Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rick Powell]

The nominal top speed on the line is 110 mph but we are looking at making some sections 125 mph.  The catch is that the Federal Railroad Administration will not allow higher speeds than 110 unless the rail is completely grade-separated (no "level crossings" with roads).  And for good reason.  We have looked into all kinds of fancy barrier systems, etc. as a half measure instead of putting bridges or closures at every crossing, and they seem to be more hazardous than they are help.  

FWIW, 125 mph top speed is what many of the European lines have been upgraded to, in addition to the flashier TGV trains, etc. which run at even higher speeds.  

If you go into Google maps Satellite or Street View in Europe (or even countries like South Africa), you will see very few level crossings compared to what we have in the US.  They made a conscious decision to separate road and rail a long time ago, and it paid some big dividends when lines were upgraded to higher speeds.

[Phillip_Graham]

Marty Bilecki wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 12:34

Lynchburg to Roanoke final That's some magnificent stuff ..

The guy on Youtube below has some pretty recent 1080p high res video of SP 4449, the "other" famous passenger engine like the J 611.  Unlike 611, SP 4449 is still running:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ervans

[John Roberts {JR}]

Yup, I recall there was a nasty accident on that high speed German line when a truck or car, fell off an elevated crossing down onto the rail line... trains don't stop very fast anyhow and energy to scrub off when braking increases with the square of velocity. The vehicle wasn't enough to really wreck the train, but I think it derailed and then mayhem ensued.

Some decades ago, i saw a hypothetical discussions of high speed rail lines in completely underground tunnels... but the cost would be huge. That discussion was so hypothetical that they described a hyperbolic path so the trains would be accelerated and slowed by gravity...  Thanks Mr wizard.. we can't quite afford that plan.  

JR

PS: we have nothing but same level crossings down here, and the local Bubbas think nothing of driving around the cross bars late at night after a few beers.,,, oops.

[Rick Powell]

Another factor making true high speed rail more difficult in the US is sharing the right of way with freight trains.  You can imagine the fubar ballet of trying to mix 200+ mph high speed passenger trains with 49 mph freights and slow switching movements, and the leapfrog movements that would need to be done to make it work, and the ripple effect that any movement glitch would cause within the network should it be attempted.  

The European rail system is somewhat more conducive to higher passenger rail speeds; there is a relative lack of freight trains and local switching movements compared to the US.  In Europe, something like 70-80% of the total freight tonnage is carried by trucks, and is about the inverse of what is carried by rail in the US.  Again in Google maps satellite view, you will not see a lot of rail branches and siding tracks off to loading docks, grain elevators, coal mines, industrial sites, etc. in Europe as you will in the US.

Of course, the highest speed lines in Europe are reserved for passenger service only, or maybe express parcels.  The proposed high speed service lines in Florida and California are being planned this way, but the majority of proposed "high speed" service in the US is really incremental higher speeds, mostly due to the 110 mph restriction in my earlier post as well as the inability to restrict the lines to passenger use only.  It is wickedly expensive to build a new line or upgrade an existing line to true 200 mph+ service, but obviously some countries have decided to make that level of investment.

[Ian Hunt]

Rick Powell wrote on Tue, 04 January 2011 10:04

Another factor making true high speed rail more difficult in the US is sharing the right of way with freight trains.  You can imagine the fubar ballet of trying to mix 200+ mph high speed passenger trains with 49 mph freights and slow switching movements, and the leapfrog movements that would need to be done to make it work, and the ripple effect that any movement glitch would cause within the network should it be attempted.   The European rail system is somewhat more conducive to higher passenger rail speeds; there is a relative lack of freight trains and local switching movements compared to the US.  In Europe, something like 70-80% of the total freight tonnage is carried by trucks, and is about the inverse of what is carried by rail in the US.  Again in Google maps satellite view, you will not see a lot of rail branches and siding tracks off to loading docks, grain elevators, coal mines, industrial sites, etc. in Europe as you will in the US. Of course, the highest speed lines in Europe are reserved for passenger service only, or maybe express parcels.  The proposed high speed service lines in Florida and California are being planned this way, but the majority of proposed "high speed" service in the US is really incremental higher speeds, mostly due to the 110 mph restriction in my earlier post as well as the inability to restrict the lines to passenger use only.  It is wickedly expensive to build a new line or upgrade an existing line to true 200 mph+ service, but obviously some countries have decided to make that level of investment.

France certainly has invested heavily, TGV track is reserved exclusively for the TGV service and the track is welded sections (400 meter) so no 'clacketyclack' it is in fact a wholly separate service from the rest of France's rail smorgasbord. I've ridden it, it's smooth and very fast.

Ian

[Bennett Prescott]

I rode it back in 2004 and was also very impressed. Very smooth, no clickety clack, insignificant side to side motion. They have to build special heat sinks for the track to keep it stable. I got invited into the control room for a while, all computer of course, and motors in the passenger cars with sophisticated load monitoring. Sorry, can't remember how fast we got going, but it was quick!

[John Roberts {JR}]

Those of us old enough to remember the SST development have hopefully learned something from that experience. Just because something can be done, does not mean that it should.  I am pleasantly surprised to see the private sector competing to pioneer the next generation of near space travel, they will surely come up with more practical solutions.

We can justify improved ground rail transportation in the Boston to DC corridor for people moving, but for the rest of the country in my judgment we need to focus on freight. Two different problems.

I really liked that cute double decker approach, where the trains moved at constant speed, and picked up/dropped off passenger compartments at the stations without stopping.

Imagine how much faster the commute could be on a low speed local lines through densely populated areas if the trains didn't have to stop and start every few miles and could roll at even a modest speed.  

There was a recent pile of money thrown at high speed rail by congress with little thought to actual economic viability. The money was not enough to finish anything, just enough to get people wound up (thanks again guys)..  

Steel wheels at reasonable speeds save us money. Rubber tires, are wasteful but practical for local point to point people and package movement.  The math for value of speed between points is less linear, but the universe of people willing to pay the highest premium to support getting from A to B quickly is limited, as the SST experience demonstrated.

We need to thoughtful about all of this.

JR

[Ryan Lantzy]

Rick Powell wrote on Tue, 04 January 2011 11:04

Another factor making true high speed rail more difficult in the US is sharing the right of way with freight trains.  You can imagine the fubar ballet of trying to mix 200+ mph high speed passenger trains with 49 mph freights and slow switching movements, and the leapfrog movements that would need to be done to make it work, and the ripple effect that any movement glitch would cause within the network should it be attempted.   The European rail system is somewhat more conducive to higher passenger rail speeds; there is a relative lack of freight trains and local switching movements compared to the US.  In Europe, something like 70-80% of the total freight tonnage is carried by trucks, and is about the inverse of what is carried by rail in the US.  Again in Google maps satellite view, you will not see a lot of rail branches and siding tracks off to loading docks, grain elevators, coal mines, industrial sites, etc. in Europe as you will in the US. Of course, the highest speed lines in Europe are reserved for passenger service only, or maybe express parcels.

From what I know of the European system (specifically German) nearlly all of the passenger lines were exclusively built for high speed service.  While they may carry less freight over rail per capita than the US that's not the point really.  When they started to offere high speed rail, they built new tracks.  The contstruction of high speed lines is much different, requiring super-elevated curves, fewer and gentler curves in general, and more moderate grades (i.e. more tunnels and bridges).

Quote:

The proposed high speed service lines in Florida and California are being planned this way, but the majority of proposed "high speed" service in the US is really incremental higher speeds, mostly due to the 110 mph restriction in my earlier post as well as the inability to restrict the lines to passenger use only.  It is wickedly expensive to build a new line or upgrade an existing line to true 200 mph+ service, but obviously some countries have decided to make that level of investment.

It is expensive, but AFAIK grading and building a rail line is MUCH cheaper than highways.  Also, given the amount of abandoned right of way in the US, much of that could probably be reclaimed for use on high speed lines (once the curves are removed and tunnels/bridges are built).

[Ryan Lantzy]

Bennett Prescott wrote on Tue, 04 January 2011 12:11

I rode it back in 2004 and was also very impressed. Very smooth, no clickety clack, insignificant side to side motion.

I found this to be the case on even the lowliest of passenger trains in Germany a few months ago.  I rode the Metronom from Cuxhaven to Hamburg and it was dead silent.

My experiences traveling by rail in Europe made be never want to step foot in an airport again.  It's simply the most relaxing traveling experience I've ever had, bar none.

[Rick Powell]

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Tue, 04 January 2011 11:18

I really liked that cute double decker approach, where the trains moved at constant speed, and picked up/dropped off passenger compartments at the stations without stopping.

The Chinese are considering something that is not exactly what you are talking about, but a double-decker approach to transportation nonetheless.  Seriously, this did not come from the Onion website.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/02/china-to-build-ginormous- buses-that-cars-can-drive-under-video/