High Speed Trains In The USA?

[TrainzAreTheBest12]

Are there any high speed trains here in the USA? When I say high speed, I mean anything that is capable of going 160+. Canada has that Turbo Train, UK has the HST, France has the TGV, Japan has that Shinkasen. And I am not interested in maglev's, so please don't mention them. Have we(The USA) spent all of our time mastering the freight locomotives? Freight Trains are my favorite, I was just curious. Side question: Why did EMD stop making the SD40-2? They are considered one of the greatest locomotives in the history of railroading, and are definitely a landmark in the railroading era.

 

[mp202]

Amtrak's NEC I believe goes up to 150 MPH and I think the Acela locomotives don't max out there.

 

[TrainzAreTheBest12]

Wow. 150 MPH is pretty fast!

 

[mp202]

Wow. 150 MPH is pretty fast!

UP is improving their tracks between Chicago and St. Louis to accommodate Amtrak trains with speeds going up to 130 MPH.

 

[H222]

Side question: Why did EMD stop making the SD40-2?

They moved onto more powerful, cheaper, quicker and more economic ways of making locos

Jamie

 

[Spruce]

I am just back from a three week trip to the USA. Using Amtrack from New York to San Francisco. I was very dissapointed in the state of the track. There were parts where i thought I was going to be thrown out of my upper bunk in the sleepers. The trains are also very slow. With Number 5 I joined it at Denver at 8:05 in the morning and reached Grand Junction at 4:10 in the afternoon a journey of 273 miles. That works out at roughly 34 miles an hour.

During the trip from LA to SF along the coast, the passengers were warned that the train could reach speeds of 90 mph and to be careful.

:hehe:

 

[TrainzAreTheBest12]

They moved onto more powerful, cheaper, quicker and more economic ways of making locos

Jamie

Well, that sucks. Have ALL railroads gone to those economic trains? Or is it just mainly CSX and UP

 

[mp202]

Well most tracks in the US are in need of repairs. Amtrak trains like the nr. 5 and nr. 7 are long haul trains and are meant to go slow for sightseers. And are you absolutely sure they said 90 mph? Technically that's illegal for Amtrak because their locomotives such as the P42 are programmed to max out at 79 mph.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

Well most tracks in the US are in need of repairs. Amtrak trains like the nr. 5 and nr. 7 are long haul trains and are meant to go slow for sightseers. And are you absolutely sure they said 90 mph? Technically that's illegal for Amtrak because their locomotives such as the P42 are programmed to max out at 79 mph.

P42s max speed is 110.


Turbo Trains have not been in service for 25 years (they went about 120 mph).

 

[mp202]

But on the marias pass, Amtrak programs their locomotives to max out at 79 mph. If they go over, the train's "dead man" brakes are applied.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

that is because that is the speed limit... most tracks across the country do not allow over 79mph by regulation standards. it is typical to have a penalty brake for overspeed on any line. this does not change the max speed of a p42, which is 110.

 

[nuerco]

Acela Express trains on the Northeast Corridor, currently the only line used for high-speed rail in the U.S.

 

[warrenup]

I am just back from a three week trip to the USA. Using Amtrack from New York to San Francisco. I was very dissapointed in the state of the track. There were parts where i thought I was going to be thrown out of my upper bunk in the sleepers. The trains are also very slow. With Number 5 I joined it at Denver at 8:05 in the morning and reached Grand Junction at 4:10 in the afternoon a journey of 273 miles. That works out at roughly 34 miles an hour.

During the trip from LA to SF along the coast, the passengers were warned that the train could reach speeds of 90 mph and to be careful.

:hehe:

Yes - that portion of the route is quite slow - I am sure you noticed the Rocky Mountains outside the window with many slow curves, tunnels, and steep grades.
The freight railroad tracks are in better shape today , generally speaking, than ever before. That said, US freight trains are very heavy compared to the UK and do not
provide for the glassy rides you may get in the UK where freight trains are much smaller in number at much lighter. Those heavy trains take a toll on the rail surface - but
those rails would not exist without them. As someone else pointed out, with some esceptions outside the Northeast Corridor, the maximum speed for passenger is 79MPH.

 

[Spruce]

Well most tracks in the US are in need of repairs. Amtrak trains like the nr. 5 and nr. 7 are long haul trains and are meant to go slow for sightseers. And are you absolutely sure they said 90 mph? Technically that's illegal for Amtrak because their locomotives such as the P42 are programmed to max out at 79 mph.

Hi there

The guard ( what ever they are called in the USA ) definately said 90 because I had a laugh into my self. The train Number 14 never approached 90 as it had to make way for so many other trains and was over an hour late into the station Oakland close to SF. We were bused into SF.

But I agree the scenery during daylight is fantastic.

 

[erafjel]

Why not more high-speed trains in the US? I think that is an interesting question. In Europe we’re spoiled with TGV and other 160+ mph trains, and in most countries we find 100+ mph lines, including in former Eastern Europe. So why not in the US (forgetting for a moment the Acela Express)? Are they technically behind? Naah, not really, they are capable of both this and that in other areas. So, what then – don’t they like trains? Well, judging from the number of posts here in the forums, they do… OK, the money then?

Let’s have a look at it. Taking the Amtrak from Chicago to New York, a distance of about 800 mi, costs $199. Taking the train from Calais to Nice (that’s in France ), also a distance of about 800 mi, costs (the equivalent of) $220. So, just a little more money into the European railway then. And, yes, the French trip takes 10 hours, the US one 20 hours…

No big difference in money, so far. But there’s more. Looking at how much people go by train, statistics tell:
US: 6,200 M passenger-miles per year
EU: 230,000 M passenger-miles per year

With the US having roughly 300 M inhabitants and the EU 500 M, we get the miles on train per inhabitant and year:
US: 21 mi
EU: 460 mi

Right, a stunning difference! So the difference in revenue between US and European passenger rail traffic is more than factor 20. 20 times more money to invest in high-speed rail, if you like (and we do ).

So how did this happen? Going back a 100 years or so, I think the US and Europe were on more equal terms with respect to passenger traffic. But then the automobile came along… And Henry Ford, who saw to that the man in the street could afford a car. With a car, and the train no longer being the only option for long-distance travel, revenues for the railways quite naturally decreased. We didn’t have a Henry Ford in Europe, so trains remained profitable, allowing investments to keep them attractive as a convenient means of transportation even when cars became more common also in Europe.
That’s my theory anyway!

[ Disclaimer: You could probably find more detailed statistics and other figures that show the difference in revenue to be something else than 20, but I think you get the idea. Also, I don’t have anything against Henry Ford, or cars. ]
​

 

[pware]

Last year I caught the Acela Express from Boston to Washington and it was only on the section between Boston and New Haven (Nth of New York) that it achieved anything like "high speed" - I timed the interval between two mile posts and calculated about 143 MPH (about 230 KHP). This section, apparently, was the newest track and the only part where it can achieve those sorts of speeds. The speed during the rest of the trip was nowhere near that level and it was only the express nature of the journey (i.e. making very few stops) that made it significantly faster than the slower (and cheaper) regional service.

I also caught the Amtrak California Zephyr (Chicago to S.F - train No 6) and it was, as already stated, a much slower much more sedate experience including an unscheduled stop outside Denver where the train crew had to remove rocks from the line. If that was a normal occurrence in traversing the Colorado Rockies then I would hate to experience that problem on a high speed service.

 

[nuerco]

Why not more high-speed trains in the US? I think that is an interesting question. In Europe we’re spoiled with TGV and other 160+ mph trains, and in most countries we find 100+ mph lines, including in former Eastern Europe. So why not in the US (forgetting for a moment the Acela Express)? Are they technically behind? Naah, not really, they are capable of both this and that in other areas. So, what then – don’t they like trains? Well, judging from the number of posts here in the forums, they do… OK, the money then?

Let’s have a look at it. Taking the Amtrak from Chicago to New York, a distance of about 800 mi, costs $199. Taking the train from Calais to Nice (that’s in France ), also a distance of about 800 mi, costs (the equivalent of) $220. So, just a little more money into the European railway then. And, yes, the French trip takes 10 hours, the US one 20 hours…

No big difference in money, so far. But there’s more. Looking at how much people go by train, statistics tell:
US: 6,200 M passenger-miles per year
EU: 230,000 M passenger-miles per year

With the US having roughly 300 M inhabitants and the EU 500 M, we get the miles on train per inhabitant and year:
US: 21 mi
EU: 460 mi

Right, a stunning difference! So the difference in revenue between US and European passenger rail traffic is more than factor 20. 20 times more money to invest in high-speed rail, if you like (and we do ).

So how did this happen? Going back a 100 years or so, I think the US and Europe were on more equal terms with respect to passenger traffic. But then the automobile came along… And Henry Ford, who saw to that the man in the street could afford a car. With a car, and the train no longer being the only option for long-distance travel, revenues for the railways quite naturally decreased. We didn’t have a Henry Ford in Europe, so trains remained profitable, allowing investments to keep them attractive as a convenient means of transportation even when cars became more common also in Europe.
That’s my theory anyway!

[ Disclaimer: You could probably find more detailed statistics and other figures that show the difference in revenue to be something else than 20, but I think you get the idea. Also, I don’t have anything against Henry Ford, or cars. ]
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

One is on its way

 

[erafjel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

One is on its way

Yeah, that's great! Let's hope they can find the economy in running it, which requires a substantial number of Californians to choose the train instead of the car.

 

[TrainzAreTheBest12]

What a great and detailed explanation. I am amazed at the difference of train travel in the US and EU. Also, I agree. France is completely legit . Also, anyone ever been on a TGV? That would be one heck of ride.

 

[Euphod]

Why the difference between train use in Europe and in the US? Look to the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 ). Dwight D. Eisenhower pushed for the creation of the national interstate highway system in part because of his observations of moving a military convoy across country and also in part of his experience in Europe with the German Autobahn. I won't deny the fact that the automobile interests in the US lobbied for the same, but formation of the system allowed for new markets to open throughout the nation, allowing for faster transportation of goods, and all the supporting industries that became involved in those logistics. It also contributed to economic growth and helped to set the stage for the US to become a juggernaut among nations. The economic boom times saw freight movement on the rails take priority over passenger as railroads were forced to compete with trucking for the transportation market share. The confluence of these unintended consequences of Government action led us to the point where passenger rail was no longer profitable, and probably can't be unless subsidized by the government, or unless road traffic is made to be less affordable through the use of tolls or taxes to artificially place an onerous burden on the same. The current administration now wants to turn back the clock and establish a European style rail system, which is fine except that the nation is no longer the economic powerhouse it used to be.

The goal is great, but I do question the timing.