High speed rail in USA

webexplorer said:
Do all train run a diesel? How many gallons does a train run per mile?
Click to expand...

no. some hybrid. some electric. some diesel. some coal :)laugh2: don't you love those huge black suffocating plume emitting from its smoke pipe?). I have heard that they're developing a much-improved version of steam engine.
 
sequoias said:
secretblend, high speed rail isn't feasible for more than around 500 to 700 miles because of cost and air travel is economically faster.

it can be built under streets too. also, its not feasible either for heating on the tracks to keep snow out of the way. check out youtube and find videos of hsr in snow. it didn't stop them with a few inches of snow on the ground. it is cheaper to build on surface than elevated which costs more to build per mile basis.
Click to expand...

In that case, we'll never have high speed across USA. Best way would be to combine them, some high speed and some normal speed. One thing for sure, it'll have to be cheap enough for people to spend instead of flying.
 
webexplorer said:
Do all train run a diesel? How many gallons does a train run per mile?
Click to expand...

most trains in the us run on diesel but many routes in east us run on electricity for high speed rail and normal rail also don't forget light rail in local cities rest of the us.

with a 5 car passenger with a locomotive it consume around 1.5 gallon per mile, more consume with freight or more cars for passengers.
 
sequoias said:
most trains in the us run on diesel but many routes in east us run on electricity for high speed rail and normal rail also don't forget light rail in local cities rest of the us.

with a 5 car passenger with a locomotive it consume around 1.5 gallon per mile, more consume with freight or more cars for passengers.
Click to expand...

1.5 mpg? ouch
 
not 1.5 mpg...its 1.5 gallons per mile not miles per gallon. that's even worse!
 
yep a typical diesel locomotive can hold around 2000 gallons of fuel so takes around less than 10 minutes to fill one of these big boys.
 
Secretblend said:
In that case, we'll never have high speed across USA. Best way would be to combine them, some high speed and some normal speed. One thing for sure, it'll have to be cheap enough for people to spend instead of flying.
Click to expand...

Of course...it is NOT cheap to build high speed dedicated line for 3,000 miles...so it's not doable, best in metro area to metro area for up to 500 to 700 miles or so. It would cost so much and it will take forever to pay it off and become profitable.
 
Jiro said:
no. some hybrid. some electric. some diesel. some coal :)laugh2: don't you love those huge black suffocating plume emitting from its smoke pipe?). I have heard that they're developing a much-improved version of steam engine.
Click to expand...

Steam trains of the future....what are we? IN back to the Future part III. :laugh2:
 
In America, the land is so huge, meaning requires bigger infrastructure which could easily exceeding the cost of Billions of dollars.

Speaking of ROI = Return On Investment, if we go ahead in America, it probably will take more than hundreds of years to get that investment back, and the infrastructure don't last forever.

That is why it is almost impossible to set up good infrastructure on high speed railroads up here than at other countries. On other hand, would you be willing to throw huge sum of money away and not see it come back again? I am sure the answer would be NOBODY.

I personally *DO* support railroads, but when it comes to ROI, I see it completely differently.
 
Exactly, it is called ROI. :)
sequoias said:
Of course...it is NOT cheap to build high speed dedicated line for 3,000 miles...so it's not doable, best in metro area to metro area for up to 500 to 700 miles or so. It would cost so much and it will take forever to pay it off and become profitable.
Click to expand...
 
That is cheap! I know it sounded expensive but if you translate into mathematics, it is D I R T Y cheap!

Say, if the mileage are 2 gallons per mile, that would translate into half MPG. So in other word two cars together gets one MPG.

And if these train pull 400 cars, divide that by two to get average MPG per car.

That would translate into 200MPG for each car! How can any other vehicle beat that? Whats more, only need two person to haul 400 cars meaning only two man hour wage... Verses 18 wheelers

It would take 200 tractors and 200 drivers to haul entire train loads, and the best mpg for 18 wheelers are 30mpg... which transform them into... how many gallons per mile for all together? divide that by 200, that would translate into 6.6 gallons per mile (That is the best you can get, but in reality average 18 wheelers gets 15mpg and that would mean 13 gallons per mile) PLUS 200 man hour wage thus costing $$$$ plus wear and tear on our tax paid highways.

So even 2 gallons per miles for train is alot cheaper than mpg for 18 wheelers.

sequoias said:
not 1.5 mpg...its 1.5 gallons per mile not miles per gallon. that's even worse!
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
In America, the land is so huge, meaning requires bigger infrastructure which could easily exceeding the cost of Billions of dollars.

Speaking of ROI = Return On Investment, if we go ahead in America, it probably will take more than hundreds of years to get that investment back, and the infrastructure don't last forever.

That is why it is almost impossible to set up good infrastructure on high speed railroads up here than at other countries. On other hand, would you be willing to throw huge sum of money away and not see it come back again? I am sure the answer would be NOBODY.

I personally *DO* support railroads, but when it comes to ROI, I see it completely differently.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree! For example, in California is planning for high speed rail system which would cost $10 billion for a start up plan. The extensions would cost additional few billion dollars with a build out cost of maybe $20-30 billion and that will take a LONG time to pay it off if they did that all at once, so it's best to start with a first leg until they get revenues from the passengers, you know?

Something not related to high speed rail....Seattle light rail would be paid off by around 2030-2040 on the first segment that is completed basically and will be opening in July 3, 2009. It cost us about $2.4 billion for 15.9 miles due to the geography we have.
 
diehardbiker said:
That is cheap! I know it sounded expensive but if you translate into mathematics, it is D I R T Y cheap!

Say, if the mileage are 2 gallons per mile, that would translate into half MPG. So in other word two cars together gets one MPG.

And if these train pull 400 cars, divide that by two to get average MPG per car.

That would translate into 200MPG for each car! How can any other vehicle beat that? Whats more, only need two person to haul 400 cars meaning only two man hour wage... Verses 18 wheelers

It would take 200 tractors and 200 drivers to haul entire train loads, and the best mpg for 18 wheelers are 30mpg... which transform them into... how many gallons per mile for all together? divide that by 200, that would translate into 6.6 gallons per mile (That is the best you can get, but in reality average 18 wheelers gets 15mpg and that would mean 13 gallons per mile) PLUS 200 man hour wage thus costing $$$$ plus wear and tear on our tax paid highways.

So even 2 gallons per miles for train is alot cheaper than mpg for 18 wheelers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware that freight trains are MUCH more efficent than semi trucks with tons of trailers which isn't any cheaper due to cost of repairing roads that trucks caused and all the fuel in each semi trucks! 200 semi trucks times 300 gallons of fuel which is around 60,000 gallons of fuel burned while a 2 or 3 locomotives producing around 10,000 hp would be less than 7,500 gallons to burn pulling 100-120 cars carrying 2 containers which is like 200+ containers in one run for up to 1,000 miles or so.
 
I remember five years ago, we drove thru many states especially in southern states. There were awful many big commercial trucks on the highways. I didn't like it because of the many accidents. I think that it is the easy way for the companies to use the trains instead of trucks. It is probably expensive, but everything is already expensive. I am not sure if it is related in the commercial-truck business for high speed rail subject.
 
There are some high speed freight trains...so it can be related. :) They have high speed trains carrying letters between UK and France called La poste. It's a yellow TGV Altantique, they have about 2.5 TGV locomotives in their fleet.

Here's the video of it whizzing by...along with TGV duplex passenger train passing by on the other track.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr5TnLyy9Y8[/ame]
 
AFP: France's SNCF hopes to run high speed rail in US

France's SNCF hopes to run high speed rail in US
3 days ago
MERRILLVILLE, Indiana (AFP) — The United States is ready for a truly high-speed rail system and France's national railway SNCF would be "very interested" in operating a network, a senior executive said Thursday.
"We strongly believe that in this country, in some of the corridors, the system should logically be profitable," SNCF International chairman Jean-Pierre Loubinoux said in an interview on the sidelines of a rail conference in Indiana.
While detailed market analysis still needs to be undertaken, Loubinoux said the French experience has shown that high-speed rail operates most effectively between large cities that are around 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers (600 to 930 miles) apart.
These conditions exist in the east coast, California, the midwest, Texas and Florida.
"You could have more than just a corridor. You could have a system," he told AFP.
"If the possibility (of operating a network) is open we certainly would consider it with great interest."
The US government has allocated eight billion dollars for high-speed rail as part of a massive economic stimulus package and a number of states are competing for the money.
The bulk of the states are expected to propose incremental improvements to their rail systems by improving existing tracks in order to increase speeds from a maximum of 79 miles per hour to 110 or 150 miles per hour (127 kilometers per hour to 177 or 241 kilometers per hour.)
Loubinoux said the nation would be better off investing in a new, dedicated system with speeds of up to 217 miles (350 kilometers) per hour.
There is "a lot of business potential to be considered," Loubinoux said, adding that the structure of the bidding process remains to be determined.
"Will it be just a build and transfer of technology, will it be maintenance and operation... commercial contracts, operating possibilities," he said.
"Definitely in some cases, especially in high-speed corridors... we could envisage participating in some operation systems."
The SNCF, which developed France's famed TGV series of high-speed trains in the 1970s, plans to submit proposals to the US railway authority, which expressed interest last fall in improving service in 11 rail corridors.
"What we can bring is our experience. It's been more than 25 years since we developed high-speed rail services."
Loubinoux is hopeful that the United States, which has long lagged in developing its passenger rail system, now has the political will to launch the massive investment needed.
"The economic and financial crisis worldwide seems to be a sort of catalyst to big, nationwide infrastructure programs," he added.
 
When will it be ready for high speed freight trains in the U.S.A.? It would be so fun and save a lot of our time. Government, hurry up - the congress people are eating our money without our permissions especially wasted a lot of money on made in China products. F-k China.
 
webexplorer said:
When will it be ready for high speed freight trains in the U.S.A.? It would be so fun and save a lot of our time. Government, hurry up - the congress people are eating our money without our permissions especially wasted a lot of money on made in China products. F-k China.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to the question about high speed freight in the US. Altho, there are 110 mph rail lines in some parts of Northeast, but freight train locomotives pulling hundred of cars cannot go that fast so passenger trains do.
 
MInnesota will have high speed rail service between Minneapolis and Superior/Duluth with stop at Coon Rapids, Cambridge and Hinckley, Mn. It's called Northern Lights Express - NXL.

I hopefully they will construct the new NXL Transit Station in Hinckley, MN, new shuttle bus between Grand Casino and NXL Transit Station (Rail and bus). or NXL Grand Casino Station right by the casino.

In Minneapolis, they're under constructing new Target Field Ballpark Transit Station (Bus/Light Rail/Northstar and NXL), Northstar would start service in later this year for Minneapolis and Big Lake with stop at Fridley, Coon Rapids, Anoka and Elk River.
 
Back
Top