High Speed Rail and Amtrak News

[PacificNW]

Isn't that around 180 mph....give or take? Yup, we could use that option here in the U.S.

[Millennium2002]

An average speed greater than 250 km/h should be one of the long-term goals of the Amtrak Cascades speed-up project... Even then an average speed of 150 km/h would be enough to effectively compete with the interstate highways.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

An average speed greater than 250 km/h should be one of the long-term goals of the Amtrak Cascades speed-up project... Even then an average speed of 150 km/h would be enough to effectively compete with the interstate highways.

Do you know how fast the maximum train speeds would have to be to achieve an average of 250 km/hr?
Metric/English conversions of FRA speed/track classifications.
Class 4 80 mph ~ 130 km/hr
Class 5 90 mph ~ 145 km/hr
Class 6 110 mph ~ 180 km/hr
Class 7 125 mph ~ 200 km/hr
Class 8 150 mph ~ 240 km/hr
Class 9 150+ mph >240 km/hr

And you wish to have an average train speed faster than the fastest train speed in the USA?

The Cascade trains between Seattle and Portland stop at 6 interim train stations. Let's assume the trains average 2 minutes per stop at each station. That adds 12 minutes to the travel time. Lets also assume we add another minute for both slowing down and speeding up. That adds another 12 minutes to the travel time, now a total of 24 minutes.

The Cascade train schedule shows a total travel time of 210 minutes and a total distance of 187 miles.

Some simple math:
Include 24 minutes of delays; (187/210)x60 = 53.4 miles per hour.
Exclude 24 minutes of delays; (187/186)x60 = 60.3 miles per hour.
Looks like the average speed of the train losses 7 mph.

Now look at it if the train could actually average 110 mph excluding the 24 minutes of delay, and how adding the same 24 minutes of delays effects average speeds.

Math: 187/110 = 1.7 hours x 60 = 102 minutes + 24 minutes = 124 minutes ; therefore (187/124)x60 = 90.5 mph.
In this example, we lost almost 20 mph caused by the same same delays at the six stops. The faster you go, with the same amount of time loss for stops, the quicker the average speeds falls.

One could argue the trains don't stop for a full 2 minutes at each station, or that it doesn't loose a minute decelerating and accelerating from each stop, or that I didn't include the loss time accelerating from the first station and decelerating for the last station. The acutal times don't matter, it's the principle that matters.

Whatever the delays really are, they're going to be pretty much the same no matter how fast the trains go. It takes so long for passengers to board and disembark a train. It takes so long to accelerate up to speed, and likewise to brake into a station. Most likely, it'll probably takes longer to accelerate and decelerate the faster the train goes.

[Millennium2002]

Okay... my bad. I meant maximum speed ^_^''

- Allan Kuan

[electricron]

Could you live with a maximum speed of 240 km/hr?

The difference of the 10 km/hr is of major importance. At a maximum of 150 mph (240 km/hr), one can legally (per FRA) run high speed passenger trains over the same BNSF freight tracks.
At a maximum speed of 151+ mph, one can not legally and would have to buy, build, maintain, and operate a brand new tracks wherever the speeds of the trains would exceed 150 mph.
Bombardier has designed a JetTrain locomotive that can acheive 150 mph using fossil fuels that doesn't require electrifying the corridor. To go faster, one would have to electrify the entire corridor and use electric powered locomotives.


Here's an interesting fact many don't realize. If Amtrak had bought JetTrain locomotives for its Acela service, it wouldn't be limited to maximum speeds of 135 mph for most of the route between New York and Washington D.C. because of slack in the catenary lines overhead because they don't have automatic tensioning devices.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States

If the Federally supported Amtrak passenger train agency wants to run freight trains on tracks they own for economic reasons, why do you think freight train companies or States would want to do the opposite?

Even the California High Speed Rail Authority is looking at how to run freight trains over their newly built tracks. Legally they can't now, but they would like to in the future.

I forsee only a few faster than 150 mph passenger trains in most of the USA in corridors well served by freight trains with very low density and cheap land in rural areas, like Texas, Florida, and California.

The land between Portland and Seattle isn't cheap, nor does it have significant freight overcapacity. What's limiting the sea ports expansion of both cities is the ability to move freight in and out.

[Millennium2002]

Taking your thoughts into account... there is a lack of capacity in the rail network here in Vancouver as well... which has resulted in the construction of a new highway 17 and the widening of several other highways. >.<

I believe that as the railways are private enterprises and also due to the BC Rail scandal the province has decided not to invest in railways and put more money in the highway network. Of course, I don't know how far they're seeing into the future with that vision in mind. (Thinks of induced capacity.)

It is also coincidental how you mention land acquisition costs... the addition of a new freight line here would probably not cost much but with the new highway option they're thinking of bulldozing multiple farms and industries in the process.

But anyway, i'm straying off topic... certainly I can live with 240 km/h. As long as its fast enough to possibly cut journey times between Vancouver, Portland, and Seattle and at cheaper prices too (compared to airfare).

I have also heard about the JetTrain, and from reading the Wikipedia article it seems acceptable for the needs of the railways here given the circumstances described. It's just that >250km/h would be really cool to have especially since Europe has that already (although they do need separate rail lines, overhead wires, and on-board signaling).

- Allan Kuan

[designpdx]

Just a random thought, but why do we need a stop in Portland and Vancouver, WA? This seems to just slow things down with little added benefit. Can't those in Vancouver use the Portland station?

[PacificNW]

I would think that some stops could be eliminated....especially Vancouver, WA., Centralia, Tukwila, etc. Since Seattle, Everett and Tacoma are considered 1 inclusive metro area maybe one stop for them as well. South of Portland? Salem and Corvallis could be eliminated. (This suggestion is probably going to create some hate.)

[Millennium2002]

Well what about if we say that stop times in the "minor" stations are say only a minute compared to the normal 2 minutes for the "major" stations? That might cut down on time... although it's quite true that the near-frictionless contact between rails and wheels makes braking and acceleration the more time-consuming task.

I might have also misled people who are in Oregon (and why not considering this is the thread for all things Portland) xD I sort of meant Vancouver BC (my hometown) although I wouldn't mind a Vancouver WA stop.

There could always be the option of "local-express" service if riders support it... but hey, the northwest is sort of renowned for its beauty isn't it? I wouldn't mind taking time staring out the window. =P

Another thing i forgot to add about electrification vs cost. Surely fossil fuels are going to be around for awhile, but you sort of admitted also that they are "fossil" fuels meaning they will eventually run out. I also have worries of price fluctuations because of this due to recent hikes in oil as people panicked over supply. Electrification on the other hand is a somewhat more stable energy source . Certainly it'll cost quite a lot up front to build the network from scratch and maintain it but it is more stable in terms of price especially if produced from renewable energy sources.

btw, off-topic, but i like your quote "PacificNW". =P

- Allan Kuan

[PacificNW]

☺↑ Thanks.... I stole it from somewhere. I know there are t-shirts with it on them.

[NewUrbanist]

Do you think the solar demonstrations along I5 (Oregon?/ Washington?) are leading towards powering high speed rail? Just curious if anyone can offer information on solar panel capacity to power such large energy draw.

[Millennium2002]

solar energy isn't enough to power high-speed rail I think... you'd need to have many arrays to keep the power supply steady, as well as voltage and current transformers to change between two DC voltages (or rectifiers for between AC and DC).

I had more in mind BC's and Washington's large hydroelectric dams as a renewable energy source... nuclear energy may work as well but of course not a lot of people like having that being next door to their homes.

- Allan Kuan

[llamaorama]

You'd have to do the math on electrification I guess. I wouldn't know how much it costs. Just that I've read it's not some magic cost-cutting solution, or otherwise private rail companies like Union Pacific and BNSF would put up wires, right?

In the UK they have 125 mph diesel trains going everywhere. Not high speed but the mainline services are extremely frequent and make a number of stops.

[maccoinnich]

Yes, but the two major north-south lines, the East Coast Mainline and the West Coast Mainline, are both electrified. And, after a long gap without any new electrification, it's back on the agenda again now.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by NewUrbanist

Do you think the solar demonstrations along I5 (Oregon?/ Washington?) are leading towards powering high speed rail? Just curious if anyone can offer information on solar panel capacity to power such large energy draw.

Solar energy combined with wind energy would be excellent, because the first one is more intense in summer and the seccond one is more intense in winter.
I think both energy sources could be very succesfull in this area. I would even say that in the near future we could even be able to sell to other states electricity coming from this resources.

[bvpcvm]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/2009/07/oregon_seeks_21_billion_for_hi/print.html

Oregon seeks $2.1 billion for high-speed rail
Posted by hesteve July 16, 2009 21:57PM

AP - Oregon hopes to snare federal money to boost rail travel and jump start a high-speed rail corridor.

Oregon has applied for a big federal stimulus grant to boost rail service between Portland and Eugene and jump start an even broader high-speed rail corridor.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski announced that the state, in conjunction with Washington, is seeking $2.1 billion -- entering a national competition for $8 billion in stimulus money aimed at high-speed rail projects. Oregon will make its case partly as a national leader in efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses.

This is another example of the state looking at ways to reduce carbon emission and encourage alternative transportation methods," Kulongoski said in a news release announcing the application Thursday.

If the bid is successful, the money would be used to increase round-trip rail travel between Portland and Eugene from two per day to six. The grant also would pay for rail and crossing improvements that would boost top train speeds to 110 mph, and up the average speed from 42 mph to 65 mph.
Transportation planners envision an eventual high-speed rail corridor extending from Eugene to Vancouver, B.C.

To get the money, Oregon must compete with more densely populated states. But Kulongoski spokeswoman Anna Richter Taylor said the state has some advantages.

"There have been indications they want something in the Pacific Northwest," Taylor said. Kulongoski talked about the state's high-speed rail prospects when U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood visited recently.
"Oregon has a reputation for non-highway transportation," Taylor said, which could help tilt the scales.

The money would provide a clear economic boost for Oregon, providing thousands of jobs in a state with the nation's second highest unemployment rate.

"It's a huge chunk of money," Taylor said.

-- Harry Esteve; [email protected]

Categories: Breaking News, Environment, Governor

[bvpcvm]

Here's a 114-page PDF file: the Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study, which looks at how Union Station and Greyhound can be reorganized. It looks at where to move Greyhound (the existing facility is too large for their needs), how MAX and Streetcar could be routed onto tracks 1 & 2 at Union Station (tldr: no compelling need to do this, and difficult from an engineering standpoint anyway), and how to accommodate increased passenger flows when "higher speed" rail is implemented. The file has lots of maps and renderings.

[Okstate]

Hopefully we can get something half as nice as Denvers' plan.

* Now that I have read the whole thing I am kind of up in arms about which plan I prefer.

The main options are:

1: Move greyhound to union station with or without extension to existing structure
-Bus lines would be on NW Station Way across from current smart park garage.

2: Move greyhound to current triangular corner (existing parking lot) on southwest side of lot.
-Bus lines would be angular & fit on existing site plan (not go out into public streets)


At first I thought option 2 would be best & maybe it still is. However, with the current triangular corner (which PDC owns) RIGHT next to the PO megablock, perhaps something a little more high density & better use could be accomodated on that lot in the future (i.e. "W" hotel overlooking MLB venue etc...).

[NJD]

County cities discuss rail options
Oregon City, Milwaukie and others support keeping a high-speed Amtrak line on its current alignment

By Matthew Graham

The Oregon City News, Oct 7, 2009

All four of the cities that would be impacted by high-speed rail in North Clackamas appear – tentatively – to oppose a shift away from the Union Pacific mainline that would send the trains through downtown Milwaukie, Lake Oswego and Tualatin.

“I’m just going to go ahead and guess here, but I think if the high-speed rail ends up on the Union Pacific mainline, it’s going to be a lot easier for the Clackamas cities to support,” Milwaukie Community Development Director Kenny Asher said at a meeting of staff from those three cities, plus Portland and Oregon City, last month.

The Oregon Department of Transportation has applied for federal funds to study the high speed rail corridor from Eugene to Portland, the entirety of which would stretch on to Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. ODOT has highlighted two prominent options for the Oregon portion – the UP mainline, which Amtrak trains currently run on and which runs through Milwaukie along Railroad Avenue and heads into Oregon City, where there is a south metro stop. The alternative, the Oregon Electric line, would run through downtown Milwaukie and the Island Station Neighborhood before crossing the Willamette into Lake Oswego, with the south metro stop moved to Tualatin.

Oregon City seems to want the Union Pacific option to keep passenger rail service in its territory. Milwaukie, Tualatin and Lake Oswego appear to not want the Oregon Electric line because it would disrupt their downtowns. But Asher said such a declaration was “a little presumptuous” because the elected leaders of Lake Oswego and Tualatin had not discussed the issue yet.

Representatives from Portland said Mayor Sam Adams is enthusiastic about a high-speed-rail corridor, though the city doesn’t have much at stake in the OE versus UP mainline debate.

“The only way we’re going to have any success is through coalition building, making ourselves bigger. I think we’re fortunate in Clackamas County that our interests do tend to align around the mainline,” Asher said.

Individual interests

If the train ran through Milwaukie on the OE line, it would add six trains per day on the line that runs through downtown, behind the Portland Waldorf School and over the wooden tressle before crossing the Willamette into Lake Oswego. The Portland-to-Milwaukie light rail would run along the same route.

That would mean a lot more traffic. But, more importantly, if ODOT decides to double track the line, it would push farther into school and business properties along the corridor.

“It’s pretty obvious to all of us that high-speed rail on the Oregon Electric line through Milwaukie would be incredibly disruptive to what we’re trying to do in our city,” Asher said. “The early returns are that the city of Milwaukie has to be really paranoid and protective of our downtown.”

Lake Oswego said it currently has two trains a day coming through on the Oregon Electric line.

“It’s sort of infrequent and people have sort of adjusted to it, but the prospect of additional (trains) has riled some residents already,” said Denise Frisbee, director of the Planning and Building Services Department.

Tualatin said it’s concerned that high-speed rail through town could disrupt its chances of getting a quiet zone for the WES commuter rail, and they’re worried that ODOT would have to either build a new track or run the high-speed rail above the WES line for a portion where the route overlap.

“I’m not sure we're interested in having an elevated track through downtown,” said City Engineer Mike McKillip.

Oregon City, on the other hand, wants the rail, though it does have concerns about its impact if it stays on the exact same route.

City Manager Larry Patterson said that because Oregon City is a Metro-designated urban center, it should have all the transportation connections possible.

At the same time, if the change had significant impacts on the 10th Street intersection behind Dutch Bros. Coffee – the only at-grade crossing in downtown – the effect would be “devastating.”

“I think there should be some kind of look at at least going around some of these downtowns,” said Nancy Kraushaar, city engineer and public works director. “And then beyond that I think we’ve always sort of avoided the idea of tunneling in this region, but at some point maybe we need to consider the idea of tunneling.”

[philopdx]

Looks like the Portland/Seattle won big last night. That route is getting $590 million of funding from the stimulus to upgrade the tracks/signaling/overpasses. Another $8 million goes to the Portland/Eugene route.

Together, that's a whopping 7.5% of the total funds designated for the project, and even exceeds the allotment of the entire Northeast Region at $485 million.

Poor Texas, meanwhile, only gets $8 million. To that, I say "God Bless Texas", as they don't *need* the federal government meddling in their affairs. In fact, wasn't Gov Perry talking about seceding a while back? ;-D

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi...y-passenger-rail-program-eugene-portland

There's a .pdf out there too, and I'll try to post a link to it as well, if someone doesn't beat me to it.