican with Marco Rubio and that idiot governor, they would never ever ever spend a DIME on HSR.
> 
> This rail line is basically free for the people, it's all paid for. Florida is not the place for easy HSR builds. It is a suburban area the entire way up the coast, which prevents easy rail building like in Texas for example. Try it before you knock it. It's the first stage of the journey. HSR is not needed in Florida right now, the people are far too car centric. It will take a while before that attitude changes.


I don't think anybody is suggesting putting federal tax money into Florida. Especially since, the state rejected grants from the Obama admin in 2010. The only thing needed is regulatory and viability support from governments at different levels.
HSR or some version of it can succeed. A higher speed (100-150 mph) electrified route with 2 and 4 track sections created on existing ROWs like the NEC can be done between Miami and Orlando. Since this part of Florida is mostly suburban, something that beats freeway speeds will find favor. Not everyone wants to drive and certainly not long distance on a daily basis. Die-hard drivers will also need to use it once in a while. And people using it on a regular basis need not all be urban living yuppies w/o cars. Even suburban families will ride it. Other routes out of Orlando are also fair candidates since it is centrally located in FL.


----------



## davide84

I still think an objective metric to define "success" could be the financial sustainability of Brightline in the next few years.
If enough people take the train and the company survives I would not call it a loss just because it's not electrified...


----------



## Sunfuns

At last someone has made an independent video on construction of California high speed rail. Starting with construction package 4, other sections have been promised. Huge props to this guy!


----------



## browntown

Imagine if that money were going towards new mass transit in LA or SF instead of a literal train to nowhere. At the very least it should have been used to get Caltrain into the transbay transit center (talk about another train to nowhere).


----------



## Sunfuns

Now it's a useless trunk indeed, but the overall idea is good. A pity that due to the political situation at the time they couldn't start at either end instead as any sane country would have.


----------



## davide84

browntown said:


> Imagine if that money were going towards new mass transit in LA or SF instead of a literal train to nowhere. At the very least it should have been used to get Caltrain into the transbay transit center (talk about another train to nowhere).


This is an objection I often heard in Italy. What if the money went to the commuters, what if the money would be spent for the working class, and so on. While it's undeniable that one can actually calculate and decide priorities between different types of project, the risk of this reasoning is that we end up with some ideological position like "don't do anything called HS until every commuter has his dedicated train". The point is, HS is one type of service and HS lines do have their dignity within a rail network, in parallel with commuter services.

Moreover, HS is not the root of all evils, and it's definitely not assured that canceling CAHSR would result in the same billions being invested into commuter networks. One could as well say "I would prefer the US to tax more the wealthy people and invest in commuter networks" or "I would prefer less investments in space exploration and more in commuter networks" and so on.


----------



## urbanflight

browntown said:


> Imagine if that money were going towards new mass transit in LA or SF instead of a literal train to nowhere. At the very least it should have been used to get Caltrain into the transbay transit center (talk about another train to nowhere).


*Why This Train Is The Envy Of The World: The Shinkansen Story*






Apparently the same objection was made in Japan about the Shinkansen during its construction back in 1960....


----------



## browntown

You people are either not understanding the argument or else being intentionally misleading. The problem with CAHSR isn't the fact it's HSR, it's the fact that it's a massive boondoggle. It's spending billions of dollars just connecting a bunch of small desert towns together. Comparing it to the Shinkansen is ludicrous. That line was approved in 1958 and completed in 1964. Thats 6 years. It's already been 12 years since CAHSR was approved and none of the meaningful construction has even started yet nor is there any plan to start it. At this point you're better off just flushing the money down the toilet.


----------



## Wouter999

Connecting some desert towns could be very useful, because it is the easiest and cheapest way to speed up a line. But it only makes sence if trains continue directly to the heart of big metropolises on either side of the line e.a. San Fransisco - Los Angeles. Preferably with maximum one or two intermediate stops (that could alternate per scheduled train). As in all HSR systems the highest speeds are achieved in the middle of nowwhere and not in the urban area's. Just make sure you don't have to change trains in between..


----------



## Clery

browntown said:


> You people are either not understanding the argument or else being intentionally misleading. The problem with CAHSR isn't the fact it's HSR, it's the fact that it's a massive boondoggle. It's spending billions of dollars just connecting a bunch of small desert towns together. Comparing it to the Shinkansen is ludicrous. That line was approved in 1958 and completed in 1964. Thats 6 years. It's already been 12 years since CAHSR was approved and none of the meaningful construction has even started yet nor is there any plan to start it. At this point you're better off just flushing the money down the toilet.


To me, an efficient high speed rail model to apply in the US would be the one of France rather than the one of Japan. By that I mean offering direct connection between remote cities (for instance LA and SF) *WITHOUT* any stop between both destinations. This is what allows the very high commercial speeds I mentionned in the previous page.

In such a context, the fact that the countryside is vastly empty in California isn't a problem, but actually an advantage. Indeed, It makes it easier to build the perfectly straight line necessary to reach high speed with maximum commercial competitiveness compared to aircraft.


----------



## browntown

Ok, but that's the exact opposite of what is actually happening. Instead the small towns are being connected and there is only some vague talk of eventually connecting the major cities (but even then it would be indirectly).


----------



## 33Hz

browntown said:


> You people are either not understanding the argument or else being intentionally misleading. The problem with CAHSR isn't the fact it's HSR, it's the fact that it's a massive boondoggle. It's spending billions of dollars just connecting a bunch of small desert towns together. Comparing it to the Shinkansen is ludicrous. That line was approved in 1958 and completed in 1964. Thats 6 years. It's already been 12 years since CAHSR was approved and none of the meaningful construction has even started yet nor is there any plan to start it. At this point you're better off just flushing the money down the toilet.


The current construction is part of Phase 1 that will link the Bay Area to Los Angeles. Phase 2 adds San Diego and Sacramento. The reason why they are building what they are building now is because it delivers the maximum distance to prove out the technology in the US and still has a positive BCR - as per their business plan - while still being affordable after the slash of the federal contribution by the current right wing administration. Hopefully that situation now reverses. This is all available on their website, so I would say the one that is being intentionally misleading is you.


----------



## mgk920

Singe the late 00s, I have been strongly arguing that the proposed (so called) 'high speed rail' project between Chicago and MSP was in no way true 'high speed rail' - it is/was at most an 'enhanced speed' restored conventional service. Unless the track is built like it was for the Shinkansen, French TGV or all of those Chinese lines (7 km minimum horizontal curve radius, to start) and has the capability of running trains full-speed 'express' (_no_ intermediate stops) the whole distance between the CHI and MSP terminal stations, there is no way that it will be competitive with airlines between MSP and either ORD or MDW.

Yes, do intermediate station stops for local and regional service trains, but the full 350 km/h track speed _MUST_ be maintained the entire way for express service between the terminals.

For such service it will require an entirely new track grade, including through both metro areas' suburbs. "Your challenge will be to locate such a ROW." If you think that siting and building the original interstates or a new commercial airport was hard (look at the trouble that Amtrak is having with north suburban Chicagoland NIMBYs in just trying to increase the frequency of their CHI-MKE Hiawathas)....

Mike


----------



## browntown

33Hz said:


> This is all available on their website, so I would say the one that is being intentionally misleading is you.


Yes, these words are indeed on their website. But that's pretty much meaningless. No actual plan exists to fund or build any of that. At best the "plan" is a vague hope that Congress will pass a large infrastructure bill and California will get a significant chunk of it. Even if that happens the project is likely going to be 20 years later and 10x the original budget. The voters were told that the entire project would be complete this year. Instead it's about 5% complete at best. Surely you have to agree there is a point at which you have to admit this was a failure and cut your losses?


----------



## Sunfuns

Here is the 2nd part (out of 4) on construction progress of CHSR.






As you can see the southern part of construction package 2-3 is still going through agricultural land with nearly zero population anywhere near. Judging from this at least 90% of land has been acquired (works visible), but several major viaducts have not been started yet. I believe there will be a lot more finished or nearly finished structures in the following two parts since construction started from the north. Still clearly works are ongoing and in the areas shown so far trains will be able to go maximum speed with no issues.

You might say but where is it going to and from? The previous video starts about 10 miles north of Bakersfield (metro population about 800k) and I read elsewhere that the first operating segment would be from Merced (small town) to Bakersfield via Fresno (metro population ca 900k). That's a far cry from LA and SF, but at least worth running some trains to see how it goes.


----------



## Sallonian

browntown said:


> You people are either not understanding the argument or else being intentionally misleading. The problem with CAHSR isn't the fact it's HSR, it's the fact that it's a massive boondoggle. It's spending billions of dollars just connecting a bunch of small desert towns together. Comparing it to the Shinkansen is ludicrous. That line was approved in 1958 and completed in 1964. Thats 6 years. It's already been 12 years since CAHSR was approved and none of the meaningful construction has even started yet nor is there any plan to start it. At this point you're better off just flushing the money down the toilet.


CAHSR is not meant to connect desert towns, but SF to LA. They are more than big cities to be connected with HSR. There have been mistakes in planning and design, but you cannot get anywhere with insufficient funding. Unless funding is secure, there is no way that CAHSR will deliver to the promises. The only difference with Shinkansen is that in Japan the funding continued, despite the fact budget went spiralling 3 times more than the original plan. 

But, in 1964 people didn't know whether HSR scheme would succeed. In 2020, there's more than enough evidence suggesting that HSR works and delivers an unprecedented capacity. When CAHSR comes online, the critics will also fall silent, but until then HSR will suffer from low public support. Do you think that Senate is vital in securing funding for HSR? Why can't Republicans understand the importance of HSR? I hope that Northeast Corridor, Texas Central and CAHSR will be HSR at sometime in the 2030s.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Sallonian said:


> CAHSR is not meant to connect desert towns, but SF to LA. They are more than big cities to be connected with HSR. There have been mistakes in planning and design, but you cannot get anywhere with insufficient funding. Unless funding is secure, there is no way that CAHSR will deliver to the promises. The only difference with Shinkansen is that in Japan the funding continued, despite the fact budget went spiralling 3 times more than the original plan.
> 
> But, in 1964 people didn't know whether HSR scheme would succeed. In 2020, there's more than enough evidence suggesting that HSR works and delivers an unprecedented capacity. When CAHSR comes online, the critics will also fall silent, but until then HSR will suffer from low public support. Do you think that Senate is vital in securing funding for HSR? Why can't Republicans understand the importance of HSR? I hope that Northeast Corridor, Texas Central and CAHSR will be HSR at sometime in the 2030s.


Leaving aside the strawman of the cost estimates, the supposed "ballooning" of which have always been wildly exaggerated, as soon as the "train to nowhere" moniker is thrown around, one really just needs to stop engaging: People are either willfully ignorant or somehow aroused at the prospect that anyone responsible for executing this program has at any point acted seriously to position -- and deliver -- this project without the opportunity for interim service, despite *a)* the Authority being _legally _and _fiduciarily _required to demonstrate and meet this condition to even receive disbursement of funds and *b)* the fact that the Central Valley segment has always been called the "_Initial Operating Segment_."

The basic business plan the Authority has had for delivering this program hasn't fundamentally changed all that much, other than communities insisting on adjustments to the alignment that changed the entire timeline and basic cost assumptions of that end of the corridor: that is, they didn't "pivot" to the Bay Area, the scope for the LA-Basin component expanded beyond the window of interim operations.

People enter a distortion field whenever this project is discussed (ie. media who insisted Newsom "cancelled" the project, when he neither said nor implied any such thing -- even the reporting linked is rife with mischaracterizations and falsehoods...). Overall, media outlets -- especially, the LATimes -- in this country have been generally bad at covering this project (as they are with most transport infrastructure), and this seems to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where people are imagining the project's fortunes are diminishing when, in actuality, no such thing has occurred.

The reality is that the project is and always has been sound -- they would not have advanced out of environmental review and received approvals (and funds) were this _not _the case. There are long-planned, existing, and possible infrastructure investments that will facilitate perfectly viable interim service as the full system is continually built-out.

Starting in either LA or the Bay Area would _not_ have delivered the project faster; it only would have mooted the advantage of existing bookend infrastructure as there is of yet no wormhole -- or any teleportation device -- to magic trains between San Jose and Los Angeles without passing through the Central Valley...


----------



## Smooth Indian

Sallonian said:


> Do you think that Senate is vital in securing funding for HSR? Why can't Republicans understand the importance of HSR? I hope that Northeast Corridor, Texas Central and CAHSR will be HSR at sometime in the 2030s.


The elite republicans understand the importance of HSR. Arnold Schwarzenegger a republican, got supported HSR way back in 2008 (after initial opposition). Many republicans also understand the anthropogenic climate change or the importance of infrastructure and other issues as we would understand them. Its just that they are roleplaying or bullshitting to please their voters or donors. 
The Senate is vital in the sense that even with a 50-50 situation (VP breaks the tie) or a 51-49 majority (not happening this time) and with the House majority/Democratic President, it becomes far easier to pass budgetary bills with provisions for HSR.


----------



## fkus

Smooth Indian said:


> The elite republicans understand the importance of HSR. Arnold Schwarzenegger a republican, got supported HSR way back in 2008 (after initial opposition). Many republicans also understand the anthropogenic climate change or the importance of infrastructure and other issues as we would understand them. Its just that they are roleplaying or bullshitting to please their voters or donors.
> The Senate is vital in the sense that even with a 50-50 situation (VP breaks the tie) or a 51-49 majority (not happening this time) and with the House majority/Democratic President, it becomes far easier to pass budgetary bills with provisions for HSR.


Don’t be hypocrite! Everyone in this group now and support HSR!

What we do not support and probably the responsible public services workers are the total irresponsibility with tax money.

Everyone in California knows that the planning was horrible, the budget was totally irresponsible, and the result as a consequence was the decrease of support for the CAHSR. California is known for the biggest state budget in the US and the worst efficiency to put this money in benefit of their citizens.


----------



## Mansa Musa

I see a lot of people being moved by my comment, I was just implying we need to improve to where 200 mph is something we should consistently try to aim for. I understand the trains can go faster, I'm all for it.


----------



## Gusiluz

Article written by me (in Spanish) on the *Geotrén *website on high speed in the USA.









Alta velocidad en los Estados Unidos


Mientras que el ferrocarril de carga es muy importante en los Estados Unidos, el de viajeros ha quedado reducido hasta ser casi testimonial (32,5 M de viajeros, aunque la mayoría en cercanías y la …



www.geotren.es


----------



## ArtManDoo

Thank you Gusiluz!

Your articles are well made, even if in spanish, can be understood.


----------



## ArtManDoo

aquaticko said:


> It's not quite true that there's only one railway in th Northeast Corridor. There are trains north and west of Boston (heading along the coast up to Maine and across Massachusetts all the way across New York state), in southern New England (north from New Haven, CT to Springfield, MA, connecting with that line east of Boston into NYC), west of Philadelphia (through to Harrisburg, slowly to Pittsburgh, and all the way to Cleveland), and south of D.C. (through Virginia and into North Carolina).
> 
> However, all of these lines connect cities that are magnitudes smaller than the metropolitan areas that Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and D.C. anchor, and so ridership on those lines is lower, and the lines all slower because of it. Of course, that goes the other way, too; proportionally fewer people ride those other lines than they do the backbone of the region because they're slower.
> 
> The bigger problem with railways in the U.S. is that people and jobs are spread to thinly, and rail service is thus a worse fit for those other areas. Of course, the biggest problem is the cultural revulsion that Americans have against cities--and that Americans rarely think of themselves as living in cities, despite the numbers suggesting that that's not the case--means that people think they don't like living in cities, when the more accurate truth is that American cities aren't as nice to live in as cities in Europe and East Asia because we've made them that way.


Ok seems, in between New Haven and Boston there seems to be two mainlines, one via Springfield and another via Providence, plus one abandoned one in the middle. 

US need's to bring back the interurban systems to connect the suburbs. Actually seems some cities in US are expanding the light rail e.t.c. systems, still very slowly.


----------



## ArtManDoo

lunarwhite said:


> From 1890 until 1958 the B&O along with the Reading and Central Railway of New Jersey operated the Royal Blue Line between Washington and NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Royal Blue (train) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Ok thanks! Seems the other mainline between Washington and NYC is up and running as well, probably for serve the freight.


----------



## Fan Railer

More 165 mph testing from the previous week.


----------



## Barciur

According to the Next Miami, Brightline is running under budget and is halfway done the project to Orlando. On schedule to open up next year!

However, this bit is rather interesting



> “By 2023, Brightline expects to achieve an average fare of $100 from Miami to Orlando”


Are they really expecting that people will pay over 100 dollars for a connection like this? Amtrak runs at $25, albeit almost 2x as long, but still - might be cheaper to fly with those fares.


----------



## Stuu

Barciur said:


> Are they really expecting that people will pay over 100 dollars for a connection like this? Amtrak runs at $25, albeit almost 2x as long, but still - might be cheaper to fly with those fares.


200 miles for $100 doesn't seem too bad to me. They say average price, so that will mean a lot of cheaper seats, but also premium seats paying much more. I'm sure there will be cheaper flights, but what is the average price paid for a flight today?


----------



## prageethSL

*Vegas-to-SoCal rail line could get spring construction start*
*








*


> After missing its planned 2020 construction start date, the company behind the high-speed rail project between Las Vegas and Southern California is hopeful work could begin this year.
> Brightline West plans to begin construction on the approximately 170-mile rail line between Southern Nevada and Victorville, California, as early as the spring, according to a project status update filed Jan. 4 with the Nevada High-Speed Rail Authority.
> “The purpose of this letter is to provide a status update on the project, which is on* target to commence construction in early Q2 2021*,” Sarah Watterson, president of Brightline West, said in the letter.


----------



## hkskyline

* Federal review of Baltimore-Washington high-speed maglev project moves ahead *
Washington Post _Excerpt_
Jan 15, 2021

A proposal to bring a high-speed maglev train system to the Washington region, which proponents say is key to addressing congestion along the Interstate 95 corridor, has reached a critical milestone.

The Federal Railroad Administration on Friday released a preliminary review of the project, laying out potential routes, as well as economic and environmental impacts of the train service that would move passengers between the nation's capital and Baltimore in 15 minutes.

The 40-mile "superconducting magnetic levitation train system," commonly called maglev, is planned as the first leg of a system that would carry passengers between Washington and New York in an hour. If federal approval is granted, which could happen as early as this year, the system could be built within a decade.

The project would cost between $13.8 billion and $16.8 billion, depending on the alignment chosen, according to the FRA report. That cost range is higher than previous estimates. Northeast Maglev, the private investors behind the project, had pegged costs at $10 billion to $12 billion. The group has said it secured $5 billion from Japan.

The federal agency analysis singled out the Baltimore-Washington corridor as ideal for such a project, citing its congestion levels, projected population growth and economic power. The existing transit connecting the two cities - Amtrak's rail service, MARC commuter trains, and buses - suffers from reliability problems because of aging infrastructure and a saturated rail and highway system, the agency said.

More : https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...5c7e00-5735-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html


----------



## Fan Railer

Two-tone action from last night.


----------



## [email protected]




----------



## Barciur

Stuu said:


> 200 miles for $100 doesn't seem too bad to me. They say average price, so that will mean a lot of cheaper seats, but also premium seats paying much more. I'm sure there will be cheaper flights, but what is the average price paid for a flight today?


I'll admit that I'm not an expert on this so I do not know - current prices are very difficult to gauge by, because obviously COVID impacts them. I see lowest for next week from $120 RT to $230 RT.

It's possible that they are thinking of the business class, most expensive tickets which will inflate the average, at which point it makes sense, I did not think of this. 

Something of note, however, is that it takes 3.5-4 hours to drive this route, and with American gas prices, the "high speed rail" which will save less than an hour on the trip, in a country that is not very passenger rail-oriented, to appeal to bigger masses, it will have to offer at least somewhat attractive pricing - it can probably cost about double of driving cost to fill these, but not more more than that for an average person.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Stuu said:


> 200 miles for $100 doesn't seem too bad to me. They say average price, so that will mean a lot of cheaper seats, but also premium seats paying much more. I'm sure there will be cheaper flights, but what is the average price paid for a flight today?


It will make sense if average speeds of 100 mph or higher are achieved, there is ample leg space (seat pitch of 38-40 inches) and light refreshments are available onboard for acceptable prices . So you are covering the distance inside 2 hours in relative comfort. Even better if ticket prices are variable like in airlines.


----------



## Short

Smooth Indian said:


> It will make sense if average speeds of 100 mph or higher are achieved, there is ample leg space (seat pitch of 38-40 inches) and light refreshments are available onboard for acceptable prices . So you are covering the distance inside 2 hours in relative comfort. Even better if ticket prices are variable like in airlines.


I would also add that also makes sense in regards to capacity. That you can be almost guaranteed a seat, even at the last minute. With a schedule that is consistent enough to not be concerned about a timetable, just arrive, buy and travel. All with less hassle at the train station than at most airports. Without the personal fatigue of driving and the growing social sub-consciousness about personal ecological footprint. The growth of public transport is clear to see in the USA, particularly amongst younger people, and this trend could continue across with HSR too.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349367185236488192


----------



## hkskyline

* Maglev stop in Mt. Vernon Square faces skepticism * 
The Washington Post _Excerpt_
Jan 26, 2021

Construction for a maglev train line that would take passengers from Washington to Baltimore in 15 minutes could alter a D.C. neighborhood and affect nearby properties for years, District officials said Monday.

A maglev station in the Mount Vernon Square area has the potential to change the character of the neighborhood and bring "substantial construction and long-term operational implications on nearby properties," Andrew Trueblood, director of the D.C. Office of Planning, said in a statement that urged residents and city leaders to engage in the federal review of the multibillion-dollar project.

The 40-mile "superconducting magnetic levitation train system," commonly called a maglev, is planned as the first leg of a system that would carry passengers from Washington to New York in an hour. D.C. leaders are urging public engagement during the planning process, but the city has not officially taken a position on the project.

More : https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...3df218-5c1d-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html


----------



## 33Hz

prageethSL said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349367185236488192


I thought they had not been able to raise the finance for this?


----------



## Sallonian

Is it possible to have DC-NYC travel time in 2hours by introducing Avelia Liberty?


----------



## Barciur

No, there is no infrastructure for this. It really will not change speed much at all, because of our very aged infrastructure.


----------



## Mansa Musa

I hope biden follows through on his infrastructure plan.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Infrastructure combined with stimulus is something he can do effectively with the current composition of the 2 chambers. Other issues depend on luck and persistence.


----------



## Mansa Musa

Only issue is republican opposition; Obama passed a stimulus to revitalize the railway industry and some states will refuse to touch the money.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Mansa Musa said:


> Only issue is republican opposition; Obama passed a stimulus to revitalize the railway industry and some states will refuse to touch the money.


They can be wiser and shamelessly decisive this time. Money can be given on a 'use it or lose it' basis. Alternate projects can be identified beforehand if the original beneficiaries reject the money. NEC and CAHSR can be given enough money to have a complete end-to-end sections with atleast 125 mph average speeds. 
Perhaps a good idea to give money for establishing, expanding, electrifying and upgrading commuter rail starting with the big metros such as LA, Bay Area, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, Miami and others with a focus on comprehensive changes. 
IMHO piecemeal projects can be avoided as they don't achieve much.


----------



## M-NL

How can the USA function as a country, when one federal government introduces all kinds of bills and programs and the next federal governement rolls them back again as quickly as possible only because they were come up with by 'the other party' or when a state goverment can completely ignore the federal government? Add a bit of NIMBYism on top and nothing gets done. You really need a political reset.

But before you think I'm just trying to roast the USA in particular: Where the USA has to little viable choice were it comes to political parties my own home country faces the exact opposite problem: To many political parties, resulting in 'average' policies aimed to keep everybody as happy as possible, but nobody feeling really represented, resulting in yet another new political party. That doesn't work either.


----------



## PersonOfInterest

Mansa Musa said:


> Only issue is republican opposition; Obama passed a stimulus to revitalize the railway industry and some states will refuse to touch the money.


Attach it to road construction funds. Lets see them say no to that.


----------



## sweet-d

@PersonOfInterest I bet they'd still say no if it was attached to roads, bridges and dams. Either they'd kill or try to add poison pills to it.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Smooth Indian said:


> They can be wiser and shamelessly decisive this time. Money can be given on a 'use it or lose it' basis. Alternate projects can be identified beforehand if the original beneficiaries reject the money. NEC and CAHSR can be given enough money to have a complete end-to-end sections with atleast 125 mph average speeds.
> Perhaps a good idea to give money for establishing, expanding, electrifying and upgrading commuter rail starting with the big metros such as LA, Bay Area, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, Miami and others with a focus on comprehensive changes.
> IMHO piecemeal projects can be avoided as they don't achieve much.


There has been success in developing a pipeline of worthy projects the last decade, thanks in no small part to the funds approved in '08/'09 as well as successive proposals from the administration.

That is important.
It is also overlooked.

Projects don't materialize out of thin air just because funding is parachuted.

There _are _"piecemeal" projects worthy of funding. There are also many more "shovel-ready" projects that are in various stages of planning -- much further along than almost anything was 10 years ago.

What there _won't _be is billions of dollars in funds suddenly conjuring projects into existence, overnight. If it is a long-range funding mechanism, states and localities will move forward with that understanding.

The last decade has produced a major shift in intent with the federal government signaling changes in its priorities alone.

The question is what kind of funding can be produced and how much.
It's a far simpler question than the previous one of starting virtually from scratch.




PersonOfInterest said:


> Attach it to road construction funds. Lets see them say no to that.


They can just add CO2 as a criteria pollutant and have the EPA start regulating emissions...
The agency was finally moving in that direction at the end of the Obama administration.

If you struggle to understand the significance, imagine every road project needing to demonstrate how it will A)_ decrease _CO2 emissions and/or B) _eliminate_ CO2 emissions...


----------



## JohnDee

The USA will manage without HSR, it will always manage.

hsr is a nerd obsession. I'm former European too from the British isles originally. Fast trains are not really needed here. Most people prefer the suburbs and don't spend much time in density and live away away away from the stations.. like, so far away that you can't even walk to get your coffee, you drive to the store and unless you live or work downtown, you never set foot on public transport.

The only place HSR is needed is probably the NEC, but even then, the current Acela is good enough.


----------



## kerouac1848

Bit of a generalisation there. I've visited a number of US cities where PT is used away from downtown.

It's unlikely we'll ever* see a HSR network like China's or Spain's, but there are pockets of the US where it can work. Many European And East Asian lines will have both a central station and one on the outskirts, I cans see a similar model working for some parts of the US. I think a bigger difficulty might be costs, it is much cheaper to drive many miles in North America compared to Europe. A 150-250 mile distance is in the zone where driving doesn't take _that_ long - even if a a HS train would be much quicker - and likely far cheaper than a ticket for a HS service. Those distances are very common between cities in the Midwest for example . If you want, say, people travelling between parts of Louisville-Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-wherever then fares will need to be relatively cheap, but HSR's commercial model is as a premium service rather than packing passengers in.

*By the time most of the US is very dense who knows what technology will exist. HSR may well be redundant.


----------



## PersonOfInterest

JohnDee said:


> The USA will manage without HSR, it will always manage.
> 
> hsr is a nerd obsession. I'm former European too from the British isles originally. Fast trains are not really needed here. Most people prefer the suburbs and don't spend much time in density and live away away away from the stations.. like, so far away that you can't even walk to get your coffee, you drive to the store and unless you live or work downtown, you never set foot on public transport.
> 
> The only place HSR is needed is probably the NEC, but even then, the current Acela is good enough.


bullshit. bet you supported brexit.

i would LOVE hsr living in chicago. a train ride down to stl or Indianapolis would be much preferable to a drive or a flight.


----------



## aquaticko

The only thing that's distinctly outside of popular political pressure is the need to reform the planning and construction sectors so that they can actually work efficiently. The unbelievable delays and continuing cost spirals on, e.g., the Second Avenue Subway and CAHSR, show that just throwing more money at public transit won't be a silver bullet, necessary though it still is. Also, pretty please, a substantially broadened gas guzzler tax (Americans buy much too large vehicles for what they use them for)....


----------



## Smooth Indian

JohnDee said:


> The USA will manage without HSR, it will always manage.


The USA will also survive w/o toilet paper and flushable toilets. Do we really want to be there though?



JohnDee said:


> hsr is a nerd obsession. I'm former European too from the British isles originally. Fast trains are not really needed here. Most people prefer the suburbs and don't spend much time in density and live away away away from the stations.. like, so far away that you can't even walk to get your coffee, you drive to the store and unless you live or work downtown, you never set foot on public transport.
> 
> The only place HSR is needed is probably the NEC, but even then, the current Acela is good enough.


Seems like calling it a nerd obsession is an attempt to discredit it


----------



## BoulderGrad

Smooth Indian said:


> Seems like calling it a nerd obsession is an attempt to discredit it


It's an oldie but a... goodie?... no... Tired... tired is the word we're looking for.


----------



## Mansa Musa

JohnDee said:


> The USA will manage without HSR, it will always manage.
> 
> hsr is a nerd obsession. I'm former European too from the British isles originally. Fast trains are not really needed here. Most people prefer the suburbs and don't spend much time in density and live away away away from the stations.. like, so far away that you can't even walk to get your coffee, you drive to the store and unless you live or work downtown, you never set foot on public transport.
> 
> The only place HSR is needed is probably the NEC, but even then, the current Acela is good enough.


I don't think you understand how much money it costs to live in America without a proper national transport system. I work as a consultant and it'll cost me (although reimbursed by my company) 200-300 a week to travel to see my clients. That's just traveling between KC and it's surrounding cities. I would love to hop on a HSR in KC and travel to STL and vice versa. Same with nearby cities such as Omaha, OKC and Des Moines.


----------



## PersonOfInterest

Soo many of these midsize towns want to attract more people. Put a new train station in your gutted downtowns. Plenty of parking lots to use up.


----------



## Barciur

If there was no need or use for public transportation in the US, hsr in particular, how come there is a A TON of flights between close city pairs such as DC - New York, New York - Boston etc? If people don't use them...?


----------



## M-NL

JohnDee said:


> The USA will manage without HSR, it will always manage.
> ...
> Fast trains are not really needed here. Most people prefer the suburbs and don't spend much time in density and live away away away from the stations.. like, so far away that you can't even walk to get your coffee, you drive to the store and unless you live or work downtown, you never set foot on public transport.


The world also did just fine without airplanes, automobiles and electricity (need I go on?), but times have changed.

Are fast trains really not needed? Many North Americans have never been exposed to really good public transportation nor high speed trains and thus have no personal experience. Their opinion is shaped by their personal news bubble. If that news bubble says public transport and HST are bad and automobiles and planes are good, then that is what they choose to believe.

You say most people prefer the suburbs. Do they? What are their options? Often downtown is either unaffordable for most or more like a business and shopping district that turns into a ghost town at night. I think it is just stupid that in the suburbs you need a car ride just to get a coffee or basically anything. A 15 minute car ride to the nearest store isn't uncommon. Why? And I'm not the only one thinking this:


----------



## prageethSL

*A New Plan Forward for California High Speed Rail*
*









*


> Among the priorities outlined in the plan:
> 
> • Complete the 119-mile Central Valley construction segment and lay track “pursuant to our federal funding grant agreements with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),” according to CHSRA.
> 
> 
> • Expand the Central Valley segment to 171 miles of operable electrified high-speed rail connecting Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield.
> 
> 
> • Start high-speed train testing by 2026-27 and put those trains into service by the end of 2030.
> 
> 
> • Environmentally clear all segments of the Phase 1 system between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
> 
> 
> • “Pursue additional funding opportunities to prospectively ‘close the gaps’ and expand electrified high-speed rail service to the Bay Area and Los Angeles/Anaheim as soon as possible,” the plan reported.


----------



## RyukyuRhymer

^ I sincerely hope that they can complete it in a way that connects the bay area to the LA/OC area


----------



## JohnDee

So i didn't see any proper concrete HSR plans from biden yet.. Just a massive map full of hot air and many "upgrades of older tracks".. I guess that's like 110mph or so? That's PATHETIC. I guess Amtrak Joe has become Slow Joe, and I'm talking RAILS here. From High Speed Hopes to Thomas the Joe Engine.


Disappointing but not surprising. It's the USA, where many folks consider fast trains "European socialist boondoggles". Typical fear based attitudes born from ignorance (most Americans never leave the country).

Time for the youth of the country to change things.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ Disappointing yes but I honestly did not expect much more. It is just too ideologically contested for whatever strange reasons. Too many Americans think proper passenger rail infrastructure (including HSR) is communist. Don't ask me why HSR is communist but aviation is perfectly fine. I am not American so I probably don't undertand.



fkus said:


> So tell us what you do not agree with RT. Give us your thoughts.


The nonsense is already in the headline with its circular logic. For the rest, you have to excuse I can not respond as a I have a strict "zero traffic for RT" policy. I don't click on their clickbait links anymore since they have been found to have not an inch of integrity in them, still spreading objectively false information to back up official Russian narratives, even when Putin admits things already.


----------



## TM_Germany

I think focusing on upgrades might be sensible for now. Just getting a lot of 125mph lines can be done a lot quicker than new construction and is economically much more feasable on a lot more routes. This also helps politically, since many regions can benefit from this. Once you build up ridership and get people used to trains again, you can get on with HSR.


----------



## fkus

So, Brightline with the line till Orlando and Tampa, and other line from LA to Las Vegas (Brightline West) Will build more new passenger rails that the entire trillion Biden plan!


----------



## mgk920

What is the latest status on the LAX-LAS service proposal?

Mike


----------



## Stuu

JohnDee said:


> So i didn't see any proper concrete HSR plans from biden yet.. Just a massive map full of hot air and many "upgrades of older tracks".. I guess that's like 110mph or so? That's PATHETIC. I guess Amtrak Joe has become Slow Joe, and I'm talking RAILS here. From High Speed Hopes to Thomas the Joe Engine.


It takes years to get to the stage of any concrete plans in western democracies. Given there was no planning by the previous administration, vague lines on a map is all there can be 3 months in. 

The bill needs to pass before there is any funding at all to start any planning, let alone local route options and ground surveying etc. Without going through the proper processes there will be nothing but lawsuits until the 50th president is elected


----------



## fkus

mgk920 said:


> What is the latest status on the LAX-LAS service proposal?
> 
> Mike


----------



## phoenixboi08

mgk920 said:


> What is the latest status on the LAX-LAS service proposal?
> 
> Mike


I think they're preparing for their bond issuance this year (after holding off last year). Otherwise, they've been in talks with county (I think San Bernardino and LA) officials as well as Metrolink about potential alignments for an extension over a shared corridor -- at least, that's been my interpretation. Especially since Metrolink finally decided it wants to electrify it's network.


----------



## phoenixboi08

fkus said:


> So, Brightline with the line till Orlando and Tampa, and other line from LA to Las Vegas (Brightline West) Will build more new passenger rails that the entire trillion Biden plan!


Brightline FL isn't high speed rail. It's the basic level of service Amtrak should be (and would be with a 10-year, stable funding source) operating at.
So I would think the answer to your question is no...



Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Too many Americans think proper passenger rail infrastructure (including HSR) is communist....


It isn't public opinion, it's the manner in which funding bills are passed: 2/3 requires Republican electeds vote for approving spending on these programs. They rarely vote for any such spending as a) loudly opposing it is a cudgel that works to their advantage, politically, b) they demand that any spending bill be paid-for, and c) they refuse to raise taxes and in fact take every opportunity they have to cut taxes -- and consequently spending.

There is a cottage industry of fancy infographics and flashy videos about "WhY DoEn'T tHe US HaVe HiGh-SpEeD rAiL," but the question is backwards: If you administer funding primarily through competitive grants, don't undertake long-range-multi-decadeslong-national-level-planning, and have a legislative process that fetishizes getting minority parties in government to endorse the majority's priorities, would you expect a different outcome?

In other words, the US with a parliamentary-style system of governance wouldn't have many of these ideological distinctions with regards to spending and, to be sure, the GOP -- as a regional rather than truly national party -- would be hapless to obstruct any of it.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Stuu said:


> It takes years to get to the stage of any concrete plans in western democracies. Given there was no planning by the previous administration, vague lines on a map is all there can be 3 months in.
> 
> The bill needs to pass before there is any funding at all to start any planning, let alone local route options and ground surveying etc. Without going through the proper processes there will be nothing but lawsuits until the 50th president is elected


The planning for regional rail projects has been occurring (in a somewhat more concerted/serious manner) since the Obama administration...there is a serious pipeline of projects that did not exist a decade or more ago. There has been a substantial pivot at both the federal and state/local levels with regards to this.


----------



## phoenixboi08

aquaticko said:


> American construction costs are going to absolutely throttle any attempts to improve our infrastructure. 80 billion _should _be enough to finish both CAHSR and most of the northeastern network...


....CAHSR construction costs are fairly normal, tho...That's not where the problems lay.

The "cost problem" is 99% a NYC problem (as that's where the majority of heavy rail, rapid transit dollars have been spent in recent years). There is a _wide_ chasm between East-Side Access or the 2nd Ave. Subway and the Purple Line ext. in LA (which I think is the next "most-expensive" project outside of NYC).

And even in NYC, their issue isn't construction, broadly, but primarily the strange procurement process they use (ie. MTA does very little actual Capital Construction, and the manner in which contracts are let is inefficient).

When it comes to capital construction, their tunneling costs are relatively also normal. It's the stations that are the major source of cost overruns.


----------



## Stuu

phoenixboi08 said:


> The planning for regional rail projects has been occurring (in a somewhat more concerted/serious manner) since the Obama administration...there is a serious pipeline of projects that did not exist a decade or more ago. There has been a substantial pivot at both the federal and state/local levels with regards to this.


There may be for regional projects but there aren't for HSR, which is what the post I was replying to was wanting to see


----------



## fkus

phoenixboi08 said:


> Brightline FL isn't high speed rail. It's the basic level of service Amtrak should be (and would be with a 10-year, stable funding source) operating at.
> So I would think the answer to your question is no...


First, I ask no question. Second, I did not say that Brightline is a HSR in Flórida. My only point is: Brightline will build more rail than Biden’s trillion infrastructure plan. Just that.


----------



## aquaticko

phoenixboi08 said:


> ....CAHSR construction costs are fairly normal, tho...That's not where the problems lay.
> 
> The "cost problem" is 99% a NYC problem (as that's where the majority of heavy rail, rapid transit dollars have been spent in recent years). There is a _wide_ chasm between East-Side Access or the 2nd Ave. Subway and the Purple Line ext. in LA (which I think is the next "most-expensive" project outside of NYC).
> 
> And even in NYC, their issue isn't construction, broadly, but primarily the strange procurement process they use (ie. MTA does very little actual Capital Construction, and the manner in which contracts are let is inefficient).
> 
> When it comes to capital construction, their tunneling costs are relatively also normal. It's the stations that are the major source of cost overruns.


That's not what this says: https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/po...cle_24b6b052-33e5-11e9-96ab-fb3df410dc5e.html
"Elizabeth Alexis, of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CAARD), fought the cost overruns early. Already in 2011, as the cost overruns were published, she warned that the Authority outsourced critical design, engineering, and supervision to companies that would also bid on building the system, creating a conflict of interest. She testified in front of Congress that “the multiple layers of consultants have made communication difficult and limited flexibility.”

In response to the Governor's announcement, she noted that the construction costs between Wasco and Madera had risen to $12 billion, or $100 million per mile, about 1.5 times more than the highest cost we have ever observed for an above-ground non-American high-speed line (namely, the nearly all-aerial Beijing-Shanghai route). 

So, this single cost over run on the IOS was worth $3 billion, which if memory serves, was about 1/3 the entire initial bond approval. And, it affected what should've been the most straight-forward segment of the line.

That the NYC MTA does so little of their own construction is exactly what leaves so much room for outside firms--both consultancies and construction companies, themselves--to blow up costs, because they have no direct public accountability, and there are few or none amongst those who _are_ publically accountable who know the difference, because that sort of sectoral expertise isn't valued in Anglophone countries.

I won't argue that NYC's stations are palatial in a way that probably nothing as utilitarian as a public-funded train stations should be, but even alongside that, the companies designing and building them have no real incentive to control costs, as they have no real skin in the game.


----------



## GojiMet86

The Avelia Liberty heading north to Massachusetts and Rhode Island for testing. This is at the Hell Gate bridge:

IMG_8329 by GojiMet86, on Flickr


IMG_8331 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_8333 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_8322 by GojiMet86, on Flickr


----------



## Stuu

aquaticko said:


> In response to the Governor's announcement, she noted that the construction costs between Wasco and Madera had risen to $12 billion, or $100 million per mile, about 1.5 times more than the highest cost we have ever observed for an above-ground non-American high-speed line (namely, the nearly all-aerial Beijing-Shanghai route).


That's still cheaper than HS2 in the UK, the first section of which is costing ~$300m per mile. The second segment which is more similar to the central valley in terms of geography is still north of $150m per mile


----------



## aquaticko

Stuu said:


> That's still cheaper than HS2 in the UK, the first section of which is costing ~$300m per mile. The second segment which is more similar to the central valley in terms of geography is still north of $150m per mile


"Less bad" isn't the same as "good". The Anglosphere problem of not being able to build infrastructure at reasonable cost and timelines has been going on for decades.

Meanwhile, Nordic countries, countries in Southern Europe, and East Asia (notably South Korea) built and continue to build infrastructure cheaply, well, and correspondingly, extensively.


----------



## mgk920

phoenixboi08 said:


> I think they're preparing for their bond issuance this year (after holding off last year). Otherwise, they've been in talks with county (I think San Bernardino and LA) officials as well as Metrolink about potential alignments for an extension over a shared corridor -- at least, that's been my interpretation. Especially since Metrolink finally decided it wants to electrify it's network.


Metrolink's line could work well between Palmdale and LAX (Union Station) until the CAHSR guys are able to get their line through Solidad Canyon (CA 14 corridor) up and running.

Has there been any confirmation on where the LAS terminal station will be?

Mike


----------



## robbo2k

The section LA - Palmdale should be electrified immediately and be available on the Brigthline West and CAHSR trains should go directly to LA. There is no problem today with building diesel-electric or electric trains with support for multiple power systems. There are 3kV DC, 1.5kV DC, 15kV and 25kV AC vehicles in Europe


----------



## Smooth Indian

robbo2k said:


> The section LA - Palmdale should be electrified immediately and be available on the Brigthline West and CAHSR trains should go directly to LA. There is no problem today with building diesel-electric or electric trains with support for multiple power systems. There are 3kV DC, 1.5kV DC, 15kV and 25kV AC vehicles in Europe


I suppose the signaling may have to be upgraded so as to allow for a higher train frequency.


----------



## cuartango

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Indeed. I mean one would start to build from one or both ends anyway. The part from Kansas City to Dallas is questionable but if there is appetite it could be still built at a later date.
> 
> It is not that the central part was completely crazy but I just feel its standing is the weakest by far, especially compared to the two ends. The problem with those cities in the central states is also that the de-urbanisation is almost complete there, even more so than in other places. Sure, mid sized cities in Texas are just as bad but the big places are already in a somewhat different situation with a bit of a basis one can already built upon.


You are right, but for example Tulsa - OKC can have an interesting traffic and can act as a demand generator for the whole central area. Simlar with Kansas City - Saint Louis but at a higher scale.


----------



## TER200

aquaticko said:


> So what I'm reading there is that not only has Amtrak purchased a slower-accelerating train


Not sure.
Bear in mind that at high speeds (over 150 km/h) TGVs have a better acceleration than EMUs like the Velaro, due to their much higher power-to-weight ratio.
The Acela doesn't stop every 10 km, and the adhesion of two power cars is not at all fully utilized by current models.



aquaticko said:


> but also one that cannot have cars added or subtracted according to service demand


No currently existing very-high-speed train can be modified on a day-to-fay basis (the ICE1 could but all sets have their configuration fixed now).
The Avelia Liberty will have the possibility to be extended from 9 up to 12 cars later. It's cousin the french TGV-M will be flexible (7 to 9 cars) but I don't know how much time the change will take.



aquaticko said:


> I know that the N700 series trains have active tilt


A very limited one (only 1° maximum), far from what the Acela uses (4,2° for the current sets, up to 7° for the new generation). So they wouldn't be able to take curves at the same speed under the same conditions.



aquaticko said:


> Was this model not considered due to signaling or loading gauge incompatibility, or some other reason?


I don't think the FRA crash-worthiness rules are ready for a light-weight high-speed trains with passengers in the front car.


----------



## M-NL

aquaticko said:


> So what I'm reading there is that not only has Amtrak purchased a slower-accelerating train, but also one that cannot have cars added or subtracted according to service demand? Wonderful.


But you can change the number of cars. You just need a workshop to do that. And how often have the number of cars in the current Acela sets changed? I would guess about zero times.

What makes you think a distributed traction EMU is faster-accelerating then a power car EMU? At slow speeds (up to 80km/h) there may be a small advantage for the distributed traction EMU, but above that it makes little difference. Everything else being equal, at speed only the power to weight ratio matters. A TGV will out accelerate an ICE3 at speed, because it is lighter and has more power.

The advantage of a distributed traction EMU is that it has more floor space. That's why Alstom developed the AGV. But you can't have a tilting nor a double deck AGV. The axle loads would be to high (AFAIK 17t is the limit). 


aquaticko said:


> I obviously can't claim extensive knowledge of how these things work, but I know that the N700 series trains have active tilt and excellent acceleration, as well as a top speed that (in most models) exceeds that of basically all of the NEC. Was this model not considered due to signaling or loading gauge incompatibility, or some other reason?


The N700 can only tilt half of what is needed for the NEC, because it lacks a tilting system and uses its suspension instead. It turns out that the Shinkansens reputation for excellent acceleration mainly comes from the way the infrastructure was built, not from the train itself being far superior. The power to weight ratio of a TGV POS is pretty much equal. On the Sanyo Shinkansen a TGV set would perform pretty similar. On the Tokaido it will not, because there even the reduced tilt of the N700 makes all the difference.

When introducing new rolling stock on another network you always need to compensate for signalling, loading gauge and platform height.


aquaticko said:


> Again, pointing to my ignorance here, the Avelia Liberty is on the same page as the AGV on Wikipedia, despite the fact that it seems like an opposite model to it in the broadest specifications (i.e., the AGV has powered intermediate cars and undriven trailers, without tilting). If I'm way off base here, feel free to point me to external resource material to discover some underlying architectural relation, or whatever.


Alstom calls all their high speeds trains Avelia. And yes the AGV, Euroduplex, Pendolino and Liberty are all completely different.


----------



## Rover030

Do you know if there are graphs of acceleration of (high-speed) trainsets somewhere? I'm also curious how big the effect of different voltage is. I guess you could calculate it with a relatively simple model, but if the work has already been done that's easier of course.


----------



## Fan Railer

On the length of the trains; the Avelia Liberty is already at its maximum length before the existing maintenance facilities need to be lengthened. The trainset is designed to receive up to an additional 3 coaches should demand warrant it, but in order for that to happen, the existing maintenance facilities in WAS, NYC, and BOS have to be lengthened, a task that would be costly, considering the need to change track geometry and switch locations in order to accommodate the longer sheds.



Rover030 said:


> Do you know if there are graphs of acceleration of (high-speed) trainsets somewhere? I'm also curious how big the effect of different voltage is. I guess you could calculate it with a relatively simple model, but if the work has already been done that's easier of course.


In response to the question about acceleration vs voltage, it is interesting to note that the Avelia Liberty power cars are already derated quite a bit from 9280 kW down to 7000 kW at 12 / 12.5 kV 25Hz and 7350 kW at 25 kV 60Hz. This is where the touted energy savings is coming from. The train is still able to reach its advertised top speed of 300 km/h (186 MPH) at the 7000 kW rating, albeit with a longer acceleration time than if it was rated at the maximum power of 9280 kW. I suspect that if the trainsets are lengthened by 3 cars in the future, a software tweak can be made to raise traction power from 7000 kW to 9280 kW to maintain acceleration with the longer and heavier trainset.

Here's a document (albeit in French) detailing the asynchronous traction system used in since the TGV POS. It is the same system used in the Euroduplex and now the Avelia Horizon and Liberty trainsets. Included is a graph of the tractive effort curves under different voltages: Wayback Machine


----------



## TER200

Fan Railer said:


> This is where the touted energy savings is coming from.


It's the reduced drag that permits to reach the same performance with less power, hence the energy savings.


----------



## TER200

Rover030 said:


> Do you know if there are graphs of acceleration of (high-speed) trainsets somewhere? I'm also curious how big the effect of different voltage is. I guess you could calculate it with a relatively simple model, but if the work has already been done that's easier of course.


I ran some calculations with the data I found, however I have nothing on the new Avelia Liberty or Horizon.
Here are the curves representing acceleration vs speed :

(TGV Dasye is just the previous model of Euroduplex, very similar)
My sources are :

an article in a french specialized magazine, written by François Lacôte (former head engineer at SNCF and Alstom) giving the values for the resistance to movement
tractive effort curves on the files I found on a website (now offline) ran by an Alstom engineer, and the doc mentioned by Fan Railer for the POS/Dasye/Euroduplex. Reading errors are likely here.


----------



## M-NL

Rover030 said:


> I'm also curious how big the effect of different voltage is.


A higher voltage will give slightly less losses when transporting power over a larger distance, but will hardly ever cause a limitation in the power rating of individual trains. Because that transport voltage is always higher then the motor voltage, you always need to transform the voltage down. The size of the transformer you need for that is not only determined by its power rating, but also by the power frequency. For the same power rating a lower frequency needs a bigger transformer or you get a power derating at lower frequency for the same transformer. You can read about the influence of frequency here.


Fan Railer said:


> Here's a document (albeit in French) detailing the asynchronous traction system used in since the TGV POS. It is the same system used in the Euroduplex and now the Avelia Horizon and Liberty trainsets. Included is a graph of the tractive effort curves under different voltages: Wayback Machine


Now that is an interesting document.
A while back I had a discussion on this forum about that DC was a more efficient traction system than AC. On page 10 this is again confirmed: Efficiency 0,87 (25kVAC 50Hz), 0,85 (15kVAC 16,7Hz) and 0,9 (1500VDC). So the same transformer is not only 2% less efficient on the lower power frequency, also its power rating is derated a little.


----------



## BoulderGrad

I could still see OKC getting lumped into the Texas HSR, but yeah, heading further north doesn't seem like the best of plans. In current Amtrak Routes, most KC trains head to Chicago:










Anywhere we see Yellow should be first in line for at least 125mph service. Perhaps this (Anything Green= min 125mph service):


----------



## coth

TER200 said:


> TGVs have a better acceleration than EMUs


It takes TGV 73 km to reach 575 km/h with heavy alterations to a train and overhead catenary. And it takes only 20 km to reach 600 km/h for Shinkansen L0 series.


----------



## aquaticko

coth said:


> It takes TGV 73 km to reach 575 km/h with heavy alterations to a train and overhead catenary. And it takes only 20 km to reach 600 km/h for Shinkansen L0 series.


....One is a maglev, the other isn't. Obviously not comparable.


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## coth

aquaticko said:


> ....One is a maglev, the other isn't. Obviously not comparable.


One can say - one EMU is a real HSR train, another is just wagons with locos. So it's all subjective. Difference in acceleration on high speeds is so negligible comparing to maglev. And lack of stations is actually very very bad.


----------



## M-NL

The main problem with maglevs is that they can't be run on railway networks with conventional track. 
There is no hybrid system and I don't understand that. You could take the SCMaglev track, make it wide enough for regular trains and put conventional track on the bottom. Just make sure that the track fasteners can't get loose, because otherwise they will be attracted by the magnets in the track walls. And even that is less dangerous then it sounds, because at speed (>150 km/h) the distance between the train and the track is roughly 10 cm. Also plenty of conventional trains have magnetic or eddy current brakes already.


----------



## TER200

coth said:


> It takes TGV 73 km to reach 575 km/h with heavy alterations to a train and overhead catenary. And it takes only 20 km to reach 600 km/h for Shinkansen L0 series.


Not only is this comparison out of subject, but you are shooting yourself in the foot.
The TGV V150 prototype had 75% of its axles powered, more than most HSTs.



coth said:


> One can say - one EMU is a real HSR train, another is just wagons with locos.


nonsense.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

High-speed rail line from Las Vegas to LA on track to break ground in 2021



> LAS VEGAS — A top executive behind a high-speed rail project that would lay tracks between Las Vegas and Southern California contends construction is on schedule to start in the second quarter of this year.


Link


----------



## davide84

Regarding EMUs: EMU means Electrical Multiple Unit, where "multiple" stands for "power is distributed along the train".
DMU is the analogous but for Diesel.

The concept of EMU/DMU has in principle nothing to do with the possibility to add cars, although to my knowledge all EMU/DMU are fixed trainsets due to equipment and software being shared between cars (sometimes even the whole bogies).

High Speed trains can in principle be EMU, DMU or conventional trains.

The concept of being able to add/remove cars in a station (not in a shop) is a different one. In Italy we distinguish between "fixed composition" and "conventional rolling stock". The distinction is official and until recently was even marked with signals on the train, the reasong being historical. Station masters needed to be able to tell if the train passed completely and the line could be safely used again, and with blocked composition trains the task had a different and simpler procedure.

While I don't know EMU/DMU which are not classified as fixed composition, I know at least one train made of engine + coaches which is, the high-speed ETR 500 "Frecciarossa".


----------



## M-NL

davide84 said:


> Regarding EMUs: EMU means Electrical Multiple Unit, where "multiple" stands for "power is distributed along the train".
> DMU is the analogous but for Diesel.


To quote myself:


> The term multiple unit says nothing about the way traction is arranged. It only means that it is a fixed consist that is not meant to be split or detached or rearranged.


I know Wikipedia is often not considered to be a primary reference, but the Electric multiple unit article does state:


> An *electric multiple unit* or *EMU* is a multiple-unit train consisting of self-propelled carriages using electricity as the motive power. An EMU requires no separate locomotive, as electric traction motors are incorporated within one or a number of the carriages.


Basically any fixed consist that is referenced by a single registration, instead of its components is a multiple unit, regardless of the parts that make up the consist.


----------



## AlbertJP

As the exact terminology differs by country, it is well possible that some countries make a distinction between consists with distributed power and consists with power cars. In the Netherlands, for instance, there is a distinction between a consist that can be easily split (_treinstam_) and one which can't (_treinstel_).

In English I don't think it is common to distinguish EMUs based on traction. The old Eurostar trains have power cars at the ends but are called an EMU in Britain.


----------



## Stuu

davide84 said:


> Regarding EMUs: EMU means Electrical Multiple Unit, where "multiple" stands for "power is distributed along the train".
> DMU is the analogous but for Diesel.


Not necessarily. It originally meant that it can operate in multiple with other units. It has changed over the years to now mean a fixed unit that cannot (easily) be divided, thus Eurostars count as they have Jacobs bogies and cannot easily be split and reformed


----------



## Mansa Musa

Round trip yes, one way; depends on the location, but in the North east yes.


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## hans280

TokyoImperialPalace said:


> Isn't $60 quite cheap considering the cities/distance covered?


Hmmm. Here in France (where I live) we say that a new railway line should be paid for 1/3 by the passengers and 2/3 by the tax-payers. This 1-2-3 model is at the heart of most of the collective transport planning: can you (or can you not) rustle up enough passenger interest to fund a third of the construction costs?


----------



## TokyoImperialPalace

hans280 said:


> Hmmm. Here in France (where I live) we say that a new railway line should be paid for 1/3 by the passengers and 2/3 by the tax-payers. This 1-2-3 model is at the heart of most of the collective transport planning: can you (or can you not) rustle up enough passenger interest to fund a third of the construction costs?


When you mean that it should be _paid for_, do you mean that one-third of the initial funding should come from the railway companies, or that only one third of the cost should be _paid back_ by the railway companies over its lifetime?


----------



## Smooth Indian

hans280 said:


> Hmmm. Here in France (where I live) we say that a new railway line should be paid for 1/3 by the passengers and 2/3 by the tax-payers. This 1-2-3 model is at the heart of most of the collective transport planning: can you (or can you not) rustle up enough passenger interest to fund a third of the construction costs?





TokyoImperialPalace said:


> When you mean that it should be _paid for_, do you mean that one-third of the initial funding should come from the railway companies, or that only one third of the cost should be _paid back_ by the railway companies over its lifetime?


I like that there is is a metric or rule of thumb. I assuming 1/3rd of the project cost should come from passenger ticket revenues. Does this rule apply to HSR or for all railway lines? If it applies for regular railway lines there must be expected contribution from freight as well.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1398258237070360579


----------



## Arnorian




----------



## prageethSL

*New HSR NEC Trainsets Delayed. Amtrak Explains Why.*
*







*
*Revenue service of Amtrak’s new Alstom-built high-speed Northeast Corridor trainsets, originally slated for Fall 2021, has been delayed until early Spring 2022. Combined COVID-19-related supply chain problems and technical glitches currently being addressed have caused the delay. Amtrak responded immediately to Railway Age’s specific technical questions.* 
“The first trainsets are expected to enter service in early Spring 2022,” Amtrak Director, Media Relations & Business Communications Christina Leeds said. “The scheduled has been slightly impacted, due to COVID-19 and additional testing. Due to minor design modifications implemented post-initial-static-testing, we performed a second round of static testing.
“Material supply chain issues did occur, and as state and federal guidelines were presented, these needed to be evaluated and adopted until a ‘new normal’ was established. In some cases, this meant either temporary cessation of production, or reduced headcount production, until additional guidance could be provided.
“*Due to some modifications to make the trainset handle curves better, and to identify additional needed characteristics*, a new round of stationary testing was done. Speed testing last year was successful; however, some of the control systems on the trainset needed to be tuned to get the systems to work harmoniously with the NEC track and catenary system. The speed tests that were successfully performed were a first stage; a second stage of speed testing will be performed this year to certify the train at a higher and final safe revenue speed. COVID has also presented challenges that required technical collaboration solutions.


----------



## RyukyuRhymer

Rail News - Lawmakers seek creation of North Atlantic high-speed rail entity. For Railroad Career Professionals







www.progressiverailroading.com


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1395784266827681797

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1395783390696181761


----------



## davide84

According to Italian newspapers, Lane Constructions and the Italian group WeBuild have signed today the contract for the Dallas - Houston HSL.


----------



## prageethSL

davide84 said:


> According to Italian newspapers, Lane Constructions and the Italian group WeBuild have signed today the contract for the Dallas - Houston HSL.


*Texas Central signs $16B construction contract for high-speed rail project*

Texas Central, the developers behind the proposed high-speed rail project between Dallas and Houston, could be one step closer to groundbreaking. Officials announced June 15 they have signed a $16 billion contract with Webuild, a global engineering and construction company, to lead the civil construction team that will build the train.

According to a news release, Webuild, formerly Salini Impregilo, has constructed 8,500 miles of railway and metro infrastructure in Australia, Europe, Asia and the Americas. The company has operated in the U.S. market since the 1980s and expanded its presence in 2016 through a merger with The Lane Construction Corp.
“Our goal is to put together a team of the best players in the world from each industry needed to bring this project to life. The addition of Webuild helps us accomplish that goal,” Texas Central CEOCarlos Aguilar said in a statement.
Webuild will execute the heavy construction for the project, including the design and build of all *236 miles of the alignment, about half of which will be on a viaduct*.

Officials said much of the alignment is elevated to reduce the effects on landowners and residents living along the route as much as possible. They also said the train system will provide a “safe, reliable, green and productive” travel option. But organizations including ReRoute the Route and Texans Against High-Speed Rail have advocated against the project as currently proposed due to safety concerns, the loss of private property, environmental effects and financial feasibility, among other issues.


----------



## mgk920

prageethSL said:


> *Texas Central signs $16B construction contract for high-speed rail project*
> 
> Texas Central, the developers behind the proposed high-speed rail project between Dallas and Houston, could be one step closer to groundbreaking. Officials announced June 15 they have signed a $16 billion contract with Webuild, a global engineering and construction company, to lead the civil construction team that will build the train.
> 
> According to a news release, Webuild, formerly Salini Impregilo, has constructed 8,500 miles of railway and metro infrastructure in Australia, Europe, Asia and the Americas. The company has operated in the U.S. market since the 1980s and expanded its presence in 2016 through a merger with The Lane Construction Corp.
> “Our goal is to put together a team of the best players in the world from each industry needed to bring this project to life. The addition of Webuild helps us accomplish that goal,” Texas Central CEOCarlos Aguilar said in a statement.
> Webuild will execute the heavy construction for the project, including the design and build of all *236 miles of the alignment, about half of which will be on a viaduct*.
> 
> Officials said much of the alignment is elevated to reduce the effects on landowners and residents living along the route as much as possible. They also said the train system will provide a “safe, reliable, green and productive” travel option. But organizations including ReRoute the Route and Texans Against High-Speed Rail have advocated against the project as currently proposed due to safety concerns, the loss of private property, environmental effects and financial feasibility, among other issues.


Sounds like a typical NIMBY response. From my read, as well as assuming that the elevated sections will look and 'feel' much like elevated rural sections of Chinese HSR lines, their impact on the surrounding land should be not that much greater than the impact of cross-country high-energy power lines on the landscape.

I want this to work out.

Mike


----------



## 33Hz

Having to build elevated sections just to placate land owners, with all the associated carbon emissions of the extra concrete, is abhorrent. I seriously doubt the infrastructure will ever be carbon neutral if they only save 100,000 tons from flights annually.


----------



## intersezioni

The Italian engineering company led by Pietro Salini, through its subsidiary Lane Construction, will build the Houston-Dallas section for a value of 16 billion dollars. This is the first major US high-speed project.
Webuild, the former Salini Impregilo, through its overseas subsidiary Lane Construction, has in fact signed the final $ 16 billion agreement to build the Dallas-Houston high-speed line, the two most important cities in Texas and between top five city economies of the United States.

Today's signature represents the final step in view of financial closure, which is expected in the coming months. But above all, it represents the first case of an American high-speed railways entirely built by an Italian company. The goal of the project is to connect the two metropolises in about an hour and a half, more or less half the time required by car. It is no coincidence that the same company led by Pietro Salini has defined as "revolutionary" the work for sustainable mobility in the United States, which will be able to join the group of countries that have been offering their citizens high-speed public transport for years, such as Japan, China, France and Italy.

Now, thanks to the American order, North America rises to 35% of Webuild's entire order portfolio. It was not easy to reach this goal, given that the choice of Italian engineering to build the first American superfast train was made after a long selection by Texas Central, a company led by private investors, selecting Webuild, which boasts the construction of over 13 thousand kilometers of railways and underground lines. The green light for the Texan bullet train represents a key step for the United States which, despite having the largest railway network in the world, with over 260,000 kilometers of lines, does not have advanced rail transport systems capable of to travel at more than 250 kilometers per hour, defined as High Speed.

A choice, for example, made by Japan in 1964 with the introduction of the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka, taken up in the following twenty years by France, Italy, Germany, Spain and, only about ten years ago, also introduced in China, where bullet train fever literally broke out. Today, China has the largest high-speed network in the world, with almost 28,000 kilometers. The green light at the Dallas-Houston line flying the Italian flag comes in the aftermath of the G7 meetings and the recall of the American president, Joe Biden, to close cooperation between allies in the context of the Build Back Better World initiative. western silk) for the impetus for infrastructure projects that reduce the environmental impact and for actions to combat Chinese dominance.

"I am honored to lead a group of men and women who have led the group to achieve such an important result for us and for the entire production chain of the sector by putting our experience at the service of this innovative and challenging project in the United States", is the comment of Pietro Salini. "The signing of the contract with Texas Central represents the culmination of four years of activity on the project, together with our American company Lane, with whom we developed all the design alongside the customer. But more generally it represents for our group the achievement of a dream that comes from afar, with the creation in 2014 of a national champion that combined the skills of Salini with those of Impregilo ”.

The American story of Webuild, then still Salini Impregilo, begins in 2015, when the Italian company bought Lane Industries, the first highway builder in the US, with a turnover of 1.5 billion for 406 million. Over time, the US subsidiary has won important contracts on American soil such as those in the road sector in Virginia, for a total value of 190 million dollars.


----------



## dyonisien

intersezioni said:


> [...] This is the first major US high-speed project.
> [...]


Really ?
What about California High Speed ?


----------



## fkus

dyonisien said:


> Really ?
> What about California High Speed ?


The nowhere to nowhere section is already more expensive than the signed construction from Dallas - Houston!


----------



## cuartango

fkus said:


> The nowhere to nowhere section is already more expensive than the signed construction from Dallas - Houston!


haha that is true but also surreal


----------



## Slartibartfas

The polemic talk about "nowhere to nowhere section" entirely misses the point though. If a HSR service connecting LA to SF is to make good use of that high speed section, that it is not useless at all, merely a first step, already helping at getting better travel times. If however it is not used by such services it is a bit of a waste yet.


----------



## mgk920

When is tunnel drilling expected to begin on the section through Tehachapi Pass and Soledad Canyon, between Bakersfield and Los Angeles Union Station?

Mike


----------



## Stuu

fkus said:


> Wow, what you just said is the same to build a bathroom and wait until you have money to build the rest of your house. To do this with your money is nonsense, but to do this with others people’s money is bad practice and bad governance. If California doesn’t have money, why spend $71 bi to build nowhere-to-nowhere, start loosing a lot of money when they start to operate and few people pay for it until they find the rest. It will not be Biden with just $4 bi including Amtrak operation, it will not be gov. Newton. Bad decision, bad planning and irresponsible people!


No, not at all. Infrastructure projects are almost always built in stages. Merced to Bakersfield is going to cost $18bn for 170 miles, not $71bn. They seem to think that once the Merced-Bakersfield section is finished they will be able to run trains from SFO-Bakersfield and make money doing so. CA will have a high speed line serving the Central Valley, and there is a plan in place to fund the onward sections, but it will take a lot less time if they can get serious Federal funding


----------



## fkus

Stuu said:


> No, not at all. Infrastructure projects are almost always built in stages. Merced to Bakersfield is going to cost $18bn for 170 miles, not $71bn. They seem to think that once the Merced-Bakersfield section is finished they will be able to run trains from SFO-Bakersfield and make money doing so. CA will have a high speed line serving the Central Valley, and there is a plan in place to fund the onward sections, but it will take a lot less time if they can get serious Federal funding


Nobody will put serious money without planning e serious budget. That is why gov finished the dream and Biden did not bought the dream back. It is easy for anyone to say that nowhere to nowhere for nobody “is the beginning and bla bla bla” until they raises their taxes and increases budget. I hope California could learn with Texas how they plan HSR with respect and accountability.


----------



## Smooth Indian

fkus said:


> Nobody will put serious money without planning e serious budget. That is why gov finished the dream and Biden did not bought the dream back. It is easy for anyone to say that nowhere to nowhere for nobody “is the beginning and bla bla bla” until they raises their taxes and increases budget. I hope California could learn with Texas how they plan HSR with respect and accountability.


Did the state of Texas take the initiative for HSR? I think not. It was a private enterprise.
Does Texas Central have to deal with natural challenges i.e. a combination of huge metropolitan and exurban sprawl interspaced with tough terrain having mountain passes or tunnels? I think not
Does Texas Central plan to reach downtowns of the cities it is planning to connect? Nope
Does Texas Central have to make do with piecemeal funding? I doubt that.
Unless Texas has to deal with the same magnitude of difficulties as California, the point of Texas being a paragon of respect and accountability is moot.


----------



## fkus

Smooth Indian said:


> Did the state of Texas take the initiative for HSR? I think not. It was a private enterprise.
> Does Texas Central have to deal with natural challenges i.e. a combination of huge metropolitan and exurban sprawl interspaced with tough terrain having mountain passes or tunnels? I think not
> Does Texas Central plan to reach downtowns of the cities it is planning to connect? Nope
> Does Texas Central have to make do with piecemeal funding? I doubt that.
> Unless Texas has to deal with the same magnitude of difficulties as California, the point of Texas being a paragon of respect and accountability is moot.


Did I say it was public money? Is it worse to spend private money to build HSR? I believe it is the opposite. There are smart people on public services in some states.

If in California there is mountain and the engineers there could not project in accord of the difficulties and the economists there could not build a trusted budget, what you just could do is write excuses for them. But these will not make the gov bring the project back neither Biden put more money for It on his budget. At least, your cry is free!


----------



## lunarwhite

On June 18th, the Texas Supreme Court let stand a ruling that Texas Central can use eminent domain to acquire land for the Dallas-Houston HSR line.

Getting from Dallas to Houston in just 90 minutes on a bullet train is one step closer to reality after opponents of the project suffered a significant setback in court Friday. Opponents of High-Speed Texas Train Suffer Setback in Court


----------



## Slartibartfas

These fights about eminent domain (without its use in extreme cases building such projects is anything but impossible) are completely ludicrous. To this day these tools are used on a mass scale for all sorts of random highway enlargement projects. Noone cares there.

Compared to the latest completely new constructions (the last ones are not all that ancient history), the path of destruction of a HSR is next to nothing to what a highway does, with an impressive ability to hit poor neighbourhoods and sidelining wealthier ones, at least in the case of highways.


----------



## Smooth Indian

fkus said:


> If in California there is mountain and the engineers there could not project in accord of the difficulties and the economists there could not build a trusted budget, what you just could do is write excuses for them. But these will not make the gov bring the project back neither Biden put more money for It on his budget. At least, your cry is free!


-The costs were very well calculated. CA has been planning the HSR for decades before it got funded. The cost estimates have been more speculative if anything. After it was funded partly in 2009 the cost estimated increased from the initial 38 billion figure to around 45 billion. Then a few years later the cost estimates circulated in the media were in the 60-75 billion range and these fell again to the 45 billion range. I wouldn't really trust the ridiculous balloting estimates.
- The cost of CAHSR is more because of the route is longer and it goes through either tough terrain or one of the most productive farmlands in the country or next to some of the most expensive/crowded real estate in the country.


----------



## fkus

Smooth Indian said:


> -The costs were very well calculated. CA has been planning the HSR for decades before it got funded. The cost estimates have been more speculative if anything. After it was funded partly in 2009 the cost estimated increased from the initial 38 billion figure to around 45 billion. Then a few years later the cost estimates circulated in the media were in the 60-75 billion range and these fell again to the 45 billion range. I wouldn't really trust the ridiculous balloting estimates.
> - The cost of CAHSR is more because of the route is longer and it goes through either tough terrain or one of the most productive farmlands in the country or next to some of the most expensive/crowded real estate in the country.












Fast Train to Failure


California’s mismanaged high-speed rail project has gone on for long enough.




www.city-journal.org





I sent a link to refresh your memory with more accurate numbers, audit questions and reason that the Gov Newton finished the big project “except nowhere to nowhere for nobody” section. Gov Brown presented to project to California as a $33 bi budget and gov Newson buried the project with $98 bi. 

In a decent state the people in charge would be in jail.

Defending these people and the mess that they did is showing to the world that to construct HSR in America we need to cheat, hide information, do not manage people’s money with responsibility.


----------



## zaphod

Texas Central seems to be getting closer and closer to actually happening, hoping that funding can come through.


----------



## fkus

Smooth Indian said:


> -The costs were very well calculated. CA has been planning the HSR for decades before it got funded. The cost estimates have been more speculative if anything. After it was funded partly in 2009 the cost estimated increased from the initial 38 billion figure to around 45 billion. Then a few years later the cost estimates circulated in the media were in the 60-75 billion range and these fell again to the 45 billion range. I wouldn't really trust the ridiculous balloting estimates.
> - The cost of CAHSR is more because of the route is longer and it goes through either tough terrain or one of the most productive farmlands in the country or next to some of the most expensive/crowded real estate in the country.


One more, with more details:









California's High-Speed Rail Authority Wins Dishonor of the California Golden Fleece® Award | Lawrence J. McQuillan


The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has won the Independent Institute's first California Golden Fleece® Award for its lack of transparency and history of misleading the public about key details of the state's 'bullet-train' project, which no longer reflect what voters approved in...




www.independent.org


----------



## cuartango

zaphod said:


> Texas Central seems to be getting closer and closer to actually happening, hoping that funding can come through.


I hope so too! As I said in the past, for me Texas Central is by far the most feasible HSR project in the USA, and it will be a landmark for other HSR projects in the country.


----------



## fkus

One more recent article and the 2018 state audit report, so I believe with this you could be more accurate with your information and numbers. It is easy to cheer for HSR without have your skin as a taxpayer. Everyone in this group dream to see a HSR project be completed in our lives in the US, but not at any price, without proper planning and lack of accountability. They don’t need to cheat the taxpayers.









California’s $100 Billion Nightmare High-Speed Rail Project


The California High-Speed Rail Authority has caused a fiscal nightmare for the state.




www.cagw.org








https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-108.pdf


----------



## Slartibartfas

One of the wealthiest countries on earth incapable of developing and financing projects which even some better off developing countries manage to develop?
What does that tell us about the US? Probably a deeply engrained ideological opposition against passanger rail and what it is allowed to cost. Few such limitations apply to highways, not nearly to that extend at least.


----------



## fkus

Slartibartfas said:


> One of the wealthiest countries on earth incapable of developing and financing projects which even some better off developing countries manage to develop?
> What does that tell us about the US? Probably a deeply engrained ideological opposition against passanger rail and what it is allowed to cost. Few such limitations apply to highways, not nearly to that extend at least.


I do not agree with you. First of all we have here 50 “small countries”, with different needs, legislation and priorities. Second, we have seen private investments, some high speed rail and some 120 mph or less train. 

California in 2008 vote for HSR. Nowadays, after all these problems, a poll showed 57% against this project.

The Texas project could bring the trust in HSR back. Los Angeles - Las Vegas is another one. CAHSR will be ready for the nowhere to nowhere for nobody section in 2030, drain monthly a huge ton of money and people will point fingers to each other. 

If you take California highways you will see one of the worst in the country as well. It is not about money, it is about public management.


----------



## GojiMet86

People do not realize the severity of the cost overruns of this project, nor the impression this has on half the country who belong to a party that believes trains and government are a waste of money. This is such a poor look.

I'm inclined to agree with Fkus.

New York has spent $11 billion building a simple 2 mile tunnel into the city for East Side Access. It was supposed to cost $3.5 billion.
New York will spend another $7 billion to build just 3 stations for the 2nd Avenue subway. This will be the most expensive subway line in the world ever built on a per-mile basis.

In the USA, the political left is associated with trains and public transportation. NY, and California, are considered to be as politically left as can be. I'm pretty lefty myself.

Yet, in states that are supposed to be the most palpatable for trains, these projects just wind up going wildly overbudget.

The American anti-rail mentality simply cannot explain why these projects cost so much in states that are the most train friendly.


----------



## M-NL

GojiMet86 said:


> People do not realize the severity of the cost overruns of this project, ...
> 
> The American anti-rail mentality simply cannot explain why these projects cost so much in states that are the most train friendly.


Could it simply be that for most projects they make a really really optimistic budget to get the project funded and once it starts, they hope, that the point of no return is passed before the cost overruns get to bad? Because that is the way it works in most parts of the world.


----------



## Sunfuns

To all fellow posters writing from EU - I think you need to read up a bit more about how mismanaged this project has been and how ridiculous are the costs per km compared with EU and all that on a completely flat farmland! I'm a bit supporter of high speed rail and I think it could work in US too, but not if you build like this...

The argument about building in stages is a correct one, but circumstances in California are not the same as in Germany or France. Not even comparable to the North East corridor in US. There is no lower speed railway which would deliver you to the actual big city most people need to go to.


----------



## Sunfuns

I hope they could somehow use the stretch being built now, at least connect it with Amtrak from Sacramento. Not optimistic it will be a success, though.


----------



## Slartibartfas

GojiMet86 said:


> People do not realize the severity of the cost overruns of this project, nor the impression this has on half the country who belong to a party that believes trains and government are a waste of money. This is such a poor look.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with Fkus.
> 
> New York has spent $11 billion building a simple 2 mile tunnel into the city for East Side Access. It was supposed to cost $3.5 billion.
> New York will spend another $7 billion to build just 3 stations for the 2nd Avenue subway. This will be the most expensive subway line in the world ever built on a per-mile basis.
> 
> In the USA, the political left is associated with trains and public transportation. NY, and California, are considered to be as politically left as can be. I'm pretty lefty myself.
> 
> Yet, in states that are supposed to be the most palpatable for trains, these projects just wind up going wildly overbudget.
> 
> The American anti-rail mentality simply cannot explain why these projects cost so much in states that are the most train friendly.


To some extend there is also selective thinking. Cost overruns can happen, especially with projects relying on tunnels. It is no different with highways, especially if there are tunnels involved. Those cost overruns can be actually multiple times the initial estimate, and it is not necessarily due to incompetence but for example to geological complications one only knows in complete detail once one is there (with the tunnel under construction). That has little to do with rail but with the challenges of tunnel construction which is a challenging and risky business.

So that could explain part of the costs in NYC, the other possibly larger part is probably corruption and or incompetence of the Port Authority. I don't know enough about the situation there to really make a judgement on that.

Regarding California. I'd be interested to hear about the reasons for the cost explosion. There are not many tunnels, are there? Was it that the project was changed in between, a reason why for example the Berlin airport was such a desaster? Was it that due to arcane and anti-rail type legislation it was so difficult and expensive to get the property rights for the corridor? Was it something else?

In any case, those anti-rail patriots I would kindly ask if it is really the case that the most powerful country on earth simply isn't capable of doing what any somewhat well doing random developing country manages to do? (building a subway line or even letting some foreign companies constructing a HSR line)



Sunfuns said:


> To all fellow posters writing from EU - I think you need to read up a bit more about how mismanaged this project has been and how ridiculous are the costs per km compared with EU and all that on a completely flat farmland! I'm a bit supporter of high speed rail and I think it could work in US too, but not if you build like this...
> 
> The argument about building in stages is a correct one, but circumstances in California are not the same as in Germany or France. Not even comparable to the North East corridor in US. There is no lower speed railway which would deliver you to the actual big city most people need to go to.


It isn't built as an island corridor though, is it? I know that railway corridors are largely owned by freight rail companies but surely an Amtrak service using those tracks would be possible which also can make use of that new highspeed segment and which could connect LA to SF, isn't it? What ar the plans? If that is really not an option with all those billions of budget one would assume that one could at least make it possible.

If all of that is not possible it is more like Rail Baltica (but at somewhat higher speed) in terms of creating a novel connection, is it? But then Rail Baltica was started at the end where it connects to existing rail. The rest seems to be developed more or less in parallel but it will also take several more years until it is anywhere near service.


----------



## fkus

Slartibartfas said:


> To some extend there is also selective thinking. Cost overruns can happen, especially with projects relying on tunnels. It is no different with highways, especially if there are tunnels involved. Those cost overruns can be actually multiple times the initial estimate, and it is not necessarily due to incompetence but for example to geological complications one only knows in complete detail once one is there (with the tunnel under construction). That has little to do with rail but with the challenges of tunnel construction which is a challenging and risky business.
> 
> So that could explain part of the costs in NYC, the other possibly larger part is probably corruption and or incompetence of the Port Authority. I don't know enough about the situation there to really make a judgement on that.
> 
> Regarding California. I'd be interested to hear about the reasons for the cost explosion. There are not many tunnels, are there? Was it that the project was changed in between, a reason why for example the Berlin airport was such a desaster? Was it that due to arcane and anti-rail type legislation it was so difficult and expensive to get the property rights for the corridor? Was it something else?
> 
> In any case, those anti-rail patriots I would kindly ask if it is really the case that the most powerful country on earth simply isn't capable of doing what any somewhat well doing random developing country manages to do? (building a subway line or even letting some foreign companies constructing a HSR line)
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't built as an island corridor though, is it? I know that railway corridors are largely owned by freight rail companies but surely an Amtrak service using those tracks would be possible which also can make use of that new highspeed segment and which could connect LA to SF, isn't it? What ar the plans? If that is really not an option with all those billions of budget one would assume that one could at least make it possible.
> 
> If all of that is not possible it is more like Rail Baltica (but at somewhat higher speed) in terms of creating a novel connection, is it? But then Rail Baltica was started at the end where it connects to existing rail. The rest seems to be developed more or less in parallel but it will also take several more years until it is anywhere near service.


There are many reasons why California HSR is a failure. If you read the California auditor report you will see a lot of them:


the did not do a proper geodetic study;
they lowered the budget to make approval easier;
they just accepted “California contractors” and these contractors asked what they wanted, because there were few competitors;
they spent more money on land expropriation;
they interrupted the construction for a long period looking for money.

These are just a few that I remember.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Point one sounds legit.

Point two is not really a failure, it is at best deliberate misleading. I am not saying that is ok or even legal but it doesn't mean there was a cost explosion but rather hidden cost during approval.
Point three: How is that even legal in the US? Funny how the markets are less protected within the EU than within the US apparently. In the EU you would have to make an EU wide bidding for any such large projects, where also the best offer needs to be taken.
Point four: That somewhat confirms my point mentioned some posts above. The system in the US is broken, making it incredibly hard for rail projects to secure any kind of corridor (and as a consequence also absurdly expensive). Apparently it is much easier to do so for highway expansions, or why aren't those acquisations not nearly as controversial?
Point five should not lead to multifold cost explosion even if it will increase costs.


----------



## LtBk

Amtrak is working on digging a new Baltimore tunnel — named for Frederick Douglass — that officials say will drastically cut back on delays


The new tunnel will eliminate the biggest passenger rail bottleneck between Washington and New Jersey — which costs Amtrak and MARC trains an average of seven hours of delays each weekday —and increase train speeds to more than 100 mph from 30 mph.




www.baltimoresun.com


----------



## JohnDee

LtBk said:


> Amtrak is working on digging a new Baltimore tunnel — named for Frederick Douglass — that officials say will drastically cut back on delays
> 
> 
> The new tunnel will eliminate the biggest passenger rail bottleneck between Washington and New Jersey — which costs Amtrak and MARC trains an average of seven hours of delays each weekday —and increase train speeds to more than 100 mph from 30 mph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.baltimoresun.com


splendid news! The Acela is a nice ride to ny but this tunnel slowed it down too much. High time it is removed.


----------



## davide84

I hope the old tunnel could somehow be renovated after the opening of the new one. It has to be done before traffic expands otherwise the disruption will be bigger.


----------



## TER200

davide84 said:


> I hope the old tunnel could somehow be renovated after the opening of the new one. It has to be done before traffic expands otherwise the disruption will be bigger.


It will remain used. The IRJ says :


> However, the construction of two additional bores for freight trains will be deferred with freight continuing to use the old tunnel.











$US 4bn tunnel project planned to unlock US’ Northeast Corridor bottleneck


ONE of the United State’s worst rail bottlenecks could soon be unlocked, with plans to construct a $US 4bn twin-bore tunnel over the next 10 years.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## Joakim3

davide84 said:


> I hope the old tunnel could somehow be renovated after the opening of the new one. It has to be done before traffic expands otherwise the disruption will be bigger.


The hold historic tunnel will be exclusively used by freight trains while the new 2 bore tunnel will be used by Acela’s and commuter trains


----------



## JohnDee

for those who don’t use it much or live in the region, you don’t know how great news it is. The tunnel felt like entering the victorian age with its curves, and the speed. It took an eternity to traverse. This was an insult to rail. A national embarrassment. Baltimore or Amtrak should be ashamed for how long it’s taken to fix this goddam tunnel. fools.


----------



## aquaticko

How did they cut the number of tunnels in half but the projected cost is the same?


----------



## robbo2k

They wrote that they change 4 single-track tunnels into two double-track tunnels, of which the one for freight will not be created (the current tunnel will be use for freight).







it's a bit weak when in Europe a *57 km tunnel* is being built under the Brenner Pass for 8,8 mld EUR (8,8bln EUR in US). The Brenner Base Tunnel will be 1720 meters underground and speed 250km/h. 

You in America, I think you are building these tunnels out of gold at these prices and parameters


----------



## aquaticko

^^Yeah! The track and associated infrastructure is much, much cheaper than building extra tunnels, even if those tunnels are going from single to double-tracked. Either there's something fishy going on, or they just didn't even bother to produce a new cost estimate. 

The U.S. has a lot of problems with its infrastructure, and the apathy and naivety about how things happen in the rest of the world that allows this kind of price spiral is right near the top.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Joakim3 said:


> The hold historic tunnel will be exclusively used by freight trains while the new 2 bore tunnel will be used by Acela’s and commuter trains


Will the new tunnels follow a different route? If I remember currently the current NEC path skirts downtown Baltimore and is perhaps not in such a convenient location.


----------



## lunarwhite

Here is an article with a map showing the route of the new Baltimore tunnels.









Amtrak, Maryland DOT Debut B&P Tunnel Replacement Plan - Railway Age


One of the nation’s worst passenger rail bottlenecks will be uncorked in the coming years.




www.railwayage.com


----------



## zaphod

Does anyone know if the federal infrastructure bill has any relevance to the Texas Central project, like will they be able to obtain loans from the government?


----------



## dyonisien

Smooth Indian said:


> Will the new tunnels follow a different route? If I remember currently the current NEC path skirts downtown Baltimore and is perhaps not in such a convenient location.


"Currently, trains travel at around 30 mph through the two-track, 1.4-mile tunnel; two separate single-track tubes will enable speeds up to 100 mph."
Amtrak, Maryland DOT Debut B&P Tunnel Replacement Plan - Railway Age


----------



## IThomas

Texas High-Speed Rail | New video published by WeBuild (Salini Impregilo)


----------



## Aaraldi

55% on viaduct? I get that in developing countries with large rural populations this is a costly but in the short-term best solution to operate a railway at reasonable speeds but in Texas? IMO Spanish way of construction and Japanese style of operations would have been a match made in heaven... Could have been a $6 billion railway with the other $10 billion going for a Houston CBD station and an Austin/San Antonio branch...


----------



## coth

$16 bln is quite little for USA. Definitely isn't enough for 200 km of viaducts. Closer to $160 bln.


----------



## davide84

I'm surprised by the amount of viaducts planned for HS in the USA, not only in Texas but also from pictures of CAHSR.
I'm rather used to people fighting against viaducts, because they're visible, and planners fighting against them too, because they're expensive (there is also more stuff that needs maintenance).
As far as I know, even on mountain terrain tunnels are nowadays preferred to viaducts: the rebuild of the A2 mountain motorway in southern Italy has seen a number of bridges replaces by tunnels.
China seems to be an exception, though.


----------



## Aaraldi

davide84 said:


> China seems to be an exception, though.


The Chinese just adopted it from the Japanese - elevating railways on viaducts or embankments mitigates a lot of human-infrastructure conflicts with rural populations that otherwise would create serious operational problems. Once the rural population is sufficiently motorized (as in Texas) there's less risk of people crossing the tracks illegally by foot or with livestock with fencing being sufficient to protect the corridor.


----------



## cuartango

Aaraldi said:


> The Chinese just adopted it from the Japanese - elevating railways on viaducts or embankments mitigates a lot of human-infrastructure conflicts with rural populations that otherwise would create serious operational problems. Once the rural population is sufficiently motorized (as in Texas) there's less risk of people crossing the tracks illegally by foot or with livestock with fencing being sufficient to protect the corridor.


I thought that viaducts over farming areas were done to reduce expropriation affections.


----------



## mgk920

I am also concerned that each of these systems be fully technologically compatible with each other. Even though they won't interconnect now, someday they might.

Mike


----------



## mgk920

cuartango said:


> I thought that viaducts over farming areas were done to reduce expropriation affections.


In some places, dirt that can suitably be used as fill is hard to come by. It may also make construction faster.

Mike


----------



## zaphod

This is a wholly non-expert, uneducated opinion so take with a grain of salt:

In Texas we have zero problems building giant freeways and widening existing highways all over the place. These things tend to get done on time and in budget. The capability to build a lot of prefabricated viaduct is there. If they build a high speed railway the way a freeway is built it should be doable.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Texas HSR hasn't started construction yet. Just waiting to see if their budget numbers hold once shovels hit the dirt. Some of the other poster's smugness of "Cali can't do anything right" might wear off pretty quick...


----------



## fkus

BoulderGrad said:


> Texas HSR hasn't started construction yet. Just waiting to see if their budget numbers hold once shovels hit the dirt. Some of the other poster's smugness of "Cali can't do anything right" might wear off pretty quick...


The big difference is: if Texas Budget was wrong, the private company will need to increase their spending. In California, if budget increases, everybody needs to pay for it!


----------



## Mansa Musa

fkus said:


> The big difference is: if Texas Budget was wrong, the private company will need to increase their spending. In California, if budget increases, everybody needs to pay for it!


I'm usually pro union but cali changed that real quick. Bust these damn cali unions


----------



## SiMclaren

Viaducts can be mass-manufactured, and can take advantage of economies of scale (like zaphod posted, Texas has plenty of experience on viaducts), while embankment construction may have a more linear requirement of equipment over distance and time.

Also viaducts are also easier to deal with land settlement and sink holes, and can lead to lower construction time and risks, and therefore less financial costs (interest, etc)

It may also explain why most Asiatic countries (not just Japan or China) prefer viaducts over embankments for HSR.


----------



## Aaraldi

SiMclaren said:


> Also viaducts are also easier to deal with land settlement and sink holes, and can lead to lower construction time and risks, and therefore less financial costs (interest, etc)
> 
> It may also explain why most Asiatic countries (not just Japan or China) prefer viaducts over embankments for HSR.


Asian countries do not come up independently with viaducts they invite Japanese and /or Chinese experts who introduce their standards. Financially no it doesn't lead to lower costs Chinese HSR is actually more expensive than Spain/France etc. There are reasons to go for constant elevation but none of these apply to Texas.


----------



## SiMclaren

Aaraldi said:


> Financially no it doesn't lead to lower costs Chinese HSR is actually more expensive than Spain/France etc.


Spanish and French HSRs are built 100kms at a time, Chinese HSRs are built 1000kms in a single phase.
A larger project will always be more expensive per km than a smaller one. My point is exactly that they are not comparable.



Aaraldi said:


> Asian countries do not come up independently with viaducts they invite Japanese and /or Chinese experts who introduce their standards.


Taiwan project was based on European technology, before switching to Japanese due to financial issues, Korea HSR was based on French technology, China makes their technology in-house (after partnering with everybody but the French 🤷‍♂️) and Texas Central have Spanish Renfe as a operating partner...

The choice of viaducts, both in Texas as well in Asia is related to the size and scope of the project, not cultural or technical differences.

EDIT: Wrongly I said California instead of Asia.


----------



## Aaraldi

SiMclaren said:


> A larger project will always be more expensive per km than a smaller one. My point is exactly that they are not comparable.


No that's not how economies of scale works.


----------



## TER200

Aaraldi said:


> No that's not how economies of scale works.


However, building too much of something simultaneously drives costs up, because the supply of qualified workers (and specialized machines like TBMs...) can't follow the demand. That's what we experience with the Grand Paris Express.
But in China, it is obviously easier to get thousands of workers on such a project, than in Europe (or in Texas, I think).


----------



## SiMclaren

Using economies of scale make the project less expensive relative to itself, not to others.

The use of economies may decrease the linearity in which the costs increase due to scale, but it won't decrease costs compared to a smaller project.


----------



## Sunfuns

It will decrease costs per km, obviously not decrease a total cost.


----------



## Stuu

SiMclaren said:


> A larger project will always be more expensive per km than a smaller one. My point is exactly that they are not comparable.


Of course it won't. A big chunk (15-30%) of construction costs are fixed, such as setting up the construction compounds, concrete batching plants, tunnel or viaduct segment factories etc. Just setting up the logistics chain costs money, so getting to the day work starts will cost broadly the same for a 1km viaduct or a 10km viaduct. Once you split those fixed costs over the number of km built, it is obvious that per km costs are lower for larger projects. 

Of course there are other factors which need to be taken into account, but that's fairly basic economic theory


----------



## M-NL

There is an optimum for project size. The larger the project, the better the construction efficiency can be, but also the more management is needed. Before you know it your project has multiple layers of management. From a certain point the rise in cost of project management will exceed the raised efficiency of a bigger project. Now I don't know what a top project manager earns in the USA, but you can probably hire a lot of workers for that.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412455415045136386


----------



## mgk920

prageethSL said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412455415045136386


Is there any information on the location of this station site and whether or not it will ultimately be a 'union' station (open for use by other potential service providers)?

Mike


----------



## Stuu

mgk920 said:


> Is there any information on the location of this station site and whether or not it will ultimately be a 'union' station (open for use by other potential service providers)?
> 
> Mike


From the description in the link it is this plot here, which is a couple of miles south of the famous sign


----------



## mgk920

Just south of I-215 between I-15 and LVBD. It will be interesting to see how they will be able to wire the trackage into it. Have they settled on a routing for that yet?

Mike


----------



## wgerman

Amtrak places big order with Siemens to replace it Amfleet fleet.









Amtrak to Transform Rail Travel with $7.3 Billion Investment in State-of-the-Art Equipment - Amtrak Media


WASHINGTON – Amtrak is contracting with California-based Siemens Mobility Inc. to manufacture a new fleet of up to 83 multi-powered modern trains that will be leveraged for state and northeast services, with further options for up to 130 additional trains to support Amtrak growth plans. The new...




media.amtrak.com


----------



## coth

Doesn't seem to be high speed rail trains.


----------



## BoulderGrad

wgerman said:


> Amtrak places big order with Siemens to replace it Amfleet fleet.


These are for the regular Amtrak Routes, not HSR routes. There's a US Railways thread: UNITED STATES | Railway


----------



## zaphod

posted in wrong thread, sorry


----------



## wgerman

BoulderGrad said:


> These are for the regular Amtrak Routes, not HSR routes. There's a US Railways thread: UNITED STATES | Railway


The NEC is a "high speed railroad", the only one in the United States. Regional Trains do 110 mph or 120 if running late. Said 110 mph Regional Trains use almost 50 year old Amfleets which are being replaced by this order. They are complete trainsets that can run under the "High Speed Rail" catenary and non high speed rail with no catenary such as Washington DC to Richmond, or north of Springfield. If one is interested in High Speed Rail, one should be ecstatic about this order.


----------



## Smooth Indian

wgerman said:


> The NEC is a "high speed railroad", the only one in the United States. Regional Trains do 110 mph or 120 if running late. Said 110 mph Regional Trains use almost 50 year old Amfleets which are being replaced by this order. They are complete trainsets that can run under the "High Speed Rail" catenary and non high speed rail with no catenary such as Washington DC to Richmond, or north of Springfield. If one is interested in High Speed Rail, one should be ecstatic about this order.


So regional trains will get dual get dual mode train-sets? Any pics or renderings of these train-sets? 🙂


----------



## wgerman

Smooth Indian said:


> So regional trains will get dual get dual mode train-sets? Any pics or renderings of these train-sets? 🙂


No pics yet, I am sure Amtrak will have a model on display soon with the new livery, like they did for the Acela 2 debut.


----------



## BoulderGrad

wgerman said:


> The NEC is a "high speed railroad", the only one in the United States. Regional Trains do 110 mph or 120 if running late. Said 110 mph Regional Trains use almost 50 year old Amfleets which are being replaced by this order. They are complete trainsets that can run under the "High Speed Rail" catenary and non high speed rail with no catenary such as Washington DC to Richmond, or north of Springfield. If one is interested in High Speed Rail, one should be ecstatic about this order.


Ah, fair enough.

How much of the NEC can handle 125mph?


----------



## Stuu

BoulderGrad said:


> How much of the NEC can handle 125mph?


Yellow is 125mph, browner shades are higher speed. At a guess, somewhere around 60% is 125mph or higher









The zoomable map is here


----------



## Soriehlam

Stuu said:


> The zoomable map is here


😵😵😵😵
Didn't know this site. Thanks!


----------



## M-NL

Stuu said:


> Yellow is 125mph, browner shades are higher speed. At a guess, somewhere around 60% is 125mph or higher


But of that around 60%, sadly most is at around 125 mph. Only a few short stretches are 150 mph. In fact those stretches are so short you wonder why they even bothered and stuck to 125 mph or 140 mph. They could have used a much cheaper Pendolino variant instead of the completely custom built Acela. The original Acela has never been able to show what it could really do (like using its 165 mph top speed in service). Will the new Avelia Liberty ever get close to its 220 mph top speed or even 186 mph in service?


----------



## TER200

wgerman said:


> The NEC is a "high speed railroad", the only one in the United States.


This doesn't mean that all trains running here are "high-speed trains".


M-NL said:


> The original Acela has never been able to show what it could really do (like using its 165 mph top speed in service). Will the new Avelia Liberty ever get close to its 220 mph top speed or even 186 mph in service?


Amtrak hopes to get some new or upgraded track with a higher top speed before the end of their lifetime. Similar hopes for the orignal Acela sets were unfulfilled...


----------



## coth

There are some HSR trains running on it, but railway line is not HSR. It's a conventional railway.


----------



## robbo2k

NEC is not an HSR line because NEC is a collection of multiple railway lines from different owners with different branches, with self-financing. The American model cannot be translated into European HSR. NEC has no organizational or financial affiliation with Amtrak. It has 4 different owners and 9 operators.

Congress authorized the Northeast Corridor Commission in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and charged it with developing a formula to allocate NEC capital and operating costs based on usage, making recommendations to Congress, and facilitating collaborative planning. The Commission is made up of 18 members, including representatives from each of the eight Northeast Corridor states, the District of Columbia, Amtrak, and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

I recommend watching the website Special Projects Map | Northeast Corridor Commission where it says who, for how much, when to rebuild for NEC. As you can see tons of different owners and different sources of financing.


----------



## robbo2k




----------



## davide84

Very interesting. If I understand correctly, with BCCs the operators are directly asked to contribute to infrastructure investments, whereas in Europe it's usually only the (public) infrastructure owner to handle projects and bear the cost of investments, while operators just pay for the usage of tracks. Operators probably pay more after the upgrades, but they are not involved in the upgrade works.

Therefore, even if Amtrak seems to be the actual owner of most of the tracks, the situation is actually more complicated and of a different complication every few miles of track...


----------



## robbo2k

Investments are always made by the owner (right-of-the-way), while the operators finance them ONLY on the section and ONLY in the part on which it carries out the transport. This means that only NEC is financing the NEC transport. For example, the MBTA operator finances the infrastructure for BCC 1,2,3 Because the amounts and the algorithm are open, there is no cross-financing so popular in Europe where the owner of the infrastructure earns, for example, on the LGV Sud line and LGV East finances it.

This also means the competition is perfect because there is no favoring the Amtrak operator on the Amtrak owner's tracks. The same MBTA and Amtrak train entails the same obligation for the infrastructure owner whether the section is owned by Amtrak, MBTA or someone else


----------



## Qtya

Texas Central names Early Operator for high-speed rail


Renfe, a state-owned company which operates freight and passenger trains, will work alongside Texas Central on the design and development of the commercial aspects of the high-speed train system




www.kbtx.com


----------



## M-NL

davide84 said:


> in Europe ... while operators just pay for the usage of tracks. Operators probably pay more after the upgrades, ...


Do you have an example of that?
I have heard of time slot specific access charges and track type dependant charges, but never of location dependant charges. So unless the track changes type, the charge should remain the same. In fact it would make freight operators request weird routings just to avoid certain expensive stretches of track. That would not make sense to me.


----------



## robbo2k

In Poland, the same line (all 160km/h), for example Germany Border to Belarus border, has different payment rates. For example, the border of Germany to Zbąszynek is the highest, but the fee is already falling towards Poznań. Additionally, when driving the China - Germany train, it will be cheaper to cross the Warsaw bypass (Skierniewice - Łuków) at a category 3 and 4 rate than via Warszawa Główna Towarowa category 1 or 2.

Automatic machine for calculating the cost of travel of any train on the railway network in Poland Kalkulacja


----------



## davide84

M-NL said:


> it would make freight operators request weird routings just to avoid certain expensive stretches of track. That would not make sense to me.


To me it would make perfect sense, because all the parameters are coordinated by the track owner which also writes the timetable. Increasing the price of congested stretches is a good way to distribute traffic.

I don't know if this example originates fully from track cost, but in Italy the north-east to north-west freight traffic is mostly routed via Udine, Treviso, Vicenza while long distance trains mainly serve the corridor Udine, Venice, Padova, Vicenza.


----------



## davide84

TokyoImperialPalace said:


> The key points are that [...] that passengers will be required to alight at Merced/Bakersfield and change onto a train (northbound) or bus (southbound).


This part was also for me a bit of a shock, I always assumed otherwise but now I see it written in the business plan:


> The Authority is making a significant capital investment in the Valley, building 119 miles of high-speed rail infrastructure, running directly through downtown Fresno. *The northern terminus is at the Madera Amtrak Station, which is in a remote location, and the southern terminus is Poplar Avenue, which is located in an orchard.*
> While the 119-mile Central Valley Segment will serve as the nation’s first high-speed rail test track, it does not make sense to stop building there. It does make sense to extend it into the heart of Merced and into downtown Bakersfield.


I find it unbelievable that they really planned the first construction phase without explicit connection to the existing network, not even a temporary one.

Also from the Business Plan PDF:


> _“The approach adopted by the [Authority] - what we could call “the building block approach” is very similar to the one used in Spain that has ultimately led to the development of the largest high-speed rail network in Europe, second largest high-speed rail network in the world after China.”_
> — Xiana Margarida Mendez Bertolo, Secretary of State for Trade, Ministry of Industry, Trade and Tourism, Spanish Government


The "building block approach", as I understand it regarding CAHSR, means that you focus on the construction of something rather than on the usage, or in other words: you build what is easy to build, and then you figure it out how to use it. This can easily lead to unusable works producing zero ROI. Better would be to adopt the "functional block approach" instead, where each construction phase has a positive and well defined impact on the service. Companies and authorities IMHO prefer the former because the percentage of integration works is way smaller, but the benefits for the public are also a fraction.
And I would definitely not quote Spain as a role model for building railways: yes they built a lot on paper, but they have holes in the network with isolated stretches, single-track stretches limited to 20 mph (Loja line to Granada), incomplete lines leading nowhere (Sevilla - Antequera) and lines with just a handful of trains per day. What the USA needs is the complete opposite, a single efficient line with high usage and high performance, to serve as motivation for other projects.

Anectode: an extreme example of "functional block approach" is what the Swiss have taken with the Loetschberg tunnel. It has two tubes but one of the two tubes was completely built only for 1/3 of the length, because that was exactly what they needed for the planned increase in services - and not any inch more. This, as I said, is also extreme...

Thanks TokioIP for linking the Business Plan, once I read it I understood why you linked it. It finally sheds some clarity on what they're planning to do and when.


----------



## Stuu

TokyoImperialPalace said:


> The key points are that it will be a single track railway with passing loops, and also importantly that passengers will be required to alight at Merced/Bakersfield and change onto a train (northbound) or bus (southbound).


South from Bakersfield is a bus now, and until/if they build a new line it will always be so. North from Merced, the choice is changing trains or buying some hybrid trains which (in theory), have a very limited lifespan before the connection to Gilroy and onto to SF is completed. Not ideal obviously, but probably the better pragmatic solution. They could have electric trains pulled by diesel locos from Merced north, but that would be at least as bad as making people change, from a PR point of view.

The whole project has been hamstrung by lack of finance, dubious management and generally negative public opinion, which is a shame as it should be an ideal location for HSR


----------



## M-NL

TokyoImperialPalace said:


> The key points are that it will be a single track railway with passing loops,


For the price of one high speed switch (for 200 km/h) you can build many many kilometers of regular track. Switches for lower speeds are cheaper, but can't be traversed at full speed.
So unless there is a station in the passing loop, for which you need to slow down anyway, it is a wrong way of cost cutting.
Also single track must be signalled bidirectional. Unidirectional signalled double track is much cheaper. I wonder if, bottom line, a single track is really that much cheaper.


----------



## davide84

While back in the days bidirectional systems were actually two superimposed systems, I think modern systems are bidirectional by design with minimal additional infrastructure required. This should be particularly valid in case of signal-less, radio-based signalling systems (e.g. ETCS level 2 or above).


----------



## wgerman

davide84 said:


> This part was also for me a bit of a shock, I always assumed otherwise but now I see it written in the business plan:
> 
> I find it unbelievable that they really planned the first construction phase without explicit connection to the existing network, not even a temporary one.
> 
> Also from the Business Plan PDF:
> 
> The "building block approach", as I understand it regarding CAHSR, means that you focus on the construction of something rather than on the usage, or in other words: you build what is easy to build, and then you figure it out how to use it. This can easily lead to unusable works producing zero ROI. Better would be to adopt the "functional block approach" instead, where each construction phase has a positive and well defined impact on the service. Companies and authorities IMHO prefer the former because the percentage of integration works is way smaller, but the benefits for the public are also a fraction.
> And I would definitely not quote Spain as a role model for building railways: yes they built a lot on paper, but they have holes in the network with isolated stretches, single-track stretches limited to 20 mph (Loja line to Granada), incomplete lines leading nowhere (Sevilla - Antequera) and lines with just a handful of trains per day. What the USA needs is the complete opposite, a single efficient line with high usage and high performance, to serve as motivation for other projects.
> 
> Anectode: an extreme example of "functional block approach" is what the Swiss have taken with the Loetschberg tunnel. It has two tubes but one of the two tubes was completely built only for 1/3 of the length, because that was exactly what they needed for the planned increase in services - and not any inch more. This, as I said, is also extreme...
> 
> Thanks TokioIP for linking the Business Plan, once I read it I understood why you linked it. It finally sheds some clarity on what they're planning to do and when.


So will make for some fast Amtrak San Joaquins to Bakersfield.


----------



## wgerman

Stuu said:


> South from Bakersfield is a bus now, and until/if they build a new line it will always be so. *North from Merced, the choice is changing trains or buying some hybrid trains which (in theory), have a very limited lifespan before the connection to Gilroy and onto to SF is completed.* Not ideal obviously, but probably the better pragmatic solution. They could have electric trains pulled by diesel locos from Merced north, but that would be at least as bad as making people change, from a PR point of view.
> 
> The whole project has been hamstrung by lack of finance, dubious management and generally negative public opinion, which is a shame as it should be an ideal location for HSR


So this line section will not have a connection to the parallel BNSF line to Bakerfield? Its not a given that the CAHSR line will be electrified, I read somewhere of using FC tech, no need for catenary.

As regards the south solution, makes the most sense though not so quick, at least it will have access to LA Union and guarantee higher ridership. But lets not kid ourselves, once that Palmdale connection is done, and access into LA is achieved, don't expect new CAHSR tunnels into the Basin for decades in the future. Same for the northern part using Caltran tracks too. It will be like the NEC, "as good as its going to get".


----------



## TER200

M-NL said:


> Also single track must be signalled bidirectional. Unidirectional signalled double track is much cheaper. I wonder if, bottom line, a single track is really that much cheaper.


Not only modern signalling (ETCS2 or similar) is bidirectional by default, but double-tracks also require switches. 
I think here there is a double connection (ie 4 switches, for 170 km/h) every 50-60 km. If the passing loop is short, at least one train will have to slow down or stop anyway to let the other pass. 
Long passing loops with fast switches are more expensive though, but you'd still save on track laying... at least until you have to close the line to connect the second track when finally decided.


----------



## Stuu

wgerman said:


> So this line section will not have a connection to the parallel BNSF line to Bakerfield? Its not a given that the CAHSR line will be electrified, I read somewhere of using FC tech, no need for catenary.


I don't think there is a connection planned, there is no possibility of using the line south through Tehachapi anyway so it would be pointless

I seriously doubt they have any plan to use fuel cells, there is no way they can deliver remotely enough energy to power a train at 350 km/h. Some nutjob OpEd might have suggested it, but no engineer will have done


----------



## davide84

The catenary is mentioned in the business plan.


----------



## M-NL

davide84 said:


> While back in the days bidirectional systems were actually two superimposed systems, I think modern systems are bidirectional by design with minimal additional infrastructure required. This should be particularly valid in case of signal-less, radio-based signalling systems (e.g. ETCS level 2 or above).


Modern systems like ETCS may need less trackside equipment to be bidirectional (or even to work at all), but you still need to do all the programming and, more important, validation. In fact, in the past, wrong side running on unidirectional track was mainly covered by procedures. In a modern system you can't do that, you have to program, validate and test every configuration you want to use. If you do something that is not programmed in the system, the system will just throw an error and bring everything to a halt, because it doesn't know how to handle it otherwise.


TER200 said:


> Not only modern signalling (ETCS2 or similar) is bidirectional by default, but double-tracks also require switches.


It doesn't have to be, but like I said, if you don't program it, you can't do it.
But you'll need far less high speed switches. A 200 km/h switch is much more expensive then the 'normal' switches you'll find around stations for speeds in the 40 km/h to 80 km/h range.


----------



## TER200

M-NL said:


> A 200 km/h switch is much more expensive then the 'normal' switches you'll find around stations for speeds in the 40 km/h to 80 km/h range.


Where in the world do you see such shits on a high-speed line ? As I said, in France they're for 170 at most stations and at the connections between the two tracks.


----------



## M-NL

In Germany for instance. They have variants up to 330 km/h straight / 220 km/h diverging. 
My simple chain of thought: If you build a single line track with passing loops and those passing loops are not at stations, then you want to be able to pass them with as little loss of speed as possible. Ergo you need those expensive and high maintenance high speed switches.


----------



## robbo2k

You do not need it because the train that will come on the pass will have to stop on it to let the train from the opposite pass.

I suspect, however, that the frequency of the trains will be so low that the passing will not be needed


----------



## Stuu

robbo2k said:


> I suspect, however, that the frequency of the trains will be so low that the passing will not be needed


Yes, I was just about to say that. It's ~270km long, with 3 stops that should be doable in an hour and a half or so, and there is no way the trains need to run more than hourly so I they only need one passing loop. The Kings/Tulare station is pretty much halfway so it would make sense for trains to pass there - there's no reason that the switches can't become crossovers once (if) the track is doubled.

Assuming they ever run any trains, of course


----------



## robbo2k

Bakersfield has 244,000 inhabitants
Fresno has 540,000 inhabitants

Passion for the railway "NULL" 

Real demand for the train 1-2 times a day


----------



## BoulderGrad

robbo2k said:


> Bakersfield has 244,000 inhabitants
> Fresno has 540,000 inhabitants
> 
> Passion for the railway "NULL"
> 
> Real demand for the train 1-2 times a day


Fresno metro is almost 1million, Bakersfield metro is over 800k.


----------



## Sunfuns

If there ever is a fast train and tickets don't cost a fortune some passion for it will be generated. Nevertheless hard to imagine for that to be more than 10-12 trains per day.


----------



## robbo2k

BoulderGrad said:


> Fresno metro is almost 1million, Bakersfield metro is over 800k.


Paris metro 12mln
Greater London 8 mln
in 2019 21 train per day)


New York Area 19-23mln
Philadelpfia (Dellaware Valley) 6mln
Washington metro 5mln
Acela 36 train per day in 2019

Real train requirement from Bakesfield to Fresno 2-3 trains per day


----------



## N830MH

BoulderGrad said:


> Ah, fair enough.
> 
> How much of the NEC can handle 125mph?


Or more than 180mph.


----------



## Stuu

robbo2k said:


> Real train requirement from Bakesfield to Fresno 2-3 trains per day


There are 5 trains today on that route, so demand won't get any lower. Faster trains will get more passengers, and Highway 99 is very busy so there is some level of demand. Not enough to justify building HSR on its own of course, but more than 3 trains per day


----------



## TER200

M-NL said:


> In Germany for instance. They have variants up to 330 km/h straight / 220 km/h diverging.


Yeah, I know those, that's not my point.
I said that stations on high-speed lines have switches for 170 km/h, not 40.


----------



## Rational Plan

hmm London to York is served by 3 trains an hour, 220 miles from London and York has a population of 210,000. On a line that goes 125 mph. If it had the capacity the North East corridor could run many more trains an hour than it does. All day service will stimulate demand. a hourly or really a half hourly service will transform the economy of the central valley.


----------



## robbo2k

Stuu said:


> There are 5 trains today on that route, so demand won't get any lower. Faster trains will get more passengers, and Highway 99 is very busy so there is some level of demand. Not enough to justify building HSR on its own of course, but more than 3 trains per day


Station Bakerfield 442,000 pax per year. 1210 per day One train CAHSR 400pax. 

So you need *two pairs of trains a day.*


----------



## robbo2k

Rational Plan said:


> hmm London to York is served by 3 trains an hour, 220 miles from London and York has a population of 210,000. On a line that goes 125 mph. If it had the capacity the North East corridor could run many more trains an hour than it does. All day service will stimulate demand. a hourly or really a half hourly service will transform the economy of the central valley.



This is stressful because York is located on the LNER railroad, one of the most important in the UK. the main railroad that connects London with Scotland.
CAHSR would also have rail traffic if it connects LA with SF at present, the project involves the merger of two small towns


----------



## Attus

robbo2k said:


> Station Bakerfield 442,000 pax per year. 1210 per day One train CAHSR 400pax.
> 
> So you need *two pairs of trains a day.*


OK, if you do not get the amount of rail passengers multiplied(!), you must not even think about constructing high speed railways.


----------



## robbo2k

Attus said:


> OK, if you do not get the amount of rail passengers multiplied(!), you must not even think about constructing high speed railways.


Of course the CAHSR between Bakerfield and Fresno is pointless. The Americans are the first in the world to build the HSR from nowhere to nowhere. But it was the cheapest for them CAHSR should be built from either San Francisco (San Jose) or Sacramento or Palmdale


----------



## Stuu

robbo2k said:


> Of course the CAHSR between Bakerfield and Fresno is pointless. The Americans are the first in the world to build the HSR from nowhere to nowhere. But it was the cheapest for them CAHSR should be built from either San Francisco (San Jose) or Sacramento or Palmdale


It wasn't so much about cheapest, but having limited funds available which had to be spent by a certain time. The political system is entirely to blame


----------



## robbo2k

Individual CAHSR episodes will cost Bakersfield to Burbank more than two times more expensive than Bakersfield-Merced.
Surprisingly, with a cost of $ 17 billion for Merced-Bakersfield, the cost of the second track is just $ 1.1 billion.


----------



## M-NL

TER200 said:


> Yeah, I know those, that's not my point.
> I said that stations on high-speed lines have switches for 170 km/h, not 40.


A high speed switch is a lot longer and has much more moving parts. Whether it is for 170 km/h or 270 km/h diverging operation doesn't really matter at that moment anymore, they're all expensive.
Anyway, our discussion seems to pointless, because at this moment the FRA only has rules for switches up to 80 MPH (129 km/h). On the other hand, rules for 300+ km/h operation don't exist yet either and the FRA doesn't come across as a regulator that easily adopts new rules to me. Regardless I still hope they will get it done.


----------



## Stuu

robbo2k said:


> Surprisingly, with a cost of $ 17 billion for Merced-Bakersfield, the cost of the second track is just $ 1.1 billion.


It is literally just laying the track and any signalling alterations so I should hope so. That's still more than $6m per mile which seems high


----------



## cuartango

Do you guys think that Biden will fund part of the project? I think is a must to make it possible.


----------



## Stuu

cuartango said:


> Do you guys think that Biden will fund part of the project? I think is a must to make it possible.


A big part of their pitch is that they don't want any Federal funds, so probably not. That project should be capable of making actual profits so there is no reason it won't get private backing - it's a very simple project with no major engineering challenges connecting two large metro areas about the right distance apart for HSR to be ideal


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## tytusdezoo

Brightline to resume service in November. 



https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article253389758.html


----------



## kokomo

Regarding Brightline, I have recently been to Miami and several Brightline trains were running down the track. I was able to count at least 5 of them per day last week. Sometimes only 4 coaches long, sometimes a bit longer. 
There must be on tests or something, but they were running


----------



## tytusdezoo

Authority Board Approves High-Speed Rail Line Between Bakersfield and Palmdale









News Release: Authority Board Approves High-Speed Rail Line Between Bakersfield and Palmdale - California High Speed Rail


Los Angeles – The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) Board of Directors today approved the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the…




hsr.ca.gov


----------



## kokomo

kokomo said:


> Regarding Brightline, I have recently been to Miami and several Brightline trains were running down the track. I was able to count at least 5 of them per day last week. Sometimes only 4 coaches long, sometimes a bit longer.
> There must be on tests or something, but they were running


A couple of minutes ago on the level crossing of 36th street in Miami


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1433810069175554052


----------



## curt-pdx

it's time for our annual update from John at *The Four Foot*! (who should be on the CHSR PR payroll . . .). This one is an overview of the progress in the last 10 months and he also has a link to a google spreadsheet listing all the projects in CP 1-4 and giving a status update from last year.


----------



## prageethSL

*Rancho Cucamonga will get new train station for Vegas and Ontario airport High speed transit project.*









In order to accommodate future transportation links, the city of Rancho Cucamonga launched a design plan for a transit district that will include a new multi-model transit station.

Design for the Cucamonga Station, which will be built adjacent to the existing Metrolink Station on Azusa Court just west of Milliken Avenue, was unveiled Tuesday, Sept. 14. The new services at the station will operate under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, said Steve Lambert, a spokesman for the agency. No groundbreaking date has been set and details on the project are not yet available, said Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, city spokesperson.

“Several transportation partners will come together and create this hub for multi-modal transit,” she said Wednesday

The station will be entry points for these new projects that are in the planning and design stages:

• A high-speed rail train that will travel from Victorville and Las Vegas being built by Brightline West, a private company, for about $5 billion. A 50-mile spur will come down the Cajon Pass to the new Rancho Cucamonga station, where riders of the train can enter. Riders will travel about 200 mph and reach Las Vegas in about two hours, said Camacho-Curtis.

• A bus rapid transit system stop for what’s being called the West Valley Connector made up of special Omnitrans buses, some traveling on dedicated rights-of-way.

• An underground tunnel that will whisk riders onboard electric-powered transports to and from Ontario International Airport. The project is a partnership with SBCTA and Elon Musk’s The Boring Co.

The Cucamonga Station is part of re-branded area of Rancho Cucamonga that is enclosed by Haven Avenue, Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue and has been named the HART District, using the first letter of each street plus “T” for transit.


----------



## BoulderGrad

JohnF21 said:


> There was a plan for HSR between Minneapolis and Chicago but unfortunately the Republican governor of Wisconsin blocked it.


Chicago is Chicago because it's the central hub of a number of North Central US cities. Making it an HSR hub has been suggested since at least the 90's. It should be part of the conversation of any HSR planning. Chi-Minn would be one of the first lines I'd push for. But yes, Wisconsin messed it up.


----------



## Khaul

JMBasquiat said:


> This is incorrect. Public schools in the US are funded through a variety of taxes and local, state, and national funding streams. This includes property taxes but also income tax, sales tax, and federal grants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Overview of the Funding of Public Schools | PublicSchoolReview.com
> 
> 
> Learn about how public schools are funded today and how the federal and local monies are allocated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.publicschoolreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Public schools are not funded by property taxes to any extent anywhere else in the western world. This is a very retrograde way of funding public goods and creates inequity, fosters NIMBYism and critically undermines efforts to improve planning and public transport.


----------



## JMBasquiat

That's an entirely different argument. Your original claim was that public schools in the US are funded by property taxes, period. That's not entirely correct.

The US education system is highly decentralized and public education at the primary and secondary level is a State and not a Federal power. This creates incentives to find local funding solutions to what amount to a local responsibility. Sometimes they work, and other times they don't. I tend to agree with you that funding schools through property taxes has led to some problems, including inequity in education. It has also exacerbated problems such as sprawl and "white flight" (i.e. rich, mostly white people leaving cities leading to underfunded transportation and infrastructure to the detriment of working class individuals).


----------



## Slartibartfas

Schools from good neighbourhoods have much better financial means than schools from poor neighbourhoods even though the needs would be the other way round. That's the reality in the US by far and large and it is probably also one of the reasons why social upwards mobility in the US is worse than in many if not most European countries. Why that is is another discussion and hardly on topic for HSR.


----------



## JMBasquiat

> That's the reality in the US by far and large and it is probably also one of the reasons why social upwards mobility in the US is worse than in many if not most European countries.


Maybe a select few Western European countries, but to claim that _it is worse than in all European countries_ is ridiculous. And this discussion is very much related to HSR because rich people moving to suburbs has meant that the tax base has shrunk for cities leading to chronically underfunded transportation and the expansion of highways because rich people tend to have fancy cars they'd like to use instead of trains/HSR. Governments have enabled them so far by and large by building and expanding highways and by zoning laws that benefit single-home family owners to the detriment of density.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I never claimed your strawman so why are you inventing it?
I did not want to add more off topic but because you made misleading assumptions I want to back up the claim I actually made.
The Global Social Mobility Index lists the USA on postion 27. Not a terrible ranking but rather low giving its wealth and power. 16 of the 27 EU member states rank higher, including Germany and France. Also some new member states rank higher like the Czech Republic, Slovenia (even without counting Melania) and Malta. Some member states are right below the US (Spain and Poland among others) and only a small number of small member states is performing much poorer than the US. The worst is Greece as far as I can see, a country rocked by almost a decade of really harsh crises.





Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Therefore I stand to my claim, that in many if not most European countries social upwards mobility is higher. I might only correct a sleazy inprecession here, I was thinking about the EU here, but don't crucify me for that, how often do people from the US say "American" when they mean the USA?

You do have a point with those rich neighbourhoods though. However that is part of the problem. HSR, like interstates should be a thing that is lead and financed by the federal level but at minimum state level. Of coures, if you have a federal level which shows no interest in that either and some states openly waging war against it things are getting difficult. In the current political realities of the US it is indeed almost a miracle that there is a proper and real HSR corridor in active construction (even if it is unclear if and how its completion will be financed and realized). If your point is that this is primarely a political problem in the US. I do agree, it is.


----------



## LtBk

Even in the suburbs many parents send their kids to private schools, at least where I live.


----------



## Slartibartfas

LtBk said:


> Even in the suburbs many parents send their kids to private schools, at least where I live.


Are these the kind of suburbs where the neighbours call the police when they see unleashed children running around?


----------



## binhai

Yeah helicopter parenting is ridiculous in America.


----------



## LtBk

Slartibartfas said:


> Are these the kind of suburbs where the neighbours call the police when they see unleashed children running around?


Dunno, but NIMBYism is quite strong.


----------



## Slartibartfas

We don't want no HSR, rail, tram or bus. Only black poor people use them.
That kind of Nimbyism?


----------



## binhai

No one thinks only black poor people use HSR. The Acela has an upscale image and it’s well-known in the Northeast at least.

Suburbs are extremely fearful of public transit though due to racism.


----------



## Slartibartfas

You are probably correct, that is rather a prejudice for Greyhound buses and of course local buses in general, isn't it? At least that was my impression when we used them, that its only working class people and the occasional European tourist using them.

Acela and HSR (if it existed) are probably too expensive.


----------



## binhai

Yes, Acela is the only exception for ground-based public transportation. For everything else, if it’s not flying, it’s seen as poor.


----------



## TER200

Acela seems very expensive.
However I took the (much cheaper at this moment because it has the standard "coach" class) Northeast Regional, and it didn't seem to me that it was full of "poor" people. Now one of the regular traveller of this train lives in the White House...


It looks very strange to read this debate from the other side of the ocean, because here in France some people criticise the TGV for being a trains "for the rich only" (this is wrong).


----------



## 437.001

TER200 said:


> It looks very strange to read this debate from the other side of the ocean, because here in France some people criticise the TGV for being a trains "for the rich only" (this is wrong).


Maybe the idea of low-cost HSR such as Ouigo or AVLO could break some ground in the US?
(in Europe too, for international travel, btw...)


----------



## JMBasquiat

Plenty of rich/well-to-do people int he Chicagoland area take Amtrak or Metra to work from rich suburbs everyday. Trains are not necessarily seen as just for poor people, but there is a desire by some wealthy suburbs to keep public transportation away lest it bring less desirable people in more easily thus depressing the value of their property. That's their logic anyway.


----------



## Amexpat

binhai said:


> Yes, Acela is the only exception for ground-based public transportation. For everything else, if it’s not flying, it’s seen as poor.


That's a blanket generalization that doesn't hold water. There are commuter lines that wealthy people take in urban cities. A poster here mentioned Chicago. I grew up in Westchester County, north of NYC. Many of the communities there are very wealthy and a good portion of the breadwinners commute into NYC to work, including top executives and professionals. The LIRR is even busier than the Metro North and while the demographics there are probably more working class than wealthy, it's not dominated by poor people. And the same with Caltrain which connects San Francisco to the Silicon Valley. The above 3 examples are the busiest commuter lines in the US. They have decent ridership levels and are currently being upgraded (the LIRR's East Side Access is currently the largest public transportation project in the US)

I don't know about the demographics of the Brightline in Florida, but I guess it's not low income. And I would think that the planned HSR from Houston to Dallas and from CA to Las Vegas would not be dominated by a low income ridership.


----------



## binhai

I’m generalizing for our European friends. I know commuter rail is generally wealthier riders. We were talking about intercity public transit though. Northeast regional is middle-class too (heavy minority concentration that might scare Europeans, but seems solidly middle-class to me). Acela is definitely wealthy (too expensive for me lol, I’ve only rode northeast regional).


----------



## 437.001

binhai said:


> I know commuter rail is generally wealthier riders.


In the US, you mean? Because of the suburbs?
Because that's certainly not the case in most of western Europe (at least, not all the lines)..



binhai said:


> Acela is definitely wealthy (too expensive for me lol, I’ve only rode northeast regional).


How much is a New York to Philadelphia, one-way, second class in NE Regional compared to Acela?


----------



## cheehg

TM_Germany said:


> Those legacy lines are massively slow, curvy, and most importantly - not electrified. I guess you could run Siemens Charger loco hauled trains on them but that's still not a competetive service.
> 
> Another thing that really bugs me about CHSR is that they seriously seem to believe that it's feasable to run both frequent Caltrain service as well as 300km/h CHSR service at the proposed frequencies over a single double tracked line without full grade seperation (and with most stations not even having passing tracks). That line needs to be fully quadruple tracked and grade seperated for any useful kind of service, yet the recent Caltrain modernization program didn't even consider that.


The plan is to electrify the section between SF - SJ - Merced. They will do the same from Burbank to LA. Sure they will have to build some passing tracks in some stations so HS trains can pass Caltrains which are stopping trains. Why are you suprised? Germany and France do the same. If HSR has to enter the city center, speed limits are not avoidable.Sure 4 tracks are better but they want to save the costs.


----------



## JMBasquiat

*The dream of high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest may be on the horizon*

_The long-awaited federal infrastructure bill set aside $66 billion for Amtrak, plus $10 billion specifically for high-speed rail. That could be what launches the Cascadia megaregion high-speed rail project into reality._

_The proposal is already backed by a range of local and federal elected leaders from Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. On Tuesday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and British Columbia Premier John Horgan reaffirmed their interest by agreeing through a formal memorandum of understanding to continue laying the groundwork for high-speed rail along the I-5 corridor.

The project also has support from a coalition of cities, businesses, government and transit agencies, and environmental groups.

A 2018 ultrahigh-speed rail study analyzed several routes with varying numbers of stations, with the goal of condensing travel times to less than an hour between Portland and Seattle, as well as Seattle to Vancouver. Build-out costs for the line would range from $24 billion to $42 billion in 2017 dollars, with a projected annual ridership of 1.6 million to 2.5 million by 2035._

_This high-speed rail line would mimic the current Amtrak Cascades service, which in 2019 carried roughly 830,000 passengers, but make far fewer stops and run at faster speeds. These changes would drop travel times between Vancouver and Portland from more than eight hours to less than two hours._


The dream of high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest may be on the horizon (yahoo.com)


----------



## TM_Germany

cheehg said:


> The plan is to electrify the section between SF - SJ - Merced. They will do the same from Burbank to LA. Sure they will have to build some passing tracks in some stations so HS trains can pass Caltrains which are stopping trains. Why are you suprised? Germany and France do the same. If HSR has to enter the city center, speed limits are not avoidable.Sure 4 tracks are better but they want to save the costs.


The issue is that Caltrain upgrade is nearly finished and they haven't built those passing tracks, so Caltrains will keep stopping directly on the mainline until someone is prepared to face the backlash for stopping service, demolishing and rebuilding several recently refubished stations.


----------



## cheehg

TM_Germany said:


> The issue is that Caltrain upgrade is nearly finished and they haven't built those passing tracks, so Caltrains will keep stopping directly on the mainline until someone is prepared to face the backlash for stopping service, demolishing and rebuilding several recently refubished stations.


Not all the stations need passing lines. I don't think they will run HSR at every 10 or 15 mins.


----------



## McHrodik

TM_Germany said:


> The issue is that Caltrain upgrade is nearly finished and they haven't built those passing tracks, so Caltrains will keep stopping directly on the mainline until someone is prepared to face the backlash for stopping service, demolishing and rebuilding several recently refubished stations.


Hello all, first time writing on this space.

Yeah, you don't need to quadruplicate every section of track, but you definetely will need to add passing tracks to the stations if you pretend to run a High Speed rail service along with commuter trains. Take Spain, for instance: along the mediterranean coast, between València and Tarragona, high speed trains, commuter and freight trains run on the same double-tracked line. However, that line has been upgraded to a maximum of 220 km/h speed and passing tracks has been added on all the stations. This way, you can guarantee that wherever is needed, your HS trains will pass the commuter trains without disrupting the service.

BTW, apologies for my english.


----------



## Stuu

TM_Germany said:


> The issue is that Caltrain upgrade is nearly finished and they haven't built those passing tracks, so Caltrains will keep stopping directly on the mainline until someone is prepared to face the backlash for stopping service, demolishing and rebuilding several recently refubished stations.


They have built four tracks in several sections, not every station needs four tracks for the planned service. How many HSR services will there be for the foreseeable future? 4 an hour each way at very most I would have thought. Caltrain is unlikely to run much more than 5 or 6 tph either so it should work if the timetable is sensible. There is also plenty of room along a lot of the alignment to add extra tracks if needed.


----------



## Stuu

Sunfuns said:


> If I understand it correctly electrification of Caltrain in the early phase would do nothing for HSR because there are no direct tracks at all between San Jose and Fresno. If you want to take a train between these two cities (ca 4.5-5h) you have to first take a subway to Richmond and from there Amtrak train approaching Fresno from the North. A bus would be ca 3.5 h taking a direct route. Of course this electrification is good in its own right for suburban trains.
> 
> So indeed this route is doomed unless at least one end is fully built out. Right now LA end seems a bit more likely since from Fresno you can continue to Sacramento instead of SF:


They are planning on building the San Jose-Merced section next, so trains can run SF-Bakersfield, followed by the section into LA. Bakersfield-LA is the most difficult section


----------



## TM_Germany

Stuu said:


> They have built four tracks in several sections, not every station needs four tracks for the planned service. How many HSR services will there be for the foreseeable future? 4 an hour each way at very most I would have thought. Caltrain is unlikely to run much more than 5 or 6 tph either so it should work if the timetable is sensible. There is also plenty of room along a lot of the alignment to add extra tracks if needed.


You might be able to squeeze it in timeteable wise, however you're going to be very suspectible to delays and you're not going to be able to add any more service later on. Caltrain is essentially supposed to be the western leg of BART, so getting 12 tph eventually seems sensible to at least prepare for. Aren't there also still freight services on the line?
There is enough space to add some more tracks here or there, however Caltrains stopping on the mainline in the stations is going to be a huge bottleneck and very expensive to fix.


----------



## Stuu

TM_Germany said:


> You might be able to squeeze it in timeteable wise, however you're going to be very suspectible to delays and you're not going to be able to add any more service later on. Caltrain is essentially supposed to be the western leg of BART, so getting 12 tph eventually seems sensible to at least prepare for. Aren't there also still freight services on the line?
> There is enough space to add some more tracks here or there, however Caltrains stopping on the mainline in the stations is going to be a huge bottleneck and very expensive to fix.


They have bought 16 EMUs, even with speeded up schedule from electrification they can't run more than about 6tph. I don't think BART runs much more frequently than that on the branches either, it certainly didn't when I used it.

I do agree it's not the best solution, but if it doesn't then that will only add more pressure to spend some money fixing it, rather than try to get the money upfront


----------



## lukei1

JMBasquiat said:


> *The dream of high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest may be on the horizon*
> 
> _The long-awaited federal infrastructure bill set aside $66 billion for Amtrak, plus $10 billion specifically for high-speed rail. That could be what launches the Cascadia megaregion high-speed rail project into reality._
> 
> _The proposal is already backed by a range of local and federal elected leaders from Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. On Tuesday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and British Columbia Premier John Horgan reaffirmed their interest by agreeing through a formal memorandum of understanding to continue laying the groundwork for high-speed rail along the I-5 corridor.
> 
> The project also has support from a coalition of cities, businesses, government and transit agencies, and environmental groups.
> 
> A 2018 ultrahigh-speed rail study analyzed several routes with varying numbers of stations, with the goal of condensing travel times to less than an hour between Portland and Seattle, as well as Seattle to Vancouver. Build-out costs for the line would range from $24 billion to $42 billion in 2017 dollars, with a projected annual ridership of 1.6 million to 2.5 million by 2035._
> 
> _This high-speed rail line would mimic the current Amtrak Cascades service, which in 2019 carried roughly 830,000 passengers, but make far fewer stops and run at faster speeds. These changes would drop travel times between Vancouver and Portland from more than eight hours to less than two hours._
> 
> 
> The dream of high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest may be on the horizon (yahoo.com)


How are they only projecting 3 times patronage compared to the current slow service?


----------



## BoulderGrad

JMBasquiat said:


> *The dream of high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest may be on the horizon*
> 
> _The long-awaited federal infrastructure bill set aside $66 billion for Amtrak, plus $10 billion specifically for high-speed rail. That could be what launches the Cascadia megaregion high-speed rail project into reality._
> 
> _The proposal is already backed by a range of local and federal elected leaders from Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. On Tuesday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and British Columbia Premier John Horgan reaffirmed their interest by agreeing through a formal memorandum of understanding to continue laying the groundwork for high-speed rail along the I-5 corridor.
> 
> The project also has support from a coalition of cities, businesses, government and transit agencies, and environmental groups.
> 
> A 2018 ultrahigh-speed rail study analyzed several routes with varying numbers of stations, with the goal of condensing travel times to less than an hour between Portland and Seattle, as well as Seattle to Vancouver. Build-out costs for the line would range from $24 billion to $42 billion in 2017 dollars, with a projected annual ridership of 1.6 million to 2.5 million by 2035._
> 
> _This high-speed rail line would mimic the current Amtrak Cascades service, which in 2019 carried roughly 830,000 passengers, but make far fewer stops and run at faster speeds. These changes would drop travel times between Vancouver and Portland from more than eight hours to less than two hours._
> 
> 
> The dream of high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest may be on the horizon (yahoo.com)


Same old song.

$24bil to $42bil is about what CHSR was expected to cost originally, but CHSR is projected to carry 28mil passengers/yr compared to 2.5mil for Cascades HSR. Something not adding up there. I'd venture a guess they could easily achieve the same ridership with 125mph service on existing tackage. Couldn't they do that for a lot less?


----------



## glksc

*All aboard! Brightline Orlando-Tampa train project gets show of support from Polk County*



> Polk County residents could one day hop on a high-speed train and travel to Tampa or Orlando, avoiding I-4 traffic, if a long-envisioned plan to extend a South Florida rail line comes through.
> 
> Polk leaders are hopeful it does. And as private company Florida BrightlineLLC prepares to apply for a federal grant to help fund the extension, the Polk County Commission has agreed to offer a supportive hand.
> 
> Calling it a "vital" program that could reduce congestion and accidents on I-4, the commission voted Friday to send a letter to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg endorsing funding for Brightline through the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements grant program.
> 
> Brightline began operating a rail system in South Florida in 2018 with stops in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Construction to Orlando is underway, with plans to open in 2023.


*Brightline Florida construction: Connecting Tampa to Orlando*


----------



## glksc

*First of five Brightline train sets arrived in Florida on Thursday*








> LAKE MARY, Fla. - The first of five Brightline train sets arrived in Florida on Thursday. The train passed through the Space Coast, marking significant profess in Brightline's expansion from South Florida to Orlando.
> 
> "This particular train left Sacramento over a week ago, traveled 3,000 miles cross-country towed by a freight train and its endpoint will be our West Palm Beach facility," said Katie Mitzner with Brightline.
> 
> The expansion will connect South Florida with Orlando International Airport. At 125 miles per hour, the trip will take about three hours.


----------



## aquaticko

Still have no idea why Brightline isn't electrified.


----------



## AttikoMetro

aquaticko said:


> Still have no idea why Brightline isn't electrified.


$$$


----------



## Mansa Musa

AttikoMetro said:


> $$$


elaborate?


----------



## AttikoMetro

Mansa Musa said:


> elaborate?


Electrification is costly, and wouldn't bring brightline any additional revenues.


----------



## dysharmonica

aquaticko said:


> Still have no idea why Brightline isn't electrified.


The whole thing is owned by a freight rail operator. They are not about to limit their use of the line for freight (limit height of loading gauge) for their passenger rail side project.


----------



## aquaticko

^^The freight rail operator used to be owned by the same company that owns Brightline, according to Wikipedia, at least. I can't help but think it's just another example of greed (as presumably the tracks were sold for easier, more-familiar-to-Americans freight revenue) eating its own tail. Electrification saves money in the long run, and besides, India and China both run double stacks with electric locomotives under catenary.


----------



## TER200

aquaticko said:


> Electrification saves money in the long run


Only if the trains are frequent enough to write off the cost.


----------



## kokomo

Indeed @M-NL 
I couldn't recall right away if there had been built DMUs capable of sustaining commercial speeds above 200kmh that's why I was not that specific.
I am aware that there are technical difficulties for achieving regular speeds above 200 kmh but could not guarantee there was never such a DMU built which could operate


----------



## M-NL

The British rail class 800 is designed for 225 km/h operation, but limited to 200 km/h by the signaling. Except for limited diesel power, there is no reason it couldn't do 225 km/h in diesel mode.
The Spanish Renfe S730 is limited to 180 km/h in diesel mode, probably because there is no line requiring more speed, but there is no real technical reason it couldn't go faster as well.
Technically not DMUs, but there are several high speed gas turbine trains like the TGV 001 or UAC turbotrain, that are capable of achieving 260 km/h and over.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Aren't gas turbine trains a nighmare to maintain? Maybe mordern ones aren't but I think to remember that the gast turbine German TEE trains were a nightmare in this regard. 
In any case they are dirty technology which is very visible when you look at stations where such trains depart from, especially if they feature some station halls.


----------



## M-NL

The biggest problem with gas turbines is that they are only efficient a high loads, super inefficient at any other load and don't like quick load changes. Once a train is up to speed it requires maybe just 40% or so power to keep up to speed, making gas turbines as your sole power source very inefficient. The solution would be a train with a turbine to achieve peak power and a diesel for maintaining speed. Kind of like an multiple unit version of the German DB Baureihe 210. The weight difference with the diesel only class 218 is just 2.5 ton, yet it has 50% more peak power and a 20 km/h higher top speed. The 210s were rebuilt to 218s when a number of them caught on fire.


----------



## TM_Germany

M-NL said:


> The British rail class 800 is designed for 225 km/h operation, but limited to 200 km/h by the signaling. Except for limited diesel power, there is no reason it couldn't do 225 km/h in diesel mode.
> The Spanish Renfe S730 is limited to 180 km/h in diesel mode, probably because there is no line requiring more speed, but there is no real technical reason it couldn't go faster as well.
> Technically not DMUs, but there are several high speed gas turbine trains like the TGV 001 or UAC turbotrain, that are capable of achieving 260 km/h and over.


Another DMU was the ICE-TD which had an operating speed of 200 km/h. However it was also a technical nightmare and was out of service quite a lot.


----------



## M-NL

It is very hard to do stuff right the first time, hence prototypes were used more often in the past. I bet that if they had built a second generation ICE-TD or an ICE-D most of those problems could have/would have been solved.

But when they really want to, in the end the USA has got to start somewhere. 200 km/h diesel powered trains can be a really good start. Just look at the UK, where the current BR class 800 is the successor of the really successful diesel powered HST / Intercity 125.


----------



## Stuu

M-NL said:


> The British rail class 800 is designed for 225 km/h operation, but limited to 200 km/h by the signaling. Except for limited diesel power, there is no reason it couldn't do 225 km/h in diesel mode.


It was designed for 225 km/h running on electric. They were designed for a top speed of 110 mph (177km/h) running on diesel, although they are allowed to run faster but they don't get above 120 mph unless going downhill with the wind behind them. Every segment of track with a speed limit above 110 mph is electrified but sometimes they run on diesel if there is a power supply problem or an issue changing between diesel and electric power


----------



## dyonisien

M-NL said:


> It is very hard to do stuff right the first time, hence prototypes were used more often in the past. I bet that if they had built a second generation ICE-TD or an ICE-D most of those problems could have/would have been solved.
> 
> But when they really want to, in the end the USA has got to start somewhere. 200 km/h diesel powered trains can be a really good start. Just look at the UK, where the current BR class 800 is the successor of the really successful diesel powered HST / Intercity 125.


Wishful thinking cannot circumvent some hard technical facts : the traction power for the same vehicle mass available with diesel is about half the power available with electric traction; but with diesel you _cannot_ use that nominal power continuously without running into serious maintenance problems while electric traction not only allows the continuous power to be used... just continuously but allows for much higher power to be delivered for shorter time intervals (one hour or 10 minutes), which is crucial when you have to accelerate to high speeds or when you encounter gradients.
This is equally true for locomotives (the BLS electric Re 465 delivers 7000kW for 84t, while the 20 years more recent Siemens Charger is rated at most 3300kW for 120t (the sanity of 30t axle load at 200km/h would be another discussion)) and for EMU/DMU. The only really intense and successful use of diesel with sustained 200 km/h running seems to be (have been ?) the BR IC125 trains, which consisted of two locomotives for 9 cars.
Is it by chance that everywhere in the word electric traction is preferred for 200 km/h ? [gas turbines are no more on the agenda for obvious consumption and maintenance reasons].
North America could replay the IC125 success story of half a century ago in Britain, but not much more.


----------



## M-NL

Stuu said:


> They were designed for a top speed of 110 mph (177km/h) running on diesel, although they are allowed to run faster but they don't get above 120 mph unless going downhill with the wind behind them.


So the top speed in diesel mode is power limited. Currently the axle load of BR class 800 is 15 t. For a US version you could raise that to 20..22 t. You would then have 20..28 t per car to bring the body size up to US spec, increase body strength and increase engine power, while still keeping wel away from the 30t axle load seen on many diesel locos. Even though the extra weight would in turn limit acceleration somewhat, it would still be better then a locomotive drawn train (such as the Siemens Charger/Venture combo).


dyonisien said:


> but with diesel you _cannot_ use that nominal power continuously without running into serious maintenance problems while electric traction not only allows the continuous power to be used...


That's a design thing. In Europe high speed diesels (>1200 rpm) are common, especially in DMUs. Those engines are usually not designed for running at peak power for extended periods, nor do they have to. Medium speed diesels (250..1200 rpm) are better suited for running at peak power for long periods. But the power to weight ratio of medium speed diesels is worse, keeping their use limited to (freight) locomotives. Maybe there have been medium speed DMUs in past; they probably used power cars.


dyonisien said:


> Is it by chance that everywhere in the word electric traction is preferred for 200 km/h ?


Nope. It is always the countries that don't have widespread electrification yet, that use the 'our country is to big to electrify' or the 'electrification is to expensive, diesel is just as good, so we do not need it' narrative. I never knew Russia was a small country nor that Russia, China, Sweden and South Africa all chose to electrify their heavy freight lines, because that made them more expensive to run. They are fooling themselves. Electrification is superior for any line that sees more then a few trains per day.


----------



## Ale84s

Speed record on diesel traction is 238 km/h (less than 150 mph) sets from a british IC125 during a record test run. Use of diesel traction for speed more than 125 mph in commercial usage doesn't exist in the world. The only faster self powered train are turbine propelled train, but they have much lower diffusion and much more maintainence cost and reliability issues. On high power or high speed electric traction is the best choice.


----------



## TGrave

Ale84s said:


> Speed record on diesel traction is 237 km/h (less than 150 mph)


As far as I know, in 1993 TEP80 set a record of 271 km/h. Not sure if the record was officially registered somewhere, but the fact is well known in Russia. And there is a video of that record:


----------



## Ale84s

I refer to official record, TEP 80 is only claimed...


----------



## TGrave

Ale84s said:


> I refer to official record, TEP 80 is only claimed...


I beg to differ, it is not just claimed, it is well documented - and as far as I know internationally known to the specialists. Just not registered in the Guinness book. The tests were going on for several years, the record was increased several times - i.e. in 1992 it was 262 km/h. But for some reason the testing team did not know they were setting a *World* record, hence not invited observers to register it. They had no Internet in nineties, they just were doing their work. Interesting facts linked to that record:

Since they needed a long straight track for speed tests they used a part of Moscow-St.Petersburg line (where Sapsan now travels at 250 km/h).
The path of course was cleared from other trains, but during the first test in 1992 one of the station workers did not understand what kind of a train should arrive, and did not turn the right signal on time - she was waiting the train half an hour later. So they had to do emergency braking before the red signal and the first attempt resulted in need of wheels turning instead of the record.
For the following attempt they parked an EMU on the adjacent track and almost all windows of the EMU got broken after TEP80 had passed by.
In 1992 they reached only 262 km/h because a laboratory car was coupled to the loco, and it was not ready for higher speeds (in fact its design speed was 160 km/h, so they really feared that the lab car may break to pieces). So when 271 km/h was set the next year, it was a single loco.
There were 2 versions of TEP80 designed. An "ordinary" one was designed for 160 km/h, and the "high-speed" one - for 245 km/h. So those records were not accidental.
Constructors were given awards by the President, but the project was closed due to economical reasons - those were hard times for Russia.
In fact, just yesterday I visited St. Petersburg Railway Museum where one of TEP80 is exhibited. What a coincidence...

And I agree that such speeds with diesel traction are just not economical. In fact that was one of the reasons TEP80s are in museums now - such speeds were not needed for diesels. Everywhere when you need speeds 200+, you'll have to spend much bigger money for tracks so additionally electrifying them won't be as expensive. Add the advantages of electrical engines - and that explains why practically all lines 200+ are electrified.


----------



## M-NL

TGrave said:


> I beg to differ, it is not just claimed, it is well documented - and as far as I know internationally known to the specialists. Just not registered in the Guinness book.


Just like that LNER class A4 Mallard is considered the fastest steam loco at 202,6 km/h. But was it really? To make it worse, Mallard achieved its record on a long down slope.
The German 05.002 recorded a speed of 200,4 km/h on flat track, before it had to brake for a curve. Who knows how quick it could have gone on a long down slope.
And then there is the PRR E7, which unofficially got up to 204,5 km/h.
We are talking differences of just a few km/h, measured 80 years ago with equipment of that time. Nowadays we have better equipment. If SNCF claims they did 574,8 km/h with TGV V150, they probably did so with a few 0,1 km/h of measuring tolerance. Who knows how accurate the measuring equipment was back then. 
So yes, just because it is registered in the Guinness book of records does not mean it really is the ultimate record. It's just the record that got registered.


----------



## Stuu

M-NL said:


> Just like that LNER class A4 Mallard is considered the fastest steam loco at 202,6 km/h. But was it really? To make it worse, Mallard achieved its record on a long down slope.
> The German 05.002 recorded a speed of 200,4 km/h on flat track, before it had to brake for a curve. Who knows how quick it could have gone on a long down slope.
> And then there is the PRR E7, which unofficially got up to 204,5 km/h.
> We are talking differences of just a few km/h, measured 80 years ago with equipment of that time. Nowadays we have better equipment. If SNCF claims they did 574,8 km/h with TGV V150, they probably did so with a few 0,1 km/h of measuring tolerance. Who knows how accurate the measuring equipment was back then.
> So yes, just because it is registered in the Guinness book of records does not mean it really is the ultimate record. It's just the record that got registered.


The Mallard record was achieved on a special run including a dynamometer car which could measure speed very accurately so the speed is almost certainly correct, to decimal place accuracy. 

That doesn't stop it being a pointless record as steam technology was effectively already obsolete with the existence of main line electrification and high speed diesel locomotives


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470030930282692613


----------



## Khaul

^^See to believe


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471209039174328320


----------



## GojiMet86

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471209039174328320




Literally this meme:


----------



## BoulderGrad

What is that in Stone?

i.e. Don't let the Brits fool you. They use English units just as much as Americans do. They even throw in a few weird ones to go with them... Like "Stone" (1 Stone = 14lbs)


----------



## McHrodik

Last update on the new Brightline main line, on the new Cocoa junction. It looks like an expensive project, and I can't understand why they don't remove all the grade crossings that are shown in the video. Some underpasses could hugely improve train operations in this area...


----------



## Mansa Musa

are they building a separate line/s for just passenger trains?


----------



## Barciur

I still think that the expected $100 fare Orlando - Miami with a comparable time to driving is just not going to cut it... Hopefully they run good promos


----------



## geogregor

Mansa Musa said:


> are they building a separate line/s for just passenger trains?


Only in some places, namely from Orlando to Cocoa. Further south along the coast tracks will be shared with freight, on most of the stretches. At least as far as I understand.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ But apparently in a way that does't let the passanger trains wait for freight trains. They seem to pay better than Amtrak, right?


----------



## McHrodik

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ But apparently in a way that does't let the passanger trains wait for freight trains. They seem to pay better than Amtrak, right?


Someone commented here that the freight line owner also owns part of Brightline. I don't know if that's true but, if it is, maybe here is the reason.


----------



## BoulderGrad

McHrodik said:


> Someone commented here that the freight line owner also owns part of Brightline. I don't know if that's true but, if it is, maybe here is the reason.


It's owned by Florida East Coast Industries which is a real estate and logistics company. They used to own the Florida East Coast Railway which is the freight rail line between Miami and Jacksonville, but that's now owned by a Mexican company: 









Brightline - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org









Florida East Coast Industries - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org












Florida East Coast Railway - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Short

BoulderGrad said:


> It's owned by Florida East Coast Industries which is a real estate and logistics company. They used to own the Florida East Coast Railway which is the freight rail line between Miami and Jacksonville, but that's now owned by a Mexican company:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brightline - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Florida East Coast Industries - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Florida East Coast Railway - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Access and usage rights might have been included and honoured after the sale of the Florida East Coast Railway.


----------



## kokomo

A relative of mine who lives in Miami told me that she saw yesterday on local media that the MCO-Tampa extension was finally going forward. As far as I knew, there were some discrepancies at Polk county regarding the final layout of the track on the traject from the airport to the I-4. Was that finally solved out?
I recall that the developer wanted a solution which did not satisfy neighbors, who were pushing for an expensive tunnel instead.
Have we got an agreement now?


----------



## [email protected]




----------



## JMBasquiat




----------



## JMBasquiat




----------



## paulps99

Hi guys,

Just wondering if there is dedicated threads for the future Dallas to Houston HSR? I had a good search & couldn't find any. Thanks!


----------



## prageethSL

paulps99 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Just wondering if there is dedicated threads for the future Dallas to Houston HSR? I had a good search & couldn't find any. Thanks!


Currently there is no dedicated thread for the Texas HSR, Updates regarding the Texas HSR are usually posted on this thread.


----------



## glksc

*Brightline breaks ground on station in downtown Boca Raton*








> Elected officials, tourism advocates, and executives from the passenger train service Brightline celebrated the start of construction on a future station in downtown Boca Raton on Tuesday morning.
> 
> The Boca station comes as part of an even bigger plan which includes an expansion to Orlando. That’s on track to be complete by the end of 2022 with service set to begin in early 2023.


----------



## Mansa Musa

3 million yearly passengers is disappointing but hopefully the numbers improve.


----------



## 2mchris

It would be more if the people doesn't think only in a car- and airplane-dimension.


----------



## fkus

Mansa Musa said:


> 3 million yearly passengers is disappointing but hopefully the numbers improve.


I do not agree. 3 million represents 10,000 less cars on the highway daily, and will be more when people get used to it. Besides Boca Raton, Aventura and Port of Miami will be the next stops. Orlando and Tampa will be the next extensions, and everything with private investments! That numbers will be higher every year.

The other smart thing they did: they have bus shuttle from Miami to Miami Beach and another shuttle to West Palm Beach. If want an exclusive ride, they have Teslas that you could book on the same app if your destination is less that 5 miles from the train station.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Mansa Musa said:


> 3 million yearly passengers is disappointing but hopefully the numbers improve.


That's more than every Amtrak route with the exception of the NE regional. And that's just between Miami and West Palm Beach. They're predicting 6mil once it gets to Orlando, and 8mil once it gets to Tampa. By then it will have connected 3 of the 4 major cities in Florida, and the 2 biggest tourist attractions in Florida (Orlando theme parks and the Miami cruise terminal).


----------



## curt-pdx

There is a thread For Texas HSR on the older version of this forum. That page was last updated in Oct of 21:

Texas On "Fast Track" To High Speed Rail - Page 15 - SkyscraperPage Forum



paulps99 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Just wondering if there is dedicated threads for the future Dallas to Houston HSR? I had a good search & couldn't find any. Thanks!


----------



## Stuu

The UK has a few level crossings on lines with 125mph/200km/h speed limits. They are all monitored and have to be proven clear before the signals are changed for the train. This makes it a long time between the gates going down and the train showing up. Normal automatic crossings are not permitted above 160 km/h


----------



## robbo2k

In Poland, the reconstruction of the Warsaw - Gdańsk railway line from 1877 was completed, all railroad crossings on the route were liquidated and ETCS and 200 km / h were introduced
Full Cabview during the construction of some viaducts and ride with 160kmh


----------



## M-NL

Stuu said:


> The UK has a few level crossings on lines with 125mph/200km/h speed limits. They are all monitored and have to be proven clear before the signals are changed for the train. This makes it a long time between the gates going down and the train showing up. Normal automatic crossings are not permitted above 160 km/h


This distinction seems pure arbitrary. Does it really make sense? A train hitting an obstruction at a level crossing at pretty much any significant speed results in carnage. If, at any line speed, proving a crossing clear before clearing the signals is not an option, that crossing shouldn't be there. But unfortunately most of those crossings exist because they have been there since long before those higher line speeds were even dreamt of.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Interesting notes on rules from around the world. Appreciate the info.


M-NL said:


> This distinction seems pure arbitrary. Does it really make sense? A train hitting an obstruction at a level crossing at pretty much any significant speed results in carnage. If, at any line speed, proving a crossing clear before clearing the signals is not an option, that crossing shouldn't be there. But unfortunately most of those crossings exist because they have been there since long before those higher line speeds were even dreamt of.


Which is what I was trying to get at. Brightline is using existing right of way in the Miami burbs, then is on new track north of West Palm Beach (where it will be 125mph service). It's unfortunate that they're there, but doesn't mean they should've just abandoned using the track because it has grade crossings. Trains deal with it when they're there.


----------



## Riley1066

BoulderGrad said:


> Interesting notes on rules from around the world. Appreciate the info.
> 
> 
> Which is what I was trying to get at. Brightline is using existing right of way in the Miami burbs, then is on new track north of West Palm Beach (where it will be 125mph service). It's unfortunate that they're there, but doesn't mean they should've just abandoned using the track because it has grade crossings. Trains deal with it when they're there.


Actually Brightline should close and be absorbed by Amtrak to remedy the corruption that caused its creation in the first place.


----------



## JMBasquiat




----------



## Khaul

Riley1066 said:


> Actually Brightline should close and be absorbed by Amtrak to remedy the corruption that caused its creation in the first place.


Could you elaborate on that? The Wikipedia article says Brightline did not get the Federal Government subsidy and is instead funded by private investors. 

Further, how is the California-Nevada project supposed to be funded?


----------



## tytusdezoo

First Brightline train in Orlando Vehicle Maintenance Facility


----------



## Riley1066

Khaul said:


> Could you elaborate on that? The Wikipedia article says Brightline did not get the Federal Government subsidy and is instead funded by private investors.
> 
> Further, how is the California-Nevada project supposed to be funded?


The Obama Administration set aside funding for Amtrak to dramatically upgrade its routes in Florida ... but the Republican Governor at the time Rick Scott turned down the funding and so Amtrak couldn't expand and improve its Orlando to Miami routes ...

Then after Scott left office, one of the first things he did was invest in the company that would eventually become Brightline.

That is corruption plain and simple. Brightline was born from corruption and should be given to Amtrak as compensation for that corruption.

The Las Vegas route should be run by Amtrak as well.


----------



## Khaul

Riley1066 said:


> The Obama Administration set aside funding for Amtrak to dramatically upgrade its routes in Florida ... but the Republican Governor at the time Rick Scott turned down the funding and so Amtrak couldn't expand and improve its Orlando to Miami routes ...
> 
> Then after Scott left office, one of the first things he did was invest in the company that would eventually become Brightline.
> 
> That is corruption plain and simple. Brightline was born from corruption and should be given to Amtrak as compensation for that corruption.
> 
> The Las Vegas route should be run by Amtrak as well.


Did Brightline get public money at all? That would be something to start talking about.


----------



## Stuu

Riley1066 said:


> The Obama Administration set aside funding for Amtrak to dramatically upgrade its routes in Florida ... but the Republican Governor at the time Rick Scott turned down the funding and so Amtrak couldn't expand and improve its Orlando to Miami routes ...
> 
> Then after Scott left office, one of the first things he did was invest in the company that would eventually become Brightline.
> 
> That is corruption plain and simple. Brightline was born from corruption and should be given to Amtrak as compensation for that corruption.
> 
> The Las Vegas route should be run by Amtrak as well.


If he invested his own money, how is that corrupt? Perhaps he was really in favour of it but because of the idiotic politics in the US he felt he had to turn down the money from the democrats?

He can't have invested public money if he was no longer in office


----------



## AlbertJP

What is meant is that he has used his political power to make his own investments more profitable. Even if you don't call it corruption, I would consider it questionable behaviour nonetheless (though it appears to be pretty common in US politics.)


----------



## fkus

tytusdezoo said:


> First Brightline train in Orlando Vehicle Maintenance Facility


The first train that will make the trip to Miami from Orlando came from Sacramento. It is amazing that Orlando-Miami will be ready next year.


----------



## K_

Riley1066 said:


> That is corruption plain and simple. Brightline was born from corruption and should be given to Amtrak as compensation for that corruption.
> 
> The Las Vegas route should be run by Amtrak as well.


Amtrak isn't exactly a good example of how to efficiently run a railroad however. By being not part of Amtrak Brightline could maybe avoid some of the issues the plague Amtrak. (Overstaffing of its trains for example).
But I wonder if Brightline managed that. How much staff does a Brightline train normally have on board?


----------



## K_

BoulderGrad said:


> As for Brightline, firstly it's 4 coaches per train. Secondly, it's meant to be an inter-city express. Not a commuter line. It's not meant to shuttle people from Miami to it's suburbs, It's mean to take people from Miami or it's bigger exurbs to Orlando or Tampa or Disney world.


There is no reason why there couldn't be a local service along the same tracks though. That is how it is done pretty much everywhere else.


----------



## Stuu

AlbertJP said:


> What is meant is that he has used his political power to make his own investments more profitable. Even if you don't call it corruption, I would consider it questionable behaviour nonetheless (though it appears to be pretty common in US politics.)


On checking into this, the whole story is not true. He invested in a company which is owned by the investment company as Brightline, not in Brightline. Seems to be a bit of conspiracy theory


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## prageethSL

*Brightline Completes Construction Work On First Orlando Zone, Finalizes Tampa Negotiations*
*























*
Brightline’s Miami to Orlando train service is one step closer to completion, while service to Tampa is also moving forward.

The company announced last week that it has completed construction of one of four zones needed to start service between Miami and Orlando.Brightline also told investors last week that it has now completed negotiations with the Florida Department of Transportation for right-of-way access to build an extension to Tampa, and expects to execute a final agreement with the agency in early 2022.

Brightline has divided the construction project that will connect Miami to Orlando into four zones.

Zone 2, which reached completion in October (but was only announced as complete last week), is just 3.5 miles leading into Orlando International Airport, but said to be one of the most complex and challenging areas for construction in the entire project.The company is also now finishing the buildout of a station and maintenance facility at Orlando’s airport.Overall, the Miami to Orlando line remains on track for construction completion in late 2022, with the first paying passengers able to board trains between Miami and Orlando in early 2023 following testing.

Testing is already underway with trains now running daily to Cocoa, which is about 40 miles from the Orlando Airport. Trains will run at *110 mph (177 kmh)* in that segment.

The remaining 40 mile-stretch between Cocoa and Orlando Airport will see trains run at *125 mph (201 kmh)*, but is still under construction and not in testing yet.


----------



## glksc




----------



## glksc

*Businesses want to bring Brightline to I-Drive*



> STATEWIDE — Brightline is close to inking a deal to bring high-speed rail to Disney and Tampa from Orlando International Airport. But the project is leaving some feeling left out.
> 
> Businesses along International Drive, including Universal Orlando and SeaWorld Orlando, are urging Brightline to change its proposed route.
> 
> “People coming from Tampa, they want to go a little further than Disney and the airport,” said John Stine, the Slingshot Group director of Sales and Marketing and an executive board member of the I-Drive Chamber of Commerce.
> 
> Right now, Brightline is considering building a track along State Road 417 to connect its Orlando International Airport station to Disney Springs, and then follow Interstate 4 down to Tampa.
> 
> “It misses Central Florida altogether,” said Stine, who adds the State Road 417 route would disrupt communities in Hunters Creek and nearby wetlands.





> If Brightline were to locate a stop near the convention center, I-Drive business leaders say it would open the door to connecting I-Drive to other rail services, like SunRail.
> 
> “The future of the transit options within I-Drive could include light rail, it could include bus rapid transit, it could include some other form of transit within that area, so we’re exploring all of that,” said Demings, who told Spectrum News that he is likely to put an infrastructure sales tax initiative back on the ballot at some point to address mobility issues along I-Drive and the rest of the county.


----------



## Riley1066




----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1519432923199393792


----------



## glksc

*Brightline is banking on millions of Central Florida residents ditching cars for train travel*






*ANOTHER TRAIN COMING TO DISNEY! - Brightline/SunRail Spring 2022 Update*


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## glksc

*Breaking: Universal Orlando pledges land, investment in SunRail/Brightline corrido**r*








> The price tag is roughly $1 billion for the tracks and station, but a full design has not been done yet.
> 
> Universal Orlando Resort has pledged to donate 13 acres and money for an Orange County Convention Center-area train station that would be used by SunRail and Brightline.
> 
> Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer presented the update as part of a workshop after the May 5 Central Florida Commuter Rail Commission meeting.
> 
> A new presentation on the proposed SunRail/Brightline shared corridor revealed how Universal and other business stakeholders would support the efforts to build out a connection to the International Drive area.
> 
> That proposal — which included input from the city of Orlando, Orange County, Universal and other stakeholders — would allow commuter rail system SunRail to operate daily and share a corridor with Brightline in the International Drive area along State Road 528.
> 
> SunRail could connect with Orlando International Airport, the Orange County Convention Center and Walt Disney World, while Brightline would lease the route and connect to Tampa. Universal stands to benefit due to its upcoming Epic Universe theme park that would be in proximity to the station.
> 
> Universal would donate the land and support the creation of a dedicated public entity to help the development and operation of the Sunshine Corridor Plan. Universal and other I-Drive partners would support the dedicated entity’s financing of up to $125 million in private activity bonds to be used to fund the rail corridor and the convention center station.


----------



## glksc

*Brightline’s Miami To Orlando Rail Line Now Over 75% Complete*








> Brightline’s Miami To Orlando rail project just passed another construction milestone, the company told investors last week.
> 
> According to the investor brief, construction crews have now completed 75% of the work on the route.
> 
> The $2.8B project remains on schedule for substantial completion in late 2022, and is also within budget.
> 
> During the month of March there were approximately 1,149 construction workers actively engaged in the buildout of the new route.
> 
> The first paying customers are expected to be able to board trains between Miami and Orlando in early 2023.


----------



## Riley1066

Still don't think Brightline qualifies as "High Speed" even in the US.


----------



## Kielbus

Riley1066 said:


> Still don't think Brightline qualifies as "High Speed" even in the US.


----------



## JMBasquiat




----------



## cuartango

^^ It looks really nice!


----------



## Kielbus

Governor, legislators won’t budge in California high-speed rail dispute - The San Francisco Examiner


Fued over bullet train involves funding, efficiency and control



www.sfexaminer.com


----------



## fkus

Kielbus said:


> Governor, legislators won’t budge in California high-speed rail dispute - The San Francisco Examiner
> 
> 
> Fued over bullet train involves funding, efficiency and control
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfexaminer.com


“The idea that you would spend all your money on a train that doesn’t connect to anything and just hope that you’re going to get more money, I find a really frightening business proposition,” said Friedman.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527290777491099648


----------



## prageethSL




----------



## dysharmonica

fkus said:


> “The idea that you would spend all your money on a train that doesn’t connect to anything and just hope that you’re going to get more money, I find a really frightening business proposition,” said Friedman.


While there is truth to this, there is also truth to the fact neither LA/SD nor SF/SAC areas are willing to spend in the central valley before they get a piece of the pie. No one would have voted for CAHSR if it were connecting SF to SAC and LA to SD ... it's the SF to LA connection that is the prize. CAHSR did things poorly in many ways, but learning how to built HSR in the US in a flat rural zone was not its worst decision.


----------



## glksc




----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529111934041264129


----------



## merrycorsten

Looks like vivid-town, it's a luxury time to be sending out real rail-trains. Might to assume it is an special occasion you're doing while driving?


----------



## Miguel UltraNB05




----------



## Kielbus

China’s High-Speed Trains. America, Where are You?


Introduction China has the world’s longest high-speed rail (HSR) network with some 38,000 kilometers in operation, which comprises nearly 70% of all the world’s high-speed lines and more than three times that of the entire European Union. China has more than 2,500 high-speed trains in operation...



www.unz.com


----------



## dysharmonica

Kielbus said:


> China’s High-Speed Trains. America, Where are You?
> 
> 
> Introduction China has the world’s longest high-speed rail (HSR) network with some 38,000 kilometers in operation, which comprises nearly 70% of all the world’s high-speed lines and more than three times that of the entire European Union. China has more than 2,500 high-speed trains in operation...
> 
> 
> 
> www.unz.com


Oh not this s%*!t again. It's easy to build crazy infrastructure when you take it as a public employment and economy boosting project, When you are a dictatorship that prints money, bulldozes houses and makes people disappear. US has problems, but no democracy will match China because we chose to give the government less power to just take what they want for what they want. We hold them to higher standard and it slows things down. 

Enough with this stupid Chinese propaganda. It was interesting for a while, now it's just cheap lazy clickbait.


----------



## glksc

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524781685040205835

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1490007287481602049


----------



## Fan Railer

As of May 28th, a section of track between Hamilton and Jersey Avenue in New Jersey has been upgraded from 135 mph operations to 145-150 mph operations. It has been a long time coming, as the construction work to install constant tension catenary in NJ started over a decade ago, and is still incomplete. It is unknown to me how much longer the project will take, but the remaining section to be done lies between Princeton Junction and Trenton. For now, enjoy the 150 mph Acelas at Princeton.


----------



## aquaticko

Over a decade just to upgrade catenary....


----------



## jonasry

dysharmonica said:


> Oh not this s%*!t again. It's easy to build crazy infrastructure when you take it as a public employment and economy boosting project, When you are a dictatorship that prints money, bulldozes houses and makes people disappear. US has problems, but no democracy will match China because we chose to give the government less power to just take what they want for what they want. We hold them to higher standard and it slows things down.
> 
> Enough with this stupid Chinese propaganda. It was interesting for a while, now it's just cheap lazy clickbait.


Please, this is a ridiculous comment with little to no basis in reality. The US uses infrastructure projects to boost employment and economy too, that's why there are massive overbuilt highways all across the country. Equally, eminent domain is commonly used to "bulldoze" houses in the US too. There are of course differences, mainly that there's political will and better know-how on high-speed rail in China compared to the US. What's desperately needed is to bring in know-how from abroad into the process.

Apart from a few corridors it would be much wiser for the US to go for higher-speed rail (i.e 110 mph/180 km/h) along existing routes. However this requires political will to rein in the large railway companies and force them to share corridors.

P.S: Guess I have to add that there certainly are human rights issues in China regarding infrastructure projects. But that's not what have made them successful in building high-speed rail. Perhaps there should be more comparisons with Spain or France.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Fan Railer said:


> As of May 28th, a section of track between Hamilton and Jersey Avenue in New Jersey has been upgraded from 135 mph operations to 145-150 mph operations. It has been a long time coming, as the construction work to install constant tension catenary in NJ started over a decade ago, and is still incomplete. It is unknown to me how much longer the project will take, but the remaining section to be done lies between Princeton Junction and Trenton. For now, enjoy the 150 mph Acelas at Princeton.


A good summary of speed along the NEC (pre the mentioned upgrades): Real Transit

Which section is this post referring to? I imagine a few of these valleys will be helped by various projects mentioned in this thread. I'm aware of proposals for the Baltimore B&P tunnel, Portal Bridge, and the replacement of the Hudson tunnel.


----------



## glksc

*Broward Sheriff's Office, Brightline, partner up in new operation aimed at lowering track incidents*








> CBS4's Ashley Dyer reports on the Broward Sheriff's Office partnering with Brightlne in a new operation aimed at lowering the number of vehicle and pedestrian incidents on the tracks.


----------



## prageethSL

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534135160014258176


----------



## Kielbus




----------



## JMBasquiat

^^

Wait, is this guy seriously claiming that the cost of the California High Speed Rail system is 1/5th the cost of the entire US Interstate system? Does he seriously think that the entire Interstate highway system only cost $500b to build? That may have been the cost back in 1965 but the Interstate system keeps growing and expanding all the time so it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the total cost of the system is only $500b.


----------



## dysharmonica

JMBasquiat said:


> ^^
> 
> Wait, is this guy seriously claiming that the cost of the California High Speed Rail system is 1/5th the cost of the entire US Interstate system? Does he seriously think that the entire Interstate highway system cost only $500b to build? That may be the cost of the system back in 1965 but the Interstate system keeps growing and expanding all the time so it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the total cost of the system is only $500b.


And this is a reupload of a much stupider take he had 2 weeks ago for which he got rightfully chewed up.


----------



## Mansa Musa

JMBasquiat said:


> ^^
> 
> Wait, is this guy seriously claiming that the cost of the California High Speed Rail system is 1/5th the cost of the entire US Interstate system? Does he seriously think that the entire Interstate highway system cost only $500b to build? That may be the cost of the system back in 1965 but the Interstate system keeps growing and expanding all the time so it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the total cost of the system is only $500b.


doesn't factor in the yearly maintenance that costs them 100+ B a year


----------



## [atomic]




----------



## Miguel UltraNB05




----------



## wgerman

Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar announces departure


Aguilar departs as the proposed high-speed rail project has faced delays and awaits a Supreme Court decision regarding its ability to acquire land




communityimpact.com





The Texas Central project looks dead. Maybe Brightline will step in.


----------



## Sunfuns

People here were too optimistic about this project simply because it didn't involve public money. It's doesn't really matter - they'll sue you to death anyway. There is always a reason.


----------



## Riley1066

wgerman said:


> Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar announces departure
> 
> 
> Aguilar departs as the proposed high-speed rail project has faced delays and awaits a Supreme Court decision regarding its ability to acquire land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> communityimpact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Texas Central project looks dead. Maybe Brightline will step in.


Or we could expand Amtrak.


----------



## davide84

Isn't this project somehow supposed to "interact" with CAHSR in a far future? Then maybe it could be a good moment to re-evaluate the technology and make it compatible...


----------



## prageethSL

Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar announces departure


Aguilar departs as the proposed high-speed rail project has faced delays and awaits a Supreme Court decision regarding its ability to acquire land




communityimpact.com





Time for Brightline to steps in.


----------



## lunarwhite

davide84 said:


> Isn't this project somehow supposed to "interact" with CAHSR in a far future? Then maybe it could be a good moment to re-evaluate the technology and make it compatible...


You are thinking about Brightline's Las Vegas-LA Basin line which will interchange with CAHSR and may or may not use CAHSR trackage to reach LA Union Station.

The closest part of CAHSR is over 2000 km from Dallas. There will be no interaction between Texas Central and CAHSR in this geologic eon.


----------

