High-Speed Rail

High-speed rail creates real jobs

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:31:29 -0500

Orlando Sentinel
Home > Your Local News > Opinion
3/2: Letters to the Editor
High-speed rail brings mobility, jobs to Florida
March 2, 2010
In these times of chronic unemployment, clogged highways and skyways, transportation choice has never been more important to Orlando residents. Despite the ongoing economic downturn, traffic levels will continue to rise on Florida's interstate highways.

High-speed rail has the potential to offer unprecedented mobility to its passengers. Interconnected rail systems can carry more passengers between cities than passenger cars or airplanes at a fraction of energy costs. In addition, rail is not subject to as many external delays as travel in airplanes or congested highways. Properly designed high-speed-rail stations will connect to commuter-rail stations, bicycle paths, bus stops and existing automobile parking.

In addition to mobility, high-speed rail creates long-term employment prospects for Floridians stung by the highest unemployment rate since the 1930s. The types of jobs created by a high-speed-rail system will include engineering and architect positions, planning, construction, support and maintenance positions. People are needed to build and maintain the railway tracks, the signal and switching systems, the stations and the rail cars. Customer-service personnel will be employed to sell tickets and provide assistance to customers. Train operator, conductor and scheduling positions will also be created. Transit-oriented development will occur around the high-speed-rail stations, generating new businesses on the route.

The Orlando to Tampa and Miami routes are among the first routes scheduled to be completed, according to the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. Supporting the association would certainly help the regional economy as well as expand mobility for Floridians.

Henry B. Stowe Sanford

Fast trains in USA

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:31:58 -0500

Fast or Superfast?  How rules and money limit speed.
Not all of the projects currently proposed are what many people think of as bullet trains. Turns out that while those 150-plus-mph rockets are insanely fast on the tracks, they’re slow to get off the ground. The first obstacle is regulatory: Federal rules demand environmental assessments, which require years of study and fieldwork by consultants, biologists, engineers, and planners. The second snag is cost: Superfast (or “express high-speed rail”) systems need new, exclusive lines, which are extremely expensive. That explains “emerging high-speed rail” projects, incremental improvements — new stations, bridges, and rolling stock — to existing infrastructure. These, like the Amtrak Acela Express in the Northeast, won’t have a dedicated right-of-way but will share tracks with freight and passenger trains and top out at around 110 mph.
The Bullet Decade  Can we have fast trains in 10 years? Yes we can.
The US hopes to have high-speed lines operational within the next decade. Sound impossible? It’s not. Other nations have shown the way. In 1990, Spain’s rail network was in even worse shape than America’s: Trains were slow and equipment dilapidated. Then the government made a commitment to modernize. Spain now has one of the most extensive high-speed systems in the world. Likewise, Taiwan built its entire infrastructure in just the past 10 years — despite a population density greater than that of the northeastern US. All it takes is planning: According to the island nation’s head of infrastructure construction, by threading the 60-foot-wide corridor carefully through the landscape, the builders had to knock down only about 1,000 homes over 214 miles. Finally, China plans to pour a staggering $300 billion into dedicated high-speed-rail corridors by 2020. Almost all of the first 60 trains will be manufactured in China under a technology-transfer agreement with bullet builder Siemens. In essence, Beijing intends to slash its costs by cloning the Siemens Velaro train, which could provide a model for a cheaper high-speed rollout in the US.
Proposed by infrastructure-planning think tank America 2050
Rail or Fail  The alternatives would cost more.
Getting California’s train up and running will be expensive. But doing nothing would cost two to three times more. Why? Currently, gridlocked lanes waste $20 billion in fuel and productivity annually. And it’s only going to get worse. The Golden State is growing — quickly. By 2030, another 12 million people could be calling it home. Without an infrastructure overhaul, drivers can expect a 10 percent congestion increase every year. To accommodate the billion trips between cities that residents and visitors will make annually, the state would need to build 3,000 more miles of freeway lanes, five more commercial airport runways, and 90 more airline departure gates. The price: at least $100 billion. Oh, and all that construction wouldn’t alleviate traffic; it would simply keep pace with it.
Speed Trials  San Francisco to L.A. in 2 hours, 40 minutes. Or else.
California’s bullet train system will need a steady flow of riders — lots of riders — to pay off. But studies show that when transportation times between major hubs exceed three hours, many travelers opt for planes. To address this dilemma, California’s high-speed-rail planners specify that trains must travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles in no more than two hours, 40 minutes, a feat that requires sustained intervals at 220 mph. The problem: Standard bullet trains don’t go that fast — yet. The state is gambling that technology will improve before it completes the planning process and starts laying track. Luckily, the tech doesn’t need to improve much: France’s new TGV already hits 200 mph, and Spain’s Alta Velocidad Española carries passengers at around 217 mph. Of course, the deadline also puts planners in a bind: Every route change that adds miles means the train needs to go that much faster. So be it. The target is necessary to ensure a fast ride and plentiful ridership.

World’s fastest high-speed rail

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:31:31 -0500

China Unveils the World’s Fastest High Speed Train
by Bridgette Meinhold, 12/28/09

China is speeding towards the future of public transportation with the launch of the fastest high-speed train on the planet! Averaging 217 mph (350 km/h), the new train is faster than a speeding bullet train, and will link Wuhan in central China to Guangzhou in the south, covering a total distance of 663 miles (1,068 km). The new rail service will cut the travel time between the cities from over 6 hours down to 2 hours and 45 minutes. Note to the US: we need one of these.
China’s new rail service travels through 20 cities along its route, connecting central China and less developed regions to the larger and more industrial Pearl River Delhi. Seimens, Bombardier and Alstom worked together to design and build this feat of modern transportation, which topped out at a whopping 245mph (394km/h) during trial runs earlier in December. The average speed will be 217 mph (350 km/h), which is much faster than the other high-speed trains around the world. Japan’s high-speed rail runs at an average of 243 km per hour, Germany’s at 232 km per hour, and France’s at 277 km per hour.
China has released a massive rail development program, which will expand the high-speed rail service to 42 more high-speed lines by 2012. The government hopes that the rail lines will help spur economic growth, especially in less developed areas. While increased development isn’t quite our taste, we certainly support low carbon transportation like rail service, especially if it goes that fast. Imagine if the US had a high speed train like China’s – a trip from New York City to Chicago would take a little over 3 1/2 hours without all the hassle of flying and airports.
The Times of India via Gizmodo
Lead photo by Benjamin Lowy

 High-Speed Javelin Trains Arrive in the UK This week the UK joined the ranks of many other European countries as it unveiled its first domestic high-speed rail service. The 140 mph Japanese-built
 220MPH Solar-Powered Bullet Train on Arizona Horizon Travelers going from Tucson to Phoenix may soon be blazing across the desert in speeding solar bullet trains propelled by the sun’s rays. Hot on
 Obama Unveils High-Speed Railway Plan Today President Barack Obama announced a “long overdue” plan to develop high speed rail lines in the US. Obama and his administration have identified

3 Responses to “China Unveils the World’s Fastest High Speed Train”

Androo Says:

December 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
While it is better than short haul air travel, at those speeds, it’s not that much better. More speed means more power, since drag force is an exponential function. Unfortunately there’s no such thing as a free lunch…

Kirsten Corsaro Says:

December 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Very cool! How is it powered?

Korben Dallas Says:

December 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Drag force is not an exponential function. Drag force is a quadratic function. Moreover, the drag is quadratic only when it is overwhelmingly dominated by the turbulent airflow, with negligible laminar component. It real life, the drag force is a mix of a linear (laminar) and quadratic (turbulent) components. A train is naturally a very efficient aerodynamic shape, which means that the linear component of the drag is still considerable.

NHHS high-speed rail?

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:18:36 -0500

PASSENGER RAIL
The Hartford Courant, December 28, 2009
Connecticut Gears Up To Lobby Washington For Railroad Seed Money
By DON STACOM
HARTFORD — - When the Federal Railroad Administration doles out high-speed rail grants this winter, it will be sending plenty of rejection letters, too.

The agency has $8 billion in seed money for new high-speed passenger rail lines, but after that, the math gets ugly. Twenty-four states are battling for a piece of its bankroll, and their requests add up to $57 billion.

Will Connecticut be one of the states receiving a "sorry, but ..." notice?

State lawmakers and congressional leaders say they'll spend the next several weeks lobbying the railroad administration for a $64 million down payment on the proposed Springfield-to- New Haven line, and Gov. M. Jodi Rell is scheduling a special State Bond Commission meeting for early January to bolster the state's case. Despite a huge budget deficit, Rell and the Democratic-controlled General Assembly will scramble to approve $26 million in borrowing.

"We're committed to this," Rell said on Christmas Eve. "We want to get that done as soon as possible."

Rail authorities acknowledge, though, that Connecticut's answer might hinge on factors outside its control — shortcomings in other states' plans.

For instance, California, the long-acknowledged front-runner in the competition, last week admitted that its 220-mph bullet train would cost $43 billion to build, $9 billion more than it was estimating as recently as November. The Los Angeles-to- San Francisco ticket that sounded like a bargain at $68 is now projected to cost $105 — and the system is still 10 years from opening.

Earlier this month, Minnesota conceded that the bill for a Minneapolis-to-Duluth line could total $1 billion. Just two years ago, advocates said that it would be under $400 million.

On the other hand, Florida's state government this month broke a long political deadlock that had threatened to kill its chances in the competition. The state pumped more than $100 million into a commuter rail project to demonstrate to the railroad agency that it's serious about building a Tampa-to-Orlando high-speed line; it's requesting more than $2 billion in federal grants.

The Race For Cash
When President Barack Obama announced his national rail initiative in April, the plan was to divvy up the $8 billion of stimulus money by early fall between a few of the 10 high-density corridors where the railroad agency calculated that fast intercity train service could best succeed.

But the agency didn't get more manpower to manage its windfall and hasn't kept pace with the flood of requests. Some states far from those 10 identified corridors — such as Utah, Arizona and Nevada — got into the competition. The FRA had to postpone its decisions, and it now says it will distribute grants in midwinter.

For Connecticut, that delay is welcome. State transportation officials thought that the 62-mile Springfield-to-New Haven line already met the agency's requirements for environmental and engineering studies, but learned otherwise after submitting an $880 million "pre-application."

That plan — reached in conjunction with Amtrak, which owns the rail bed — was to double track the line, rebuild the viaduct at Hartford's Union Station and the Connecticut River bridge in Enfield, add modern signals, improve grade crossings and install overhead electric lines to propel trains up to 110 mph.

That's still the goal, but the state Department of Transportation's strategy now is focused on doing environmental reviews that will satisfy the railroad agency as well as the Federal Transportation Administration, which might pay part of the costs. Connecticut isn't ready to apply for the full $880 million now; instead, the plan is to fast-track the engineering and environmental studies to be ready for a second round of grants.

Addressing a General Assembly committee last month, Transportation Commissioner Joseph Marie said, "The expectation is that on this first round of applications, the federal government will allocate in the $1.5 [billion] to $2 billion range. We're hoping to have a stab at what remains of that."

The $64 million that Connecticut is seeking now — and the $26 million in state borrowing — would mostly be used to restore a second set of tracks on a 10-mile stretch south of Hartford. Amtrak tore up those tracks as a money-saving measure more than 15 years ago. The grant would also pay for engineering work to prepare the rest of the corridor for double tracking. Most important, it would give Connecticut initial federal funding — and a better chance for a share of the $1 billion or more a year in follow-up funding that Obama plans over the next five years.

Marie acknowledged that getting the second set of tracks would benefit Connecticut regardless of whether high-speed trains ever run on the line. State leaders have wanted to establish moderate-speed commuter service — similar to Metro-North on the shoreline — between New Haven and Springfield, and any improvements paid for through the FRA's high-speed grants would help that initiative, too.

"There's a win for the commuter side based on the high-speed funding," DOT Bureau Chief James Redeker told the committee.

The DOT says that commuter rail service would need funding by the state, Amtrak, the federal railroad and transportation administrations and possibly Massachusetts. Many state political and business leaders are more interested in establishing commuter service than the high-speed system, especially because commuter trains could bring economic development to communities along the line — such as Enfield, Windsor, Meriden and Wallingford — with stations. High-speed, inter-city Amtrak trains wouldn't stop there, but the much more frequent, lower-speed commuter trains would.

State Rep. David McCluskey, D- West Hartford, is eager to see work start — ideally for both commuter and high-speed service.

"With this economy, we've got to get some jobs going," McCluskey said last week.

"It's not just the anti-gridlock aspect," state Rep. Tom Kehoe, D- Glastonbury, said at the November committee meeting. "Regular, reliable commuter service ... would encourage employers to locate downtown so people could get here and not worry about parking."

At the same time, prospects might be fading for a mega-network of high-speed trains linking Boston, New York, Albany and Montreal. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said earlier this year that such a system would be an economic powerhouse for New England — and especially for Hartford.

But while other sections of the country assembled detailed and highly coordinated regional proposals to show Washington, New England lagged.

At a meeting with a senior federal railroad administrator in Vermont, transportation commissioners from the six states put forward plans that often had little to do with each other.

And a provincial leader from Quebec indicated that Montreal hadn't been consulted yet.

Since then, New Hampshire's legislators got into a bitter dispute with the company that owns part of the proposed high-speed route through their state.

As a result, the state didn't apply for FRA funding — and the Boston-to-Montreal link was, at least for now, lost.

Marie has said that the big-picture plan is important.

"When we talk about the Springfield-New Haven line, we're not just talking about connecting Hartford to New Haven and Hartford to Springfield but connecting to the rest of New England and connecting Hartford to Washington, D.C.," Marie told legislators in November. "Having a one-seat ride from Hartford to Washington in four hours would be a very attractive mobility option for people."
Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant

High-speed rail: Track speeds defined

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:35:39 -0500

Operating Speed Limits by Class of Track
49 CFR 213.9 and 213.307

Sec. 213.9 Classes of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and
Secs. 213.57(b), 213.59(a), 213.113(a), and 213.137(b) and (c), the
following maximum allowable operating speeds apply--
[In miles per hour]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum The maximum
Over track that meets all of the allowable allowable
requirements prescribed in this operating speed operating speed
part for-- for freight for passenger
trains is-- trains is--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excepted track.................... 10 N/A
Class 1 track..................... 10 15
Class 2 track..................... 25 30
Class 3 track..................... 40 60
Class 4 track..................... 60 80
Class 5 track..................... 80 90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 213.307 Class of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and
Secs. 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345(c), the following maximum
allowable operating speeds apply:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over track that meets all of the The maximum allowable
requirements prescribed in this subpart operating speed for trains
for-- is--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track............................ 110 m.p.h.
Class 7 track............................ 125 m.p.h.
Class 8 track............................ 160 m.p.h.
Class 9 track............................ 200 m.p.h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of FRA Excepted Track
Sec. 213.4 Excepted track.

A track owner may designate a segment of track as excepted track
provided that--
(a) The segment is identified in the timetable, special
instructions, general order, or other appropriate records which are
available for inspection during regular business hours;
(b) The identified segment is not located within 30 feet of an
adjacent track which can be subjected to simultaneous use at speeds in
excess of 10 miles per hour;
(c) The identified segment is inspected in accordance with
213.233(c) and 213.235 at the frequency specified for Class 1 track;
(d) The identified segment of track is not located on a bridge
including the track approaching the bridge for 100 feet on either side,
or located on a public street or highway, if railroad cars containing
commodities required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (49 CFR part 172), are moved over the track; and
(e) The railroad conducts operations on the identified segment under
the following conditions:
(1) No train shall be operated at speeds in excess of 10 miles per
hour;
(2) No occupied passenger train shall be operated;
(3) No freight train shall be operated that contains more than five
cars required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49
CFR part 172); and
(4) The gage on excepted track shall not be more than 4 feet 10 1/4
inches. This paragraph (e)(4) is applicable September 21, 1999.
(f) A track owner shall advise the appropriate FRA Regional Office
at least 10 days prior to removal of a segment of track from excepted
status.

Track Gauge Limits by Class of Track

49 CFR 213.53 and 213.323
Sec. 213.53 Gage.

(a) Gage is measured between the heads of the rails at right-angles
to the rails in a plane five-eighths of an inch below the top of the
rail head.
(b) Gage shall be within the limits prescribed in the following
table--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track The gage must be at least-- But not more than--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excepted track.......................... N/A............................ 4'10 1/4".
Class 1 track........................... 4'8"........................... 4'10".....
Class 2 and 3 track..................... 4'8"........................... 4'9 3/4"..
Class 4 and 5 track..................... 4'8"........................... 4'9 1/2"..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 213.323 Track gage.

(a) Gage is measured between the heads of the rails at right-angles
to the rails in a plane five-eighths of an inch below the top of the
rail head.
(b) Gage shall be within the limits prescribed in the following
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
change
of gage
within
Class of track The gage must But not more 31 feet
be at least-- than-- must
not be
greater
than--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6............................ 4'8"........... 4'9 1/4"..... 1/2"
7............................ 4'8"........... 4'9 1/4"..... 1/2"
8............................ 4'8"........... 4'9 1/4"..... 1/2"
9............................ 4'8 1/4"....... 4'9 1/4"..... 1/2"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Signal Related Speed Limits
In simple words:
No signals 49 mph Freight 59 mph Passenger
Block signals or TCS 79 mph Freight or Passenger
Automatic Train Stop 80 mph or more as determined by
characteristics of signal system
---------------------------------------------------
In the words of Code of Federal Regulations:

49 CFR 236.0
Sec 236.0

(c) Where a passenger train is operated at a speed of 60 or more
miles per hour, or a freight train is operated at a speed of 50 or more
miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of
this part shall be installed or a manual block system shall be placed
permanently in effect which shall conform to the following conditions:
(1) A passenger train shall not be admitted to a block occupied by
another train except under flag protection;
(2) No train shall be admitted to a block occupied by a passenger
train except under flag protection;
(3) No train shall be admitted to a block occupied by an opposing
train except under flag protection; and
(4) A freight train, including a work train, may be authorized to
follow a freight train, including a work train, into a block but the
following train must proceed prepared to stop within one-half the range
of vision but not exceeding 20 miles per hour.
(d) Where any train is operated at a speed of 80 or more miles per
hour, an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train
control system complying with the provisions of this part shall be
installed.

source: http://tacnet.missouri.org/history/railroads/fra.html