|
|
| High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail (1152895) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
|
| (1152897) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Apr 24 18:52:24 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. I disagree. For one, most of the existing rail ROWs in this country are freight, so I don't think they're particularly useful for HSR. The NEC is different because it is owned by Amtrak or commuter roads.My philosophy is either do something that is REALLY ambitious; like say, building an underground Mag-Lev system with evacuated tunnels; or building something that fits into a greater system. Lower speed regional rail can't compete with planes on travel time, and aren't going to be terribly more convenient than a bus for the short haul routes. True HSR is a much more comfortable/enjoyable alternative to medium range flights: which is exactly why its so successful in Europe and Japan, where large cities are within that 'medium range' window. |
|
|
| (1152899) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Tue Apr 24 18:54:34 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. Could it be really fast and offer decent service between small city stations? The NEC has about 100 regional rail stations. Acela would be pretty slow if it made all those stops. It would be hard to design a schedule that wouldn't require changing trains more than once to get from one small city to another. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1152901) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Tue Apr 24 19:02:41 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. Do both. There are sections where a new line makes sense, then it connects to an existing area in whatever town. Maybe have tie ins and a new row and interconnect them.Maybe do 4 tracks. Local and express. I'm tired of these pathetic little 2 or single track lines too, like these trams and new commuter lines where they can't even go express to be useful. Can't do it because of regulations? I heard we're underregulated. Maybe that's the problem. I don't see why it's an all or nothing proposition. |
|
|
| (1152903) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Apr 24 19:13:31 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. Eh? |
|
|
| (1152904) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Apr 24 19:30:30 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. We were trying that in New York State, with trying to get a third track from Schenectady to Buffalo. But CSX is giving a hard time about it, and are refusing to allow speeds higher than 90MPH on their ROW.I'm curious if they've made any progress with that. |
|
|
| (1152911) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:09:50 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by J trainloco on Tue Apr 24 18:52:24 2012. So what if they're for freight? 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). This is ambitious in the sense it will connect more of America than HSR ever would.From Chicago to Toledo via the existing line is roughly 260 miles: -At an average speed of 130MPH, that's 2 hours -Fastest Greyhound is 4hrs 40mins -Flight is 50 mins (add 1.5 hours for getting from downtown to the airport, check in, and getting from the airport to downtown comes out to 2hrs 20mins) From Chicago to Cincinnati via Indy on the existing line is roughly 325 miles -At an average speed of 130MPH, that's 2.5 hours -Fastest Greyhound is 6hrs 30mins -Flight is 1hr 5mins (add 1.5 hours for getting from downtown to the airport, check in, and getting from the airport to downtown comes out to 2hrs 35mins) Chicago-St Louis via Champaign and Springfield on the existing ROWs is rougly 350 miles. -At an average speed of 130MPH, that's roughly 2 hours and 40 minutes -Fastest Greyhound is 5hrs 10mins -Flight is 1hr 5 mins (add 1.5 hours for getting from downtown to the airport, check in, and getting from the airport to downtown comes out to 2 hrs and 35 mins) Average of 130MPH is probably doable on existing ROWs with the necessary upgrades and as I just showed beats the plane on travel time and blows the bus way out the water. How is HSR more comfortable than a regional train? So tell me why blowing billions more on 220MPH trains is necessary. |
|
|
| (1152912) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:17:55 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by merrick1 on Tue Apr 24 18:54:34 2012. I'm not saying to stop in every podunk town along the way. Like the NEC, you could have varying levels of service. Chicago to Cleveland could be an express making Chicago-Gary-South Bend-Toledo-Cleveland and a local making additional stops. Chicago-Cinci would be Chicago-Gary-Lafayette-Indy-Cinci or something similar. It could definitely hit speeds fast enough to make it faster than flying while serving those stops without blowing the billions of dollars on all new ROW. If any additional stops were ever warranted a more local train could run the same line. |
|
|
| (1152914) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:19:37 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by orange blossom special on Tue Apr 24 19:02:41 2012. That's more or less what I'm getting at. For a vast majority of the proposed HSR networks, the existing ROWs are great for upgrading to higher speeds. New ROWs would be fine in sections where existing ROWs can not be upgraded for whatever reasons |
|
|
| (1152915) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:20:10 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Apr 24 19:30:30 2012. What's the reasons CSX is giving? |
|
|
| (1152933) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 00:27:02 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. It seems to me that when it comes to intercity rail in this country, we are trying to run before we can walk,Why? Pursuing an extensive regional rail system will only be a money sink which ensures we drown in operating deficits before ever getting a chance to build a true high speed rail line that would stand to turn a profit. If you want utility at the local level then do so in a manner that reflects their sprawling, suburban character and build park and ride stations for local trains to service. Rental car franchises at those stations can expand the catchment area to encompass the whole suburban area. What is to say that somewhere like South Bend would be bypassed by a high speed rail line between Chicago and NYC? They can always operate local trains, and South Bend would be a logical point to transfer to the South Shore. It's exactly how the NEC is and it works pretty well. Except the NEC doesn't work. A 71mph average speed is *not* high speed rail in any respect. At best it is exactly what you're asking for, and the failure of the NEC to shut out parallel airline traffic points to how much of a failure this model is. So many of the city pairs on these HSR plans have existing ROWs between them that are arrow straight for huge sections. ...and Freight trains. Which aren't going anywhere. The freight railroads want nothing to do with trying to run around fast passenger trains. Finally, nobody is stupid enough to buy FRA Tier II junk. The cost to build a ROW to support 150mph operation is around 80% the cost for a 220mph ROW, but the higher speed will enable lower travel times which will have a disproportionate impact on the market share the line garners. For a small increase in capital cost you get an quantum leap in performance and utility while avoiding the multiton pieces of crap the FRA requires. |
|
|
| (1152934) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1152936) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by irt1958 on Wed Apr 25 00:41:18 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. Excellent for spacecraft. |
|
|
| (1152937) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 01:12:46 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 00:36:18 2012. So grade eliminate the junctions. What are the MAS's on the NEC from Boston to DC? It's no where near as straight as many of the ROWs in the midwest, and I'd love to see what MAS those ROWs can be upgraded to. I honestly don't see any reason why a high speed train can't operate on those ROWs. |
|
|
| (1152938) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 01:19:46 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 00:27:02 2012. Why would a regional service lose money while an HSR service makes money? If the regional service is still faster than flying between the two end points, then why not add on the benefit of serving the medium sized cities in between? |
|
|
| (1152939) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 01:23:04 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 00:36:18 2012. The other thing you are forgetting, NEC is already faster than flying for most of the city pairs on the line. So why do we need anything faster? |
|
|
| (1152941) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 01:55:59 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Apr 24 19:13:31 2012. Example: Upgrade the tracks that the Lincoln Service operates on to allow the maximum speed that can be gotten out of that ROW and run express service making only Chicago-Joliet-Bloomington-Springfield-St Louis. I wonder what is the fastest that train can be made. |
|
|
| (1152942) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 02:00:40 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 01:12:46 2012. Okay, I'm wrong about the NEC ROW for the NYC-DC portion. Sorry about that, but I wonder what's the maximum that the NEC could be upgraded to. |
|
|
| (1152943) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 02:11:21 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. What about using some of the abandonned ROWs? Tons of them in the midwest and it's gotta be cheaper than building entirely new ROWs. |
|
|
| (1152946) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 03:19:10 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 01:23:04 2012. The NEC is pretty badly underperforming when it comes to winning market share from the airlines. Worldwide experience would suggest that for a 2 hour 45 minute travel time, as between NYC and DC, rail should hold a roughly 70 to 75% market share. Yet the NEC barely manages a 60% market share of the air/rail trips made between those two cities. Admittedly with the lower average speed the trips are shorter in distance for an equivalent duration and the plane's fixed time portions kill it, but the lower the average speed, as in the NEC's case, the more passengers are eaten away by road travel. 71mph does not cut it as an acceptable average speed in any respect for a high speed railroad. |
|
|
| (1152948) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 03:35:27 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 01:19:46 2012. Why would a regional service lose money while an HSR service makes money?Because the regional rail, outside of your untenable 'really fast regional rail' will be slower and thus have a disproportionately smaller market and lower revenue than a high speed rail line which delivers travel times between major cities in 2 to 3 hours. If the regional service is still faster than flying between the two end points, Because your "regional service" is high speed rail! In fact it's REALLY Fast high speed rail. There are LGVs, Shinkansens, NBSes which are slower than the average speeds of your 'minimally upgraded' regional rail lines. You're talking hundreds of billions of dollars to improve the tracks of the extensive network you've described to the point where you could do 130-150mph on them alongside freight traffic. Even then you'd be extremely lucky to get the average speed above 100mph, and locals would be unlikely to top 75-80mph. A more realistic 'minimally upgraded' regional rail alternative would be the Amtrak Cascades, Amtrak California, or the stillborn Ohio 3C project. In those cases you're looking at under a billion dollars in expenditures each, but they top out at 79mph for the time being, and average speeds don't top 40mph. then why not add on the benefit of serving the medium sized cities in between? Again, what makes you think there won't be local service along high speed rail lines? The California HSR project will stop within the cities of Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale, and, eventually, Merced, Modesto, Gilroy (maybe), and Stockton. For the time being Tulare, Visalia, and Hanford can't seem to make up their mind as to whether they want a downtown station, or a centrally located Haute-Picardy-like P&R, but I think CHSRA is planning on a park and ride. Either way, new build high speed rail lines offer a lot to the 'medium sized' (and indeed, small) cities in between the anchor cities. |
|
|
| (1152950) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 03:46:22 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 03:19:10 2012. Well is there any way to increase the MAS on the NEC? I understand with congestion the current situation probably wouldn't improve, but what improvements would be necessary to bring speeds up? I'm still under the belief that expanding/improving an existing ROW is better than building an entirely new one |
|
|
| (1152951) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 03:52:26 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 03:35:27 2012. If that's truly the case, then I wonder how much the cost would be to upgrade the existing ROWs to be acceptable for HSR vs building the entirely new ROW. As for the regional services, I still strongly believe that we absolutely need an improved regional network. An example could be a train running Chicago-Milwaukee-Fond Du Lac-Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay. Services similar to what is being provided in Illinois and Michigan, but at speeds as fast as physically possible on those ROWs and with the appropriate service levels (whatever those might be for the specific areas) |
|
|
| (1152954) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 25 05:00:48 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 03:46:22 2012. Upgrades to NEC would include getting rid of some bottleneck, installing High-tension catenary, straightening out some curves and replacing some bridges. |
|
|
| (1152968) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Apr 25 08:47:33 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:20:10 2012. The safety of their freight trains...this. This article mentions their insistence of 30' of separation for 110MPH running. |
|
|
| (1152979) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Wed Apr 25 13:30:38 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:20:10 2012. CSX is anti-passenger and has been for years. |
|
|
| (1152981) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:47:52 2012, in response to High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 18:19:55 2012. I'm tried this argument before, but Will D won't listen.European and Japanese HSR works because there are high quality regional transit networks they can plug into. Once people have to drive somewhere to catch a train its almost as easy to drive to the airport. |
|
|
| (1152983) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:50:53 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 03:19:10 2012. That the NEC has a 60% market share given the cost of gasoline and our love affair with driving I say is pretty damn good. Anyway, most people I know who fly along the NEC do it because it costs less, not due to speed or comfort. HSR isn't going to change that equation. |
|
|
| (1152984) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:53:50 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Apr 25 08:47:33 2012. It's not the safety of their freight trains, its the threat of liability when their freight trains derail onto the path of an Amtrak train. Also you can't just have a single track passenger line all the way to Buffalo. CSX knows that once you have one Class 6 track it won't be long until it has to have the other ones at Class 6 standards as well and on a freight line that level of maintenance gets really expensive. |
|
|
| (1152985) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:56:26 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 02:11:21 2012. The big issue in the Midwest is the high frequency of grade crossings. The 15 year signaling upgrade on the Amtrak Michigan Line has been primarily about grade crossing safety . Of course the PRR was running trains upwards of 100mph between Crestline and Chicago prior to 1948 so it would be actually a restoration of high speed service. |
|
|
| (1152986) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Apr 25 14:16:48 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:50:53 2012. Excellent analysis - right on point. |
|
|
| (1152987) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 14:50:19 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 25 05:00:48 2012. Time to rock and roll with it where ever possible |
|
|
| (1152989) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 15:52:02 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:53:50 2012. Well then if NYS wants HSR then perhaps it should foot the bill for the difference in the enhanced maintenance costs. Yeah it tacks on some serious costs to this projects, but in business that is the fair thing to do |
|
|
| (1153021) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Apr 25 19:20:18 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:53:50 2012. It's not the safety of their freight trains, its the threat of liability when their freight trains derail onto the path of an Amtrak train.The possibility of that is pretty much the the same whether they're going 60MPH or 125MPH... Also you can't just have a single track passenger line all the way to Buffalo. CSX knows that once you have one Class 6 track it won't be long until it has to have the other ones at Class 6 standards as well and on a freight line that level of maintenance gets really expensive. Well yeah. But I thought the plan was that the third track would be dedicated to passenger trains, to allow them to pass freight trains. The two existing tracks would still also be used for passenger trains as well, probably at the current 79MPH speed. |
|
|
| (1153025) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Apr 25 19:59:53 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:47:52 2012. Only larger cities like Tokyo, Nagoya, Kyoto and Osaka have extensive transit networks. But most Shinkansen stations have free or discounted one to two day parking for ticket holders. They also have rent-a-car facilities for those who get off there. |
|
|
| (1153029) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Apr 25 21:10:22 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 14:50:19 2012. In 1990, the fastest run NYP to DC was 2h30 so technically the infrastructure can handle faster runs. It's just that the slower trains get in the way. MARC's trains can run at 125 mph so it's probably the SEPTA and NJT part that makes it impossible.It's ironic that the Acela is slower than an AEM7 hauled coach consist Metroliner of those days. The original Metroliner EMUs also did 2h30 for a brief period in 1969. Of course it will help if we get that new tunnel through Baltimore and a new Portal Bridge but that's a lot of money with just those two projects. |
|
|
| (1153032) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Apr 25 21:20:46 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Apr 25 21:10:22 2012. In 1990, the fastest run NYP to DC was 2h30That was a non-stop train; no stops between WAS and NYP. so technically the infrastructure can handle faster runs. It's just that the slower trains get in the way False conclusion. 2:30 for a 225-mile run is an average speed of 90 mph, and the "slower trains" did not "get in the way" of that nonstop express. It definitely is the infrastructure getting in the way of faster runs; and it's hard to sell nonstops on the NEC. It's ironic that the Acela is slower than an AEM7 hauled coach consist Metroliner of those days. The original Metroliner EMUs also did 2h30 for a brief period in 1969 Please stop omitting facts. The MU Metroliners that achieved 2:30 were also nonstops. |
|
|
| (1153034) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Apr 25 21:22:55 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:53:50 2012. CSX knows that once you have one Class 6 track it won't be long until it has to have the other ones at Class 6 standards as well and on a freight line that level of maintenance gets really expensive.FWIW, one could always nationalize the track, have Amtrak maintain the improved track, and have open access for any operator and put CSX out of its misery... |
|
|
| (1153035) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Apr 25 21:44:51 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Apr 25 21:20:46 2012. IIRC, the 1990 Metroliner stopped at New Carrolton one way, Metropark the other way and the 1969 Metroliner stopped at Philly.If it's hard to sell non-stops they're not scheduling them right. |
|
|
| (1153040) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Apr 25 22:22:15 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:50:53 2012. Anyway, most people I know who fly along the NEC do it because it costs less, not due to speed or comfort. HSR isn't going to change that equation.I have to agree. What would work for the NEC versus planes is: -add more trains (locals on the half hour with alternating for the less important stops, and expresses hourly) -keep the prices on the low end of their current rates Or if they really want to sell out trains, use $CHINABUS_RATE * 2 (local) or * 4 (express) for deciding fares. There is no reason for planes *or* buses to have market share over the NEC. |
|
|
| (1153048) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Apr 25 22:58:57 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Apr 25 22:22:15 2012. HSR isn't going to change that equation.I have to agree. In contrast, the difference that I see with HSR versus air travel is that the flexibility of the railway network combined with high speed makes it far easier to use for day trips. Reducing the travel time to a comfortable two to three hour range reduces the opportunity costs of doing said trips whether it be for buisness or pleasure, and combined with viable fares, will drive short-haul trips out of the market and re-allocate said air space for the longer flights that are best handled by air-travel. Admittedly, I've cut the so-called check in time for travel by showing up to the airport late, but it's not something that one can get away with all the time, and it's something that I've yet to experience on NEC services. I've run onto the Acela like a maniac with McDonalds in hand at Union Station with only a minute to spare... Or if they really want to sell out trains, use $CHINABUS_RATE * 2 (local) or * 4 (express) for deciding fares. IIRC, doesn't Amtrak Regional and Acela service have high utilization and near operational profit? If you want the cheap fares that you're talking about, either the subsidy for Amtrak has to increase, or their operating costs need to come down... IIRC, Amtrak is somewhat expensive compared to ICE, and the TGV is downright cheap in comparison... |
|
|
| (1153055) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 00:36:43 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:50:53 2012. No other countries have a "love affair with driving"? How many countries with HSR are big automobile manufacturers . . . ? (That's right; all of them.) |
|
|
| (1153061) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 01:12:36 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Apr 25 22:58:57 2012. IIRC, doesn't Amtrak Regional and Acela service have high utilization and near operational profit? If you want the cheap fares that you're talking about, either the subsidy for Amtrak has to increase, or their operating costs need to come down...IIRC it's not near-profit, it's actually solidly in the black. But they can get *more* profit by running more full trains (even if the profit per train goes down, as long as the total profit less expenses is higher they've done well). I've said this elsewhere but it bears repeating: If chinabuses can transport people with better profit margins than trains for the exact same city pairs, then the efficiency of rail must be called into question, and paving over ROWs for dedicated busways should be considered... |
|
|
| (1153063) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 01:32:46 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 01:12:36 2012. If chinabuses can transport people with better profit margins than trains for the exact same city pairsBarely legally? I think safety has to be a consideration over "cost". Those buses should never have been allowed on the road. paving over ROWs for dedicated busways should be considered Who's going to pay for that? No bus operation would be able to pay for the total cost of that. Not even all traffic on the roads can pay for the upkeep of roads. |
|
|
| (1153065) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 02:00:29 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Apr 25 22:22:15 2012. (locals on the half hour with alternating for the less important stops, and expresses hourly)That was the original schedule of the Tokaido Shinkansen in 1964, except that the locals (Kodama) were all stops and expresses (Hikari) were only stopping at Nagoya and Kyoto. The number of trains doubled the next year and by 1972 there were four locals and four expresses per hour. While I don't expect the NEC to run 14 tph peak like it is now in Japan, it should run 2 locals and 2 expresses (or 1 local, 1 semi-fast and 2 expresses). The 2 expresses if run at 2h30m could kill off both the US Air and Delta shuttles. |
|
|
| (1153067) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Apr 26 02:33:42 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:47:52 2012. but Will D won't listen.I've listened plenty, it's just that your entire scheme amounts to wishful thinking. The freight railroads don't want to touch high speed rail on their tracks with a 20 foot pole, any passenger operator who has done their homework will know to avoid Tier II like the plague, and by the time you upgrade a freight line to 150mph operation you're going to be shelling out the same money as a 220mph dedicated line. Trying to force a 'fast regional' service into being does not work on any level. If you're going to cheap out on the capital costs and run slower then your market share will suck and we get to play the subsidy lottery for the next few dozen years before they get fed up and kill the line. And again, if you buck up at the beginning and pay for 150mph operation then you may achieve a slim operating surplus, but it'd come at a cost equal to a 220mph dedicated line which would turn an actual profit by running faster. European and Japanese HSR works because there are high quality regional transit networks they can plug into. As Wado stated, that's not true. In Europe I know DB has car share and car rental facilities at their stations. You can book the car as part of your trip, and they'll hold it in the unlikely event your train is delayed. Once people have to drive somewhere to catch a train its almost as easy to drive to the airport. That makes no sense. Why would I drive further (and for most Californians the airport will be further than the HSR station) only to wait in a security line, then wait the prescribed 45 min to an hour at the terminal when I could drive to a HSR station and be there before the flight would leave? |
|
|
| (1153068) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 02:51:06 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Apr 25 21:44:51 2012. IIRC, the 1990 Metroliner stopped at New Carrolton one way, Metropark the other way and the 1969 Metroliner stopped at PhillyThe New Carrollton stop was initiated in 1987, but may have been dropped by 1990. The 1969 Metroliner skipped Philadelphia IIRC; certainly the 1970 nonstop did westbound (although there was a stop eastbound at Baltimore in the AM). It was the nonstop Acela Express that stopped at Philly (that one failed too). According to NARP, the AE actually did the trip in 2:28. The NECIP extended Metroliner schedules to 3:20 back in 1978, and then to 3:30 in 1979, getting bloated all the way to 3:45 in 1980. There was once Metroliner service between Washington and Downingtown PA. If it's hard to sell non-stops they're not scheduling them right Not really; the nonstops aren't fast enough, and there isn't enough of a market. It would still be possible to get extant "express" trains up to close to triple-digit average speeds, but the only things holding that back are infrastructure deficiencies and the restrictions on tilting that the Acela Express trainsets currently have even on Amtrak territory (the FRA imposed those restrictions—seven inches of cant deficiency, when the AE was supposed to have been designed to operate at nine inches . . . interestingly enough, the X2000 was reportedly tested at 11 inches on the NEC although it ran with 9 inches during revenue tests). |
|
|
| (1153069) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 02:51:09 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Apr 25 21:44:51 2012. Even so, didn't they recently try a nyp-phl-was only run for a while and ridership was low? |
|
|
| (1153070) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 02:53:16 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 02:51:09 2012. Yes, if you call 2001 "recently". |
|
|
| (1153071) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 02:56:36 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Apr 25 21:22:55 2012. And that ain't worth anything. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
