Passenger Trains > Chicago - Los Angeles in 5 hours!?

Chicago-Denver in a little over 3 hours? San Francisco-New York in less than 8?

FROM CNN:
French train breaks speed record

PARIS, France (AP) -- A French train with a 25,000-horsepower engine and special wheels broke the world speed record Tuesday for conventional rail trains, reaching 357.2 mph (574.8 kph) as it zipped through the countryside to the applause of spectators.

Roaring like a jet plane, with sparks flying overhead and kicking up a long trail of dust, the black and chrome V150 with three double-decker cars surpassed the record of 320.2 mph (515.3 kph) set in 1990 by another French train.

It fell short, however, of beating the ultimate record set by Japan's magnetically levitated train, which hit 361 mph (580.9 kph) in 2003.

The French TGV, or "train a grande vitesse," as the country's bullet train is called, had two engines on either side of the three double-decker cars for the record run, some 125 miles (201 kilometers) east of the capital on a new track linking Paris with Strasbourg.

The demonstration was meant to showcase technology that France is trying to sell to overseas markets such as China. Hours before the run, Transport Minister Dominique Perben received a delegation from California, which is studying prospects for a high-speed line from Sacramento to San Diego, via San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Whole story:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/03/TGVspeedrecord.ap/index.html
or


I'm 62 yrs old, so the chance of seeing anything like this in this country -- where HSR was invented and then forgotten -- in my lifetime is beyond slim to none. But some of you are young enough and, since it's ultimately not a question of if but when, you will.

lowwater

lowwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chicago-Denver in a little over 3 hours? San
> Francisco-New York in less than 8?

It would be nice to have TGV-like trains in this country, but I doubt speeds like that can be sustained over long distances or (especially) in mountainous terrain, where building the straight, level track necessary would be prohibitively expensive. But imagine what you could do with a "conventional" 186-mph TGV between Chicago and St. Louis or Detroit, or between Dallas and Houston!

I don't take the train to get somewhere that fast... If I wanted to get somewhere that fast, I'd fly. I take the train for the leisurly ride and the scenery.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lowwater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Chicago-Denver in a little over 3 hours? San
> > Francisco-New York in less than 8?
>
> It would be nice to have TGV-like trains in this
> country, but I doubt speeds like that can be
> sustained over long distances or (especially) in
> mountainous terrain, where building the straight,
> level track necessary would be prohibitively
> expensive. But imagine what you could do with a
> "conventional" 186-mph TGV between Chicago and St.
> Louis or Detroit, or between Dallas and Houston!


Think tunnels! Disregarding unproven technologies for the moment (high-speed monorail, mag-lev, etc.), any kind of HSR, from Acela-style on up, will have to include significant tunneling in terrain where reasonably-straight surface grades would exceed 4%. Even so, huge chunks of a theoretical HSR route from Chicago to LA via Des Moines, Omahaha, Denver, Vail, Grand Junction, and Las Vegas would be on the surface, the most troublesome section being from the Rocky Mountain Front west of Denver to a bit west of Vail, 75 miles, most of which would have to be in tunnels. Incidentally, Vail and Grand Junction, even Des Moines for that matter, are on this route only because they fit. A true straight-line route would actually miss Grand Junction but it would run through the canyon country of southeastern Utah that would be an intolerable mixture of tunnels, gigantic fills, and +1,000-ft-high bridges.

Btw I am dismissing mag-lev here only because I don't think it's been proven in extreme cold, heavy snow, desert heat, high winds, and other such variations as would be encountered on a daily basis on a single trip. I also don't know if the technology can be scaled up from short demo projects (the longest is currently the Shanghai airport 18.6-mile line) to thousand-mile systems without major difficulties.

Take a ride to 301 mph on the Japanese Railway Technical Research Center HSR!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2926400396387878713

Incidentally, I think the biggest obstacles to HSR in this country will be political. Opposition from the highway and domestic airline lobbies will be brutal. Then will come the environmentalists. HSR is currently on their agenda (I should say our agenda, I guess, since I am one) as a good thing, but not many understand that to be effective HSR routes have to be as straight as possible. If that means tunneling under or even surface grading through a protected area, so be it. Of course the same is true of ritzy neighborhoods around the cities and mega-castles in the boonies -- the railroad comes through the middle of the house, to quote lyrics from Vaughn Monroe's 50s hit!

lowwater

Aren't European high speed trains required to observe slower speeds when operating in tunnels?

Well HSR nationwide is a pipe dream, simple as that, the thing about the California HSR is how the hell do they think they won't need subsidies once it's all said and done! Sounds to me they're gonna be almost as or more expensive than the airlines if they want to try to make a profit!

lowwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think tunnels! Disregarding unproven technologies
> for the moment (high-speed monorail, mag-lev,
> etc.), any kind of HSR, from Acela-style on up,
> will have to include significant tunneling in
> terrain where reasonably-straight surface grades
> would exceed 4%. Even so, huge chunks of a
> theoretical HSR route from Chicago to LA via Des
> Moines, Omahaha, Denver, Vail, Grand Junction, and
> Las Vegas would be on the surface, the most
> troublesome section being from the Rocky Mountain
> Front west of Denver to a bit west of Vail, 75
> miles, most of which would have to be in tunnels.

Maybe in the distant future, building tunnels like this would be worth the cost, but I think rail planners should be concentrating on rail corridors in more densely populated areas to start with. HSR on 300-mile city-pair corridors can eliminate a lot more short-haul flights, and thus airport congestion, than anything going west out of Denver would accomplish. Long-distance flights are the money-makers for the airline industry, too -- that's obvious from what has been cut during the industry's recent swoon.

Former-PRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aren't European high speed trains required to
> observe slower speeds when operating in tunnels?

Not in the newer tunnels. The newer tunnels allow opposing trains to pass on a adjacent track at 200 mph, which means closing speeds of 400 mph.

I think Eurostar is limited to a rather pokey 100MPH in the Chunnel.

Just wait until you hear the furor over the first land based train to break the sound barrier..... what a RACKET!

Eurostar is limited to 100mph in the Channel Tunnel (which is only 30 miles long, so makes up just a small section the route), mainly because it has to share the tracks with freight trains and road vehicle shuttle trains.

The chances of seeing anything like this in this country is slim no matter how old you are. We have an arrogance, and pompus attitide of "not invented here" compounded buy greed for maintaining the status quo for those that are profiting from past methods that prevent us from maintaining any edge in virtually any field or technology (including transportation, health care, senior care, education, etc.). Just look at the history in this country for any form of rail passenger transport. We had all the motiviation, justification, and technology 40 years ago to put this kind of transport system in place on the Northeast Corridor. We had Mag Lev trains at the DOT test center in Pueblo Colorado in the early 70's (remember it was called "HIGH SPEED TEST CENTER" when I first saw it in the early 70's - I think I still have photos). Instead of investing in the future we regressed to testing why frieght cars fall of tracks and how to make a conventional diesel electric pull more.

COFLZephyr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The chances of seeing anything like this in this
> country is slim no matter how old you are. We have
> an arrogance, and pompus attitide of "not invented
> here" compounded buy greed for maintaining the
> status quo for those that are profiting from past
> methods that prevent us from maintaining any edge
> in virtually any field or technology (including
> transportation, health care, senior care,
> education, etc.).

As an Englishman I think you are being a bit hard on yourselves. However, in Europe we certainly have a climate which supports projects such as high speed rail. We have gasoline prices which average $7-$8 per (US) gallon, although this is partly mitigated by the much superior consumption figures of many European cars (Typically 40mpg). But it does mean that a first class fare of 32 Euros (about $42) for a 3 hour 500 mile journey such as Paris - Marseille seems very good value. (Mind you, this is the advance booking fare. The on the spot business rate for a seat in the same coach would be nearer $150!).

I think the real issue is that it takes a while for public support for high speed rail to build, and that the benefits only really become apparent after the project is up and running. The French find it easy to get support for new projects now that they have had 25 years of success. Thirty years ago it was a rather different story.

spflow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the real issue is that it takes a while
> for public support for high speed rail to build,
> and that the benefits only really become apparent
> after the project is up and running. The French
> find it easy to get support for new projects now
> that they have had 25 years of success. Thirty
> years ago it was a rather different story.

I always thought if we had one new high-speed line, interest in high speed rail would explode. We would not have all of the new commuter line startups if Go Transit had not come along. Likewise the explosion in LRT can be trace to the San Diego trolley. All it would take for high speed rail in the US is one successful line.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spflow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think the real issue is that it takes a while
> > for public support for high speed rail to
> build,
> > and that the benefits only really become
> apparent
> > after the project is up and running. The French
> > find it easy to get support for new projects
> now
> > that they have had 25 years of success. Thirty
> > years ago it was a rather different story.
>
> I always thought if we had one new high-speed
> line, interest in high speed rail would explode.
> We would not have all of the new commuter line
> startups if Go Transit had not come along.
> Likewise the explosion in LRT can be trace to the
> San Diego trolley. All it would take for high
> speed rail in the US is one successful line.


And this is why I think the key to getting some momentum going is concentrating on corridors where HSR will provide the biggest bang for the initial bucks. Once a really solid route is established somewhere outside of Boston-Washington, perhaps enthusiasm will spread and grow. But something like a Chicago-LA route is just ridiculous for the forseeable future. HSR needs to concentrate on shorter routes where trains operating at sustainable speeds -- 200 mph instead of "test" speeds like 357 -- can compete with air travel on a time basis.

Hey, here's an idea... An airplane with that sort of horsepower can carry about 50 people and you don't have to have tracks and lawsuits from angry people all along the route. All you need is two landing strips, the FAA, the TSA...oh...forget it!

Seriously, if you look at the disruption that French train created along the line both in terms of flying dust and noise, it is hardly a trade-off for a little noise from these new high-bypass engines in only two places. No dust and flying debris. I think, like some many other things that have come from France, (A380, Concord...) it is a marvelous engineering achievement but not particularly economically viable.

Also, the mechanical stress on the structure and trucks of a train moving at that speed is very high and an accident would be at least as catastrophic as a plane crash and much more highly likely. Just to compare, the very first Pratt and Whitney JT8-D engine (727, DC-9) ever produced is still operating and it was built in 1963. Just like a prime mover in a E or F-7, it is a simple machine with mostly replaceable parts. And it operates at about 80% efficiency to achieve 570 miles an hour.

But I still like riding on trains better!

Norfolk & Waypal...