CL speed between COV and PGH

[volkris]

Why is the Capitol Limited scheduled to average 30mph between Connellsville, PA, and Pittsburgh?

It's always been pretty frustrating that the train takes twice as long as driving between DC and Ohio, and this two hour span of crawling along seems to exemplify the problem. I know, I know, sleep through it, but really: we talk about high(er) speed rail while this LD train feels like it's creeping through a school zone

Is there any hope for higher speed through those mountain passes? Are there plans for alternative paths in the future?

 

[p&sr]

Why is the Capitol Limited scheduled to average 30mph between Connellsville, PA, and Pittsburgh?

Last time I was there, the Tracks were in bad shape. Pretty shaky, really. Heading eastbound, we wouldn't DARE go any faster downhill from the Mountains.

 

[volkris]

Why is the Capitol Limited scheduled to average 30mph between Connellsville, PA, and Pittsburgh?

Last time I was there, the Tracks were in bad shape. Pretty shaky, really. Heading eastbound, we wouldn't DARE go any faster downhill from the Mountains.

Ah, so it's not necessarily anything about the layout of the route--curves, tunnels, clearance, etc--but likely just track condition?

And ~30mph is about as fast as could be seen downhill without major work to tame the grades?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Why is the Capitol Limited scheduled to average 30mph between Connellsville, PA, and Pittsburgh?
It's always been pretty frustrating that the train takes twice as long as driving between DC and Ohio, and this two hour span of crawling along seems to exemplify the problem. I know, I know, sleep through it, but really: we talk about high(er) speed rail while this LD train feels like it's creeping through a school zone

Is there any hope for higher speed through those mountain passes? Are there plans for alternative paths in the future?

Are you trying to get from COV to PGH, or from WAS to CHI, or some other city pair?

I think it's hard to justify spending real money on maintaining track for places that only justify daily passenger service, and COV might be in that category.

 

[volkris]

Are you trying to get from COV to PGH, or from WAS to CHI, or some other city pair?
I think it's hard to justify spending real money on maintaining track for places that only justify daily passenger service, and COV might be in that category.

Yeah, I guess that piece of information is pretty relevant if I'm wondering about alternative routes too.

I'm talking in context of the whole length of the Capitol Limited, DC to Chicago. It seems like it would be an important corridor that should be able to at least get in the same ballpark as travel by road, timewise.

Personally, I travel frequently between Newport News/Richmond and Toledo, OH. I'd take the train far more often--even driving up to catch it in DC--but it turns the seven hours between DC and Toledo into thirteen.

 

[AlanB]

Part of it is also padding to get the train back on schedule if it's running late. Going eastbound they only allow about an hour and a half, while westbound get two hours.

 

[sechs]

I'm talking in context of the whole length of the Capitol Limited, DC to Chicago. It seems like it would be an important corridor that should be able to at least get in the same ballpark as travel by road, timewise.

Perhaps you should really be wondering why there isn't a long-distance train from DC to Washington routed via Philadelphia, where the tracks are in great shape.

Then again, this would really involve adding another long-distance train on a route that already has service.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I'm talking in context of the whole length of the Capitol Limited, DC to Chicago. It seems like it would be an important corridor that should be able to at least get in the same ballpark as travel by road, timewise.

What I think our country should do is build high speed track from New York City to Chicago, with a three hour NYP to CHI goal. That's a very important city pair, since New York City is the largest primary census area in the country, and Chicago is the third largest. (The second largest is Los Angles, unlikely to achieve three hour service to Chicago or New York City.)

Since getting that time down to about three hours is likely to be challenging, that track should be built to take a route with as few track miles as possible, optimized for keeping the route between that city pair short rather than visiting other cities along the way. This probably also requires a speed of about 350 MPH for most of the route, but I think Obama has said he wants the fastest train in the world to be in the US, and if we're going to make that happen, it would probably have to achieve about that speed anyway.

Once that's done, potential good high speed routes would include from Pittsburgh to that New York - Chicago track, and from the DC area to Pittsburgh. WAS to CHI ought to be under four hours at that point, as long as you don't mind losing the opportunity to see the station at COV.

 

[p&sr]

The second largest is Los Angeles... to achieve three hour service to Chicago or New York City.
Obama has said he wants the fastest train in the world to be in the US, and if we're going to make that happen, it would probably have to achieve about that speed anyway.

This sounds like a Great Idea! We'd have to make it non-stop, of course, so the necessary average speed of 825 miles per hour can be maintained. Finally a good application for Mag-Lev (no wheels to fly apart at the high speeds). And they'd have to avoid things like Air Resistance as well. The best way to do this is to run the entire 2470-mile route Underground, in a single tunnel. The Train would be pressure-sealed and carry its own atmospheric recycling system, like a Space Station. And the Tunnel, controlled with Air-Locks at each end, just needs some really huge Vacuum Pumps to remove all the air. Then a quick Magnetic Boost and... just Coast Freely, from Coast to Coast!

Shares in this venture to be made available soon. First twenty-five subscribers at over $1,000,000 each get WINDOW SEATS for the first trip on Opening Day! (Bring a flashlight.)

 

[Mark]

I'm talking in context of the whole length of the Capitol Limited, DC to Chicago. It seems like it would be an important corridor that should be able to at least get in the same ballpark as travel by road, timewise.

What I think our country should do is build high speed track from New York City to Chicago, with a three hour NYP to CHI goal. That's a very important city pair, since New York City is the largest primary census area in the country, and Chicago is the third largest. (The second largest is Los Angles, unlikely to achieve three hour service to Chicago or New York City.)

Since getting that time down to about three hours is likely to be challenging, that track should be built to take a route with as few track miles as possible, optimized for keeping the route between that city pair short rather than visiting other cities along the way. This probably also requires a speed of about 350 MPH for most of the route, but I think Obama has said he wants the fastest train in the world to be in the US, and if we're going to make that happen, it would probably have to achieve about that speed anyway.

Once that's done, potential good high speed routes would include from Pittsburgh to that New York - Chicago track, and from the DC area to Pittsburgh. WAS to CHI ought to be under four hours at that point, as long as you don't mind losing the opportunity to see the station at COV.

Agreed- CHI-NYP should be a major target for HSR but you don't need to go that fast a standard Acela/TGV speed, around 150-225mph, with an average of 200mph being the goal would be enough to get it in around 5-7 hours downtown to downtown. That would be enough, keep out the airport security hassle and people would start to come. 350mph average is just unrealistic.

The big one in this country is the California High Speed Rail program. If it gets built and is marginally successful the rest of the designated high speed rail corridors will become a reality. If they blow it in CA, (cost overruns, too long to build, fails to deliver on speed, etc.), then we'll probably never see anything that ambitions attempted again outside the NEC.

 

[volkris]

Perhaps you should really be wondering why there isn't a long-distance train from DC to Washington routed via Philadelphia, where the tracks are in great shape.
Then again, this would really involve adding another long-distance train on a route that already has service.

Well there are two things I'm wondering, somewhat academically: why is it slow, and what options are there overall.

I'm new 'round these parts, just starting to learn about trains, so for all I know 30 is about as fast as a passenger trains can be expected to go around mountain-hugging paths, regardless of how well-maintained the track is. It sounds like it's mainly a matter of track condition and grade that's keeping the speed low.

I see that the time between Philadelphia and points west are much closer to the expected road travel time, so I assume a different path heading more northerly, if not sharing the same track as the Pennsylvanian, would improve things. Again, though, is that due to the path or track conditions?

And while we're being academic, p&sr, I'm down with the vacuum tube train as long as it has a stop outside my front door. And we'll make it silent.

 

[the_traveler]

Perhaps you should really be wondering why there isn't a long-distance train from DC to Washington routed via Philadelphia

Am I missing something or what? :huh: That wouldn't make sense - even for Amtrak!

Have a LD train go from 1 track at Union Station in DC (Washington) to another track at Union Station in Washington (DC) via PHL? :huh: :lol:

 

[WICT106]

Why is the Capitol Limited scheduled to average 30mph between Connellsville, PA, and Pittsburgh?

Last time I was there, the Tracks were in bad shape. Pretty shaky, really. Heading eastbound, we wouldn't DARE go any faster downhill from the Mountains.

Ah, so it's not necessarily anything about the layout of the route--curves, tunnels, clearance, etc--but likely just track condition?

And ~30mph is about as fast as could be seen downhill without major work to tame the grades?

Actually it is a combination of all the conditions you just listed. The track is a 19th Century alignment, being maintained to standards developed in the 1970s through 1990s. Complete with freight on it, traveling at different speeds. So, in order to increase the speeds, one would have to have a new alignment in addition to maintaining the track to a higher FRA standard.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

Perhaps you should really be wondering why there isn't a long-distance train from DC to Washington routed via Philadelphia

Am I missing something or what? :huh: That wouldn't make sense - even for Amtrak!

Have a LD train go from 1 track at Union Station in DC (Washington) to another track at Union Station in Washington (DC) via PHL? :huh: :lol:

And doesnt the Cardinal stop at 30th Street? I could have sworn it does.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm talking in context of the whole length of the Capitol Limited, DC to Chicago. It seems like it would be an important corridor that should be able to at least get in the same ballpark as travel by road, timewise.

Perhaps you should really be wondering why there isn't a long-distance train from DC to Washington routed via Philadelphia, where the tracks are in great shape.

Then again, this would really involve adding another long-distance train on a route that already has service.

You know, years ago we used to call that "430/431 National Limited" and "440/441 Broadway Limited"

The Capitol Limited used to combine with the Broadway Limited years ago, and the idea was to serve more stations.

 

[p&sr]

And while we're being academic, p&sr, I'm down with the vacuum tube train as long as it has a stop outside my front door. And we'll make it silent.

Oh, it's guaranteed to be silent. No motors at all, just magnets. And the big advantage of running in a Vacuum... no Sonic Boom!

 

[wayman]

Perhaps you should really be wondering why there isn't a long-distance train from DC to Washington routed via Philadelphia

Am I missing something or what? :huh: That wouldn't make sense - even for Amtrak!

Have a LD train go from 1 track at Union Station in DC (Washington) to another track at Union Station in Washington (DC) via PHL? :huh: :lol:

And doesnt the Cardinal stop at 30th Street? I could have sworn it does.

The Cardinal goes (NYP)-PHL-WAS-CHI, following an intentionally inefficient route (in order to serve a variety of cities like Charlottesville, Charleston, Cincinnati, etc)--the Cardinal is absolutely the last train you want to take from either NYP-CHI or WAS-CHI. You take the Cardinal because you're going to/from somewhere on its route or because you want to see the New River Gorge.

What's being proposed (typo's aside ) is a route WAS-PHL-CHI, which would probably take about the same time as the current Capitol Limited. (Perhaps in an ideal world, this train would have two sections, one starting at WAS and the other at NYP, joining at PHL to head to Chicago as one train; then there are two daily departures for WAS-CHI and two daily departures for NYP-CHI, plus the Cardinal on top of those which, even when it finally becomes daily, is still not an efficient way to get from the east coast to Chicago.)

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

CHI-NYP should be a major target for HSR but you don't need to go that fast a standard Acela/TGV speed, around 150-225mph, with an average of 200mph being the goal would be enough to get it in around 5-7 hours downtown to downtown. That would be enough, keep out the airport security hassle and people would start to come. 350mph average is just unrealistic.

I'm confused. Your writing style seems to be implying that the Acela and TGV run at roughly the same speed, but I thought their average speeds differed by more than a factor of two.

And where did the concept of 350 MPH as an average speed come from? Google Maps tells me that Chicago Union Station to New York Penn Station is 793 miles by automobile. Covering 793 miles in three hours only requires an average speed of around 265 MPH.

I'm not convinced that merely having some ridership is good enough if we're serious about switching to cleaner energy that is available in plentiful quantities domestically. Especially since I don't think 350 MPH track is going to be significantly more expensive than 200 MPH track. The thing you really want to optimize for is something like the construction cost per rider. If you can make ridership double for 5% more construction cost (I have no idea if those are really the real numbers), why settle for 200 MPH?

 

[Mark]

CHI-NYP should be a major target for HSR but you don't need to go that fast a standard Acela/TGV speed, around 150-225mph, with an average of 200mph being the goal would be enough to get it in around 5-7 hours downtown to downtown. That would be enough, keep out the airport security hassle and people would start to come. 350mph average is just unrealistic.

I'm confused. Your writing style seems to be implying that the Acela and TGV run at roughly the same speed, but I thought their average speeds differed by more than a factor of two.

And where did the concept of 350 MPH as an average speed come from? Google Maps tells me that Chicago Union Station to New York Penn Station is 793 miles by automobile. Covering 793 miles in three hours only requires an average speed of around 265 MPH.

I'm not convinced that merely having some ridership is good enough if we're serious about switching to cleaner energy that is available in plentiful quantities domestically. Especially since I don't think 350 MPH track is going to be significantly more expensive than 200 MPH track. The thing you really want to optimize for is something like the construction cost per rider. If you can make ridership double for 5% more construction cost (I have no idea if those are really the real numbers), why settle for 200 MPH?

The Acela is capable of lower-end TGV speeds, and if you look at how they are developed one could call them cousins on the rails. The Acela's speed is held back by the curvy nature of the NEC. Most TGVs are running at 187mph, (300KPH) in revenue service. My point is that there are already trains on the shelf that can run at or above 150 mph. The next generation of TGV is supposed to capable of 200-225mph in revenue service. They are capable of much higher speeds.

Umm the 350mph concept was straight off of your comment if I'm not mistaking, if I am I apologize and perhaps I misinterpreted your statement. I was merely pointing out that it would be far too costly to develop a train to run that fast when one could just purchase a system that is tested and proved- like Spain did with its AVE which is a TGV and South Korea with its KTX, another TGV. Russia is slated to begin constructing its own high speed line using German ICE trains.

You mentioned that the Acela runs at about half the TGVs average speed. OK let's talk average. Then why does Amtrak command more than half of the market share BOS-WAS? Because Acela is fast enough to attract and keep customers. In normal non-recession times its expensive by most people's standards to ride Acela. The Acela proves one thing: It doesn't have to go all that fast to get customers. Like I said, current Acela-TGV speeds would be fast enough to get the customers. So when you're building your CHI-NYP high-speed line remember, the faster you go the more it will cost if not up front at purchase and construction, then later in maintenance, (a very weak link in the Amtrak chain). I don't know the specifics but I recall reading that 200-225mph was about the threshold for wheels and rails from a cost perspective.

Just my two cents, I'm not trying to offend.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Acela is capable of lower-end TGV speeds, and if you look at how they are developed one could call them cousins on the rails. The Acela's speed is held back by the curvy nature of the NEC. Most TGVs are running at 187mph, (300KPH) in revenue service. My point is that there are already trains on the shelf that can run at or above 150 mph. The next generation of TGV is supposed to capable of 200-225mph in revenue service. They are capable of much higher speeds.

The reason most TGVs are only running about 186 MPH in revenue service is the level of vision the French had when they constructed their track 30 years ago. The next generation trainsets are still going to have to run at 186 MPH on the curvy sections of the older TGV alignments for the forseeable future.

There's an important lesson here: the French experience suggests that whatever you pick as your top speed when building the track is going to limit the top speed for the next several decades or perhaps even much longer than that. If the speeds the trainsets are capable of creep up each decade, you'll only be able to take advantage of that if the track was designed for that possibility.

Umm the 350mph concept was straight off of your comment if I'm not mistaking, if I am I apologize and perhaps I misinterpreted your statement. I was merely pointing out that it would be far too costly to develop a train to run that fast when one could just purchase a system that is tested and proved- like Spain did with its AVE which is a TGV and South Korea with its KTX, another TGV. Russia is slated to begin constructing its own high speed line using German ICE trains.

I'd said ``This probably also requires a speed of about 350 MPH for most of the route'', and I was talking about the top speed, not the average speed. I don't think it would be meaningful to talk about an average speed if we were talking about the speed for most and not all of a route.

There's some question of whether it's really possible to buy a proven-elsewhere trainset for use in the US anyway, since their crashworthiness tends to not meet US standards, and the California HSR trains do need to run on some track that does need to be shared with freight service near San Francisco.

You mentioned that the Acela runs at about half the TGVs average speed. OK let's talk average. Then why does Amtrak command more than half of the market share BOS-WAS? Because Acela is fast enough to attract and keep customers. In normal non-recession times its expensive by most people's standards to ride Acela. The Acela proves one thing: It doesn't have to go all that fast to get customers. Like I said, current Acela-TGV speeds would be fast enough to get the customers. So when you're building your CHI-NYP high-speed line remember, the faster you go the more it will cost if not up front at purchase and construction, then later in maintenance, (a very weak link in the Amtrak chain). I don't know the specifics but I recall reading that 200-225mph was about the threshold for wheels and rails from a cost perspective.

I've not heard about wheels and rails having cost issues above 200-225 MPH. Do you have a link?

But even if the steel parts do wear out faster, who cares? It's not like we have a shortage of the raw materials or willing underemployed labor domestically to deal with it. We should be far more concerned about petroleum, something which airplanes do not make terribly efficient use of.

I thought it was just New York City to Washington DC where Amtrak had more than 50% of the market share, and that's a segment that the Acela does cover in less than the magic three hours. Amtrak certainly doesn't have 50% of the trips for the BOS to WAS city pair, but there's no reason why HSR couldn't eliminate most or all of the current air service on that route.

(I also tend to think the reason Amtrak doesn't have even more of the New York City to DC market share is a lack of seats on Amtrak's existing rolling stock. It's certainly the case that if Amtrak sold 50% more tickets than they do today on the New York City to DC corridor and didn't reallocate equipment from other routes, they wouldn't have seats for all the passengers.)

 

[Mark]

The Acela is capable of lower-end TGV speeds, and if you look at how they are developed one could call them cousins on the rails. The Acela's speed is held back by the curvy nature of the NEC. Most TGVs are running at 187mph, (300KPH) in revenue service. My point is that there are already trains on the shelf that can run at or above 150 mph. The next generation of TGV is supposed to capable of 200-225mph in revenue service. They are capable of much higher speeds.

The reason most TGVs are only running about 186 MPH in revenue service is the level of vision the French had when they constructed their track 30 years ago. The next generation trainsets are still going to have to run at 186 MPH on the curvy sections of the older TGV alignments for the forseeable future.

There's an important lesson here: the French experience suggests that whatever you pick as your top speed when building the track is going to limit the top speed for the next several decades or perhaps even much longer than that. If the speeds the trainsets are capable of creep up each decade, you'll only be able to take advantage of that if the track was designed for that possibility.

Umm the 350mph concept was straight off of your comment if I'm not mistaking, if I am I apologize and perhaps I misinterpreted your statement. I was merely pointing out that it would be far too costly to develop a train to run that fast when one could just purchase a system that is tested and proved- like Spain did with its AVE which is a TGV and South Korea with its KTX, another TGV. Russia is slated to begin constructing its own high speed line using German ICE trains.

I'd said ``This probably also requires a speed of about 350 MPH for most of the route'', and I was talking about the top speed, not the average speed. I don't think it would be meaningful to talk about an average speed if we were talking about the speed for most and not all of a route.

There's some question of whether it's really possible to buy a proven-elsewhere trainset for use in the US anyway, since their crashworthiness tends to not meet US standards, and the California HSR trains do need to run on some track that does need to be shared with freight service near San Francisco.

You mentioned that the Acela runs at about half the TGVs average speed. OK let's talk average. Then why does Amtrak command more than half of the market share BOS-WAS? Because Acela is fast enough to attract and keep customers. In normal non-recession times its expensive by most people's standards to ride Acela. The Acela proves one thing: It doesn't have to go all that fast to get customers. Like I said, current Acela-TGV speeds would be fast enough to get the customers. So when you're building your CHI-NYP high-speed line remember, the faster you go the more it will cost if not up front at purchase and construction, then later in maintenance, (a very weak link in the Amtrak chain). I don't know the specifics but I recall reading that 200-225mph was about the threshold for wheels and rails from a cost perspective.

I've not heard about wheels and rails having cost issues above 200-225 MPH. Do you have a link?

But even if the steel parts do wear out faster, who cares? It's not like we have a shortage of the raw materials or willing underemployed labor domestically to deal with it. We should be far more concerned about petroleum, something which airplanes do not make terribly efficient use of.

I thought it was just New York City to Washington DC where Amtrak had more than 50% of the market share, and that's a segment that the Acela does cover in less than the magic three hours. Amtrak certainly doesn't have 50% of the trips for the BOS to WAS city pair, but there's no reason why HSR couldn't eliminate most or all of the current air service on that route.

(I also tend to think the reason Amtrak doesn't have even more of the New York City to DC market share is a lack of seats on Amtrak's existing rolling stock. It's certainly the case that if Amtrak sold 50% more tickets than they do today on the New York City to DC corridor and didn't reallocate equipment from other routes, they wouldn't have seats for all the passengers.)

Agreed- what you build is what you get but nobody is building rails capable of 350mph for revenue service. Why? Because it would be cost prohibitive under the current technology or else it would already have been done.

You made the 350mph statement. I replied it was unrealistic and unnecessary. Now you want to split hairs. "Most of the route" vs average speed, come on.

No I don't have a link regarding the rail and wheel wear- I simply recall reading it somewhere toss it out if you don't believe me it doesn't really matter because again nobody is going to build a line capable of revenue speeds in excess of 225-250mph.

The FRA crash standards are for mixed passenger and freight lines here in the US. A dedicated High Speed Line with passenger only trains may be held to a different standard. It doesn't exist here so we don't really know. Anybody bold enough to try it should be bold enough to apply for a waiver from the FRA. Aren't the Cascades operating under some sort of waiver?

Splitting hairs again- WAS-BOS, NYP-BOS, NYP-WAS in one of those pairs if not all three. Amtrak, (regionals included), has a slight lead over the airlines in market share- the point was super high track speed isn't necessarily the top issue. It has to be a combination of speed, convenience and price. Your track and equipment maintenance costs will be too high to make the ticket price travel worthy.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Agreed- what you build is what you get but nobody is building rails capable of 350mph for revenue service. Why? Because it would be cost prohibitive under the current technology or else it would already have been done.

The typical country that has a well developed HSR system is small enough that you can cross it in well under 3 hours at 186 MPH. The US is bigger, and will benefit a lot more from additional speed than countries with existing HSR systems. So I don't think you can quite assume that.

Would have building gentler curves in France for 220 MPH operation instead of 186 MPH operation been cost prohibitive 30 years ago? It certainly doesn't seem to be cost prohibitive for them today.

You made the 350mph statement. I replied it was unrealistic and unnecessary. Now you want to split hairs. "Most of the route" vs average speed, come on.

The distinction between average speed and top speed is not splitting hairs. The top speed of the Acela Express is 150 MPH. Its average speed from BOS to WAS less than half that.

Good quality HSR really does require achieving the top speed for most of the length of the route. The reason the ratio of average speed to top speed on the Acela is so pathetic is that the Acela was financed by folks who reufsed to recognize this.

because again nobody is going to build a line capable of revenue speeds in excess of 225-250mph.

This article says:

"I don't want to see the fastest train in the world built halfway around the world in Shanghai," Obama said. "I want to see it built right here in the United States of America."

And this Wikipedia article claims the Shanghai Maglev system reaches 268 MPH.

I think if you put all this together, you can conclude that President Obama does want us to have a train running in revenue servie faster than 250 MPH. And I certainly don't think it's wise to be confident that Obama won't get what he wants in this area.

The FRA crash standards are for mixed passenger and freight lines here in the US. A dedicated High Speed Line with passenger only trains may be held to a different standard. It doesn't exist here so we don't really know. Anybody bold enough to try it should be bold enough to apply for a waiver from the FRA. Aren't the Cascades operating under some sort of waiver?

California HSR, which looks likely to be the first true HSR in the US, is going to run on track mixed with freight for part of its route. That means that the first HSR trainsets run in revenue service in the US are going to have to coexist with freight, and will not be entirely on dedicated passenger track (unless they decide they want to have San Francisco start service later than Oakland service and have a separate equipment pool for San Francisco vs Oakland, but I don't think anyone really wants that, and I'm not even sure the Oakland to LA route avoids freight tracks anyway).

And once the R&D is done for California HSR to have a train the FRA will allow to be mixed with freight, why not use it even on routes that don't share any track at all with freight?

Splitting hairs again- WAS-BOS, NYP-BOS, NYP-WAS in one of those pairs if not all three. Amtrak, (regionals included), has a slight lead over the airlines in market share- the point was super high track speed isn't necessarily the top issue. It has to be a combination of speed, convenience and price. Your track and equipment maintenance costs will be too high to make the ticket price travel worthy.

Why do you think the track and equipment maintenance costs will make the ticket prices too high for the average traveler? That doesn't seem to be the French TGV experience at all.

The truly expensive part of HSR is building the track. Once the taxpayers have done that, letting everyone use that track is not expensive.

The reason tickets on the NEC are overpriced is that Amtrak simply doesn't have enough equipment. If they doubled the number of passenger cars in use between New York City and DC, I bet we'd see at least 80% of the airline seats currently in that market vanish.

You're right that super high speed isn't what travelers care about per se. I think they care about travel time. Super high speed extends the distance that fits within the acceptable travel time, and building a system that appeals to more travelers for more city pairs improves the value of the system.

 

[AlanB]

You made the 350mph statement. I replied it was unrealistic and unnecessary. Now you want to split hairs. "Most of the route" vs average speed, come on.

The distinction between average speed and top speed is not splitting hairs. The top speed of the Acela Express is 150 MPH. Its average speed from BOS to WAS less than half that.

Good quality HSR really does require achieving the top speed for most of the length of the route. The reason the ratio of average speed to top speed on the Acela is so pathetic is that the Acela was financed by folks who reufsed to recognize this.

No, they recognized it, they didn't have the money for it. So they figured that by getting the shiny new trains done first, that everyone would be so impressed with the shiny new toy that they would then throw money at the second problem, the tracks and their alignment.

The FRA crash standards are for mixed passenger and freight lines here in the US. A dedicated High Speed Line with passenger only trains may be held to a different standard. It doesn't exist here so we don't really know. Anybody bold enough to try it should be bold enough to apply for a waiver from the FRA. Aren't the Cascades operating under some sort of waiver?

California HSR, which looks likely to be the first true HSR in the US, is going to run on track mixed with freight for part of its route. That means that the first HSR trainsets run in revenue service in the US are going to have to coexist with freight, and will not be entirely on dedicated passenger track (unless they decide they want to have San Francisco start service later than Oakland service and have a separate equipment pool for San Francisco vs Oakland, but I don't think anyone really wants that, and I'm not even sure the Oakland to LA route avoids freight tracks anyway).

And once the R&D is done for California HSR to have a train the FRA will allow to be mixed with freight, why not use it even on routes that don't share any track at all with freight?

I'm not aware of any plans to share the HSR tracks with freight, other than perhaps close in to the terminals, like when the train runs on Caltrain's tracks. HSR does hope to lay their tracks in certain parts of a freight co's ROW, but the tracks will not be interconnected.

Splitting hairs again- WAS-BOS, NYP-BOS, NYP-WAS in one of those pairs if not all three. Amtrak, (regionals included), has a slight lead over the airlines in market share- the point was super high track speed isn't necessarily the top issue. It has to be a combination of speed, convenience and price. Your track and equipment maintenance costs will be too high to make the ticket price travel worthy.

Why do you think the track and equipment maintenance costs will make the ticket prices too high for the average traveler? That doesn't seem to be the French TGV experience at all.

The truly expensive part of HSR is building the track. Once the taxpayers have done that, letting everyone use that track is not expensive.

The reason tickets on the NEC are overpriced is that Amtrak simply doesn't have enough equipment. If they doubled the number of passenger cars in use between New York City and DC, I bet we'd see at least 80% of the airline seats currently in that market vanish.

NEC ticket prices aren't overpriced because of a lack of equipment. NEC ticket prices are where they are for two reasons. One, Congress' demands that Amtrak try and make a profit. Two, because the market will bear those prices. Now that fewer people are traveling because of the economy, prices are falling. But this is one area where it's not really about supply and demand. Amtrak has the ability to carry more people if they need.

This is one reason that so many Amfleets got mothballed. Yes, there was the cost factor of doing the needed work to pass inspection, but that was only part of the equation. Amtrak didn't want those cars in service because they wanted to keep the prices higher to get a greater yield.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I'm not aware of any plans to share the HSR tracks with freight, other than perhaps close in to the terminals, like when the train runs on Caltrain's tracks. HSR does hope to lay their tracks in certain parts of a freight co's ROW, but the tracks will not be interconnected.

That certainly matches my understanding, but the point is that some of the route the California HSR trainsets will operate on is shared with freight, and that will increase the pressure to have trainsets with crashworthiness appropriate for operating on tracks shared with freight.

NEC ticket prices aren't overpriced because of a lack of equipment. NEC ticket prices are where they are for two reasons. One, Congress' demands that Amtrak try and make a profit. Two, because the market will bear those prices. Now that fewer people are traveling because of the economy, prices are falling. But this is one area where it's not really about supply and demand. Amtrak has the ability to carry more people if they need.
This is one reason that so many Amfleets got mothballed. Yes, there was the cost factor of doing the needed work to pass inspection, but that was only part of the equation. Amtrak didn't want those cars in service because they wanted to keep the prices higher to get a greater yield.

Would the costs of refurbishing those cars and paying for the extra assistant conductors really not be covered by selling lower priced tickets to fill those seats?

The market consists of a variety of passengers willing to pay a variety of prices. Adding more seats simply means that Amtrak has to be willing to accept lower prices for the added seats as more seats get added.

 

[AlanB]

I'm not aware of any plans to share the HSR tracks with freight, other than perhaps close in to the terminals, like when the train runs on Caltrain's tracks. HSR does hope to lay their tracks in certain parts of a freight co's ROW, but the tracks will not be interconnected.

That certainly matches my understanding, but the point is that some of the route the California HSR trainsets will operate on is shared with freight, and that will increase the pressure to have trainsets with crashworthiness appropriate for operating on tracks shared with freight.

I'm sure that the standards that will be imposed for high speed, especially of the type you are talking about, are much higher than the standards imposed for mixed freight operations.

NEC ticket prices aren't overpriced because of a lack of equipment. NEC ticket prices are where they are for two reasons. One, Congress' demands that Amtrak try and make a profit. Two, because the market will bear those prices. Now that fewer people are traveling because of the economy, prices are falling. But this is one area where it's not really about supply and demand. Amtrak has the ability to carry more people if they need.
This is one reason that so many Amfleets got mothballed. Yes, there was the cost factor of doing the needed work to pass inspection, but that was only part of the equation. Amtrak didn't want those cars in service because they wanted to keep the prices higher to get a greater yield.

Would the costs of refurbishing those cars and paying for the extra assistant conductors really not be covered by selling lower priced tickets to fill those seats?

I honestly don't know and don't have the numbers to know if they would be better off or worse off by putting those cars into service. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't a lack of cars that caused the prices to be as high as they are.