BeeR Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Not exactly his biggest fan but credit to Obama for trying to get this going: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/29/america-track/ I've wondered for many years why this hasn't been jump-started (outside of the obvious of cutting into the auto/oil business thing). Saves not just oil but room on the highways, also once you get people past the cultural thing I think many would really warm up to it because it's easier - don't have to stop for gas or worry you're going the right way etc - and oh btw quicker than driving yourself too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Part of the problem is that our national commuter rail system is a complete mess. Just building new high speed rail systems won't solve the underlying issues of piss poor management. Amtrak may be the single biggest monument to government inefficiency but many of the local rail systems aren't doing much better. Until someone can figure out a way to actually run these systems and get the trains on time and on target, then there will always be some sort of stigma attached to travel by rail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I like the idea, but I wonder how long it will be before a terrorist derails a train--it probably wouldn't be all that hard to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) Being able to build such trains sets is not the issue so much as is having the appropriate track / infrastructure in place to actually run the high-speed trains at high speed. Perhaps not as big a problem in parts of the midwest, plains states, far west, etc provided we are willing to make such a massive investment - but in heavily populated "urban" areas such as the NE Corridor between Boston>NY>Philly>DC for example, I'd expect this would be a very large issue. High speed trains overseas (such as TGV) are a success because they run on dedicated track, reserved ONLY for high speed traffic (once out of the city) & "normal" trains run on their own track ... the main reason we have never had success with high speed trains in the NE Corridor (despite numerous aborted attempts, dating back to pre-Amtrak days) is the inability to build the needed dedicated track ... as an example, I read somewhere that the "high speed" Amtrak Acela averages something like 47 mph between New Haven, CT and NYC (a trip of maybe 75-90 minutes) due to the tight clearances of the track it runs on thru that heavily built up area, and because the Acela has to share that track with other "standard" train traffic. Promoting high speed trains in the USA is a fine idea, but there are a lot of technical barriers to deal with beyond just having the technology to build the actual train. Edited January 30, 2010 by ts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Part of the problem is that our national commuter rail system is a complete mess. Just building new high speed rail systems won't solve the underlying issues of piss poor management. Amtrak may be the single biggest monument to government inefficiency but many of the local rail systems aren't doing much better. Until someone can figure out a way to actually run these systems and get the trains on time and on target, then there will always be some sort of stigma attached to travel by rail. I take trains all the time in Chicago. They are rarely late, and in fact they are very efficient. I also had good experiences with the Metra trains in Washington DC. They just cant be self sufficent finanically. Until that hurdle is jumped, then I just dont see a very rosy future . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I like the idea, but I wonder how long it will be before a terrorist derails a train--it probably wouldn't be all that hard to do. They cant do that now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I take trains all the time in Chicago. They are rarely late, and in fact they are very efficient. I also had good experiences with the Metra trains in Washington DC. They just cant be self sufficent finanically. Until that hurdle is jumped, then I just dont see a very rosy future . . Metro in the DC area is a black hole financially, in fact they just announced a "temporary" ifare increase to cover a $40 million budget shortfall. They just had a hugh wreck causing the death of 9 passengers due to a faulty switch and had two other track workers die in an unrelated incident. While for the most part the trains are on time, you constantly hear about single tracking and delays due to one or another problem being found. That being said, it is still my preferred method of traveling into the city. That being said, high speed rail is not deigned for travel within a city, but travel between cities. And TS brings up a very good point about there not being any room for dedicated high speed rail in the NE corridor without exercising eminent domain and building things up completely from scratch. I just don't see that happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I was reading an article onthis the other day, there are a few issues with the concept. 1. 8 billion dollars (I think that wqas the number) is a drop in the bucket for what it will cost to integrate these high speed trains. An industry analyst stated, as has been acknowledged by the administration, that veru few routes would be able to be buitl with this small budget. 2. This effort will really not stimulate the US economy. The companies who manufacture this technology are all foreign companies with no base of operations in the US. Further, we do not have the engineers (design people) that can do the design of these systems in the US. Further, the contracting companies that install these systems are not based here in the US. Maybe some laborers will be drawn from the US during construction, but the overall economic impact for US industry and workers is negligible at best. Is the concept of high speed rail a good one, I guess, but I seriously doubt that I would use it. Airfare is historically as cheap on long runs and in my short distance travels I'd rather be in my car, not packed on to some train with a bunch of people. THe latter comment is another hurdle that I feel this type of system would have to overcome... there is no longer a cultural inclination for people to travel via train. It will be hard to get people out of their cars. In concert with this, I definitely see profitability w/o government assistance being a HUGE issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted January 30, 2010 Author Share Posted January 30, 2010 I guess I saw this as not just faster trains on existing tracks but a totally new system, or new types of "trains" at least, ie more metro/monorail-ish. I know it's all one hell of a lot easier said than done but as the population continues to go up, sooner or later this will simply H AVE to be done. PS I don't get why it's so hard to make these things run on time either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I like the idea, but I wonder how long it will be before a terrorist derails a train--it probably wouldn't be all that hard to do. thought of that too, doesnt take much to upset a 200mph train. they havent tried it in europe yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 2. This effort will really not stimulate the US economy. The companies who manufacture this technology are all foreign companies with no base of operations in the US. Further, we do not have the engineers (design people) that can do the design of these systems in the US. Further, the contracting companies that install these systems are not based here in the US. Maybe some laborers will be drawn from the US during construction, but the overall economic impact for US industry and workers is negligible at best. How do we "not have the design engineers?" Is it to design the trackage, or the physical trains themselves? These are NOT mag-lev trains, right? I thought they were very similar to trains we have now, just faster . . i have never been on a European train, are they completely different than traditional trains? Do they have a different style of propulsion? I would think with the enterprising US companies, that we would be able to create NEW industries and create jobs to both design and produce these domestically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 the main problem is track layout. there are so many rr xings that would need to be completely changed to overpasses or underpasses. u dont want crossings on a 200mph track. plus the tracks would need to be updated as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 the main problem is track layout. there are so many rr xings that would need to be completely changed to overpasses or underpasses. u dont want crossings on a 200mph track. plus the tracks would need to be updated as well. That is why 110mph is the maximum used in most proposal. Higher speeds require major track modifications, plus no at grade crossings would be permitted at higher speeds. (except for exceptional circumstances for 125mpf max only) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) That is why 110mph is the maximum used in most proposal. Higher speeds require major track modifications, plus no at grade crossings would be permitted at higher speeds. (except for exceptional circumstances for 125mpf max only) This and more - it's not just grade crossings & upgrading track ... again using Acela as an example, to prepare for the introduction of Acela service between Boston & NYC several years ago, Amtrak spent millions extending the overhead electric catenary from New Haven to Boston (it ran from NYC only to New Haven since it was first built by the New Haven RR in something like 1914) but also in rebuilding a fair number of local / small stations so that these stations would have elevated platforms, overhead walkways to get from a platform next to the eastbound track to access the platform on the westbound track & other similar safety improvements needed to ensure that passengers awaiting the arrival of local trains would not have the ability to wander near the track where the "high speed" Acela would be blazing by at ~47 mph. The difficulty is not so much in creating the actual high speed train, it's about creating the infrastructure needed to permit that train to actually run at high speed. ----- Edit - I just had to look this up: - Amtrak Acela Express, Boston to NYC ... scheduled travel time: 3 hours, 35 minutes - NHRR Merchants Limited Express, Boston to NYC ... scheduled travel time: 4 hours, 00 minutes The Acela timetable I checked was current for today. The New Haven RR schedule I found for the Merchants Limited was from the March 1949 timetable. ----- Edit - One additional comment on this topic, as it perhaps underscores the cost / difficulties surrounding just a few of the infrastructure upgrades required to merely enhance the existing high speed rail service being offered by Amtrak Acela in the NE Corridor today ... link below to an article from the web site of the Regional Plan Association (RPA) which is an independent, not-for-profit regional planning organization, founded in 1922, that focuses on recommendations to improve the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the 31-county New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region: http://www.rpa.org/2009/12/spotlight-vol-8...speed-rail.html ... and again, the article only discusses some of the infrastructure upgrades needed to support true high speed rail capability in the northeast ... apparently the electrification work done just a few years ago was only part of the proposed / necessary preparation, we still have a ways to go & more upgrades to complete. Edited January 31, 2010 by ts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 just make that chicago-detroit trip a little better, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Ahnold wants to create a "super-fast" train line from San Diego through L.A. to San Francisco. That would be one cool ride up the west coast!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Ahnold wants to create a "super-fast" train line from San Diego through L.A. to San Francisco. That would be one cool ride up the west coast!! u guys need to balance your check book first!!! oh wait, so do we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/th...-face-to-f.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/th...-face-to-f.html Great read . . I go to Union Station at least once a month on the train and still get lost . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 This and more - it's not just grade crossings & upgrading track ... again using Acela as an example, to prepare for the introduction of Acela service between Boston & NYC several years ago, Amtrak spent millions extending the overhead electric catenary from New Haven to Boston (it ran from NYC only to New Haven since it was first built by the New Haven RR in something like 1914) but also in rebuilding a fair number of local / small stations so that these stations would have elevated platforms, overhead walkways to get from a platform next to the eastbound track to access the platform on the westbound track & other similar safety improvements needed to ensure that passengers awaiting the arrival of local trains would not have the ability to wander near the track where the "high speed" Acela would be blazing by at ~47 mph. The difficulty is not so much in creating the actual high speed train, it's about creating the infrastructure needed to permit that train to actually run at high speed. I just had to look this up: - Amtrak Acela Express, Boston to NYC ... scheduled travel time: 3 hours, 35 minutes - NHRR Merchants Limited Express, Boston to NYC ... scheduled travel time: 4 hours, 00 minutes The Acela timetable I checked was current for today. The New Haven RR schedule I found for the Merchants Limited was from the March 1949 timetable. Great posts ts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.