How is the area around Chicago/Milwaukee/Detroit/Cleveland and Indianapolis without a high speed project? The distances are reasonable and can serve a large number of people. Great Lakes region is screaming for high speed rail between so many huge cities.
A "Rust Belt Express", even over through like Pittsburgh and on to Philly to connect with existing Acela, could be pretty excellent. A lot of those cities along the lakes have been struggling over the past few decades, and more connectivity might help them thrive more easily.
@@adm1nspotter Absolutely. And like you said the link to the northeast is an attractive extension. I see Amtrak having a huge word in that but tbh i would prefer a new company building up the system in the midwest.
I took the Amtrak from Ann Arbor, MI to Chicago last year. The trip was pretty good until we reached Indiana & Illinois and encountered so much freight traffic. High speed rail in the Midwest could be soooo beneficial to bypass all that and connect those major cities/metro areas which are otherwise separated by so much farmland.
@@aquaarietta Yeah there has to be someone already thinking about that. But the success of these projects is also connected to the transit oriented development. The US needs to improve what is around the stations etc.
The Midwest has been in a very high level planing phase for a bit on a regional network. Some high speed corridors like Chicago - STL, Chicago - Indy, Chicago - Minneapolis, but most running at 110 mph regional speeds
I would love to see a HSR line between Atlanta and Charlotte with an extension to Raleigh/Durham. Makes sense, because it is one of the fastest growing regions in the US with several big metro areas. It could be eventually be linked to Washington DC via Richmond. Another perhaps more expensive option is to build a north-south line from Chicago/Milwaukee all the way to Nashville via Indianapolis, Louisville and Bowling Green, and eventually link it to Atlanta via Chattanooga. Just a few shouts
there is far too little information online about Charlotte's new Amtrak station to match my obsession with it (I don't like anywhere near Charlotte, only been once lol)
One amusing thing - the Acela is slightly slower in terms of average end-to-end speed (about 69 mph) than the "slow" London Euston to Edinburgh trains (about 71 mph).
Yup! The irony that the rickety old English mainlines still operate at or above their design standards day in and day out... And faster than the US HSR...
A lot of that is thanks to the line segment from New Rochelle to New Haven where the top speed on the line is 80 mph and only for a short stretch and many locations have speeds of 25-30mph. That part of the corridor is owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority between New Rochelle and just east of Port Chester and by the Connecticut Department of Transportation from that point to New Haven State Street. It is the only section of the Corridor not owned/operated/dispatched by Amtrak and so Amtrak gets deprioritized for slow commuter trains and can sometimes get slotted onto the local tracks behind stopping services. While New York to Boston is the shorter distance, it takes about an hour longer than New York to Washington.
BTW the fast Euston to Glasgow Central trains average about 89 mph, and about 104 mph from Euston to Warrington Bank Quay (which is non-stop). For clarity. the 71 mph was referring to the slow "via Birmingham" trains as an example of how "Acela" is really "Decela".
@@JBS319 This does need changing. The fast Euston to Glasgow trains, which average about 89 mph over 400 miles, are non-stop for the first 182 miles (Euston to Warrington Bank Quay).
I'll give the Avelia Liberty rolling stock one thing, they're one of the best looking trains in my opinion. I like the faces they give with the headlights being their eyes and such.
Have a look at Trenitalia's Pop trains (part of the Alstom Coradia Stream family), the design language used by Alstom is similar across all its train models
They have a sense of futurism and tomorrow that no train in America has had since that 1930's streamerliner that used to run out of Chicago... Maybe work on that America and more people would get excited for trains.. Even the Siemens Chargers are starting to look a bit more rocketlike and that's a good thing!
125mph is I believe the maximum speed at which it's possible for the driver to stop for a lineside signal - but that's a signal well over a mile away. Above that speed you will need in-cab signalling. Which is being introduced for the ECML.
@@seprishere there is a section between Peterborough and Grantham that was allowed to be 140mph (most likely Stoke Bank where Mallard took the steam record) but it has no scheduled services at that speed. South of Peterborough though 140mph will happen at some point.
I once heard a presenter at a railway industry conference jokingly state that the international definition of high-speed rail is, "10 mph faster than whatever Amtrak is running!" 🤣
I really think you missed mentioning Amtrak's Wolverine service in Michigan. While not exactly high speed with a max operating limit of 110 MPH, there is active and ongoing push to expand the high speed service and increase operating speeds.
It's not over 125MPH, so by most people's standards it's not HSR. It's also diesel-powered, which automatically means it's not counted in discussions about high-speed rail because modern transit commentators refuse to acknowledge that high speeds can be achieved without electrification.
13:20 slight correction. The trains are rated for a speed of 135mph (not 125mph). They are only subjected to 125mph due to the Amfleets and Viewliners.
@Banksrail: Could the speed also be restricted in part by the condition and layout of the tracks? Brightline trainsets possibly could get up to 135 mph if the distance of the last section was longer. There are perhaps 10 city pairs with growing populations eligible for a 135 mph train. The average speed would be 70-90 mph on upgraded 110-140 mph class 6 and class 7+ tracks. The routes would be more or less 150-350 miles without challenges of elevation or curvature.
Well looks like there's some good news with Texas Central. They just got greenlit to use eminent domain by the Texas Supreme Court so here's hoping they start breaking ground soon. I'm certainly interested in seeing if they can get to market before California.
Unfortunately they are also limited in finances and have lost some of their upper management recently. They still face heavy opposition from landowners.
12:20 "fairly old" The Acela train sets are 20-25 y.o. and according to my experience in January far away from falling apart. Just do an overhaul and they should be good to go for at least another 10-15 years, replacing NE Regional rolling stock. For comparison: ICE 1 in Germany were built 10 years earlier (1988-93) and currently receiving their last major renewal, so they can run until 2030 - about 40 years in total. The first ICE 3, built between 1997 and 2000, are FAR away from being phased out from service as well. Similar lifespan for the first TGV generation (1981-2020).
Physical age in years isn't the only measure. There is also track miles to consider and track condisions that add to the wear and tare of the train sets. Then there is also how well Amtrak maintains their sets. It seems that Amtrak operates on a "just enough trains" model and pulling a set out for maitainance affects schedules and frequency. I also think that the different voltages and frequencies of the NEC adds to the shortening the lifespan of Acela.
@@TheFarix2723 well mileage can't be a problem, considering the fairly low average speed. A trip NYP-BOS is 368 km/228 mi long and the average Acela took about 3:45 h, so just 97 km/h or 61 mph avg. speed respectively. Compare that to an ICE or even TGV.
The Acelas were fairly poorly built. If you look at the some of the seams, you can see rust bubbles and speed tape is present in several areas. These trains will be retired in 2023: if you look at Shinkansen trains, those tend to last 15-20 years before replacement: with the 700 series trains gone, the first N700 trains are up for retirement as new N700S trains arrive.
@@TheFarix2723 If im not mistaken, I think the entire line from DC to Boston have the same 25V@60Hz Overhead wire voltage, a standard one compared to the ones in Europe and Asia
@@JBS319 Acela is built by the French, the same ones who make TGV train sets, they've also made the new Avelia Liberty sets with Alstom, so it's really a matter of outsourcing
Have you and others considered looking at the Michigan Line when talking about high speed rail. This is the one area outside of the NEC that Amtrak or it partner state owns and is operating sections at 110mph. I realize what hinders it the most is it section operating on NS from Porter IN to Chicago. But after Porter all the way to Albion MI is operating at the higher speeds with work continuing the get all the way to Dearborn at said speeds.
Small correction to Brightline Florida. Disney very recently backed out of the Brightline station project. My guess is they are going to develop the land that was originally intended for the station into instead more resort space. The land was originally a large shopping plaza just across from the Disney Springs-side entrance to WDW, which Disney purchased and tore down everything that was once there. Not sure what the next option will be if Disney doesn't want to take part in the project anymore, but I could potentially see Universal vying for a station instead - or the city of Orlando and/or the Orange County government building a station near the attractions. The future extension to Tampa was officially approved and given a large government grant recently, so regardless there will have to be a station somewhere in the west Orlando area before the train route merges into the middle of I4 and goes out to Tampa. Either way, I'm very excited for Brightline to open the Orlando International Airport station next year! They've already brought the first test train into the station. I don't even like Miami/South FL all that much, but as an Orlando local, I'm going to ride Brightline just to support high speed rail, haha. More excited for the Tampa connection in the years to come!
The current intention is to build a station near Universal and another one across the highway from the previous Disney site, now that Disney has backed out. The corridor between Orlando International and Disney Springs will be jointly served by SunRail.
Shame, except that a Disney Springs station really was not that much use anyway - how are you going to get to/from resorts? I'd want stations at the actual theme parks (Magic Kingdom, Epcot International Gateway and Animal Kingdom).
@@seprishere I assume some sort of proprietary Disney bus, tram, or even monorail shuttle service (although a monorail extension sounds more like a long-term pipe dream)
As a Tampa resident, I'd love a Tampa-Miami leg. Orlando is a quick drive with I-4 going straight there. Miami is 4 hours. But with the power players in Orlando, I sincerely doubt we will ever see that. Makes me less interested in the whole thing
@@micheleh5269 Unfortunately the center of Florida between Tampa and Miami is relatively sparsely populated. It will probably never get its own dedicated route
I’m glad you brought up the point of high costs, especially important to consider for the PNW HSR idea. Faster and more reliable rail connections along the I-5 (and fare I say I-90) corridors are going to be critical to improving our region, and expanding and improving Amtrak Cascades makes a ton of sense as a way to do this. But I don’t see how the higher construction and operating costs of the current “Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation” project are feasible when its annual ridership figure is barely 100k more than what was projected for an enhanced Cascades service (see the 2006 Cascades Long-Range Plan and the 2019 UHSGT Business Case study).
Induced demand. when you put higher quality and faster services, people will take them. people always take the method that requires the least amount of effort, gets them their the fastest, and then the cheapest. so long as you do not put barriers to entry it will be effective. whenever a road gets you to where you want to go faster, people will drive. when its faster to walk to services, people will walk, when its faster to ride a bike and use bike lanes that do not kill you, people will bike.
@@Aliceintraining you’re right, but all rail improvements come at a cost and it’s absolutely worth weighing which costs are actually worth the benefits they enable. The Amtrak Cascades plans show the potential to offer travel times that are faster than driving between pretty much all stations and (in terms of downtown-downtown time) competitive with flying from Seattle to either of the major endpoint cities, while also providing a cost per rider significantly lower than what is assumed by UHSGT. While UHSGT’s lower travel times and ownership of the ROW would be great, there isn’t even close to enough of a developed travel market between the cities to justify the expense. But there is certainly enough demand to justify more frequent intercity train services, and, if Washington state actually committed to following through with its plans, major improvements to the Cascades could do this in a lot less time and for a lot less money, time and money that we need to spend wisely over the next few decades.
@@andrewreynolds4949 agreed. City Nerd did a great video examining some useful (if not perfect) numbers on potential travel demand along HSR corridors. He specifically called out the PNW for its lack of justifiable numbers for HSR, though he probably could’ve at least thrown a bone to the idea of stronger Amtrak Cascades service as a helpful alternative.
A fairly recent viarail trip that included five legs was horrible. Every trip was late including a 50 minutes leg that was late by 45 minutes even though it left on time. High speed would be fantastic but if reliability is weak the maximum speed is moot. I would like to see an average speed between Quebec City and Toronto of 200km/hr.
You could also do High Speed Rail Explain Benelux (Belgium&The Netherlands) to finish High Speed Rail in Europe. Also fun fact, Belgium is the only country in Europe/(the world?) to have fully completed its high Speed rail infrastructure
The Netherlands has one paltry real high speed line (used by Eurostar/Thalys), on which domestic trains operate at 160kmh, plus one more line (Hanzelijn) built for 200kmh but operated at 140kmh. Not really particularly interesting IMO.
Thoughts on Washington State setting aside funds (also matched with federal funds) for the potential of an HSR line in the PNW corridor? Although we're busy building out our light rail and BRT networks, it's definitely something positive to look forward to.
Does that include Vancouver-Seattle? That would be a nice route. I've heard Cascadia wants 400km/h trains as well. Fastest I've been on is 300 in China (I left China before 350 trains resumed)
@@maxxiong It should, although no concrete plans yet. I also saw that Cascadia wanted up to 400km/h per a study, but given the terrain of the region, it's hard to say what percentage of the track would be able to actually operate at those speeds.
@@TheTikeySauce There is a full route map about the corridor they are planning actually. China is currently building a line that has a reserved speed of 400kph, and the minimum curve radius is 7km, 5.5km in difficult areas. The maps do occasionally show tighter curves unfortunately.
There's a high speed rail proposal in Arizona to link Phoenix with Las Vegas and Phoenix to Tucson. Also I've heard of the Front Range high speed rail which would connect Cheyenne, WY to Alberqurque, NM. Most of us Americans actually want to see modernized rail infrastructure. But politicians see otherwise.
0:45 people that think this is a “Bullet Train” this isn’t. The cabs can be detached (Because these are SC44 chargers used most commonly on Amtrak) with the cars being Ventura cars built by the same manufacturer also in use on Amtrak.
I was hoping he would elaborate on that because I'm curious too. For what it's worth, I live in MD near the BWI rail station and can give you my opinions. For American standards, MARC seems great because it's fast and cheap ($8 to get from BWI to DC in 40 min or 30 min express, $6 to Baltimore Penn in about 15 minutes). The biggest downside is that they're really bad at Transit Oriented Development. There's so much new housing going up in MD and yet the area around all the stations is way behind. Either seas of parking like Bowie State and New Carollton or suburban low density at Halethorpe, Seabrook, and Odenton (the latter is developing, but I'd say not close to the stadium). West Baltimore is barely a station, which is a shame since the neighborhood needs investment. Other nitpicks might be that it (apparently) doesn't always run electrified when Penn line has the wiring for it. It's very much a commuter line, and while there are trains Sat and Sun, they are fewer. Last trains out of DC at night are 9PM and then 11PM on weeknights, which is a shame when I'd love to be able to take the train home after a late night out (at least match it with metro which closes at 1AM). Camden Line and Brunswick Line has all the same comments, but since they are older, slower (less straight routing), and get far fewer riders it can be worse. Ultimately, if you live right on the MARC Penn Line it can be super convenient. I take it all the time to DC when I know I-95, I-295, and other highways will be clogged from 4-8PM. But it feels like it could be so much more if there was density along it. Where density has popped up in the Balt-DC corridor, like Columbia or Annapolis, would be massively improved by a rail line that would now be exorbitantly pricey to build. While now post-pandemic (as many commuters are now working from home) MARC must be struggling more when they might have been better off with people living along their route.
@@MultiCappie the oil companies have about 50ys of rop left (current economical reserves ÷ current consumption) atleast with pre covid numbers, and they saw the writing on the wall and stopped expanding production (which is why gas is $5+ per gallon). The 2 big barriers to widespread HSR in the states are poor transit within cities (last mile problem is named after places like Houston and Pheonix [Pheonix isn't even a city just an infinite spraw of suburbs]), and unfavorable geography. (The cities themselves are just too small and too far away for many routes to be justified, and both coasts have mountain ranges to drive up costs in the only areas dense enough or touristy enough to justify HSR)
Thank you for at least giving a brief mention of the Pacific Northwest. At least WSDOT is making improvements, and BNSF going along with it, ODOT is a highway DOT that happens to have something to do with other forms of transport, and the trucking industry basically runs ODOT, allowing for triple trailers anything to do with trains in the most populous region of Oregon is of low priority. They at least bought some of the abandoned Wisconsin train sets, but I don't expect much more. Maybe with the higher price of fuel, more people in the Willamette Valley will push for increasing service to the previous levels of service?
One of the biggest reasons HSR struggles in the US is not because of the distances between cities, but because those cities are not designed to be transit oriented. Think about it, while a station can be placed in the downtown section of a city without all the noise pollution common to airports, how is someone suppose to get to place to place once they are there? I guess you could have HSR connect airports together since most airports have car rental services already on-sight. But in another respect, wouldn't that defeat the whole point of HSR? I think before the US considers expanding whatever HSR it has, it should first look at how to make its urban centers far more transit, and by extension pedestrian, oriented without relying on cars.
The US is very chicken or the egged on transit. Our cities aren't designed for transit so transit sucks, and since transit sucks nobody* wants to design their cities for transit. *Notable exception of transit enthusiasts, but it should be everyone atleast understanding the benefit of transit even if its economically infeasible for their area (like much of the countryside excluding intercity routes)
I think you're mostly correct, but a lot of the cities that are looking to implement HSR right now do have public transit, at least nominally. San Fran has BART, LA has it's own metro; the NEC obviously has plenty of systems, so it's not a stretch for those areas to incorporate HSR. When talking about linking other cities, though, that problem definitely becomes more apparent. I think it's still worth it, though. As you say, airports have rental cars and cab services, and there's no reason that can't happen in other, less PT friendly cities.
the NEC wouldn't be nearly as busy if it weren't for the sheer number of people in New York that don't own cars. Yes, DC, Philly, and Boston are all great car-free cities as well but New York is a completely different animal.
@@MichaelfromtheGraves It's due to the population in the NEC, over 40M ppl along with the fact that it's very transit oriented also helps, the best way to get around
Counterpoint: car rentals do NOT defeat the point because a much shorter trip within a city is much less of a hassle than a long road trip. Not to mention taxi/rideshare services can also be easily integrated. So I don't think that's a good explanation for the lack of trains, though better transit makes this even easier. Beyond that a number of US cities with well used transit (San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, and even Atlanta which has the 6th highest number of metro riders per track mile in the country) don't have HSR to them. So I don't think we need to have more extensive transit first. That kind of "but first we need X" argument has no end to it. "We can't have HSR because we need more transit"->"We can't have transit because our cities are too spread out"->"We can't densify our cities because traffic will be too bad because transit sucks". We need to stop making excuses and do good things even if other good things that synergize with that aren't ready yet. Do that which you can get funding for, then use that new better infrastructure as a reason to improve other aspects of infrastructure and city design.
There are at least 30 North American routes between 100 and 300 miles long that would be attractive for, if not true high speed rail, at least higher speed trains. Currently the FRA will not allow over 110 mph on lines with grade crossings. The biggest problem is that outside the NEC nearly all of track is owned by private rail operators. They like to run slow and incredibly long trains that do not mix well with any type of reliable rail passenger service. They are also generally hostile to any expansion of our current rather pathetic intercity passenger train system. As an example of how far the U.S. has come...downhill, I offer the Chicago to Indianapolis route. In 1950 the New York Central ran this in as little as three an a half hours for the 200 miles. Today it takes Amtrak five hours, when it is on time. Also, three are three round trips PER WEEK.
There's some metro areas like Phoenix, AZ that aren't serviced by passenger rail, period. The only form of non-bus, on-a-rail public transit is the slow 15-year-old tram that runs on the streets for most of its journey. Atleast they are expanding it, but half the area is still VERY car-dependent.
How about washington dc-baltimore sc maglev? And illinois high speed rail? That's connects chicago to cleveland, detroit, indianapollis, columbus, and minneapolis.
North east maglev is barely a project worth considering and Illinois high speed rail is a pipe dream (unless you consider the Lincoln corridor upgrades as part of that project)
Are the different projects compatible regarding signaling, loading gauge, track gauge, and voltage? Does not really spund like they are? Which rules out connecting then in a national network... International standard for new high speed rail is: 1.4m gauge, ERTMS, 25kV.
In Australia, we lack high-speed rail too, yet I've had delegations from the USA visiting my workplace praising our low-speed rail. It says something that our relatively poor rail system is getting praise from Americans.
May I ask what speed dose your railway operate? I have seen several speed limits for what is already considered high-speed railway. The lowest one was 160 kph.
The thing with upgraded high speed rail route is that they usually have more sections that still maintain tigher curve thus resulting in lower average trip speed and longer trip time, and make further upgrade in speed on straight sections less useful. Thus I think the schedule speed from major city to another major city should be the true qualifier when comparing high speed lines.
An episode on the electrified suburban railway networks of India would be pretty impressive. Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, 3 major systems which serves millions of passengers everyday. Please do.
The northern terminus of all Amtrak trains could go deep into Maine if only Boston approved a rail link that would run under the heart of downtown. That would also be a game changer for MBTA regional rail service, one can dream...
Nur so können Amerikaner sich Bahnen vorstellen. Es ist absolut schade, dass wir so schlimme Personeneisenbahnen haben. Darüber habe ich dieses Land bereits aufgegeben.
Highway median is the way to go. It works really well for attracting more riders because the drivers can see the trains leaving them in the dust, so they begin to understand just how much faster HSR actually is.
Highway medians are good for regional rail where speed isn't the priority, but HSR requires routes to be as flat and straight as possible. Most highways won't meet that standard. The only advantage highways provide is that it reduces the cost of purchasing land and lowers the need to use eminent domain.
@@TheFarix2723 In addition, it also is highly dependent on how wide the median is. Some have a pretty wide median and can support up to two tricks with a nice distance between them, others require the tracks to be elevated which would put all the advantages a median has moot.
I believe high speed means if you can get there faster than a car. There should be rail built down the center of every highway in America. So product can be mass shipped without semi's crowding the highways and one for passengers to unclutter the highway some more.
Acela's going 125 mph top speed don't mean much if they're only at top speed for 15 minutes. While I had a nice trip from NY to Boston, it took about the same time as driving there, if not longer, which kinda sucked.
The USA needs to take another page of the Red Book of China and create a standardized national fleet standard to make an upgraded Amtrak work. I think even most Americans would be happy with hourly 200 km/h/125 mph service given the option since with trains it's really just about the journey as much as the destination since it's the one form of transit where people are encouraged to go and walk about while on board. Otherwise most just want you to sit down, shut up and don't flatline on their watch...
@@sheenasmith4555 The Chinese government can also confiscate whatever it wants or needs for the project, humanitarian or environmental consequences be damned, if the political will is present for the project at the top
Let´s face it - the US are decades behind when it comes to highspeed rail services! Even the ever quoted NE corridor has only a few miles, where speeds in excess of 125mph are possible - that´s what the commuter trains running past my house do!
Honestly as an American I hope we just slowly decline a don't have some massive crash on the way down Quite frankly if we have an economic crash we aren't gonna be able to build back out of it and we may drag innocent countries down with us
While it's nice the latest and greatest trains are finally arriving in the US, it's a little sad to see the US can't engineer them here. Just a sad reminder of how far behind we've fallen, considering the world class railroad engineering the US was once known for.
It is quite amazing what China has done with regards to high speed rail in the same timeframe as North America. The words that comes to mind are : Priorities, War, and Oil.
Are there any lines that average 185? The og bullet line currently tops out at that speed. Also why does a grade crossing automatically invalidate a high speed line? Also why must the line be electricified? You can get attractive speeds from other technologies. Back in the late 60s the canadiens built a gas turbine train that hit 170 in New Jersey, which would have bombed passed a contemporary shinkansen. In the early 70s the gas turbine version of the tgv did 194, and if we're going to get silly the aero train did 250!
@@MrJstorm4 You make an interesting point ... but I already feel than my initial criteria is outdated : If it were up to me right now, I would open it up to the Chinese to build Canada a network from coast to coast along with a few spur lines and tell them to put whatever $$$ figure they want on the cheque ...
Would you consider Amtrak wolverine high speed. The max speed it is capable of 110 miles per hour. It rolling stock it uses Siemens charger with either Siemens venture coaches, amfleet 1, and horizon coaches.
I always find it funny that our Metro stock looks old but our high speed stock especially the ones for the future they look modern and sleek and their world class ironic
I would argue high speed rail is currently not existent in the US, as while the Acela Express technically reaches some high speeds, its average speed of 110km/h or 70mp/h is still very low, and disqualifies it from being a high speed line in my eyes.
Yes. They changed routing in the area and it makes the Disney Springs station not possible. Looks like they aiming more for work travel as opposed to leisure travel.
As I understand there will still be a station somwere near Disney, so perhaps if Disney builds some sort of people mover or bus tansfer to connect to the new station, it would still be an improvement to the current situation
@@Geotpf they chose the northern route which will still pass right by Disney Springs on I-4. I guarantee you there will still be talk of a Disney Springs station
I mainly hope, once we in the USA get past this ugly undemocratic period, and we’re able to install the nationwide high-speed rail network the majority actually demands, that Chicago remains the central hub of a hub-and-spoke system … because not coincidentally I live a quick ten-minute walk north of Chicago, AND I WOULD FRIKKIN’ _LIVE_ ON THE RAILS, SO HELP ME!!!
I mean, watching this video I understand my network will never be … high-speed rail will arrive piece-by-piece incoherently, backed erratically by private capital and largely serving private capital’s needs, a rail line to Disney World here, a commuter line between the northeast and D.C. there … a far-cry from what Europe have been able to achieve.
Texas Central is not in good shape right now. They have limited funds, still face considerable opposition from landowners, and have just lost some of their upper management. Brightline is considerably farther along than shown here. For anyone interested in the project I highly recommend Roaming Railfan’s regular documentary videos on it.
Brightline in Florida isn’t even close to what Texas Central and CAHSR are doing. It barely holds a candle to the Acela. 125mph on a short stretch with diesel trains is a lot easier that 220mph trains between cities hundreds of miles away.
@@banksrail Yes, Brightline has set its goals lower and much more achievable. That wasn't my point anyway, my point was that the footage of the Brightline project in this video was rather outdated. Much more recent footage can be found on Roaming Railfan's channel, as I said.
If we had a high speed train between Northern California, highway 1 side, and a city with jobs, that would really provide a mass expansion for working people to be able to live in a cheaper part of the state. They'd totally make their money back. Northern CA is split right down the middle with wineries, and geographic features/few east west highways. You basically have to drive two hours around the middle to get to Sacramento, or an hour+ south and cross an expensive toll bridge (or two toll bridges) to get to San Francisco, so housing is cheaper but there are no jobs. Not cheap, just cheap-er.
Many interurban routes such as the Norristown high speed line, CA&E, and Skokie Valley Routes, once had services that could clock out around 80 to 90 miles per hour. And that was in the 1920s to 1950s, that is impressive. Now there's a question about what happened to routes like those, if you had services that were around 80 miles per hour? The bus companies and highways did do a part in killing off these lines, with thee exception of thee Norristown line, but we did hurt the lines. It wasn't mainly their faults all together, we did our part, and now it's basically hard to bring such services back, because in some areas, like the CA&E, time has moved on.
I can see it operated as a huge money drain for decades into the future (after it finally gets completed many, many years from now) running on the sunken cost fallacy
@@andrewreynolds4949 why are you always pushing for railways to be profitable? If I demand that all interstate highways become toll roads, would you want that?
@@ianhomerpura8937 There is sort of a difference. If a government entity wanted to put together a program to fund a rail system through taxes or other means, that's fine, and has been done in a number of places. However, that usually means funding has to come from somewhere else. Large losses on rail services are a good indicator that the service or route might not be the most useful or the best way to serve a need, as opposed to another method of transportation. The same is true for roads: large, wide roads with low traffic density probably aren't necessary, maybe not the cost of maintaining them in that configuration.
AYEEE RM follow Torontonian here LOVE your content 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 Could u pls do a video on metro transit in Iran?? I know it's got the largest underground metro system in the whole region and has been around since the late 80s early 90s in Tehran and likely other cities.. it has over 100 stations and at least 8 lines I believe they have 3 more lines underway u could look into it 😎❤ happy Canada day weekend
I'm sorry to say, but I don't think 130 KM/H is high-speed rail, over here in the Netherlands, regular trains almost always hit 140 KM/H, so I don't think 130 should be called high-speed
A couple of years ago I was really excited that Texas might become a pioneer in North America with the fastest service, living up to the....all be it shameful slogan of "everything is bigger in Texas". Bummed that the project hit what seems to be a huge speed bump. This was also suprizing as 10 years ago I was seeing RFP's for both the Dallas and Houston stations. It will likely regain momentum....fingers crossed. (obviously I am a Texan......(in recovery))
Same, I checked the date of this video the second he mentioned Texas Central because my understanding is that it's all but dead. Guess I could look into it again, but I haven't heard anything positive about the project in months.
The VIA Wiki rated it medium speed - I think. It doesn't have many stops on the Québec - Windsor corridor, so it has a high average speed. Of course VIA has its "new?" philosophy on high availability or filling the timetable to reduce wait.
France, some regional trains (not tgv) go up to 200kph, most notably in Alsace but not only. These trains are made up of decades old corail coaches and also decades old electric locomotives. They visually look nothing like high speed, are nothing like high tech and are branded regional service. They run on conventional tracks (not lgv) that are shared with all sorts of trains including freight. Tell a french rail enthusiast that 200kph is high speed he will laugh at you.
Claiming that the "first phase" of California HSR will connect to the Bay Area is quite misleading. Since the practical first phase of the project will only connect Merced to Fresno to Bakersfield....all in the Central Valley. How they will actually cross the mountains to the Bay Area (one mountain range along an alignment that has never historically seen rail) or the greater Los Angeles area (two ranges to cross that are both occupied by *other* rail services that would conflict w/ HSR) are still undecided.....and CA HSR certainly does not have the funding to do either. Frankly, I expect CA HSR to run out of funding before serious construction on *either* mountain crossing is underway, since the Central Valley portion simply does not have the population density or transit connections to pay for the grandiose operations planned.
Jason, specific to your comments. 1) This higher speed will take a decade or more. We need car use reduction now. 2) Higher speed trains mixed with lower speed trains will reduce the maximum frequency possible. Not worth the little extra speed between Acela Express and Acela Regional.
@@ericbruun9020 There are many places where both the regional and commuter trains stop at the same stations. Most of the time gained from the Acela services are from lack of stops anyway. Amtrak is looking at getting faster NEC regional trains as well.
@@andrewreynolds4949 Agreed, but it does not change my initial point that Amtrak should have rolling stock that all operate at the same speed in the NE Corridor.
Hey there! Using background music with lyrics makes it difficult for people like me with audio processing issues to hear and understand what you're saying. While CC helps, it would be appreciated if you avoid background music with lyrics in the future!
Inter city HSR will have a hard time competing with cars unless we also implement inner city metros, without metros you will have too rent a car when getting off the train, usually making it more practical too drive. If we could just bite the bullet, force good deals from private businesses, or better yet just make our own state constitution crews, and just build the things then life would be way better.
How is the area around Chicago/Milwaukee/Detroit/Cleveland and Indianapolis without a high speed project? The distances are reasonable and can serve a large number of people. Great Lakes region is screaming for high speed rail between so many huge cities.
A "Rust Belt Express", even over through like Pittsburgh and on to Philly to connect with existing Acela, could be pretty excellent. A lot of those cities along the lakes have been struggling over the past few decades, and more connectivity might help them thrive more easily.
@@adm1nspotter Absolutely. And like you said the link to the northeast is an attractive extension. I see Amtrak having a huge word in that but tbh i would prefer a new company building up the system in the midwest.
I took the Amtrak from Ann Arbor, MI to Chicago last year. The trip was pretty good until we reached Indiana & Illinois and encountered so much freight traffic. High speed rail in the Midwest could be soooo beneficial to bypass all that and connect those major cities/metro areas which are otherwise separated by so much farmland.
@@aquaarietta Yeah there has to be someone already thinking about that. But the success of these projects is also connected to the transit oriented development. The US needs to improve what is around the stations etc.
The Midwest has been in a very high level planing phase for a bit on a regional network. Some high speed corridors like Chicago - STL, Chicago - Indy, Chicago - Minneapolis, but most running at 110 mph regional speeds
I would love to see a HSR line between Atlanta and Charlotte with an extension to Raleigh/Durham. Makes sense, because it is one of the fastest growing regions in the US with several big metro areas. It could be eventually be linked to Washington DC via Richmond. Another perhaps more expensive option is to build a north-south line from Chicago/Milwaukee all the way to Nashville via Indianapolis, Louisville and Bowling Green, and eventually link it to Atlanta via Chattanooga. Just a few shouts
there is far too little information online about Charlotte's new Amtrak station to match my obsession with it (I don't like anywhere near Charlotte, only been once lol)
Good news! It’s in the works. I was a bit surprised Reece didn’t mention SEHSR
@@jameson5581 Yeah, nobody does really
Raleigh to Atlanta is being worked on
@@jameson5581 wait really? can u drop links so I can read up? it would be amazing to take a train up to dc from Atlanta and vice versa
One amusing thing - the Acela is slightly slower in terms of average end-to-end speed (about 69 mph) than the "slow" London Euston to Edinburgh trains (about 71 mph).
Yup! The irony that the rickety old English mainlines still operate at or above their design standards day in and day out... And faster than the US HSR...
A lot of that is thanks to the line segment from New Rochelle to New Haven where the top speed on the line is 80 mph and only for a short stretch and many locations have speeds of 25-30mph. That part of the corridor is owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority between New Rochelle and just east of Port Chester and by the Connecticut Department of Transportation from that point to New Haven State Street. It is the only section of the Corridor not owned/operated/dispatched by Amtrak and so Amtrak gets deprioritized for slow commuter trains and can sometimes get slotted onto the local tracks behind stopping services. While New York to Boston is the shorter distance, it takes about an hour longer than New York to Washington.
BTW the fast Euston to Glasgow Central trains average about 89 mph, and about 104 mph from Euston to Warrington Bank Quay (which is non-stop). For clarity. the 71 mph was referring to the slow "via Birmingham" trains as an example of how "Acela" is really "Decela".
@@JBS319 This does need changing. The fast Euston to Glasgow trains, which average about 89 mph over 400 miles, are non-stop for the first 182 miles (Euston to Warrington Bank Quay).
@@seprishere HS2 opens up the possibility of sub 3 hours from London to Glasgow - over 133mph average.
I'll give the Avelia Liberty rolling stock one thing, they're one of the best looking trains in my opinion. I like the faces they give with the headlights being their eyes and such.
oh yeah they are gorgeous.
The only thing that bothers me is that the locomotives don’t line up with the passenger cars 100% since they have a different shape
Have a look at Trenitalia's Pop trains (part of the Alstom Coradia Stream family), the design language used by Alstom is similar across all its train models
They have a sense of futurism and tomorrow that no train in America has had since that 1930's streamerliner that used to run out of Chicago... Maybe work on that America and more people would get excited for trains.. Even the Siemens Chargers are starting to look a bit more rocketlike and that's a good thing!
@@SmthPositive_ that is very much an Alstom/TGV thing and is noticeable on various TGV types as well.
125mph is I believe the maximum speed at which it's possible for the driver to stop for a lineside signal - but that's a signal well over a mile away. Above that speed you will need in-cab signalling. Which is being introduced for the ECML.
140 mph was tried, hence the flashing greens on a short stretch.
@@seprishere there is a section between Peterborough and Grantham that was allowed to be 140mph (most likely Stoke Bank where Mallard took the steam record) but it has no scheduled services at that speed. South of Peterborough though 140mph will happen at some point.
I once heard a presenter at a railway industry conference jokingly state that the international definition of high-speed rail is, "10 mph faster than whatever Amtrak is running!" 🤣
I mean, he's not wrong.
I really think you missed mentioning Amtrak's Wolverine service in Michigan. While not exactly high speed with a max operating limit of 110 MPH, there is active and ongoing push to expand the high speed service and increase operating speeds.
And it is one of the few lines that Amtrak has control over outside of the Northeast Corridor
That is interesting even though it wouldnt be globally recognized as HSR I'd say 50mph above the usual highway speed limit is certainly high speed
It's not over 125MPH, so by most people's standards it's not HSR. It's also diesel-powered, which automatically means it's not counted in discussions about high-speed rail because modern transit commentators refuse to acknowledge that high speeds can be achieved without electrification.
That's not high speed
@@GintaPPE1000you mean American transit commentators...lol i kinda wonder why tho
13:20 slight correction. The trains are rated for a speed of 135mph (not 125mph). They are only subjected to 125mph due to the Amfleets and Viewliners.
@Banksrail: Could the speed also be restricted in part by the condition and layout of the tracks? Brightline trainsets possibly could get up to 135 mph if the distance of the last section was longer.
There are perhaps 10 city pairs with growing populations eligible for a 135 mph train. The average speed would be 70-90 mph on upgraded 110-140 mph class 6 and class 7+ tracks. The routes would be more or less 150-350 miles without challenges of elevation or curvature.
Well looks like there's some good news with Texas Central. They just got greenlit to use eminent domain by the Texas Supreme Court so here's hoping they start breaking ground soon. I'm certainly interested in seeing if they can get to market before California.
Unfortunately they are also limited in finances and have lost some of their upper management recently. They still face heavy opposition from landowners.
@@andrewreynolds4949 they also owe $600,000 in back taxes
@@andrewreynolds4949 good thing they can now use eminent domain
@@tonywalters7298 peanuts compared to the millions they can make annually once the line is finished
@@blancavelasquez9859 On the other hand they've already exhausted a lot of their funds and management
12:20 "fairly old" The Acela train sets are 20-25 y.o. and according to my experience in January far away from falling apart. Just do an overhaul and they should be good to go for at least another 10-15 years, replacing NE Regional rolling stock.
For comparison: ICE 1 in Germany were built 10 years earlier (1988-93) and currently receiving their last major renewal, so they can run until 2030 - about 40 years in total. The first ICE 3, built between 1997 and 2000, are FAR away from being phased out from service as well. Similar lifespan for the first TGV generation (1981-2020).
Physical age in years isn't the only measure. There is also track miles to consider and track condisions that add to the wear and tare of the train sets. Then there is also how well Amtrak maintains their sets. It seems that Amtrak operates on a "just enough trains" model and pulling a set out for maitainance affects schedules and frequency. I also think that the different voltages and frequencies of the NEC adds to the shortening the lifespan of Acela.
@@TheFarix2723 well mileage can't be a problem, considering the fairly low average speed. A trip NYP-BOS is 368 km/228 mi long and the average Acela took about 3:45 h, so just 97 km/h or 61 mph avg. speed respectively.
Compare that to an ICE or even TGV.
The Acelas were fairly poorly built. If you look at the some of the seams, you can see rust bubbles and speed tape is present in several areas. These trains will be retired in 2023: if you look at Shinkansen trains, those tend to last 15-20 years before replacement: with the 700 series trains gone, the first N700 trains are up for retirement as new N700S trains arrive.
@@TheFarix2723 If im not mistaken, I think the entire line from DC to Boston have the same 25V@60Hz Overhead wire voltage, a standard one compared to the ones in Europe and Asia
@@JBS319 Acela is built by the French, the same ones who make TGV train sets, they've also made the new Avelia Liberty sets with Alstom, so it's really a matter of outsourcing
Have you and others considered looking at the Michigan Line when talking about high speed rail. This is the one area outside of the NEC that Amtrak or it partner state owns and is operating sections at 110mph. I realize what hinders it the most is it section operating on NS from Porter IN to Chicago. But after Porter all the way to Albion MI is operating at the higher speeds with work continuing the get all the way to Dearborn at said speeds.
Small correction to Brightline Florida. Disney very recently backed out of the Brightline station project. My guess is they are going to develop the land that was originally intended for the station into instead more resort space. The land was originally a large shopping plaza just across from the Disney Springs-side entrance to WDW, which Disney purchased and tore down everything that was once there. Not sure what the next option will be if Disney doesn't want to take part in the project anymore, but I could potentially see Universal vying for a station instead - or the city of Orlando and/or the Orange County government building a station near the attractions.
The future extension to Tampa was officially approved and given a large government grant recently, so regardless there will have to be a station somewhere in the west Orlando area before the train route merges into the middle of I4 and goes out to Tampa.
Either way, I'm very excited for Brightline to open the Orlando International Airport station next year! They've already brought the first test train into the station. I don't even like Miami/South FL all that much, but as an Orlando local, I'm going to ride Brightline just to support high speed rail, haha. More excited for the Tampa connection in the years to come!
The current intention is to build a station near Universal and another one across the highway from the previous Disney site, now that Disney has backed out. The corridor between Orlando International and Disney Springs will be jointly served by SunRail.
Shame, except that a Disney Springs station really was not that much use anyway - how are you going to get to/from resorts? I'd want stations at the actual theme parks (Magic Kingdom, Epcot International Gateway and Animal Kingdom).
@@seprishere I assume some sort of proprietary Disney bus, tram, or even monorail shuttle service (although a monorail extension sounds more like a long-term pipe dream)
As a Tampa resident, I'd love a Tampa-Miami leg. Orlando is a quick drive with I-4 going straight there. Miami is 4 hours. But with the power players in Orlando, I sincerely doubt we will ever see that. Makes me less interested in the whole thing
@@micheleh5269 Unfortunately the center of Florida between Tampa and Miami is relatively sparsely populated. It will probably never get its own dedicated route
I’m glad you brought up the point of high costs, especially important to consider for the PNW HSR idea. Faster and more reliable rail connections along the I-5 (and fare I say I-90) corridors are going to be critical to improving our region, and expanding and improving Amtrak Cascades makes a ton of sense as a way to do this. But I don’t see how the higher construction and operating costs of the current “Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation” project are feasible when its annual ridership figure is barely 100k more than what was projected for an enhanced Cascades service (see the 2006 Cascades Long-Range Plan and the 2019 UHSGT Business Case study).
Induced demand. when you put higher quality and faster services, people will take them. people always take the method that requires the least amount of effort, gets them their the fastest, and then the cheapest. so long as you do not put barriers to entry it will be effective. whenever a road gets you to where you want to go faster, people will drive. when its faster to walk to services, people will walk, when its faster to ride a bike and use bike lanes that do not kill you, people will bike.
Induced demand only works if there is a base demand for travel between those locations, and the population to provide that demand
@@Aliceintraining you’re right, but all rail improvements come at a cost and it’s absolutely worth weighing which costs are actually worth the benefits they enable. The Amtrak Cascades plans show the potential to offer travel times that are faster than driving between pretty much all stations and (in terms of downtown-downtown time) competitive with flying from Seattle to either of the major endpoint cities, while also providing a cost per rider significantly lower than what is assumed by UHSGT. While UHSGT’s lower travel times and ownership of the ROW would be great, there isn’t even close to enough of a developed travel market between the cities to justify the expense. But there is certainly enough demand to justify more frequent intercity train services, and, if Washington state actually committed to following through with its plans, major improvements to the Cascades could do this in a lot less time and for a lot less money, time and money that we need to spend wisely over the next few decades.
@@andrewreynolds4949 agreed. City Nerd did a great video examining some useful (if not perfect) numbers on potential travel demand along HSR corridors. He specifically called out the PNW for its lack of justifiable numbers for HSR, though he probably could’ve at least thrown a bone to the idea of stronger Amtrak Cascades service as a helpful alternative.
@@andrewreynolds4949 if their is a highway and its already crowded, then their is already enough demand. you dont need to think real hard about that.
A fairly recent viarail trip that included five legs was horrible. Every trip was late including a 50 minutes leg that was late by 45 minutes even though it left on time. High speed would be fantastic but if reliability is weak the maximum speed is moot. I would like to see an average speed between Quebec City and Toronto of 200km/hr.
Including stops?
That would make Toronto-Quebec City in 4 hours.
I agree!
Although I would maybe like to start in Guitchbridgeloo.
@@MultiCappie Toronto to Ottawa is coming at least
@@MultiCappie You mean Waterloo Region? or Kitchener?
You could also do High Speed Rail Explain Benelux (Belgium&The Netherlands) to finish High Speed Rail in Europe. Also fun fact, Belgium is the only country in Europe/(the world?) to have fully completed its high Speed rail infrastructure
Alot of other countries have too
The Netherlands has one paltry real high speed line (used by Eurostar/Thalys), on which domestic trains operate at 160kmh, plus one more line (Hanzelijn) built for 200kmh but operated at 140kmh. Not really particularly interesting IMO.
Thoughts on Washington State setting aside funds (also matched with federal funds) for the potential of an HSR line in the PNW corridor? Although we're busy building out our light rail and BRT networks, it's definitely something positive to look forward to.
Does that include Vancouver-Seattle? That would be a nice route. I've heard Cascadia wants 400km/h trains as well. Fastest I've been on is 300 in China (I left China before 350 trains resumed)
@@maxxiong It should, although no concrete plans yet. I also saw that Cascadia wanted up to 400km/h per a study, but given the terrain of the region, it's hard to say what percentage of the track would be able to actually operate at those speeds.
@@TheTikeySauce There is a full route map about the corridor they are planning actually. China is currently building a line that has a reserved speed of 400kph, and the minimum curve radius is 7km, 5.5km in difficult areas. The maps do occasionally show tighter curves unfortunately.
And Vancouver Canada
There's a high speed rail proposal in Arizona to link Phoenix with Las Vegas and Phoenix to Tucson. Also I've heard of the Front Range high speed rail which would connect Cheyenne, WY to Alberqurque, NM.
Most of us Americans actually want to see modernized rail infrastructure. But politicians see otherwise.
0:45 people that think this is a “Bullet Train” this isn’t. The cabs can be detached (Because these are SC44 chargers used most commonly on Amtrak) with the cars being Ventura cars built by the same manufacturer also in use on Amtrak.
What is the issue with MARC? I’m considering moving to the MD suburbs, and I am dependent on transit.
I was hoping he would elaborate on that because I'm curious too. For what it's worth, I live in MD near the BWI rail station and can give you my opinions.
For American standards, MARC seems great because it's fast and cheap ($8 to get from BWI to DC in 40 min or 30 min express, $6 to Baltimore Penn in about 15 minutes). The biggest downside is that they're really bad at Transit Oriented Development. There's so much new housing going up in MD and yet the area around all the stations is way behind. Either seas of parking like Bowie State and New Carollton or suburban low density at Halethorpe, Seabrook, and Odenton (the latter is developing, but I'd say not close to the stadium). West Baltimore is barely a station, which is a shame since the neighborhood needs investment.
Other nitpicks might be that it (apparently) doesn't always run electrified when Penn line has the wiring for it. It's very much a commuter line, and while there are trains Sat and Sun, they are fewer. Last trains out of DC at night are 9PM and then 11PM on weeknights, which is a shame when I'd love to be able to take the train home after a late night out (at least match it with metro which closes at 1AM). Camden Line and Brunswick Line has all the same comments, but since they are older, slower (less straight routing), and get far fewer riders it can be worse.
Ultimately, if you live right on the MARC Penn Line it can be super convenient. I take it all the time to DC when I know I-95, I-295, and other highways will be clogged from 4-8PM. But it feels like it could be so much more if there was density along it. Where density has popped up in the Balt-DC corridor, like Columbia or Annapolis, would be massively improved by a rail line that would now be exorbitantly pricey to build. While now post-pandemic (as many commuters are now working from home) MARC must be struggling more when they might have been better off with people living along their route.
I think he’s referencing the fact that MARC’s electric fleet is shrinking rather than growing
Maybe we'll catch up to Japan by 2200.
Extraordinarily optimistic. Oil stockholders control literally everything in the U.S.
Or 9999999
@@MultiCappie the oil companies have about 50ys of rop left (current economical reserves ÷ current consumption) atleast with pre covid numbers, and they saw the writing on the wall and stopped expanding production (which is why gas is $5+ per gallon).
The 2 big barriers to widespread HSR in the states are poor transit within cities (last mile problem is named after places like Houston and Pheonix [Pheonix isn't even a city just an infinite spraw of suburbs]), and unfavorable geography. (The cities themselves are just too small and too far away for many routes to be justified, and both coasts have mountain ranges to drive up costs in the only areas dense enough or touristy enough to justify HSR)
There's already new trains in the US that have similar speeds to the ones in Japan, just not the $64B maglev project
@@Racko. I was taking the original comment in the terms of comprehensive HSR system, not as in "one line will have the same speed."
Thank you for at least giving a brief mention of the Pacific Northwest. At least WSDOT is making improvements, and BNSF going along with it, ODOT is a highway DOT that happens to have something to do with other forms of transport, and the trucking industry basically runs ODOT, allowing for triple trailers anything to do with trains in the most populous region of Oregon is of low priority. They at least bought some of the abandoned Wisconsin train sets, but I don't expect much more. Maybe with the higher price of fuel, more people in the Willamette Valley will push for increasing service to the previous levels of service?
One of the biggest reasons HSR struggles in the US is not because of the distances between cities, but because those cities are not designed to be transit oriented. Think about it, while a station can be placed in the downtown section of a city without all the noise pollution common to airports, how is someone suppose to get to place to place once they are there?
I guess you could have HSR connect airports together since most airports have car rental services already on-sight. But in another respect, wouldn't that defeat the whole point of HSR? I think before the US considers expanding whatever HSR it has, it should first look at how to make its urban centers far more transit, and by extension pedestrian, oriented without relying on cars.
The US is very chicken or the egged on transit. Our cities aren't designed for transit so transit sucks, and since transit sucks nobody* wants to design their cities for transit.
*Notable exception of transit enthusiasts, but it should be everyone atleast understanding the benefit of transit even if its economically infeasible for their area (like much of the countryside excluding intercity routes)
I think you're mostly correct, but a lot of the cities that are looking to implement HSR right now do have public transit, at least nominally. San Fran has BART, LA has it's own metro; the NEC obviously has plenty of systems, so it's not a stretch for those areas to incorporate HSR.
When talking about linking other cities, though, that problem definitely becomes more apparent.
I think it's still worth it, though. As you say, airports have rental cars and cab services, and there's no reason that can't happen in other, less PT friendly cities.
the NEC wouldn't be nearly as busy if it weren't for the sheer number of people in New York that don't own cars. Yes, DC, Philly, and Boston are all great car-free cities as well but New York is a completely different animal.
@@MichaelfromtheGraves It's due to the population in the NEC, over 40M ppl along with the fact that it's very transit oriented also helps, the best way to get around
Counterpoint: car rentals do NOT defeat the point because a much shorter trip within a city is much less of a hassle than a long road trip. Not to mention taxi/rideshare services can also be easily integrated. So I don't think that's a good explanation for the lack of trains, though better transit makes this even easier. Beyond that a number of US cities with well used transit (San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, and even Atlanta which has the 6th highest number of metro riders per track mile in the country) don't have HSR to them. So I don't think we need to have more extensive transit first. That kind of "but first we need X" argument has no end to it. "We can't have HSR because we need more transit"->"We can't have transit because our cities are too spread out"->"We can't densify our cities because traffic will be too bad because transit sucks".
We need to stop making excuses and do good things even if other good things that synergize with that aren't ready yet. Do that which you can get funding for, then use that new better infrastructure as a reason to improve other aspects of infrastructure and city design.
There are at least 30 North American routes between 100 and 300 miles long that would be attractive for, if not true high speed rail, at least higher speed trains. Currently the FRA will not allow over 110 mph on lines with grade crossings. The biggest problem is that outside the NEC nearly all of track is owned by private rail operators. They like to run slow and incredibly long trains that do not mix well with any type of reliable rail passenger service. They are also generally hostile to any expansion of our current rather pathetic intercity passenger train system. As an example of how far the U.S. has come...downhill, I offer the Chicago to Indianapolis route. In 1950 the New York Central ran this in as little as three an a half hours for the 200 miles. Today it takes Amtrak five hours, when it is on time. Also, three are three round trips PER WEEK.
Over the years I've felt surprised when some Americans have told me that they have never traveled on a train or have never traveled on Amtrak.
Given that Amtrak doesn't service most of the US or has very infrequent and unreliable service were it does, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
There's some metro areas like Phoenix, AZ that aren't serviced by passenger rail, period. The only form of non-bus, on-a-rail public transit is the slow 15-year-old tram that runs on the streets for most of its journey. Atleast they are expanding it, but half the area is still VERY car-dependent.
Adding a progress bar for ads is a nice touch
How about washington dc-baltimore sc maglev? And illinois high speed rail? That's connects chicago to cleveland, detroit, indianapollis, columbus, and minneapolis.
North east maglev is barely a project worth considering and Illinois high speed rail is a pipe dream (unless you consider the Lincoln corridor upgrades as part of that project)
Are the different projects compatible regarding signaling, loading gauge, track gauge, and voltage?
Does not really spund like they are? Which rules out connecting then in a national network...
International standard for new high speed rail is: 1.4m gauge, ERTMS, 25kV.
4:35 This causes me physical pain. This is also a reason international trains in Europe are so bad.
I admire your optimism. I hope we see some progress.
In Australia, we lack high-speed rail too, yet I've had delegations from the USA visiting my workplace praising our low-speed rail. It says something that our relatively poor rail system is getting praise from Americans.
lmao
May I ask what speed dose your railway operate? I have seen several speed limits for what is already considered high-speed railway. The lowest one was 160 kph.
nah ... it's says nothing ... in fact, getting praise from Americans on passenger rail systms is laughable ...
thank god were finally having some projects take off
pretty sure the praise is mostly limited to regional and urban rail lmao
The thing with upgraded high speed rail route is that they usually have more sections that still maintain tigher curve thus resulting in lower average trip speed and longer trip time, and make further upgrade in speed on straight sections less useful. Thus I think the schedule speed from major city to another major city should be the true qualifier when comparing high speed lines.
An episode on the electrified suburban railway networks of India would be pretty impressive. Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, 3 major systems which serves millions of passengers everyday. Please do.
can you make a video about budapest's regional rail or HÉV? it is not a big system, but there re some ambitious plans for it in the near future.
Could you make a video of the TRAX/Frontrunner in Salt Lake City? I just want to know your opinion on it.
The northern terminus of all Amtrak trains could go deep into Maine if only Boston approved a rail link that would run under the heart of downtown. That would also be a game changer for MBTA regional rail service, one can dream...
That horse left the barn when rail was excluded from the big (road) dig.
Its been years of legal trouble for Texas Central, but it seems they may have beaten the case.
As an austrian I just love how the futher of American rial for much of the us is basically railjets. Hope you like them America.
Nur so können Amerikaner sich Bahnen vorstellen. Es ist absolut schade, dass wir so schlimme Personeneisenbahnen haben. Darüber habe ich dieses Land bereits aufgegeben.
@@pooki-dooki Die Amerikanern e Personeneisenbahnen habe betan haben sich in Letzter zweit verbessert. I hoffe das das auch in Zukunft so sein wird.
Highway median is the way to go. It works really well for attracting more riders because the drivers can see the trains leaving them in the dust, so they begin to understand just how much faster HSR actually is.
Turning radius and slope gradients make the highway median a not-so-great option for inserting HSR
Highway medians are good for regional rail where speed isn't the priority, but HSR requires routes to be as flat and straight as possible. Most highways won't meet that standard. The only advantage highways provide is that it reduces the cost of purchasing land and lowers the need to use eminent domain.
@@TheFarix2723 In addition, it also is highly dependent on how wide the median is. Some have a pretty wide median and can support up to two tricks with a nice distance between them, others require the tracks to be elevated which would put all the advantages a median has moot.
High speed rail between Nashville and Atlanta with a stop in Chattanooga
Good explanaition! A long way to go!!!
I believe high speed means if you can get there faster than a car. There should be rail built down the center of every highway in America. So product can be mass shipped without semi's crowding the highways and one for passengers to unclutter the highway some more.
Acela's going 125 mph top speed don't mean much if they're only at top speed for 15 minutes. While I had a nice trip from NY to Boston, it took about the same time as driving there, if not longer, which kinda sucked.
The USA needs to take another page of the Red Book of China and create a standardized national fleet standard to make an upgraded Amtrak work. I think even most Americans would be happy with hourly 200 km/h/125 mph service given the option since with trains it's really just about the journey as much as the destination since it's the one form of transit where people are encouraged to go and walk about while on board. Otherwise most just want you to sit down, shut up and don't flatline on their watch...
Are you aware of Amtrak’s currently ongoing fleet replacement and upgrade programs? I don’t think we need to learn how to do that from China
China will have 600km/hr high speed rail soon..
@@sheenasmith4555 The Chinese government can also confiscate whatever it wants or needs for the project, humanitarian or environmental consequences be damned, if the political will is present for the project at the top
Let´s face it - the US are decades behind when it comes to highspeed rail services! Even the ever quoted NE corridor has only a few miles, where speeds in excess of 125mph are possible - that´s what the commuter trains running past my house do!
Honestly as an American I hope we just slowly decline a don't have some massive crash on the way down
Quite frankly if we have an economic crash we aren't gonna be able to build back out of it and we may drag innocent countries down with us
Good luck to Texas in getting the green light to build that system. There might not be a more auto-centric place on Earth than Texas...
While it's nice the latest and greatest trains are finally arriving in the US, it's a little sad to see the US can't engineer them here. Just a sad reminder of how far behind we've fallen, considering the world class railroad engineering the US was once known for.
It is quite amazing what China has done with regards to high speed rail in the same timeframe as North America. The words that comes to mind are : Priorities, War, and Oil.
I define HSR as : 1) Dedicated Track 2) Electrified Rail 3) 185mph ave speed 4)Elimination of all Level Crossings ...
Are there any lines that average 185? The og bullet line currently tops out at that speed. Also why does a grade crossing automatically invalidate a high speed line? Also why must the line be electricified? You can get attractive speeds from other technologies. Back in the late 60s the canadiens built a gas turbine train that hit 170 in New Jersey, which would have bombed passed a contemporary shinkansen. In the early 70s the gas turbine version of the tgv did 194, and if we're going to get silly the aero train did 250!
@@MrJstorm4 You make an interesting point ... but I already feel than my initial criteria is outdated : If it were up to me right now, I would open it up to the Chinese to build Canada a network from coast to coast along with a few spur lines and tell them to put whatever $$$ figure they want on the cheque ...
Whenever I watch videos about transit in America I get depressed.
Would you consider Amtrak wolverine high speed. The max speed it is capable of 110 miles per hour. It rolling stock it uses Siemens charger with either Siemens venture coaches, amfleet 1, and horizon coaches.
I know I wouldn’t. I’d say it’s higher speed rail.
That isn't even high speed for upgraded tracks (which is 125 mph); in many places of Europe, that's closer to regional speed.
Have you rechecked the NE Corridor since the recent work was completed? Would love to hear your summation..
I always find it funny that our Metro stock looks old but our high speed stock especially the ones for the future they look modern and sleek and their world class ironic
I would argue high speed rail is currently not existent in the US, as while the Acela Express technically reaches some high speeds, its average speed of 110km/h or 70mp/h is still very low, and disqualifies it from being a high speed line in my eyes.
Has the Brightline station in Disney been canceled? I heard it has but it's hard to find reliable infomation.
Yes. They changed routing in the area and it makes the Disney Springs station not possible. Looks like they aiming more for work travel as opposed to leisure travel.
As I understand there will still be a station somwere near Disney, so perhaps if Disney builds some sort of people mover or bus tansfer to connect to the new station, it would still be an improvement to the current situation
@@georgobergfell I am sure there will be, at a minimum, a bus available.
@@Geotpf they chose the northern route which will still pass right by Disney Springs on I-4. I guarantee you there will still be talk of a Disney Springs station
Illinois ignored again 😔. We're getting to 110mph from Chicago to St Louis soon
That’s not high speed tho!
Is there a reason that no one ever includes the Keystone Corridor when discussing High Speed Rail in the US?
because it's a secret and allows me to get a cheap ticket between Philly and NYC. So stop bringing it up.
Because the Keystone Corridor only has a top speed of 110mph due to grade crossings.
Excellent video by the way....thank you
Great video! I would love to see a video from you talks about the MRT and LRT system in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Great toi see the beautifull TGV
You have an error on the stops on the Acela. It also stops at other stops in NJ, such as Metropark, NJ.
Missed New Haven, Providence, Wilmington, Back Bay, Route 21, BWI Airport too.
So I think he was just referring to major large cities.
@@flyphone1072 does the acela stop at route 21?
@@Lovetoteach Yeah I misremembered the name, but at least some acelas stop at route 128 station near boston
@@flyphone1072 ah ok
I mainly hope, once we in the USA get past this ugly undemocratic period, and we’re able to install the nationwide high-speed rail network the majority actually demands, that Chicago remains the central hub of a hub-and-spoke system … because not coincidentally I live a quick ten-minute walk north of Chicago, AND I WOULD FRIKKIN’ _LIVE_ ON THE RAILS, SO HELP ME!!!
I mean, watching this video I understand my network will never be … high-speed rail will arrive piece-by-piece incoherently, backed erratically by private capital and largely serving private capital’s needs, a rail line to Disney World here, a commuter line between the northeast and D.C. there … a far-cry from what Europe have been able to achieve.
What happened to the rest of the High Speed Rail Explained videos?
Texas Central is not in good shape right now. They have limited funds, still face considerable opposition from landowners, and have just lost some of their upper management.
Brightline is considerably farther along than shown here. For anyone interested in the project I highly recommend Roaming Railfan’s regular documentary videos on it.
Brightline in Florida isn’t even close to what Texas Central and CAHSR are doing. It barely holds a candle to the Acela. 125mph on a short stretch with diesel trains is a lot easier that 220mph trains between cities hundreds of miles away.
@@banksrail Yes, Brightline has set its goals lower and much more achievable. That wasn't my point anyway, my point was that the footage of the Brightline project in this video was rather outdated. Much more recent footage can be found on Roaming Railfan's channel, as I said.
Screw those landowners.
If we had a high speed train between Northern California, highway 1 side, and a city with jobs, that would really provide a mass expansion for working people to be able to live in a cheaper part of the state. They'd totally make their money back.
Northern CA is split right down the middle with wineries, and geographic features/few east west highways. You basically have to drive two hours around the middle to get to Sacramento, or an hour+ south and cross an expensive toll bridge (or two toll bridges) to get to San Francisco, so housing is cheaper but there are no jobs. Not cheap, just cheap-er.
This video is 16 minutes longer than I expected it to be.
Many interurban routes such as the Norristown high speed line, CA&E, and Skokie Valley Routes, once had services that could clock out around 80 to 90 miles per hour. And that was in the 1920s to 1950s, that is impressive.
Now there's a question about what happened to routes like those, if you had services that were around 80 miles per hour? The bus companies and highways did do a part in killing off these lines, with thee exception of thee Norristown line, but we did hurt the lines. It wasn't mainly their faults all together, we did our part, and now it's basically hard to bring such services back, because in some areas, like the CA&E, time has moved on.
There's also The South Shore Line
I feel like the brightline west could have direct service to LA union station from day one if brightline uses some bi-mode trains
I think their plan is to interchange with the CA HSR line, which will go into central LA
@@andrewreynolds4949 CAHSR won't be ready when brightline west opens in 2026 lol
@@Henrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy I doubt either one will be open in 2026
@@Henrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy just shows how incompetent your construction companies are in the US.
7:03 That bridge is gonna make a mighty nice bike path one day. I see an early "rails to trails" conversion of most of the high speed right-of-way.
I can see it operated as a huge money drain for decades into the future (after it finally gets completed many, many years from now) running on the sunken cost fallacy
@@andrewreynolds4949 why are you always pushing for railways to be profitable?
If I demand that all interstate highways become toll roads, would you want that?
@@ianhomerpura8937 There is sort of a difference. If a government entity wanted to put together a program to fund a rail system through taxes or other means, that's fine, and has been done in a number of places. However, that usually means funding has to come from somewhere else. Large losses on rail services are a good indicator that the service or route might not be the most useful or the best way to serve a need, as opposed to another method of transportation. The same is true for roads: large, wide roads with low traffic density probably aren't necessary, maybe not the cost of maintaining them in that configuration.
I can see that happening to roads
@@andrewreynolds4949 roads don’t make money
And don'f forget the VIP access for "Ratoncito Perez" in "banco de España" similar to the Tooth Fairy
I would love it when we won't have to back and forth between metric and US Custom meassurements. Americans should learn and adopt the metric system!
AYEEE RM follow Torontonian here LOVE your content 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Could u pls do a video on metro transit in Iran?? I know it's got the largest underground metro system in the whole region and has been around since the late 80s early 90s in Tehran and likely other cities.. it has over 100 stations and at least 8 lines I believe they have 3 more lines underway u could look into it 😎❤ happy Canada day weekend
I'm sorry to say, but I don't think 130 KM/H is high-speed rail, over here in the Netherlands, regular trains almost always hit 140 KM/H, so I don't think 130 should be called high-speed
I think he ment 130 miles per hour.
@@darthmaul216 well I guess he did
A couple of years ago I was really excited that Texas might become a pioneer in North America with the fastest service, living up to the....all be it shameful slogan of "everything is bigger in Texas". Bummed that the project hit what seems to be a huge speed bump. This was also suprizing as 10 years ago I was seeing RFP's for both the Dallas and Houston stations. It will likely regain momentum....fingers crossed. (obviously I am a Texan......(in recovery))
Same, I checked the date of this video the second he mentioned Texas Central because my understanding is that it's all but dead. Guess I could look into it again, but I haven't heard anything positive about the project in months.
So I take it the northeast maglev is not happening?
Have you done a video on the UK's existing 200 km/h rail network?
Let’s hope this will be a nationwide hsr system
The VIA Wiki rated it medium speed - I think. It doesn't have many stops on the Québec - Windsor corridor, so it has a high average speed. Of course VIA has its "new?" philosophy on high availability or filling the timetable to reduce wait.
How ironic! This is exactly how China had their hsr system look circa 2007
You can further change the definition of hsr to fit with all existing Amtrak lines
France, some regional trains (not tgv) go up to 200kph, most notably in Alsace but not only. These trains are made up of decades old corail coaches and also decades old electric locomotives. They visually look nothing like high speed, are nothing like high tech and are branded regional service. They run on conventional tracks (not lgv) that are shared with all sorts of trains including freight. Tell a french rail enthusiast that 200kph is high speed he will laugh at you.
What happened to the Stockholm metro video? Can’t find it
I'm surprised you didn't mention the hsr plans in the Nw
With gas prices climbing HSR is more efficient and quicker than one person per car/truck transportation.
What about Illinois High Speed Rail and Atlanta-Charlotte High Speed Rail?
Please, I live along that section of 85 and it’s nothing but traffic
15:20 most Americans have never been on a train
Why not mention 110 mph upgrades throughout the Midwest and Chicagoland?
Because that’s not high speed
I checked the date to see if it was April 1
Um, what happened to your video about the history of the Washington DC metro?
implement an exit fare at disney to accelerate building brightline there faster.
Claiming that the "first phase" of California HSR will connect to the Bay Area is quite misleading. Since the practical first phase of the project will only connect Merced to Fresno to Bakersfield....all in the Central Valley. How they will actually cross the mountains to the Bay Area (one mountain range along an alignment that has never historically seen rail) or the greater Los Angeles area (two ranges to cross that are both occupied by *other* rail services that would conflict w/ HSR) are still undecided.....and CA HSR certainly does not have the funding to do either. Frankly, I expect CA HSR to run out of funding before serious construction on *either* mountain crossing is underway, since the Central Valley portion simply does not have the population density or transit connections to pay for the grandiose operations planned.
Jason, specific to your comments. 1) This higher speed will take a decade or more. We need car use reduction now. 2) Higher speed trains mixed with lower speed trains will reduce the maximum frequency possible. Not worth the little extra speed between Acela Express and Acela Regional.
That’s why quad tracking with dedicated fast and slow lines is useful
@@andrewreynolds4949 But the two extra tracks are needed for the much slower regional trains operated by transit systems
@@ericbruun9020 There are many places where both the regional and commuter trains stop at the same stations. Most of the time gained from the Acela services are from lack of stops anyway. Amtrak is looking at getting faster NEC regional trains as well.
@@andrewreynolds4949 Agreed, but it does not change my initial point that Amtrak should have rolling stock that all operate at the same speed in the NE Corridor.
Hey there! Using background music with lyrics makes it difficult for people like me with audio processing issues to hear and understand what you're saying. While CC helps, it would be appreciated if you avoid background music with lyrics in the future!
What is up with all the reuploads? And I just realized the Tokyo Explained video was taken down - that was a masterpiece.
please give us all old videos🥺🥺🥺
india,japan,china,South korea,france,spain and more. We wait for that's video 🥺🥺🥺
I’m working on it :)
Shinkansen if Texas central actually makes the high speed line, would deal with tornadoes
I Am Really In Love With You Amtrak Acela Express Trains ❤️🚆❤️
Have you considered reaching out to Railways Explained? They've already (unironically) explained this.
This video is actually a reupload from quite some time ago!
Inter city HSR will have a hard time competing with cars unless we also implement inner city metros, without metros you will have too rent a car when getting off the train, usually making it more practical too drive.
If we could just bite the bullet, force good deals from private businesses, or better yet just make our own state constitution crews, and just build the things then life would be way better.
I thought this entire video was going to be "FOOTAGE NOT FOUND"
Trains and planes have less deaths than cars but face more scrutiny when any casualty occurs. Kinda ridiculous