Aloha
That sort of upgrade probably makes a lot of sense for Pontiac to Detroit to Ann Arbor, since it also has the potential to be useful for commuter rail, and if there's ever real HSR connecting to downtown Detroit, some trains could continue to Pontiac after stopping in Detroit (and maybe others could continue to Ann Arbor depending on exactly how the track configuration in downtown Detroit works out).
It wouldn't, which is why maglev isn't in the bill.
For the major end points, the access is already there.
When you talk about NEC type speeds, are you talking about the average speed from BOS to WAS (which does a fine job of keeping the airlines importing petroleum on a city pair which is close enough for TGV style trains to be a viable airplane replacement), or are you talking about the top speed the Acela Express achieves for a few minutes of its run?
Any commuter rail / light rail / subway / bus service feeding a HSR station is probably going to be carrying 99% of its passengers on purely local trips that have nothing to do with HSR in order to cover enough of a metro area with sufficient frequencies to be usable for connecting to HSR. And there are a number of cities along the NEC that have pretty good local rail networks along those lines already, as do Chicago and San Francisco and probably Albuquerque and probably some others I'm forgetting.
I thought the plan was for the HSR and commuter trains to terminate at Transbay Station, with a bit of a walk to reach BART (possibly via an underground tunnel, but still a bit of a walk).
The "Silver Meteor" line, "Southwest Chief" line, "Coast Starlight" line and either the "Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian" or "Lakeshore Limited" line are already somewhat upgraded for at least 90 mph speed. Those lines could require the least amount to upgrade to 110 mph. That speed for those lines could greatly expedite service on all of AMTRAK's lines by connection with those minimal high-speed routes.
Check this out.
One thing that I have found frustrating to explain when discussing the topic of improved rail service, is the amount of ignorance among the general public. I was thinking of improving the tracks and signals so that first the existing services get upgraded, on the specific segment of track in question. IN other words improve the signals & track so that when the EB happens to be between Saint Paul and Chicago, it would have an allowed maximum speed of 110 mph, but, west of Saint Paul, the speed limit would reduce to the ones of the appropriate FRA Class. Some folks think of replacing one set of trains with a totally different set, and I am discussing upgrading some segments of the existing service, while leaving others alone.
Consider Boston to New Orleans. At 220 MPH, I could depart Boston in the evening and be in New Orleans the next morning. With the current schdule, it's two days and a night.
These problems are actually relatively easy to fix if Amtrak had sufficient funding to buy more equipment, and then addressed the families traveling with appropriate companion/group fares.
If you do that, are you going to shave more than a half hour off the travel time from Chicago to Minneapolis? And will that have any substantial impact on ridership?
To answer both questions, I think so. I also think if you then added more service it would increase ridership as well. West of Saint Paul, however, there may not be the market large enough to justify increased service.
I agree. The trip between Boston and New Orleans could be only 36 hours (two nights with only one day in between-- effectively, only one "day") with current, conventional speed if trains departed origins in the evening and the largest cities every twelve hours apart, arriving at destinations in the mornings.
I was referring to the Acela at top speed which as I recall from my one ride, wasn't long.
The problem here has also been touched in comments previously. The scheduling of trains is such that where you used to board a train in early evening and arrive in time for a days work or leisure have mostly been converted to times that strictly are designed to keep a limited amount of trains connecting in some sort of order. That forces really late departures from Chicago due to late arriving trains to end up getting to NY city mid to late next day, where as they used to be mid to late afternoon departures with early arrival in NY which of course would make the most sense. But trains are not scheduled for the convenience of the passenger only the railroad. Combined with constant slow orders or delays, and few trains running, a timely system is close to impossible to institute. When the individual rail roads ran them they catered to the needs and times the passengers needed instead of when the latest arriving train made it in.
The thing you're agreeing with is not the thing I said. There's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to make a BOS to New Orleans (or for that matter, Boston to Los Angeles) sleeper trip in about 12 hours. If sleeper trips are a great idea, we shouldn't be limiting their distance to city pairs within 800-1000 miles when this country is as large as it is.
I think a lot of the support you see here for Amtrak charging the highest fares they can get away with is based on the assumption that they're stuck with only the equipment they already have (which basically is going to be the case for a few more years no matter how much Congress becomes willing to give Amtrak money). Notice how I talk about giving Amtrak money for more equipment first, before lowering fares.
That doesn't seem to be the thinking of Amtrak's management, where even refurbishing an Amfleet coach so that it can be used again is percieved as unimaginably expensive.
