THE Electric Trains Thread (merged)

[vtsnowedin]

There is this set of data bases for the Colorado river and dam system.
http://lakemead.water-data.com/
Switch to lake Powell to see what is upstream waiting to be released through the canyon. It is better then it was a couple of years ago but they could use a couple of wet or snowy years in the high Rockies to refill both reservoirs. Not much opportunity for increased hydro production.
As to the trains electric or not I think what may actually happen as oil prices rise and stay high is a gradual doubling of the freight ton miles moved by rail. This would be taking freight out of trucks and moving it by rail over existing lines with a few slightly expanded or refurbished lines.
As we often hear touted a diesel powered train can move a ton of freight 400 miles while a diesel tractor trailer unit can only move it 145 or so. This would save about half the fuel we are using now in the trucks and reduce wear and tear on the highway system.
I don't think we will get much further ahead on that as the railroads will raise freight rates as high as they can which will dampen enthusiasm for a more complete or rapid switch over. Also continued high oil prices will depress the economy and reduce the total that needs to be shipped.

[Quinny]

Our new trams in Blackpool seem to have just started operating. They look great and I intend using them in future.

[sparky]

.
vtsnowedin , Thanks for the link , this looks like it ,
further spending would not be warranted .

electric trains are fine , they have and are used extensively and are economically efficient
there is plenty of urban railways , underground , tramways and even trolley buses
( that's buses with electric propulsion and overhead wires )
those systems are very good in high density environment
they have decades of proven operation , past experience and tech is available

[vtsnowedin]

.
vtsnowedin , Thanks for the link , this looks like it ,
further spending would not be warranted .

electric trains are fine , they have and are used extensively and are economically efficient
there is plenty of urban railways , underground , tramways and even trolley buses
( that's buses with electric propulsion and overhead wires )
those systems are very good in high density environment
they have decades of proven operation , past experience and tech is available

Yes to all of that but electrifying rail lines that do not already have the power feeds in place is a costly proposition and I doubt that a significant amount of new electric lines will be created before we are well down the backside of the curve. Moving people in towards city centers where jobs and housing are within walking distance of each other will be a cheaper option then trying to provide electrified commuter rail to far flung suburbs.
And perhaps I am talking about what is likely considering human nature and you are proposing what we should do from a pure economical standpoint. Two entirely different things of course.

[Plantagenet]

California trains to nowhere.

High Speed rail in CA now planned to terminate outside city centers

The CA high speed train network is now planned to stop in the exurbs, where "high speed" passengers will transfer to existing low speed mass transit to go into the cities.

Sheesh----have they never been to Europe to see how a high speed train system should be built?


Typical city center train station in Germany

[lpetrich]

More like they're seeing what they can build with as little money as possible.

European high-speed trains routinely use existing tracks in urban areas, so what the CHSRA wants to do is rather routine in Europe.


Looking over the world, high-speed-rail progress has been very patchy and spastic, something which suggests political whim. This is likely because of the high capital cost of HSR lines, meaning that it likely takes a lot of political will to round up the necessary amounts of money.

But nonetheless, progress has been remarkable. France, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China now have systems that span much of their nations, with more on the way. Germany is much more patchy, and the UK and Australia have done hardly anything.

Most US HSR is likely to be incremental improvements, and rather patchy ones at that. North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, and Washington State have been going ahead with lots of improvements, even if that cannot be said of some of their neighboring states. The fate of would-be systems in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida also suggests political whim.


Turning from intercity HSR to urban rail, one finds the same problem of capital cost, and one finds the same sort of patchy development. Political whim seems evident here also. At least the US, some cities may start building urban-rail systems years ahead of some neighboring similar cities. For rapid-transit and light-rail systems primarily for urban areas:
San Diego: 1981, Los Angeles: 1990
San Francisco: old, San Jose, Sacramento: 1987, Oakland: none
Portland, OR: 1986, Seattle: 2009
Pittsburgh, Cleveland: old, Cincinnati: under construction, Columbus, Detroit: none
St. Louis: 1986, Kansas City: none
Philadelphia: old, DC: 1976, Baltimore: 1983
Houston: 2004, Dallas: 1996, (Austin: 2010)
Miami: 1984, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville: none

[Plantagenet]

Most US HSR is likely to be incremental improvements, and rather patchy ones at that. North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, and Washington State have been going ahead with lots of improvements...

I like your post, but you don't seem to know the basic facts about US HSR.

There are no "incremental improvements" to HSR going on anywhere in the USA, because there is no HSR anywhere in the USA.

[pstarr]

Typical city center train station in Germany

that's not a train, it's a sneaker. Here in the USofA we ride the Manrail;

[lpetrich]

Most US HSR is likely to be incremental improvements, and rather patchy ones at that. North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, and Washington State have been going ahead with lots of improvements...

I like your post, but you don't seem to know the basic facts about US HSR.

There are no "incremental improvements" to HSR going on anywhere in the USA, because there is no HSR anywhere in the USA.

That's a matter of definition. Most of this work aims at speeds of 110 mph (177 km/h) or 125 mph (201 km/s), while part of the Northeast Corridor is due to get upgraded to 160 mph (257 km/s). That's rather moderate-speed by the standards of Europe and east Asia, I will concede.

[Plantagenet]

Most of this work aims at speeds of 110 mph (177 km/h) or 125 mph (201 km/s), while part of the Northeast Corridor is due to get upgraded to 160 mph (257 km/s).

Plans for upgrades and HSR service in the US have been around for decades. Its great that such "work aims at speeds of 110 mph." However little actual progress has been made. After decades of such planning, there currently there is no--zero---nada HSR service in the US between any of the major cities.

There are short stretches of track along the ACELA corridor between DC and Boston where trains can attain high speeds (ca. 200 km/hr) for short distances in a couple of spots, but then they slow to a crawl again. Proposed HSR transit elsewhere in the US is the same. For instance, here's a recent news story from Michigan about whats going on with their proposed HSR route: Problematically, though, track conditions and safety concerns led Norfolk Southern to recently downgrade speeds on that Kalamazoo-Dearborn stretch to 25-30 mph from the 79 mph trains had been traveling.

The only way to get high speed rail in the USA is to build actual high speed rail intercity lines. Dithering over plans and making incremental improvements to a short stretch of track here and there isn't going to get it done.

[Plantagenet]

West Side light rail route opens for service in LA----WAY TO GO, LA!!!!!

West side line open in LA

It will take a few more years to finish the route and extend it past USC and out to its eventual terminus near the beach in Santa Monica.

[lpetrich]

Another addition to Los Angeles's growing rail-transit network. Its present rail-transit era started in 1990, with its Blue Line between downtown LA and Long Beach. Since then, LA has built lines to Hollywood, Pasadena, East LA, LAX, and surrounding suburbs, with more on the way.

There's a line being built from Pasadena to Montclair, and some others in various stages of planning, like a Crenshaw-Blvd. one, an East-LA extension further eastward, a Regional Connector in a downtown tunnel, and an extension of the LA Subway westward under Wilshire Blvd.