Need a DJ? Hire Peter!
Peter Naughton, the owner of this website, is now offering DJ services! I've got a separate DJ website now open at
PETERtheDJ.com so check it out! There's a sale for wedding receptions, and I also can DJ class reunions, holiday office parties and any other kind of event where you need music played via a professional sound system, accompanied by professional dance lighting.
High Speed Rail: We're Not Doing it Right
High-speed rail could very well be a great idea — but only if they do it right. And so far, it looks like that’s not the case, at least not in New York State.
At present, it seems that most of the money is being devoted to simply upgrading existing rail lines. For example, across upstate New York, it appears most of the money will be spent on adding an additional track to the existing mainline between Buffalo and Albany.
Don’t get me wrong — this will help improve rail service. In most places, the mainline is two tracks, and those tracks are owned by CSX, a freight train company. Amtrak simply leases the rights to run passenger trains on CSX’s tracks. As you might expect, CSX gives their own trains first priority in scheduling. When there are delays, track outages or other problems that foul up the schedule, again, the first priority for CSX is usually to get its own trains rolling, while Amtrak waits and falls farther and farther behind schedule.
Supposedly, this new track (referred to as a “third track” because the mainline is two tracks in most places) will be dedicated for passenger trains only. That would theoretically reduce the chances of CSX getting into Amtrak’s way, and thus, Amtrak trains would have the chance to stay on-time more often. Additionally, a passenger-only track would theoretically get better maintenance. CSX only needs to maintain its tracks well-enough to support passenger service up to 79mph, but Amtrak’s existing locomotives are capable of speeds closer to 110mph.
But one extra track isn’t enough. What happens when you have two Amtrak trains headed in opposite directions? One of the trains would still need to switch over to a CSX track so the two trains can pass each other. In those occasions, one train would be forced to reduce its speed to 79mph — or even lower, if there’s CSX traffic in the way. I also find it hard to believe that CSX trains would never use the passenger-only track. I certainly hope the track is truly for Amtrak only and the rule is enforced strictly, but it wouldn’t surprise me if CSX trains get the green light on occasion.
Doing it Right
If high-speed rail in the United States will be competitive with other nations, as President Obama remarked in his State of the Union address, then we need to really go all-out with it. High-speed passenger rail Japan and many European nations goes much faster, with speeds more than doubling the 79mph limit in use on many U.S. rail lines today.
French TGV train (click for full-size), courtesy Wikipedia
Operations like Japan’s Bullet Train and the French TGV frequently travel in the 150-200mph range because they are operated on dedicated trackage. Fences keep wildlife and stupid humans off the tracks. There are no at-grade crossings with roadways or other rail lines. In Japan, they’re already testing Maglev technologies to the point they could soon be used for revenue train service, as trains propelled by magnetic levitation could travel even faster, since there’s no friction between wheels and rails.
By contrast, Amtrak’s Acela, which runs from Boston to Washington, is capable of running up to 165mph. But because Acela shares tracks with other (slower) types of passenger and freight trains, it is limited by federal law to 150mph. Even then, Acela reaches the top speed for just a few short stretches of track in New England. As explained on Wikipedia, sharp curves, grade crossings, older power lines or other factors limit Acela to speeds well below its potential for most of the route.
In order for the U.S. to truly compete in the high-speed rail game, the first basic requirement is dedicated lines. Don’t just add more “regular” tracks to what’s already there. High-speed rail needs dedicated tracks that won’t be hindered by slower freight trains and local passenger trains. High-speed rail needs bridges or tunnels that allow the tracks to avoid grade-crossings, eliminating the chance for catastrophic high-speed collisions.
Most importantly, regardless of how much this will cost to build — the fares need to be competitive. And I realize this statement basically points out that high-speed rail isn’t cost-effective. Why would you spend millions — or billions — on technology that will still be slower than airplanes, but cost passengers just as much or more?
As it stands now, Amtrak from Syracuse to New York City costs more and takes longer than the Megabus service. The bus can make the trip in about 4½ hours. The train takes more than 5 hours, with no help from a 50-minute unavoidable stopover in Albany to change locomotives.
Standard Amtrak train in Poughkeepsie, courtesy Wikipedia (click for full-size)
A quick search for trains from NYC to Syracuse on a Sunday shows the shortest trip at 5 hours, 23 minutes; the longest trip is scheduled to take 5 hours, 56 minutes. Amtrak’s website said tickets on those trains would cost $76 or $92, depending on time of day. Megabus can make the trip in 4 hours, 45 minutes and tickets for that same Sunday were $33, regardless of which trip was chosen.
Another factor in doing it right — limit the number of station stops. Obviously, every station along the line will want to be part of this exciting new technology. Any city with an existing Amtrak station will no doubt be upset to learn their station will not be part of the high-speed service. But in reality, the best way to run a high-speed train is to limit the number of stops.
Let’s say a train can run 150mph for the entire stretch of a 300-mile run (yes, I’m keeping the math simple). Theoretically, that trip could be completed in about 2 hours. But if that train has to make 10 stops along the way, you can add several minutes for each stop. Time is lost when the train has to slow down to make the stop (and trains take a long time to slow down, so this process would likely begin a mile or more away from the station). More time is lost while the train sits in the station. Yet more time is lost as the train accelerates back to the top speed; unlike a zippy car, the train can’t just “gun it” — it takes time to rebuild that momentum. (And I’ll also point out that more fuel is used to stop and go, as opposed to not stopping at all. The same reason your car gets a better fuel economy with highway driving than it does in city driving.)
For example, Amtrak’s existing Empire Service has the following station stops:
According to Wikipedia, the entire run takes about seven hours, and an upgrade to high speed rail could reduce the trip to just three hours. While I highly doubt this trip could really be possible in just three hours (considering Albany to NYC alone is expected to take “less than two hours”), there’s no question that a significant reduction in travel time would require some stops to be eliminated. For example, I would propose the following eliminations in red, with the reasons given in parentheses:
Again, there’s no doubt people in the places I’ve crossed off would be angered to see this post, but to quote Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” High-speed rail attains its highest speeds when there are fewer stops. Even at the “lower” speeds in practice on most lines today, trains that make fewer stops make better time.
And let’s not forget, I’m not proposing a total elimination of all Amtrak service to these cities – just high-speed rail. Regular trains would still service all of the stations on the list, and schedules could possibly be reconfigured to allow passengers to make connections with high-speed trains. A similar strategy is already in use on the Acela Express line — many smaller stations are skipped by Acela, but still served by regular “regional” or Northeast Corridor trains.