View Full Version : High-Speed Rail in the United States
It seems every few years, proposals to build high-speed railroads in the US pop up, get talked about for a while, maybe get money for preliminary studies and eventually get buried when people realize that building new infrastructure costs money. Most recently, Obama announced a huge program for high speed rail, but many projects (e.g. the one in Florida) got cancelled because local politicians don't want to pay for their remaining share.
Obviously, in the current economic climate, nobody is going to build a high-speed railroad. But thinking in general: Do you think high speed trains could work in the US?
A few definitions, just to be clear:
- High speed (usually) means at least 125 mph or 200 km/h (usually more when it is new projects).
- High speed trains need high speed railway lines. You can either rebuild existing ones or build new ones, but existing ones as they are will usually have too tight curves.
- High speed trains connect major towns and cities, but usually not suburbs.
- Examples of high speed trains include the french TGV, german ICE and japanese Shinkansen.
- I am not including Maglev, because that is essentially dead.
I dont live in the US, but I think high-speed railroads would definitely work there.:tmb: But you are right mate, since the economy is in a coma, they shouldnt be thinking about any kind of Mega-Projects right now should they?
patriots88888
29-11-11, 21:34
Obviously, in the current economic climate, nobody is going to build a high-speed railroad. But thinking in general: Do you think high speed trains could work in the US?
I suppose, but it might help me to make a more informed answer to ask this first... Other than the previously mentioned costs/expenses, what other drawbacks could you foresee that should be considered?
High speed trains are awesome!
I'd love to see them just about everywhere lol. I heard they want to make a tunnel from the US to England too.
They could work, and help reduce emissions, as so many planes fly across the states nowadays. There are a lot of big distances. The most useful routes would be:
West coast run - Seattle to San Diego (or just San Fran to LA if the terrain limits your speed)
Denver to Chicago
New York to Washington DC
Miami to Washington DC
Chicago to New York
I can see it working for a lot of east coast routes, since the terrain is rather flat out there.
High Speed Rail would be most useful in places where air travel is impractical. Like from LA to Frisco.
High speed rail is excellent, at least here in the UK. :tmb:
patriots88888
29-11-11, 22:00
I suppose, but it might help me to make a more informed answer to ask this first... Other than the previously mentioned costs/expenses, what other drawbacks could you foresee that should be considered?
I'll answer my own question then: Let's see there's...
* the time/distance factor - I would suspect most peeps want to get wherever they are going in the fastest time possible. Although airport security/delays probably offset that time differential anyways.
* if it were to catch on, I suppose the major Airlines would feel the effects and see significant customer/passenger declines thus having to either reduce their ticket costs (which would actually be a good thing) and/or lay off/terminate employees (which would not be such a good thing).
That's all I can think of ATM. *wil try to think of more later*
Ward Dragon
29-11-11, 22:08
I think the US overall is too large to connect everything with railways. However, trains are definitely a good idea for urban areas, and to connect urban areas to each other if the terrain allows for it. I'd rather see the railways get upgraded as opposed to more reliance on planes.
High speed trains are awesome!
I'd love to see them just about everywhere lol. I heard they want to make a tunnel from the US to England too.
There are plans for a US-to-Russia tunnel, across the Bering strait. IMHO an incredibly stupid idea: Yes, it would be possible technologically, but the huge distance between the tunnel and where people actually want to go would drastically diminish attractiveness.
They could work, and help reduce emissions, as so many planes fly across the states nowadays. There are a lot of big distances. The most useful routes would be:
West coast run - Seattle to San Diego (or just San Fran to LA if the terrain limits your speed)
Denver to Chicago
New York to Washington DC
Miami to Washington DC
Chicago to New York
I can see it working for a lot of east coast routes, since the terrain is rather flat out there.
A very good selection, because almost all of those are real-world projects already:
- San Fran-LA is currently in the planning stage (although given how little money California has, it's hard to say whether it will ever be built).
- There is a large upgrade plan for lines starting in Chicago. None of them reach to Denver, but together with upgrades in Pennsylvania, they should give much faster access to New York. This still falls short of real high speed, though, even though it is being marketed as such.
- New York to Washington DC already exists: The line is called the North-East corridor, and the trains are called Acela, operated by Amtrak. Both train top speeds and total travel times are still kind of bad, compared to the international standards, but there are plans to upgrade this as well.
I suppose, but it might help me to make a more informed answer to ask this first... Other than the previously mentioned costs/expenses, what other drawbacks could you foresee that should be considered?
I'll answer my own question then: Let's see there's...
* the time/distance factor - I would suspect most peeps want to get wherever they are going in the fastest time possible. Although airport security/delays probably offset that time differential anyways.
* if it were to catch on, I suppose the major Airlines would feel the effects and see significant customer/passenger declines thus having to either reduce their ticket costs (which would actually be a good thing) and/or lay off/terminate employees (which would not be such a good thing).
That's all I can think of ATM. *wil try to think of more later*
Those are two major ones. Specifically:
* Currently, the accepted knowledge is that people will choose railroads over flying when the travel time is less than three hours, although I'm not sure how well this translates to the situation in the US.
* In Europe, airlines feel a lot of competition from the high speed railroads, and some have already cancelled all or many of their flights between cities that have good rail connections. In some instances, airlines book and resell seats on high-speed trains (AirFrance does so on trains from Brussels to Paris, for example). There were even plans of airlines to operate their own high-speed trains (AirFrance-KLM for the Paris-Amsterdam relation), although that has been quiet lately. This is only possible because in Europe, any railroad company has access to all rail infrastructure as long as it complies with the (extensive) safety standards. Hard to tell whether the US would implement such a scheme.
Other important ones:
* Public transportation in the cities. Most people don't live near stations, and most american cities don't have great public transportation to get people from/to the station. This problem is not unique to stations, airports have it as well, but still, it is significant.
* Land use. A high speed rail line does not use a lot of land, compared to a highway, and a station uses significantly less than an airport, but it's still more than nothing.
* At least in the US, it is not known whether high speed trains can travel on normal tracks that also have freight trains. American crash standards are less sophisticated than european ones and mostly rely on trains being really heavy, something that does not work well for high speed trains.
* Especially in the US: Security controls. Trains don't normally need any, which allows them to be competitive with planes. Trains in the US won't need any either. But some people in the US might just be paranoid enough to mandate this for high speed rail.
* The US is huge. Getting Chicago-New York, as a random example, below the magic three or even just four hours will mean building a railway line that operates at the current maximum (no country operates trains at more than 200 mph except for trial runs) for the full length, without stopping in e.g. Cleveland and completely bypassing Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, along with their possible riders. Of course, five or six hours still compare very favorably to a road trip, but then prices will have to be a lot cheaper than flying, which is difficult if you want to pay off the new infrastructure.
* Power use: A single high speed train can use anywhere from no to eight megawatts of power at any given time, and change that amount very quickly. Oh, and when using regenerative braking, it will feed the same amount back into the grid. The grid has to be able to absorb all that. This can be solved, but given the reported state of the US's power grid, it is still a risk factor.
* Sometimes I hear the argument that americans don't like public transportation in general and love their cars too much to ever use a high-speed train. Which is probably wrong, given how many people fly planes.
Dennis's Mom
29-11-11, 22:39
The US was connected with railways. At one time, the US had the best train system in the world.
I would love a high speed route from Dallas to Houston.
The Great Chi
29-11-11, 23:15
As internal flights get dearer, and more slower due to awaiting security clearances at airports, I can see the advantages of high speed trains within the country.
NEW TRACKS OF MONORAIL
For safety reasons of stability, a high speed train should be wrapped around a robust single monorail (running at ground level, except for major road and river crossings), and can achieve very high speeds without derailment, which is far better than that of the old fashioned two rail systems of the old west.
IS MAGLIFT REALLY DEAD ?
Also, why consider normal powered wheels on monorail.
There are faster propulsion systems like Maglift, where magnetic levitation and propulsion are used.
Early designs used to be a big drain on electricity as the whole track was energised, but there are new systems available now that only energise the section where the train is at the time, thus making them use less energy.
Yeh, high speed trains are the way forward in the USA for cross-continent travel and inter city travel.
125 mph on a train? why use a train when I can do that speed driving my car? :p
125 mph on a train? why use a train when I can do that speed driving my car? :p
What car is that missy?
Ward Dragon
30-11-11, 00:41
^ And what state is it legal in? :p
* Sometimes I hear the argument that americans don't like public transportation in general and love their cars too much to ever use a high-speed train. Which is probably wrong, given how many people fly planes.
I think it's true, but only because the public transportation really sucks in most areas so people are reluctant to use it unless they really have to. If the public transportation here was actually good, then I'm sure more people would use it.
scoopy_loopy
30-11-11, 01:27
I like high-speed rail, much more environmentally friendly than air-travel and probably more convenient too. Damn ariports are the worst. xD
Top 21 most busy airways according to Wiki:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Top_21_passenger_air_routes.PNG/800px-Top_21_passenger_air_routes.PNG
Get some (better) high speed rail in all of the above, plz. xD
well I don't know about other parts of the US, but I do think the proposed high speed rail projectin California is a total waste of time and money (that the state doesn't have anyway). Cochrane kind of hit many of the major points about HSR in general, but let me tell you about some of the California problems...first of all, there is nothing between San Francisco and LA except a bunch of little towns (Bakersfield and Fresno being the exceptions) that are based on agriculture and oil, and there just really aren't enough people going from one place to another to make HSR worth the trouble. Alot of the freeway traffic is local, or between one town and the next, Not trans-state.
Next, the HSR line actually cannot reach either big city (SF or LA) directly without digging a pair of 20-40 mile long tunnels for the final section of the tracks, because these cities are seperated from the big central valley (San Joaquin Valley - where the majority of the rail line would be located) by two fairly sizeable mountain ranges. This means the final sections of each end of the system would have to be transfered to busses (like they do already witht he Amtrak routes)...and this would defeat the purpose of HSR in California.
Last, on the money end of things, California's entire infrastructure is sooooo out of date and in need of, not repair, but total replacement. I'd say spend the money on that, instead of a railroad that won't get used enoug to pay for itself.
As internal flights get dearer, and more slower due to awaiting security clearances at airports, I can see the advantages of high speed trains within the country.
NEW TRACKS OF MONORAIL
For safety reasons of stability, a high speed train should be wrapped around a robust single monorail (running at ground level, except for major road and river crossings), and can achieve very high speeds without derailment, which is far better than that of the old fashioned two rail systems of the old west.
IS MAGLIFT REALLY DEAD ?
Also, why consider normal powered wheels on monorail.
There are faster propulsion systems like Maglift, where magnetic levitation and propulsion are used.
Early designs used to be a big drain on electricity as the whole track was energised, but there are new systems available now that only energise the section where the train is at the time, thus making them use less energy.
Yeh, high speed trains are the way forward in the USA for cross-continent travel and inter city travel.
Monorail has an immense cross-section, making tunnels far more expensive. It is also completely unproven whether it works for higher speeds, and the many wheels (usually rubber on a concrete path) create a lot of friction. Maglift solves some of these problems, but it still retains some really important ones:
* You are tied to one vendor. If you build a high-speed line, you can get trains from Alstom, Bombardier, CAF, Talgo, Siemens, Hitachi and many more, already fully developed and proven in service. If you choose Maglift, you are limited to one particular technology.
* The line cannot be used by high-speed or normal freight trains at night. Not all countries do that with their high speed railways, of course, but it is a way to help pay back the investment.
* High speed trains cannot travel on the normal network. In reality, traveling on existing lines is an essential feature of any high speed rail system, just to access the stations that are already there and to service destinations that aren't important enough to get a high-speed line of their own.
And besides, what is really so wrong with wheels on rails? It is extremely cheap (in comparison) and proven to work well at speeds that can rival Maglift easily.
125 mph on a train? why use a train when I can do that speed driving my car? :pDid you ever try driving 125 mph for an hour or two straight? Obviously, it depends on the car, the road, traffic levels and so on, but it is extremely stressful and in my opinion not a good idea. Besides, you'll really notice it at the fuel pump. Sure, maybe once or twice to surprise that nasty BMW behind you, but never for a full trip. Also, in some countries it is illegal. :p
On the other hand, sitting in a train at 125 mph or 150 mph or even 200 mph: You can work on your laptop, read a book talk to your friends or just sleep a little bit.
What car is that missy?
I'd say most cars that aren't vans, trucks, SUVs or extremely cheap. 125 mph isn't that much as a top speed.
I think it's true, but only because the public transportation really sucks in most areas so people are reluctant to use it unless they really have to. If the public transportation here was actually good, then I'm sure more people would use it.Yes, exactly. What I mean is: There is no deep psychological reason why americans don't use public transportation.
benjamin_2010
30-11-11, 06:37
I would l-o-v-e some high speed rails throughout the United States. Many Americans love their cars (myself included) but the option to take rail would be nice. There are plenty of times when I don't want to drive, and the streets are so crowded. In many places, even cities, there is really no viable option but driving. I think that is a problem... There are many terrible drivers on the streets who could benefit from using something other than a car. I think that, although it costs a lot of money, it would be very successful in the long run.
TombRaiderFan.
30-11-11, 07:50
Investing in infrastructure seems like a good idea, specially considering that's one of the main reasons this country became a world power. If you've got your **** falling apart then that pretty much reflects how downhill things have gone.
Regarding high-speed rails...I'm not so sure about that in particular. I could see it connecting large cities in urban areas, but not much else. Those kind of mass transit are particularly popular in Japan and Europe because there's high population density in small areas, but the US is huge so I don't know how you'd build a case to justify it. You don't want to invest in infrastructure and then find no one ever uses it. >_< Plus, it's been mentioned here, Americans loveeeee their cars. We hardly use the bus, train, etc for commuting when you compare us to the rest of the world (I'm not saying we don't use those services, but we use them much less than other developed countries).
The Great Chi
30-11-11, 16:23
One of the first high speed lines should be coast to coast, with only a few stops.
A good current high speed for trains is 200 MPH, so doing the maths assuming 2500 miles between coast to coast major cities would be 12.5 hours (not including stops), which is double the time of an average plane.
So we would ideally need a 400MPH train !
Existing train lines has not changed that much since the 1880's, and would incapable of dealing with trains of 400 MPH. They would just get thrown off.
As I said earlier, the only answer would be a redesigned track for stability, capable of holding a train at that speed, and thats a train wrapped around a track, monorail style.
I understand the frictional issues and other problems that Cochrane was talking about, but designers could overcome these problems, and make a new type of high speed 400 MPH track for the 21st century.
Though I do agree with Cochrane that this would mean hub type transport (not always the best solution), ie, you would need to first travel locally to get to the major city that has the high speed service to the other coast.
Another interesting but technologically challenging system.
Vacume tube technology has been looked at by a few engineers, by putting the train in a vacume tube would reduce friction to a minimum and allow very high speeds, but trying to retain vacume along a track would be difficult, and also the problems and dangers of having to keep the train pressurised like a plane.
The trans-atlantic route in this link below seems rather far fetched, but you never know, as the channel tunnel was eventually completed.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
I love High-Speed Rail that we have in the UK :tmb:
It's nice to catch a fast one back home from Uni XD
I love High-Speed Rail that we have in the UK :tmb:
It's nice to catch a fast one back home from Uni XDBut the high speed bit only starts at Ashford. :confused: By this I mean, only Ashford to London is high-speed.
The Great Chi
30-11-11, 16:41
But the high speed bit only starts at Ashford. :confused:Maybe he uses the channel tunnel to get to University :vlol:
New York to London, this would be so damn cool:
http://futurima.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/9073128.jpg
Now I'm confused :pi:Basically, from Ashford to Canterbury (and vice versa) it's not high-speed. The high-speed only kicks in from Ashford to London.
The Great Chi
30-11-11, 16:44
I'm confused :pi:Thats because we do not know what route you are taking from your house to Uni ;)
But we do know its high speed :p
Huh?
Then what are those so called "High Speed Trains" then?
For example on the way home from Uni at Canterbury West @ 13:25/14:25 I catch the St. Pancreas International to Ashford International.
The only "real", purpose-built high-speed rail line in the UK is "High Speed One" (creative naming there) from London St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel Entrance. Domestic trains only use it as far as Ashford and then use slower older routes for the rest of the line.
However, some older lines were upgraded so that they can count as high speed lines as well. In particular, the West- and East Coast Mainlines both allow for 200 km/h operation. It is not real high speed, though: There are still level crossings with roads, the lines still all have their old bends (requiring tilting trains) and it still uses normal signals next to the line (real high speed lines use a system where the signal information is displayed in the train cab).
Edit to add:Huh?
Then what are those so called "High Speed Trains" then?
For example on the way home from Uni at Canterbury West @ 13:25/14:25 I catch the St. Pancreas International to Ashford International.
Yes, the part between St Pancras and Ashford is the true high speed line, and Ashford-Canterbury is a conventional line.
Huh?
Then what are those so called "High Speed Trains" then?
For example on the way home from Uni at Canterbury West @ 13:25/14:25 I catch the St. Pancreas International to Ashford International.I don't understand what's so confusing?
You live in Ashford right? And you catch the train to Canterbury (I thought it was east not west?).
Domestic trains only use it as far as Ashford and then use slower older routes for the rest of the line.This is my point.
Yes I live in Ashford and I catch the train to Canterbury West, not East and if I've said East before then that's a mistake :o
In the mornings on Mondays & Fridays I catch the Ramsgate train from Ashford Int., which is one of those "Slow Trains" (I don't know what they're actually referred to as). But when I finish Uni on both of those days (Usually 1-2PM) I catch a High Speed one back to Ashford from CW, that one is the St. Pancras Int (Station in London) :)
I've noticed that every single train that stops at CW on weekdays goes to Ashford, so I have no issues getting back home or missing trains XD
With the exception on Thursdays, I go on in the afternoons so I catch the Ramsgate one (sometimes the Margate one depending on the time) from Ashford to CW :)
Hope that makes it more clear :)
Alpharaider47
30-11-11, 17:36
If we pulled our heads out of our asses, sure, they'd be a fine addition to our nation's infrastructure. It'd be a lot faster than Amtracking it around, and might help out in dense population areas like Southern California(assuming you had the time and money to dig through the mountains) or the East Coast. But, it'd be pretty expensive to do. And a lot of our infrastructure in general needs help, so it might be wiser to allocate resources to that first.
Yes I live in Ashford and I catch the train to Canterbury West, not East and if I've said East before then that's a mistake :o
In the mornings on Mondays & Fridays I catch the Ramsgate train from Ashford Int., which is one of those "Slow Trains" (I don't know what they're actually referred to as). But when I finish Uni on both of those days (Usually 1-2PM) I catch a High Speed one back to Ashford from CW, that one is the St. Pancras Int (Station in London) :)
I've noticed that every single train that stops at CW on weekdays goes to Ashford, so I have no issues getting back home or missing trains XD
With the exception on Thursdays, I go on in the afternoons so I catch the Margate one from Ashford to CW, which is also High Speed :)
Hope that makes it more clear :)The High Speed One train is still slow between Canterbury and Ashford. As I said, it doesn't actually start to go fast until after Ashford.
The High Speed One train is still slow between Canterbury and Ashford. As I said, it doesn't actually start to go fast until after Ashford.
Technically, it is still a high speed train. It just isn't going very fast. :D
This may seem obvious and irrelevant, but of course most railroads invest a little more money and care into the interior of their high speed trains and have them stop less than ordinary trains, so it can still be a much better experience than when traveling normally. Most of my rides in high speed trains are on lines that are not exclusive to high speed trains at all. :D
Although I have no idea whether that applies to the class 395 trains. From the pictures I've seen, they look just like standard commuter trains, only faster.
The High Speed One train is still slow between Canterbury and Ashford. As I said, it doesn't actually start to go fast until after Ashford.
Oooohhhhh I didn't realize :o
^ Yes they're direct to the certain stations which I love XD
- I am not including Maglev, because that is essentially dead.That's a shame. I remember watching something about these trains, connected to the Venus Project (the idea of which I find admirable, but that's another issue), and was really impressed. They said that if developed they could travel at 3,500km per hour and so you could travel long distances faster than by plane.
:eek:
Something like this could literally change the world forever.
The Great Chi
30-11-11, 21:51
I was just looking at the history of alternative means of propulsion for trains, and came across this most unusual train that used an airplane propeller, and it was made and put on a test track in the 1930's in Scotland, UK.
Quite amazing technology for back then, but there were no takers and it was demolished.
Bennie railplane railway.... (with photos)
http://dewi.ca/trains/bennie/index.html
That's a shame. I remember watching something about these trains, connected to the Venus Project (the idea of which I find admirable, but that's another issue), and was really impressed. They said that if developed they could travel at 3,500km per hour and so you could travel long distances faster than by plane.
:eek:
Something like this could literally change the world forever.
What you mention there goes beyond the Maglev technologies that are available on the market (and totally failed to sell so far). Such a project would be very interesting indeed, but extremely costly and requiring a lot of research as well. I would not expect it before 2050. In fact, if they started construction in 2050, that would be incredibly fast.
I was just looking at the history of alternative means of propulsion for trains, and came across this most unusual train that used an airplane propeller, and it was made and put on a test track in the 1930's in Scotland, UK.
Quite amazing technology for back then, but there were no takers and it was demolished.
Bennie railplane railway.... (with photos)
http://dewi.ca/trains/bennie/index.html
Oh, that is interesting. I have heard of similar plans in Germany, but no actual implementation. Although the details are similar to both the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn) and the Schienenzeppelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schienenzeppelin).
Railroading history is full of failed proposals and attempts, and it's always hard to say whether a new project will be one of them or the next big thing. But classic railroading has already managed to scale far beyond what was ever thought possible when it was invented, so any alternate attempt needs to be really, really compelling to get anywhere.
I'd say most cars that aren't vans, trucks, SUVs or extremely cheap. 125 mph isn't that much as a top speed.
Few cars in the US are not sold with governors. I know my own Jetta could easily do over 120, hell I even do it in 5th not 6th, but the governor chokes it out.
Few cars in the US are not sold with governors. I know my own Jetta could easily do over 120, hell I even do it in 5th not 6th, but the governor chokes it out.
Ah, OK. That sounds both reasonable and annoying. Many german manufacturers also include such limiters in their cars, but set the limit at 250 km/h (155 mph) - of course only in cars that can reach that speed to begin with.
The Great Chi
02-12-11, 22:07
This is quite an interesting article, about pros and cons of high speed trains in Texas.....
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/06/09/can-high-speed-rail-reduce-air-travel-and-highway-expansion/
What you mention there goes beyond the Maglev technologies that are available on the market (and totally failed to sell so far). Such a project would be very interesting indeed, but extremely costly and requiring a lot of research as well. I would not expect it before 2050. In fact, if they started construction in 2050, that would be incredibly fast.I like to think big. Sometimes I wish I were an eccentric billionaire who could fund new developments like this - like the rich and powerful have done in the past. It seems (rightly or wrongly) that these days things like this don't ever get taken up and explored simply for the joy of pushing to see what the boundaries are. In the past I get the feeling that the odd individual now and again, as well as some governments, were able to just run with something and see how far they could take it, or just to see if it something might come of it.
Oh well.
Greenapple968
03-12-11, 00:45
I know very little on this topic. But the US shouldn't make promises they know they won't keep. Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but that's how it sounds to me.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.