4 ms·

This is something the midwest desperately needs. Unfortunately, we tried high speed trains during the stimulus, but the GOP governors of Wisconsin and Indiana d

This is something the midwest desperately needs. Unfortunately, we tried high speed trains during the stimulus, but the GOP governors of Wisconsin and Indiana didn't want to play ball with Obama's policies. Imagine a fast line or a hyperloop between Chicago > Des Moines/Indianapolis/Madison/Cleveland/Memphis, etc. We've got the flat land, maybe the money, but we don't have the political will. On a more positive note, the 300 mile Chicago > Columbus line is funded and happening: http://thelantern.com/2014/10/plans-for-train-connecting-columbus-and-chicago-chug-forward/ http://thelantern.com/2014/10/plans-for-train-connecting-col... >The high-speed train would make the Chicago-to-Columbus travel time three hours and 45 minutes, compared to an almost six-hour drive. Not bad. No hyperloop, but if this is the begining of high-speed rail in America, it will be a game changer. Shame guys like Musk can't figure out ways to make traditional high-speed rail cheaper. I suspect that's just too unsexy of a problem for him.

tptacek 12y ago
That 3:45 travel time seems pretty unlikely. According to the feasibility study, it's based on the idea that trains with a 130MPH maximum speed will run at an average of 110MPH. The Acela Express maxes out at 150MPH, but averages only ~80MPH --- and that doesn't factor in service outages and other transient delays, which are common. An HSR line between Chicago and Columbus would probably in the best case be competitive with driving. Which is itself an achievement, one supposes, given how much worse trains are than driving currently.
- fragmede 12y ago
  The Acela shares track with commuter and freight trains, as well as running on regular tracks, as opposed to tracks designed for HSR which is why it averages only a paltry 80 MPH. In comparison, the TGV in France averages 157 MPH (its top speed is 357 MPH), and Japanese bullet trains average somewhere in the neighborhood of 162 MPH. The 'thelantern' link provided above doesn't go into detail if the plan involves laying all-new tracks to properly support HSR, or if existing tracks to be re-used. Even then, parity with driving is an achievement. Drivers in traffic have this annoying habit of texting or worse while driving, even when illegal. I can put up with sitting next to someone texting on the train since they're not doing so while weaving in and out of traffic.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I looked this up a week ago on another thread and the numbers I got for average trip speed were lower: Paris-Lyon 140MPH, and Japan in the 140s-150s as well. The Columbus-Chicago route would involve upgrading existing tracks; the route times they're providing can safely be assumed to be best-case scenarios.
    - fragmede 12y ago
      I only did a little bit of research, and the average speed was hard to find, with most official sources preferring to concentrate on highest speed achieved. I'm willing to accept your numbers, but I am curious as to your sources. It's a moot point to me though, as high speed rail, at 140 MPH or 150 MPH or even only 100 MPH will not come to California any time soon, and even then, it's not likely to positively affect the commute up and down the SF peninsula.
logfromblammo 12y ago
You don't need guys like Musk. Here's how to make high-speed rail cheaper: - Remove or upgrade all level crossings. - Allow passenger trains to have priority over freight trains. That's it. It's literally just two things. You don't need elevated tracks or magnetic levitation or airtight tubes. You just need to be able to accelerate the train to its maximum speed and not have to slow down until it reaches its destination. Currently, Amtrak travel sucks due to the fact that when you board the train, no one can guarantee when or where you will be able to get off. Every passenger route passes over tracks owned by a railway company that makes far more money on moving coal or cattle than on people. And the freight trains may not have a regular schedule. So every time a passenger train leaves a station, it might be stuck on a siding for hours in the middle of nowhere, waiting for higher-priority freight to pass. And all those tracks cross automobile roads, where an unnervingly large fraction of the level crossings don't even have warning signals. The trains still have to slow down for them, even if there are no cars in a 100-km radius, because at high speed, colliding with a smaller object, like a deer or cow, could cause a derailment. There are no technical problems. They are all political and financial. As such, guys like Musk can't really help. He could spend his entire fortune and talk until his vocal cords snap, and still never make a dent. It's not just unsexy, but soul-crushing.
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  There's at least two caveats to those completely reasonable points: freight also is terrible, and cities build around trains. I won't touch the freight one, other than it seems to be abysmally unreliable compared to a semi. But a high speed thoroughfare is great now, but soon someone's going to cheat and try to lay road across one of those tracks. The high speed lines really need to be separated with no outside interference. I had a weird feeling a maybe ten years ago talking with a friend who is a surveyor. He noted that rail lines often take precedence in disputes, since they almost always predate any other landmarks, including roads. And over the intervening years, in the manufacturing towns I've been in it looks like we put all those rails in the most inconvenient places... Unless we actually just did the opposite and plopped our towns next to all the rail lines. And considering how vital rail was before the highways and cheap fuel, I think that's just what happened. Anyhow, just my two cents on it. I think we sorta painted ourselves into a corner with this whole mess. It's certainly a political problem, but the solution really would involve positively stupefying amounts of capital, either to make bypass rail or to make those silly roads all overpasses. I say it's worth it, but, well, I'm biased.
rjbez17 12y ago
This really made me mad. Minnesota and Illinois were willing to pay for the whole project from Minneapolis -> Milwaukee -> Chicago (granted WI would need to pay recurring maintenance) and they refused...
- tptacek 12y ago
  Walker's rejection of WI HSR was based on the nearly $1Bn of federal dollars allocated to Wisconsin, in addition to the federal dollars that would have gone to the other states. Some portion of all those dollars came out of the pockets of WI residents. As would a portion of all the subsequent federal spending the WI HSR plan would set a precedent for. I'm in favor of Chicago-MSP HSR, of infrastructure spending in general, and not a fan of Walker, but it's worth getting the argument right.

tptacek 12y ago

That 3:45 travel time seems pretty unlikely. According to the feasibility study, it's based on the idea that trains with a 130MPH maximum speed will run at an average of 110MPH. The Acela Express maxes out at 150MPH, but averages only ~80MPH --- and that doesn't factor in service outages and other transient delays, which are common. An HSR line between Chicago and Columbus would probably in the best case be competitive with driving. Which is itself an achievement, one supposes, given how much worse trains are than driving currently.

fragmede 12y ago
The Acela shares track with commuter and freight trains, as well as running on regular tracks, as opposed to tracks designed for HSR which is why it averages only a paltry 80 MPH. In comparison, the TGV in France averages 157 MPH (its top speed is 357 MPH), and Japanese bullet trains average somewhere in the neighborhood of 162 MPH. The 'thelantern' link provided above doesn't go into detail if the plan involves laying all-new tracks to properly support HSR, or if existing tracks to be re-used. Even then, parity with driving is an achievement. Drivers in traffic have this annoying habit of texting or worse while driving, even when illegal. I can put up with sitting next to someone texting on the train since they're not doing so while weaving in and out of traffic.
- tptacek 12y ago
  I looked this up a week ago on another thread and the numbers I got for average trip speed were lower: Paris-Lyon 140MPH, and Japan in the 140s-150s as well. The Columbus-Chicago route would involve upgrading existing tracks; the route times they're providing can safely be assumed to be best-case scenarios.
  - fragmede 12y ago
    I only did a little bit of research, and the average speed was hard to find, with most official sources preferring to concentrate on highest speed achieved. I'm willing to accept your numbers, but I am curious as to your sources. It's a moot point to me though, as high speed rail, at 140 MPH or 150 MPH or even only 100 MPH will not come to California any time soon, and even then, it's not likely to positively affect the commute up and down the SF peninsula.

logfromblammo 12y ago

You don't need guys like Musk. Here's how to make high-speed rail cheaper: - Remove or upgrade all level crossings. - Allow passenger trains to have priority over freight trains. That's it. It's literally just two things. You don't need elevated tracks or magnetic levitation or airtight tubes. You just need to be able to accelerate the train to its maximum speed and not have to slow down until it reaches its destination. Currently, Amtrak travel sucks due to the fact that when you board the train, no one can guarantee when or where you will be able to get off. Every passenger route passes over tracks owned by a railway company that makes far more money on moving coal or cattle than on people. And the freight trains may not have a regular schedule. So every time a passenger train leaves a station, it might be stuck on a siding for hours in the middle of nowhere, waiting for higher-priority freight to pass. And all those tracks cross automobile roads, where an unnervingly large fraction of the level crossings don't even have warning signals. The trains still have to slow down for them, even if there are no cars in a 100-km radius, because at high speed, colliding with a smaller object, like a deer or cow, could cause a derailment. There are no technical problems. They are all political and financial. As such, guys like Musk can't really help. He could spend his entire fortune and talk until his vocal cords snap, and still never make a dent. It's not just unsexy, but soul-crushing.

HCIdivision17 12y ago
There's at least two caveats to those completely reasonable points: freight also is terrible, and cities build around trains. I won't touch the freight one, other than it seems to be abysmally unreliable compared to a semi. But a high speed thoroughfare is great now, but soon someone's going to cheat and try to lay road across one of those tracks. The high speed lines really need to be separated with no outside interference. I had a weird feeling a maybe ten years ago talking with a friend who is a surveyor. He noted that rail lines often take precedence in disputes, since they almost always predate any other landmarks, including roads. And over the intervening years, in the manufacturing towns I've been in it looks like we put all those rails in the most inconvenient places... Unless we actually just did the opposite and plopped our towns next to all the rail lines. And considering how vital rail was before the highways and cheap fuel, I think that's just what happened. Anyhow, just my two cents on it. I think we sorta painted ourselves into a corner with this whole mess. It's certainly a political problem, but the solution really would involve positively stupefying amounts of capital, either to make bypass rail or to make those silly roads all overpasses. I say it's worth it, but, well, I'm biased.

rjbez17 12y ago

This really made me mad. Minnesota and Illinois were willing to pay for the whole project from Minneapolis -> Milwaukee -> Chicago (granted WI would need to pay recurring maintenance) and they refused...

tptacek 12y ago
Walker's rejection of WI HSR was based on the nearly $1Bn of federal dollars allocated to Wisconsin, in addition to the federal dollars that would have gone to the other states. Some portion of all those dollars came out of the pockets of WI residents. As would a portion of all the subsequent federal spending the WI HSR plan would set a precedent for. I'm in favor of Chicago-MSP HSR, of infrastructure spending in general, and not a fan of Walker, but it's worth getting the argument right.