The Return of Rail

[neroden]

I don't understand the point of the regional rail speed of up to 125 mph. If we're going to spend billions of dollars and entice people to use rail, I think the high speed rail makes more sense. I guess it comes down to cost though and I imagine the regional rail is simply cheaper.

Well, in the US this is pretty much the case.

However, for an example of why you might want the up-to-125-mph trains, look at Switzerland. There, they devise the schedule they want, and then they build exactly the amount of rail necessary to achieve the schedule. Being Switzerland, of course, the trains leave at sub-second precision.

In the Cascades corridor (Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-Eugene), the analysis showed that it would be incredibly popular at 110 mph (which will get you from Seattle to Portland in under two hours) and going to 220 would multiply the construction costs by a very large factor without increasing ridership much. (It would not, in fact get you from Seattle to Portland in under one hour, due to hard-to-avoid slow zones at either end.)

In the SF-LA corridor, a similar analysis showed that anything less than 220 would be a lot less popular and a lot less useful.

Sadly, similarly solid analyses have not been made for most of the other corridors. Fan groups have come up with substantially better plans for a number of the Chicago-centered corridors, but they haven't really gotten traction. The Empire Corridor (NY-Albany-Buffalo) could benefit greatly from some major, truly high speed routings, but nobody's even seriously considered it. The choice of Detroit-Chicago route is driven entirely by the fact that Amtrak owns the right-of-way.

 

[neroden]

Yeah, I couldn't understand why NY - Chicago was never on the list. State of the art high speed rail would do it in about 3.5 hours, or (whisper it) maglev in about 2.5 hours.

Well, if we could get anyone to start work on the Chicago-Fort Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland HSR route, which is on the Midwest HSR plans, is listed as one of the national corridors, and is planned to be 220 mph, we might be able to get people thinking about it again. That's the "easy half" of the route (the flat half), and once it was being done in under 3 hours, someone would probably start to make the effort to do the other half (requiring tunnels) in similar time.

The fact is that NY-Chicago would be viable and very popular even if it took 6 hours, which is going to be much easier to do than 3.5 hours. I also don't understand why this hasn't been a national focus of attention.

 

[neroden]

Looks like they are projecting US constructions cost on the high end of the scale even if you ignore the new $100b total and stick with the older $60b.

It's important to note that the $100B number is completely fictitious. Some nasty person slipped a requirement into an Act of Congress requiring the CAHSR project (and probably others) to use "year of expenditure" dollars, which contain arbitrary projections about the inflation rate.

The $60B number is the correct one, in constant 2011 dollars.

 

[neroden]

$100bn is pure FUD.

And I'm happy to confirm that dpeilow is, in fact, correct. Though it's a very clever form of FUD.

 

[dpeilow]

Seems like the idea of taking the high speed train and then renting an EV is gaining popularity. Now available in Italy...

EcoRent - Noleggio auto - Trenitalia

 

[AndrewBissell]

I'll likely use this at some point. The prices are good.

I note that they specifically offer use of recharging points ("collonine") near the station during the rental. I hope they also equip themselves to advise renters on other charging locations.

 

[dpeilow]

More of that $98bn FUD Local Tea Party Opposes High Speed Rail - KGPE CBS47 Fresno - News, Sports Weather for the Central Valley

 

[SByer]

Well, the tea party is often against anything that makes sense ;-).

My take on CA HSR:

- The original planning group fumbled badly. Multiple times. If HSR is to survive in CA, it needs a reboot.
- They failed to play up the study that showed that without HSR, an additional $171b in road and airport improvements would be needed (California Can Spend on Roads or on Rail - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com)
- They missed the idea early on to play into 'what can you do for me sooner?', such as the electrification of the CalTrain peninsula commuter service that would speed up service and lower running costs.

I would certainly take rail to LA if I could get there in under 3 hours that way - it'd be a nicer ride with much more legroom and better connectivity than air travel. And that's even with the rest of the public transit system being such an uncoordinated disaster, probably necessitating a rental car at the destination.

 

[dpeilow]

probably necessitating a rental car at the destination.

EV of course.



First High-Speed Train Leaves Union Station CBS Chicago

110mph. But it's a start.

 

[dpeilow]

Nice to see high-speed electric freight transport is not being left out of the mix.

Railway Gazette: Demonstration high speed freight train links Lyon and London

 

[JohnTeigh]

I think it's a great idea crowded roads and high petrol prices make driving around a real pain anyway. Bring on the trains I say.

 

[TEG]

$30 Billion Chopped From Plan For Train From SF To San Fernando Valley: News: SFAppeal

 

[TEG]

$68.4B Calif. high-speed rail plan speeds up build

 

[Robert.Boston]

I've taken the Acela from Boston to NYC twice in the past couple of weeks. It is so much better than flying or driving, and generates far less pollution (because, of course, it's electric!). As a professional, I can sit in undisturbed comfort for 3.5 hours with internet access. That's nearly a full workday (round trip) that I save compared driving or flying. The airplane takes a little less time on the clock, but it takes less time from my life.

This investment in high-speed rail in CA will have huge benefits; I hope it can move forward!

 

[tdelta1000]

The return of rail has taken to long given the denseness of vehicle traffic across America and hopefully we (America) can start to see bullet trains connecting some of its cities.

 

[dpeilow]

£9bn railway investment unveiled | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Acknowledgement from the Transport Secretary that diesel is 'massively' expensive and we need to move to electricity to secure our prosperity in the decades ahead.

 

[dpeilow]

NY Times - China Opens Longest High-Speed Rail Line

 

[GSP]

NY Times - China Opens Longest High-Speed Rail Line

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

This excerpt shows a strong economic incentive to favor freight over passengers:

Each passenger car taken off the older, slower rail lines makes room for three freight cars because passenger trains have to move so quickly that they force freight trains to stop frequently.

I think freight shippers, and governments have always subsided passengers, and the following quote reinforces that view:

The Ministry of Railways has not yet figured out a way to charge large freight shippers, many of them politically influential state-owned enterprises, for part of the cost of the high-speed lines, which haul only passengers.

More reinforcement that subsidization of passenger traffic is nothing new:

The high-speed trains are also considerably more expensive than the heavily subsidized older passenger trains.

GSP

 

[dpeilow]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

This excerpt shows a strong economic incentive to favor freight over passengers:

Each passenger car taken off the older, slower rail lines makes room for three freight cars because passenger trains have to move so quickly that they force freight trains to stop frequently.

No, it just shows that one must separate trains moving at vastly different speeds, as having to clear freight trains out of the way for a fast moving passenger train greatly reduces the numbers of both able to traverse the same corridor. In the case of a busy mixed line, a single passenger train cannot generate the revenue of multiple of freight trains (usually 3) that it displaces. When separated, both can operate to their full potential.

I think freight shippers, and governments have always subsided passengers, and the following quote reinforces that view:

The Ministry of Railways has not yet figured out a way to charge large freight shippers, many of them politically influential state-owned enterprises, for part of the cost of the high-speed lines, which haul only passengers.

Maybe in the way that the US system is currently set up, but this is certainly not the case elsewhere, including in the UK.

What the Chinese are saying here is that the freight companies are benefiting hugely from the removal of fast passenger trains, without requiring any change to their own infrastructure. The accountants are just trying to find a way to cross-charge them for that, to get them to pay for their fair share of the extra value generated by the large expenditure on high speed lines.

More reinforcement that subsidization of passenger traffic is nothing new:

The high-speed trains are also considerably more expensive than the heavily subsidized older passenger trains.

GSP

No, this proves nothing. A state of the art high speed train is obviously more expensive than the clunky old antiques that China used to run on these routes, yet they have vastly more revenue potential than what they replace. For example, on some routes the high speed train is 5 times quicker than its predecessor, potentially carrying 5 times as many passengers in the same time. Quicker journey times lead to much bigger market shares (typically 80% vs. air for journeys of 3 hours), so infrastructure is better utilised as well. High speed rail, taken in isolation from the rest of their national networks, typically operate at a profit. You can see this in Japan, France and in the UK the companies operating busy long distance lines typically pay vast amounts to the government to have the franchise rights (this then in part subsidises other marginal routes). For an extreme example, Japanese Rail is currently self-financing a $45bn maglev track being constructed between Tokyo and Osaka.

 

[dpeilow]

With the publication of the planned route of the second phase of Britain's HS2, we may need to relocate the Nottingham HPC...

...still, got 15 years or so to think about it.