The limits of high-speed rail

[pmax]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

Maybe light rail is the way, or one way to go in urban environs.

VTA



https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/17/staggering-drop-in-vta-bus-ridership-may-signal-dramatic-changes/

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Our need for transportation is increasing. Instead of adding another 2 lanes to an interstate, use the land for a set of tracks.



That is where autonomous cars and the fact that cars are becoming more like appliances rather than cherished personal possessions or some kind of extension of who we are is making rail more viable. You could take a train to within a few tens of miles of your destination, swipe a credit card in a slot and drive away in some four wheeled appliance to get you to your final destination. You can bypass the gridlock and the expense of owning a car, and for increasing numbers of people that is an attractive alternative.



They are still subject to gridlock and will still require more lanes of pavement to accommodate late 21st century transportation loads.

I think we have two different situations here.

One is long distance travel vis high speed rail that wouldn't do much for local congestion.
The second is local lower speed rail that would help with congestion.

Personally, I see autonomous vehicles eventually being a big part of the local congestion solution. You type in your destination and your vehicle locates other vehicles with the same destination and they link up in a high speed bumper to bumper train.

The article speaks of 350 mph trains when we have one that can manage 150 over a short stretch and it only avgs about 70 mph over it's entire run.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

One is long distance travel vis high speed rail that wouldn't do much for local congestion.
The second is local lower speed rail that would help with congestion.

Depends on how you define long distance travel. I would say anything over about 500 miles would be better done by air.

But back to the OP. The practical limit on "high speed" seems to be somewhere below 300 kph, or about 180 mph.

I used to fly from Dayton to Chicago to a place on N. Michigan Avenue a couple of times a year. Air time was less than an hour, but travel time was 4-5 hours or more depending on the time of day. I could drive there in 6 hours on a good day, 7 if traffic was bad. I don't think a train - even a high speed train - would save any time over air and maybe would take longer than driving, but it would be a lot more relaxing than driving or flying.

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by RWebb

the real issue is getting land to run the trains on

That's part of the issue, absolutely.

The other part is a discussion that would take this to PARF....the reason we can't have nice things.

[jcommin]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Depends on how you define long distance travel. I would say anything over about 500 miles would be better done by air.

But back to the OP. The practical limit on "high speed" seems to be somewhere below 300 kph, or about 180 mph.

I used to fly from Dayton to Chicago to a place on N. Michigan Avenue a couple of times a year. Air time was less than an hour, but travel time was 4-5 hours or more depending on the time of day. I could drive there in 6 hours on a good day, 7 if traffic was bad. I don't think a train - even a high speed train - would save any time over air and maybe would take longer than driving, but it would be a lot more relaxing than driving or flying.

I have lived this many times. I have had 6 hour flights from Chicago to Detroit. I still travel for work and many times when I'm traveling with collegues, we rent a van or SUV. It is so nice to be a passenger and take in the scenery. You miss allot when you are the driver.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by WolfeMacleod

That's part of the issue, absolutely...

There is plenty of track space as well as Right of Way along interstates that could be used. The DC Metro as laid track in the center median of the Dulles Access Road. Nicely done and they are almost to the airport.

I'll take the Metro from Branch Avenue to Dulles when they finish. The beltway is a mess.

A significant issue is logistics at train stations, hotels, rental cars, parking, etc...and price: The Acela isn't cheap. For example, I have to Metro to Union Station in DC to get the non-stop to NYC. I would prefer BWI but then it is a local to NYC. There is no time savings, oddly, if I go to the BWI train station and the parking at BWI is great.

[island911]

Maybe someday, technology will allow us to escape the constrains of rails, perhaps even take to the skies in mass number of machines that travel along some sort of air corridors...

[RWebb]

Rail can be faster than flying over "medium distances" and is less susceptible to terrorist attack impacts.

I dunno if a medium distance is 500 miles - likely it is affected by travel time to an airport.

In Germany, you need a real fast 930 to compete with high-speed rail...

I do think we should improve & develop a few more fast inter city rail lines in the US. One biggie is to get them tracks where freight trains do NOT have priority - really! This plays havoc with rail travel times in the PNW.

[island911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

Rail can be faster than flying over "medium distances" and is less susceptible to terrorist attack impacts....

Only because of ridiculous TSA

Private charters kick ass.

Originally Posted by RWebb

Rail ... is less susceptible to terrorist attack impacts....

Because it's so easy to secure hundreds of miles of rail?

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

I was hoping for the technical argument rather than a Leftist sideshow.

The OP is right there. Read it and argue away.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

The OP is a Tech, and
R&D.

So? You want a technical argument. The OP has lots of technical statements in it - so argue with them.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

So? You want a technical argument. The OP has lots of technical statements in it - so argue with them.

The OPs linked article is really well written and presented. This little nugget stood out: "...the rolling resistance coefficient for steel on steel contact is, at its worst, 30 times lower than that of rubber on asphalt." The article is full of that type of stuff.

I am not an engineer but I have managed a lot of complex programs and really enjoyed his perspective.

Originally Posted by RWebb

Rail can be faster than flying over "medium distances" and is less susceptible to terrorist attack impacts.

Not in the US, especially AMTRAK...there are no baggage checks, ID checks or "security" at the Metro and AMTRAK stations I frequent. Zippy - you could bring on whatever your weapon of choice is.

Which, in an odd twist, is why I take the train on the NE corridor. The BWI AMTRAK station is right on the airport. The Metro and AMTRAK mobile apps are really good and I can get a ticket at any time. I never get to the station more than 20 minutes in advance.

At the airport, conversely, I need to be at parking at least an hour and a 1/2 before my flight. I am already an hour ahead. I also like the fact that AMTRAK has quiet cars and web access so I can work on the train.

As well, certain weather has no impact on trains while all the weather machinations do for flight.

Again, engineering aside, logistics drives transportation modes - I like trains in the NE corridor because they are logistically efficient for me.

[Seahawk]

Last week the wife of a very good friend of mine (we worked drones in agriculture together) called and let me know Henry had died of pneumonia - he was 69.

They retired near Fort Wayne and there will be a Memorial Service the first week in March. Henry is from Australia and his kids needed time to get to the States.

So, I looked at trains and planes and compared it with just driving the Tundra over the hills.

AMTRAK price was good but the time to get from DC to Dayton was 14 hours! I'd still need to get a rental and drive another few hours. Not going to happen.

Flight are essentially the same time as driving (9 hours) and I'd still need a rental, etc.

I'll drive.

[masraum]

not the best quality video, but still pretty cool to see.

[GH85Carrera]

Anyone that has traveled much by airlines has horror stories. My last trip I got up at 5:00 AM to get to the airport 1.5 hours before my flight. I did my part on time. The airplane was late to arrive, and late to leave. I landed in DFW to make my connection all on the same airline. I hustled at a very fast walk and the airplane was gone from the gate. They gave me 10 bucks to eat at the airport and wait for a new connecting flight. So a bag of chips is about it at airport prices. I arrived at my hotel in DC and got to my room at 12:30 AM and of course I needed to be at a meeting at 7:00.

It was faster than driving, but mot much. To go by train would likely take a week if it is even possible from Oklahoma City to Washington DC.

Trains and subways are great in high population areas. They just need to pay for themselves.

Airlines pay large fees to use an airport and the ATC, likely not enough to really pay for them. Most cities and states want to make their airports better to attract more airline flights and hence more business for that city.

The government is involved in every aspect of travel from walking on sidewalks to the planes, trains and automobiles. We (the tax payer) get hosed over and over on boondoggle projects and poor results form the money invested.

It would be neat to see real high speed trains nationwide. It would be even neater to have transporters like in Star Trek. Both are just about as likely to happen.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

AMTRAK price was good but the time to get from DC to Dayton was 14 hours! I'd still need to get a rental and drive another few hours. Not going to happen.

I took an AMTRAK from Cincinnati to Burlington, VT. Had to go by way of DC!?! The train to DC was insanely slow, like 25 mph at times. Tracks run through the back side of every housing tract and industrial park in every town we rode through - the ugliest parts of town. It took 24 hours to get to Burlington. We stayed overnight in DC and boarded a train north in mid-morning. The travel up the seaboard, with all its congestion and stops was faster than the trip across nowhere the day before.
I don't think we can judge rail travel by what it is, we need to think about what it could be.

[Sooner or later]

Quality, high speed rail will require dedicated tracks.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

I don't think we can judge rail travel by what it is, we need to think about what it could be.

Excellent view point, one I share. I have had the opportunity to travel by train in Japan and Europe and we are not even on the same planet, for many reasons.

The interesting thing about the article the OP posted are the what I consider extreme speeds not really required in the NE and parts of the Mid West. Give me 150mph, legit, with good hubs and services at those hubs, and I'm out of my car and not dealing with the vicissitudes of air travel.

I would greatly prefer not to fly (and I am a former pilot) and I would enjoy being able to have productive time on a train en-route.

I'll be a drooling mess before any of this happens, but lets think about the kids.

[RWebb]

so you read my above post and saw the "can be" but just wanted to argue about something else, eh???

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

I think when the perfect the levitation magnetism things will change fast.
If you all get a chance watch the stuff on UTUBE.

Shanghai maglev is 270 mph now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev