|
|
| Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail (1152895) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1153072) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 03:02:50 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 the threat of liability when their freight trains derail onto the path of an Amtrak train"When" and not "if"? They don't seem too afraid to run on the Northeast Corridor though, in spite of such a risk. |
|
|
| (1153073) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 03:03:53 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. People have to drive to catch the train in most big US cities? I don't think so. |
|
|
| (1153074) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 03:09:28 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 02:53:16 2012. I remember one much more recently, say 2006-2008? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1153075) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 03:17:16 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. I'd be very against lowering Amtrak's fares across the board. Just from what I've seen, a good chunk of their trains are sold out at the current prices. If that's the case, what good is dropping the price on those trains going to do? Only trains running at a loss should see ticket prices dropped and only to a reasonable point |
|
|
| (1153076) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 03:20:10 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Apr 25 13:56:26 2012. Grade elimination should probably be part of the improvements. I'm not really a big fan of making it necessary, but it could benefit the communities if the line is sharing the tracks with mile long freights that block access from one side of town to the other. |
|
|
| (1153077) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 03:23:41 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by WillD on Thu Apr 26 02:33:42 2012. What percentage of DB riders actually use the rental car facilities at the train stations? Is there any data on how many connect to regional trains? Even if it's not for the sake of beating airlines, a regional system will get cars and buses of the roads. |
|
|
| (1153099) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 08:33:11 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 02:51:06 2012. The New Carrollton stop was initiated in 1987, but may have been dropped by 1990.I checked the 1991 timetable and it still stopped there. And it stopped at Baltimore both ways. The 1969 Metroliner skipped Philadelphia IIRC; certainly the 1970 nonstop did westbound (although there was a stop eastbound at Baltimore in the AM) You're actually showing the 1969 timetable. OK so Baltimore, not Philly. My mistake. And boy that schedule is bad. No trains reaching either NYP or DC before 9am and the last Metroliner leaves NYP at 5 sharp? If they can do 2h30-40m, it's fast enough. But if you only run one or two per day at that speed and the rest at close to 3 hours, people will use the airline shuttle. If the AE can't make a run that coach hauled trains did, that's quite a shame. |
|
|
| (1153100) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 08:47:26 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 08:33:11 2012. Nobody wants that run. It'd still be around if people wanted it. And I already mentioned that the AE was faster by about four minutes with one stop in Philly, and that's with the speed restrictions that prevent it from running at 150 mph over any of the former PRR—got nothing to do with "slower trains" that are not in its way. |
|
|
| (1153101) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 08:47:40 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 01:32:46 2012. I was not stating that seriously, just to point out the ridiculousness that the train costs more/passenger than the bus. Look at it this way:-an 8 car train has the seated capacity of about 12 buses -this hypothetical train needs at most 6 crew members, whereas those buses require 12 drivers -this hypothetical train can get better crew and equipment utilization than the buses since it takes less time from A to B -1 engine and 8 passenger cars should require less maintenance than 12 buses Amtrak should be able to completely destroy the NEC bus market even using the *same* fares. What I am saying is to double/quadruple the bus fares and use that as a base. |
|
|
| (1153102) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 08:48:45 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 02:51:09 2012. If you only run one round trip per day, people will fly.The Tokaido Shinkansen leaving Tokyo to Shin-Osaka during the evening peak runs 10 fast ones, 2 semi-fast ones with different stopping patterns and 2 all-stoppers per hour. In the other direction, it's 9-2-2. The running time is 2h33m while flights are about 60 minutes. The NEC doesn't need that many but how about 2-1-1 for a start? The airline shuttles both run every hour (every 30 minutes total) and they are all non-stoppers. |
|
|
| (1153103) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 08:57:17 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 08:47:40 2012. just to point out the ridiculousness that the train costs more/passenger than the busIt'd be the other way around if the bus had to abide by the same kind of signaling systems as a train does (especially at high speed) and there were FHWA "road classes" just as the FRA has track classes, and all of the above cost the bus operators more just as they cost railroads more. We don't have any 125-mph buses operating anywhere either. |
|
|
| (1153104) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 09:15:59 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 08:47:26 2012. Nobody wants that run.Then how do you explain two airlines offering hourly non-stop service? |
|
|
| (1153116) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Apr 26 10:05:19 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Apr 25 19:20:18 2012. The possibility of that is pretty much the the same whether they're going 60MPH or 125MPH...There's only so much stuff even a robust P42 can battering ram its way through. Doubling the speed increases the energy involved by a factor of 4. 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. They would start at 80 and after the single 110 track proved insufficient the state would badger CSX to improve it to 110. In that case it wouldn't be a capitol expense, but a recurring maintenance expense and those are really hard for freight railroads to get fully compensated for. |
|
|
| (1153117) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Apr 26 10:07:54 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 03:03:53 2012. Most people don't LIVE in US cities. They live in suburbs and maybe, if they are lucky, work in a city. |
|
|
| (1153125) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 11:16:52 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 09:15:59 2012. How many people do those flights hold vs how many people does an AE set hold? Hoe many people on average were riding the super expressway? |
|
|
| (1153127) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 11:23:45 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 08:47:40 2012. You forget that the railroad also has to pay to maintain the ROW while the bus doesn't. And at $24 a head to Philly, is Amtrak going to make money? |
|
|
| (1153192) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 19:01:29 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 11:16:52 2012. I'm not going to check the figures now but in the nineties, they still had backup planes ready in case one plane becomes full. Still AE should have more seats than two planes yet Amtrak was saying that they might add more cars. As for the Express Metroliners, their schedule didn't really fit morning meetings and they only ran two such trains per direction per day max. |
|
|
| (1153196) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:19:32 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 09:15:59 2012. Then how do you explain two airlines offering hourly non-stop service?That's not what needs to be explained. What needs to be explained is why the nonstop trains were empty and the stopping trains are not. There are also nonstop buses between the city pair(s) in question. |
|
|
| (1153198) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:30:57 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 11:16:52 2012. An Acela Express six-car train has 304 seats (it'd have more if David Gunn's plan to expand AE trainsets to nine cars had come about; most likely about 200 more seats, and if they got rid of or at least reconfigured the not-very-useful café, more still). An Embraer ERJ 145 has between 37 and 50 seats depending on configuration, so its capacity is about the same as a single-deck a bus. |
|
|
| (1153199) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:32:26 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Apr 26 10:07:54 2012. What are you talking about? Most suburbs connect to cities via some kind of regional transit system. Therefore they don't need to drive to catch the train. (They may not even need to drive to catch a plane either.) |
|
|
| (1153204) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 20:06:57 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Apr 26 11:23:45 2012. ROW maintenance is mainly a fixed cost. Running more trains makes the cost per train lower.As for your Philly example: If you have 3 cars of people (210) x $24 going to Philly, you've taken in $5040 off of 3 crew members for 2 hours. Since Amtrak generates their own power they're not getting ripped off on the energy costs. So how can you *not* make money off of this? Since the NEC has a virtually unlimited supply of passengers, the only time you're "losing" money is if you have equipment idling when it could be transporting passengers. |
|
|
| (1153206) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 20:36:51 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 20:06:57 2012. ROW maintenance is mainly a fixed costNo, because repairs are not fixed in terms of cost, especially spot repairs and/or emergency repairs. Raw materials are variable cost too. Running more trains makes the cost per train lower Not if the trains are empty. Also not in terms of wear and tear on both trains and infrastructure. Increased speed increases wear and tear. Since the NEC has a virtually unlimited supply of passengers No, they're on the "demand" end. They aren't a commodity to be shoved into trains. |
|
|
| (1153207) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 20:40:59 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:19:32 2012. Because there were stopping trains every hour but non-stop ones only one or two a day and it was faster to fly. Buses are cheap but slow. Sorry, I won't easily change my mind on this. |
|
|
| (1153211) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 21:12:47 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:30:57 2012. Not so fast... Look at the current fleet. They are not that small anymore.US Airways Embraer 190 Capacity: 99 (11 First, 88 Coach) Airbus 319 Capacity: 124 seats (12 First/112 Coach) Delta Airlines Embraer 175 Accommodation: 76 passengers (12/64) Airbus 319-100 Accommodation: 126 passengers (12/114) |
|
|
| (1153213) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Apr 26 21:37:54 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:30:57 2012. Well, the acelas ARE being expanded to 8 cars long... |
|
|
| (1153215) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 22:00:27 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by R30A on Thu Apr 26 21:37:54 2012. When?Since stuff like this has been talked about since the Gunn era, I'll believe it when I see it and not before. |
|
|
| (1153216) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 22:01:50 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 21:12:47 2012. That tells me nothing. |
|
|
| (1153217) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 22:08:14 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 20:40:59 2012. Sorry, I won't easily change my mind on thisThen you're confused. Even if you could get nonstops that are directly competitive with air shuttles timewise (but not with going from city center to city center), they'd still not be significantly faster than trains that make five or six stops en route. Getting average speeds up to 110 mph is more than sufficient, and would be a great improvement over the current 82-mph average speed. |
|
|
| (1153220) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 26 22:25:27 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Apr 24 22:09:50 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.All the improvements you listed are essentially building a brand spanking new line, except you want it to follow an existing rail ROW. If something is running on it's own trackage, why should you shoot for 150-180mph when you can go for 220mph? |
|
|
| (1153221) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 26 22:32:10 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 08:33:11 2012. If they can do 2h30-40m,it's fast enough. But if you only run one or two per day at that speed and the rest at close to 3 hours,people will use the airline shuttle.Why? The all stop AE expresses are not much slower between the CBDs of each city than the shuttles. If the AE can't make a run that coach hauled trains did,that's quite a shame. I think that has a lot to do with the condition of the Infrastructure, not the trains themselves. Although, the AE is technically a 'coach hauled train', no? |
|
|
| (1153223) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 22:43:22 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 22:01:50 2012. So did whatever you posted to me in this thread. |
|
|
| (1153226) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 23:04:08 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 22:08:14 2012. Even if you could get nonstops that are directly competitive with air shuttles timewise (but not with going from city center to city center), they'd still not be significantly faster than trains that make five or six stops en route.It's more like this: "Even if they'd still not be significantly faster than trains that make five or six stops en route you could get nonstops that are directly competitive with air shuttles time wise especially if going from city center to city center." There is a line to it. But you have to be on the correct side of the line to be competitive. For the distance of NYP-WAS, that would be around 2h40m now. Before discount air fares, 3h10m was enough for Tokyo - Osaka. They do 2h33m now but still lost 5% share in the last ten years or so. But that's more likely because of $50 buses with first class type seating. Getting average speeds up to 110 mph is more than sufficient, and would be a great improvement over the current 82-mph average speed. That is probably true. You probably don't even need 110 mph average. 130 mph MAS was good enough for Japan for 30 years. I don't remember the average from those days though. |
|
|
| (1153227) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 23:11:49 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 26 22:32:10 2012. Why? The all stop AE expresses are not much slower between the CBDs of each city than the shuttles.I just replied to Olog that that 20 to 30 minutes difference is exactly at the line where you can be competitive or not. I've seen that going on in Japan. I think that has a lot to do with the condition of the Infrastructure, not the trains themselves. According to Olog, it's not the infrastructure but the AE themselves and the FRA. He may be right. I can't say for sure. Although, the AE is technically a 'coach hauled train', no? I see it more as an EMU since the loco and coaches are custom made for each other, like the early TGV, but you can say that as well. |
|
|
| (1153228) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 23:20:31 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 21:12:47 2012. Funny enough, I just noticed that Delta and US Air are both flying out of LGA on the hour since March. Not 30 minutes apart as it has been since the Eastern/New York Air days. |
|
|
| (1153234) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:42:07 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 19:01:29 2012. Exactly, the trains hold more than the planes. It could be a similar situation as comparing HJ bus service to Greenport vs running more LIRR service out there. |
|
|
| (1153235) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:44:14 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:30:57 2012. Hmmm....sounds like if they were to get two planes worth of people they'd be about 70% full |
|
|
| (1153236) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:48:16 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 23:11:49 2012. The choke points are definitely a factor. What are they on the NEC between Boston and NYC? I know Portal is one, what are some others? |
|
|
| (1153237) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:52:01 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 26 20:06:57 2012. Do you know where I could find the avg yearly maintenance cost on the NEC between NYP and PHL? Or the maintenance cost/mile for any of the trainsets? It'd be great to see a spreadsheet of all the costs involved with running each train between NYP and PHL and comparing it with possible revenue at different fares. |
|
|
| (1153238) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:54:19 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 26 22:25:27 2012. I'm not suggesting that the tracks be dedicated for HSR only though. If you build enough high speed switches and add an extra track where needed you could get the expresses dancing around slower trains without having to build to separate lines for each. |
|
|
| (1153239) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:56:00 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Apr 26 19:32:26 2012. If you disregard buses, most cities do not have a regional transit system to get folks from the suburbs to the cities. And the vast majority of people drive to the airport vs taking the train. |
|
|
| (1153248) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 03:10:18 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 23:11:49 2012. 20 to 30 minutes difference is exactly at the line where you can be competitive or notThey're still competitive, though. Who is saying they aren't? How much of a market share should the train have? (We can always pool our financial resources and restore passenger service along the parallel B&O if you want more trains.) According to Olog, it's not the infrastructure but the AE themselves and the FRA No, I did say that the infrastructure contributes; you were the one that said it does not. The AE itself and the FRA are certainly other contributing factors, but the infrastructure's condition and status quo (according to the FRA) are insufficient to allow operation at 150 mph for significant stretches, as well as the FRA's insistence of continuously cutting back the permitted cant deficiency that the AE's tilt mechanism can operate at. (The AE can't even run significantly faster than non-tilt trains through the reverse curve in Elizabeth NJ mostly due to all of this, which may be practical but also most likely has a cause in bureacratic impedance.) |
|
|
| (1153249) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 03:15:28 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:42:07 2012. Now that's a bit different. That is seasonal. |
|
|
| (1153250) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 03:16:33 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 26 23:04:08 2012. "Even if they'd still not be significantly faster than trains that make five or six stops en route you could get nonstops that are directly competitive with air shuttles time wise especially if going from city center to city center."Remember, the nonstops were tried three times and failed three times. Einstein's (attributed) maxim of trying the same thing multiple times and expecting different results each time still holds true as a definition of madness, therefore. (Even with the fastest average speed of 92 mph. The nonstops saved a mere fifteen minutes overall, and that can't be attributed to the bottlenecks, since the trains stopping at Metropark, Philly, Wilmington, Baltimore and BWI braked more frequently and had to re-accelerate more frequently than a nonstop.) |
|
|
| (1153251) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 03:36:06 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 03:16:33 2012. Remember, the nonstops were tried three times and failed three times.But I think they were tried in a way worse than the ACES were the last two times. Who needs a train that makes you miss the morning meeting and won't get you back to the office in time? At least JNR didn't make that mistake and even also scheduled "weekend affair" runs Saturday (later Friday) evenings and Sundays return trips so the boss's wife never sees the employee girl. Never watched "The Apartment"? I've stopped saying bottlenecks for a while by now. BTW. And calling fifteen minutes "mere" is like telling a runner "You lost by only seconds". I'll tell you one more time, the line is there. |
|
|
| (1153252) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 03:56:55 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 03:10:18 2012. the infrastructure's condition and status quo (according to the FRA) are insufficientas well as the FRA's insistence of continuously cutting back the permitted cant deficiency that the AE's tilt mechanism can operate at. The AE can't even run significantly faster than non-tilt trains through the reverse curve in Elizabeth NJ mostly due to all of this, which may be practical but also most likely has a cause in bureacratic impedance. Stop! The more you talk, it sounds the more you agreeing with what I said: (it's not the infrastructure but the AE themselves and the FRA). We can't argue like that cause that's not fun. :p |
|
|
| (1153253) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:14:59 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:48:16 2012. Portal is between Newark and NYP.Between NYP and BOS, ignoring the terminalish area from NYP to Gate, there is the speed limit of SHELL, 100 mph speed limit on MNR land and its four or five draw bridges, two or three more bridges that opens in CT Amtrak land, I don't think they exist anymore but there were grade crossings east of NH and the curves on the Shore line is still a big factor, even though NH to Providence is where the 150 mph sections exist now. I'm sure I forgot some other choke points. When you think of business, politics and geography, that line should have a HSL run through Hartford and leave the Shore line for tourists. Boston is closer to New York than DC. But you would only realize it when you fly both ways. It was the bridges, curves, engine changes and slower diesels that kept the shuttles share high for so long. I mean when I went there in the late eighties trains took four to five hours, shuttles 45 minutes (+blue line). Claytor said at the time the run will eventually become shorter than NY-DC but that hasn't happened yet. |
|
|
| (1153254) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:43:24 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:54:19 2012. There is always this possibility that such upgraded lines may cost more than a newly built line.The Bordeaux line in France went 125 mph in the 60s and now considered as a conventional line although TGVs run at 130+ mph through there but at what cost? It was maybe the L line of HSR. A test line. Some of the Shinkansen lines in Japan run on former standard narrow gauge lines but they require dedicated equipment. And some of the infrastructures originally built for Shinkansen have been downgraded for narrow gauge 100 mph running but one of them may face closure for passenger service and conversion to freight in the near future because a real HSL is being built after all. The US is mainly Standard Gauge so it won't have Japan's problem but you have to consider others mistakes too. |
|
|
| (1153255) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 04:56:54 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 00:44:14 2012. I can't really compare it to Japan since it only took less than a year to go from 2 tph to to 4tph and soon went 8tph but still needed Boeing 747 for its shuttles. That's why they have 14 tph peak now. But if you have it, it will change the way of business. While maybe not at everywhere in the world, China, Russia and the US are good candidates for having at least 8 tph peak HSR, following the countries that already have them. If not for the accident, China would have been already there, I think. |
|
|
| (1153275) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:11:20 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 27 03:15:28 2012. Not so much with the North Fork. And even so, the argument has been used just as much for the off season |
|
|
| (1153276) | |
Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 09:13:54 2012, in response to Re: High Speed Rail vs Really Fast Regional Rail, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 27 03:16:33 2012. Was it done the same way each time it was tried? Timing is everything. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
