Crazy talk... High speed rail car transport

[the1wags]

Just some pie in the sky idea I've been thinking on a bit. Here's the jist. As an option to interstate driving, load up your car onto a auto carrier that is part of a high speed rail network. I'm not talking about Amtrak's weaksauce 79MPH high speed, I mean 200+MPH high speed.

Just for example, when driving between Denver and Omaha, I usually do about 5 over (80MPH) and stop once in between for gas, food, restroom, etc, and it takes me about dead on 7 hours. Google Maps says 8h15m.

Flying is fast at about an hour hop, but with arriving early for security, getting luggage, etc, it's really at least 2.5 hrs ballpark.

Say hypothetically the high speed train would be a happy medium at around 4-4.5 hours. Something you would be interested in?

What would be a good price point in your opinion? You have to factor in a few things. No gas used for the length of the train ride, plus you have your vehicle when you are there, so no rental car costs if you were flying.

A quick example, my Jeep. 20MPG on the highway give or take. 538 miles from Union Station Denver to Amtrak station Omaha. Google maps says 538 miles at 8hrs 15m drive time. (As noted, I do it in about 7) 538 miles by 20MPG is 26.9 gallons. 27 gallons time $3.75 gallon is $101.25 one way. $202.50 RT. VS flying you would add the airfare plus rental car.

Obviously something like a Civic could do the drive for cheaper vs my Jeep or a pickup.

Just chucking this out there, see what your thoughts are on it. Would it be something you would consider? Discuss.  :D

[Coyote]

I have often thought about these options. Airfare and rental car costs vs. driving/gas/wear tear on my Civic... Time/conveniences... I would say your timeline of DIA - OMA is generous given parking options and rental car check in/check out. If your option was a reality and say for $200 with a coach room and a decent meal - I am all in!

[ShawJ]

This kind of reminded me of this project:

[youtube][/youtube]

Obviously a bit different, but still kind of a similar concept.
**Edit: Okay, it's actually not really similar at all. I missed the rail part of your post. But I'm going to keep it there anyway.


Personally I'd be all for your idea. I tend to pick driving over flying for the most part due to personal preference anyway.

[Brad]

If its 4.5 hours, you wouldn't even need a room, you could sit in your car for that long...

[derog]

Just some pie in the sky idea I've been thinking on a bit. Here's the jist. As an option to interstate driving, load up your car onto a auto carrier that is part of a high speed rail network. I'm not talking about Amtrak's weaksauce 79MPH high speed, I mean 200+MPH high speed.

Just for example, when driving between Denver and Omaha, I usually do about 5 over (80MPH) and stop once in between for gas, food, restroom, etc, and it takes me about dead on 7 hours. Google Maps says 8h15m.

Flying is fast at about an hour hop, but with arriving early for security, getting luggage, etc, it's really at least 2.5 hrs ballpark.

Say hypothetically the high speed train would be a happy medium at around 4-4.5 hours. Something you would be interested in?

What would be a good price point in your opinion? You have to factor in a few things. No gas used for the length of the train ride, plus you have your vehicle when you are there, so no rental car costs if you were flying.

A quick example, my Jeep. 20MPG on the highway give or take. 538 miles from Union Station Denver to Amtrak station Omaha. Google maps says 538 miles at 8hrs 15m drive time. (As noted, I do it in about 7) 538 miles by 20MPG is 26.9 gallons. 27 gallons time $3.75 gallon is $101.25 one way. $202.50 RT. VS flying you would add the airfare plus rental car.

Obviously something like a Civic could do the drive for cheaper vs my Jeep or a pickup.

Just chucking this out there, see what your thoughts are on it. Would it be something you would consider? Discuss.  :D

I would definitely be interested...

...but, to burst your bubble, one of the keys to high speed rail is weight. A single car, with gas, weighs anywhere from 8 people (on the small end) to 24+ people (on the large end - Chevy Suburban weights 4500 pounds w/o gas and average American male weighs ~190 pounds).

Simply put, it's not realistic to have a car+ high speed rail combo train with even the most advanced of today's technology.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Just some pie in the sky idea I've been thinking on a bit. Here's the jist. As an option to interstate driving, load up your car onto a auto carrier that is part of a high speed rail network. I'm not talking about Amtrak's weaksauce 79MPH high speed, I mean 200+MPH high speed.

Just for example, when driving between Denver and Omaha, I usually do about 5 over (80MPH) and stop once in between for gas, food, restroom, etc, and it takes me about dead on 7 hours. Google Maps says 8h15m.

Flying is fast at about an hour hop, but with arriving early for security, getting luggage, etc, it's really at least 2.5 hrs ballpark.

Say hypothetically the high speed train would be a happy medium at around 4-4.5 hours. Something you would be interested in?

What would be a good price point in your opinion? You have to factor in a few things. No gas used for the length of the train ride, plus you have your vehicle when you are there, so no rental car costs if you were flying.

A quick example, my Jeep. 20MPG on the highway give or take. 538 miles from Union Station Denver to Amtrak station Omaha. Google maps says 538 miles at 8hrs 15m drive time. (As noted, I do it in about 7) 538 miles by 20MPG is 26.9 gallons. 27 gallons time $3.75 gallon is $101.25 one way. $202.50 RT. VS flying you would add the airfare plus rental car.

Obviously something like a Civic could do the drive for cheaper vs my Jeep or a pickup.

Just chucking this out there, see what your thoughts are on it. Would it be something you would consider? Discuss.  :D

I would definitely be interested...

...but, to burst your bubble, one of the keys to high speed rail is weight. A single car, with gas, weighs anywhere from 8 people (on the small end) to 24+ people (on the large end - Chevy Suburban weights 4500 pounds w/o gas and average American male weighs ~190 pounds).

Simply put, it's not realistic to have a car+ high speed rail combo train with even the most advanced of today's technology.

This unfortunately seems to be the case. The Eurotunnel Shuttle, the car transporter which runs through the Chunnel between Britian and Fance, has a speed of only about 99 MPH. And apparently the train cars are much larger than normal sized cars and cannot travel on standard tracks.

[Seth]

I don't think it's a question of whether it could be done, but rather the economics of it.  If you figure that you could only haul 10 or so automobiles for the same weight passenger railcar that can carry 100+ people, you'd have to charge at least 10x for each ticket.  These are rough numbers, obviously, but I think that's ultimately the issue.  I'd be interested to see how auto vs passenger tickets compare on the Eurotunnel to back up this theory.

[Brad]

I am not sure how car weight would be an issue...

Amtrak Locomotives are very similar to Freight Locomotives, made by the same company.  Amtrak always has 2 locomotives and 10-15 cars.  UP runs Autorack Trains like the one pictured below with dozens of cars, each holding 12 Autos per car.

Granted, these cars would not be as easy to load and unload and would take careful planning.  However if you were only stopping once or twice (if that) between Omaha and Denver, not a huge deal if they were loaded in the right order.  

[the1wags]

Good point on some of this. This might not make sense with today's pricing or tech, but long term? Say its even 2040 and gas is at $12 a gallon. Then what? Are people going to be driving gas powered cars between cities? Maybe by then they will have EV's doing 500 miles a charge though. Or even better, transporters.  :mrgreen:

[Dusty]

Check out the technology of evacuated tube maglev transportation. This could be the future of travel over longer distances. Basically they build a mag lev train inside a air-sealed tube allowing trains about to go 1000-2000mph....in theory! Everything is in research phase at this point.

http://www.facebook.com/MaglevRail

[Brad]

Check out the technology of evacuated tube maglev transportation. This could be the future of travel over longer distances. Basically they build a mag lev train inside a air-sealed tube allowing trains about to go 1000-2000mph....in theory! Everything is in research phase at this point.

http://www.facebook.com/MaglevRail

2000 MPH wouldn't be feasible for anything other than LA to Chicago or more...

Omaha to Devner is 500 mils straight line.  If the train accelerated at 1 MPH per second, it would take about a half hour to get up to speed.  By the time it hit top speed, it would already be in Denver, basically before it hit top speed, it would already need to start slowing down.

[derog]

I am not sure how car weight would be an issue...

Amtrak Locomotives are very similar to Freight Locomotives, made by the same company.  Amtrak always has 2 locomotives and 10-15 cars.  UP runs Autorack Trains like the one pictured below with dozens of cars, each holding 12 Autos per car.

Granted, these cars would not be as easy to load and unload and would take careful planning.  However if you were only stopping once or twice (if that) between Omaha and Denver, not a huge deal if they were loaded in the right order.

The issue: The trains you're talking about are not high speed.

[Brad]

I understand that, but even high speed trains weigh way more than a vehicle.

[Garrett]

Check out the technology of evacuated tube maglev transportation. This could be the future of travel over longer distances. Basically they build a mag lev train inside a air-sealed tube allowing trains about to go 1000-2000mph....in theory! Everything is in research phase at this point.

http://www.facebook.com/MaglevRail

2000 MPH wouldn't be feasible for anything other than LA to Chicago or more...

Omaha to Devner is 500 mils straight line.  If the train accelerated at 1 MPH per second, it would take about a half hour to get up to speed.  By the time it hit top speed, it would already be in Denver, basically before it hit top speed, it would already need to start slowing down.

Actually, if it accelerated at 1 mph per second it would take 200 seconds, or 3 and 1/3 minutes to get up to speed.

[BRoss]

Check out the technology of evacuated tube maglev transportation. This could be the future of travel over longer distances. Basically they build a mag lev train inside a air-sealed tube allowing trains about to go 1000-2000mph....in theory! Everything is in research phase at this point.

http://www.facebook.com/MaglevRail

2000 MPH wouldn't be feasible for anything other than LA to Chicago or more...

Omaha to Devner is 500 mils straight line.  If the train accelerated at 1 MPH per second, it would take about a half hour to get up to speed.  By the time it hit top speed, it would already be in Denver, basically before it hit top speed, it would already need to start slowing down.

Actually, if it accelerated at 1 mph per second it would take 200 seconds, or 3 and 1/3 minutes to get up to speed.

That would be if the speed was 200 mph. Since it's 2000 mph, it would take 2000 seconds which would be 33.33 minutes.

[icejammer]

Check out the technology of evacuated tube maglev transportation. This could be the future of travel over longer distances. Basically they build a mag lev train inside a air-sealed tube allowing trains about to go 1000-2000mph....in theory! Everything is in research phase at this point.

http://www.facebook.com/MaglevRail

2000 MPH wouldn't be feasible for anything other than LA to Chicago or more...

Omaha to Devner is 500 mils straight line.  If the train accelerated at 1 MPH per second, it would take about a half hour to get up to speed.  By the time it hit top speed, it would already be in Denver, basically before it hit top speed, it would already need to start slowing down.

1 MPH per second is only pulling 0.05g.  I would think with maglev you could get significantly greater than 0.05g acceleration, at least 0.5g.

[thenewguy]

Im not up and up on high speed rail, but if the trains accelerate anything like an automobile, the power range isnt linear.  example: it is less hp/mph going from 0-150 than it takes for a car to go 150-200mph.  if the horsepower it used to move the trains was anywhere close to that of a car, you would likely never hit top speed from here to denver...unless they pack more horses in there than one would expect

[Seth]

Im not up and up on high speed rail, but if the trains accelerate anything like an automobile, the power range isnt linear.  example: it is less hp/mph going from 0-150 than it takes for a car to go 150-200mph.  if the horsepower it used to move the trains was anywhere close to that of a car, you would likely never hit top speed from here to denver...unless they pack more horses in there than one would expect

Wind drag is what really limits top speed.  Wind drag force increases quadratically with velocity, so it adds up really fast.  Rolling resistance increases with speed as well, but it only increases at a linear rate, and is generally a smaller portion of power requirements anyway.