Amtrak: Empire Builder and Borealis (TCMC)

[trkaiser]

Thank you for sharing - that is an excellent read.

[VacantLuxuries]

I don't know if I necessarily agree that the only worthwhile thing Amtrak can do is to put everything into Acela.

Not that Acela shouldn't be a true high speed corridor by now. But when they specifically put aside money for that corridor, Amtrak and the local transit orgs made a laundry list of small fixes that all totaled $101 billion... all to improve speeds by 30 min on the DC-NYC leg of the route.

Granted, the tunnels under New York might not flood and bridges might get rebuilt, but for all the complaining done about California's train misadventures, $101 billion would get them a 200mph train at this point. The $101 billion for DC-NYC will not create a 200mph train. And the proposed North Atlantic High Speed Rail project, which would connect NYC to Boston with new HSR track, is estimated to be nearly the same amount of money at 0% engineering. So after more than $200 billion, at some unknown point in the 2040s, we could have a train that can go 150mph from DC to Boston. No new markets added, no new connecting trains. Just the same thing we already have, traveling at a somewhat more consistent speed. And this is done at the expense of medium speed rail projects across the nation.

I can't get over that. The NEC needs investment and should be a true HSR at this point, but it can't keep coming out of the same finite amount of money that goes to all US rail projects.

I do agree with part of the author's conclusion: "We need something much smaller and more focused but much better in terms of the actual quality of the transportation service offered"... and I think that's what the DOT's Corridor Program mentioned in the All Aboard Minnesota report is. Identify places where trains could be run/restored that could build smaller legs of the nationwide network so that the long distance trains connect to something.

[Trademark]

Let's not pretend too that medium speed rail in the upper Midwest is still not a significant investment and improvement to what we have. I'd be overjoyed with 110 mph tracks to KC, Sioux City and Fargo. With 125 to Chicago. That makes a huge impact in the drive share between those cities in in the case of Chicago will take a bite out of the flight market.

This is achievable but once you get beyond 125 you need full grade separation and that raises costs exponentially and it is hard to justify that in both the political climate of today and even comparing these markets and distances to Europe.

Until we allow speeds up to 150 without requiring grade separation. True High speed rail only makes sense for the most flat and straight routes in interstate medians like Omaha to Denver. Or in corridors that are much bigger and more dense then ours.

[VacantLuxuries]

For all the drooling over European and Japanese high speed systems, it's worth remembering that those HSR trains are supported by healthy networks of lower and medium speed trains that built a culture of rail travel for decades before HSR corridors began to emerge.

[Trademark]

For all the drooling over European and Japanese high speed systems, it's worth remembering that those HSR trains are supported by healthy networks of lower and medium speed trains that built a culture of rail travel for decades before HSR corridors began to emerge.

That part! I still support hsr projects. But recognize that ziprail was never going to happen. And if it was proposed as medium speed rail it probably had a much higher chance of succeeding.

[grant1simons2]

Or if its investors weren't dark money frauds, but let's brush past that part. We aren't truly starting from scratch, we've done this before. 110 mph would be fine. Definitely nothing less than that for a loooong range train. The healthy network of lower medium speed trains are only really there due to the massive density of cities and towns. We have one big dense city, then 100s of miles of open land, then another big dense city. Less stations, less grade crossings, hypothetically, without the construction corruption we have, it should be cheaper and easier to build.

[Silophant]

In the specific case of Ziprail, I'd say it would have been less likely to happen as medium speed rail, not more likely. Unlike the other proposals to use existing freight corridors, that was going to build a new intercity rail alignment, something that hasn't been done in this country since, what, the fifties? Earlier? The only other projects doing that are the CA and TX HSR projects. If it's worth doing at all, it's worth doing to HSR standards.

[Nick]

The Ziprail thing was very funny.

[Tom H.]

For all the drooling over European and Japanese high speed systems, it's worth remembering that those HSR trains are supported by healthy networks of lower and medium speed trains that built a culture of rail travel for decades before HSR corridors began to emerge.

My brother lived in rural Japan for a year, and our family went to visit him. It was absolutely fascinating to take the full-blown Shinkansen bullet train from Tokyo to Sendai, then transfer to a local S-bahn-type train to a medium-sized town, and finally completing our trip on a rickety old low-speed train to our final destination (population ~5k). The combination of high-intensity urban transit in the large cities, plus high-coverage low-speed trains to every rural corner of the country, is absolutely vital to the rail travel culture in Japan.

It's really very similar, schematically, to the type of road network that supports car-travel culture in the US. The real question is how to build rail infrastructure in a way that promotes a rail-travel mindset in the US. Is it high-intensity urban transit first? HSR between major cities? A robust low-speed network connecting every town / city of a certain size? All at once? It feels like a chicken-or-the-egg problem.

[grant1simons2]

The Ziprail thing was very funny.

I saved the video from their site years ago and archived it onto Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2EavlGaMiE

[grant1simons2]

I thought this made a lot of sense:

https://www.slowboring.com/p/amtrak-sho ... good-train

Counter-video response from a really well respected train nerd, Alan Fisher. Kinda connects both sides here,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_oyZ8DIDMU&t=29s

[Trademark]

In the specific case of Ziprail, I'd say it would have been less likely to happen as medium speed rail, not more likely. Unlike the other proposals to use existing freight corridors, that was going to build a new intercity rail alignment, something that hasn't been done in this country since, what, the fifties? Earlier? The only other projects doing that are the CA and TX HSR projects. If it's worth doing at all, it's worth doing to HSR standards.

First, with Zip Rail during the Alternatives Analysis multiple routes were studied half of them were using freight right of way, and half of them would have been close to but not on the US-52 median. This is probably what tanked Ziprail from being a reality. A main part of the plan to make it feasible was to ensure that there was no right of way costs and using the highway median would make that a possibility. The problem is that highway medians often have curves and elevations that high speed trains can't take. Designing a road with a curve that a car can take at 60 is very different then a curve a train can take at 150+. Looking at the pictures I've attached, you can see from Hampton to Pine Island and also from Oronoco to Rochester they would have to acquire new Right of way for it's tracks. This would start a ton of fights regarding eminent domain resulting in legal challenges, and billions more added onto the project. Not to mention you wouldn't have the benefit of utilizing an already grade separated freeway corridor so you would have a ton more costs with grade separating smaller roads.

As far as the freight railroad it would also have the same issue as far as bridges over smaller roads and additional right of way acquisition that you wouldn't get if you were running up to 110 or 125 with just upgrading the tracks and adding some sidings.

If the scope of the project was 110 or 125, maybe you could have been able to use US-52's median for more distance? Or the freight railroad would have been a realistic option. But no, it was high speed rail or nothing. And we've been left with nothing.

As far as not building new intercity alignments in this country (Which for one we wouldn't have to if we used the freight rail alignment). Brightline East is doing this right now in Florida where they are building 170 miles of new track going to Orlando traveling up to 125 mph. It isn't able to be true high speed because it is staying within or near to the highway right of way for a large period of time and it's not a straight right of way. But 125 is still impressive, and it is a successful strategy for building medium speed rail that is competitive with driving.

On the other end of the spectrum is what they do soon with Brightline West. Over there they will build up to 225 mph in the I-15 Right of way, but that is more realistic because the desert is flatter, and there aren't a ton of curves on I-15 and what curves they do have are gentle. Plus Vegas-LA is a much bigger market then Rochester-Mpls ever will be.

[alexschief]

I've always felt that the Twin Cities to Rochester boosters have suffered from a bit of tunnel vision. This city pair makes sense a lot more sense as part of a longer route. That could mean a locally focused route serving Rosemount (26.6k), Farmington (23.5k), Northfield (20.7k), Faribault (24.4k), and Owatonna (26.4k), a string of small cities with intact downtown cores right near the existing freight ROW. Or it could mean a regional route, where the bulk of Amtrak service is shifted inland from the current winding river route. Both of these options strike me as more appropriate than just an A-B proposal that's not connected to anything else.

[VacantLuxuries]

I could see an S-Bahn style route, as either a future extension of NLX or one of the other wishlist projects to the west. Might as well keep the train sets rolling, and what better way to add utility to any train line than to provide a direct link to Mayo.

[grant1simons2]

I really enjoyed this dude in Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Express_Germany

[Trademark]

I've always felt that the Twin Cities to Rochester boosters have suffered from a bit of tunnel vision. This city pair makes sense a lot more sense as part of a longer route. That could mean a locally focused route serving Rosemount (26.6k), Farmington (23.5k), Northfield (20.7k), Faribault (24.4k), and Owatonna (26.4k), a string of small cities with intact downtown cores right near the existing freight ROW. Or it could mean a regional route, where the bulk of Amtrak service is shifted inland from the current winding river route. Both of these options strike me as more appropriate than just an A-B proposal that's not connected to anything else.

I think converting the existing Amtrak route inland makes sense as a medium speed rail route. And keeping the current route as a low speed service.

[Hero]

I thought this made a lot of sense:

https://www.slowboring.com/p/amtrak-sho ... good-train

Counter-video response from a really well respected train nerd, Alan Fisher. Kinda connects both sides here,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_oyZ8DIDMU&t=29s

Alan Fisher has me thinking nationalising the railroad lines is a good idea. Something I hadn't thought about until I watched one of his videos a while back.

[VacantLuxuries]

Alan Fisher has me thinking nationalising the railroad lines is a good idea. Something I hadn't thought about until I watched one of his videos a while back.

It is an unquestionably good idea for everyone except the people profiting from the private system.

- We the people handed these companies an impossible-to-calculate amount of free money and land in the first place and it would be nice to have that investment repatriated
- Passenger rail would no longer be dependent on the whims of unaccountable companies
- There'd actually be inspection standards for railroad infrastructure instead of self-regulation
- We could start electrifying routes without pushback
- There's a national security case to be made for well maintained public infrastructure versus a hodgepodge of monopolies.

And we'd still have the best freight network in the world, contrary to the free market complaint about this line of thought. The freight companies would just lease the use of the track instead of Amtrak. It would be a new experience to our dinosaur freight companies, but most of our oil and gas industry is dependent on leasing public land for drilling so it's not unprecedented. It's also possible to imagine a scenario where leasing negotiations hinge on the freight companies actually treating their workers like human beings.

But it's entirely a fantasy here since we don't have a political party in the US who believes in this with any chance of winning the political power to do it. We had a nice three years thanks to WWI between 1917-1920, but the railroads were too powerful back then and we let them have it all back.

[Bakken2016]

So I posted on Brightline’s Orlando video this morning, and got this reply.

If they are seriously considering it, that would be a game changer!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grant1simons2]

Seems like pure marketing bait.