The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
effective trip speed of 200mph
Do you mean maximum or average speed? If the latter, then that is pretty bold for one-hour relations (today, the fastest trip is a 66-minute trip between two out-of-town TGV stations at 263.3 km/h = 163.6 mph), though later on you say that the picture is not that different with 150 mph.
If it is easy to implement, I'd suggest you refine your model with these next simplest assumptions:
"dives" for High Speed Rail can be more energy efficient than with slower rail, because the train clears the dive so rapidly that it does not have time to lose very much momentum
Hm. The factors to consider here are: steepeness of the passages, the ratio of inclination x mass x g to train resistance (which is chiefly wind resistance) and the sum of both to available tractive effort (chiefly a function of how many wheels are driven). Depending on the parameters, a HST passing a highway exit underpass can be much more and much less efficient than a conventional train. But if the parameters are such that HSTs can pass without velocity change and without having to brake on the descent, there should be insignificant overall energy difference relative to travel on level track (e.g., the descent spares exactly as much energy as the extra the ascent demands). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If it is easy to implement, I'd suggest you refine your model with these next simplest assumptions: give 40 km/25 miles and 10 minutes each for the acceleration and deceleration phases (the latter is in reality much shorter, but let's have buffer for city entrances), calculate the rest at maximum speed, if you're a bit bolder, 220 mph (which is a bit under the 360 km/h max for the next generation of Shinkansens), accept half-hour distances as minimum.
Note BTW: the acceleration rule-of-thumb numbers I gave are assuming distributed traction. TGV-style trains with tractor heads should be slower, see the current top speed example. (That train is allowed a top speed of 320 km/h = 200 mph on 40 km, 300 km/h = 183 mph on the rest of the 289.6 km relation, except for the Avignon bifurcation.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Because of the Bay, there is little downside and plenty of upside running as Express rail from San Jose to Oakland at the end of a HSR corridor to San Jose, especially if the final station is an interchange with the local rail over the Golden Gate.
Separate lines to Orlando and to Tampa down the length of the state is probably not a starter, so if I redrew the second map right now, I would draw the map assuming Tampa/Orlando/Jacksonville and Miami/Orlando/Jacksonville are two distinct services sharing the same Orlando/Jacksonville corridor.
But this map is not drawn on the assumption that you can buy a HSR ticket between, say, LA and Riverside. Short segments are included based on the additional trips they offer in the bracket.
And it is most definitely not a network planning map, since the broader idea that it is addressing is setting up an accounts-based system to support interurban trips of 1:30 to 3:00, with a range of types of projects eligible. HSR would be only one of those types of projects ... both Express rail and regular passenger rail would also be eligible. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Ah, that would have been sweet, 30 minutes into Union Station. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
Indeed, the original spreadsheet that this was based on had 50, 100, 200, and 300. This diary was the result of the observation that almost all the 1m+ cities tied together at the 200mph effective trip speed.
Politically, I think that's 66 Senators (68 if Denver CO could be included, but that's just at the edge of the limit on the Kansas City side, which is why it drops down to a dashed line in the second map) and a very large nuumber of House Seats represented. I think, consciously or unconcsciously, that's one of the reasons that the map attracted such attention on dKos. The standard is to think of fast rail for California and for Boston/DC, and the rest of the country gets nothing.
On whether the "1 hour" trips would really be one hour trips, if the vehicle was operating at a speed that allowed the "three hour trips" to be finished in three hours ... I don't think so, but I pulled out the sub-one hour legs anyway. For example, Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinatti if implemented with tilt trains can readily include Akron, Canton, Newark and Dayton enroute, plus a couple others (the main thing is to run through Columbus on an East/West alignment), and would plausibly be less than 4 hours end to end. So I pulled those out.
So its mapping the market, not mapping a particular technology.
On Houston / NOLA, I had it in, I'll probably put it back in. I took it out of the spreadsheet for the same reason as San Francisco / San Jose / LA ... but I'll put it back in next time I look at this. On NOLA / St. Louis, I think I just overlooked it (thanks).
On NOLA / Jacksonville, Jacksonville was not 1m+ in the 2000 urbanized areas data that I used, so it was not in the first map at all. I added it on a dashed line in the second map for the link that would be most attractive in Jacksonville itself.
In the added material on the end, which more reflected some of the concerns of the dKos commentary that I didn't want to write 50 identical replies to ... on the interstate alignment, I would not be surprised if it was preferable to run in a shallow trench in any event, to reduce cross-wind profile, so if a dive requires braking, I'd say stretch out the dive so that it doesn't. And I should stress more that this would be for the long stretches between urban areas, the Interstates are a lot more bendy when they get into areas that were already built up when they were constructed. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Good point.
Regarding Interstate exits, if that troubles your Kossack readers so much, please point them to European examples of high-speed lines along highways in practice. Best the HSL Zuid line in the Netherlands and Belgium, to be opened at the end of this year, because that crosses flat terrain like Florida:
(You can find lots of other pictures of the Antwerp-Rotterdam section here.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I was not aware of this ... while Oz is further advanced in rail than America, its still only just now getting out from under a "protect what we have" attitude into an attitude of modern systems being used to servce additional transport tasks. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
(low mountains) have sections alongsaide highways, new Italian lines too, especially Milan-Bologna (opens soon) and Turin-Milan (half opened):
...some sections of all TGV lines:
...and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 2716 comments
by Cat - Jan 2517 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 219 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1212 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments
by Oui - Jan 68 comments