Why Acela in the NEC?

[Guest]

Adding to my previous post, maybe the new 180+ MPH trainsets (Acela+, Acela NG)could operate some Acela premium services from WAS/NYP-MIA only stopping in major cities. The high speed locals using the same trainsets (NE / SE Regionals?) could feed High speed Acela services @ major cities. The Japanese Kodama(Local) stops @ all stations and feeds passegers to Hikari(faster) and Nozomi(fastest) for example.

The Silver Meteor Star, Palmetto etc. could be the slower high speed services, and Acela would be the American Nozomi.

What about even some nonstop Acela services between WAS and severval Florida Cities?

Also, the high speed routes in FL could, from Jacksonville serve Pensacola, ATL, FL East Coast, Central FL(ORL) and TPA w/ connections to Gulf Coast Corridor. Service would be hourly or more. It will take political will, and $$$$. We Could do it though. Good luck to CAHSR

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think the logical thing to do with high speed routes is to look at the census data and identify the biggest primary census areas (probably 2 million plus people, or 1.6 million plus people if you want to include places like Las Vegas and Salt Lake City so that you can get all the way across the country), find ones within 500 miles or so of each other, and start building high speed track between them. (If you're sure you know how to build track faster than 300 km/h, distances slightly longer than that can probably also work well, which is important for being able to get high speed rail to Denver and from Sacramento to Portland, OR.)

If you do that, Miami to Orlando to Atlanta to Charlotte to DC looks like a very sensible route. I think initially, you'd want the express trains stopping in all of those cities. If you start finding that the number of tickets sold between some city pairs justify separate trains that skip some of those stops, then you add trains that skip some of those stops, and until then you may not even bother to build high speed bypass track around those cities.

Between Atlanta and Charlotte, there should also be a spur to Greenville. Greenville's population doesn't really justify large amounts of track just for Greenville, but Greenville is almost on the way anyway, and service to Greenville would probably help secure the votes of another state's senators.

 

[George Harris]

EMUs probably also mean that the coaches now have to meet locomotive inspection requirements.

Yes

(I think I read somewhere that the TGV has articulated, semi permanently coupled sets of coaches, but there are traditional couplers attaching the locomotive to the rest of the trainset.)

and their standard couplers could not be used in the US as they are outlawed by the Railway Safety Appliance Act of 1895 in that they require a man to step between the cars to put the link over the hook and tighten the screw. (They are the standard UIC "hook and screw" which is essentially a minor modification of the 19th century link and pin.)

(If you're sure you know how to build track faster than 300 km/h, distances slightly longer than that can probably also work well, which is important for being able to get high speed rail to Denver and from Sacramento to Portland, OR.)

Not a problem. Can definitely be done.

 

[Guest]

I think MIA-ORL should be on FEC ROW and follow the CSX ROW north of West Palm Beach, with a more gradual curve to the North before the current switch @ Auburndale, FL. MIA-TPA should be on sme route with a more direct turn to the West to TPA. Then the FL east coast should be FEC ROW MIA-JAX and NS between JAX-ATL. @ ATL and JAX connect to SE High Speed Rail. High Speed Rail is doable. It takes politial will and $$.

What do you guys think about the HSR routes in FL and East Coast?

The USA is already far behind Japan and Europe on transportaion. Let's not get further left behind. Contact your Congressional rep. on Rail.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Jacksonville primary census area's population is only about 1.3 million. I think Orlando (almost 2.7 million) to Atlanta (5.6 million) is a better route to focus on for getting between Florida and the rest of the country.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

(If you're sure you know how to build track faster than 300 km/h, distances slightly longer than that can probably also work well, which is important for being able to get high speed rail to Denver and from Sacramento to Portland, OR.)

Not a problem. Can definitely be done.

Related to this, how likely is it that we'll someday see three hours NYP to CHI? Google Maps tells me that "New York City" to "Chicago" is 790 miles (mostly on highways), which suggests that trains with a top speed of 250 MPH won't be able to do that run in three hours, but trains that got up to 300 MPH just outside the New York City area and stayed at 300 MPH until they got to the edge of Chicago would be able to do that in three hours.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Personally, Joel, I don't want the world moving that fast.

 

[frj1983]

(If you're sure you know how to build track faster than 300 km/h, distances slightly longer than that can probably also work well, which is important for being able to get high speed rail to Denver and from Sacramento to Portland, OR.)

Not a problem. Can definitely be done.

Related to this, how likely is it that we'll someday see three hours NYP to CHI? Google Maps tells me that "New York City" to "Chicago" is 790 miles (mostly on highways), which suggests that trains with a top speed of 250 MPH won't be able to do that run in three hours, but trains that got up to 300 MPH just outside the New York City area and stayed at 300 MPH until they got to the edge of Chicago would be able to do that in three hours.

Unlikely,

As it would require the building of separate tracks...which I believe you are a proponent of and which I believe will never happen because it's too expensive in the eyes of most people...and most East Coast land (I'm talking Chicago to the Atlantic) has been eaten up in one way or another by developers/owners. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing separate track...I just don't think it's gonna happen!

 

[VentureForth]

Any successful high speed rail line will be a new, properly aligned, passenger exclusive ROW. If this were accomplished, crash worthiness wouldn't be required on the locomotive/coach. I believe that the FRA crash regs are only for passenger trains operating on freight ROWs.

A bit more about the Kodama vs Hikari and Nozomi services. Many of the Kodama-only served stations have 'outside' platforms as opposed to 'island' platforms. Between the loading/unloading tracks are a pair of passing tracks that are normal to the alignment of the ROW. In other words, the trains stopping, because they have to slow down anyway, take the turnout and the express trains (whether a Nozomi or Hikari) pass in the center without dropping one kph. Having not been on the NEC, I presume this is similar practice up there.

The Kodama would be equivalent to our Acela. The Hikari would be equivalent to Acela with 1/3 of the stops. The Nozomi would run non stop between BOS and WAS with a stop at NYP and maybe a stop in Baltimore and/or Philly. The NE Regionals' equivalents would be equivalent to the old Tokaido trunk line and would share with the locals.

300 mph may be hard to do in steel wheel. But 185 mph top speed with an average of 150 still ain't bad. That'd be 1:20 between NYP and WAS. 2:40 between BOS and WAS.

BOS - NYP - PHL - BAL - WAS - RVR - RGH - CHL - JAX - ORL - MIA could be done in 10 hours. That's still a VERY long time without a sleeper.

I've also mentioned this before - as the Shinkansen increased its efficiency and speed, they wound up dropping the dining car because no one had time to eat!

I'm still a firm believer that steel wheel is the cheapest, fastest way to move the most people at the highest energy efficiency. Again, I haven't been paid $MILs to do a study on that. Just an opinion.

 

[planetcadillac]

In most situations I have never thought it to be in Amtrak's best interests to try to compete with the airplane or any other means in terms of sheer time. It is the same arguments with buying a car. If it was simply a matter of getting from point A to point B we would be driving vehicles Soviet style. But automakers differentiate themselves by offering basically the same go product with a unique feel and experience. We have gotten to the point where air travel was once sheek and gamourous back in the day has become a miserable cattle call for the most part.

I think of how many ship companies used to compete in the transatlantic trade. Cunard says "Getting there is half the fun." The ships were fast but usually not the fastest but the rest added up to alot more in the end.

So with proper infrustructure Amtrak could offer a quick but not necessarily as fast a product as the airline but one that was much nicer and memorable for the price.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Any successful high speed rail line will be a new, properly aligned, passenger exclusive ROW. If this were accomplished, crash worthiness wouldn't be required on the locomotive/coach. I believe that the FRA crash regs are only for passenger trains operating on freight ROWs.

Except that it is likely going to be useful to be able to run some of the high speed trains on a mix of high speed track and conventional track. For example, if we were to end up with high speed track that connected to Springfield and Hartford and headed east along the Massachusetts / Connecticut border from there, it would be good to have some trains head into Boston, and others head south to Rhode Island. It may also be desireable to have some of the Boston-bound trains head to Manchester, NH and others to Maine.

Interoperability with conventional track is the real reason I think we should be building our high speed system on rails instead of maglev. (And then there's the price tag. If we don't think we can afford a national high speed rail system, there's no way we should be thinking about maglev anywhere.)

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

In most situations I have never thought it to be in Amtrak's best interests to try to compete with the airplane or any other means in terms of sheer time. It is the same arguments with buying a car. If it was simply a matter of getting from point A to point B we would be driving vehicles Soviet style. But automakers differentiate themselves by offering basically the same go product with a unique feel and experience. We have gotten to the point where air travel was once sheek and gamourous back in the day has become a miserable cattle call for the most part.
I think of how many ship companies used to compete in the transatlantic trade. Cunard says "Getting there is half the fun." The ships were fast but usually not the fastest but the rest added up to alot more in the end.

So with proper infrustructure Amtrak could offer a quick but not necessarily as fast a product as the airline but one that was much nicer and memorable for the price.

I'm not interested in spending 6 days round trip getting between Los Angeles and Boston. I'd be happy to spend about 24 hours each way on a train with sleepers and a dining car. The only way 24 hours each way is going to happen is if at least 80% or 95% or something of the miles are on high speed (300 km/h plus) track. And I don't see how you're going to convince the majority of taxpayers that they want all that high speed track unless there are trips they can take on it that are competitive in time with the airlines. (Maybe you're not going to convince the majority of taxpayers anyway. But the chances are better with a service that's clearly at least as good as the airplane in every way.)

 

[VentureForth]

Any successful high speed rail line will be a new, properly aligned, passenger exclusive ROW. If this were accomplished, crash worthiness wouldn't be required on the locomotive/coach. I believe that the FRA crash regs are only for passenger trains operating on freight ROWs.

Except that it is likely going to be useful to be able to run some of the high speed trains on a mix of high speed track and conventional track. For example, if we were to end up with high speed track that connected to Springfield and Hartford and headed east along the Massachusetts / Connecticut border from there, it would be good to have some trains head into Boston, and others head south to Rhode Island. It may also be desireable to have some of the Boston-bound trains head to Manchester, NH and others to Maine.

Interoperability with conventional track is the real reason I think we should be building our high speed system on rails instead of maglev. (And then there's the price tag. If we don't think we can afford a national high speed rail system, there's no way we should be thinking about maglev anywhere.)

The two original Shinkansen lines are on a completely dedicated track and is not interchangeable with the local trains. The reason for this is at least two fold. First, the Shinkansen is on standard guage. The rest of the trains are meter guage. The second reason is primarily safety and schedule keeping. Both of those reasons require that they not interfere with local traffic. In THIS image, you'll notice that the Shinkansen is on the far right tracks which are completely separated from the rest of the commuter tracks on the same ROW.

Note: Interesting splice in this photo. The Shinkansen are typically 16 cars long, not two!

 

[George Harris]

At the time the Shinkansen was first being designed and built the "revealed wisdom", more properly spelled, "wisdumb" in the railroad world was that it was impractical to run narrow gauge trains above 60 mph and 100 mph was pushing the envelope for standard gauge. The Japanese decided to plan for 125 mph anyway. By now it is plainly obvious that even 250 mph is not necessarily "pushing the envelope". As to the idea that narrow gauge is of necessity slower, there are quite a few people in the railroad engineering world that will say nonsense to that one.

By the way the Japanese system is on 3'-6" gauge, that is 1067 mm, not one meter gauge.

The shinkansen is on 4'-8.5" = 1435 mm.

The breakdown between those on 1067 mm and those on a true 1000 mm gauge is more or less as follows:

1067 mm: Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia New Zealand, parts of Australia such as Queensland and Western Australia, South Africa, several other formerly British parts of Africa, Philippines,

1000 mm: Malaysia, Thailand, narrow gauge in India and Bangladesh, Burma, several of the formely French parts of Africa.

Central America is mostly 3'-0"

List incomplete.

 

[VentureForth]

I stand corrected. I can count on you to fix my heresey.