LD or HSR

[Oldsmoboi]

HSR in the US is going to need to start from a few major hubs with arms radiating out in about 400 to 800 mile stretches. Eventually, some of those arms from the major hubs will touch allowing through service between the hubs.

For example, There are already a number of proposals for HSR out of Chicago in multiple directions. A line from Chicago to Cleveland would naturally touch a line from NYC to Cleveland, Philly to Cleveland via Pittsburgh, and DC to Cleveland via Pittsburgh. From Cleveland Amtrak can also run trips to Columbus and Cincinnati at slower speeds but still fast enough to matter. You now have, at worst, two seat service between DC and Chicago or NYC and Chicago. Then 2 seat service between Columbus/NYC, Columbus/DC, Cincinnati/Philly, etc.

Before you scoff at the idea of a two seat trip, consider that relaxing in a "DB Lounge" for an hour is a much more relaxing experience than schleping out to LGA/JFK/EWR (having to leave the house 3 hours in advance) and then schleping from ORD into Chicago. For me, the choice there would be easy.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The Acela is just too fast for good sightseeing, but is a wonderful commuter option.

An average moving speed of 75MPH is too fast for sightseeing? The main problem I have with sightseeing on the Acela is the same problem I have with sightseeing on nearly every other Amtrak train. Namely, a total lack of dome type observation cars. I've been on trains that ran at double the Acela's average moving speed and unless I was trying to focus on the roadbed or something the viewing quality was roughly the same.

 

[George Harris]

AS has already been said, the question is a false choice. Most places that have HSR still have conventional trains on semi parallel lines.

Those that look only at the end points to justify high speed trains are falling into the same concept as those who oppose rail travel altogether. If you have a five or six hour end to end traip time between New York and Chicago, that does not mean the train serves only New York and Chicago. If you are ony getting 50 to 150 passengers per train between new York and Chicago, so what? You will still fill the train up with people going only part of the wayy. Just picking one: Six hours New York to Chicag would mean three hours to Buffalo and manybe one more to Cleveland, and two to three between Cleveland and Chicago. You fill the train with passengers between intermediate points.

As to the "Greyhound" comparison: Look at the successful systems. The Shinkansen trains have a "Green" class car. Has nothing to do with environmentalism. The term is much older than the current fad. It means a premium class car. In their case somewhat wider spaced seating and 2+2 instead of 3+2 across. (Shinkansen coaches are a full foot wider than American passenger cars and approximately 1.5 feet wider than European cars, so 3+2 is not cramped at all.

 

[jis]

I am still not convinced that it should be the job of the government to provide "Sightseeing Services" through the FRA/DOT. Funding through Department of Interior/ National Park Service may be more appropriate for such.

 

[AlanB]

Same with a Tampa/Orlando corridor; or a lot of others.

Tampa/Orlando was but the first leg of a system that would have easily served probably at least half of the state's 18+ million residents. On it's own perhaps it might have been hard to justify it, even though all studies show that it would have covered its operating costs at a minimum. But again, it was the first leg of a system to Miami & Jacksonville. That covers a major portion of the station and a very large portion of Florida's population.

 

[jis]

Same with a Tampa/Orlando corridor; or a lot of others.

Tampa/Orlando was but the first leg of a system that would have easily served probably at least half of the state's 18+ million residents. On it's own perhaps it might have been hard to justify it, even though all studies show that it would have covered its operating costs at a minimum. But again, it was the first leg of a system to Miami & Jacksonville. That covers a major portion of the station and a very large portion of Florida's population.

Oddly enough, I think the Tampa - Orlando experience is illustrative of what happens when you choose too small a MOS (Minimum Operating Segment). I still believe that if they had focused on Miami - Orlando instead, they would have had a better chance of success, the Governor notwithstanding. I also still believe that their projected ridership for the Orlando - Tampa segment was a bit too much on the optimistic side.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

AS has already been said, the question is a false choice. Most places that have HSR still have conventional trains on semi parallel lines.

Yes there are conventional trains on the same line but only in very rare cases are they long distance and even more rare than that are they sleeper with a diner. What you're describing is I.C.E verse RegioBahn. (Or Acela verse NJ Transit if you prefer) What I'm describing in the original question is I.C.E/Acela verse Lake Shore Limited.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Same with a Tampa/Orlando corridor; or a lot of others.

Tampa/Orlando was but the first leg of a system that would have easily served probably at least half of the state's 18+ million residents. On it's own perhaps it might have been hard to justify it, even though all studies show that it would have covered its operating costs at a minimum. But again, it was the first leg of a system to Miami & Jacksonville. That covers a major portion of the station and a very large portion of Florida's population.

Oddly enough, I think the Tampa - Orlando experience is illustrative of what happens when you choose too small a MOS (Minimum Operating Segment). I still believe that if they had focused on Miami - Orlando instead, they would have had a better chance of success, the Governor notwithstanding. I also still believe that their projected ridership for the Orlando - Tampa segment was a bit too much on the optimistic side.

High speed from Miami to any other point in Florida would likely be able to break even fairly easily.

 

[George Harris]

My opinion is the big limiting factor in high speed over long distances is the electrification issue. I read the maximum practical limit of diesel/electric locomotives is about 125 MPH, which I think would be good for runs up to about 1000 miles. If you're going to electrify a line, you need to make back that investment with high frequency usage. One or two trains a day won't cut it.

We continue to be confused by the practical limit in speed for the alignment and the practical limit in speed for the vehicle/power system. For the most part of the rail systems in this world speeds above 125 mph on lines that are other than new and purpose built for high speed is simply not worth doing because there is not enough continuous length of line for plus 125 mph speed to make any meaningful reduction in run time. The northeast corridor is an outstanding example of this fact.

When we consider that there are proven examples of 125 mph speeds with steam hauling conventional early 1900's passenger cars on jointed rails and for quite a few years teh Santa Fe had a list of steam locomotives that were permitted to run 100 mph in regular service on a day in day out basis, to say that a speed only 25% faster is the practical limit for diesel power with modern equipment is downright silly. Yes, DMU type power would probably be better than a locomotive and coach type setup in that the maximum weight per axle could be reduced and spread evenly over the trainset. When you hear people get concerned about axle loads for this type train set, consider the sources. Recall that most of the world outside North America considers an axle load of 25 tons pushing the envelope of wheel on rail loading at any speed while on this side of the planet consider 32 tons to 35 tons reasonable for essentially unlimited numbers of axle loads at up to 70 mph.

 

[cirdan]

AS has already been said, the question is a false choice. Most places that have HSR still have conventional trains on semi parallel lines.

Those that look only at the end points to justify high speed trains are falling into the same concept as those who oppose rail travel altogether. If you have a five or six hour end to end traip time between New York and Chicago, that does not mean the train serves only New York and Chicago. If you are ony getting 50 to 150 passengers per train between new York and Chicago, so what? You will still fill the train up with people going only part of the wayy. Just picking one: Six hours New York to Chicag would mean three hours to Buffalo and manybe one more to Cleveland, and two to three between Cleveland and Chicago. You fill the train with passengers between intermediate points.

As to the "Greyhound" comparison: Look at the successful systems. The Shinkansen trains have a "Green" class car. Has nothing to do with environmentalism. The term is much older than the current fad. It means a premium class car. In their case somewhat wider spaced seating and 2+2 instead of 3+2 across. (Shinkansen coaches are a full foot wider than American passenger cars and approximately 1.5 feet wider than European cars, so 3+2 is not cramped at all.

I'm fully aware of that. I do by the way think there is a case for New York to Chicago.

But for longer distances that all breaks down. It's okay to cater for intermediate places. As you say, that is indeed something that rail can do and airlines can't. But if you reach the point that virtually all traffic is intermediate and the end to end passengers are just a handful or less, can you still then honestly claim you are in the business of running a service betwenn those cities, or are you just running a super-regional service where end to end passengers are just incidental but not really the point of the exercise. If that happens, then in my book you've killed the LD train and are just running a number of conjointed regional services, because an LD train is not a train that accidentally takes passengers over long distances but one that caters for them to be able to do so in appropriate comfort.

I wouldn't want to ride a Sinkansen for 21 hours eating airline type food even if I had 2+2 seating if the alternatives were either a proper airliner or a real LD train with a bedroom etc.

I can probably travel from Washington DC to New York city by a combination of metros and local bus services. I don't now, I never tried. But if I can, that's not the same thing as saying there is a corridor or a service for that and you can't call it an alternative to Acela.

 

[jis]

But for longer distances that all breaks down. It's okay to cater for intermediate places. As you say, that is indeed something that rail can do and airlines can't. But if you reach the point that virtually all traffic is intermediate and the end to end passengers are just a handful or less, can you still then honestly claim you are in the business of running a service betwenn those cities, or are you just running a super-regional service where end to end passengers are just incidental but not really the point of the exercise. If that happens, then in my book you've killed the LD train and are just running a number of conjointed regional services, because an LD train is not a train that accidentally takes passengers over long distances but one that caters for them to be able to do so in appropriate comfort.

So all that you are saying is a longer distance train should have some appropriate furnished cars to accommodate those who wil spend say more than 7 hours on the train. And that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

But other than that, whether it is a single train covering 2500 miles or 5 trains, is a matter of operational detail, which at most would be of interest to the railfans who track consist links; and would be of zero concern to the everyday passenger. The thing that everyday passenger would find useful if it were a single train, is that they don't have to change trains every 500 miles if they happen to be traveling say 1200 miles, which on the whole would be a good thing I'd imagine.

Afterall, hypothetically, if there were a cross country HSR operating under the same regime as the Beijing - Shanghai service, the travel time would be 20 hours or so, serving numerous intermediate city pairs on the way, many with runs well under 7 hours, including the likes of Chicago to Denver for example.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

HSR isn't for going from NYC to LAX. That's what 757s are for. (I'm speaking as a lay traveler here, not an Amtrak foamer). HSR is for Boston-DC or NYC-Chicago or Atlanta-Miami, or LAX-SFO, or Pittsburgh-Philly type runs.

 

[jis]

HSR isn't for going from NYC to LAX. That's what 757s are for. (I'm speaking as a lay traveler here, not an Amtrak foamer). HSR is for Boston-DC or NYC-Chicago or Atlanta-Miami, or LAX-SFO, or Pittsburgh-Philly type runs.

While I would not expect anyone in their right mind to take HSR from NYC to LAX, I have no problem seeing HSR being taken from NYC to CHI or JAX to NYC or NYC to ATL if such were available. This are all under 5 hours. The total time that it takes including the TSA shenanigans from downtown New York to downtown Chicago by air is of that order anyway.