» A full regeneration of the line, speeding trains between New York and Boston in just over three hours, would cost $10.2 billion.
After releasing studies last week that described the costs and benefits or new long-distance rail services, Amtrak has produced a report evaluating opportunities for its most important line, the Northeast Corridor. Long in the coming, the study documents capital needs for the tracks connecting Washington, DC and Boston and provides some preliminary cost estimates for decreasing travel times. With most federal rail capital funds now likely to be earmarked for states pursuing new rail programs like California, Illinois, and Florida, however, Amtrak will have to justify a dedicated revenue source for rail improvements in the northeastern region.
As the report notes, “Reaching a state of good repair on the Northeast Corridor after years of deferred investment and adding needed capacity to the Corridor will be expensive. Currently, there is no obvious existing mechanism to provide the required level of investment resources.” Amtrak’s study, though direct in its assessment of the railroad’s needs, does not indicate where the money will come from for any improvements. Those decisions will have to be made by Congress.
The Amtrak Acela Express moves between New York and Washington as quickly as 2h52 and between New York and Boston in 3h34. Those travel times are difficult to improve using existing equipment and tracks, though one effort earlier this decade to speed trains between New York and DC in just 2h30 by stopping only at Philadelphia resulted in inadequate revenue as a consequence of lower than expected ridership. Either way, Amtrak has been unable to meet the original goals of the Northeast Corridor High-Speed Rail Improvement Program, which sponsored significant upgrades in tracks, stations, and catenary in the 1990s with the goal of 5h30 overall corridor travel times.
Despite the fact that trains average only about 80 mph along the corridor today, Amtrak has managed to snag 63% of combined air and rail travel between New York and Washington, compared to 37% before Acela’s implementation. But the rail company only represents about 6% of total corridor travel ridership, so it could see a lot of growth with faster services. That, however, won’t come easily.
Part of the problem is the corridor’s huge maintenance backlog, which has reached $8 billion and which will require an investment of more than $700 million a year over the next decade to reach a state of good repair. That figure will be touched in fiscal year 2010 as a result of stimulus spending, but Amtrak’s limited regular subsidies make similar annual investments difficult to envision in later years unless there is a major effort on the part of the federal government to provide new funds.
In addition, the Northeast Corridor suffers from increasing congestion due to growth in train travel and increasing population. The map below, included in Amtrak’s report, illustrates the sections of track that are most prone to delays and which will be unable to support increased Amtrak services until new tracks have been laid or curves have been realigned.
In order to decrease trip times to 2h15 between New York and Washington and to 3h15 between Boston and New York, Amtrak estimates that it would have to invest $10.2 billion in track upgrades along the corridor. The most prominent roadblock to real service improvement is the set of tracks between New Rochelle and New Haven, which are owned by Metro-North Railroad and which currently limit trains in many sections to 60 mph. These Connecticut and New York sections are currently being renovated, with expected completion between 2015 and 2018; no significant improvements in trip times between New York and Boston can be achieved before the completion of that work.
The New York-Washington segment, which is straighter than the northern section, suffers from the weight of its antiquated electrical supply equipment. Unlike the New Haven-Boston section, which has constant-tension catenary, allowing speeds up to 150 mph, the southern line’s trains cannot accelerate above 135 mph. Newly added intermediate catenary supports, which could be installed for cheap, would shorten spans between lines, allowing increased speeds, but full constant-tension would be needed for 200 mph operation — if someone pays for it.
In addition, because of problems with the truck stability of Acela Express trainsets and because of the age of Northeast Regional equipment, Amtrak will have to buy a full set of new trains over the next decade, according to the study. The fastest of these new vehicles will be able to reach 200 mph, up from 165 mph today. These trains would be able to decrease trip times along the full length of the line by a total of around 20 minutes.
Overall, though, none of the specific investments pinpointed by the rail agency would result in a massive decrease in travel times. A new tunnel through Baltimore, for instance, would save commuters a full two minutes. Only with concentrated investments along the entire corridor will major improvements for commuters come. The map below shows the modifications that would allow for the reductions in trip time noted above.
Three-hour trip times between New York and Boston are unrealistic in the short-term, according to the report, because of the huge investments in track replacement that would be necessary to handle the curve problems of the Connecticut shoreline. A true high-speed operation, which could complete travel from Boston to Washington in 3h30, would only be possible with a mostly brand-new track alignment between New York and Boston.
Nonetheless, even the incremental improvements documented here are unlikely to happen unless the Congress decides to invest again in upgrading the corridor. “In Amtrak’s view,” states the report, “continued reliance on annual appropriations to fund the Northeast Corridor capital program will continue to frustrate efforts to achieve a state of good repair and meet capacity and trip time goals for the corridor.” There must be a new effort to convince the House and Senate of the importance of improvements for America’s original high-speed corridor, which is arguably more important than those proposed for other parts of the country. Only a new Northeast Corridor Improvement Project, with dedicated, long-term funding, will ensure the realization of faster services along the line.
Images above: Northeast Corridor Capacity Constraints and Potential Improvements, from Amtrak
Yonah Freemark | 
October 26th, 2009, 06:37 EST | 
Filed Under: 
Acording to VDot’s website it will cost 2 Billon to widen the Washingtion Beltway from eight lanes to 12 lanes wide with four of those lanes being hotlanes http://www.vamegaprojects.com/about-megaprojects/i95395-hot-lanes/
The Washington DC to Fredricksburg thrid track project is only going to cost 72 millon for a 11.5 miles of thrid track mainline next to the orignal double track mainline. While the beltway widening will cost 2 billon for 14 miles of highway. Pound for pound the railroad projects are more aggressive in rasing the speed of how fast someone can go though Washingtion DC
The NEC high speed rail extension from Washington DC to Richmond and North Carolina needs to get funding first in that you would be raising train speeds from 25 and 40 miles on hour to 90 and a 110 miles on hour vs rising the speeds on a train that all ready goes from 90 and 110 miles on hour to 130 miles on hour. They also need to extend Pennsyvinia Catenary masts with up graded tensioned catenary from Washingtion to Richmond to get rid of the bottle necks in Washtington of having to change trains.
Ocean Railroader, at least on straight segments like Richmond-Norfolk, there’s no reason not to build constant tension catenary in the first place. On such lines Amtrak would need a dedicate two-track line with precise track geometry and concrete ties, but it could literally just upgrade existing lines.
And yes, the US government wastes money on roads like there’s no tomorrow. It doesn’t mean it should do stupid things like blowing $10 billion on a plan that would by 2030 improve the Acela’s average speed to 160 km/h, still below the 170 km/h that the Shinkansen achieved in 1965.
Alon or Yonah, maybe you have some insight in this. From HSR proposals like this to the Second Avenue Subway, the US (and particularly the Northeast US) seems to wind up paying far more for transportation projects than other developed countries pay for projects of similar scope and magnitude. Forgive me for asking, but what gives?
I’ve been along the rail line from Richmond VA to New Port News and it mainly runs along a highway called US Route 60 which is a very rural part of Virginia between two growing major cities. There is also another rail line that runs along US 460 from Petersburg to Norfolk the Petersburg to Norfolk line is very stright and the one that runs from Richmond to New Port News has a few small bends in it that could be cut out. The good part about this idea is that most of the places were the train could reach it’s top speed are in very rural parts of Virginia. Even extending the high speed rail line from Richmond to Washingtion half of it goes though some rural areas too were right of way would be cheaper. Puting in new catenary would be good to install it modern and up to date right from scrach vs messing with the old catenary in the NEC They could install the next generation of classic Pennsyvinia H beam catenary masts but with up graded tensioned catenary wires on them. Above all we would get more bang for our bucks if we extened the eletric catenary from Washingtion to Norfolk. A lot of the rail lines from Norfolk and Richmond and Petersburg from the 1870’s though the 1950’s had a lot of the major highway grade crossings removed. US Route 60 crosses the New Port news rail line on highway overpasses. While the Petersburg line to Norfolk had a lot of railroad overpasses built out of hand cut stone arches that look very impressively built.
Anon256, the problem isn’t the US in general. Light rail costs the same in most US cities as anywhere else, per km; the exceptions are cities aren’t actually building light rail, like Seattle, which built long tunnels, and Houston, which used light rail as an excuse to rebuild city streets. High-speed rail in California isn’t unusually expensive for a line involving 2.5 major mountain crossings with frequent earthquakes. Even subways don’t cost that much in the US in general: in both San Francisco and Los Angeles, subways cost less than in Tokyo.
The problem is specific to New York and Chicago, and to some extent the rest of the Northeast. More often than not, it’s a combination of corruption and incompetence. The contractors for those cities’ projects are all local companies, which have no outside experience and are just used to building light rail at $250 million per km instead of $25 million. They’re protected by patronage and Buy American laws, and the city is reluctant to sue them when they underperform. It used to be even worse – rolling stock used to be just as bad in American transit systems, until New York got trains so defective it sued the domestic manufacturers into bankruptcy and started buying foreign trains. The problem with doing the same to the construction contractors is that they’re all local and politically powerful, whereas the rolling stock makers were based in St. Louis and were almost down to small business level by the time they were put out of their misery.
This sounds like what started the Big Dig Diaster were bad work and and bad planning made a section of the big dig tunnels cave in killing in someone. Also the big dig tunnels suffer from massive leaks.
Most of the people who do railroad cosntruciton in Virginia have been doing it for generations so railroad construciton in extending the high speed rail tracks should go very well though Virginia and North Carolina. There is also rumors that once they get funding for the high speed rail CSX will use it’s own rail work crews and constractors to build the new railroad tracks themselves.
The people in Virginia have been doing low-speed rail for generations. High-speed rail has different specs: it needs precise track geometry, concrete ties, electrification, full grade separation, none of which is common on the US legacy network.
Between Boston and NYC, HSR service won’t happen unless a new dedicated rail corridor is developed. The coastal route along the R.I. and CT south coasts is too windy/curvy to support speeds above the Acela tilt trains can handle.
I think an inland route that follows the I-90 and I-84 highway corridors, with stops in Worcester and Hartford make the most sense, with an approach to NYC from the north.
All these reports seem to concentrate on upgrading the existing line, but not developing a new rail corridor.
Jim, there’s no more space along any route coming to New York from the north than along the Shore Line and I-95. The Shore Line is pretty good, actually, west of New Haven. It needs a lot of easements and a few bypasses, but the cost of retrofitting is measured in the low billions, which is par for the course for an HSR line of its length.
More importantly, such a route would have to either feed into Grand Central. This means either no Boston-DC through-service, or an expensive tunnel connecting GCT and Penn.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I’ll have much more to say in coming days, but this is the wrong approach. Boston to New York via the shore line is 230 miles, a much longer distance than the shortest auto route (via the Merritt is 199 miles) and follows the curvy shore, limiting speed to 110 mph over most of the route.
Truly faster service could be built through Rhode Island and Connecticut, probably for less than $10b (a lot less) and cut the Boston to New Haven portion of the route to less than an hour. The rest, through the surburbs, would need to be sped up, but it is too costly for a new corridor.
The long and the short of it is that the current route is not, and will never be, a high speed route, no matter how many dollars you throw at it. (Further south, the New York to Washington route is faster and straighter, but has some very expensive bottlenecks.)
Ari, the Shore Line has the advantage that once you hit Kingston, it gets really straight, and is built to modern standards, allowing high speeds. Between New Haven and Kingston you need a bypass, but I-95 is available.
The Air Line, which doesn’t even have tracks anymore and isn’t particularly straight, is completely useless for this approach.
Alon: Given that this corruption and incompetence exists, and given that this is “The Transport Politic”, what can we do to try to fix it? Outrageous costs and delays have been holding back transit in the Northeast for decades, and need to be addressed before ideas like your NY regional rail plan are even conceivable. Somehow I don’t think voting for Bill Thompson is likely to help.
If I had a good road map for fixing this, I’d be a political consultant, not a blog commenter.
With this caveat, I’m not sure it can be fixed without federal action. Historically, US local governments have always been corrupt and autocratic; it was federal prosecutions and (in the South) federal occupation that reduced it somewhat.
But on the local level, good-government reformism could partly do the trick. It’s unfortunate that nowadays good-government reformists tend to be either plutocrats like Bloomberg, or too flashy like Schwarzenegger or Spitzer. Having the city take over the MTA might help by forcing politicians to take responsibility for its screwups, but it could also magnify corruption.
Alon,
May I direct you to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU – Maglev Research Center:
http://www.poly.edu/maglev/
Dr. James Powell and Dr. Gordan Danby, the fathers of modern maglev, have discovered high speed rail technology that the freight and passenger rail industries can use to move cargo and people at 300MPH speeds.
This is environmentally safe technology that can greatly reduce America’s reliance on energy imports.
Existing right-of-ways and rail can be used by this technology to bring true high speed rail to major population centers at a mere fraction of the estimated cost of implementing Maglev-1 (1st generation Maglev) technology.
Full scale models of the components of this technology have already been built, and the theoretical science supporting the Maglev-2 (2nd generation Maglev) discoveries is lab proven – by the pioneers of Maglev-1.
Millions of dollars have already been successfully invested in Maglev-2 technology. So what is the hold-up?
A full scale proving ground facility and vehicles are needed to bridge the gap between the existing development of and commercial implementation of Maglev-2 technology here and abroad.
It is estimated that proving Maglev-2 technology to be commercially viable will cost up to $600 million and take as long as 6 years to complete.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) could provide such funding as an investment in United States global leadership in environmentally safe and energy efficient transportation technology.
Big business will likely get Congress to invest in Maglev-1 technology now, but there is still enough time to act on Maglev-2 before we here in the United States invest hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in what may prove to be outdated, prohibitively expensive, wasteful, and more oil and energy dependent Maglev-1 technology.
Thank you for your time,
A Maglev enthusiast
Do you have $100 billion for a brand new ROW from Boston to Washington, complete with new crossings of the Hudson, East, Connecticut, and Delaware Rivers? I don’t. Neither does the federal government.
With DB’s cancellation of its maglev projects, there’s exactly one railroad in the world that’s building maglev for purposes of profit rather than pizzazz. That’s JR Central, which is on the one hand making so much money from the conventional-HSR Tokaido Shinkansen that it can afford to build it, and on the other hand constrained by curves on the legacy HSR built for speed of 200 km/h so that it needs to build it. The NEC doesn’t have those curves, by and large. Connecticut has curved segments, but they can be eased. Elsewhere, the preferred ROW is straight enough that HSR can do 350 km/h. With the stops trains would have to make on the route, going up to the 500 km/h promised by maglev would not save significant time; the difference would be between doing NY-DC and NY-Boston in 1:30 and 1:15.
Riverhead, NY has applied for TIGER funds to implement Maglev2000 technology, with their application expected to be decided by February 2010.
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot1409.htm
http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/aiming-to-promote-maglev-trains-1.1520109
http://www.newsday.com/columnists/other-columnists/li-pair-seeks-59m-grant-for-maglev-train-firm-1.1518981
Are the major players in the ground transportation industry (e.g. UPS) even aware of the opportunity to prod their federal government to invest in and implement Maglev-2 technology for their benefit?
With 6 years and $600 million needed to prove the technology as commercially viable at a full-scale testing facility, this is not an immediate threat to big business, special interests, or HSR implementation in the US.
All of these players will have plenty of time to take the lead on this tech once it is deemed as commercially viable.
Remember, this tech is presented by the very scientists who invented Maglev-1 (EDS) that is being rolled out in asia on a large scale.
Except this tech is safer, cheaper, easier to implement (once proven), and a better solution to transportation and energy issues than Maglev-1.
At the very least, this American tech could be ready to tie together a national HSR system together, running across the heartland of the US, well after the major corridors have been built.
Doesn’t this tech deserve at least the chance to be proven as a legitimate option for American industry?
If proven to be commercially viable, it may have global implications in the transportation and energy industries, and the bottom line of those companies that are willing to invest in it today and the world populace that will benefit from it later.
The argument that the corridors are not prepared for this tech today, does not offer a valid reason to ignore, shelve, or deny funding to this tech today and ensure that it is not ready for future generations when it may be needed most.
$600 million is a drop in the bucket for the US government today, considering that HSR will ultimately cost trillions of dollars to implement in this country, never mind globally.
This is a matter of investment, and this tech appears to be a great investment.
Not a single scientific authority on this type of technology has placed their reputation on the line to discredit it as a viable alternative to Maglev-1.
Instead, it appears that the issues preventing the money from being matched to this tech are more about the politics of transportation funding, ROW’s, issues relating to managing this proposed project, and a lack of investors convinced of or hungry for the opportunity to get in early on the undisputed future of Maglev.
The questions are:
- Who will be smart enough to make that investment?
- Who will be capable enough to circumvent the red tape and lack of will to get funding to this tech?
Will it be the United States followed by American industry OR will Maglev-2 follow the path of Maglev-1 and become an American invention that either governments or private industry elsewhere in the world profits from at America’s expense?
For one, I am convinced that this tech simply lacking some brilliant marketing behind it.
Riverhead, NY is an exurb of a city that’s barely even second world when it comes to transportation technology. What it applies or doesn’t apply for is irrelevant. What is relevant is what first-world rail technology countries like Japan and France do.
Would this mean that the vast railroad system we built over 150 years have to be completly knocked down to make room for maglv? Wouldn’t it take another 150 years to build the maglv system from scrach. Also what happens if two maglv systems giudways are extended into one another’s space and they try to link them up are the maglv right now being built built with the same gauge in the maglv tracks so they can link into one another when they meet up with one another?
I remember hearing that right now the world’s fastest metal wheeled train can go only go less then ten miles slower then a maglv train?
The fastest TGV has gone at 574 km/h, versus 581 for JR Central’s maglev. But the TGV needed to be specially modified to achieve that speed, whereas the maglev train didn’t; in regular service, the TGV-based technology can reliably achieve 360, whereas JR Central’s maglev can do 500.
That’s not the point, though. The point is that if the US develops maglev, it had better been after decades of research by competent rail authorities. HSR didn’t develop from scratch, either – the idea of fast trains goes back to 1900, and the 160 km/h steam railroads of the 1930s provided a lot of the technology that JNR then used to build the Shinkansen.
Time in building these systems can be a big iuesue in the long run in that to go though all the planning and impact studies along with right of way hunting and funding building even a short maglv line would take 20 years. I noice this after reading on the internet how all these railroad projects have been in the planning stages sense the 1970’s and 1990’s. At least with HSR most of the right of ways are waiting to be used and the trains are ready to use vs having to build everything from scrach. The construction of the four to five billon dollar Washingtion Metro extension could be used as a example how how much it would cost to build a 8 to mile long section of subway or el maglv tracks though anywhere.
Alon,
The Air Line is, in places, quite useful for a future HSR corridor. France, Spain and Japan don’t necessarily follow extant highway corridors, and there’s no reason we need to. Certain straight parts of the Air Line could be used, and between them (particularly between Willimantic and Middletown) a new ROW could be built. The problem with following the coast is that it is not only longer, but even with the current fast segments, it’s still an average speed of only about 70 mph, tops. Plus, there are two major rivers (the Thames and Connecticut) and several small urban areas with nasty curves and grade crossings. France, Spain and Japan often eschew smaller cities to improve the run-through times between the major markets (with connections to the smaller cities). This is a good example to follow.
The NEC is indeed straight and fast from Kingston to East Greenwich, for a total of 12 miles. I-95 along the coast is neither straight nor flat, and not always wide enough for a new line, which would have to be elevated in several instances, or the entire highway would have to be rebuilt. Plus, you still have to bridge the Thames and the Connecticut, and it’s still significantly longer than a straight route. In addition, building in the middle of a highway which must be kept open is not an easy thing to do. Finally, the line still goes through the center of Providence, which serves a secondary market but takes quite a bit of time.
I played with some numbers and figured you could build a new ROW from Boston to New Haven for somewhere in the ballpark of $5b, top speeds of 180, with a trip time from New Haven to Back Bay of 55 minutes, a time savings of 1:01 versus the current Acela Express. If you could save 20 minutes more between New Haven and New York (doable with some help from MN, the current fastest train is 1:27) you could make the trip in two hours flat. Two hours kills the air shuttles. Heck, 2:20 probably kills the air shuttles if the price is right.
The route, in short, uses the current Needham Line to Needham Junction (at slower speeds both because of curvature and to allow for existing commuter service), the freight line to ~I-495, a new ROW until the Air Line in Douglas, the Air Line, the I-395 ROW and a a mixture of the Air Line and new ROW to Willimantic, the US 6 Bypass through Willimantic (which happens to be the Air Line’s former ROW) and then a mostly-new ROW from Willimantic to Middletown. The Connecticut would be crossed in Middletown (on a new higher bridge over the Connecticut) and then followed to New Haven.
128 miles, 55 minutes, average speed of 140 mph. Certainly attainable.
Ari: first, the TGV does follow extant highway corridors, almost exclusively. The Shinkansen doesn’t, but that’s because it predates the highways and was built through relatively open territory and mountains, rather than through suburban sprawl.
Second, I-95 east of New Haven is straight and flat enough for HSR, and has space in the median and on both sides – unlike west of New Haven, when it isn’t and doesn’t. Most curves in the ROW can be eased to a radius of 4 km or higher, which would allow tilting trains like the N700 Series Shinkansen to run at 350 km/h. If you relax your standard to 300, then 3 km is enough. The Thames and Connecticut can be bridged right next to I-95.
The main advantage of I-95 is that rail construction is cheaper next to freeways – the grade separations are already there. At normal HSR construction cost, the 115 km from New Haven to Hope Valley would cost about $2.5 billion. Beyond that, the existing line is straight enough – even north of East Greenwich, the curves can be eased with little difficulty. The cost of fixing a curve is in the tens of millions, which is much lower than the cost of building a brand new ROW.
And third, France eschews smaller cities, but Japan doesn’t – on the contrary, it makes an effort to serve them when feasible. Besides which, Providence is not a smaller city – its metro area is larger than some that France is building dedicated TGV to, such as Nice.
I followed the NCE down from Boston on the NEC on google maps and street view and it did have a lot of twists and turns in it from New York to New Haven which some of them where very flat. I also saw something odd and cool at the same time it looked like they were putting in tensioned catenary along the old sections of eletric New Haven railroad but were building bran new classic New Haven catenary masts with tensioned catenary to replace the old worn out ones which was a good sign.
I also followed the future NEC down from Washingtion pasted the last catenary mast and followed it down to Richmond Virginia and down along the S line into NC and the abonadoned S line is pefect for high speed rail there are many highway overpasses across many of the major roads in good shape and the state was even doing repairs on some of them and not tearing them down which means reopening it will save hunderds of millons in new highway over pass costs. Along the way down on using google streetview I took many photos of the rail line and photo chopped them into what the new high speed rail line would look like in the future with Pennsyvinia railroad masts and tensioned catenary.
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/334/e/a/The_Catenary_to_Richmond_VA_by_OceanRailroader.jpg
Hear is a photo of what the catenary wires could look like if they ever made it to Richmond VA and Petersburg
A late response to comment #18:
> It’s much cheaper to run longer trains than to come up with
> double-deckers that fit international weight limit standards.
Interesting… then why is the Swiss Federal Railway using and ordering mainy double-deck rolling stock? Not only for commuter services, but also for (Swiss) intercity services (travel times corresponding about to the Northeast corridor).
Also, the weight per seat is lower in double-deck units than in single-deckers (without verification, we talk about 25% or so).
Also, for the same seat capacity, a double-deck train is about 40% shorter, which means that it clears slow segments (switchwork etc.) faster, and can accellerate faster. And this can translate quickly into minutes to be cut (see example below):
Example: a 14-car single-deck car train and a 8 car double-deck car train have the same seat capacity; the single-deck car is about 0.1 miles longer; after a section with a 20 mph speed limit, the single-deck car train spends 20 seconds longer at 20 mph than the double-deck car train; 20 seconds which the double-deck car train can use to accellerate (and it will do that faster, because it is lighter.
There is an old rule when moving things around: You gain more time by reducing the time moving slowly than speeding up the fast movements.
Late comments to comment #26:
> Yes, NIMBYism is a problem. But if the California people are
> managing to put an el in the rich sections of Palo Alto and Menlo
> Park, where people think els are for poor people, it’s likely Amtrak
> could put an el in Fairfield County, where people are used to having
> Metro-North on a Berlin Wall-style embankment right next to the
> local school.
When comparing with France, there is one “advantage” the French legislation has. A project can be declared to be “of national interest” (which requires a decree by the assemblée nationale (the equivalent to the US congress), and then, the Nimbys have considerably reduced rights.
> In Japan, Germany, Korea, and France, the same companies run
> commuter and intercity rail. There’s still a strong separation between
> the two groups: commuter lines are used by commuters, who
> usually ride twice a day, while Shinkansen lines are used by
> business travelers and tourists taking rarer, longer trips. Those
> characteristics of HSR mean no standing passengers for the most
> part, and no need to subsidize commuters.
For Germany and France, well, EU Europe in general, things have changed a bit, where “long distance” and “commuter” are now different business units. The “long distance” unit must operate without subsidies, whereas for the “commuter/regional” business units, the regional political entity (in France, the Région, in Germany the Bundesland) order a service, and pay appropriate subsidies.
However, for the France example, there are several hundred people who commute (almost) daily from Lyon and south to Paris on the TGV, spending 1 1/2 to 2 hours one way … but then, that is not much more time they would spend from the outer suburban towns, on the RER or attempting to commute by car. And the money spent for the tickets is compensated by the lower cost of living in the province.
> The high-capacity double-deckers you suggest are already common
> in France and Japan. In France, Alstom had to develop a special
> train that could accommodate double-decker seating while
> maintaining low weight.
Yes, this thingie is called TGV 2N (double-deck TGV), and they managed to keep the axle load at 17 tonnes, even for the articulated design of the TGV.
One note on that, when comparing with the US: The European requirement concerning crashworthiness are fundamentally different from the US regulations; the European regulations allow for a well-designed lightweight structure, whereas the US regulations favor very heavy (IMHO) outdated designs.
> This could be done in the US too if demand exceeded the capacity
> of full-length single-deck trains, which have about 1,300 seats each,
> and at safe HSR headways can carry about 150 million passengers
> a year.
If I remember correctly, a double unit of TGV 2N has about the same capacity (using 2+2 seating in second class and 2+1 seating in first).
Headways on the South-East line are now still at 5 minutes, but newer lines (such as the one to the East (Strasbourg)) allow for 3 minute headways.
A late comment to message #29:
> I like the idea of double decker cars. I believe there are some tunnel
> and bridges that restrict that however.
One had to compare the loading gauge for these tunnels and bridges with the loading gauge used on the TGV line or in Switzerland in general. I tend to believe that it would be possible. Also, one can gain at least 15 cm vertically by using conductor rails (such as made by Furrer&Frey (http://www.furrerfrey.ch/web/furrerfrey/en/produkte/sfl.html)).
> Acela would be a Siemens Velaro trainset, max speed 350kph
> (220mph)..550-800 passengers a train (8 to 10 car set)
Probably (as Siemens is sometimes called “a bank with attached railroad equipment workshop”), but there would also be the N-700 type Shinkansen trainsets, or Alstom’s TGV, or the Chinese CRN-3 type (I think).
> There isn’t a double deck train that can do 130mph+ (unless the
> Bombardier multi-levels are capable of that?)
Sure, there is… the TGV 2N (double-deck TGV), certified for 320 km/h, but currently used only at 300 km/h (south of Lyon).
Then, the conventional Swiss IC2000 double-deck cars (keep in mind, conventional loco-hauled cars, not articulated sets or EMUs) have been designed for 220 km/h, and are operated at 200 km/h on the Mattstetten-Bern line, as well as through the Lötschberg base tunnel.
The recently ordered Stadler double-decker EMUs for the Austrian Westbahn are planned to operate at 200 km/h.
The idea of a double decker train would be good I remember hearing that there are double decker trains in Mayland running under the catenary wires. Double decker trains could help make Amtrack more money such as on the Phili to Harrsionburg line were the trains are very packed. They could also use them on the mainline from Washingtion DC to New York were they are starting to fill up. Also the same lenth train can carry double the number of paying passangers and many of the lines up there are only pennies with in making money.
Honestly, I don’t know. A few guesses:
- Swiss regulations restrict train length, often for stupid reasons, like a bit overflow in computerized train control.
- Swiss rail has a medium top speed, about 200-250 km/h, which is within the capabilities of double-deckers. The top speed advantage of single-deck trains is therefore less important.
Also: yes, double-deck trains weigh less per seat, but they weigh more per axle, and that creates maintenance problems. Tellingly, today’s HSR companies focus on single-deck equipment: the AGV, the Velaro, Fastech, Talgos, CRH-3.
To Alon:
Actually, the train lengths are limited by platforms and station setup. For “intercity” services, the limit is 400 m, for commuter services, it is 300 m (or less).
Another reason is that the network is running at its capacity (or even above) on its businest segments, and it is not possible to add more trains.
The maximum speed is indeed 200 km/h, and will most likely remain at that (although they are working at 250 km/h for the ETR 610 through the Lötschberg base tunnel (and in a few years through the Gotthard base tunnel).
The higher axle load is indeed a crucial issue, and most likely the reason why there are not that many double-deck high speed trains around besides the TGV 2N and the JR East Max (whereas the latter can profit from the advantage of less stringent crashworthyness requirements because it is operating in a closed protected system, and can therefore be built lighter than “normal”.
JR East Max can also profit from the fact that Shinkansen trains are protected by positive train control and have derailed only once in their entire history (nobody died)… There’s no need for buff strength to protect from crashes with other trains when crashes don’t happen.
Bi-level trains do currently run through the North River (Hudson) tunnels… NJ Transit has been running a few specially ordered cars from Bombardier for a couple of years now.
Here is a proposal. I won’t make a dollar estimate for reasons which will become clear, but I do believe that this concept could pass a stringent cost/benefit analysis.
Start with the corridor from Philadelphia to Boston. Yonah would disagree with me on this, but I’ll start by pointing out that five of North America’s busiest airports (Philly, Newark, JFK, La Guardia, Logan)–and at least four of its busiest international gateways–are squarely within the footprint. Those airports would still be immense trip generators, but stop thinking about that for the immediate moment.
If this corridor were in Germany, France or Spain, chances are very good that there would already planning for a new, passenger-only trunk line, to be served by EMU trainsets. Lightweight, high-speed EMU sets can handle grades as steep as expressways–let’s say 4% as a design standard. In those three countries, chances are very good that the new alignment would be adjacent to an existing expressway. That’s what Germany did when it (finally) built the ICE line between Frankfurt and Cologne. Start at Philly 30th Street, in a deep tunnel, and cross under the Delaware to the Jersey Turnpike r/w. Follow it to the south end of Newark Airport, stop in front of the terminal complex, then join the NEC r/w to Newark Penn. East of there, the line crosses in a new Hudson tunnel to an expanded NYC Penn Station. These plans aren’t new, so this is no conceptual problem. Remain at deep level, cross Manhattan and the East River, and head for Jamaica. Airtrack already connects from Jamaica to JFK, and could easily be extended to La Guardia. The new line continues east, into western Suffolk County, and stops again. Turn north and cross Long Island Sound, either on bridge or in tunnel. Hit land at Stamford, and provide for joining main line there, or continuing in new r/w. New r/w would continue in tunnel, then surface when joining r/w of Merritt Parkway. Bypass Bridgeport and remain in Merritt r/w, then enter New Haven. This would allow for connections to Hartford, Springfield and points north. East of downtown New Haven, rejoin the 95 r/w way and follow it at least as far as the Rhode Island/ CT border. Follow 95 r/w into Mass, then possibly follow in or beneath Fairmount Line r/w to South Station. A connection is planned in downtown Boston, to North Station, which will allow continuation to New England, Quebec, and the Maritimes.
Yonah has previously suggested center-to-center focus. In this corridor, there is a great deal of international air traffic generated in almost every corner. The existing corridor’s service is pitiful, and even with sprawl and American driving habits, there are likely at least a few million travelers per year who would gladly park on Long Island and have through-ticketing to an international airport. This action allows the existing line to focus on slightly more local service, meaning a narrower speed band, which also means greater track utilization. From what I’ve described, let’s say that the Philly-Boston service lines up like this: Philly 30th St – New Brunswick/East Brunswick/ Edison – Newark Airport – Newark Penn – NYC Penn – NYC Jamaica – (somewhere in western Suffolk) – Stamford – New Haven – Providence – Boston South. I mentioned lightweight EMU sets easily capable of a 4% gradient. That means that, if starting just above sea level and required to cross a 150 foot vertical clearance, the line would need less than a mile at either end to go over, or less to go under (and I’m stating here that a crossing of Long Island Sound has its own issues, but I am prepared to discuss that too).
How much would all this cost? It’d damn sure be more than $10.5 B. There are other business questions that matter more, though. A true HSR line in the Northeast wouldn’t just knock out the Boston-NYC shuttles. It could knock out almost all air traffic originating within at least 50 miles of the corridor. That’s not disaster for the airlines–it would open up dozens of gates for more lucrative long-distance flights, while giving each airport a far broader market. It would also remove a lot of the pressure for multibillion-dollar airport improvements, which means that airports could stay busy and generate more money with modal interchange than with expanded runways and gates. Residents would be happy at not only the reduction of noise (which could allow more 24-hour operation), but also at greatly improved property values (which means more tax revenue). For cities, greatly reduced demand for flight paths would mean removal of some building height limits, again generating more tax revenues.
Even considering this segment–Philly to Boston–there are some stunning changes. There’s no reason that a train from, say, Portland or Manchester would need to stop anywhere en route to Baltimore, DC or Richmond. If the corridor had a design allowance for continuous 225 mph service, then an hourly or twice-hourly Philly-Boston train (ten-car bilevel EMU consist) could not only carry over 1000 passengers, but it could easily run the 320-ish mile distance in less than two hours. Longer trainsets are not impossible. A 3-car unit from Portland, another 3-car unit from Manchester, coupled with an 8-car express at Boston, could make lower-speed stops and then travel at top speed without overcrowding the line. Planes can’t be coupled like trains.
There has been mention of discount airlines and the inability to compete with them. Discount airlines operate on the assumption that they will continue to benefit from an inequitable system of subsidies, which in the US favors road and air over rail and water. Given the current Federal budget deficit, there’s no justification to continue giving road and air such disproportionate support. There is also an established practice in Europe of airlines (Swiss, Lufthansa, Air France) either contracting for rail service, or even (Virgin) operating it themselves. This satisfies the Republican desire for private sector involvement, which has the potential to draw more political support.
In the late 70’s, the Carter administration proposed a massive electrification program of mainline railroads, to be paid for through royalties per ton-mile. It’s a form of tolling, and there’s no reason it couldn’t work on the New NEC. Airlines purchase gate access, but every one of the airports in this corridor is publicly-owned. The taxpayer deserves the best return on gate value, not what’s most convenient for a cherry-picking airline.
In theory, if trains were able to run 5 minutes apart, that results in 12 slots per direction per hour. A 15-minute service would still leave 8 open slots per hour. Again, in theory, there’s no reason why the new line couldn’t run a 15-minutes service, connecting with a similar but slower 15-minute service on the existing line. This would rely on transfers more than interline operation, but still offers the potential to be more cost- and time-effective than anything in the status quo. No-one (with the possible exception of discount bus operators) has anything to lose with this concept.
Drewski, your proposal bypasses some of the best track on the NEC. Between Philadelphia and New York, the barrier to high speed is the catenary; replace it and trains can do 200 mph most of the way.
At the same time, you’re using curved rights of way in Connecticut, where trains can’t run very fast; the freeways only give a reliable right of way east of New Haven. If there’s money for a tunnel between Long Island and New England, put it further east, and run trains on the LIRR mainline; remember that the LIRR was first built as a New York-Boston intercity line with a ferry connection. You gain precisely nothing from the Jamaica-Stamford tunnel – for service to JFK, run some trains DC-Philly-NY-JFK, since there is going to be more demand south of New York than north of New York.
There are a few bends in the rails between Fredricksburg VA and Richmond VA and on wards to Petersburg but they could easly be cut out in that most of the line goes though very deep forests and farm fields. It might be cheaper to build the the Petersburg to Washingtion section of the NEC then to build the section from New York and New Haven. I followed the New Haven Railroad on the street view maps and it is a very twisted rail line that is at least going to need several tunnels on it to go under the cities in it’s path.
I’m making a video about the old Pennsyvinia Catenary how it needs to be replaced and up graded south to Richmond VA. The idea would have the catenary taking on the best parts of tensioned catenary systems but still having the new catenary masts going into Richmond retaining their classic H beam Pennsyvinia Railroad shape.
I think that if an initiative is taken to seriously alter the NEC’s alignment, then some though should be given to changing the NYC-Boston segment so that it runs through both Hartford and Providence.
Bypassing Hartford strikes me as unacceptable, given the size of that metro area. Bypassing Providence would not sit well with Rhode Island’s Congressional delegation, which might be small, but still has two senators.
On the other hand, building a new RoW won’t be cheap, and might meet some fierce local opposition.