|
|
| Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail (1152934) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 00:36:18 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:09:50 2012. 130mph might be doable on an upgraded ROW as a maximum speed, but there is no way in hell you're going to be averaging that speed if that's all your ROW is good for. Hell, California is planning on operating at 220mph, with 125mph on the blended portions into SF and LA, and they're only planning on achieving 150mph on average between those two cities. If you want to top out at 130mph then you'll be lucky to top 100mph on an superexpress on a dedicated ROW. If you want to serve a bunch of marginal intermediate points and use a line with freight traffic on it, then it'd be unlikely to do any better than the NEC's 71mph average.Upgrade the ROWs to accommodate the faster passenger trains (add more tracks, grade separate, straight out the curves or build a bypass if needed, better signal system, etc) Each of those elements entails a multibillion dollar investment over the hundreds of miles of track you're discussing. And incidentally, you effectively have them in reverse order in terms of their necessity for high speed operations. How is HSR more comfortable than a regional train? Because it isn't stopping every time some NS, UP, or CSX yokel pulls his train apart and blocks the level junction ahead of your 'Really Fast' train. So tell me why blowing billions more on 220MPH trains is necessary. Because it's the only way to get an average speed over 100mph without wishful thinking. |
|
|
|