AHC/WI High Speed Rail in US

Status
Not open for further replies.
The challenge is to have most major cites in the US ink by HSR no later then 2013. The trains must traveling at least 150 mph. The how do you think this will affect the country.
 
This can only benefit the United States. As for a POD, maybe more widespread electrification, maybe as an infrastructure improvement project following World War II?
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
You could have high speed rail (and privatized high speed rail at that) if the Interstate Commerce Commission allowed railroads to make more rapid changes to routes, prices, and timetabling. Rail has a niche where it is faster and/or more comfortable than travel by car or bus and faster and cheaper than aircraft travel. It could survive in the Northeast corridor and other areas with cities in relatively close proximately. The Northeast corridor accounts for 50% of Amtrak's total revenue, with the Acela Express route alone accounting for 25% of Amtrak's total revenue.

Going fast is a bit more of an issue. A speed limit of 80 miles per hour was brought into being in the 1950s due to crashes caused by modern fast trains using old signaling and communications methods. The Northeast corridor was one of the few places where equipment was adopted to go faster, so those upgrades aren't an issue. Upgrading the tracks and buying engines and rolling stock are where the majority of the costs are going to occur. The company probably owns most of its railway (or at least its holding company recognizes speed is important for passenger rail and gives preferential right of way), so it can go faster even without special bullet trains. Amtrak says if it can get speeds up to 350 km/h with Acela Express that DC to Boston would take only 3 hours to do. New York is about the halfway point on the route, so it would only take about 1.5 hours to go between that city and DC. It would make it possible to people to live in DC or New York and commute to the other city, and it would generally help the economy of the Northeast.
 
That's not just in the US, in the EU, 124/5 mph is considered the minimum speed on upgrade lines (it's 155 mph on specially built lines).
 
You could have high speed rail (and privatized high speed rail at that) if the Interstate Commerce Commission allowed railroads to make more rapid changes to routes, prices, and timetabling. Rail has a niche where it is faster and/or more comfortable than travel by car or bus and faster and cheaper than aircraft travel. It could survive in the Northeast corridor and other areas with cities in relatively close proximately. The Northeast corridor accounts for 50% of Amtrak's total revenue, with the Acela Express route alone accounting for 25% of Amtrak's total revenue.

Going fast is a bit more of an issue. A speed limit of 80 miles per hour was brought into being in the 1950s due to crashes caused by modern fast trains using old signaling and communications methods. The Northeast corridor was one of the few places where equipment was adopted to go faster, so those upgrades aren't an issue. Upgrading the tracks and buying engines and rolling stock are where the majority of the costs are going to occur. The company probably owns most of its railway (or at least its holding company recognizes speed is important for passenger rail and gives preferential right of way), so it can go faster even without special bullet trains. Amtrak says if it can get speeds up to 350 km/h with Acela Express that DC to Boston would take only 3 hours to do. New York is about the halfway point on the route, so it would only take about 1.5 hours to go between that city and DC. It would make it possible to people to live in DC or New York and commute to the other city, and it would generally help the economy of the Northeast.

Carefull with privatisation. Unlike what the neoliberals push, it's not always better.
 

Devvy

Donor
There are ample opportunities to do this in the US. The underlying problem is that most railways are run by freight for freight - very long trains, slow to accelerate/decelerate that have a low top speed. They block the line and can be a nightmare to schedule around.

The answer is to either have good double track in some lighter used areas, or quadruple track in more busy areas - or completely segregated lines away from freight, ideally that have been electrified. Electrification not only makes a higher top speed achievable, but it reduces operating & fuel costs, train maintenance and track wear. Anything that helps the operating company point to an overall profit, or at the least reduce the deficit, (despite the initial capital investment) will do wonders.

Secondly, the FRA rule that trains on the main line need to be able to withstand a full head-on collision with a freight train needs eliminating or modifying (at least to not require it where there is advanced signalling). This rule is only in the US - everywhere else accepts that it's better to invest in signalling to avoid the collision happening in the first place. This rule means that the Acela Express is built like a tank on wheels - it's heavier, so draws more power to accelerate, increases track wear and maintenance costs, and also vastly increases the price to buy (because of increased material costs, and also the bespoke nature of it. Buying off the shelf European or Japanese trains would of been a hell of a lot cheaper for Acela). Which therefore increases ticket price.

If you have that - maybe post-war electrification, and a few butterflies, and you'd have HSR. The US is geographically pretty well suited to it - many cities are divided by the rough HSR range of a few hours on the train (long way to drive, too short for plane). North East, Mid-West, California are the big three candidates.

Lastly, I can't help but add a plug for my own TL, Amtrak: The Road to Recovery, which is about Amtrak and the development of high speed rail in the US. Sorry :)
 
This is the updated version of my original idea...

In 1931, a revised version of the Ripley plan for a regional railroad consolidation act was released. Under which the following changes were made to bring about these 16 railroads.

Boston & Maine: Bangor & Aroostook; Delaware & Hudson; Maine Central

New York, New Haven & Hartford: Lehigh & Hudson River; New York, Ontario & Western

New York Central: Rutland; Virginian

Pennsylvania: Long Island; Norfolk & Western; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line; Toledo, Peoria & Western (east of Peoria); 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound

Baltimore & Ohio: Buffalo & Susquehanna; Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (North of Monon, IN); Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Detroit & Toledo Shore Line; Lehigh & New England; Reading; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line

Chesapeake & Ohio: Bessemer & Lake Erie; Chicago & Illinois Midland; Chicago, Attica & Southern; Detroit & Mackinac; Hocking Valley; Lehigh Valley; New York, Chicago & St. Louis; Pere Marquette

Wabash & Erie: Akron, Canton & Youngstown; Ann Arbor; Detroit, Toledo & Ironton; Erie; Pittsburgh & Shawmut; Pittsburgh & West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Shawmut & Northern; Wabash; Western Maryland; Wheeling & Lake Erie

Atlantic Coast Line: Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast; Chicago & Eastern Illinois; Clinchfield; Georgia Route; Gulf, Mobile & Northern; Louisville & Nashville; Mississippi Central; New Orleans Great Northern; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville)

Southern: Chicago, Terre Hautte, and Southeastern; Columbus & Greenville; Florida East Coast; Mobile & Ohio; Norfolk Southern; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (west of Nashville); Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (south of Monon, IN); Tennessee Central (East of Nashville

Illinois Central: Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay; Central of Georgia; Seaboard Air Line; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville); Tennessee Central (West of Nashville)

Great Northern: Chicago Central & Pacific; Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic; Great Northern; Minneapolis & St. Louis; Northern Pacific; Spokane, Portland & Seattle

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific: Butte, Anaconda & Pacific; Duluth & Iron Range; Duluth, Missabe & Northern; Escanaba & Lake Superior; Trackage rights on Spokane, Portland & Seattle to Portland,

Union Pacific: Central Pacific; Chicago & North Western; Kansas City Southern; Lake Superior & Ishpeming; Litchfield & Madison; Missouri-Kansas-Texas

Missouri Pacific: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Colorado & Southern; Denver & Rio Grande Western; Denver & Salt Lake; Fort Smith & Western; Fort Worth & Denver; Green Bay & Western; Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka; Texas & Pacific; Western Pacific; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley;

Southern Pacific: Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; St. Louis Southwestern; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe: Chicago Great Western; Kansas City, Mexico & Orient; Louisiana & Arkansas; Meridian & Bigbee; Midland Valley; Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern; Missouri & North Arkansas; St. Louis-San Francisco; Toledo, Peoria & Western (west of Peoria)

Canadian-American International: Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific; Grand Trunk Western; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Saute Ste. Marie; Wisconsin Central

In addition, many interurban routes in the Midwest were picked up from use by various railroads. Most notably the PRR, which purchased right of way from Toledo to Logansport, IN. The Nickel Plate, which made an entire mainline out of the Ohio Electric Lima- Cincinnati line, and the Erie, which purchased alot of the Indiana Railroad. In addition, the South Shore, North Shore, CA&E, and Illinois Terminal mixed with several other interurbans to make the Illinois and Michigan Shore Railroad, aka the Michigan Shore Line. Which later proved itself as an effective route for freight trains heading east or west that wished to bypass congested Chicago and St. Louis yards.

The Act took place over the next few years, ending in 1948 when the St. Louis-San Fransisco was absorbed into the Santa Fe. This would ultimately prove important for the future of rail transport in America.

When given the funding plans for transport in the 1956, President Eisenhower decided that in addition to the highway system. Eisenhower felt that the country should be "the most mobile society on Earth" in case of a Soviet aggression event. As such, the railroads also got a piece of the pie that was government support. These actions would lead to the survival of many trolleys and passenger trains, which was very appreciated by the railroads. This also allowed such companies as ALCO, Budd, and Pullman to survive ITTL. With the former going into a deal with Caterpillar and eventually merging with Chrysler and Emerson Electric in 1969.

Thanks to the oil crisis of the late 70s, passenger rail began to make a dramatic resurgence as it became America's preferred alternative to the automobile. This pro-rail stance common among Americans became even more prominent after and the growing hassle of getting on planes, not to mention weather hazards and more darkly the September 11 attacks.

It was during the early days of the worst air disasters that Americans began to reconsider flocking from the railroads so quickly. At this point, private entrepreneurs began to cash in on the desires of people to get from one place to another quickly. But without having to wait around in poor weather and possibly losing luggage. This was also true in the case of freight rail, which also began to prove its potential at a stronger, better alternative to trucks.

The first of these HSR projects was a collaboration between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New Haven Railroad. Together they upgraded the NH line from Boston to New York and the PRR from there to Washington DC. This new operation, which became known as the Colonial Express, was inaugurated in 1970, and soon it was considered by many superior to the airlines that operated between the same areas. In no small part due to its superior dining options, clean conditions, and service at reasonably high speeds even in the face of poor weather. Concurrently, the Pennsy also used the same treatment to upgrade the Pittsburgher, its NY-Pittsburgh passenger train, freight rail was naturally included in its plans for faster trains. The end result was the Keystone Corridor, a perfectly speedy rail service from New York to Pittsburgh.

All too soon, the success of this service was noticed in the West by California's Southern Pacific Railroad. They themselves proceeded to make similar upgrades to the route of their Coast Daylight passenger service from San Fransisco to Los Angeles. This line had already been upgraded via the use of EMD diesels and concrete ties in the place of wood ties and steamers. But the SP created a high speed transit operation on par with that of the UK.

Eventually, the Chicago area was next to be subject to the new high speed rail craze. But it was the New York Central, the Pennsy's fierce rival, that held most of the cards in the Midwest. They initially started with the James Whitcomb Riley on the Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati mainline. This newly improved service was a success, and soon, the NYC used the line splitting at Greensburg, IN to create another high speed service to Louisville. This was followed shortly after with the upgrading of the lines from Cleveland to Chicago and Cincinnati. But the NYC was not going to stop there. For it expanded the scope of their higher speed rail program, and made the upgrades all the way to Buffalo, NY. Where there was already a New York- Albany- Buffalo- Toronto service called The Emperor, and a collaboration with the B&M to link Montreal with them via the former D&H at Albany. By 2003, the NYC had most of their passenger rail lines running at speeds of 125 mph.

In the NE Corridor meanwhile, the PRR/NH made a deal with the B&M to expand the NE Corridor to Portland, ME. Likewise, the RF&P, under ACL and IC rule but still semi-independent, worked with them by extending it to Richmond, the via an entirely new line to Norfolk. After this, the IC and Southern devised a plan to further expand the operations to Florida in the South and New Orleans in the west. With them sharing the former SAL from Raleigh to Richmond, and the Southern taking the train to Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, and New Orleans. While the IC would go down to Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa or Miami. The IC reintroduced the SAL's green, yellow, and orange livery for their trainsets and locomotives assigned to the region, whereas the Southern restored the two-tone green of their iconic Crescent passenger train.

The State of Georgia also worked with both of them to make an Atlanta- Macon service which then split to Savannah or Jacksonville. This service became known as the Peach Blossom, and was painted in an ornate livery of pink and bright green, quickly becoming popular with the locals of these states. Eventually, feeder lines were made on the CofG to Columbus, GA and on the Southern to Chattanooga. Florida also worked with the two roads, and created with the IC's former SAL a Jacksonville- Orlando- Miami/Tampa line and a supplementary line on the Southern's former FEC to serve to Florida coast.

By the time everything was complete, Kentucky and Tennessee were the only Southeastern states with little to no HSR. Though that was justified due to there comparatively sparse populations. Even then, the ACL operated the Ohio River Runner from Cincy to St. Louis on the former L&N through Louisville and Evansville, and serviced them well with 100 mph streamliners on their former Louisville and Nashville line. With such services as the Pan American (Cincinnati- Louisville- Nashville- Birmingham- New Orleans), and the Dixie Limited, which ran from Chicago to Atlanta via Evansville and the former NC&StL to Atlanta, then their home rails to Jacksonville and the former FEC to Jacksonville. They eventually formed an additional Chicago service, The Floridian, which used to old Chicago- Atlanta line, but then used the state-supported Georgia and Florida SOU/IC routes to Miami.

The ACL also involved somewhat in high speed trains still, and worked with the IC on the New Orleans- Jacksonsville Gulf Coast service, introducing a new livery which consisted of aqua and dark blue. The ACL also created Atlanta/Birmingham- Montgomery- Mobile- New Orleans services which would connect with Southern trains like the Crescent, the local governments-supported high speed trains, and their own trains to Richmond and DC.

Meanwhile in the western half of the Midwest, the Milwaukee Road decided to upgrade its famous Hiawatha service from Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities. Later on, they also upgraded the line from Milwaukee to Green Bay. The Union Pacific did likewise using their former C&NW lines, followed by a Twin Cities- Omaha line, then a line to Chicago via Cedar Rapids.

This was followed shortly after by the SP upgrading the former Rock Island from Chicago to Des Moines and Omaha, which became home of the Corn Belt Rocket, which sported the iconic red and silver of Rock Island passenger trains. The Chicago- St. Louis corridor was almost completely dominated by the Illinois Central. Which reintroduced the Green Diamond service with the two-tone green livery that was almost iconic to the original trainset. Though the B&O, Erie (via former Wabash), and ACL (via former C&EI) also tried to put up fights there. The Michigan Shore, however, was the second biggest player, who operated their train via Peoria and Springfield when going to St. Louis.

Even Colorado got some HSR service. In this case, it was a MoPac service from Denver to Pueblo on the former Rio Grande. Which was the later linked to their Kansas City line via Salina, KS. As well as the Union Pacific linking it further with Ft. Collins and Cheyenne, WY.

In Texas, high speed rail took the form of a triangle centered around the ATSF FWD line to Houston, with a new line splitting at Temple to serve Austin and San Antonio. The Santa Fe later extended the service to Oklahoma City. With branches to Wichita and over the former Frisco to Tulsa. The ATSF used the TGV Duplex because it reminded them of their own bi-level superliners which they used on their Midwest- California services, which also benefited from the upgrades. These upgrades would be soon followed by upgrades to the Chicago- Kansas City line and the former Frisco to St. Louis. Then eventually upgrading the line from Kansas City to Wichita via Topeka, which allowed for theme to operate the trainsets on the Texas Chief and the Frisco Chief, the later of which was a service they introduced after the Frisco was taken over in 1948. They also invested in upgrades to the their Chicago-LA services. Namely the Super Chief, and the Missouri Chief, which ran on the former Frisco at Avard, OK to St. Louis, they received new diesels and new variants of the Superliner cars. Lastly, they formed and agreement with the SOU/IC to create the Florida Chief, running trains over the former Frisco to Birmingham, then having the Southern take over there to go to Atlanta, Jacksonville, and points on the former SAL.

While the ATSF handled traffic to FWD and Oklahoma, the Southern Pacific would operate an El Paso- San Antonio- Houston- New Orleans route in conjunction with the state of Texas. The SP also built a Phoenix to Tucson line in Arizona with hope of using them as a platform to make the Sunset Limited from New Orleans to LA a 125 mph. This upgrade didn't happen as envisioned. But the Sunset Limited did serve as an effective link to them all.

Meanwhile, in the Northwest, the Great Northern naturally took charge of a Vancouver- Seattle- Portland services in the form of the Cascades. The was followed by the SP link Portland with other cities on its mainline in Oregon to Eugene. Which was then linked to their California services via the revitalization of the Shasta Daylight.

Most long distance train routes, like the ATSF Chiefs or UP Cities run at slower speeds. Typically up to 100 mph. But they are also very successful, as they are more luxurious, comfortable, and open-ended than airplanes. Most of them have adapted coaches based on the ATSF Budd bi-level Superliners, or otherwise dome cars. One example of the Superliners being mimicked is the SP California Cars, which were essentially a bi-level take on their three-car diners on the original daylight. Though trains in the east often stick to single-level trains with dome cars for sight-seeing. Thmost notable exception being the ACL Champion, in a ploy to beat the IC.

All around, passenger rail in 2018 is in a far better spot than IOTL. With modernized variations of the streamliners of yesteryear being supplemented by some of the fastest trains in the nation. Not to mention various Auto Train routes, regularly scheduled tourist trains (called cruise trains by some), and the occasional excursion behind a large steam locomotive.
 
This can only benefit the United States. As for a POD, maybe more widespread electrification, maybe as an infrastructure improvement project following World War II?

The railways underwent a massive rebuild during WWII. Circa 1939-40 actual use was 75% or less than the 1910 peak. Between early 20th Century over building, the 1920s surge in automotive road building, and the Depression use was far below the theoretical carrying capacity. Along with the decline is use went a reduction in maintenance/upgrade. Much of the 1910 capacity was not immediately available thru closed tracks, degraded communications and traffic limits below the original designed capacity. From 1940-41 through 1946 there was a massive program of rebuilding to deal with the near doubling of US industrial output.

I suspect much of this reconstruction was aimed at the standards of the first half of the 20th Century & not to hypothetical standards of 1975 or 2000. That is the industry built the railroad they needed for 1945 & no for the far future. This may actually hinder near term improvement, in part because the costs of the 1940s rebuild were not entirely paid off.

Exactly why electrification of the railroads stagnated in the 20th Century I cant say. The end of the interurbans had something to d with it?
 

Devvy

Donor
@Andrew Boyd

Bloody hell man. I know you love trains as much as I do, but take a breather and stop necroing old threads from years ago. Amongst other things, I'm reading the thread, formulating a response in my head and then finding I've already written it 5 years ago.
 
@Andrew Boyd

Bloody hell man. I know you love trains as much as I do, but take a breather and stop necroing old threads from years ago. Amongst other things, I'm reading the thread, formulating a response in my head and then finding I've already written it 5 years ago.

That was from before I really began paying attention to the dates of the latest posts.

I've changed.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top