http://thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/01/a-future-interstate-rail-network-redux/

http://thetransportpolitic.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/rail-network.jpg?w=400&h=255

For the investment needed, it seems like we better be sure it will be used near capacity.

If we were going to contain the trains in evacuated cylinders, so that trains could travel as fast or faster than airplanes while using less energy, then I would say great. However, I suspect that they are simply trying to create trains like those in Japan and Europe, which really won't compete well with airlines, so I am not in support of it.

Bad idea at this point. Way too much territory to cover with new tracks with property to buy and law suits to settle. Big money pit.

Bad idea at this point. Way too much territory to cover with new tracks with property to buy and law suits to settle. Big money pit.

If you followed the road interstate system and placed tracks in the medians, put them in tubes as suggested by Jason above, I think you would have fewer issues with property than you think. In the DC metro area, this is the way that much of the Metro rail travels. Either along the medians or very close to the major roads.

If you followed the road interstate system and placed tracks in the medians, put them in tubes as suggested by Jason above, I think you would have fewer issues with property than you think. In the DC metro area, this is the way that much of the Metro rail travels. Either along the medians or very close to the major roads.

Good point about the medians, however I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and we are currently trying to finish building 1/2 of one bridge that crosses the bay and it will be a ten year project and cost somewhere around 6.3 Billion dollars. Just a few miles of bridge. I can't imagine what hundreds of miles of tracks would cost, particularly if it were in a tube!:eek:

DaV8or,

I agree the upfront capital costs of the tubes is high, but the ability of those trains to move at speeds equal to or faster than airplanes will cause people to shift to railways from airplanes, and save energy at the same time. Imagine how cheap / fast cargo shipping would be. All those long haul trucks could get off the roads.

I agree the upfront capital costs of the tubes is high, but the ability of those trains to move at speeds equal to or faster than airplanes will cause people to shift to railways from airplanes, and save energy at the same time.

This I believe, is literally a pipe dream.

Yeah, I am kind of mixed opinion. I lived in Utah for a year and a half, and the light rail system takes you about 25 miles or so, and they are expanding it. It saved me a lot in commuting expense and a similar system around the country could be very useful.

However, having recently visited Boston MA, I was made aware of "The Big Dig".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_(Boston,_Massachusetts)

It's taken almost 3 decades to complete and well over $20 billion for just a couple of miles. Granted that was because of terrible plan and foresight, and it's in the middle of one of the most congested cities in America, this does bring up the point, that it would not only take a lot of money, but could very well take over a hundred years to complete the thousands of miles they are talking about here.

Basically it's a good idea on paper, but making that idea an economically sound reality would be next to impossible, Amtrak is already one of the most upside down businesses in the country.

If the rail replaced a significant semi truck percentage, it might get its use, airplanes and airports will never be hassle free either, but I don't know if a train will really ever really compete with trains on the scale people might need them for (LA to New York etc.)

We are at or near a crossroads in transportation technology and fuel use. It could go any way. Will we hit peak oil and the world’s major transportation based economies just collapse, leaving no capital left to finish any huge infrastructure project? Who knows.

I'm looking at what's going on and trying to figure out what it will be:


1) Petroleum crisis is coming. It's almost impossible to deny at this point. If we had even a small chance to hold the line we need yearly increases in petroleum exploration and development investment. Unfortunately, we all are aware of what is going on - decreased investment. This mean in 8 years or so we will have less oil than we have today. Not a good forecast for a growing and prosperous economy. In fact, I predict a recession in 8 years (assuming we even get out of the one we are in). It’s when the current reduction of investment should hit the streets. Just a heads up.

2) Will Nanotechnology save us? It has already figured out how to give us inexpensive solar power (ramping up as we speak) so maybe the same is coming for a practical battery. I think the chances are very good. Within one decade I think we will have a battery that is good enough that we don't have to even wonder what to do about our energy problems. We will just be working hard on the transition.

3) What will be the state of the global economy? Will we be in war from so many years of depression? A state where the economy is totally collapsed and decades from pulling out of it? If we are where we are today, with no improvements, it will have wiped away much of the world's wealth (or perception of it).


All of these factors (and more) will determine if it's a good idea to build out any major transportation infrastructure. We might not be able to afford to do anything.

However, I think we need to head off the petroleum crisis to the best of our ability. That will require the electrification of the automobile as well as advances in biotechnology to find substitutes for petrochemicals including pesticides, fertilizers, plastics and of course fuel.

If a good rail system can be shown to reduce our petroleum use the most effectively and is a major portion of the Apollo Energy Plan then I'm all for it. The plan should be able to figure out where, when and how much.

As a genunine railfan, who moved to my current town so that I could be close to the trains, I'd love to see it. However, in practice, it won't happen.

There have been no less than 6 attempts to develop high-speed rail corridors un the US in the last 40 years. They have all failed for the same reason - inability to get a high-speed right of way. Trains traveling at 200 miles per hour need to have extremely straight track. Highway right-of-ways are built to about a 75MPH top speed, even assuming a vehicle where the passengers are always seated. A 200MPH train, with passengers that can stand up and walk around, requires much straighter track to prevent passengers from being shaken around. Even some attempts to accomodate track curvature, like 'tilting trains' and low-slung Talgo trains, don't help a whole lot with the track curvature - at best adding about 30MPH to the top speed on existing tracks.

Europe and Japan have high-speed rail because they had the horrible advantage of having their infrastructures substantially destroyed in WW2. As a result, the rail links were rebuilt after the war using straight paths. In the US, our rail lines were laid out in the 1880s, and they were built for a maximum speed of about 80MPH. Even the Northeast Corridor, which has the best tracks in the US, can only exceed 140MPH on short straight stretches.

Building a high speed rail line in the US means straightening the tracks, which means moving the tracks through and near existing businesses and residential areas. It also means new bridges and road crossings. Finally, it meand a lot of lawsuits by people who don't want their property taken, or don't want to hear the noise, or don't want to fill in environmentally sensitive areas with train lines. In short, it means a cure for NIMBY (not in my back yard) in this country, and I don't see that happening soon.

I ride a train over 25,000 miles/year because I'm a rail fan. If they want to build high-speed rail lines, I'll support them, unless they try to build it through my back yard! Since I'm more accepting of high-speed rail than most Americans, I don't see enough people being willing to drop their opposition and let the tracks go through.

As a genunine railfan, who moved to my current town so that I could be close to the trains, I'd love to see it. However, in practice, it won't happen.

There have been no less than 6 attempts to develop high-speed rail corridors un the US in the last 40 years. They have all failed for the same reason - inability to get a high-speed right of way. Trains traveling at 200 miles per hour need to have extremely straight track. Highway right-of-ways are built to about a 75MPH top speed, even assuming a vehicle where the passengers are always seated. A 200MPH train, with passengers that can stand up and walk around, requires much straighter track to prevent passengers from being shaken around. Even some attempts to accomodate track curvature, like 'tilting trains' and low-slung Talgo trains, don't help a whole lot with the track curvature - at best adding about 30MPH to the top speed on existing tracks.

Europe and Japan have high-speed rail because they had the horrible advantage of having their infrastructures substantially destroyed in WW2. As a result, the rail links were rebuilt after the war using straight paths. In the US, our rail lines were laid out in the 1880s, and they were built for a maximum speed of about 80MPH. Even the Northeast Corridor, which has the best tracks in the US, can only exceed 140MPH on short straight stretches.

Building a high speed rail line in the US means straightening the tracks, which means moving the tracks through and near existing businesses and residential areas. It also means new bridges and road crossings. Finally, it meand a lot of lawsuits by people who don't want their property taken, or don't want to hear the noise, or don't want to fill in environmentally sensitive areas with train lines. In short, it means a cure for NIMBY (not in my back yard) in this country, and I don't see that happening soon.

I ride a train over 25,000 miles/year because I'm a rail fan. If they want to build high-speed rail lines, I'll support them, unless they try to build it through my back yard! Since I'm more accepting of high-speed rail than most Americans, I don't see enough people being willing to drop their opposition and let the tracks go through.







Agreed. It would probably take a presidential directive during wartime.

Oh and Japan is still planning out new Shinkansen lines that won't even be started for 20 years. It's not easy and they usually have to spend 10 years tunneling though huge mountains just to lay one set of tracks. They are very determined however and have the knowledge that their past lines are so successful and highly utilized.

I think the best solution for high-speed travel in the U.S. is to use algae biodiesel or liquid hydrogen powered airplanes. Clean and many times faster than even high-speed rail.

For cargo however, we can move to more efficient electrified rail. That would cut down on a whole lot of diesel fuel use. The rail layouts can be what we have now (only improved and two-way) because the trains move so slowly. Since it's going to be next to impossible to make electrified semi-trucks with even near-future battery technology it's going to be a heavy fossil fuel user for at least several decades.

That algae based biodiesel sure sounds like it can solve a lot of problems. I hope the researchers are seeing some progress.

China actually has a short maglev line running already.

On a recent chart in the paper, one of the proposed "high speed" lines for the Midwest was listed at 79mph. This is embarassing.

---

Texas: "For cargo however, we can move to more efficient electrified rail."

In fact, we don't have to string wire everywhere to get some advantage from that... just add a pantograph to the locos and put overhead wires where you know they will be starting, stopping and, maybe, climbing hills. Keeping the train rolling on level ground requires a lot less energy than getting it started, so this strategy has the maximum effect with minimum cost.

Would it actually pay? I don't know. As far as I know, no locos have pantographs, integrating that source might be expensive and the wires themselves aren't cheap.

By the way, recycling the electricity generated by regenerative braking back into the grid has probably already occurred to you, which I why I suggest adding the overhead wires where the trains will be stopping as part of the early electrification.

We need a smarter grid... and lots more of it, too.

China actually has a short maglev line running already.

Yeah, it's easy to get things like this done when you're a Communist country. Whether you want it or not, it goes in. If your house lies in the way you get chucked out and not compensated.:rolleyes:

On a recent chart in the paper, one of the proposed "high speed" lines for the Midwest was listed at 79mph. This is embarassing.


Although embarrassing, I still have to laugh. Last time I rode Amtrak (unlike swimdad I can only afford one trip a year - I envy your 25,000 miles/year), I took the GPS with me. Both the Hiawatha (Milwaukee-Chicago) and Empire Builder (Chicago-Seattle/Portland) already run slightly over 80 MPH much of the time through the midwest and high plains states. (Yes, I have pictures).

I would support a national rail system like this, but I understand swimdad's points. I would also add that people perceive trains as slow, so I think it will be difficult to get your frequent flyers and business class flyers to choose trains over airplanes. However, we'd also need alot more rental car infrastructure at the stations - which should be a great opportunity to sell more Volts!

... I would also add that people perceive trains as slow, so I think it will be difficult to get your frequent flyers and business class flyers to choose trains over airplanes....

My point exactly. If you want to pull people off the airlines, then you need a very high speed train - one that moves through an evacuated cylinder.

I love the idea of the end result. Being able to hop on a train and get to my destination. My question is how would you secure such a thing? You can prevent people from putting bombs on the train in much the same way you do planes, but what about the track. What keeps someone from blowing up the track down the rail or driving a car into it?

Would it actually pay? I don't know. As far as I know, no locos have pantographs, integrating that source might be expensive and the wires themselves aren't cheap.

By the way, recycling the electricity generated by regenerative braking back into the grid has probably already occurred to you, which I why I suggest adding the overhead wires where the trains will be stopping as part of the early electrification.




Actually, New Jeresy Transit has a number of hybrid locomotives. They run on overhead wires where the wires exist, and on diesel where they don't. The come in handy when bringing trains in from New Jeresy's non-electrified lines into New York (which discourages diesels in Penn Station).

Regenerative braking is tough on trains. First off, they usually run on AC power at high voltages, and matching phases on an AC line is nearly impossible. Second, the voltages vary (12KV on the NEC to 25KV on the EWL). Finally, except for motor-unit trains, the only drive wheels are in the engine, and the dynamic braking on the engine (which would generate the regenerative energy) can't slow a train fast enough. That's why all of the cars typically have friction brakes.

However, this isn't a universal problem. Subways typically run on DC power, on one uniform voltage, and have motor units on every car. Because of this, they do take advantage of regenerative braking whenever possible.

swimdad, Thanks for the enlightenment.

However, we could probably address some of those technical issues... I imagine good computer controls could address the AC-sync problem and why not add regenerative braking and drive motors to each car?

Whether or not that kind of tech makes good economic sense, I couldn't say.

---

There's an article in the NYT today, about travel by rail:

Cross-Country by Rail (http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/travel/08amtrak.html?8dpc)

A little thought reveals the sad state of train travel...

AMTRAK may be doing 80 in many spots but it's quicker to drive NYC to the SF area by some 12 hours and that's with 16 hours/day driving, 8 hours each day in a motel (no driving overnight). Straight through, NYC-Emeryville is about 45 hours, or better than a 24-hour advantage. 16 on/8 off allows about 7 hours of sleep in a bed, some time for a shower and everybody will be pretty well rested all along if you swap off drivers periodically. And you still get to see the scenery. Traveling with children, we have actually accomplished 14 on/10 off. An adults-only trip should be able to manage 16/8.

Rail is cheaper, out-of-pocket, perhaps, for one person but that involves sitting up for 4 days and little opportunity for personal hygiene. Ewww... Get a car-pool going and the per-passenger costs for the car plummet. Add a roomette charge to the train ticket (which gets you showers) and the rail price jumps by hundreds of dollars. Meals on rail are probably spendy and you'll be doing a lot of them.

Moreover, much of the US is very poorly served by rail. There are a couple of good near-trans-continental routes but that leaves vast swathes of the US badly served, if at all. It's almost faster to walk from St. Paul, MN, to Madison, WI (Madison is served by an Amtrak bus link from Chicago).

OK, I exaggerate a little. Still...

And the current price is prohibitive. NYC-SF, round-trip is close to $500, plus meals (at AMTRAK dining car prices) and takes over 3 days, each way. You can fly from NYC to LA for $300 or less, round-trip, with about 6 hours each way and you get a choice of departures (another advantage of the car... you leave when YOU are ready to go, not when AMTRAK is ready for you to go, both NYC and SF are served by one train/day).

The train is such an uphill battle... at this point, you've got to love it (or want to experience it and have plenty of spare change) to do it.

---

The comments to the above referenced article include some discussion of what makes sense for rail and what doesn't. One of the commenters mentioned what would be the frequent-flyer corridors. BOS-NYC-DC, SF-LA, for example, would make sense and I think he's probably right. But we need faster trains (110mph is pretty mediocre) and we probably need to eliminate some stops (or add local service once/day along the main line).

There's not much up here, it should be possible to install a real bullet train between the Twin Cities and Chicago but the high speed lines that are being discussed top out at 110mph. With the stops and routing involved, a trip by car would be almost equally speedy from here to Madison or Chicago; especially when you come back around to the fact that the car leaves any time, night or day. If service was improved to two trains/day (currently, we have just one) and two hours faster than the car, the car would still be faster if your optimal departure time was in either of two 10-hour windows.

---

In short, although I think it would be great to be able to jump on a train and go somewhere, I doubt it will seem practical any time soon, which is the real requirement for consumer acceptance.

I have traveled by train on a number of occasions but the most recent trip was 1972. I enjoyed it but it took all day and involved driving past two airports that we could have used, instead, to get us to our destination a lot faster. We did this because some family members were afraid of flying.

As it turns out, they should have been afraid of smoking.