Furthermore, what is the rush to get anywhere these days? Slow down, Mr. dnsommer. I'm 46 years old, I make $18,000 a year and 90 mph tops is good enough for me.

For heaven sakes, the way things are going in Congress, you will be lucky indeed if there is a rail service at all in the years to come. So please get real and stop scaring the legislators.

I suppose the Acella is here to stay but if there's going to be any other high speed transit in this country, it will probably be somewhere between in Los Angeles and Las Vegas, Nevada and it will most likely be a Maglev train. And that will probably be paid by some fatcat group of private investors.

If you want to get somewhere fast then take a plane but don't bankrupt the country with your flights of fancy.

Building the required dedicated ROW across Pennsylvania would probably be much more costly, due to the more mountainous terrain.

How are European countries able to build these 'fanciful' lines? An American HST would be a great catalyst in spurring an overall revitalization of US railways. Isn't it ironic that an American bicyclist keeps winning the Tour de France, but France has us completely beatien in the realm of high speed rail?

To me the only two city pairs that deserve initial HST attention are NYP-CHI and LAU-SFO.

Then there is the NEC, our present 'entrant' in the high speed race. The NEC deserves a brand new right of way, though with all the development around the cities it passes through it will take some iron fisted bureaucrat like Robert Moses to make a project of this scale happen. But it has to happen if the NEC is ever going to match speeds achieved overseas. Tilt train technology can only go so far towards increasing speed. A completely new NEC is the only real option. It'll have to be elevated or buried in many places. Some of the old stretches will just have to be integrated with the new segments. Acela is not a High speed train. It only looks like one. It needs its own ROW.

In Japan, it is now possible to travel by Shinkansen from Tokyo to Fukuoka in the south in about ten hours. This distance is almost the equivalent of traveling from NY to Miami. Just imagine boarding a gleaming new sleeper in NYC at 10:00 PM and arriving in Miami the next morning at 8:00 AM. This is the sort of advance that will bring the masses and the money back aboard American trains.

I tell you it is possible!

Table of the fastest start-to-stop trains in countries with timetabled runs over 150 km/h.
In his biennial survey of the fastest point-to-point passenger train timings with start-to-stop timings at over 150 km/h, Dr Colin Taylor finds that Germany has moved up the league table, but Japan and France remain unchallenged at the top. Although Sweden climbs to sixth place, other changes in position are limited as many aspirations noted in the 2001 survey have yet to bear fruit. Among the runners-up for start-to-stop runs between 120 and 150 km/h, Russia makes it to third place and Israel moves up to fifth.

Fastest start-to-stop runs at 150 km/h or more with advertised trains.

Rank, Country, Speed (km/h)

1 Japan, Kokura to Hiroshima 261.8
2 France, Valence TGV to Avignon TGV 259.4
3 Belgium/France, Brussels Midi to Valence TGV 242.1
4 Germany, Frankfurt Flughafen to Siegburg/Bonn 232.4
5 Spain, Madrid Atocha to Seville 209.1
6 Sweden, Alvesta to Hassleholm 178.2
7 United Kingdom, York to Darlington 177.5
8 Italy, Roma Termini to Firenze SMN 166.6
9 United States of America, Wilmington to Baltimore (just a measly 30 mile distance, btw) 165.1
10 Finland, Salo to Karjaa 151.7
11 China, Shenzhen to Guangzhou Dong 151.6

Railways with an average timing between 120 and 150 km/h (75 and 93 mph).

Rank, Country, Speed (km/h)

12 Canada, Dorval to Guildwood 149·5
13 Denmark, Odense to Høje Tåstrup 145·0
14 Russia, St Petersburg to Moskva 140·2
15 Norway, Lillestrøm to Gardermoen 139·6
16 Morocco, Rabat to Agdal Mohammedia 135·0
17 Israel, Hof Ha-Karmel to Tel Aviv University 132·5
18 Poland, Warszawa Centralna to Zawiercie 129·8
19 Hungary, Hegyeshalom to Györ 128·2
20 Switzerland, Montreux to Sion 123·6
21 Saudi Arabia, Hofuf to Riyadh 120·0

Furthermore, if one Maglev unit breaks down it ties up the entire line. No one has designed a cheap Maglev crossover or switchtrack.

Also, a significantly advantageous reduction in energy use via Maglev remains unseen. Why switch from electric catenary and rails when it has been proven successful in HST use many times over now?

Also, adapting existing rail freight hauling methods to interface with a Maglev line would be much more costly than simply speeding up existing railroad technology. Why should freight hauling be left out of the high speed rail scheme?

Initially, American high speed rail service must be instituted between the nation's busiest city pairs. This will provide a level of patronage that will insure success. Passenger traffic between the LA-Vegas city pair in no way comes close to matching pairs like NYC-Chicago and LA-SF. Two other viable pairs are CHI-DEN and DFW-HOU. MIA-ORL and LAU-LSV would be tourist attractions at best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dnsommer:

Passenger traffic between the LA-Vegas city pair in no way comes close to matching pairs like NYC-Chicago and LA-SF. [/B]

---

The LA-Vegas route gets lots of traffic but much of it is 'leisure', not 'business', so the travelers closely watch the price of the trip. The new Indian casinos in California have siphoned off some of that traffic.

I can envision people willingly parking their cars in the California desert (for a fee) and boarding this train for the soul purpose of arriving in Las Vegas to loose their wages, engage in sin or perhaps attend a convention (on business, yeah right). California could conceivably make money on this deal if the investors were Californians, or there could be gambling on board the train, or any number of creative schemes that would part people from their money. I'm sure the fare for this novelty train would be rather high, as well.

In regards to the matter about the time spent on our current rail travel, allow me to point out that it is probably a good thing more people don't take the train. As it is, there are barely enough train sets out there to accommodate the long haul routes (despite the propaganda that is circulating). And should a particular route become popular, like the Hiawatha, I'm sure Amtrak will find some way of finding more trains to accommodate the load. Incidentally, the Hiawatha (between Chicago and Milwaukee) does not have to run at 150 mph to be popular, it already is popular.

Oh yes, the reason I revealed my annual salary to you all was simply to illustrate the point that one does not have to be a six figure big shot in order to find the time to travel by train. I think people can generally find the time to do what they really want to do. The fact that more people do not take the train is simply an indication of how difficult they find it to enjoy the company of themselves and others on an extended journey.

It is my understanding that trains, during the turn of the last century, only travelled at 25 mph. Imagine how long a trip would have taken at that speed, and yet people were more than happy to climb aboard.

Trains don't have to go faster than a speeding bullet in order to serve the public's need for rail travel. Trains provide an alternative to plane travel and the trains we have today are quite adequate, despite what the Europeans may say. If they were like Surfliners, all the better, but in these troubled times I maintain that we need to focus on at least preserving what we have, lest we end up with absolutely nothing.

However, we have had the first major new line built in the UK to carry the Eurostars from the Channel Tunnel to London. It's not finished yet and it will cost £3bn (US$5bn) for just 68 miles of track. Admittedly this involves 24% in tunnels and also has long bridges, cuttings, and general soundproofing to appease the residents of Kent. The good news is it has slashed 20 minutes off the 3 hour journey time to Paris from London, another 13 will be saved when the line is finished. This makes it even more competition against airlines.

Who travels on it? Certainly not just people out for "novelty". There are some people who commute daily between England and France - because it is just so convenient. Obviously there is a large tourist trade too.

While I don't see any high speed line being built in the USA anytime soon, I don't think it is that unreasonable to discuss it sensibly.

Geoff M.

I just read that you could fit the landmass of UK into Texas.

There are some high speed rail concepts floating around the US. For example, some people want to build high speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Others want to build high speed rail between Orlando, Florida and Miami (I think).

The problem is, who is going to pay for it. Personally, I want nothing to do it. I live in the middle of nowhere and I don't want my tax dollars to pay for high speed rail in California, New York or Florida.

It's so easy for Europeans to condemn the United States and our skelletal 30,000 mile network of trains. But the fact of the matter is that there is no way our federal politicians could come to a consensus about where we would place a high speed rail corridor, especially with our economy in such tatters.

Five billion for one single rail line? Hell, we can't even come up with $1.8 billion dollars to run our entire railroad network!

There are flights from LGA and EWR to ORD every half hour from 6 AM to 9 PM, and quite a few more from JFK. Then there are the flights between all of the NYC airports and both BOS and DCA by three different carriers every hour throughout the day. The SFO-LAX air corridor is equally busy. Each of these flights carry 100+ passengers. There is no comparison between these markets and any other domestic city pairs. High speed rail must begin by serving major pairs.

The Chunnel train devastated air shuttle services between LON and CDG. It closed practically every ferry line too.

I'm all for nostalgia. Some of my favorite train rides are slow pokes like The Adirondack and The Vermonter. But I want to see passenger rail survive.

[This message has been edited by dnsommer (edited 10-30-2003).]

Amtrak has not gotten $1.35 billion dollars yet. Funding for the railroad has not quite been resolved.

As it stands, the Senate is willing to give Amtrak about $1.3 billion dollars, enough to maintain the sad status quo. The House and the President, on the other hand, is only willing to give Amtrak $900 million dollars and that will cause the entire system to shut down.

So how do our congressional representatives (the "house") stand on this issue? According to the public record, 185 Democrats, 33 Republicans and 1 independent have urged funding in the amount of $1.812 billion dollars for 2004 in order to avoid a shutdown and to return the passenger service to a "state of good repair." (There are 435 total members in the house, by the way.)

In New Mexico, Tom Udall has indicated that he is for Amtrak funding but Heather Wilson has not. There is a certain irony here since Rep. Wilson has proven to be a strong supporter of the Wheels Museum and the renovation of the locomotive repair center off 2nd Street. Ironic because the locomotive repair center would be a lonely place indeed without the ol' Southwest Chief chugging past it twice a day.

On Sun., Oct. 12, Raton's Amtrak ticket office was officially shut down. Annually, the Raton station handles more Amtrak passengers than any New Mexico stop other than Albuquerque: If ever there was a foreshadowing of doom, it is the shutdown of the Raton ticket office.

People in the U.S. tend to think that Amtrak will somehow magically survive the next fiscal year. Maybe it will and maybe it won't. At this point, it's anybody's guess.

Raton is a nice depot. I think we can expect many more stations to become unmanned. It's better than seeing The Chief annulled, though.

I still feel confident Amtrak's red-letter day is not upon us by any means in spite of your comments. I think Amtrak knows how to bargain for the minimal funding it must get to survive. We will probably see some train offs nevertheless. The route map may look like a giant, transcontinental letter "H" in its final form.

David

1) According to my Amtrak timetable, Wilmington is mile 347 from BOS and Baltimore is mile 416. Distance = 69 miles, not "a measley 30 miles"

2) Yes, the UK would fit into Texas. For that matter, all of Western Europe (from the UK and Spain to the eastern borders of Germany and Italy) would fit into Texas.

3) The longest flight you can take in Europe is from London to Istanbul -- about 2,000 miles or roughly the distance from NY to Denver.

Those shorter distances, combined with dense population, make high speed rail a lot more competitive.

4) The Eurostar trains have emphatically NOT put the ferries out of business. And low-fare airlines are competing successfully against HSR for passengers. See the latest issue of "International Railway Journal".

Nevertheless, my point is that our fastest train is 90 - 95 km/h slower than those of Japan and France, and ours sustains its top speed for a much shorter distance. What I'm saying is that much faster trains here are very much possible.

I still maintain that Eurostar closed most of the Cross Channel ferries, and those that still remain operate more infrequently than before the Chunnel opened. They're dying.

The Chunnel also forced the airlines to lower fares drastically to recapture some of the market they initially lost to Eurostar. The Chunnel, it can still be said, changed the whole travel picture over there. For the first time in decades a train became formidable competition for airliners. AF and BA will never dominate the LHR-CDG market as completely as they did so long as Eurostar is part of the scene.

You're right with regard to building an HST line following the *exact* ROW of The Water Level Route. The river is too curvy.

A more likely new high speed route would parallel the west shore of the Hudson along the path of I-87. Regional plans already call for such a route, at least as far as Stewart Airport in Newburgh. The Port Authority has been studying ways of making Stewart more accessible to the New York City.

The TGV and the Bullet train networks were built in segments. The first TGV line ran from a point just outside Paris SE to a point just outside Dijon. Over the years since the original TGV line has been extended and other completely new lines from Paris to other major cities have been added.

So where does the USA begin? And when?

Does the country that was forward thinking enough to land men on the moon really lack the initiative to make a 16.5 hour transcontinental train a reality? Now that would be a source of national pride. And a 16.5 hour journey certainly is a long enough trip to warrant putting a sleeping car and a diner in the consist for those of you who, like me, enjoy an overnight train ride and dinner in the diner.

Just divide 3,000 miles by 185 mph!

Dave

[This message has been edited by dnsommer (edited 10-30-2003).]

[This message has been edited by dnsommer (edited 10-30-2003).]

Dude: I assume you live in California to maintain such a selfish attitude.

First off, the long haul trains are not black holes. At best they consume only 25 percent of the money Amtrak needs to stay alive. The rest of the money seems to be pouring into your sacred cows.

Secondly, if you want rail service in California and the Northeast Corridor so badly, then *you* pay for it and don't expect the rest of the country to help you out.

It seems that so far the east and west coasts have done an excellent job subsidizing the Acella and the Surfliner, so let's see how well you perform when you have to pay for the *entire operation* entirely by yourself.

Dude, here's the deal: If the longhaul trains go down, we're taking you with us.

Gotta start somewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dnsommer:
I believe some of the earliest streamliners found success on a CHI-MSP route. Perhaps you're right! Maybe this city pair would be a good choice for America's first true HST line.

Gotta start somewhere.

Dave

---

Correct. In the book "Night Trains," author Peter maiken writes page 271: "Speed was a hallmark of passenger railroading in Wisconsin. In 1953, the Burlington accounted for the six fastest diesel runs in the United States over its trackage north and south of Prairie du Chien, and the CBQ, MILW and North Western all together were credited with half of the country's fifty fastest runs, all twenty-five of which were in Wisconsin."

<<1. Maglev Energy Consumption>>

"The energy consumption per passenger kilometer for a 300 mph Maglev technology is considerably less than that of autos and airplanes, and comparable to that of the French TGV. If Maglev were to operate at TGV speeds, it would have an energy consumption in mega-joules per passenger kilometer about half that of the TGV. This is logical, since the aerodynamic drag of the Maglev is somewhat less than that of the TGV (smaller frontal area, more streamlined shape) at the same speed, and its magnetic drag is much smaller than the TGV rolling drag. The TGV is much heavier than a Maglev vehicle, which results in is having a large rolling drag force.

2. Cost of Maglev Guideways

The Maglev 2000 guideway cost is less than for a high-speed train like the TGV. The M2000 narrow beam guideway is projected to cost about $11 million per mile of 2- way guideway compared to about $15 million per mile for TGV type track. Constructing the TGV track is not cheap, since the roadbed must be dug to a considerable depth (~10 feet) to ensure stable trackage. Moreover, the TGV roadbed must be very straight and level, whereas the elevated Maglev guideway can be adapted much more easily to varying terrain and curving right-of-ways by banking and changing the height of the piers that support the narrow beams. It is not possible to elevate the TGV at a reasonable cost, because it weighs at least a factor of 10 more than a Maglev vehicle. Moreover, Maglev guideways involve far less disruption to the land and the environment than does the TGV, which has to occupy a fenced off, on-grade corridor which essentially cuts the surrounding land into 2 separate sections that are isolated from each other. Finally, Maglev guideways, because the weight load is distributed relatively uniformly under the vehicle (and the weight of a Maglev vehicle is much less than that of a locomotive), have structures that require virtually no maintenance and will last for many years. In contrast, high-speed trackage requires constant maintenance—the Japanese send out thousands of workers every night to push the tracks back into place—and their lifetime will be considerably less.

3. Maglev in Low Pressure Tubes

We have been studying the feasibility of operating Maglev in low-pressure tubes for some time. At pressures of a few torr, one could achieve speeds of thousands of miles per hour, traveling from New York to Los Angeles in less than one hour. However, the cost of tunneling—presently $30 million per mile and more—is too high for such systems. With advances in tunneling technology to reduce cost to $10 to 20 million per mile, such systems would become practical.

4. Maglev for Urban Applications