High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by nito

Time most certainly plays a part in defining the viability of a HSR service; assuming a near direct route and no stops, using HS2’s journey speeds (186mph/300kph), New York to Chicago would be possible in under 4hrs, Denver to Salt Lake City somewhere north of 2hrs. Actual journey times factoring in geography, stops, etc… would add anywhere from a few minutes to an hour.

Journey times are not always the defining statistic to drive HSR. Spain has built the second largest HSR network, but AVE ridership is half that of say Avant West Coast, which is a single non-HSR intercity operator running on one mainline route. There needs to be the demand to justify routes, whether that is capturing share from other transport modes or generating new journeys; which Eurostar achieved on both accounts. 777mn domestic air journeys are made annually in the US, the majority of these will be between nodes where HSR isn’t economical, however focusing on core transport corridors and between city pairs would make sense. New York to Chicago could make some degree of sense, but I’m not sure Denver to Salt Lake City would

Let's take a closer look at a new New York City to Chicago HSR service. Let's assume initial service is a train every half hour, hopefully even more frequent after a few years in service. Where in Chicago would you initiate and end an extra 4 trains per hour, 40-60 trains a day, from? Both Union and Pennsylvania Stations are "at capacity". It's not like there is an existing unused abandoned train station decaying away in either city one could use.
So we build brand new train stations. Where? How big?

Now let's assume you build an entirely new HSR corridor between Chicago and New York City? Which route? How about I-80 just as an example? It's 796 highway miles between Chicago and New York City via I-80. it's 11.5 hours by car. For a HSR train to travel that far in 3 hours, it would have to average 265 mph. (796/3 = 265 mph) Not even close to being possible
In 4 hours it would have to average 199 mph (796/4 = 199 mph) Possible as a non-stop train only if the cities and states in-between allow it and the train never slows down for anything.
In 5 hours it would have to average 159 mph (796/5 = 159.2 mph)
More probable as trains can now slow down when required
In 6 hours it would have to average 132 mph. (792/6 = 132 mph)
Most probable and the most likely result because the trains can now make multiple stops in route.

6 hours is twice as long as the 3 hour sweet spot where trains lose market share to planes worldwide. Do I need to reinforce that point with NEC ridership data again? At least now you can attract riders not wishing to go all the way for almost 800 miles.

So, why spend $100 billion+ for a new HSR line and new train stations when the vast majority of riders will still choose to fly?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

So, why spend $100 billion+ for a new HSR line and new train stations when the vast majority of riders will still choose to fly?

Cleveland and Toledo benefited mightily from being stops on all express trains between NYC and Chicago from about 1870 until about 1970. Those cities have foundered since for a variety of reasons, but no longer having very frequent and high-quality rail service to Chicago and NYC is one big reason. They went from having that special status to having no advantage in the jet age. The electrified Chicago>NYC line is also necessary for Detroit to reach any of those points.

The other thing is that new-build electrified passenger rail can be used for local commuter service. For example, the 1980s high speed rail plan for Ohio would have not just connected Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland with 200mph intercity trains, it also would have enabled very high quality commuter rail every morning and afternoon.

[Busy Bee]

Speaking of Ohio commuter rail, I have family that lives around Solon and Aurora just down the road from the line that runs between downtown Cleveland and Youngstown. Every time I visit it just bogggles my mind that this corridor doesnt have commuter rail running on it. I would imagine that if Ohio was a more progressive state it probably would. I understand that the last time this line saw a passenger train was the late 1970s.

[redblock]

Here is an article about high-speed rail's effect on domestic air service in China. It is written from the perspective of air travel supporters. It agrees with Electricron that the tipping point between HSR and airlines is 3 hours. Since China still has a strong network of regular passenger trains, the article states that many people use this cheaper option for trips under 2 hours. Air routes in the 2-3 hour range with few flights a day are the most vulnerable to discontinuance.

https://simpleflying.com/china-high-speed-rail-impact/

[electricron]

Originally Posted by redblock

Here is an article about high-speed rail's effect on domestic air service in China. It is written from the perspective of air travel supporters. It agrees with Electricron that the tipping point between HSR and airlines is 3 hours. Since China still has a strong network of regular passenger trains, the article states that many people use this cheaper option for trips under 2 hours. Air routes in the 2-3 hour range with few flights a day are the most vulnerable to discontinuance.

https://simpleflying.com/china-high-speed-rail-impact/

Also, it pointed out the same scenario present on the NEC where Nanjing replaces New York City, and Shanghai and Beijing replace Boston and D.C.
"Another study last year, Competition Between High-Speed Trains and Air Travel in China, found the top city pairs for high-speed rail in China were Shanghai-Nanjing, Guangzhou-Changsha, Beijing-Jinan, Wuhan-Guangzhou, and Beijing-Nanjing."
Note that Beijing-Shanghai is not on that list. Just because you can ride a single HSR train without a transfer over 3 hours does not mean the majority do so. That 3 hour sweet spot I have been discussing is a world wide sweet spot - even in China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Speaking of Ohio commuter rail, I have family that lives around Solon and Aurora just down the road from the line that runs between downtown Cleveland and Youngstown. Every time I visit it just bogggles my mind that this corridor doesnt have commuter rail running on it. I would imagine that if Ohio was a more progressive state it probably would. I understand that the last time this line saw a passenger train was the late 1970s.

Yeah I think that the country doesn't really understand how big-time Cleveland and the nearby NE Ohio cities were at their peak. Everyone knows Detroit was big but Cleveland was pretty much its peer. The gigantic railroad infrastructure all around Cleveland really is on par with the sort of things still seen around the NY/New Jersey area. Cleveland still has several 4+ track mainlines, flying crossovers, etc. leftover from its days as the midpoint on the NYC > Chicago express passenger train runs.

in the 2010s, some of the small Ohio cities have come roaring back as boutique downtowns with high-end restaurants, microbreweries, etc. They're actually experiencing housing price issues in cities where homes were selling for $20,000 after the 08-09 collapse. It feels crazy to type these worlds but there are actually retirees *moving* to these former industiral downtowns because the banks stopped lending to build the brand-new suburban condo complexes that housed retirees from the 1980s-2008.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Yeah I think that the country doesn't really understand how big-time Cleveland and the nearby NE Ohio cities were at their peak. Everyone knows Detroit was big but Cleveland was pretty much its peer. The gigantic railroad infrastructure all around Cleveland really is on par with the sort of things still seen around the NY/New Jersey area. Cleveland still has several 4+ track mainlines, flying crossovers, etc. leftover from its days as the midpoint on the NYC > Chicago express passenger train runs.

in the 2010s, some of the small Ohio cities have come roaring back as boutique downtowns with high-end restaurants, microbreweries, etc. They're actually experiencing housing price issues in cities where homes were selling for $20,000 after the 08-09 collapse. It feels crazy to type these worlds but there are actually retirees *moving* to these former industiral downtowns because the banks stopped lending to build the brand-new suburban condo complexes that housed retirees from the 1980s-2008.

What would be nice is for some third party organization without a political axe to grind study why Cleveland and other rust belt cities have declined from their glorious past. There must be lessons to be learned.

[M II A II R II K]

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

M II A II K

That image is trying to reflect what Alon Levy suggests are doable HSR lines in the USA per
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...gh-speed-rail/
Alon Levy in no way reflects which lines are really shovel ready that the image suggests. I certainly do not agree that a generic formula exists on per kilometer construction costs, nor do I agree with his ridership projections.

Take his projections for the NEC per his formula;
New York-Washington is 22.44 million passengers / year
New York-Boston is 18.77 million passengers / year
New York-Philadelphia is 16.87 mi passengers / year
Washington-Philadelphia is 8.98 million passengers / year
Boston-Philadelphia is 7.51 million passengers / year
Boston-Washington is 4.82 million passengers / year
Overall, this is 79.4 million passengers / year, excluding shorter-distance commuter trains.

FYI, in 2019 prior to the pandemic, the NEC Amtrak ridership was 12.5 million passengers / year; about 66.9 million less passengers than Alon Levy projects. To be fair, Alon Levy is projecting ridership on a revamped NEC that gets trains between Boston and D.C. in 3 to 3.5 hours vs the 6.5 hours today.

But even if Amtrak found the cash to revamp the railroad's infrastructure, where in all the stations along the NEC could Amtrak service all these extra passengers effectively?

Read his entire blog, because he has all the answers

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

What would be nice is for some third party organization without a political axe to grind study why Cleveland and other rust belt cities have declined from their glorious past. There must be lessons to be learned.

The writer Aaron Renn has written extensively on this subject. You can look him up if you want - I'm at work right now so can't spend time finding links.

One of his big arguments as to why Cleveland, St. Louis, etc. have declined so profoundly is that the consolidation of the banking industry meant not only that local banks first consolidated and their HQ's absorbed into NYC and other big city banks, but that commercial lending relationships broke down in the midsize and smaller cities.

We are all familiar with consumer credit scores, but apparently commercial lending has moved in that direction over the past 50 years. It's a lot less likely that the owner of your midsize locally-owned company golfs with the CEO of Chase, Bank of America, Wells-Fargo, etc., than he might have back in the 1970s when banks were restricted in their ability to do commercial lending across state lines, meaning every mid-sized cities had 8-10 sizeable banks and therefore 8-10 local bank presidents who were able to do handshake loans.

The consumer credit score has been an important tool in guaranteeing equitable lending to our country's diverse citizenry, and so in theory the consolidation of banks has made commercial lending more equitable. But Renn and a few others argue that the loss of the local handshake deal - even if it was reserved for golfing buddies - was a total disaster for the Midwest since it made doing business away from the handful of cities that have major commercial banks much more difficult.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by electricron

Let's take a closer look at a new New York City to Chicago HSR service. Let's assume initial service is a train every half hour, hopefully even more frequent after a few years in service. Where in Chicago would you initiate and end an extra 4 trains per hour, 40-60 trains a day, from? Both Union and Pennsylvania Stations are "at capacity". It's not like there is an existing unused abandoned train station decaying away in either city one could use.
So we build brand new train stations. Where? How big?

Refitting the old mail platforms alone in Chicago would get you that easy. When we talk about CUS being at capacity really it is only the south end because of Metra BNSF service. We can squeeze a ton more capacity out of that thing by reducing Metra's turn times. Amtrak's CUS master plan already accounts for some of this. Finishing the 75th St CIP will also allow Southwest Service trains to be routed to LaSalle Street Station instead of Union diverting about 10 trains per day off the south concourse.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by k1052

Refitting the old mail platforms alone in Chicago would get you that easy. When we talk about CUS being at capacity really it is only the south end because of Metra BNSF service. We can squeeze a ton more capacity out of that thing by reducing Metra's turn times. Amtrak's CUS master plan already accounts for some of this. Finishing the 75th St CIP will also allow Southwest Service trains to be routed to LaSalle Street Station instead of Union diverting about 10 trains per day off the south concourse.

Don't discuss plans without providing a link to them please!
Here's the link to the CUS Master Plan.
https://www.chicago.gov/dam/city/dep...Plan-Study.pdf

Refitting the old mail platforms into passenger use places the platforms' passageway two blocks further south than the existing platforms' passageway. Union Station headhouse would have to grow two blocks to the southeast.
Reducing Metra's turn times involves reconfiguring Metra's platforms - not Amtrak's platforms.
Moving 10 trains per day away from Union Station to LaSalle will increase Metra's capacity - not Amtrak's capacity - by 10 trains per day.

The master plan is very thorough, but places improvements into near, intermediate, and long term categories. They have found funding for the near improvements, not the intermediate and long term improvements.

And most of the intermediate and long term improvements improve other things as well as Union Station itself that will require significant investments by the City. Good luck with that!

[k1052]

Originally Posted by electricron

Refitting the old mail platforms into passenger use places the platforms' passageway two blocks further south than the existing platforms' passageway. Union Station headhouse would have to grow two blocks to the southeast.

Nope you don't have to do that. You just need vertical access. There is also a tunnel that accesses the mail platforms from the concourse which can be repurposed.

Reducing Metra's turn times involves reconfiguring Metra's platforms - not Amtrak's platforms.

This involves several items 1) fixing Metra's PTC implementation so it doesn't take so long to turn 2) replacing single door gallery rolling stock 3) having sufficient platform space for circulation. #2 is fortunately in progress. South Concourse capacity is South Concourse capacity. If Metra moves trains away from CUS that opens operational space.

Moving 10 trains per day away from Union Station to LaSalle will increase Metra's capacity - not Amtrak's capacity - by 10 trains per day.

This is very much negotiable. Amtrak owns the station.

The master plan is very thorough, but places improvements into near, intermediate, and long term categories. They have found funding for the near improvements, not the intermediate and long term improvements.

A lot of the head house improvements are happening. Work on the concourse and platforms is stalled due to ongoing Amtrak-Metra squabbling.

And most of the intermediate and long term improvements improve other things as well as Union Station itself that will require significant investments by the City. Good luck with that!

What like the bus terminal the city already built? The WLTC is likely never to be built absent a huge injection of federal dollars that pays for a new subway line too. Given the conceptual nature of that project nobody is holding their breath.

[nito]

Originally Posted by electricron

Let's take a closer look at a new New York City to Chicago HSR service. Let's assume initial service is a train every half hour, hopefully even more frequent after a few years in service.

I have nothing to gain from HSR between New York and Chicago; merely highlighting that the journey could be done in circa 4hrs*, or even well below that as I will set out.

Originally Posted by electricron

Where in Chicago would you initiate and end an extra 4 trains per hour, 40-60 trains a day, from? Both Union and Pennsylvania Stations are "at capacity". It's not like there is an existing unused abandoned train station decaying away in either city one could use.
So we build brand new train stations. Where? How big?

4tph terminating is not particularly taxing; two platforms could accommodate that based on international turnaround of HSR services, but you’d realistically want more for redundancy and future growth. The changes to Chicago Union/LaSalle St and New York Penn outlined below would enable more dedicated HSR platforms.

A few posts earlier I highlighted the issues and raised solutions to provide capacity at New York Penn. Chicago presents several potential options, each of which would require tweaking. Millennium is probably too far out of the way and a new terminal would have to be underground or require an expensive land-take, which leaves Union or LaSalle St; the latter would be my preference.

Chicago Union is the existing Amtrak terminal and the busiest commuter station in Chicago, but it exhibits many of the same issues seen at New York Penn, namely too many unnecessary terminating services and completely inadequate narrow platforms. A few years back I looked at commuter services in Chicago and other cities; at rush-hour, 16tph and 14tph approach Union from the north and south respectively. Reducing and widening platforms and making them through-running for rationalised Metra services would – regardless of any HSR – deliver a substantial capacity gain. There would then be more than enough for several HSR platforms.

LaSalle St is served by a solitary Metra commuter rail line, but has good transport connections to Downtown and beyond via the Chicago L. My thinking would be to divert the existing Metra route into Union and convert LaSalle St into a dedicated HSR terminal. LaSalle St would also enable extensive OSD.

Originally Posted by electricron

Now let's assume you build an entirely new HSR corridor between Chicago and New York City? Which route? How about I-80 just as an example? It's 796 highway miles between Chicago and New York City via I-80. it's 11.5 hours by car. For a HSR train to travel that far in 3 hours, it would have to average 265 mph. (796/3 = 265 mph) Not even close to being possible
In 4 hours it would have to average 199 mph (796/4 = 199 mph) Possible as a non-stop train only if the cities and states in-between allow it and the train never slows down for anything.
In 5 hours it would have to average 159 mph (796/5 = 159.2 mph)
More probable as trains can now slow down when required
In 6 hours it would have to average 132 mph. (792/6 = 132 mph)
Most probable and the most likely result because the trains can now make multiple stops in route.

6 hours is twice as long as the 3 hour sweet spot where trains lose market share to planes worldwide. Do I need to reinforce that point with NEC ridership data again? At least now you can attract riders not wishing to go all the way for almost 800 miles.

So, why spend $100 billion+ for a new HSR line and new train stations when the vast majority of riders will still choose to fly?

Out of my own curiosity, I mapped out a very rough route which incorporated existing or former rail corridors, sections of the I-80 and other highway corridors, and then tunnel/viaduct under more problematic sections. Throw in a Cleveland stop and maybe two others, and using HS2* journey speeds, you would get a Downtown Chicago to Midtown New York journey in just over 4hrs*.

NEC Amtrak ridership is certainly low but there is scope for credible growth if there was a suitable HSR route, especially when you factor in the large catchment. The existing Acela journey speeds are around a third that of HS2*, using HS2 journey speeds you would be able to do New York to Washington and Boston in 67mins and 68mins respectively.

NEC intercity passenger ridership is most certainly below that elsewhere, but 80mn intercity journeys is not an outlandish figure. For some context, in 2019-20 there were 143mn intercity rail journeys (Eurostar adds another 11mn) made across the UK; a figure expected to rise to 345mn by the 2040’s. 80mn journeys thus would still be quite low.

* To date, I have referenced HS2 average journey speeds of 186mph/300kph, however I ought to clarify that those figures relate to the journey between London and Birmingham (a relatively short distance by HSR standards) which incorporates two intermediate stops. I just worked out the journey speeds between London and Manchester – a longer distance incorporating an additional intermediate stop – and the average journey speed increases to 200mph/322kph. If using London to Manchester as the basis – a longer distances comparable to the US – New York to Chicago would be well below 4hrs.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by k1052

Nope you don't have to do that. You just need vertical access. There is also a tunnel that accesses the mail platforms from the concourse which can be repurposed.

A tunnel at least two blocks away from the existing concourse. Yes, it could have a more direct vertical access, but not on the same city block, you will be blocks away, almost as far away to the south from the beautiful Union Station's main hall as Ogilvie Station is to the north. Might as well call it an entirely new train station, or give it its' own hall name aka Moynihan Train Hall in NY.
People can now look at those plans and critique it now that there is a link. They do not have to truest you or me, they can read all the juicy details themselves.

[jmecklenborg]

Toward the bottom of the link you will see a graphic and written descriptions of the energy crisis-era studies of electrification of long-distance U.S. railroads:
https://www.trains.com/ctr/railroads...ion-proposals/

The 1970s study included Los Angeles to Chicago, Chicago to New Orleans, and germane to my previous posts here and in the California HSR thread, Cincinnati to Chattanooga.

The topography of the Cincinnati Southern Railroad through Kentucky and Tennessee is by all accounts quite severe even though it travels somewhat west of Kentucky coal country. Electrification would improve the performance of all freight trains and enable higher-speed passenger service from all of Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana to travel south to Atlanta. In fact I'd imagine that the route was avoided when Amtrak was established because the topography dictates cautious operations.

If you have ever visited Cincinnati and seen the spectacle involved in getting a freight train out of the Cincinnati yards, across the river, and up the hill, you're seeing just the first 45 minutes of a ridiculous journey south to Chattanooga. Like 30-40 trains a day do this. It's non-stop super-slow motion freight trains 24/7.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by electricron

A tunnel at least two blocks away from the existing concourse. Yes, it could have a more direct vertical access, but not on the same city block, you will be blocks away, almost as far away to the south from the beautiful Union Station's main hall as Ogilvie Station is to the north. Might as well call it an entirely new train station, or give it its' own hall name aka Moynihan Train Hall in NY.
People can now look at those plans and critique it now that there is a link. They do not have to truest you or me, they can read all the juicy details themselves.

So probably about 600ft...no we don't need a whole new head house for that. If you're really running HSR super frequently most people would opt to just head to the platform anyway. The only reason a lot of people are waiting at CUS to begin with is Amtrak is often late and they do the ridiculous airline style boarding.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by k1052

So probably about 600ft...no we don't need a whole new head house for that. If you're really running HSR super frequently most people would opt to just head to the platform anyway. The only reason a lot of people are waiting at CUS to begin with is Amtrak is often late and they do the ridiculous airline style boarding.

Amtrak does that ridiculous airline style boarding in New York as well, so that is not an unique policy for Chicago. The question we should ask is why? Well, a minimum of 15 feet wide platforms does not leave much space for both boarding passengers waiting to board and alighting passengers trying to get off the train through all those waiting passengers. You can only squeeze so many passenger on a 15 feet wide platform. Hence, Amtrak's policy to alight the train before allowing boarding passengers down to platform level.

And in most cases in Chicago, waiting for alighting passengers is not applicable. But since they back the departing trains to the platforms minutes before the boarding process begins, they wouldn't wish to have passengers on the platforms while doing so. Even if they backed the train to the platform an hour early, the on board crew has not punched their time cards yet until just before boarding starts. It would be a liability headache if they allowed passengers aboard the train before the crew clocks on duty.

Do not look just at how you think the train service should be ran, you also need to look at the train's company point of view.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by electricron

Amtrak does that ridiculous airline style boarding in New York as well, so that is not an unique policy for Chicago. The question we should ask is why? Well, a minimum of 15 feet wide platforms does not leave much space for both boarding passengers waiting to board and alighting passengers trying to get off the train through all those waiting passengers. You can only squeeze so many passenger on a 15 feet wide platform. Hence, Amtrak's policy to alight the train before allowing boarding passengers down to platform level.

And in most cases in Chicago, waiting for alighting passengers is not applicable. But since they back the departing trains to the platforms minutes before the boarding process begins, they wouldn't wish to have passengers on the platforms while doing so. Even if they backed the train to the platform an hour early, the on board crew has not punched their time cards yet until just before boarding starts. It would be a liability headache if they allowed passengers aboard the train before the crew clocks on duty.

Do not look just at how you think the train service should be ran, you also need to look at the train's company point of view.

These are problems with how Amtrak is organized and run not actual unsolvable logistical issues.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by nito

LaSalle St is served by a solitary Metra commuter rail line, but has good transport connections to Downtown and beyond via the Chicago L. My thinking would be to divert the existing Metra route into Union and convert LaSalle St into a dedicated HSR terminal. LaSalle St would also enable extensive OSD.

Interesting idea. LaSalle is 8 tracks but if Rock Island ever converts to a frequent electrified service they could probably go down to four tracks or even three, freeing up four tracks for HSR. LaSalle could add a few tracks too, possibly one track on the east side on private property and two tracks on the west side over Financial Place.

Plus it would dovetail nicely into the South-of-the-Lake route that's probably the best way for HSR to reach the urban fringe in Indiana.