"[country] has shiny high-speed rail and the US doesn't" is a recurring internet meme, though when looking timing up for this thread I see the US was an early adopter and the Metroliner kept having problems. So: what if US governments in the 70s decided they wanted this to work out and expand, where would HS-US have been brought to and where would it link up? The grand memes of NY-to-LA trains replacing planes are likely not happening but how far into the States could a line go?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
US high-speed rail
- Thread starter Charles EP M.
- Start date
JesterBL
Gastronaut
- Location
- Flyover Country, USA
- Pronouns
- he/him
The Great Lakes region is honestly an undervalued place for the potential of high speed rail, especially before the Rust Belt killed some of the respectably sized cities of Ohio and Michigan.
The Bos-Wash corridor is the obvious candidate. Your 70s POD would be too early for the major cities of Texas but could all be later beneficiaries.
It probably helps if Penn Central fails in a way that gets you a larger chunk of the country in Conrail, easier to do HSR if you have coherent rail policy and can limit interference from freight rail in terms of what gets done where.
Arthur_Phuxache
Double Points Friday
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
Los Angeles-San Diego and NYC-Atlantic City would be good places to start.
frittering
the tropic of cancer answered, drink the quicksand
- Location
- Vincent Hallinan Country
- Pronouns
- an indescribable void
this is both way too short to be cost-efficient and completely arbitrary, would people really spend that much more for not all that significant time savings over buses or the atlantic city line (especially since atlantic city isn't particularly Classy)
anyway the east coast is the obvious pilot, say boston -> nyc -> philly -> baltimore -> dc -> richmond -> raleigh -> charlotte -> columbia -> atlanta -> jacksonville -> miami or something
Arthur_Phuxache
Double Points Friday
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
Yeah, the 95 mile route would be too short, but I was thinking baby steps. NYC-Philly might be a better bet
That would be a lot of eminent domain and tunnelling.
frittering
the tropic of cancer answered, drink the quicksand
- Location
- Vincent Hallinan Country
- Pronouns
- an indescribable void
Well, take one or two chunks of 3-4 cities there as the pilot program with that as the model they're building towards.
why tunnel? it's a flat coastal area ish
Okay, so just as an initial question to ask. Is this being meant more-so as kind of like, for where it would've been likely if you had the funds+political will to do so? Or more-so of what conditions could exist in order to enable it to happen and where would it have been likely to be to see additional corridors to have seen HSR?
At least from a pure matter of rolling stock, I could see if you do have the kind of initial setup of corridors towards working on that, you'd likely see an increased amount of Turboliners (which were a gas-turbine powered trainset capable of reaching 125mph.
From a pure manner of just assuming you have the funds to upgrade existing corridors, the immediate most likely corridor you'd see would be the Water Level Route up to Buffalo which had been extensively studied prior to Shinkansen as an express passenger corridor, and would make the most sense in terms of the improvements there.
After that, runs into more of a general question which ties up into the quest you're asking dealing with like, if you had the funds+political will or not and so forth, b/c I do have a sort of range of answers here (which is like, based off a bit of my own research dealing stuff with from a rough PoD of May 1st, 1971 for a project).
Nah.
I'd at least staunchly disagree in so far with the full East Coast being the obvious pilot, considering that outside of Boston-DC, there arguably isn't as much of the... kind of 'aspect' there for what would serve as the most likely routes in the 70s down the East Coast at this point in time.
Dan1988
DO! YOU! HEAR THE SONG OF PEACE!
- Location
- North America
- Pronouns
- he/him
Outside of the obvious NEC, Midwest, and California bits (and anything further is outright ASB), what would be most helpful here in this early stage is to drop the whole reticence towards foreign systems, and instead choose to learn from them. While the US isn't going to spend money to develop new HSR infrastructure (not when the national highway system is all that and a cupcake to planners - as well as the initial design standard for the Interstates specifically precluding sharing space), it could be possible to spend money to upgrade the existing network, and it's from here that it's possible to learn from other systems.
As far as the Shinkansen goes, that's going to be somewhat problematic because of hangover attitudes from WWII WRT Japan, but it could be possible to learn how to make it work otherwise (what Japan would ultimately call IOTL "mini-Shinkansens"). Otherwise, the US rail companies and/or USDOT can do some sort of fact-finding mission overseas (even if it means coming across Italy's HSR experiments) on how to design modern passenger rail networks that coexist with highways, including visiting such exotic places as, say, Australia (where Sydney's commuter rail network at the time was, in part, inspired by New York City's subway as it existed in the early 20th century, believe it or not). While HSR is the jewel in the crown, even if at first it partially occupies a similar status as the TEE across the Atlantic (which essentially is what the Metroliner became IOTL before the Acela came along), what would be helpful is if the feeder systems - the commuter, regional, and medium-distance intercity trains - also received similar levels of investment and modernization.
Or, IOW, WI alongside:
As far as the Shinkansen goes, that's going to be somewhat problematic because of hangover attitudes from WWII WRT Japan, but it could be possible to learn how to make it work otherwise (what Japan would ultimately call IOTL "mini-Shinkansens"). Otherwise, the US rail companies and/or USDOT can do some sort of fact-finding mission overseas (even if it means coming across Italy's HSR experiments) on how to design modern passenger rail networks that coexist with highways, including visiting such exotic places as, say, Australia (where Sydney's commuter rail network at the time was, in part, inspired by New York City's subway as it existed in the early 20th century, believe it or not). While HSR is the jewel in the crown, even if at first it partially occupies a similar status as the TEE across the Atlantic (which essentially is what the Metroliner became IOTL before the Acela came along), what would be helpful is if the feeder systems - the commuter, regional, and medium-distance intercity trains - also received similar levels of investment and modernization.
Or, IOW, WI alongside:
our *alt-Amtrak is also essentially a Congressionally-approved interstate compact that also runs the commuter trains for Boston, New Haven/Springfield, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, Washington, the Midwest, and Buffalo/Niagara Falls, as well as regional rail services along the West Coast, the wider Northeast, and the Midwest, at least as mini-SBB/CFFs with a fare policy and railpass system similar to the Japanese? In that case, there's also possible growth for incubating other HSR services in those regions, such as Seattle, WA-Vancouver, BC, as well as some acceptance of psuedo-HSR intercity services like CN Rail's/VIA's Tempo railcars. (Furthermore, in the case of Greater Boston, as an analog to OTL Amtrak's connecting motorcoach services, I could also potentially see a case being made for handing over the Steamship Authority, the ferries between Providence and Newport in Rhode Island as well as the Block Island Ferry, and the Boston Harbor commuter ferry service to *Amtrak.)
Arthur_Phuxache
Double Points Friday
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
Flat-ish, yeah.
You would have to bridge/tunnel the Delaware and Patapsco if you meant to head south of DC.
I don't see any other cross country HST routes being viable in the lower 48.
A US HST line is something I'd expect to see on Abandoned Engineering.
Last edited:
This is probably a continuation of it, but if you were to make me present the three most-likely routes you could've seen HSR done (mind I am assuming by HSR, you are referring to 125mph services here) after the Northeast Corridor from what was the 'most likely' that could've been done.
First up, would be the Water Level Route, considering the general nature of it in terms of the multiple cities it had and associated passenger traffic. There is however the significant matter in terms of the kind of improvements that would be needed because of the general geography of it, and you could be likely to see 125mph-max service exist between New York City and Albany, with the extension eastwards to Buffalo being more difficult.
Second up, would be the Chicago-Cincinnati route, considering that you historically had Amtrak propose funds to increase track speed towards 90mph, and depending on the associated conditions if they acquire their own right of way, could also help here in terms of the improvements towards pushing up to 125mph. It in general is in some ways more flatter and less 'curvy', but also has less of an inherently present associated traffic as compared to the Water Level Route or Chicago-Detroit Route, but possesses a better geography from what I recall.
Third up, would be the Chicago-Detroit route, considering that Amtrak does possess significant ownership of this already. There are significant issues however present in terms of the kind of geography, similar to the Water Level Route. The big issue here again would rest for the kind of right of way acquisitions to be able to avoid those curves, since from the documents I have on hand that discuss it, indicate the kind of big differences between 110mph and 125mph service that'd be required (cost-estimate of in 1985 USD, of for 110mph-low realign, $268.3M, 110mph-medium realign, $325.4M, and 125mph, 722.3M).
After those three, it imho gets more difficult for where you could necessarily see the 'next' HSR corridors to emerge because of a variety of conditions, and I'll list a whole bunch from east to west, where I think do represent the next 'step' in terms of the sort of reduced challenges.
Philadelphia-Pittsburgh suffers the significant issue of needing to get across the mountains, which uh, rapidly sends the cost of the project up (see the Horseshoe Curve as how the PRR worked to get up over the mountains), but Philadelphia-Harrisburg sets itself as a significant likely project to be done, representing an extension of the Northeast Corridor here imho.
Cincinnati-Cleveland, has a fair easier amount of geography and population here that can be done, and is similar to many Midwestern areas in terms of the more simpler geographical areas here for it. Issues of course here could contend with the potential separation of passenger and freight services (considering that... you do have in many areas even to now, significant amounts of clustered passenger-freight service) and how that could handle it.
Chicago-St. Louis, also represents a significant area for the corridor, and the big question here is also probably of like, which route would be the one 'picked' (and also to work for upgrading it) towards 125mph service, considering the need to simplify potential curves and also depending on where they go through.
Chicago-Minneapolis, this historically has had fairly fast service, and represents a potentially strong area to see it imho.
Texas Triangle, this is one I am unfamiliar with and need to ask some people I know for what was getting discussed in general at the time there.
Washington-Portland is another area I can see the work being done, but again, you're talking some general curves here that are going to be a challenge to solve, but also in some ways represents an area for eventual extension both north towards Vancouver and south towards Eugene. Geography is going to be the pain here.
Los Angeles-San Diego has significant service present between both and could be seen as a major area. The Surf Line however as the name implies, runs along the coast and would be... inadvisible for upgrading for full HSR service and would likely necessitate looking at a more inland one, which does pose its own issues.
Like, fundamentally as well, the big thing here is that the Midwest corridors are to a broad extent the highest probability routes outside the Northeast Corridor because of 1) the general terrain, 2) being relatively straight and flat corridors which helps in terms of needing less upgrades than a more curvature-based one, 3) these were being downgraded for use or even abandoned pre-Staggers Act.
First up, would be the Water Level Route, considering the general nature of it in terms of the multiple cities it had and associated passenger traffic. There is however the significant matter in terms of the kind of improvements that would be needed because of the general geography of it, and you could be likely to see 125mph-max service exist between New York City and Albany, with the extension eastwards to Buffalo being more difficult.
Second up, would be the Chicago-Cincinnati route, considering that you historically had Amtrak propose funds to increase track speed towards 90mph, and depending on the associated conditions if they acquire their own right of way, could also help here in terms of the improvements towards pushing up to 125mph. It in general is in some ways more flatter and less 'curvy', but also has less of an inherently present associated traffic as compared to the Water Level Route or Chicago-Detroit Route, but possesses a better geography from what I recall.
Third up, would be the Chicago-Detroit route, considering that Amtrak does possess significant ownership of this already. There are significant issues however present in terms of the kind of geography, similar to the Water Level Route. The big issue here again would rest for the kind of right of way acquisitions to be able to avoid those curves, since from the documents I have on hand that discuss it, indicate the kind of big differences between 110mph and 125mph service that'd be required (cost-estimate of in 1985 USD, of for 110mph-low realign, $268.3M, 110mph-medium realign, $325.4M, and 125mph, 722.3M).
After those three, it imho gets more difficult for where you could necessarily see the 'next' HSR corridors to emerge because of a variety of conditions, and I'll list a whole bunch from east to west, where I think do represent the next 'step' in terms of the sort of reduced challenges.
Philadelphia-Pittsburgh suffers the significant issue of needing to get across the mountains, which uh, rapidly sends the cost of the project up (see the Horseshoe Curve as how the PRR worked to get up over the mountains), but Philadelphia-Harrisburg sets itself as a significant likely project to be done, representing an extension of the Northeast Corridor here imho.
Cincinnati-Cleveland, has a fair easier amount of geography and population here that can be done, and is similar to many Midwestern areas in terms of the more simpler geographical areas here for it. Issues of course here could contend with the potential separation of passenger and freight services (considering that... you do have in many areas even to now, significant amounts of clustered passenger-freight service) and how that could handle it.
Chicago-St. Louis, also represents a significant area for the corridor, and the big question here is also probably of like, which route would be the one 'picked' (and also to work for upgrading it) towards 125mph service, considering the need to simplify potential curves and also depending on where they go through.
Chicago-Minneapolis, this historically has had fairly fast service, and represents a potentially strong area to see it imho.
Texas Triangle, this is one I am unfamiliar with and need to ask some people I know for what was getting discussed in general at the time there.
Washington-Portland is another area I can see the work being done, but again, you're talking some general curves here that are going to be a challenge to solve, but also in some ways represents an area for eventual extension both north towards Vancouver and south towards Eugene. Geography is going to be the pain here.
Los Angeles-San Diego has significant service present between both and could be seen as a major area. The Surf Line however as the name implies, runs along the coast and would be... inadvisible for upgrading for full HSR service and would likely necessitate looking at a more inland one, which does pose its own issues.
Like, fundamentally as well, the big thing here is that the Midwest corridors are to a broad extent the highest probability routes outside the Northeast Corridor because of 1) the general terrain, 2) being relatively straight and flat corridors which helps in terms of needing less upgrades than a more curvature-based one, 3) these were being downgraded for use or even abandoned pre-Staggers Act.
frittering
the tropic of cancer answered, drink the quicksand
- Location
- Vincent Hallinan Country
- Pronouns
- an indescribable void
The Patapsco is very narrow outside of Baltimore harbor itself, which it obviously would make no sense to cross (much further south than it would be ideal for the line to go, bridge would have to be super-tall to accommodate harbor traffic). I assume you mean the Potomac, which isn't particularly wide unless you decide to cross it south of DC proper for some reason.
New York - Chicago is perfectly feasible for High Speed Rail, there are enough reasonable sized towns to enable reasonable frequency between Chicago and Cleveland and New York and Buffalo and then just have a smaller number of trains crossing the gap and serving Erie. If you avoid cabbage stations, even by using traditional lines (although improved) out of Chicago and New York you should be able to get the journey down to 6.5 hours or so. If you doubt people will take that, try getting a walk up ticket on the Paris-Milan Fresciarossas (7hrs 11 minutes).
America with its lower energy prices at least initially has the option of Gas Turbine stock (like one of the prototype TGV's and the experimental APT).
America with its lower energy prices at least initially has the option of Gas Turbine stock (like one of the prototype TGV's and the experimental APT).
Last edited:
Former, mainly
Yea, this is before the growth of Charlotte and the Research Triangle and Richmond being slightly less of a sleepy nowhere town make a DC connection really obviously needed. TBH, there's no reason that they couldn't just dump an extra track on Long Bridge or claw one of the 14th street bridges from road to rail or whatever IMO. My assumption is that DC area rail planning in this scenario is basically "Treat Union station as the HSR terminus and do local/DMV intercity-ish services via a combination of Long Bridge and expanding capacity at Alexandria"; by 1970 even though the Metro doesn't exist the Authorized Regional System included a line to Alexandria.
Something I have not seen mentioned btw: We're talking pre-9/11 (aka "easy trips from US to Canada") and early in the collapse of the Rust Belt, I think some international HSR service might be doable. NEC-Montreal connection (if we're prioritizing the Water Level route) seems like a decent bet even if Montreal is becoming a secondary center rapidly) and something to connect upstate NY+northern Ohio to the Golden Horseshoe could be nice and benefit both areas. This is in addition to the Detroit-Windsor metropolitan area or whatever it is at this point in time. Hell, throw in SD-Mexico services and maybe there's an incentive to stave off the collapse of Mexican passenger rail a bit.
- Location
- NYC (né Falkirk)
- Pronouns
- he/him
How about a long Chicago to Toronto through Detroit-Windsor route?
That makes a lot of sense too, I was just thinking "if it weren't for that damnable border, would Buffalo be absorbed into the Golden Horseshoe and maybe Rochester too"