High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (USA)

[Nexis4Jersey]

That would be great , I don't think you would need alot of tunnels for that or bridges...

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Alon

Even Wilmington is not a 150 mph route. Draw it on Google Earth; the transition from the mainline to the bypass requires S-curving around I-495 and with aggressive cant and cant deficiency you can squeeze 125 mph out of it. And that's assuming you could build at all - the route passes through Russell Peterson Wildlife Refuge, and any attempt to straighten it would cut a new ROW through the Refuge.

Actually, the route through Peterson is dead straight.

The bigger issues are that it's a low-grade line with not one but two swing bridges over the Christiana River and some grade crossings, and, of course, that S-curve by 495. It comes close enough to the latter that a short greenfield cutoff from one alignment to the other is possible, and that section is also well east of the refuge. Unfortunately, it's also on a (probably protected) wetland, which also gunks things up.

My optimal route would diverge at the existing junction onto an aerial above the freight bypass through the refuge, across the Christiana, through that part of Wilmington, across the Christiana again, jump over to the 495 alignment where the two pass closest (maybe a hundred feet) and alongside 495 up to Edgemoor, where it reconnects with the NEC.

Again, this would be a long-term solution for nonstop trains, due to curvature at the existing station and relatively limited station capacity. As none yet exist, the bypass isn't yet justifiable. But if you want to run a DC-Baltimore-Philly-NY-Boston just-those-stops super express, you will nevertheless need that bypass.

By the way, here's my file for the potential alignments.

My suspicion is that there are cheaper ways to save time than to cut off Wilmington. Express trains don't have to run nonstop - they don't in Japan. A one-stop-per-state express pattern is good enough, even if ideally some of those stops should be skippable at speed.

This would probably give DC-Balti-Wilmington-Philly-Newark-NY-New Haven-Providence-Boston has the fastest limited-stop train. Which is fine for now and the medium term.

[M II A II R II K]

CDOT leads the advanced guideway project with consultant, aims to be operable by 2025

Read More: http://www.eaglevalleyenterprise.com...ntProfile=1001

.....

The Colorado Department of Transportation is eying the future by developing the plan to build an advanced guideway system (AGS) — basically high speed trains — along the Interstate 70 corridor to connect to other systems planned for the Front Range.

- Last week, representatives from CDOT's Division of Transit and Rail met with consultants, Eagle County staff, and Commissioners Peter Runyon and Sara Fisher. Representatives from Vail and Avon were also at the meeting. The CDOT members said the goal is to have the AGS operational by 2025. The “AGS project” pertains specifically to the I-70 corridor. CDOT is the project sponsor and AZTEC/TYPSA Group is the lead consultant. AZTEC Vice President Mike Riggs said AZTEC's mother firm, TYPSA, is based in Spain and has significant high-speed rail and tunneling experience throughout the world.

- AZTEC is currently reviewing 18 “statement of technology information” reports — basically proposals for technology that could be used for a guideway system. Of the 18 tech companies that have submitted work, some will be invited to a technology forum Dec. 13 and 14 in Jefferson County. The forum will have two parts. One part will be open to the public for citizens to see some of the latest guideway technology. The second part will be private meetings between planners and the tech companies.

- “We want to focus on commercially viable options — stuff that could be implemented tomorrow — and not hold our breath waiting for technologies that might be viable in seven or eight years,” said CDOT's David Krutsinger. “Also, our current process isn't intended to ‘pick' a single technology, rather it is to have convincing evidence whether various technologies can successfully operate through Colorado's mountains.”

.....

[Jebby]

Why post a picture of the maglev test track when any guideway built in the US for potential HSR won't be like that?

[M II A II R II K]

They mentioned exploring technologies, but high speed can only be rail or maglev. Of course it depends on whether their definition of high speed really is high speed.

[M II A II R II K]

Atlanta’s Kasim Reed: ‘I want to be a two-term mayor’

Read More: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/atlanta...m-mayor/nS3T7/

.....

Ignoring predictions of legislative gridlock, Reed said there could be a bipartisan deal to fund massive infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and tunnels. He hopes for more funding for the Beltline’s rail component. And despite crisscrossing Florida, Ohio and the Sunday talk shows as a reliable Obama surrogate, Reed insisted that the only job he wants is a second term as Atlanta’s mayor.

- It would be my dream to have high-speed rail that would allow you to get off work at 5 and be in Savannah by 6:15. We’ve got the fastest-growing port on the Eastern Seaboard, the dominant airport. I’m hopeful we could secure federal support for that. I think having high-speed rail would change the game for us. I think it will change the entire economy. I believe there’s going to be funding for that. I don’t think there would be a large amount of grant money, with a check being written to the state. But you will get money at very low interest rates, maybe with infrastructure banks.

.....

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

They mentioned exploring technologies, but high speed can only be rail or maglev. Of course it depends on whether their definition of high speed really is high speed.

Colorado also is in the process of legalizing weed.

This type of idealistic hype is part of how CDOT looks at all means of transportation other than cars and freeways. In the two public transportation/Colorado Department of Transportation hybrids- the West line from Cold Springs to the Jefferson County Court House and the light rail line along I-25, the highway built (or to be widened) either is straight or has very wide radius curves, whereas the light rail has flyovers, small radius turns, extreme grades, etc.

No, CDOT is freeways, and, freeway tunnels.

[M II A II R II K]

Memphis-to-Little Rock high-speed rail to be studied

Read More: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...ed-rail-to-be/

The State of Arkansas will study the possibility of high-speed trains traveling up to 200 mph between Memphis and Little Rock and Texarkana, reports the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. State transportation officials anticipate spending $1 million to $1.25 million in federal and state funds to conduct two long-range railroad transportation plans in the next 18 to 24 months, the newspaper reported Friday.

One study will look at issues surrounding freight rail transport and existing passenger rail service. The other will examine how Arkansas might participate in a national initiative on high-speed passenger rail. The high-speed report will examine ways to improve existing track between Little Rock and Texarkana for high-speed passenger trains. It also will study the possibility of offering high-speed rail service between Little Rock and Memphis. Even though there's no money for the high-speed rail in Arkansas, the state wants to be prepared if federal funds does become available, officials told the newspaper.

.....

[phoenixboi08]

Interesting article about population density using census data.

You can play around with the map here

[202_Cyclist]

Amtrak Seeks Safety Changes to Allow U.S. Bullet Trains

By Angela Greiling Keane
Jan 2, 2013
Bloomberg

"Amtrak will recommend new U.S. rail- safety regulations to allow it to replace its Acela trains in the Northeast U.S. with lighter, faster equipment, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said.

U.S. crashworthiness standards force Amtrak to use trains that have locomotives on both ends and are slower and heavier than bullet trains used in Europe and Asia, Boardman said in an interview. Those standards reflect that U.S. passenger trains often share tracks with freight railroads rather than operating on their own lines.

Existing standards apply to trains traveling as much as 150 miles per hour (241 kilometers per hour). Writing new rules that relax railcar structural-strength requirements for faster trains “would allow for less use of fuel, quicker acceleration, a different performance profile,” Boardman, 64, said. “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here...”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...et-trains.html

[Nexis4Jersey]

OMG i must be dreaming....

[ardecila]

This oughta be something Republicans can support, in theory. Relaxing government regulations and getting a better value for government spending?

I hope they relax the regulations across the board. This could really assist Amtrak on other routes, and commuter rail agencies as well.

I assume the relaxed crashworthiness requirements would only apply to trains operating on corridors equipped with PTC systems. Otherwise, it just opens up the possibility of more accidents.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This oughta be something Republicans can support, in theory. Relaxing government regulations and getting a better value for government spending?

I hope they relax the regulations across the board. This could really assist Amtrak on other routes, and commuter rail agencies as well.

I assume the relaxed crashworthiness requirements would only apply to trains operating on corridors equipped with PTC systems. Otherwise, it just opens up the possibility of more accidents.

All passenger trains in America should be operating on corridors equipped for PTC systems by the end of 2015 - assuming that date time line isn't extended a few years.

DCTA runs Stadler GTWs on tracks shared with freight trains today under an exemption! There's no reason why Amtrak can't either.

[ardecila]

Yeah, but the exemption requires a time separation. This isn't feasible on many corridors. The whole point of PTC is to prevent trains from entering a potential crash scenario, so a heavy and a lightweight train should never get close to each other.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, but the exemption requires a time separation. This isn't feasible on many corridors. The whole point of PTC is to prevent trains from entering a potential crash scenario, so a heavy and a lightweight train should never get close to each other.

No, the DCTA exemption does not require Time Separation. Hence this press release:
http://www.dcta.net/images/stories/p...val_by_FRA.pdf

"This means that for the first time ever; light- weight/fuel efficient, eco-friendly low-floor vehicles will be permitted to operate in rail corridors concurrently with traditionally compliant vehicles. The waiver, a first of its kind, will expand commuter rail options for transportation authorities across the United States."

Concurrently is the key word in the press release.

[Alon]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Actually, the route through Peterson is dead straight.

The bigger issues are that it's a low-grade line with not one but two swing bridges over the Christiana River and some grade crossings, and, of course, that S-curve by 495. It comes close enough to the latter that a short greenfield cutoff from one alignment to the other is possible, and that section is also well east of the refuge. Unfortunately, it's also on a (probably protected) wetland, which also gunks things up.

My optimal route would diverge at the existing junction onto an aerial above the freight bypass through the refuge, across the Christiana, through that part of Wilmington, across the Christiana again, jump over to the 495 alignment where the two pass closest (maybe a hundred feet) and alongside 495 up to Edgemoor, where it reconnects with the NEC.

Again, this would be a long-term solution for nonstop trains, due to curvature at the existing station and relatively limited station capacity. As none yet exist, the bypass isn't yet justifiable. But if you want to run a DC-Baltimore-Philly-NY-Boston just-those-stops super express, you will nevertheless need that bypass.

By the way, here's my file for the potential alignments.

This would probably give DC-Balti-Wilmington-Philly-Newark-NY-New Haven-Providence-Boston has the fastest limited-stop train. Which is fine for now and the medium term.

Look at the route you drew again. The transition from the mainline to the Peterson route is not straight. There's an S-curve there, which is wider than the bad Shore Line curves but still constrains you to medium speed. Even with very aggressive cant and cant deficiency limits, a train can only go 360 km/h on a curve of radius at least 4 km. That transition curve is about 1.2 km, which lets you do about 200 km/h.

The 495 route avoids the wetlands, but makes the S-curve even worse. Probably the widest curve you can draw east of Wilmington is a combination of the freight bypass, 495, and some greenfield running, and even that isn't going to be a high-speed bypass, just a medium-speed one.

[hammersklavier]

You are indeed right that there is a slight curve as the alignment through Peterson approaches the NEC main. 200 kph (~124 mph) is still not that bad, though, especially when contrasted with the very sharp station-throat curves. And yes, the freight alignment curvature is much worse east of the Christiana. It does look like the Peterson alignment W of the Christiana, coupled with the 495 alignment east of it, is the best combination alignment available for Wilmington in the long run.

But, uh, back to the show...

[Nexis4Jersey]

Amtrak plans significant infrastructure projects for 2013

"Amtrak continues to advance and invest in projects that provide both near-term benefits and long-term improvements for the effective delivery and reliability of intercity passenger rail service," said President and CEO Joe Boardman.

Boardman says the 2013 agenda builds on the successes from 2012, which saw record ridership, the best-ever system-wide on-time performance, the national launch of eTicketing and the start of new Northeast Regional service to Norfolk, Va., the extension of Downeaster service to Freeport and Brunswick, Maine and the beginning of 110 mph operations on the Lincoln Service in Illinois and on the Wolverine and Blue Water services in Michigan.

Infrastructure projects include:

Advancing Gateway Program

In 2013, Amtrak intends to continue planning and other pre-construction activities on its Gateway Program to provide additional capacity into Manhattan for Amtrak intercity and New Jersey Transit commuter services, including the proposed next-generation high-speed rail system. The project includes building two additional tunnels under the Hudson River to access expanded terminal facilities serving New York Penn Station and the future Moynihan Station. It also will replace and expand the century old Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River and increase from two to four tracks between Newark and New York. Amtrak is also seeking funding this year to specifically advance design and early construction elements of the Gateway Program to preserve a pathway for the two new Hudson River tunnels to New York Penn Station.

160 mph high-speed rail upgrades in New Jersey

In 2013, Amtrak will further advance design, engineering and other pre-construction activities for a $450 million project funded by the federal high-speed rail program that will boost top train speeds from 135 mph to 160 mph along a 24-mile section of the NEC between Trenton and New Brunswick, N.J. The project includes upgrading track, electrical power, signal systems and overhead catenary wires to permit the faster speeds and also reconfigures track switches at the western entrance to New York Penn Station to mitigate congestion issues. The full project is to be completed in 2017.

Niantic River movable bridge replacement

In May 2013, Amtrak expects to complete construction on this $140-million multi-year project to replace the Niantic River Movable Bridge, originally built in 1907 and located between East Lyme and Waterford, Conn. Partially funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the new bridge is now in operation and will enable Amtrak to increase speeds and minimize traffic and delays. The project involves constructing a new two-track, electrified railroad bascule bridge just south of its present position, new track alignments on both approaches to the bridge and expansion of the navigation channel beneath the bridge and an increase in the vertical under-clearance above the water for the benefit of river traffic. Also, sections of the Niantic Bay Overlook boardwalk will be reconstructed and the public beach replenished.

http://www.rtands.com/index.php/pass...ml?channel=279

[phoenixboi08]

I read this report a while back, and saw these graphic illustrations of the air/highway congestion between key city pairings. Ever since, I'd been trying to find them again.

Long story short, I stumbled across that report (High Speed Rail in America 2050) and thought I'd post those graphics here.





Overall scoring of different corridors (based upon such criteria as potential passengers)

Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Northeast


Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Great Lakes Region


Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in Florida


Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Piedmont-Atlantic Region


Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Southwest


Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Mountain West


Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in Cascadia


One important trend I gleaned from this was, if you hadn't noticed, the California-Southwest, Northeast, Florida, and Great Lakes Megaregions all have heavy air congestion (which appears to be more chronic than highway congestion in many of these regions as a whole - certain cities in these regions have road congestion, but the over-arching theme is maxed-out capacity of airports serving them).

So it just made me wonder if pushing this as an alternative to driving makes sense. Seems like they should be gunning to devour as much air share as possible, and they should also consider working with airport authorities to do so. In the long run, it'd free up resources for these key hubs to focus more energy on international/long-haul-domestic routes.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08

Regional Air Market and Highway Congestion in the Piedmont-Atlantic Region

Why is Paducah labeled as Memphis?