Plausability US railroad super upgrade 1930s

Isn't the biggest drawback to higher speeds in the US the 40s FRA regulations?

Standard trains/lines can only do 79mph, trains with ATS etc can do 90mph, trains with ATS on lines with level crossing boom gates etc can do 110mph, 'impenatrable' barrier level crossings and trains with ATS etc can do 125mph, and lines with no level crossings at all trains can do 150mph.

Perhaps jiggling with these rules and regs would make upgrades more attractive to those responsible for their implementation.
 
One big issue with faster trains is the lack of in-car signalling. Reaction times with the tracksides were unacceptable.

Also, better braking would be a help...
 
Australia and Canada have trackside signals up to 100mph, Britain up to 125mph. Apparently American train drivers have poor eyesight and recation times.

On a side note I've just learned that all mainline trains in the US will require PTC by 2015 by Act of Congress. Willl this mean that 90mph will now become the default speed for US trains wherever possible?
 
Isn't the biggest drawback to higher speeds in the US the 40s FRA regulations?

They don't help, but it is possible to go around them. The Pennsylvania Railroad's MetroLiners ran for a time with a top speed of 164 mph in the late 1960s, and the Northeast Corridor DOES have level crossings. In addition, densely-trafficked lines like the Water Level Route are unlikely to have a whole lot of level crossings and are surely going to be equipped with the best signals possible.
 
Australia and Canada have trackside signals up to 100mph, Britain up to 125mph. Apparently American train drivers have poor eyesight and recation times.

On a side note I've just learned that all mainline trains in the US will require PTC by 2015 by Act of Congress. Willl this mean that 90mph will now become the default speed for US trains wherever possible?

Even the 79 mph speeds used today are nearly unheard of for freight trains, and as a former railroad employee I can tell you that riding some of the trains I did at 60 mph was not a confidence-building experience. At 90 a lot of those trains would be jumping the tracks with all of the subtlety of a pole jumper. As far as trackside signals, the number of times Canadian trains run at 100 mph is extremely limited, likewise for Britain at 125, and British trains because of (generally) less powerful motive power consists and shorter, lighter trains are much quicker to stop than an American freight drag.
 
The higher speeds are for passenger trains, I doubt freights using our 160kmh track sections get much over 80 but passenger trains boogie along.
 

Devvy

Donor
They don't help, but it is possible to go around them. The Pennsylvania Railroad's MetroLiners ran for a time with a top speed of 164 mph in the late 1960s, and the Northeast Corridor DOES have level crossings. In addition, densely-trafficked lines like the Water Level Route are unlikely to have a whole lot of level crossings and are surely going to be equipped with the best signals possible.

Quite - the concentration of services on to fewer lines means the attractiveness of those routes for upgrades increases.

Even the 79 mph speeds used today are nearly unheard of for freight trains, and as a former railroad employee I can tell you that riding some of the trains I did at 60 mph was not a confidence-building experience. At 90 a lot of those trains would be jumping the tracks with all of the subtlety of a pole jumper. As far as trackside signals, the number of times Canadian trains run at 100 mph is extremely limited, likewise for Britain at 125, and British trains because of (generally) less powerful motive power consists and shorter, lighter trains are much quicker to stop than an American freight drag.

I cant speak for the Aussies or Canucks, but in the UK, there are many sections of main line route where the trains do operate at 125mph with track side signalling used. Those areas are almost all on express line routes with no commuter/slow trains on, and are out in the country with long stretches of track with no or few stations on, and so have longer signalling blocks - no level crossings either on those stretches. No in cab signalling though on the main network (the exception being HS1 line).
 
Thx. Essentially, it's what most of us are familiar with as zoning.

What I'm not seeing is how it changes rail upgrades. Or are you saying the industrial-zoned areas govern where & how rails run? It's not that way here AFAIK: cities don't get to dictate the big railways. (IDK about the interurbans/radials...)

Oh no, what I mean is that different zoning techniques can give higher density. It is a lack of density that has really killed a lot of mass transit in the US. If lets say you have a city with the density of Barcelona, it would be easy and economical to have a really good pedestrian and bike system supported by trams, light rail and subways. If these mass transit systems then have a central hub besides a train station, then passenger rail would take off.

But with Euclidian zoning, people are spread out and it makes more sense to just use a car for the average joe. Even though the costs of car based infrastructure are much higher and heavily spread out.

sprawl_17-18.jpg
sprawl_19-20.jpg
 
Last edited:
Going back to the original question, no it's really not realistic to get major government involvement pre war. The only context I can possibly justify it in would be the Federal Power Commission doing something to encourage electrification, but even that level of handout to railroads is going to be damn near impossible to get support for from anyone. Post war things are a lot more open, and I am quite fond of TheMann's approach in Transport America, of rolling out an integrated transportation program rather than our Interstates.

That said, the idea of very fast, possibly electrified, pre war service on the Water Level Route isn't that far out there. NYC certainly looked at major electrification on a number of occasions, and given the right push it could happen. I'd particularly look to the Pennsy extending it's electrification beyond Harrisburg; I suspect that running electric from New York to at least Pittsburgh could give a significant running time advantage (remember that the actually difficult sections to operate basically start from Harrisburg, and even as short an extension as Pittsburgh would eliminate a lot of steam powered mountain running), and that's not something NYC would be able to allow in the long term. It seems to me that either company would do almost anything to ensure that it's NY - Chicago expresses remain competitive, and wide scale electrification is definitely not out of the question if that's what it would take.

Lets say the Pennsy follows up their initial electrification quickly, opening to Pittsburgh by 1937 (that's gives more or less two years beyond the opening date of the Harrisburg electrification). NYC could then make significant progress electrifying north from NY toward Albany as the economy comes back before the US enters the war. I doubt that they would have anything like a complete system by Pearl Harbour, but enough work could definitely be done that most of the Hudson Valley is electrified by 1950, with serious consideration to extensions west.

I think one thing that would have been plausible would be Santa Fe getting better trainsets to make the Chief, Super Chief and San Francisco Chielf go even faster.

I can imagine 115 mph across the Great Plains and California's Central Valley and 95 mph in the deserts of California, Arizona and New Mexico. In my timeline, Santa Fe manages to electrify most of their "racetrack" between Chicago and Los Angeles and we get the Super Chief and San Francisco Chief zooming across the Great Plains and the Central Valley at 125 mph! :D

Delay diesels a few years, enough that steam get a big last hurrah in the immediate post war years and there's a very good chance you could see Santa Fe doing some major electrification (and that would have some major butterflies, since this kind of tech change is liable to seriously slow down commercial aviation as well). They were never particularly pleased with steam out in the desert, and studied electrification a number of times, it's just not that plausible for them to jump on it at any time during the depression, and they didn't have much in the way of the sort of tunnels or very heavy grades that drove the very early mainline electrification. Basically yes, if you want fast transcons Santa Fe is your best bet, but its not going to happen pre war (and doesn't really require electrification in the terrain Santa Fe was dealing with, though it definitely helps).
 
Bureaucromancer said:
that would have some major butterflies, since this kind of tech change is liable to seriously slow down commercial aviation as well
I'm not seeing how, since the DC-3s had already proven commercial passenger airlines could survive; by 1945, the Connie & 307 & DC-4 & -6 would show the way for the (immediate) future. To butterfly that, you need faster & better trains in the '30s, not the '50s.
 
I'm not seeing how, since the DC-3s had already proven commercial passenger airlines could survive; by 1945, the Connie & 307 & DC-4 & -6 would show the way for the (immediate) future. To butterfly that, you need faster & better trains in the '30s, not the '50s.

I'd argue that your point is valid, but more indicative of the problems involved in trying to keep steam around post war. The POD needs to be quite a lot earlier and massively change internal combustion development, which is going to make a lot of things go haywire. I mean really steam was already well on its way out (especially for express passenger service) by the start of the war, and certainly by the time the US entered it.
 
Bureaucromancer said:
I'd argue that your point is valid, but more indicative of the problems involved in trying to keep steam around post war.
ISTM keeping steam around at all is problematic, in the face of even gasoline streamliners (diesel, with cheaper fuel, too, even more so), even without air travel: the lower maintenance of diesel (& so the lower staff requirements) make dieselization so attractive it seems a bit idiotic to me to fight it.:confused:
 
Top