alt text
tweet by amtrak ben: i think we should build high speed rail next to freeways only because it would make drivers feel like complete losers all the time
edit: fixed alt text
tweet by amtrak ben: i think we should build high speed rail next to freeways only because it would make drivers feel like complete losers all the time
edit: fixed alt text
Number of reasons, risk of trespassing at a large number of crossings is only one of them:
None of which are in any way a high speed rail thing. Level crossings doubly and triply so, that’s like building a driveway directly off a highway.
These are simply reasons why it’s difficult for even high speed projects to go fast in the city, due to using existing infrasturcture because building a separate high speed network in a built up area are orders of magnitude greater…
Just look to Amtrak’s Acela, The States’ first, and for a long time only high speed rail line. It can only go its full speed for a portion of the line because of all the kinds of challenges mentioned above.
High speed within city limits is something like 100km/h, metro speeds. Which also don’t have level crossings due to frequency.
For actual HSR you need distance between stations, a stop max. every thirty minutes or so, better upwards of an hour. If you want to have multiple stops within the same metro area (which can make a lot of sense) the train isn’t going to drive particularly fast between them, how could it, it has to accelerate, decelerate, and probably also deal with local trains sharing the same track.
As to the Acela… those might be high speed trains, but it’s definitely not running on high speed track most of the time, as such it would be wrong to call it a high speed line: The Acela does an average of 113km/h, Germany has S-Bahn trains (something in between metro and commuter rail) which go 140km/h (not average because they stop in every village but the track supports it and they hit it regularly).
And I know the track there isn’t quite as bad but it still looks somewhat like this. Don’t be surprised if trains have to crawl. Cargo companies don’t care about speed and hate maintenance, that’s why that happens. I’m actually surprised it’s even legal to drive there. Proper HSR trains couldn’t even drive there same as a Lamborghini won’t go offroad, and I heard they had tons of trouble getting the Acela trains to run on its track, those modern units monitor track condition.
I can’t really discuss this further if your definition of high speed rail changes. Typically it is defined at somewhere above 200km/h. Trains can’t go much above 100km/h in the city, as you say, but by the above definition this is not high speed. My previous comment gave reasons why high speed trains are often further limited to anywhere between 10 and 80km/h in urban areas.
My definition didn’t change: It’s just that HSR is not an inner-city thing, it’s between cities, and 100km/h are properly fast metros. HSR it’s not a metro replacement, or a streetcar replacement, it’s for travel between metro areas to across the continent but it also shouldn’t be surprising if within cities, HSR can’t go faster than your usual metro. Unless you build the corridor first and the city second, or demolish a couple of neighbourhoods, there’s just going to be too tight curves. And that’s fine HSR trains spend most of their time in cities standing in a station anyway.
And that’s insanity while metros are zipping by with 100km/h. Also Acela’s track troubles are not just in urban areas, even though the worst spots are in city centres.
The first actually HSR line in the US will be in California, with a minimum track speed of 180km/h and grade separation everywhere. Not all corridors are new but none will have curly track.
I’m looking forward to CA-HSR - that’s for sure.
Electro-mechanical? Lucky you, most of tram networks here have only mechanical, where old lady should switch direction with a crowbar.