Passenger Trains > 1965 HSR Study -- Boston to Washington in 4 Hours??

The following is excerpted from Al Engel remarks accepting the 2014 W. Graham Claytor Jr. Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation.

"In January 1965, Lyndon Johnson in his State of the Union address promised us a national high speed rail program with the words, 'I will ask for funds to study high speed rail transportation between urban centers. We will begin with test projects between Washington and Boston. On high speed trains, passengers could travel this distance in less than four hours.'"

Today Acela does this in just under seven hours. Did President Johnson's study ever get done? Never-the-less, he made an interesting promise. He was a president known for getting things done.


Marty Bernard



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/14 14:55 by MartyBernard.

I kinda remember when this was proposed and of course nothing became of it. There have been many studies performed about upgrading the northeast corridor with new bridges over the various rivers, new catenary wire and polls, etc. But as usual nothing ever happens. I honestly believe that had the Pennsylvania Railroad not merged with the N.Y. Central, and that the Pennsy had been able to remain solvent, they themselves would have upgraded the Northeast Corridor with improved technology. However we know the story and we know that passenger rail proponents continue an uphill battle with the leaders in Washington, D.C. year after year. I don't believe that I will ever live long enough to see Amtrak properly funded as we see the same old battles in congress year after year. Almost unlimited spending on highways everywhere and almost nothing towards passenger trains. This is sad but continues to be true.

John in White Marsh, Maryland

MartyBernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The following is excerpted from Al Engel remarks
> accepting the 2014 W. Graham Claytor Jr. Award for
> Distinguished Service to Passenger
> Transportation.
>
> "In January 1965, Lyndon Johnson in his State of
> the Union address promised us a national high
> speed rail program with the words, 'I will ask for
> funds to study high speed rail transportation
> between urban centers. We will begin with test
> projects between Washington and Boston. On high
> speed trains, passengers could travel this
> distance in less than four hours.'"
>
> Today Acela does this in just under seven hours.
> Did President Johnson's study ever get done?
> Never-the-less, he made an interesting promise.
> He was a president known for getting things done.

Yes, the studies were done in 1965 by LTK Engineering. It showed the 4 hour plan was financially unrenumerative due to amortization of high capital costs outstripping expected revenues under all ridership scenarios.

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I honestly believe that had
> the Pennsylvania Railroad not merged with the N.Y.
> Central, and that the Pennsy had been able to
> remain solvent, they themselves would have
> upgraded the Northeast Corridor with improved
> technology.

The Pennsy would not have remained solvent in any scenario.

And if the project was unattractive even with government capital available, how would PRR (which was in hock up to its neck) have made it work? Nobody, but nobody would have sunk big money into passenger rail in the midst of the American Automobile love fest era.

abyler Wrote:

> Yes, the studies were done in 1965 by LTK
> Engineering. It showed the 4 hour plan was
> financially unrenumerative due to amortization of
> high capital costs outstripping expected revenues
> under all ridership scenarios.


And yet we still propose HSR today. I can't see where things have gotten better in the past 50 years for such an investment.

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Nobody, but nobody would have sunk big money into
> passenger rail in the midst of the American
> Automobile love fest era.

Looks like with below $3 gasoline we will return to that love fest.

Marty Bernard

MartyBernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> march_hare Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Nobody, but nobody would have sunk big money
> into
> > passenger rail in the midst of the American
> > Automobile love fest era.
>
> Looks like with below $3 gasoline we will return
> to that love fest.
>
> Marty Bernard

It'll be back up very soon.

As soon as a certain bald-headed political leader loses his stand off with the rest of the civilized world.....

The United Aircraft Turbo Train broke the record
for a production built train set at 170.8 mph two
years AFTER this study /proposal.

Just how did anyone then in 1965 expect to run
Washington DC to Boston in 4 hours??

An early American maglev proposal?

/Mitch

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just how did anyone then in 1965 expect to run
> Washington DC to Boston in 4 hours??

One of the advantages of interning at LTK Engineering in 1995 on the 30th anniversary of this study was getting a copy of it from Bob Watson.

The investments required were:

NY-DC
1) welded rail and rewnewed track structure to permit 150 mph speeds
2) increases in superelevation
3) reverse curve easements/eliminations at Elizabeth, Metuchen, Torresdale, Frankford, Darby, Ridley Park/Baldwin, Bellevue, Baltimore, Stemmers Run, Bladensburg Rd.,
4) new Portal Bridge and Susquehanna and Bush River Bridges
5) rebuild and strengthen undergrade bridges over roads and creeks
6) new Baltimore tunnels on the direct route via Charles Center
7) additional mid-span catenary poles to strengthen the catenary structure in high speed areas (i.e. Trenton to New Brunswick) and replace catenary wire with thicker wires
8) revise signal spacing and install 4 aspect automatic signals
9) close public grade crossings
10) install high level platforms at Wilmington, Baltimore, and Washington

It is noteworthy that LTK found the cost of achieving a 2 hour travel time from NY to DC was so much cheaper by mainly reusing the existing PRR right of way vs. building a new parallel high speed alignment that they did not perform more than a cursory examination of an entirely new alignment.

NY-Boston
1) Electrification New Haven-Boston
2) welded rail and rewnewed track structure to permit 150 mph speeds
3) increases in superelevation
4) major curve easements/eliminations Harrison to Norwalk, East Haven to New London, Groton, Mystic, Stonington to Westerly, Bradford, Kenyon, and Canton Jct.
5) rebuild and strengthen undergrade bridges over roads and creeks
6) reroute line through Providence tunnel to eliminate curves in Pawtucket
7) rebuild catenary New Rochelle to Stamford
8) revise signal spacing and install 4 aspect automatic signals, install cab signals with automatic train control
9) close public grade crossings
10) install high level platforms
11) duckunders at Harold

For NY-Boston, the lowest time initially studied was 2.5 hours.

The studies were accomplished in a span of 10 months each (August 63 to June 64 for NY-DC, February 65 to November 65 for NY-Boston).

One of the most interesting parts of the study was that it was seen as a key feature, not a bug, to provide high speed commuter service from NY to Trenton and Philadelphia via the Clockers and New York to Greenwich County, Bridgeport, and New Haven via New Haven "locals". Service was also expected to be continued to Grand Central due to its convenience to the business district, and NY-Philadelphia high speed trains were to use the new Center City Tunnel to reach Penn Center directly.

As the NY-Boston study did not find a practical way to hit the two hour mark, an additional study was undertaken by Systems Analysis and Research Corporation and Thomas K. Dyer, Inc. This study considered the previous reccomendations and found that simply improving the Shore Line would lead to a 3 hour 4 minute schedule. Large line changes in Greenwich County previously considered were not reccomended. It then expanded the previous reccomendations east of New Haven to include new high speed line from New Haven to East Haven, from Old Saybrook to Bradford, and through East Providence which would bring the schedule down to 2 hours 38 minutes. As this still did not meet the goal, a new high speed route was devised using the Willmantic Branch to Cranston, a new route to Wallingford, and then the Airline to New Haven. At 150 mph, this brought the time down to 2 hours 20 minutes. Increasing top speed to 200 mph on this segment would bring the time down to 2 hours 10 minutes. To achieve 2 hours or less, a new high speed bypass along the Merritt Parkway to Stamford was reccomended. Needless to say, the study found these imnprovements were not financially renumerative without government subsidy.

Thanks for that great summary. It's sobering to think that almost 50 years later, many of those improvements remain "in the future" while others have been realized.

The New Haven - Wallingford + Air Line route was seriously considered for the electrification. And discarded as Chris Dodd (D-CT) required that service to his home town New London be maintained on the high speed route.

And it was. Although a tangent from New Haven to North Kingstown would have been a huge speed improvement

Cole42 Wrote:

>
> And yet we still propose HSR today. I can't see
> where things have gotten better in the past 50
> years for such an investment.

We need to distinguish between public investment and private investment. The main benefits of HSR fall on society, thus the public should be the investor.

Marty Bernard

MartyBernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cole42 Wrote:
>
> >
> > And yet we still propose HSR today. I can't
> see
> > where things have gotten better in the past 50
> > years for such an investment.
>
> We need to distinguish between public investment
> and private investment. The main benefits of HSR
> fall on society, thus the public should be the
> investor.
>
> Marty Bernard

the benefits of our interstates fall on all of our society. the benefits of an hsr system do NOT fall on all of our society and should be voted on IF the public is expected to be the investor.........

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> the benefits of our interstates fall on all of our
> society. the benefits of an hsr system do NOT
> fall on all of our society and should be voted on
> IF the public is expected to be the
> investor.........
>
> 66


Incorrect approach. The benefits of an IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM would benefit all of our society. This system should include world-class high-speed and local roads, world-class passenger (conventional and high-speed) and freight rail, and world-class aviation, with all components coordinating with each other.

All three of these components are either beginning to show serious weaknesses, or, in case of passenger rail, barely exist.

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goneon66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > the benefits of our interstates fall on all of
> our
> > society. the benefits of an hsr system do NOT
> > fall on all of our society and should be voted
> on
> > IF the public is expected to be the
> > investor.........
> >
> > 66
>
>
> Incorrect approach. The benefits of an IMPROVED
> TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM would benefit all of our
> society. This system should include world-class
> high-speed and local roads, world-class passenger
> (conventional and high-speed) and freight rail,
> and world-class aviation, with all components
> coordinating with each other.
>
> All three of these components are either beginning
> to show serious weaknesses, or, in case of
> passenger rail, barely exist.

One problem has always been balancing the cost, and who pays it, with the benefit, and who gets that. One of the classic problems in the US has been public investment often produces profit for a very few, usually connected people. Of both political parties.

The French addressed that, somewhat, by reducing the number of airline slots to places that had good rail service. And raising the tolls on their equivalent of every interstate highway. And the $6 gasoline tax. That lets you concentrate your investment in the rails and buses, not distribute it over roads, airports, etc competing against yourself.

In this example, limiting federal highway and airport investment in NEC states, California, Illinois area etc in favor of much better local and express rail would not be well received.

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goneon66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > the benefits of our interstates fall on all of
> our
> > society. the benefits of an hsr system do NOT
> > fall on all of our society and should be voted
> on
> > IF the public is expected to be the
> > investor.........
> >
> > 66
>
>
> Incorrect approach. The benefits of an IMPROVED
> TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM would benefit all of our
> society. This system should include world-class
> high-speed and local roads, world-class passenger
> (conventional and high-speed) and freight rail,
> and world-class aviation, with all components
> coordinating with each other.
>
> All three of these components are either beginning
> to show serious weaknesses, or, in case of
> passenger rail, barely exist.

an hsr system from boston to Washington does NOT benefit me here in Arizona. let the people who already have alternate modes of transportation between boston and Washington (airlines, rail, and buses) CHOOSE to spend MORE of their hard earned money on a NEW hsr system IF they think they really need it.......

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> an hsr system from boston to Washington does NOT
> benefit me here in Arizona. let the people who
> already have alternate modes of transportation
> between boston and Washington (airlines, rail, and
> buses) CHOOSE to spend MORE of their hard earned
> money on a NEW hsr system IF they think they
> really need it.......
>
> 66

There are many regions of the US where connection of metro areas by high-speed rail would make sense (not just Northeast).

Tampa/Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami, Chicago - St Louis - Kansas City, Ohio 3C with Pittsburgh, and Bay Area to LA Basin come to mind. There are more regions other than these where much improved conventional-speed rail makes sense. All of these enhance movement of not just people, but, indirectly, also of goods and services. This is a positive net contribution to the OVERALL national economy.

As for you in Arizona, weell, I can also say the same - interstates in rural Arizona are of absolutely no benefit to me in Philadelphia (there are other interstates for goods). BUT, I realize they are of a GREAT benefit to you, and, unless I missed something while sleeping last night, we are citizens of the same country, and thus our resources work primarily as a POOL. Consequently, I absolutely do NOT object for my taxes going to help you guys out with infrastructure projects.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

> One problem has always been balancing the cost,
> and who pays it, with the benefit, and who gets
> that. One of the classic problems in the US has
> been public investment often produces profit for a
> very few, usually connected people. Of both
> political parties.
>
> The French addressed that, somewhat, by reducing
> the number of airline slots to places that had
> good rail service. And raising the tolls on their
> equivalent of every interstate highway. And the $6
> gasoline tax. That lets you concentrate your
> investment in the rails and buses, not distribute
> it over roads, airports, etc competing against
> yourself.

sure is interesting how those that want to spend BILLIONS on hsr systems here conveniently forget that.........

> In this example, limiting federal highway and
> airport investment in NEC states, California,
> Illinois area etc in favor of much better local
> and express rail would not be well received.

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> > One problem has always been balancing the cost,
> > and who pays it, with the benefit, and who gets
> > that. One of the classic problems in the US
> has
> > been public investment often produces profit for
> a
> > very few, usually connected people. Of both
> > political parties.
> >
> > The French addressed that, somewhat, by
> reducing
> > the number of airline slots to places that had
> > good rail service. And raising the tolls on
> their
> > equivalent of every interstate highway. And the
> $6
> > gasoline tax. That lets you concentrate your
> > investment in the rails and buses, not
> distribute
> > it over roads, airports, etc competing against
> > yourself.
>
> sure is interesting how those that want to spend
> BILLIONS on hsr systems here conveniently forget
> that.........
>
> > In this example, limiting federal highway and
> > airport investment in NEC states, California,
> > Illinois area etc in favor of much better local
> > and express rail would not be well received.
>
> 66


Which circles back to the point that hard choices aren't easily made in the US. We usually end up making "all of the above" as a default, and paying for all of the above.

I was thinking about that the other day, reading about the fire fighters (state and federal) who are parachuted in to save rich folks' homes built in the middle of national forests, etc. The owners knew the risks, why not let them shoulder the consequences? No different than building your home in New Orleans, along the NJ shoreline, or in the path of a lava flow in Hawaii.

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goneon66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > an hsr system from boston to Washington does
> NOT
> > benefit me here in Arizona. let the people who
> > already have alternate modes of transportation
> > between boston and Washington (airlines, rail,
> and
> > buses) CHOOSE to spend MORE of their hard
> earned
> > money on a NEW hsr system IF they think they
> > really need it.......
> >
> > 66
>
> There are many regions of the US where connection
> of metro areas by high-speed rail would make sense
> (not just Northeast).

so, in these many regions of the U.S. where u want to spend BILLIONS on hsr systems, have hospitals closed, are police/fire departments understaffed, have social services been reduced or cut?

maybe we should spend BILLIONS on important services people really NEED and improve the modes of transportation currently available.

> Tampa/Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami, Chicago - St
> Louis - Kansas City, Ohio 3C with Pittsburgh, and
> Bay Area to LA Basin come to mind. There are more
> regions other than these where much improved
> conventional-speed rail makes sense.

i thought we were talking about high speed rail? spending money on improving current conventional rail systems does make sense to me as it benefits MORE people and costs less.

> All of these
> enhance movement of not just people, but,
> indirectly, also of goods and services. This is a
> positive net contribution to the OVERALL national
> economy.

let's be real here, very FEW consumable goods travel on passenger rail.

> As for you in Arizona, weell, I can also say the
> same - interstates in rural Arizona are of
> absolutely no benefit to me in Philadelphia (there
> are other interstates for goods). BUT, I realize
> they are of a GREAT benefit to you, and, unless I
> missed something while sleeping last night, we are
> citizens of the same country, and thus our
> resources work primarily as a POOL. Consequently,
> I absolutely do NOT object for my taxes going to
> help you guys out with infrastructure projects.

most people on the east coast consume or use goods (food, clothing, building materials, etc.) that have either traveled over I-10 or I-40 through Arizona.....

66