Do we really need HSR for LD?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Qapla

Engineer
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,742
Location
Gator Country Florida
It has been mentioned that HSR is needed to bring riders back to Amtrak (or any LD train) - but, is that really the case?

Someone linked a video of a trip from NY to LA in another thread. That video makes some interesting observations/points.


One of the things the narrator said (starting at 27:40) is that Amtrak should be viewed as being more than "just a train" - he said it was a combination of:
1611460891360.png

He also extolled the virtues of the "relaxed pace" of the train. It should be noted he is a frequent flier and logs thousands of miles yearly by air. This seemed to be his first coast-to-coast train trip.

It made me think ... while train travel is often compared with the speed of planes or the freedom of driving - maybe it is time to quit "comparing it". Maybe it is time to extoll the virtues of train travel. Point out what it does offer instead of what it doesn't.

Watch the video and see what you think about this subject.
 
IMHO think about this way. The part of the United States east of the Mississippi River could benefit from a European or Japanese style hsr system. Some of the longer TGV trips are 600 or more miles. When the trains are operating at a speed of close to 200 miles per hour that’s a 3 hour trip. There are many decent size cities are n the eastern half of the country. It takes political will but imho it’s worth while. Passenger trains are separated from freight traffic and road crossings. Our roads and airports are already at capacity.
 
The reason why it's justified to invest taxpayer funds into long-distance trains is that (1) they provide transportation services to rural areas with few, if any, public transportation alternatives, and (2) they provide mobility for people who, for medical reasons, can't fly or drive. There is also those of use who enjoy or prefer riding the train for the experience, and, of course, our patronage helps the revenue bottom line, so it's to Amtrak's (and the taxpayers') benefit to accommodate us. Amtrak is justified running the premium-level service (i.e. sleeping cars) and providing decent food service as a way to cross subsidize the essential transportation service.

Now, for these services, high speed rail, with average point to point speeds of 100 mph and maximum speeds of up to 200 mph aren't really necessary. In fact, to have real high speed rail service, you would need to eliminate as many stops as possible, which means that a long-distance high speed rail wouldn't serve the small rural towns that it's designed for. It would probably be worthwhile to speed up conventional long distance trains, mainly by incremental track improvements where needed and elimination of bottlenecks so the trains can have point-to-point average speeds of ~60 mph, which is faster than most people do on road trips, at least if they consistently obey traffic laws and don't wear astronaut diapers. :)

An east-coast -- Chicago HSR service, also service Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, might attract customers -- a 100 mph point-to-point average speed would make New York - Chicago and Washington - Chicago a day trip, and a Night Owl service would be good competition to the alternative of having to get up in the very wee hours of the morning to catch an early flight. But it would probably cost zillions of dollars to build the true HSR right of way needed, especially for the segment that crosses the Appalachians. I suppose if the Southeast HSR gets fully built, and it ever becomes real HSR (probably not in my lifetime), there would be HSR between the NEC and Atlanta, which is now considered a "long-distance" train ride.
 
HSR is very much a corridor idea, though I am not optimistic that I will live to see it here in the US. China uses HSR for much longer runs, but I think that the market for US transcontinental and even semi-continental travel is going to be biased towards planes, at least unless and until planes are required to pay for all of their costs, including the environmental costs. That might propel folks to consider trains for non-time-sensitive travel.
 
In the east I believe just HrSR ( 125MPH ) might be sufficient. My experience in TGV type trains is that it is too fast to be able to fully comprehend the scenery going above 130. 125 ATL = WASH would be ~ 5 hours and ATL - NYP 7 hours ! WASH - JAX = 6 hours. CHI - NOL = 8.5 hours. Those ~~ numbers are of course non stop and add 10 minutes for each stop along the routes. As well no slow orders on any of the tracks.
 
I agree. The US is so large it is probably best to have two types of service. Higher speed for the 8 or 9 corridors that merit it and a service level that is slightly faster than what we have today on the LD network for the rest.
I think the Vision for High Speed Rail map is pretty useful, look at the NEC(plus Buffalo and Pittsburg), the Chicago network, the Pacific NW, California/Las Vegas, Texas, Florida (Bright) and the GA/SC/NC region (which would hopefully tie into the NEC eventually). Not all of the Higher Speed networks would get up to 200 mph because the cost to do it wouldn't be worth it. But getting to 125 mph or 160 mph and for some, to 200 mph would yield travel times that transform the US rail industry. Trying to get to 220 mph seems to be more expensive than the speed is worth.
For the LD network getting a slightly better system in place to deal with freight interference is probably more important than getting the max speed up to 95 mph because top speed doesn't matter if you are sitting on a siding or stopping every 30 minutes for a scheduled stop. But getting the Emprire Builder/Zephyr/Chief average speed up above 55 mph would be useful. Not as useful as better dining and twice daily service, but useful nonetheless.
JMHO

The reason why it's justified to invest taxpayer funds into long-distance trains is that (1) they provide transportation services to rural areas with few, if any, public transportation alternatives, and (2) they provide mobility for people who, for medical reasons, can't fly or drive. There is also those of use who enjoy or prefer riding the train for the experience, and, of course, our patronage helps the revenue bottom line, so it's to Amtrak's (and the taxpayers') benefit to accommodate us. Amtrak is justified running the premium-level service (i.e. sleeping cars) and providing decent food service as a way to cross subsidize the essential transportation service.

Now, for these services, high speed rail, with average point to point speeds of 100 mph and maximum speeds of up to 200 mph aren't really necessary. In fact, to have real high speed rail service, you would need to eliminate as many stops as possible, which means that a long-distance high speed rail wouldn't serve the small rural towns that it's designed for. It would probably be worthwhile to speed up conventional long distance trains, mainly by incremental track improvements where needed and elimination of bottlenecks so the trains can have point-to-point average speeds of ~60 mph, which is faster than most people do on road trips, at least if they consistently obey traffic laws and don't wear astronaut diapers. :)

An east-coast -- Chicago HSR service, also service Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, might attract customers -- a 100 mph point-to-point average speed would make New York - Chicago and Washington - Chicago a day trip, and a Night Owl service would be good competition to the alternative of having to get up in the very wee hours of the morning to catch an early flight. But it would probably cost zillions of dollars to build the true HSR right of way needed, especially for the segment that crosses the Appalachians. I suppose if the Southeast HSR gets fully built, and it ever becomes real HSR (probably not in my lifetime), there would be HSR between the NEC and Atlanta, which is now considered a "long-distance" train ride.
 
I agree. The US is so large it is probably best to have two types of service. Higher speed for the 8 or 9 corridors that merit it and a service level that is slightly faster than what we have today on the LD network for the rest.
I think the Vision for High Speed Rail map is pretty useful, look at the NEC(plus Buffalo and Pittsburg), the Chicago network, the Pacific NW, California/Las Vegas, Texas, Florida (Bright) and the GA/SC/NC region (which would hopefully tie into the NEC eventually). Not all of the Higher Speed networks would get up to 200 mph because the cost to do it wouldn't be worth it. But getting to 125 mph or 160 mph and for some, to 200 mph would yield travel times that transform the US rail industry. Trying to get to 220 mph seems to be more expensive than the speed is worth.
For the LD network getting a slightly better system in place to deal with freight interference is probably more important than getting the max speed up to 95 mph because top speed doesn't matter if you are sitting on a siding or stopping every 30 minutes for a scheduled stop. But getting the Emprire Builder/Zephyr/Chief average speed up above 55 mph would be useful. Not as useful as better dining and twice daily service, but useful nonetheless.
JMHO

In this country, a massive number of truly "high speed" corridors is unrealistic. It would be ideal if we could duplicate Europe's and Asias's success but the will and funding just isn't there, even with a pro-rail administration, which is regrettable. It's just too expensive. California's messy experience has done a major disservice to the "high speed" rail movement. It seems unlikely that will ever be fully completed. In most instances, you compete against cars, not air. "Higher speed" seems reasonable, and but what matters most is "reliable" service. The riding public wants to know it can count on the schedules in these corridors to deliver as promised. Upgrade the track and remove bottlenecks where possible, double rack and add sidings where needed to give passenger trains the advantage, and market the hell out of it.
 
United States, the richest nation in the world, also surprisingly appears to be the most defeated nation in the world when it comes to renewing and upgrading its infrastructure in an organized fashion. This is quite puzzling I might add.
 
Amtrak could do well to incorporate HS rail (defined by me here as 150+ sustained) along with standard trains that could do 80mph sustained or 100 peak but no less than 60 except when approaching/departing stations especially in the east. HS rail does not preclude eliminating stations as in most places, stations are an hour or more apart so we're still talking 30 minutes (with station approach and departure slower) between stations.

Even the "standard train" definition would dramatically reduce long distance times in most cases especially if all stations had high sufficiently-long platforms, marked loading zones, etc.

I believe HS rail should be reserved for dense traffic areas only. WAS-ATL, DAL-FTW, CHI-DET and MSP and CIN, NYP-ALB, etc.
 
HS rail does not preclude eliminating stations as in most places, stations are an hour or more apart so we're still talking 30 minutes (with station approach and departure slower) between stations.
Did you really mean "preclude" (rule out), or did you mean to say "require" or "necessitate"? I get the sense you were saying stations would not have to skipped.
 
Did you really mean "preclude" (rule out), or did you mean to say "require" or "necessitate"? I get the sense you were saying stations would not have to skipped.
I did mean that - stations in most if not all places don't have to be skipped. For those that are already close such as Raleigh/Cary on the Carolinian or Greenville/Spartanburg on the Crescent, those places would do better with local train transit. But rural areas are rural (witness Alpine, Tx) and far enough from other stations to deserve a stop. If multiple HS trains traverse a route without having "locals" also ala Regionals on the NEC, then not all stations need all trains but given that Japan used to make 2 minute stops in the early 70s at major cities, rural stops would not need to be eliminated. The overall time savings would still be dramatic as compared to what we have now.
We don't need train heaven tomorrow but we do need trains that run faster, don't have the freight delays, handle stations much better, etc. and that's a lot easier and less expensive than one dream train running up the west coast.
 
In the US we could try to strive for modest performance oriented goals as are being pursued by India, such as 900 mile intercity trips in 12 hours, requiring at most 100mph max speed, something that is quite achievable using present ROWs with all their kinks, given that we do have PTC now. But it will require a unified vision to pursue across the transportation agencies and the private ROW owners. This might involve laying at least one additional track in the existing ROWs and such. But unfortunately at present we are nowhere near even that yet.

One big advantage India has over us is that they have a fully electrified railroad in its main line network, so their 100mph trains which are planned to have around ten stops on the way, and will face numerous PSRs and TSRs, will still have significantly better performance that what we can achieve with diesel traction, since they also plan to run trains with tope tail dual power and eventually evolve to their T-18 distributed power 20-24 car train sets. But hey, we've gotto start somewhere, and 100mph max with diesel will place us at a much better place than where we are now.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about what I enjoy and what the guy in the video said about "enjoying the trip". He said he had flown over the same landscape many times but had never really seen it. The speed of the train allows you to actually see the view, especially since you don't have to "keep your eyes on the road" while traveling.

I was thinking these features should be the thrust of advertising for rail travel. Don't bemoan the fact that it takes several days to cross the country (as compared to the speed of a plane) - highlight the relaxed pace!

Maybe C-19 will help make people see a more relaxed method of travel is not only safe, it is fun - we don't always have to be in such a hurry
 
It has been mentioned that HSR is needed to bring riders back to Amtrak (or any LD train) - but, is that really the case?

Someone linked a video of a trip from NY to LA in another thread. That video makes some interesting observations/points.


One of the things the narrator said (starting at 27:40) is that Amtrak should be viewed as being more than "just a train" - he said it was a combination of:
View attachment 20411

He also extolled the virtues of the "relaxed pace" of the train. It should be noted he is a frequent flier and logs thousands of miles yearly by air. This seemed to be his first coast-to-coast train trip.

It made me think ... while train travel is often compared with the speed of planes or the freedom of driving - maybe it is time to quit "comparing it". Maybe it is time to extoll the virtues of train travel. Point out what it does offer instead of what it doesn't.

Watch the video and see what you think about this subject.

Absolutely right on! And for sake of argumentative support... LD rail travel provides things that short HS rail does not. There will always be preference among the traveling public for travel that is pleasurable... often called 'the destination' in itself.

As ships cruise along at a slow pace on the seas... often just stopping a ports of call for a cultural visit... then return to home port... LD travel goes at a slower pace between larger city pairs and allows passengers to relax and enjoy the scenery, make new friends, and arrive at destination very relaxed.

LD travel also brings transportation to small cities and towns along the way... these places too... are the backbone of America. And don't exclude tourism to 'out of the way' places.

One of the finest destinations in America is the entire route of the California Zephyr... bringing to travelers some of the most amazing scenery in America.

To break things down to justifiability... there are aesthetic and fundamental reasons for continuing LD. The US Congress representatives want viable transportation options for the people they serve.

For these and so many other reasons... LD travel must be maintained. It's a service by the government for the people. BTW, does anyone think the US Postal Service should be cancelled because email is faster?

I wouldn't bet on it! To quote Biden, let us all 'Unify' for those ideas and principles that unite us! 🌲🌈

507c2987df89225175364029d72aa62b.jpg

EmpireBuilder-1.jpg
 
I agree that TGV speeds are impressive if you want to get from point to point quickly, they are great. I guess that describes most passengers needs.
I found when travelling on the fast French trains that the scenery does get blurred. The train environment is more like a low flying sealed capsule and for, me, as a leisure traveller, it is not my first choice for travel.
 
We need to quit making "slow train travel" a "bad" thing. There are many people who still walk in parks and trails - why walk when you can ride a bike, or even better, a motorcycle ... much faster.

The same is true for LD trains. They don't need to go as fast as a plane - but they need to be more enjoyable then they are now. OTP is essential. Quality food should be served since you have a captive audience for several meals. Comfort and cleanliness is a necessity and friendly attendants who are there to "help" the riders, not just collect a paycheck.

Then, these things need to be promoted as a reason to take the train.

Trains cannot compete with the speed of planes nor the freedom of a car - quit trying to compete on those fronts - offer and promote what a train can offer, not what it can't.
 
No question that at least part of the reason for taking Amtrak is the experience. For me on the NEC it is also a matter of convenience. I can get on the train a few blocks from home and ride to Boston, Philly or DC in a few hours. For me to fly would involve adding hours onto the trip to go to an airport all for a shorter flight. The time would probably be nearly the same, but at least on the train I am always making progress.

I do think HSR would be good for the country, and I think the LD routes would see the biggest benefit. I think if stops had to be skipped, it would make sense to do different stops on different trips with maybe a local or two to help make connections. I think HSR is what will save train travel. Depending on what goes on in Florida (and if anything ever happens in California) there may be room for both Amtrak and some private carriers, but that would be secondary to actually building the infrastructure.

As for cruise ships going fairly slowly, they do, but on my two cruises, I have flown to get to the ship, I didn't take a cruise to get to the cruise. I planned a vacation on the west coast a few years ago and was originally going to have two train segments but opted for one train and one flight because it shaved a day off of a week long vacation. I can not imagine business travelers opting for the slower pace of a train when work is involved.
 
I planned a vacation on the west coast a few years ago and was originally going to have two train segments but opted for one train and one flight because it shaved a day off of a week long vacation. I can not imagine business travelers opting for the slower pace of a train when work is involved.

This is one of the issues I am talking about. Amtrak does not have to compete with the airlines for business if people would quit thinking of trains as a slow plane. While you were willing to take a train to travel to your vacation but changed to a plane to save time just says that the train was only transportation - not the point of the trip.

The video in the OP compared the trains to transportation, Amusement Park and National Treasure.

When people go to Disney, they may take a plane to get there quicker than driving - but, while at the park they do not try to "hurry through" and miss the fun. When people fly to a port to take a cruise, they do so so they can spend more time on the ship (you even mentioned flying to take a cruise). The same could be the case with trains if people would quit thinking it has to be fast to compete with planes.

Advertise the fun on the train - then make sure that fun is there. Make sure the trains run on time and every day. Make sure the windows are clean. Make sure the cars are clean. Serve decent food and have friendly attendants. The scenery will take care of itself.

I know, some people want to call them "land cruises" - as though that is a bad thing. Well, the RV industry has been making a fortune on people taking land cruises on the road. What's wrong with a train trip being a land cruise? We should quit deriding the idea that a land cruise is somehow a bad thing and encourage them, advertise them, extol them and then deliver them!
 
Before even assessing the "need" for HSR in the US, might we arrange for reliable OTP on existing trains?

I'd bet my house that most current and potential rail riders care far more about whether they can count on a train arriving at its scheduled time than whether it can be made to go a bit faster.
We need to quit making "slow train travel" a "bad" thing. There are many people who still walk in parks and trails - why walk when you can ride a bike, or even better, a motorcycle ... much faster.

The same is true for LD trains. They don't need to go as fast as a plane - but they need to be more enjoyable then they are now. OTP is essential. Quality food should be served since you have a captive audience for several meals. Comfort and cleanliness is a necessity and friendly attendants who are there to "help" the riders, not just collect a paycheck.

Then, these things need to be promoted as a reason to take the train.

Trains cannot compete with the speed of planes nor the freedom of a car - quit trying to compete on those fronts - offer and promote what a train can offer, not what it can't.

'You bet ya!' Don't underestimate the groundswell of Congressional support for LD! I found this quote impressive... showing support from representatives who's state wouldn't benefit... but it being in the national interest...

"Near the end of session, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Flynn, “I fully support using money you make on the north end of the Northeast Corridor to provide service to some of those rural areas — the ‘red’ states. Those lines don’t necessarily benefit my district but they benefit the country. … I hope you take very seriously the credibility that you will lose by engaging in these furloughs, and the representational damage that comes to Amtrak management. I’m asking you to reconsider that [because] it is not going to save the day.” Cutting 2000 employees, Lynch said, “is going to reduce service and spiral that bottom-line deficit. You’re going to lose the faith of members of Congress like me, who are behind you, because of this decision.”

We're all in this together! 😇

https://t4america.org/2020/09/14/wi...out continuing the,as part of Amtrak's future.

https://www.hsrail.org/blog/congress-grills-amtrak-over-cuts-to-long-distance-service
https://www.moran.senate.gov/public...ort-for-routes-that-connect-rural-communities
 
I agree that both HSR and LD (albeit slower) have (or should have) their places in the US rail system. Both have their own benefits, depending on the types of passengers who use them. Some want to enjoy the journey, while others just want to get from point A to point B.

Funding and political will aside, the size and geographic layout of the US presents quite a challenge for both LD and HSR. Even if all members of Congress (and state governments) were willing to fund passenger rail to whatever extent is necessary, and even if there wasn't quite as much "NIMBY" as there is now, there would still be obstacles to overcome.

Also, I don't think it's always a good idea to look at other countries' rail systems and say "well the US should do exactly (or close to) the same thing. Different countries/regions have different populations with various needs and priorities.

As far as some people's opposition to US rail improvements goes, it's not necessarily that they flat-out don't want it; they just don't fully understand how it can be beneficial.

$0.02
 
Also, I don't think it's always a good idea to look at other countries' rail systems and say "well the US should do exactly (or close to) the same thing. Different countries/regions have different populations with various needs and priorities.
More importantly, different ideologies about government spending. If we were trying to build the interstate highway system today, people would be screaming about waste and taxes, and arguing that all we need to do is patch a few potholes on the state roads we've already got.
 
More importantly, different ideologies about government spending. If we were trying to build the interstate highway system today, people would be screaming about waste and taxes, and arguing that all we need to do is patch a few potholes on the state roads we've already got.
Well said... and I don't hear any talk about HS auto travel... over 70 or 80mph??? Burns more gas and causes dangerous HWY accidents.

So there you have it... HS is for train only... as for the skies... yup, they have the speed but they must pay the price in pollution and all the security check in and check out hassles; etc. etc. etc... and don't forget the hassle of getting to and from the airport. With rail travel that transports masses of travelers at only a fraction of the pollution foot print... No contest!

This is why rail travel will exceed and succeed! 🚆 🚄 🌈😇
CALI HI SPEED.png
 
One reason I went with 125 MPH )HrSR) is that can avoid the initial cost of electrification. Trains can be operated with multiple Siemens chargers. Now do not get me wrong. I heavily support electrification but believe it needs application first on high density ( passenger ) routes. Of course any rebuilding of routes can be designed for high speed rail (HSR) where possible with future electrification .

One help that going for passenger 125 on freight RRs is that passenger trains can get around freight trains much faster so there are less delays for freight trains as well. On a full double track where freights are authorized 60 and passenger 79 we have a long distance for a following Amtrak train to get around the freight. ( Dispatcher comments ?) Makes oncoming trafficthat is restricting for Amtrak to get around a freight. Again it is eliminating all the slow sections of the tracks.

For good consistent 125 operation grades kept to 1 % where possible. Curves no more than 1-1/2 to 2 degrees of curvature. That allows for super elevation of tracks to stay below tipping angles for high center of gravity cars.

One consequence of HrSR as proposed will mean there will need to be additional trains to make the many stops that our current LD trains make. for instance ATL - CLT - Raleigh - Richmond-WASH only train(s) would need 1 or 2 locals that make the 20 additional intermediate stops now served. 20 additional stops adds at least 100 - 150 minutes to enroute times. S;owing and acceleration takes time. Talk about the need for additional equipment when you add this onto all the present LD routes. That route has real significant possibility of coming soon with the "S" line being acquired and almost ready for construction.

NYP - Albany - Buffalo certainly can be a first for 125 operation if NY State can do a deal much like Virginia did with CSX. Maybe even extend NYS to Erie. Then if beyond to Toledo and onto Detroit and on the Michigan route to CHI. That has a lot of potential and should come in maybe before all the ATL - WASH can be completed.

The next thing is crossing eliminations. If financing could come from the highway trust fund grade crossing eliminations could proceed if not at warp speed but at least max impulse speeds The construction should be a 24/7 operation. Our local town could raise the tracks over all three grade crossing if the route becomes a offshoot of the Crescent.
 
Back
Top