High-speed rail

Posted by David Roberts at 2:04 PM on 12 Jan 2008

Read more about: placemaking | public transportation

High-speed rail, already kicking ass (in Europe), is set to kick much more ass (in Europe):

Last July seven operators banded together to form Railteam, an alliance that is working to create a seamless, high-speed network across a large swath of Western Europe. Functioning much like an airline alliance, Railteam is setting up a common reservation system that's set to begin operations in 2009. It is also helping member railways coordinate their schedules to reduce layover times. A frequent-traveler program will even be offered -- another page from the airlines' playbook.

For now, Railteam does not include operators in Italy, Spain, Portugal or Central Europe, where high-speed rail is less developed. But that could change in the next few years. Spain is set to complete a high-speed, Madrid-to-Barcelona link in 2009. And P�py predicts that within 15 years it will be possible to travel by high-speed train all the way from Paris to Bratislava, Slovakia.

Meanwhile, in America ...

For story: High-speed rail
17 Comments | Post a Comment

...my wife took a rail trip from Chi to LA...

it took about 43 hours each way (actually, from chicago to santa barbara), or rather, the trip to santa barbara did, but there was a 6 hour delay on the way back due to the engine breaking down. Chicago used to be the railroad "hub" of much of the country; the line to NYC now goes through Buffalo and takes 18 hours, to Seattle or SF, two days.

J. H. Crawford, of "car-free cities" fame, has this interesting page on how to put high speed trains on interstate highways.

Thanks for the post, Dave!

by Jon Rynn at 9:37 PM on 12 Jan 2008

and for a US high speed rail act,

see this post of a draft by apsmith

by Jon Rynn at 10:09 PM on 12 Jan 2008

Interesting

That is a very economical plan Jon. Using the inside lanes on the freeway for commuter rail.

Freeway accidents would make it impractical. But high speed (300 mph) light rail in tubes partially buried in the median would really compete with air travel, and that would save a lot of fuel.

Tubes allow freedom from obstruction, weather, or accidents and electric powered trains free from weather or safety problems with the elctrified rails.

It also allows for 2 bottom rails and one ot two top rails, providing stability and smooth cornering at high speed.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:32 PM on 12 Jan 2008

Tubes?

More trains - yes! Wonderful way to travel. Don't know about the tubes though for high speed city links - sounds very costly, and at 300 mph you'd be pushing an awful lot of air the length of the tube. Unless you're thinking of pulling the train through the tube using a stationary vacuum pump, like the cash systems in the old department stores.

Two hours or more in a closed tube also sounds pretty claustrophobic. Twenty minutes in the Channel Tunnel is more than enough for most people. Isn't one of the pleasures of rail travel just seeing the world go by, without any driving responsibilities? And while I enjoyed reading J.H. Crawford's thoughtful proposal for adapting the interstates, I'd hope that existing RR routes could also be a complementary part of such a system so that not all of the journey would be flanked by highway. Train vistas in general have always been for me so much more expansive and interesting than those from the interstate.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 11:07 AM on 13 Jan 2008

On tubes ---

There was once an interesting documentary on either the discovery channel or history channel about a transatlantic rail line (!), which would depend on a vacuum tube, but they would move at 5000mph. The only problem is that it would take all of global steel production for several years and god knows the electricity needed for pumping -- and my father ran a physics lab for decades and just laughed at the idea of keeping a huge vacuum going.

Anyway, back on this planet, I agree that you should be able to look out the window. I don't think that car accidents should be a big problem if there was a sufficient barrier. But maybe put the trains on the outside lanes of the interstate? On the other hand, somehow the Feds managed to grab the land for the Interstate, I would imagine it might not be that difficult to create new rail corridors.

By the way, the only fairly well-known public figure that constantly talks up a national rail network in James Howard Kunstler, unless anyone knows others.

by Jon Rynn at 11:17 AM on 13 Jan 2008

Windows

Windows in the top of the tube. With solar concentrating louvers that follow the sun. Then of course just plain old windows in the train.

Mass produced fiber concrete tube components partially buried in the median for safety. And of course barriers as well. Those freeway accidents can be massive.

I like this, the solar power generated from the tube top could power the train.

Maybe some air relief valves, like gills every few feet would cut down on the pressure wave in front of the train? Another idea is giant solar chimneys that suction air out of the tube in the direction of travel. With wind turbines placed to capture energy from the flow.

Over thousands of miles of tubes it might work, don't laugh. Hehehey.

The massive amonuts of heated air in the tubes would rise through the chimneys. And solar PV could be mounted on the sunny side of the chimneys too.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:40 AM on 13 Jan 2008

Intersections

are the reason for putting the train track in the middle, not the outside of the highway. Crawford has thought this aspect (actually most aspects) through very carefully.

L.A. has some sections of commuter rail installed more or less like this. Crawford's proposal of course is for high-speed long-distance intercity service, not for urban rapid transit, but many of the basic principles of Crawford's idea can be seen applied there.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 2:39 PM on 13 Jan 2008

More on Crawford

The biggest obstacle in implementing Crawford's proposal may be gaining acceptance for the residual highway being reduced to a single lane in each direction, even in the envisioned future of expensive and scarce gasoline. However, many parts of the interstate system (particularly the newer sections) have been constructed with a wide center median to allow for future lane additions without the need for extremely expensive and disruptive intersection reconstruction. Adding rail track rather than highway lanes in this median reserve makes much better sense.

Crawford points out that the interstates occasionally include difficult local conditions such as steeper grades than trains are easily capable of dealing with. He mentions several strategies to deal with this problem, to which I would add the option of selective deviations of the rail route from the interstate right-of-way where appropriate. Natural terrain elevations at the beginning and end of such sections would tend to facilitate grade separations of highway and rail track.

Another alternative at the steep grades? This is not a new problem. Borrow a strategy from the old stagecoach days. "First class passengers, stay in your seats. Second class, get out and walk. Third class, get out and push!" (smiley face here)

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 3:24 PM on 13 Jan 2008

Frankly, in the distant future...

...I doubt that there will be any long-distance car or truck traffic, and so a nice graphic would be to show an interstate morphing into an exclusively rail-devoted thoroughfare (with freight getting its own tracks). But of course, I'm getting way ahead of ourselves.

by Jon Rynn at 3:27 PM on 13 Jan 2008

My father in law

Works in concrete, and has always said that a monorail track instead of concrete dividers on freeways would solve all of our transportation problems. I like the rail idea better.

by Matt G at 4:17 PM on 13 Jan 2008

Light rail

The trains would be very light. Composites and aluminum. No need to worry about grades.

Competing with aircraft travel takes high speeds that would not be practical on exposed rails in the freeway median.

Basically it is like designing aircraft that flies in tubes on wheels. The train would be cushioned from all sides by air pressure, the wheels would not support the train. Just keep it going smoothly through the tube.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:32 PM on 13 Jan 2008

"Flying" coast to coast

Flying in a tube on this kind of light rail at 300 mph would take around 8 hours nonstop coast to coast.

How long does it take for air travel? With airport, security, and weather delays it has to average around 9 hours at least. In really bad weather it could take days, if you can get a flight at all

No weather problems inside a tube.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:51 PM on 13 Jan 2008

Why Does Regimentation Appeal to Greens?

I am always amazed at the willingness of Greens to try and order human life around a technology that fits into their cost matrices.

It does not matter where a person wants to go, or how they would like to travel, or what the terrain is, or what the society is like. If they find a technology (perferrably European...and from one of the more socialist countries), then we Americans are either stupid for not immediately implementing it, or some vast "conspiracy" prevents us from having it.

Why, for example, is it so much better to litter the landscape with miles of rail that slice the land, when an airplane-airport model, for all its defects, takes up relatively modest amounts of land and allows for continuous free traffic patterns to match changing population patterns.

Nope...it doesn't fit the blue print say the Green Planners...please, take a ticket, show us your identity badge and proceed to Track 47.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 10:59 PM on 13 Jan 2008

Yep

Good point! No regimentation at airports. No ID required, no x-rays and hours long security lines, no incarceration (maximum 10 year sentence)for complaining about the delay. Nope.

No moms ever manhandled in front of their babies by security because they complained when bushland security made them throw out their kid's sippy cup.

No one handcuffed and later found dead in a cell for raising a ruckus.

That will never happen.

BTW. How DO you keep your skull from collapsing? Silicone caulk injections through your sinuses? Just curious.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:13 PM on 13 Jan 2008

Cue Steely Dan......

http://steelydan.com/nightflyrics.html

"I.G.Y.
Standing tough under stars and stripes
We can tell
This dream's in sight
You've got to admit it
At this point in time that it's clear
The future looks bright
On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
Well by seventy-six we'll be A.O.K.

What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

Get your ticket to that wheel in space
While there's time
The fix is in
You'll be a witness to that game of chance in the sky
You know we've got to win
Here at home we'll play in the city
Powered by the sun
Perfect weather for a streamlined world
There'll be spandex jackets one for everyone......."

Pull out your old, well thumbed copy of "A Transatlantic Tunnel Hurrah!!" and sit down for a nice long warm read on a cold winters afternoon. I recall it being a nice romp through the improbabilities that only science fiction can manage.

When you're done reading that there's "Dies the Fire" which will describe a world much more like your future. Well, mix that with Snow Crash.

In twenty years I doubt if we will be able to maintain the track we have. If we're really good little apex species we just might get it together and build enough airships to put together a modest transportation network. No roads, rails, asphalt, concrete or bridges required.

Choose your favorite dystopia. Our current and any possible future leadership seemed to have read nothing but Tom Clancy novels. It won't be helpful. The spandex jackets that they hand out at the homeless shelter are pretty warm though; they got a GM logo on 'em too.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 3:15 AM on 15 Jan 2008

Imagine a high speed rail network

crisscrossing the country. Roomy lounge chairs, scenery, a bar, conversation, a book.

On an airliner the cabin air is passed through heat exchangers (-60 degrees outside), warmed by engine waste heat, compressed, mixed with a little fresh air and sent back into the cabin.

It's bone dry, low on oxygen, and pressurized to about 8000 feet altitude. Combine this with a few hours in a seat designed to jam as many humans as possible into the smallest space, and it is no wonder you feel like crap by the time you walk off a flight.

It would be more humane to put passengers to sleep, stack them like chord wood, and revive them upon arrival. This would lower the costs of security and streamline boarding, assuming existing luggage systems could be adopted to handle the inert passengers. It might also spawn an industry in travel clothing designed to minimize bruising and head trauma, with baggage handles sewn in for easier handling. But I digress...

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 7:41 AM on 15 Jan 2008

Trains + electric bikes/hpv's

that don't go over 20 mph, sounds like a transportation system to me!

by Jon Rynn at 10:05 AM on 15 Jan 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.