AH Challenge: American HSR

Competitve distance distance depends on air and train services in question. The 220pmh TVM may be competitive over 700mph but the 125mph InterCity 125 won't be. From what I gather of the US scene dedicated routes for 200-220mph very high speed rail will not come early, if they ever come at all. So the US will have to take a similar route to Britian and get the most out of conventional trains on shared lines which will limit speeds to 150mph or so. When maximum speed is 150mph and 90mph is a good average the train would lose competitiveness above 500 miles.

The first "modern" US high speed trains (as opposed to earlier long distance streamliners) were the 125mph Metroliner and the 105mph TurboTrain in the late 60s. US HSR could grow from these, and a more comprehensive HSGT Act of 1965.
 

FDW

Banned
Competitve distance distance depends on air and train services in question. The 220pmh TVM may be competitive over 700mph but the 125mph InterCity 125 won't be. From what I gather of the US scene dedicated routes for 200-220mph very high speed rail will not come early, if they ever come at all. So the US will have to take a similar route to Britian and get the most out of conventional trains on shared lines which will limit speeds to 150mph or so. When maximum speed is 150mph and 90mph is a good average the train would lose competitiveness above 500 miles.

The first "modern" US high speed trains (as opposed to earlier long distance streamliners) were the 125mph Metroliner and the 105mph TurboTrain in the late 60s. US HSR could grow from these, and a more comprehensive HSGT Act of 1965.

I'm pretty sure that the Californian HSR will be on it's own tracks for most, if not all of it's route, and In my mind it's quite likely that the US will emphasize the speed factor due to the distance between cities and using brand new ROW's so that HSR doesn't clog up an already overcrowded freight-rail network, at least in much of the Western United States.
 
Yes the Californian HSR will be much like the TGV I imagine. However it isn't built yet and California could have had a proto-HST in service 40 years ago. The UAC Turbo had many of the elements that successful HST designs have today; lightweight articulated construction, tilting steerable axles for fast cornering, high power/wieght gas turbine engines for rapid acceleration. You could put two of these out in California each doing two trips a day at 75mph average speed between LA and SF.

The US won't even pay for reasonable maintenence for AMTRAK, I seriously doubt it will pay $5 million per mile for dedicated HSR infrastructure.
 

FDW

Banned
Yes the Californian HSR will be much like the TGV I imagine. However it isn't built yet and California could have had a proto-HST in service 40 years ago. The UAC Turbo had many of the elements that successful HST designs have today; lightweight articulated construction, tilting steerable axles for fast cornering, high power/wieght gas turbine engines for rapid acceleration. You could put two of these out in California each doing two trips a day at 75mph average speed between LA and SF.

The US won't even pay for reasonable maintenence for AMTRAK, I seriously doubt it will pay $5 million per mile for dedicated HSR infrastructure.

You don't keep up that much with Transport news do you? California recently applied to the Federal government for 4 billion dollars for the construction of the SF-LA HSR, and it's really likely that it's going to get that 4 billion. And remember the Vice-President is the same guy who fought for three and-a-half decades to ensure that Amtrak got at least SOME money, and right now there is a very strong incentive for the U.S. govt to take Intercity rail seriously, and there are people like Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who have fought Tooth and Nail to get a new get a new Transport bill passed that would provide more money for Urban and Intercity Rail.
 
I'm pretty sure that the Californian HSR will be on it's own tracks for most, if not all of it's route, and In my mind it's quite likely that the US will emphasize the speed factor due to the distance between cities and using brand new ROW's so that HSR doesn't clog up an already overcrowded freight-rail network, at least in much of the Western United States.

I would think it would be fairly easy to build if it runs through the Central Valley along I5. You still have some engineering to do especially at the southern end, but it's better than something running east from SF of LA.

I would also guess it would be cheaper to build a new line than try to retrofit an old one.

One thing though: if the train runs down the peninsula, have local communities accepted this? I would imagine some howling.
 
I'm Australian, the only US news I get is when some nut shoots a stack of people. I'm impressed that California is likely to get $4 billion for HSR, but wonder how much will be sadly wasted in court challenges etc. Also the OP was how to get HSR in the USA by 1985, getting funding in 2010 for HSR which may take a decade to get into service misses the cut-off date of the challenge.

AHP, technically dedicated lines and red-hot trains to run on them are the best way to go but from what I can see this is a somewhat rare occurence around the world. Most seem to be orange-hot trains on upgraded tracks in existing corridors and rights of way, the beauty of this is that it's cheap even if it is considerably slower than dedicated infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
I would think it would be fairly easy to build if it runs through the Central Valley along I5. You still have some engineering to do especially at the southern end, but it's better than something running east from SF of LA.

I would also guess it would be cheaper to build a new line than try to retrofit an old one.

One thing though: if the train runs down the peninsula, have local communities accepted this? I would imagine some howling.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101073906 said:
Among the winners in the $787 billion stimulus package that President Obama signed into law last week are backers of high-speed rail. The legislation included $8 billion for fast trains in the U.S. — the most ever allocated for rail at one time.

$4B for California would be half of the total HSR federal monies. Possible, but not guaranteed, by a long shot.
 

NothingNow

Banned
EDIT:the Federal Government needs to throw More than 8 or 9 Billino at the Issue. maybe 150 billion? who'd miss it anyway? AIG?

Florida's been working on our own HSR program since 2000. If we could get ~$40 billion Dollars ($40,000 million) The Florida Dot could do most of whats been proposed.

Most of the State's routes are in the sweet spot of competitiveness. It'd need to Link to Savannah and/or Atlanta and New Orleans via Mobile to link with the rest of the US. Honestly I was thinking A HSR line from Houston,Tx to Tampa,Fl would make a lot of sense. Not really competitive with planes but more convenient.

Map from FDOT's website: http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/Rail_Corridors.html

route-map_all_a.gif
 
I know there's been some talk about building a Boston-Montreal HSR line of some sort, but I don't think the plans are nearly as developed as other regions. (Probably because to connect it to the rest of Amtrak you'd need the $32759083275 billion trillion quadrillion North-South Rail Link) I seem to recall the state wanting some money, but mostly for studies.
 

NothingNow

Banned
I know there's been some talk about building a Boston-Montreal HSR line of some sort, but I don't think the plans are nearly as developed as other regions. (Probably because to connect it to the rest of Amtrak you'd need the $32759083275 billion trillion quadrillion North-South Rail Link) I seem to recall the state wanting some money, but mostly for studies.

That'd be a good route. We really should link ours with any Canadian system that gets built.
 

FDW

Banned
I would think it would be fairly easy to build if it runs through the Central Valley along I5. You still have some engineering to do especially at the southern end, but it's better than something running east from SF of LA.

I would also guess it would be cheaper to build a new line than try to retrofit an old one.

One thing though: if the train runs down the peninsula, have local communities accepted this? I would imagine some howling.

There was some howling about it a few months back, but I think it's died down somewhat.

I'm Australian, the only US news I get is when some nut shoots a stack of people. I'm impressed that California is likely to get $4 billion for HSR, but wonder how much will be sadly wasted in court challenges etc. .

The 4 Billion USD is not just the only money going towards HSR there's also another 9 Billion coming from the state, and HSR currently enjoys wide support throughout the state, and as I said to AHP, the only current Serious challenge against, Nimby's on the San Francisco Peninsula, have been for the most part, Shut up.
 
That's fantastic, with the Acela at one end and Cal HSR at the other it shouldn't take long for other states/regions to get train-speed envy.
 

FDW

Banned
That's fantastic, with the Acela at one end and Cal HSR at the other it shouldn't take long for other states/regions to get train-speed envy.

Oh, you won't about other regions getting HSR envy, that's already happening, with the stimulus funds for rail, states around the country applied for a combined 50 billion for various proposed lines, even though there's 8 billion in funding for rail.
 

FDW

Banned
Oh certainly, now extrapolating from my earlier scenario that saw Reagan help bring HSR to California, the first area that would consider it afterward would definitely be the Bos-Wash corridor, which would probably be built out in the 1980's, you would probably also see a line between Chicago and St. Louis being built as well.
 
Here's a bit of a crack at a technical-legislative PoD from 1965, I don't know enough about US politics to make social shifts, nor would I want to. The idea is to have enough fast trains in service, with their double the average patronage, to make an impact.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1965 High Speed Ground Transportation Act passed, includes appropriations until 1975, initial appropriation is $135 million. (OTL $90m) Included are several legislative changes to remove legal impediments to HSGT, most noticeably removal of the 79mph speed limit for passenger trains without in-cab signaling, and special consideration for trains purchased with HSTG Act appropriations.
1966 FRA publishes new speed limits for passenger trains on each of its track classes in light of the new HSGT Act legislation. On the most common class 4 track passenger trains are permitted to travel at up to 90mph and class 5 track in the West/Southwest at up to 100mph.
1967 Rail companies increase the speed of their passenger services to the maximum allowable by track condition and locomotive power. On common class 4 track average journey speeds increase from 45mph to 55mph. In line with the industry adage that every 1mph increase in average speed results in a 1% increase in revenue, passenger services see an increase in ridership of 10%. In response to this modest increase in revenue solely derived from regulatory change rail companies begin lobbying the FRA and various levels of government to get tracks reclassified at a higher level. This is somewhat successful on a small scale, certainly worth the minimal efforts expended by the Railroad companies.
1968 the first of 12 UAC TurboTrains enters US service for a cross country promotional trip after posting a 170mph speed record in December 1967. These trains were purchased via an innovative public-private partnership between the Dept of Transportation and the operating railroad companies. These trains are gas-turbine powered, lightweight, articulated construction and steerable, pendulous suspension. As a result they are able to use existing tracks and with high acceleration from their light weight and gas-turbine power and high cornering speed from the pendulous tilt and suspension steering able to maintain high average speeds despite a somewhat modest operating top speed of 105mph. The DOT intention is to bring TurboTrains into revenue service between Los Angeles-San Francisco, New York-Boston and routes radiating out from Chicago.
1969 the Electric Multiple Unit Metroliner train enters revenue service on the electrified line between New York and Washington. Metroliners are able to cruise at 125mph over 60% of this route and non-stop services are able to average some 87mph over this distance. Plans are being mooted to electrify the New York-Boston track and run Metroliners on this route at some 12mph faster than the current Turbotrain. Turbotrain pairs enter revenue service Chicago-Detroit and LA-SF, in line with the 1pmh+1% adage these trains see a 30% increase in ridership levels over conventional trains and 40% over 1966 levels when trains were hamstrung by the 79mph rule.
1970 DOT orders more passenger cars to increase the length of each train from four to six cars, increasing capacity from 200 to 300 passengers.
 
EDIT:the Federal Government needs to throw More than 8 or 9 Billino at the Issue. maybe 150 billion? who'd miss it anyway? AIG?

Florida's been working on our own HSR program since 2000. If we could get ~$40 billion Dollars ($40,000 million) The Florida Dot could do most of whats been proposed.

Most of the State's routes are in the sweet spot of competitiveness. It'd need to Link to Savannah and/or Atlanta and New Orleans via Mobile to link with the rest of the US. Honestly I was thinking A HSR line from Houston,Tx to Tampa,Fl would make a lot of sense. Not really competitive with planes but more convenient.

Map from FDOT's website:

I'm not too familiar with Florida HSR, but that map looks a tad iffy to me. Why two different routes from Orlando to Miami? And why follow the interstate?--one of the points of HSR is to wean American cities off automotive-centered sprawl. Better to route the corridor through town and city centers than follow the miles-long strip of modernism that clings to the eight-lane behemoths.

This is just an impression and not a fully-formed opinion of Florida's unique case. What sort of things are in these corridors?
 
I'm not too familiar with Florida HSR, but that map looks a tad iffy to me. Why two different routes from Orlando to Miami? And why follow the interstate?--one of the points of HSR is to wean American cities off automotive-centered sprawl. Better to route the corridor through town and city centers than follow the miles-long strip of modernism that clings to the eight-lane behemoths.

This is just an impression and not a fully-formed opinion of Florida's unique case. What sort of things are in these corridors?

Both of the Orlando-Miami routes are listed as "Phase II" so I suspect that they are possible alternates. As to why they use the interstate routing, it's quite simple. The people are there and the right-of-way is there. The latter especially is important, since it cuts down on the costs.
 
Top