Passenger Trains > Which is faster?

We've all heard of HSR (high speed rail). Today I read of HrSR (higher speed rail).
So . . . .
is HrSR even wilder apsirations of a 'time travel' like conveyence?
-or-
is it a fall back position because even the most wild eyed prognosticators have come to realize HSR is beyond what 99.9999999% of the taxpayers will tolerate?

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/high-performance/report-us-hsr-hrsr-spurs-supply-industry-gains.html?

RailNet802, owevaaaah

fall back position --- or reasonable improvement.

To convert a line that is now 60 mph limit to be 79 mph is much easier to accomplish and provides a large tangible speed increase. Upping that to 110 mph even better.

To get to 186 mpg HSR, we are talking about new ROW, stations, etc. With dedicated tracks on existing ROWs, the HrSR is much more economically feasible.

I have to agree that HSR seems beyond the compression of, let's say, at least 50% of tax payers. It's my view that, from this 50% comes all the naysayers that hold back progress in America--at least in the passenger rail sector.

Of course, the rest of the world has embraced HSR with a vengeance. They seem happy to pay for it.

I guess you could say that "High Speed Rail", like "Universal Health Care" are two "evils" we hate but the rest of the world loves. These are the only two things I can think of that everyone else has but we don't.

Joe

"Higher Speed Rail" has been used occasionally to describe the Florida East Coast project.

It seems to be a good grammatical compromise between High Speed Rail (which it clearly is not) and conventional rail (ditto).

It's unfortunate that there's so little interest among the general public that all discussion has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

Just look at the corridors in California. There are dozens of places around the country where similar service could be started at relatively low cost and with great results. Even in California two routes, along the coast, Los Angeles to SF, and Los Angeles to Imperial Valley stand out as success stories waiting to happen. California does not need HSR as much as it needs a speedy route in SF from the east and likewise into Los Angeles from the north.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's unfortunate that there's so little interest
> among the general public that all discussion has
> to be dumbed down to the lowest common
> denominator.

I don't agree with that. Where did the MISuse of the term come from? The Obama Administration's Recovery Package, where just like so many other items image and reality were two very different things. They deliberately misused "high speed rail" because people DO know what it means (they think Europe/Asia) and they wanted to tap into a widely held wish for more modern transportation.

inRVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It's unfortunate that there's so little
> interest
> > among the general public that all discussion
> has
> > to be dumbed down to the lowest common
> > denominator.
>
> I don't agree with that. Where did the MISuse of
> the term come from? The Obama Administration's
> Recovery Package, where just like so many other
> items image and reality were two very different
> things. They deliberately misused "high speed
> rail" because people DO know what it means (they
> think Europe/Asia) and they wanted to tap into a
> widely held wish for more modern transportation.


Perhaps.

But in Florida, which was the reference I used in the post, both terms seem to be in use. And, they describe different things.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess you could say that "High Speed Rail", like
> "Universal Health Care" are two "evils" we hate
> but the rest of the world loves. These are the
> only two things I can think of that everyone else
> has but we don't.

Paid maternity leave, abolition of the death penalty, and strict gun control are a couple of others.

America is pretty unique.

inRVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't agree with that. Where did the MISuse of
> the term come from? The Obama Administration's
> Recovery Package, where just like so many other
> items image and reality were two very different
> things. They deliberately misused "high speed
> rail" because people DO know what it means (they
> think Europe/Asia) and they wanted to tap into a
> widely held wish for more modern transportation.

That isn't true at all.

The ARRA package used the language in the PRIIA law signed in 2008 by President Bush, and did nothing more than fund the programs in that act at the authorized levels through 2013 ($3.785 billion for corridor development, $5.315 billion for Amtrak) with additional spending available through 2017 continuing and growing from the levels given for 2013 ($5.765 billion). ARRA funded $8 billion in corridor development through 2017, and $1.3 billion in Amtrak capital spending through 2011. The 2010 and 2011 budgets added $2.1 billion for corridor development. Amtrak's actual capital program was funded at $3.266 billion through 2013. The reaward of HSR/Corridor Development money to Amtrak for the Raceway ($450 million) and Harold Duckunder Tunnels ($300 million) completes full funding of Amtrak authorized capital program in PRIAA when you combine with the 2009-2013 capital grant appropriations and the ARRA $1.3 billion, and takes from the corridor development program the excess over the amounts authorized in PRIIA and extrapolated through 2017.

The redefinition in PRIIA reads as follows:

SEC. 501. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR PROGRAM
(d) HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT.—Chapter 261 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
‘‘§ 26106. High-speed rail corridor development
‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
‘‘(4) HIGH-SPEED RAIL.—The term ‘high-speed rail’ means intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Paid maternity leave, abolition of the death
> penalty, and strict gun control are a couple of
> others.
>
> America is pretty unique.

=======================================

And that may be a good thing.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That isn't true at all.

I stand corrected - I guess both Administrations pushed phony use of the term.

Because of our long-standing cultural bias against trains, which is still being vigorously pushed in some quarters, those who support rail service had to come up with the term "high-speed rail" to gain acceptance of any rail improvements. But this invites the paradox of whatever speed you set, one can argue that it isn't high enough, which is what the forces of darkness do. It also causes great expense to create this "high-speed rail", when what we ought to do is to return many lines to what they were before WWII. In some cases it doesn't make much difference: the Santa Fe abandoned the 39 1/2 hour Super Chief in the early 1960s, and the current 43 hours (given the longer routing and additional stops) doesn't really matter. But business would certainly improve if LA-SF were back to 10 1/2 hours, or, especially, NY-CHI at 16 hours.

Sometimes the best value investment in HrSR isn't to upgrade segments from 60 to 79 or more, it is to upgrade the slowest segments.
Legacy junctions, crossovers, and ends of sidings that were acceptable delays for earlier passenger and freight service at 10-20 MPH often can be upgraded to 45 or more MPH and save quite a lot of time, especially if there is higher speed track on one end or the other.

As to mis-use of HSR, this is also California's problem. Planners and activists "dumbed down" the need for a balanced network of local, regional, and HSR lines (as has evolved in other nations) to a simple HSR spine line with little consideration of its cost, market potential, impacts on local citizens, or network opportunities. HSR conveys an image of sleek trains and the simple minds in our media and elected officials don't want any more detail than that.

If we so-called "railfans" can't define HSR; or agree if HSR is a good thing or not; we can't blame the general public for being confused. Trouble is, the rest of the world has no trouble defining it; and it's something they voted for with both feet, you might say.

And, you can't say America doesn't like passenger trains, whereas Europe and Asia does. Amtrak's record ridership for the past 9 long years says we like them very much, even with old, worn out equipment. We'd probably go crazy over a TVG. Acela gives us some idea what fast trains can achieve.

I'm afraid political fighting over ideology is holding back HSR in America, and not much else. I know it's what causes us train fans here on TO to argue.

When we overcome this, and become a UNITED States again, we might catch up with the rest of the world; and we just might see a TVG between Chicago-St. Louis.

Joe

floridajoe2001 Wrote, in part:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we so-called "railfans" can't define HSR; or
> agree if HSR is a good thing or not; we can't
> blame the general public for being confused.

Two comments: First, who says "we railfans" know what "we're" talking about?

Second, "we" blame the ignorant savages among the general public early and often.

all this happened after the current fearless leader was elected into office at the request of the current fearless leader before he took the oath of office. In other words between the elections of Nov 2008 and the inauguration in Jan 2009

CB

inRVA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abyler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > That isn't true at all.
>
> I stand corrected - I guess both Administrations
> pushed phony use of the term.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> floridajoe2001 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I guess you could say that "High Speed Rail",
> like
> > "Universal Health Care" are two "evils" we hate
> > but the rest of the world loves. These are the
> > only two things I can think of that everyone
> else
> > has but we don't.
>
> Paid maternity leave, abolition of the death
> penalty, and strict gun control are a couple of
> others.
>
> America is pretty unique.


You can argue the two others, but how is paid maternity leave a bad thing?

To me, High Speed Rail means anything over 110 mph,
which while not common, was attained by multiple
RRs in this country using steam!!

Anything less than 110 mph should be considered
regular rail operations!!

And the one post regarding the Coast line between
SFO and LAX and LAX to EL Centro?

What about the second busiest Amtrak route, LAX and SAN?
Currently has 90 mph capability on portions of the route,
going back to the Santa Fe days!!

These routes should be upgraded for commute traffic and HSR
should be routed onto new ROW and become part of a National
HSR system!!

Just my opinion! Whats yours?

Mike

Billions and billions have been spent on "corridor development" or "capital improvements".
for 40 years. So what is the return on this "investment"?

How many minutes have been taken off the Metroliner schedules compared with today's Regionals?
We can discount most of Acela's faster (than the Regionals) schedule as a product of the equipment,
rather than "corridor development".

It seems further speed increases in the NEC will come at a horrific cost. Elsewhere, corridors
like Michigan you call it good.

I've yet to see any economic rules applied to HSR. Ten minutes = 10 $Billion? Why? How?
HSR is a sounds good, feels good, but I can't tell you why; besides "other people"
will pay for it. Sort of "transportation welfare" which there's plenty of already
with subsidized transit and those cute little trolley cars.

If saving time is priceless, where's the Concorde?

One problem that bedeviled the Concorde was many corporations refused to allow any but their top execs to fly on it. Like the Acela, the ticket cost was noticeable to the bean counters. In the last few years of Concorde, many passengers were flying on frequent flyer miles, which translates into no cash revenue.

If the US had a national transportation policy for federal investment (not likely), there would be a formula that likely cuts airport slots in the northeast for local flights to destinations already served by rail. And, focuses federal help for assembling pipeline routes in place of rail. And creates proper pricing for barge infrastructure.

But that's not likely to happen, as there are too many people invested profitably in the current system.