Texas High Speed Rail

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.
.... well .... if I wanted to build a railroad, I would start by going from A to B, and then maybe extend from B to C, so then I could offer connections not just between A and B and between B and C, but also between A and C, giving me two extra connections at the price of one. This is the network effect. Add a line to D and that's three extra connections at the price of one and so on and so on.

Building a line in Florida, and then one in Nevada, and then one in Texas is obviously not going to create this network effect.
 
"
"We'd love to see high speed rail within our within our state within our country at some point,

That future is unknown because the company has yet to apply for a construction permit and Judge Fauth says it's nearly impossible to get in contact with them.

Phone calls to the company go unanswered, un-returned mail and so forth," he explained at recent Transportation Committee hearing.

Now, Judge Fauth and other landowners are taking the issue to Austin and advocating their stance in front of lawmakers.

They hope HB2357 is passed — this is a bill that would provide transparency from the company.

The acting CEO of TCR also appeared before the committee."


The shadiness of this Texas Central group has done more damage than anything else to the idea of HSR in Texas. That is why if one wants HSR in Texas one better hope Brightline gets on board.
Texas is full of Hustlers and Grifters, maybe even more than Florida!😄
 
.... well .... if I wanted to build a railroad, I would start by going from A to B, and then maybe extend from B to C, so then I could offer connections not just between A and B and between B and C, but also between A and C, giving me two extra connections at the price of one. This is the network effect. Add a line to D and that's three extra connections at the price of one and so on and so on.

Building a line in Florida, and then one in Nevada, and then one in Texas is obviously not going to create this network effect.
What you describe is exactly what Brightline did in Florida, building from Miami to Ft. Lauderdale then extending to Orlando.

I realize building in Nevada and potentially in Texas doesn't create a network but lines in those places would fulfill a need as well as showing the benefits of true high speed rail, which in turn could trigger projects elsewhere.
 
An interesting turn:
https://media.amtrak.com/2023/08/te...ice-opportunities-between-dallas-and-houston/
Texas Central and Amtrak Seek to Explore High-Speed Rail Service Opportunities between Dallas and Houston
WASHINGTON – Texas Central Partners (“Texas Central”) and Amtrak are seeking opportunities to advance planning and analysis work associated with the proposed Dallas-Houston 205-mph high-speed rail project to further determine its viability. Amtrak has cooperated with Texas Central on various initiatives since 2016 and the two entities are currently evaluating a potential partnership to further study and potentially advance the project.

“If we are going to add more high-speed rail to this country, the Dallas to Houston Corridor is a compelling proposition and offers great potential,” said Amtrak Senior Vice President of High-Speed Rail Development Programs Andy Byford. “We believe many of the country’s biggest and fastest-growing metropolitan areas, like Houston and Dallas, deserve more high quality high-speed, intercity rail service and we are proud to bring our experience to evaluate this potential project and explore opportunities with Texas Central so the state can meet its full transportation needs.”

Texas Central and Amtrak have submitted applications to several federal programs in connection with further study and design work for the potential Dallas to Houston segment, including the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure Safety and Improvements (CRISI) grant program, the Corridor Identification and Development program, and the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP-National) grant program.

Amtrak has worked with Texas Central since 2016 when it entered into agreements to provide through-ticketing using the Amtrak reservation system and other support services for the planned high-speed rail line.
 
So how does this project change? Does Amtrak change the equipment or route to reduce cost of this project? Hopefully Amtrak gives more details, because TC has been lacking in that area.
 
NBC 5 Ft. Worth report:

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/t...s-to-study-high-speed-rail-viability/3313530/
Waller County Judge Trey Duhon, president of the Texans Against High Speed Rail board, said they've long been worried about the financing behind Texas Central's project and added the railroad was nearly defunct because investments in the project never really showed up. He added they were concerned the cost of subsidies required to make tickets affordable for riders would ultimately end up in the laps of taxpayers and that estimated costs to make the line a reality ballooned from $12 billion to more than $40 billion.

Duhon told NBC 5 on Wednesday that the project transitioning from being privately funded to one seeking public funds should necessitate a new Environmental Impact Study. The current EIS, Duhon said, included public comment that was premised on the project being privately funded.

Duhon said appropriate environmental studies haven't been done and that if a high-speed rail line is built linking Dallas and Houston that it should be built along the existing right-of-way corridor along Interstate 45 rather than by cutting through prime farm and ranch land -- or through land being developed into neighborhoods.
 
The article suggests that Amtrak is applying for federal money to perform a viability study.

I wonder what they hope to achieve with that. I would have thought that Texas Central had studied the viability long ago and was now in the phase of acquiring land and initiating construction.

So is this basically a reset to zero?
 
Duhon told NBC 5 on Wednesday that the project transitioning from being privately funded to one seeking public funds should necessitate a new Environmental Impact Study. The current EIS, Duhon said, included public comment that was premised on the project being privately funded.
What difference does that make for an EIS? Probably just a delaying tactic.
The cynic in me still suspects, that many "studies" are really just a way to enrich some pol's brother-in-law, on proposed projects that have very little likelihood of being done. At least for a looong time...🤷‍♂️
 
I would hope that since Amtrak is publicly funded that they will have zero choice in the matter and information would have to be forthcoming.
Despite being publicly-funded Amtrak can be remarkably tight-lipped. But they would be more likely to follow "Buy America" regulations. That might spell the end of wholesale importing of Shinkansen technology/standards. It would be great if Dallas-Houston HSR were built to FRA-approved Tier 3 standards, facilitating thru-running, notably to Ft. Worth, as proposed by NCTCOG (watch the recording of the High-Speed Rail Alliance's webinar with them which should be posted in the next couple of days: Dallas to Fort Worth High-Speed Rail | High Speed Rail Alliance
 
It will be interesting if this evolves from true high speed rail to something closer to Brightline, i.e. high-er speed rail, semi-dedicated ROW with stock like Flirts or Siemens sets on multiple-frequency schedules. That could be the ideal outcome.
To clarify, like Brightline Florida. Afterall Brightline West is true high speed rail.
 
It will be interesting if this evolves from true high speed rail to something closer to Brightline, i.e. high-er speed rail, semi-dedicated ROW with stock like Flirts or Siemens sets on multiple-frequency schedules. That could be the ideal outcome.
I see that happening, a more realistic and cheaper project. Will still be heavily used at lower speeds. If this moves forward it will be Acela II equipment.

Also expect the routing to change, never understood why TC was so tone deaf to the those who live in rural areas. I have followed this project since it was first announced and why TC took a adversarial stance to the landowners is beyond STUPID!

The landowners stated they are used to dealing with oil and electric companies be it a pipleline or electric power lines. TC wanted to negotiate purchase prices without funding. I know I wouldn't negotiate with them not knowing if they have the money.
 
Wellllll: I have proven myself not to be a prophet. When Texas got started on their planning and after me being a few years in California, I was of the opinion that Texas would be up and running before California got through talking. While the most significant parts of California are yet to be, at least the middle (and easiest to build) segment is well under way.

This "build in the median of an Interstate" is a bad idea that will simply not go away. Three primary reasons: Inadequate vertical clearance under overpasses, meaning ALL will have to be rebuilt. Likelihood of the median being inadequate in width throughout, Interstate design speed is 70 mph, although many states will use higher speeds, terrain permitting, this means curves will not likely permit 180 to 200 mph speeds. (Allowable speed on curves is proportional to V^2, not V, so if you double the speed, the minimum radius must be increased by a faactor of 4., or if triple, by 9.) "Build in the median" works for urban transit because the speeds are low, and normally vertical clearance is sufficient. However, in many cases there is no usable median width in urban areas as there is no space between the opposing directions of traffic beyond that needed for a barrier wall.

If it is decided to go to making improvements to an existing line, there are two possibilities, both routes that had passenger service in the past, and neither would be cheap to upgrade. The less likely would be the UP, ex SP route that goes through Bryan / College Station. However, it was the slower of the two and currently has considerably more freight traffic, so as well as working with a less cooperative railroad it would cost considerably more to achieve reliable 90 to110 mph passenger service. The other, although with no significant intermediate points other than Corsicana, would be the BNSF ex Burlington Rock Island line. The freight traffic level is fairly low and BNSF has a good alternative in the ex AT&SF line. This line had 4 hour service at least into the early 1960's. However, it probably has a gazillion road crossings, many likely having low road traffic, but used by drivers anticipating low frequency 40 mph or slower freight trains. The track is probably in barely there condition. Looking at old accident reports, there was a derailment in the late 1940's that described the line as being unsignaled and having 90 lb/yd rail. It did get ABS after the less than 80 mph with or less than 60 mph without signals rule came into effect, but the ride quality in the last several years of passenger service was best described as exciting. Saying this to say that the line would probably require subgrade up track improvement throughout.
 
Last edited:
Since the private company was precluded from using eminent domain by Texas, partnering with Amtrak is probably the best way around that, since it will be difficult for Texas to stop Amtrak.
Actually, the Texas Supreme Court surprised a lot of people (likely including TC management, who quit while waiting for a ruling) by sustaining TC's right to use eminent domain.

I don't understand why people think that it would be a good idea to walk away from from the dedicated, passenger-only alignment that that's been environmentally cleared, and try to run fast, frequent service on a shared use freight line. Some public money may be required for construction but the TC route, as proposed, will be quite profitable to operate.
 
This "build in the median of an Interstate" is a bad idea that will simply not go away. Three primary reasons: Inadequate vertical clearance under overpasses, meaning ALL will have to be rebuilt.
Couldn't they build the railway in a "trench" where necessary, to clear the existing overpass bridges? Seems like that would be cheaper, or maybe not?
 
Couldn't they build the railway in a "trench" where necessary, to clear the existing overpass bridges? Seems like that would be cheaper, or maybe not?
In India it is common practice to build elevated over the median, that is the single pillar for the elevated structure is in the median, the actual track is 60 feet above, so it clears all overpasses above them. There are literally hundreds of miles of such trackage, usually mostly for Metro Transit and Regional Transit. A lot of the Mumbai Ahmedabad HSR is also like that, though not necessarily above a highway ROW.

For example, here is a segment of the Delhi - Meerut 100 mph Regional Rail Transit System

images
 
In India it is common practice to build elevated over the median, that is the single pillar for the elevated structure is in the median, the actual track is 60 feet above, so it clears all overpasses above them. There are literally hundreds of miles of such trackage, usually mostly for Metro Transit and Regional Transit. A lot of the Mumbai Ahmedabad HSR is also like that, though not necessarily above a highway ROW.

For example, here is a segment of the Delhi - Meerut 100 mph Regional Rail Transit System

images
That's far too clever to imitate on this continent. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top