Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

High Speed Rail - Texas


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#151 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 21 June 2016 - 08:05 AM

International Interest in a Trans-Texas HSR System:

 

http://www.star-tele...le84931157.html

 

I had been wondering for some time about how much of a "lock-in" there would be by choosing one company and set of standards for a rail system over another. It looks like there is a "universal" standard that can be accommodated by several competing companies as a system expands, but the Japan Railroad products are not compatible with that standard. The ideal system would not require passengers to have to leave one train to get on another at a "change of gauge".



#152 fortworthhorn

fortworthhorn

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2016 - 08:51 AM

International Interest in a Trans-Texas HSR System:

 

http://www.star-tele...le84931157.html

 

I had been wondering for some time about how much of a "lock-in" there would be by choosing one company and set of standards for a rail system over another. It looks like there is a "universal" standard that can be accommodated by several competing companies as a system expands, but the Japan Railroad products are not compatible with that standard. The ideal system would not require passengers to have to leave one train to get on another at a "change of gauge".

Yeah, but some fumes might reach Colleyville  :swg: and we can't have that  :swg: .  In all seriousness, a high speed rail stop in Arlington does not make sense to me.  At the speeds they are talking about, your distances need to be farther spread out IMO.  That is why Houston-Dallas-Fort Worth-San Antonio-Austin makes sense.  As seen by what is happening with the Houston-Dallas leg and TexRail & Colleyville though, I am not sure the political climate exists or will for quite some time.



#153 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 891 posts

Posted 23 June 2016 - 06:01 PM

An article at NextBigfuture that mostly repeats info from earlier posts on this thread

 

High Speed rail projects in Texas

 

http://nextbigfuture...s-in-texas.html



#154 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 24 June 2016 - 07:02 AM

An article at NextBigfuture that mostly repeats info from earlier posts on this thread - High Speed rail projects in Texas

 

Agree, but with some added info: “Dallas Star Telegram”.  Such is what happens when one’s identity takes a backseat to the pursuit of "metro-ism".  "FWexit". :laugh:

Some self evident insights -

The Publicly funded/supported HSR has momentum.   Self funding, (where have we heard that before?) can not get the job done.

European/Chinese bidders have the lead to develop HSR in the USA (Texas) with Germany/France currently ahead.

Fort Worth/Arlington is pivotal to the Trans-Texas HSR’ ultimate plan to connect to El Paso and the Southwest U.S./California; FW/A as well as to connect to Oklahoma and points north and east; and to Mexico and Texas population centers in between.
 



#155 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 24 June 2016 - 10:10 PM

 

An article at NextBigfuture that mostly repeats info from earlier posts on this thread - High Speed rail projects in Texas

 

Agree, but with some added info: “Dallas Star Telegram”.  Such is what happens when one’s identity takes a backseat to the pursuit of "metro-ism".  "FWexit". :laugh:

Some self evident insights -

The Publicly funded/supported HSR has momentum.   Self funding, (where have we heard that before?) can not get the job done.

European/Chinese bidders have the lead to develop HSR in the USA (Texas) with Germany/France currently ahead.

Fort Worth/Arlington is pivotal to the Trans-Texas HSR’ ultimate plan to connect to El Paso and the Southwest U.S./California; FW/A as well as to connect to Oklahoma and points north and east; and to Mexico and Texas population centers in between.
 

 

 

If you're looking at getting Federal funds through grants, you're going to have to use American built trains. The Chinese recently dropped out of the Los Angeles to Las Vegas HSR over the build American requirements. The European train builders are more likely to meet the build America requirements, as they already have manufacturing facilities in America. 

 

The Japanese are proposing a privately funded train service where build American requirement isn't required. And it is true that their technology is different from others - but that doesn't make theirs worse. 



#156 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 June 2016 - 01:34 PM

The Japanese are proposing a privately funded train service where build American requirement isn't required. And it is true that their technology is different from others - but that doesn't make theirs worse.

 

 The grants, The Chinese issues - that I already knew.  What is was unknown is that the Japanese use their own rail gauge.

 

The Chinese may or may not come around to agreeing to build the trains in the USA; so that is an requirement that they will probably bend to if they want to compete with the European bidders.    Both Europe and China ( Philadelphia 2014) have laid the ground work for constructing the trains in the USA. Japan did not.  Why? ......

 

Because the Japanese/TCR project will be incompatible with the standard rail gauge used in Europe and North America (Canada, U.S., Mexico). It is highly unlikely, that a continental wide HSR will reinvent its rail gauge to that of an island nation such as is Japan. 

 

And of course, "self funding" (doesn't that sound familiar) is farcical when you are building a project of this magnitude.  Public funds and the authority that it brings are the reasons why Texas, along with other states and Mexico are forging ahead.



#157 Not Sure

Not Sure

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Location:NRH

Posted 25 June 2016 - 07:24 PM

Just curious, but what difference does the gauge make if the equipment operates on its own right-of-way and does not interact with freight equipment? If it does have to meet the crashworthiness standards that passenger equipment operating on freight rails currently has to meet (such as the RDCs and other TRE equipment), it will be quite heavy and inefficient compared to equipment that operates on its own dedicated right-of-way.

 

Repurposing freight corridors as dual freight/passenger corridors or taking them over as HSR corridors (which frankly isn't practical given the broader curves required for higher speeds) will require complete replacement of the rail and roadbed to get speeds up to anything near HSR territory, and that's just for starters. If you're going to replace the rail, especially for a dedicated HSR corridor, the gauge doesn't matter.

 

Having said all that, if Japan wants to sell equipment here and in other places where the gauge is different, I doubt it's an engineering and manufacturing challenge that cannot be overcome.

 

This is why I prefer the utility corridors over the old railroad corridors. They are straight as an arrow irrespective of grade, unlike freight rail corridors which must meander to make the grade easier. Grades (up to a point) don't mean much to HSR, especially since it is common to grade-separate the rail from the surrounding terrain/interferences. And since you already have to address the inadequate curves on freight corridors with new right-of-way acquisition, there's no savings from one to the next.

 

Furthermore, I see expanded use of freight corridors in the future, particularly those routes from DFW to Houston, Galveston, Beaumont, Corpus Christi as well as Eagle Pass, Brownsville and Laredo. Considering the investments some of the big freight carriers have made in these ports and border crossings in recent years, along with land holdings along these routes, I don't see any of them willing to give up the existing corridors for less than a premium on what they're worth now.



#158 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 891 posts

Posted 25 June 2016 - 09:48 PM

I think variable gauge trains exist for HSR.
Both the Japanese and Chinese have developed them.

#159 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 25 June 2016 - 11:16 PM

There are different gauge tracks in America already. Many mountain railroads, like the White Pass and Yukon Railroad, and the Denver and Rio Grande West Railroad use narrow gauge tracks. Argentina  and other South American railroads use broad gauge tracks. 

 

But let's review Japan specifically, while it is true most of Japan;s rails are narrow gauge, the Shinkansen uses standard gauge tracks, the EXACT same gauge used by most American railroads and DART's light rail trains. TCR plans to use the latest Shinkansen trains.

 

​Sort of like calling the coffee in the kettle black, which it usually is. ;)

Data Source: https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Shinkansen

 

Note: It didn't take rocket science to search Wiki for the correct  information. 

 

Which brings up another point I wish to make, that opponents of anything in general, including railroads, frequently speak with a forked tongues and throw mud at walls hoping it will stick. Whenever someone - anyone - makes a claim without providing links or data to back that claim up, check that claim out yourself. 

 

So I'll provide a second link https://en.wikipedia...Central_Railway



#160 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 June 2016 - 11:16 PM

I think variable gauge trains exist for HSR.
Both the Japanese and Chinese have developed them.

 

 I stand corrected.  The newer generation of Japanese HSR trains use standard guage rail, thus making its current generation usable in Europe and North America.

 

 The lack of such a development would have eliminated the Japan group from consideration.

 

 I am unable to confirm whether the Japan group has acquired land/plant in the U.S. to manufacture its equipment here. I was able to confirm that Germany/France and Spain groups, respectively,  have a purchased or refitted plants in California and Wisconsin to meet the requirements of "Made In the USA" to receive federal funding. 

 

What is still unclear from the Star Telegram report 6/20/16 is the potential of a supplier's monopoly, in this case Japan.  Evidently, there is something that is being perceived about Japan's technology that prevents European and Chinese companies from becoming competitive suppliers; in effect, making Japan a sole source supplier.



#161 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 25 June 2016 - 11:42 PM

 I am unable to confirm whether the Japan group has acquired land/plant in the U.S. to manufacture its equipment here. I was able to confirm that Germany/France and Spain groups, respectively,  have a purchased or refitted plants in California and Wisconsin to meet the requirements of "Made In the USA" to receive federal funding. 

 

TGV manufacturer (Alstom) has an assembly line at Hornell, NY. 

ICE manufactures (Siemens) has an assembly line in Sacramento, CA

N700  prototype 16-car train was delivered in March 2005, cars 1 to 4 were built by Hitachi Ltd., cars 5 to 14 were built by Nippon Sharyo, and cars 15 and 16 were built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

Nippon Sharyo has an assembly line in Rochelle, IL. I do not know if Nippon Sharyo has built every car in a tN700 train set before, never-the-less, I believe they can do so. 



#162 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 June 2016 - 11:51 PM

Which brings up another point I wish to make, that opponents of anything in general, including railroads, frequently speak with a forked tongues and throw mud at walls hoping it will stick. Whenever someone - anyone - makes a claim without providing links or data to back that claim up, check that claim out yourself. ....

 

Of course, this is the High Speed Rail in Texas thread, which sort of makes points about TCR in this thread misplaced and the potential to muddy the water.  Clearly,  Texas High Speed Rail Commission is concerned and interested in a state wide system that will link into adjacent jurisdictions.  Attendees at the latest meeting were from other parts of the state and perhaps interested parties from Oklahoma and Mexico; and with that being said, TCR is viewed, somewhat rightfully so, with suspicion by groups that are interested in developing HSR to a vastly larger project.

 

Texas Central Railways, a self described limited project,  has its own thread  where having conversation directly impacting its effort and being the place to discuss it own set of issues. 



#163 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 29 June 2016 - 04:54 AM

An update in Fort Worth Business magazine, article by A. Lee Graham.

 

http://www.fortworth...fc6d835aca.html

 

I'm beginning to think a Fort Worth-Dallas HSR project may come to fruition sooner than Dallas-Houston.



#164 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 29 June 2016 - 08:30 AM

I'm beginning to think a Fort Worth-Dallas HSR project may come to fruition sooner than Dallas-Houston.

 

 I think so too. 

 

The goal of the Texas HSR Commission is more universal.  It includes DFW, Austin/San Antonio and Houston.  Connecting the three major metro areas under one plan rather than a piece meal approach will have greater support throughout the state.

 

Now looking forward to the August 31, 2016 HSR proposals. :)



#165 Not Sure

Not Sure

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Location:NRH

Posted 29 June 2016 - 10:21 AM

http://www.fortworth...fc6d835aca.html


So the route named in the article is the existing line used by BNSF, UP, DGNO, TRE and Amtrak. The reason we don't have a viable plan for high speed rail in 2016 is in large part due to lack of imagination. There are too many improvements needed to make the former B-RI high speed, including grade separation and broader curves. To make it truly high speed, you need dedicated equipment operating on a dedicated rail. Where in the existing right-of-way does this fit?

Is the goal to squeeze out the other operators? HSR is only going to work in concert with other transit options, especially those that make the last mile connections that HSR can't make. Squeezing out TRE and Amtrak eliminates those options for commuters and intercity travelers. To be fair, the Dallas-Fort Worth to Austin and San Antonio portion of the proposed HSR is intended to do that, but Amtrak goes beyond Dallas and San Antonio.

Let's not forget about the other carriers using this route. DGNO does a lot of work in this area and UP serves an ethanol depot. BNSF operates a local that switches customers on the line and moves transfer traffic to and from the DGNO, along with Fort Worth to Tulsa and Fort Worth to Houston trains. Aside from the expense of relocating the customer facilities there is the problem of rerouting the freight traffic.

Arlington is supposed to be in the mix, right? How exactly do you get from Centreport to the entertainment district of Arlington on high speed rail? To do so at all excludes the high speed in HSR. Any connection via HSR has to be a spur track, otherwise the ROW acquisition cost would be astronomical. There is a better, cheaper way.

I look at a map of the metrosprawl and I see a line straight as an arrow between Dallas and Fort Worth and it ain't the B-RI. I-30 is straight, it's generally flat, it is literally and figuratively the dash between Dallas and Fort Worth, and it passes through the entertainment district in Arlington.

Any HSR right-of-way built in a populated area must be grade separated from pedestrians and vehicles, whether underground or overhead. Since this a given it's far beyond time to stop trying to find ways to repurpose railroads that pass through industrial centers without homes, entertainment destinations or easily accessible transportation options like highway networks. It's time to build new infrastructure using existing highway right-of-way where such a project is not only practical and cost effective, but also visually appealing/compelling to the driver stuck in traffic below. When I lived in Atlanta, every time I was stuck on I-75 and MARTA passed by it finally made enough of an impression I started using it. Chicago, same thing: stuck on the highway watching trains glide by.

Build this over or next to or between the highway lanes and people will be compelled to use it. Imagine cruising along at 70 mph when suddenly a train flies by at 200mph. You don't have to do the math to realize how much quicker and easier your trip would be. It's right there in front of you. Well, it was. It's now way in front of you. The Arlington station straddling the highway would fit right in with the Collins and Center Street gateway bridges. Convenient to walk, bike, pedicab, bus or taxi to the Ballpark, Six Flags or Jerryworld.

East of Loop 12 and west of 820 it gets a little more complicated. Maybe the route works its way toward the Trinity River and alongside the B-RI alignment for that last mile into Fort Worth or along the T&P back into Dallas. It's a problem that can be solved with imagination and engineering. I'd love to see both making much bigger contributions to the discussion and the efforts to make HSR a reality.

#166 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 06:25 PM

The very best route for HSR between Dallas and Fort Worth would be the Trinity River bottom lands. 

All the other potential routes, and the study found just two, have too many obstacles in them. 

The study's two preferred routes so far were (1) I-30 corridor and (2) TRE corridor. '

The study has recommended using the TRE corridor from Dallas to Irving, and the I-30 corridor from Arlington to Fort Worth. There's no room within the I-30 corridor between Dallas and Arlington, and they have to get to Arlington at all costs is why they route away from the TRE corridor west of Irving. There's two options to use between Irving and Arlington, (1) SH360 and (2) Dorthy Spur. The Dorthy Spur will not support train speeds over 30 mph imho there's too many sharp 90 degree curves, so I'm certain it will be unacceptable for HSR. So that leaves SH360 as the route between Irving and Arlington. 

 

Besides using the Trinity River bottomlands, there is another route available between downtown Dallas and downtown Fort Worth, the I-20 corridor. The HSR trains can leave downtown Dallas on the Texas Central tracks, head west along !-20 all the way to Fort Worth, where there's three possible routes to access downtown Fort Worth, (1) old SP corridor parallel to US287 Business, (2) US 287 freeway, and (3) RR spur just east of the I-20 and I35W intersection. I would prefer using US 287 freeway vs the  two old RR corridors. 

 

The route into Fort Worth, as far south as I-20, could also be used to get HSR train south towards Waco, Temple, Austin, and San Antonio. Within the urban environments of both Dallas and Fort Worth, two different HSR  lines (1) towards Houston and (2) towards San Antonio, will share the same tracks. Sharing tracks in urban areas is a major way to decrease capital costs to build a HSR network in Texas.



#167 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 12 October 2016 - 10:51 AM

A short but well produced video about a nation-wide HSR system:

 

http://www.businessi...d-states-2016-8

 

My biggest criticism of the system illustrated is the reliance of routes that lie along the Gulf and Southern Atlantic coasts; these areas are extremely susceptible to damage from storm and flood episodes, as Hurricane Matthew demonstrated. The DFW area does figure prominently in this scheme.



#168 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 13 October 2016 - 02:45 AM

A short but well produced video about a nation-wide HSR system:

 

http://www.businessi...d-states-2016-8

 

My biggest criticism of the system illustrated is the reliance of routes that lie along the Gulf and Southern Atlantic coasts; these areas are extremely susceptible to damage from storm and flood episodes, as Hurricane Matthew demonstrated. The DFW area does figure prominently in this scheme.

How many times has the catenary wires for DART's light rail trains been blown down by a hurricane, tornado, or winds from leading edges of thunderstorms in the last 20 years? I will not say never ever, but it has to be less than once a year. 

 

If Dallas ever fell under the eye of a hurricane' wrath, the last thing we'll be worrying about is whether the trains will be running on time. 



#169 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 14 October 2016 - 11:28 PM

Hmm, poor communication I suppose.

 

The "scheme" I noted that DFW fits into is the rail network illustrated in the video. The areas susceptible to storm disruption  are along the coasts, i.e between Houston and New Orleans, Mobile and Jacksonville, Jacksonville and Savannah... I don't think east-west Amtrak service ever resumed after Katrina took out the tracks between Mobile and Pensacola. My point is that a spoke network from inland hubs (DFW, Atlanta) down to coastal cities would be better than what is illustrated in the video. Hey, FEMA monies could even be used to support that sort of construction since that sort of system could be used to move people out of the path of storms.



#170 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 21 October 2016 - 07:40 AM

Hmm, poor communication I suppose.

 

My point is that a spoke network from inland hubs (DFW, Atlanta) down to coastal cities would be better than what is illustrated in the video. Hey, FEMA monies could even be used to support that sort of construction since that sort of system could be used to move people out of the path of storms.

Your point has merit. But Amtrak's only coach yards and maintenance facilities south of D.C. are in New Orleans, Orlando, and Miami - cities on the coast that get hit regularly by hurricanes. While Amtrak's operations tempo is effected, it usually doesn't take them long to get back on their feet again. The Mississippi River floods every year, yet Amtrak trains usually return to service sooner rather than later. 

Therefore, while it may be wiser to move Amtrak facilities further inland from a climate point of view, who's going to pay for it? Their facilities already exist, their activities have already found a local supply chain, their employees have already established homes and families along the coast. It's going to cost a small fortune to move them, a fortune they really don't and probably shouldn't have to spend.

 

It's an entirely different thing to propose new facilities for activities that don't already exist, it's another thing to do so when the facilities already exist. The study didn't care, look, or account for the Amtrak facilities that already exists.  

 

Of course, it is probably not completely safe to assume intercity trains will be ran by Amtrak. 



#171 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 06 May 2017 - 12:42 AM

Interesting note from upcoming council agenda

 

 

 

Authorizing the Creation of a Multijurisdictional Local Government Corporation with the City of Dallas and Other Local Government Entities for the DFW Core Express High-Speed Rail Connection Between the City of Fort Worth and the City of Dallas and Authorizing Related Interlocal Agreement


#172 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 06 May 2017 - 08:26 AM

I'm all in favor of an HSR network with a downtown Fort Worth station, but I'm not sure Fort Worth-to-Houston has enough gravity to hold onto the starter route between downtown Dallas and NW suburban Houston. When HSR is laid-out to connect the cities along the I-35 corridor, then I expect the combination of travel from Fort Worth to Houston, Austin and San Antonio will initiate the extension. Certainly before TexRail can get involved in an extension from Dallas to Fort Worth, the rail needs to get into downtown Houston. 

 

The additional usage from San Austintonio would run tracks from Dallas to Fort Worth, but unfortunate for the Arlington entertainment hawkers,  the mid-point station will take folks to the big Airport, not the stadiums or roller coasters. The international air travel through DFW is strengthened by HSR reaching the I-35 population centers.

 

Connecting downtowns is a primary benefit of train service, reinforcing the social gathering place, common ground for cordial mingling, central location to conduct business... the airports cannot provide this level of cultural service, and driving is a whole different realm. 



#173 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 09 May 2017 - 08:26 PM

Interesting development in the D -FW line

 

http://www.star-tele...e149594864.html



#174 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 09 May 2017 - 08:52 PM

We already have a rail line between Fort Worth and Dallas.

 

These people still don't get it- this should be a Fort Worth to Houston line, not a Fort Worth to Dallas line with a stop in Arlington.

 

EDIT: In other words, this line should be compatible with TCR trains. It doesn't sound like that's the plan.


- Dylan


#175 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 10 May 2017 - 07:37 AM

From the latest link:
"The rail line is being proposed to run either between downtown Fort Worth and downtown Dallas down Interstate 30, or along the Trinity Railway Express corridor. Project costs havent been determined. The trains could travel between 70 and 125 mph, according to reports."
 
I would like to point out that the TRE trains maximum speeds is 79 mph. What the new HSR line between Dallas and Fort Worth will be is a fully grade separated double track corridor in which only Texas Central HSR trains can run on - at significantly lower speeds than its maximum speed.   
It's 34 rail miles between the two cities downtowns which TRE trains make in about 60 minutes averaging around 30 mph. A non-stop TRE train averaging 60 mph can make the trip in about 34 minutes. In its best case, a non-stop TRE train averaging 79 mph can make the trip in 26 minutes.  In a new HSR only corridor, a train averaging the full 125 mph can make the same 34 miles in about 16 minutes.  
The ideal solution, the most expensive by far, is to build an entirely new double track HSR only rail corridor between both downtowns. It'll allow an one-seat ride all the way between Ft. Worth and Houston without a need to transfer trains in Dallas. 
The cheap solution to travel fairly fast between both downtowns is to quad track the TRE corridor. That would allow express non-stop trains without any slowdowns caused by local all-stops TRE trains. This could allow an elapse time of 26 minutes - which is just 10 minutes longer than a 125 mph HSR train. It's major disadvantage being a transfer would be required in downtown Dallas - with an undetermined amount of minutes layover.
The cheapest solution is to double track the TRE corridor, and run more all-stop local TRE trains. You would have to transfer trains in Dallas - but you'll be paying the cheapest fares by far over these first (or last) 34 miles of your trip.

That was assuming the maximum speeds allowed on the TRE corridor remained at 79 mph. After Postive Train Control has been implemented, and with a little track and signal work upgrading, maximum speeds could be increased to 110 mph without fully implementing grade separations, and up to the same 125 mph if the corridor was fully grade separated. Because 110 mph would be easier and cheaper to implement, the elapse time acheiveable averaging 110 mph over the 34 miles would be 19 minutes, only 3 minutes less than the best possible 16 minutes for a dedicated HSR corridor averaging 125 mph. What a dedicated HSR corridor gets you is that one seat ride from Ft. Worth without having to transfer trains, it really will not get much in time savings will higher average speeds. You'll see more time savings not having to transfer trains.

#176 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 May 2017 - 09:03 AM

The ideal solution, the most expensive by far, is to build an entirely new double track HSR only rail corridor between both downtowns. It'll allow an one-seat ride all the way between Ft. Worth and Houston without a need to transfer trains in Dallas. 

 

Well, glad to read that you agree.  It has always been the ideal solution: including Tarrant County; and I would include the western and south central sections of the state.



#177 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 10 May 2017 - 10:58 AM

I'm ok with it.

I mean, we were supposed to be getting a 2nd commuter rail line from FW to Dallas, anyway, according to NCTCOG... 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#178 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 10 May 2017 - 03:20 PM

I love your posts Electricron.

If the HSR option between D & FW terminates in FW I think it would be a tremendous waste, and we would've been much better off with the quad tracking of the TRE. BUT, if HSR continues on from Fort Worth to Austin/San Antonio or OKC from FW, it will be much more sensible. 



#179 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 May 2017 - 06:29 PM

.....if HSR continues on from Fort Worth to Austin/San Antonio or OKC from FW, it will be much more sensible. 

 

 I have long argued that Fort Worth, though less regarded among the major cities in Texas, is none the less the city that is at the crossroad to a statewide and regional HSR network.  The two most heavily trafficked routes (I35 and I20) intersect in the City. 

 

I agree that it is much more sensible and more likely to gain public support if it can be shown that cities beyond Fort Worth to the west and cities beyond Fort Worth to the south and north will be a part of any future HSR system in Texas, Oklahoma and Mexico.  West of Fort Worth lies Phoenix, Las Vegas and Southern California.


  • JBB likes this

#180 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 10 May 2017 - 06:53 PM

 

 

I agree that it is much more sensible and more likely to gain public support if it can be shown that cities beyond Fort Worth to the west and cities beyond Fort Worth to the south and north will be a part of any future HSR system in Texas, Oklahoma and Mexico.  West of Fort Worth lies Phoenix, Las Vegas and Southern California.

 

Well, so far no one is proposing to fund a true HSR line towards north Oklahoma City, south towards Austin and San Antonio, or west towards Abilene and Lubbock.  There is a EIS underway for north to south line through Fort Worth paralleling I-35, so far it has eliminated any rail faster than 79 mph to the north, and hasn't eliminated faster than 110 mph to the south. But it has eliminated public funding to the south, as no revenues are available yet, so any rail improvements to the south depends upon finding private funding. To date, not even Texas Central has hinted at doing so. 

The only public funding that might be available is for a new HSR line between Dallas and Fort Worth, and I would like to point out the costs of building it has yet to be determined, and where the funding will come from has yet to be determined. Texas Central HSR hasn't committed even one penny into the study, and I doubt they'll be willing to undertake its entire costs. 

 

Finding funding to perform a study is difficult enough to accomplish, funding actually construction and funding continuous operations is a much more difficult task to accomplish. Let's get real, we'll be lucky if Texas Central actually builds the HSR line between Dallas and Houston within the next decade or two.



#181 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 May 2017 - 08:26 PM

...... Let's get real, we'll be lucky if Texas Central actually builds the HSR line between Dallas and Houston within the next decade or two....

 

  Are we now looking at a different timeline than originally put forth?



#182 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,315 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 10 May 2017 - 08:29 PM

Between legislation and litigation, I'm not holding my breath on HSR in Texas.



#183 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 May 2017 - 08:59 PM

 

Interesting note from upcoming council agenda

 

 

 

Authorizing the Creation of a Multijurisdictional Local Government Corporation with the City of Dallas and Other Local Government Entities for the DFW Core Express High-Speed Rail Connection Between the City of Fort Worth and the City of Dallas and Authorizing Related Interlocal Agreement

 

 

  The Fort Worth Business Press published an story about this agenda item; and more interestingly, how Fort Worth views its importance, role and place in the development of HSR in the state and neighboring region.

 

http://www.fortworth...a3de692067.html



#184 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 10 May 2017 - 09:52 PM

Well, so far no one is proposing to fund a true HSR line towards north Oklahoma City, south towards Austin and San Antonio, or west towards Abilene and Lubbock.  There is a EIS underway for north to south line through Fort Worth paralleling I-35, so far it has eliminated any rail faster than 79 mph to the north, and hasn't eliminated faster than 110 mph to the south. But it has eliminated public funding to the south, as no revenues are available yet, so any rail improvements to the south depends upon finding private funding. To date, not even Texas Central has hinted at doing so.

 

Both the ST and FWBP articles mention San Austino connections in the future. Would a public HSR investment from DFW area cities be a worthwhile speculative project to further the chances of these connections ever happening? 



#185 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:23 AM

I applaud this development simply because it is the natural and inevitable evolution of the DFW metroplex transit infrastructure in light of the technological advancement of high-speed rail.

 

Nothing new here.  We all know the historic Fort Worth-to-Dallas transit evolution.  Not going too far back in time, the minor inter-connecting motor vehicle thoroughfares on the north side--Highway 121/Highway 183--and that on the south side--East Lancaster Avenue/West Jefferson Boulevard gave way to I-30, circa 1950s.  Circa 1960s and 70s saw both DFW International Airport and the TRE/Dart rail link.  A high-speed rail connection follows the technology.  I'm waiting, in the more distant future, for a hyper-loop connection. 



#186 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:39 AM

In my understanding of HSR service parameters of distance and potential trips*, SanAustintonio is the only other population center large enough to be considered for service to DFW and/or Houston. 

SanAnto-Austin-Killeen - 430 miles check; ~5 million population almost there
Monterrey-Laredo-SA-Austin-Killeen - 570 miles check-ish, ~9 million population good (if train can pass wall...)

Kansas City-Tulsa-OKC 500 miles - check; population ~4.5 million - border line
Saint Louis-Tulsa-OKC 630 miles -- almost check; population ~ 5 million - border line
New Orleans Beaumont <440 miles to Houston check; >2 million population bad
Memphis-Little Rock-Texark-Shrevport-Tyler 450 miles check; ~3 million population 

So, as much as I would like HSR heading North and NorthEast from DFW, doesn't appear socio-economically feasible for quite a while. And the only way Houston HSR stops in Fort Worth is if Tarrant County boosters raise the billion dollars it'll cost. However, when the I-35 corridor population centers link to Dallas by HSR, the combined trips SA-Aus-Hou to Fort Worth could make the extension viable.

*The competitive advantage of high-speed rail over other modes of travel is maximized at distances between 100 to
500 miles. Distances below 100 miles are better suited for auto and commuter rail networks whereas distances greater than 500 miles are more efficiently travelled by air.

http://www.america20...-Works-Best.pdf



#187 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 11 May 2017 - 03:21 PM

From that last link,
"Although one Texas city pair made it into the top ten in the index (Dallas-Houston), the other major connec- tions in the Texas Triangle are further down on the list (Austin-Dallas: 45th; Austin-Houston: 54th; Houston-San Antonio: 56th: Dallas-San Antonio: 70th). These corridors tended to be ranked lower than the city pairs in California (six California city pairs were ranked in the top 25) and the Midwest (with city pairs including Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh), which all appeared multiple times in the top 50 pairs. Although these Texas corridors scored well in overall population, length of cor- ridor, and economic activity, the lack of (or limited) existing local and regional transit systems in these cities reduced their overall rankings. City pairs with at least one city with local transit and commuter rail systems tended to populate the top 100 city pairs. Corridors which included two such cities including New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all can be found in the top 10."

I believe that study prioritizing HSR corridors by city-pairs in the USA points out how unlikely the Federal government will financially support in any way HSR corridors within Texas, excluding the one Texas Central has shown interest in. There's 44 better city-pairs to choose from.
Both Dallas and Houston have established light rail systems having more than just one rail line. Outside of the Texas Triangle, no other city-pairs including Texas cities falls in the top 100. So higher speed extensions to cities outside the state, into New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, or Louisiana are very unlikely. Which is why a stand alone, Texas Triangle HSR network, looks very promising to private rail operators. And why including a Texas HSR network into a national HSR system is very unlikely, publicly or privately funded.

#188 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 891 posts

Posted 11 May 2017 - 05:50 PM

China is using HSR as a key element in developing megaregions.

 

https://www.forbes.c...s/#4df0d6dc6838



#189 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 12 May 2017 - 09:02 AM

Fort Worth Business Press -

"You find yourself in Fort Worth, literally, at the crossroads of high speed rail," said Michael Morris of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NTCOG) in addressing the council in its work session.....Morris added that some people believe Fort Worth is a critical piece in the promotion of a statewide and national high speed rail transportation system....."This is a critical part of Fort Worth's future," Mayor Betsy Price said.....Price compared the inclusion of Fort Worth in the high speed rail project to the importance of the location of the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. She noted that had the airport been built east of Dallas, Fort Worth would have been excluded.

 

As a native Fort Worthian, I fully understand and appreciate the words of the Mayor.  When I read, in Post #180 and #18, of someone rationalizing for the exclusion of Fort Worth in HSR, I am reminded of the past and current opposition to the future of Fort Worth embedded in the willingness to exclude the City from sharing in the prosperity of rail.

 

Recently, I have been seen as someone who is unwelcoming to outsiders.  Yet, as the future of the City is clearly on the line when it comes to the next generation of rail service as it was in the 19th Century when Dallas overtly opposed rail to Fort Worth; and when it appears that that attitude is live and well in the 21st Century, then I will express anger and disapproval of such attitudes. 

 

As a lover of all things Fort Worth, not a hater of other cities, I expect the common sense etiquette of recognition and respect   for this City, especially in this Forum.

 

I shall continue to quickly point out this lack of etiquette when it arises.

 

Fort Worth over everybody!
 



#190 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 31 May 2017 - 01:38 PM

Well doesn't look like the state has made it any harder.

http://www.star-tele...e153545889.html

#191 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 08 June 2017 - 02:58 PM

FWBP reporting on the council hearing of possible downtown stations

 

http://www.fortworth...227ffd3af3.html



#192 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 June 2017 - 04:56 PM

FWBP reporting on the council hearing of possible downtown stations

 

http://www.fortworth...227ffd3af3.html

 

There is a thread that discusses HSR in Texas for which I believe is the correct thread for this discussion.  TCR has been quite clear about two terminal stations, one in Dallas and one in Houston.  The discussion gets tangled when TCR and HSR Texas are lumped into the same topic.

 

Fort Worth, as it should do, views its future as being a part of a "Greater" HSR Texas (San Antonio/Austin)/Houston) as the article so clearly states. HSR Texas would naturally connect Dallas via Fort Worth.  So I see this as further proof of a publicly lead effort apart from TCR.



#193 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 08 June 2017 - 06:46 PM

A thread to discuss the DFW Core line would be nice. I'll let the mods sort that out.

#194 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 09 June 2017 - 05:24 AM

Whether it's TCR or HSR or the TRE, or DART, I'm fairly confused as to who is going to do what and when and where.  I hope a decision to abandon this thread (which I authored five years ago) and create a new one is less complicated.



#195 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:45 AM

(1) Whether it's TCR or HSR or the TRE, or DART, I'm fairly confused as to who is going to do what and when and where.... (2) I hope a decision to abandon this thread (which I authored five years ago) and create a new one is less complicated.

 

(1) Maybe it would be less confusing if you think of them as fruit in the produce section at Central Market; and though they are all fruits, they are different.

 

 TCR = Orange  to connect Dallas and Houston (privately funded)

  HSR = Grapefruit to connect Dallas and Houston and in addition to connect Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio and possibly El Paso (Public/Private funded)

  TRE = Apple to serve Fort Worth and immediate surroundings (publicly funded)

  DART = Melon to serve Dallas and immediate surroundings (publicly funded)

  DFWX = Banana to connect Fort Worth and Dallas (publicly funded)

 

(2) TCR thread should not be abandoned. Instead, for referencing and the archives, it is better that comments be posted in the appropriate thread.

 

Hoping this helps. :smwink:



#196 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 09 June 2017 - 12:37 PM

How's that for post moderation?

 

I think this HSR thread is appropriate place to discuss the Fort Worth-Dallas line.as it is not necessarily part of the TCR project. We can adjust as needed.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users