Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[eternallyme]

The problem is where to start with a 220 mph network, since unlike in the NE Corridor or in California, this is not a case of a single corridor but a web of routes. So where would that start? Ultimately, that network I can see having as many as 10 routes.

The biggest cities left off that whole grid in the region would be in a peripheral corridor - Rochester, La Crosse, Waterloo-Cedar Falls, the Quad Cities and Peoria. I think ultimately an 11th route, a Chicago bypass route from Minneapolis to Indianapolis through Rochester, Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, the Quad Cities, Peoria, Bloomington and Champaign, might be warranted as well (transfers to go to Chicago).

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm a bit confused about the plans for NW Indiana, though. INDOT has submitted two redundant requests. One is for a project called the "Indiana Gateway", with a price tag of $71 million. The other is for Chicago-Cleveland, but this includes $727 million for a "South-of-the-Lake Reroute" project.

As far as I can tell, both projects do the same thing by relieving congestion for eastbound trains out of Chicago on a busy Norfolk Southern rail line along US-20 (Dunes Hwy). The Indiana Gateway upgrades the Norfolk Southern line, while the South-of-the-Lake Reroute shifts trains to a less-congested CSX line south of I-94, which would be purchased and rebuilt to higher standards. Trains would break from their original routing in Gary and rejoin that routing in Portage. But both projects accomplish the same goal. If South-of-the-Lake were built, then the inferior Gateway project would be unnecessary. Part of the whole rationale for South-of-the-Lake, as I understood it, is that the NS line runs near the lakeshore, through a fragile ecosystem in the Indiana Dunes, while the CSX line runs further inland and has no such environmental concerns.

Is the Indiana Gateway project just a consolation prize? Like, if the government can't commit to the full $2.8bn cost of Chicago-Cleveland, or even the $727 million of the South-of-the-Lake, then the inexpensive Indiana Gateway will still relieve congestion on this gridlocked corridor, with the downside being a higher environmental impact and a lower travel-time improvement for trains? If that's the case, then Indiana must really be desperate for congestion relief in this area.

One of the big pitfalls of the existing routes is that they do not serve Fort Wayne (population 220,000). However, there is no direct track that connects South Bend and Fort Wayne (a new corridor parallel to US-33 would need to be built there). Also there is no direct track that connects Fort Wayne to Toledo (a new corridor parallel to US-24 would need to be built there).

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

One of the big pitfalls of the existing routes is that they do not serve Fort Wayne (population 220,000). However, there is no direct track that connects South Bend and Fort Wayne (a new corridor parallel to US-33 would need to be built there). Also there is no direct track that connects Fort Wayne to Toledo (a new corridor parallel to US-24 would need to be built there).

The high-speed proposal does serve Ft. Wayne, but not South Bend or Elkhart. It would go straight from Gary to Ft. Wayne with a stop in Valparaiso. The St. Joseph Valley would be served instead by new buses connecting to Plymouth on the high-speed line and express service to Chicago on the South Shore.

There is a railroad between Fort Wayne and Toledo - the Maumee and Western. It's a short line with atrocious track conditions. Between Liberty Center and Maumee, though, the right of way becomes the Wabash Cannonball Trail, and area residents don't want the trail to revert back to rail use, so the new line would cut north to Delta and rejoin the current Amtrak alignment.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Nothing for Chicago-Detroit or Chicago-Cleveland, or Madison-Milwaukee, etc...

Actually, the Madison-Milwaukee extension of the Hiawatha service already has funding I believe. The state of Wisconsin has been working on that for a long time.

Also, I think the most valuable thing they could do would be to install a dedicated track between Chicago and Milwaukee and make it true HSR. That route is already appealing for commuting, not to mention Mitchell would then be about a 30-45 min train ride from the loop while O'hare is 50 min. It would not only give Milwaukee and Chicago a 50 min or less connection, but it would essentially be like building another international airport on about the same radius from Downtown as Midway and O'hare timewise.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The high-speed proposal does serve Ft. Wayne, but not South Bend or Elkhart. It would go straight from Gary to Ft. Wayne with a stop in Valparaiso. The St. Joseph Valley would be served instead by new buses connecting to Plymouth on the high-speed line and express service to Chicago on the South Shore.

There is a railroad between Fort Wayne and Toledo - the Maumee and Western. It's a short line with atrocious track conditions. Between Liberty Center and Maumee, though, the right of way becomes the Wabash Cannonball Trail, and area residents don't want the trail to revert back to rail use, so the new line would cut north to Delta and rejoin the current Amtrak alignment.

Either way, new lines would need to be built somewhere.

The route from Chicago to Cleveland should be:

Chicago --> Gary --> South Bend --> Goshen/Elkhart --> Fort Wayne --> Toledo --> Sandusky --> Cleveland Airport (or Elyria?) --> Cleveland

As for the 10 radial routes in a possible Chicago hub network, here is what I can think of:

Chicago --> Marquette (via Milwaukee, Green Bay) - Low priority

Chicago --> Minneapolis (via Milwaukee, Madison) - High priority

Chicago --> Des Moines (via Rockford, Dubuque, Cedar Rapids) - Medium priority

Chicago --> Kansas City (via Galesburg, Quincy) - Medium priority

Chicago --> Kansas City (via Springfield, St. Louis, Columbia) - High priority

Chicago --> Memphis (via Champaign, Carbondale) - Medium priority

Chicago --> Louisville (via Indianapolis) - Medium priority

Chicago --> Cleveland (via Fort Wayne, Toledo) - High priority

Chicago --> Detroit (via Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor) - Medium priority

Chicago --> Port Huron (via Grand Rapids, Lansing, Flint) - Low priority

[Robert Pence]

I don't know if this topic is the appropriate place for photos, but Saturday I attended the rally in Fort Wayne where INDOT Deputy Commissioner Leigh Morris made an official announcement that INDOT has given the Feds its endorsement of Toledo - Fort Wayne as its choice for routing Cleveland - Chicago service through Northern Indiana.

Rally for Rail 2010 in Fort Wayne
Baker Street Station, January 16, 2010

All Photos Copyright © 2010 by Robert E Pence

The station was designed by William Price, of Price McLanahan Architects, and built by the Pennsylvania Railroad. It was completed in 1914.




The clock was on the Calhoun Street facade of the bank that stood on the present site of One Summit Square. Renderings of One Summit Square showed the clock mounted on the side of the building, but it didn't happen. The clock ended up in a warehouse where it was rediscovered a few years ago. It was restored by local artisans and mounted on a structure just west of the Baker Street Station.






Pre-program music was provided by Possum Trot Orchestra.


A little bit of Who's Who:
Former City Councilman Dr. Tom Hayhurst, one of the organizers and leaders of NIPRA and Democrat contender for the US Congress seat held by Mark Souder.


State Senator Tom Wyss is Chair of the State Senate Committee on Transportation and Veterans' Affairs.


Geoff Paddock, another NIPRA leader and Master of Ceremonies for the Rally For Rail.


Fort Wayne City Councilman Tom Smith, a rail supporter and also an advocate for bicyclists.


Win Moses, former mayor of Fort Wayne and now a State Representative.


Walter "Skip" Sassmanshausen, retired educator and widely acknowledged as the area's most knowledgeable rail historian.


Senator Wyss again.


Justin Stalter of the Downtown Improvement District, a strong supporter of NIPRA and provider of technical support.


Seats are filling up.




Nice venue, eh?




Geoff starts the program on schedule.


Fred Lanahan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation (Citilink)








Standing room only, full to the doors!


Dr. Tom Hayhurst tells how the return of passenger rail will bring jobs to Fort Wayne and Northeast Indiana.




Pam Holocher of the city's Planning and Policy Office, represented Mayor Tom Henry.




Allen County Commissioner Bill Brown was caught off guard and hadn't expected to be called on to speak, but delivered an effective, concise statement on the benefits of passenger rail for the local economy.




Fred Warner represented Steel Dynamics, now the only Fortune 500 company based in Fort Wayne. Steel Dynamics has invested heavily in rail production technology, and is developing a facility to manufacture composite crossties with a steel core and concrete body encased in a coating made from recycled rubber and plastic to protect from the elements and lengthen life.


State Senator Tom Wyss makes it clear that he understands the importance of passenger rail to Fort Wayne.


I didn't get this man's name, but he was here to communicate Senator Evan Bayh's support. Previously, a message from Senator Richard Lugar was read, so Fort Wayne passenger trains have strong bi-partisan support.


Congressman Mark Souder spoke.


The man everyone wanted to hear, INDOT Deputy Commissioner Leigh Morris. His statement that INDOT has recommended the Fort Wayne - Toledo route for Chicago - Cleveland service brought applause from the audience.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by Robert Pence

I don't know if this topic is the appropriate place for photos, but Saturday I attended the rally in Fort Wayne where INDOT Deputy Commissioner Leigh Morris made an official announcement that INDOT has given the Feds its endorsement of Toledo - Fort Wayne as its choice for routing Cleveland - Chicago service through Northern Indiana.

Thanks Pence, This is a big announcement, as the State of Indiana is now off of the fencepost and we can hopefully avoid the taffy pull over route selection. Wisconsin will not be so lucky as there are 3 potential routes between Madison and Minneapolis. I think this enhances the potential for the CHI-CLE route getting some initial funding this Spring from the 1st round of HSR Stimulus bill. The states are going to have to be hardline on some of these inevitable disputes. With no intent to insults anyone- the purpose of HSR is End Point to End Point, or City-Pairs. The stops in the middle are not as consequential. It will be a total bonus to Ft. Wayne and Ive seen some HUGE projections for station use in this city. But this is about Chicago to Cleveland and eventually (The Ohio Hub plans) Chicago to Columbus. But to give "The Fort" some respect-at the Regional Rail (79-110mph) level-Ft. Wayne is a desirable station and will probably get some "express" service to Chicago with trains passing through Warsaw and Plymouth-stopping in Valparaiso and then on to Chicago. And at the next generation HSR "The Fort" will still be an intermediary stop with direct connections to Chicago-Cleveland and Columbus.

I am encouraged to see Indiana move quickly to update their HSR plans. They have gone from Midwest laggards to Midwest competitors for stimulus money. They have submitted plans ARRA applications for the "South of the Lake Reroute"; which is part of the long range real HSR. They have made their route selection for Northern Indiana. And they have crafted a "Gateway Indiana" program which benefits existing Amtrak services, including Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, Blue Water, Wolverine and Pere Marquette, would use existing motive power and trainsets.

Kudos to the Hoosiers INDOT:

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...6021303.column

High-speed rail seen as economic engine in Illinois

Downstate Normal, Chicago's West Side among communities looking to ride the rails to modernization

Jon Hilkevitch

January 18, 2010

The residents of Normal, Ill., have one word to describe their community's train station:

"Amshack."

Don't get them wrong. Amtrak's intercity passenger trains provide essential transportation in central Illinois for the twin cities of Bloomington, which includes Illinois Wesleyan University, and Normal, home to Illinois State University.

Airline service to the area from Chicago and other big cities has declined in recent years, contributing in part to the train station in downtown Normal ranking as the fourth-busiest Amtrak terminal for passenger boarding in the Midwest, behind Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Louis.

But the station is in bad shape and it's inadequate to serve future needs, officials said.

Normal Mayor Chris Koos traveled the approximately 135 miles to Chicago on Friday to participate in a conference that Gov. Pat Quinn called to improve passenger and freight rail operations in Illinois, and to be prepared to get off on a fast start when $8 billion in federal stimulus grants for high-speed rail are awarded to the states sometime before spring.

The meeting offered Koos the opportunity to spread the word about a downtown renewal program in Normal that includes building a modern transportation terminal in the town's central business district and surrounding it with office-residential redevelopment that is designed for people to walk, ride a bus or pedal a bike to where they are going instead of drive a vehicle.................

More in story
..

[ardecila]

That's a really odd tie-in to the West Side. How exactly does the West Side hope to cash in on high-speed rail? Do they have some sort of specific plan or goal in mind? Have they looked at the rail plans and determined that the West Side is a good location for a maintenance facility that will provide additional jobs? Or are they just joining the crowd of depressed areas hoping for new rail-related jobs without actually doing the legwork?

As far as I can tell, the only definite new jobs connected with the HSR program in the Midwest is the manufacturing and maintenance facility that Talgo is building outside Milwaukee. This facility will probably fulfill all the orders for 110-mph railcars in the Midwest, on all routes, and perhaps some additional orders by Amtrak itself to replace cars on the slow-speed routes. I'm not sure where the locomotives will be produced, but the Midwest already plays host to several locomotive manufacturers, none of which are on the West Side. Chances are that, due to Buy America restrictions, the high-speed equipment will be produced by one of these companies - which are now highly automated, just like every other sector of heavy manufacturing, and no longer employ the level of people that they once did.

It seems that people are viewing this as the return of the Gilded Age rail era, when almost every little town in the Midwest had a rail connection. Seriously - try and find a small town that didn't grow around a rail depot. In that era, railroads were tremendous employers, among the biggest in the country, but only because so much of the work of running a railroad was done manually. Tracks needed frequent maintenance, signal systems required people in interlocking towers, and rail stations employed many people to sell tickets, handle baggage, and receive the mail. Today, you can run a small Amtrak station with maybe 3 people, signals are computerized, and tracks are built to a high-enough standard that major maintenance can be done once each decade. The number of people required to operate a train has also decreased dramatically. I don't think the high-speed rail program will have the massive employment effect that everyone's hoping for. This is good for us, since it reduces the operating costs and thus the ticket prices of rail trips, and helps the railroads stay more competitive against the airlines, but it's not so good for all the unemployed people looking hopefully towards that $8 billion pot.

I also don't think HSR will increase overall travel much, if at all, which means that people riding the rails won't be driving or flying, which means less jobs in the air travel sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea of providing high-speed rail services to help revitalize small towns in flyover country, utilize long-abandoned infrastructure, and reduce the emissions associated with air travel. I just don't think it's the economic panacea that everybody seems to think.

[electricron]

Because just about all the train stations in the MidWest have low platforms, the Talgo trainsets are great choices for not only the 110-125 mph diesel powered trains, but also for 150-200 mph electric powered trains. Adding an additional disk brake on every axle is the major upgrade needed for Talgo rail cars to go 200 mph speeds.

Cascades train with American F59PHI diesel locomotive (79 mph)

Spanish train with Spanish diesel locomotive (125 mph)

Spanish train with Spanish electric locomotive (200 mph)


The features that makes Talgo trainsets a great choice for the MidWest makes it a poor choice for the Northeast Corridor with its high platforms.

[Robert Pence]

Here are some links to the INDOT site regarding Indiana's participation in the Initiative:

The Track 2 application pertaining to the Chicago - Fort Wayne - Toledo - Cleveland route:

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/IN_CHI...pptrack2_3.doc

INDOT submitted an earlier "Track 1" application for $71.4 million for interim capacity enhancements for the Porter, IN to Chicago portion of Norfolk Southern Corp's mainline used by 16 daily Amtrak trains and 90 daily freight trains. To see that application, go to:

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Indian...ionTrack1a.doc

More info is available at:

http://www.in.gov/indot/3064.htm

The above information thanks to forum member KJP on Urbanohio.com.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I also don't think HSR will increase overall travel much, if at all, which means that people riding the rails won't be driving or flying, which means less jobs in the air travel sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea of providing high-speed rail services to help revitalize small towns in flyover country, utilize long-abandoned infrastructure, and reduce the emissions associated with air travel. I just don't think it's the economic panacea that everybody seems to think.

Phew, at least I'm not the only one. Rail investment is to handle future growth, not to divert existing travelers. This is why it's not a crisis-that-needs-to-be-done-yesterday initiative no matter how strong we feel like riding a train. It just makes no sense to spend taxpayer money to reduce the number of taxpaying jobs, which is what a rapid rollout would be rather than a gradual phase-in of rail that occurs instead of future airport and highway expansion... i.e. to handle future growth in travel demand.

And if there will be no future growth in a corridor, then don't spend money on a rail line.

[fishrose]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Phew, at least I'm not the only one. Rail investment is to handle future growth, not to divert existing travelers. This is why it's not a crisis-that-needs-to-be-done-yesterday initiative no matter how strong we feel like riding a train. It just makes no sense to spend taxpayer money to reduce the number of taxpaying jobs, which is what a rapid rollout would be rather than a gradual phase-in of rail that occurs instead of future airport and highway expansion... i.e. to handle future growth in travel demand.

And if there will be no future growth in a corridor, then don't spend money on a rail line.

This is the only part of your statement I disagree with. Future growth doesn't just facilitate the success of rail lines, rail lines can also facilitate future growth by providing opportunities for commuters to travel from more residentially-focused cities to more commercial and industrial areas.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Phew, at least I'm not the only one. Rail investment is to handle future growth, not to divert existing travelers. This is why it's not a crisis-that-needs-to-be-done-yesterday initiative no matter how strong we feel like riding a train. It just makes no sense to spend taxpayer money to reduce the number of taxpaying jobs, which is what a rapid rollout would be rather than a gradual phase-in of rail that occurs instead of future airport and highway expansion... i.e. to handle future growth in travel demand.

And if there will be no future growth in a corridor, then don't spend money on a rail line.

i respectfully disagree, to a degree. i think for the midwest corridors, gradual implementation might make more sense (admittedly, im no expert of midwest travel patterns). since chicigo is a HUB and there will be multiple lines, it would be very costly to make even half of them capable of going 200mph+. it would not provide enough benefit for the cost. gradual improvements over the entire network would give the most benefit to the most people.

however, other places such as california (or florida, or the northeast corridor) would do better to invest in fast 200 mph lines from the get go since they are essentially single lines

[Robert Pence]

Originally Posted by northbay420

i respectfully disagree, to a degree. i think for the midwest corridors, gradual implementation might make more sense (admittedly, im no expert of midwest travel patterns). since chicigo is a HUB and there will be multiple lines, it would be very costly to make even half of them capable of going 200mph+. it would not provide enough benefit for the cost. gradual improvements over the entire network would give the most benefit to the most people.

however, other places such as california (or florida, or the northeast corridor) would do better to invest in fast 200 mph lines from the get go since they are essentially single lines

I agree with you on California, Florida, and the Northeast Corridor; the corridors are mostly already in place and in all except Florida there are trains operating with reasonable frequencies, at speed and mostly on time. The next logical step is true high-speed rail.

I think that many of the organizers and promoters in the Midwest realize that the incremental approach is best, but also realize that in order to excite the public and build public sentiment that will put elected officials on notice, they need to use "High Speed" to describe what they want to see.

Here, our service is sparse; Fort Wayne, Indiana, with a population over 200K and only 150 miles from Chicago, hasn't had a passenger train since 1990. The nearest Amtrak stop is in Waterloo, a village 20 miles away with two trains daily in each direction, both eastbound late at night and westbound early in the morning, an open asphalt platform breathtakingly windswept in winter, no heated shelter, no restrooms, no food or lodging nearby and where a train that's only an hour late is better than average.

For us, multiple frequencies reliably on time, with 110mph speeds, heck, even 79mph speeds, would be a vast improvement and would be very much preferred over driving or flying to Chicago. The organizers of NIPRA (Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association) are very aware of that, and that's what they're working for.

[nomarandlee]

I think the NEC and Calif are easily 1A and 1B in terms of priority for true HSR if it is to be done.

Midwest, Texas, and Florida make up a second tier IMO that may or may not necessitate true HSR and one could make a case to put them 2A-2B-2C in any order. Florida's route is rather dense triangle but still all its major metros are still very auto-centric with the major metros (Miami 5.5m, Orlando 2m, Tampa 3m) interconnecting roughly 11 million people (granted with fairly high growth numbers). Texas interconnects a few more million people its potential route, high growth rates, but is also autocentric (though arguably less so then Florida).

Chicago's size, centrality in the region, and transit connections will make any pairing with any pairing with another large Midwest city potentially decent. That said Midwest cities have relatively low growth numbers.

If there could be +200mph trains like just opened in China I think a true HSR line between NYC-Chicago interconnecting nearly +30 million would be interesting to contemplate. It may just be close enough to air travel times to take a significant slice of the traffic.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

If there could be +200mph trains like just opened in China I think a true HSR line between NYC-Chicago interconnecting nearly +30 million would be interesting to contemplate. It may just be close enough to air travel times to take a significant slice of the traffic.

I sincerily disagree. According to Yahoo Maps, the distance between Chicago and New York City is 792.5 miles, following I-80 most of the way. Assuming a very fast 200 mph train averages 150 mph, it'll take 5.5 hours to make the trip. Assuming a fast 150 mph train averages 110 mph, it'll take 7.5 hours to make the trip. Assuming a not so fast 110 mph train averages 80 mph, it'll take nearly 10 hours to make the trip. Today's Lake Shore Limited with a maximum speed of 80 mph over most of its route averages around 43 mph over the 959 miles between Chicago and New York City. It takes the Lake Shore Limited 22.5 hours to make the trip. Assuming it took a straighter route 792.5 miles in length, a train averaging 43 mph would require 18.5 hours to make the trip, 4 hours less.

Even at the fastest speeds, since all jets fly between New York City and Chicago is less than 3 hours, in half the time of the very fast train.

I just don't think Amtrak nor the States between Chicago and New York are looking at financing a brand new, very high speed railroad line. They're looking at upgrading existing railroad lines up to 110, possibly 125 mph. No way could anyone consider 10 hours of train travel competitive with flying.

The CHSR plan is more workable for several reasons, first it's located entirely in one state and secondly the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is just 382,6 miles, less than half the distance between Chicago and New York City. That means you can half the travel times for the various average speeds I posted earlier. At half the times, CHSR will be competitive with flying.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by electricron

I sincerely disagree. According to Yahoo Maps, the distance between Chicago and New York City is 792.5 miles, following I-80 most of the way. Assuming a very fast 200 mph train averages 150 mph, it'll take 5.5 hours to make the trip. Assuming a fast 150 mph train averages 110 mph, it'll take 7.5 hours to make the trip. Assuming a not so fast 110 mph train averages 80 mph, it'll take nearly 10 hours to make the trip. Today's Lake Shore Limited with a maximum speed of 80 mph over most of its route averages around 43 mph over the 959 miles between Chicago and New York City. It takes the Lake Shore Limited 22.5 hours to make the trip. Assuming it took a straighter route 792.5 miles in length, a train averaging 43 mph would require 18.5 hours to make the trip, 4 hours less.
Even at the fastest speeds, since all jets fly between New York City and Chicago is less than 3 hours, in half the time of the very fast train.
I just don't think Amtrak nor the States between Chicago and New York are looking at financing a brand new, very high speed railroad line. They're looking at upgrading existing railroad lines up to 110, possibly 125 mph. No way could anyone consider 10 hours of train travel competitive with flying.
The CHSR plan is more workable for several reasons, first it's located entirely in one state and secondly the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is just 382,6 miles, less than half the distance between Chicago and New York City. That means you can half the travel times for the various average speeds I posted earlier. At half the times, CHSR will be competitive with flying.

All the hypothetical about 80mph,110mph, and 125mph rail goes against my whole premise. My whole argument predicated on traveling approximately 200mph along the route (the new Wuhan-Guangzhou line averages 195mph supposedly I think). My maps reads 710 miles between Wuhan-Guang and its approximately 800 for NYC-Chi. So I am thinking within the range of 4-5 hours depending on the number of stops could potentially be done for a Midtown-Loop route.

The typical NYC-Chi flight is 2 and half hours. This isn't taking into account check in or baggage claim on both ends or travel to the airport (especially from Loop/Midtown). We are talking easily a few extra hours added on for those to make it at least a 4-6 hour trip from Loop-Midtown by air. I think given the extra accommodations of rail and the downtown to downtown times that such a route could perhaps be very competitive especially for business travelers.

Perhaps even sleeper car trains that could leave at 10pm-11pm and have you in the Loop or Midtown by 6-8am in the morning instead of waking up at 4-5am to catch a flight in order to be at an early morning meeting in the Loop/Midtown could also attract some travelers. Those trains could even make a good many stops and not even travel at full speed to be effective.

I agree that a Cali or NEC line would be more of a priority but potentially linking up +30mil. people IF it could be competitive with flying isn't a bad third project.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

All the hypothetical about 80mph,110mph, and 125mph rail goes against my whole premise. My whole argument predicated on traveling approximately 200mph along the route (the new Wuhan-Guangzhou line averages 195mph supposedly I think). My maps reads 710 miles between Wuhan-Guang and its approximately 800 for NYC-Chi. So I am thinking within the range of 4-5 hours depending on the number of stops could potentially be done for a Midtown-Loop route.

Do you really believe Amtrak would not stop these high speed trains at large and small cities between? Get real, Amtrak's Acela trains don't fly past many train stations.
Assuming they build the route through Pittsburgh, I can see HSR station stops at (1)Newark, (2)Trenton, (3)Philadelphia, (4)Lancaster, (5)Harrisburg, (6)Altoona, (7)Pittsburgh, (8)Youngstown, (9)Cleveland, (10)Sandusky, (11)Toledo, (12)Fort Wayne, (13)South Bend, and possibly (14)Gary.

That easily can be 30 to 45 minutes of delays. Let's just assume 30 minutes.
Taking a 200 mph train over lets say 800 miles. At full speed over the entire
distance, it'll take 4 hours. Adding 30 minutes for 2 minute stops at each intermediate station, it'll take 4.5 hours.
Some math:
800 miles / 200 mph = 4 hours
800 miles / 4.5 hours = 177 mph

Lets now assume each stop at intermediate stations take 4 minutes, twice as long.
800 miles / 5 hours = 160 mph.

Now lets assume the HSR train is delayed for 10 minutes at five passing siding for just five HSR trains traveling in the opposite direction (assuming one HSR train per hour going the opposite direction). Six 10 minute delays would add an extra hour (just to keep the math simple).
800 miles / 6 hours = 133 mph.

Now let's assume the train slow down for track maintenance and other delays along the way, as you can see, the delays quickly add up and average speeds drop and drop and drop.

The idea that you can keep 200 mph train going 200 mph forever is foolish. These very fast trains will slow down and stop at times, for many reasons.

China is building new rail corridors throughout. Not every line being built is for 200 mph trains, many are being built for 150 mph trains and many slower too......

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by electricron

Do you really believe Amtrak would not stop these high speed trains at large and small cities between? Get real, Amtrak's Acela trains don't fly past many train stations.
.....

Amtrak will not be the operator of the true HSR.. But your question is still valid. The nature of our politics will dictate that HSR makes some stops on all city pair-routes.