Non-stop, high-speed trains that stop at each city. Wait, what?
Published May 5th, 2008 in Transportation Tags: high-speed rail, idea, trains, travelHigh-speed rail travel is very lucrative. The prospect of hopping on a train in Chicago and arriving in New York City an hour later is all but a pipe dream at this point. For one, the train would have to make a bee line from Chicago to NYC without stopping. Second, the train would have to be a high speed train operating on an entirely new rail line that is designed for high speed travel (no grade crossings, at least two tracks, minimal curvature and elevation change along the route). This is fine for Chicago and NYC, but what if a friend from Cleveland wants to join you on the trip? How would he get on the train if it doesn’t stop?
Well, the high speed train you are on doesn’t have to stop. Instead, your friend would hop on a shuttle train at Cleveland. The shuttle train would depart Cleveland before your train passes through Cleveland. The shuttle train would get up to full-speed just as your train catches up to meet with the shuttle train. The shuttle train, being on another track beside your train, would then connect with your train to allow passengers to switch. People bound for NYC would switch to your train, and those bound for Pittsburgh would switch over to the shuttle train, which would then disengage and slow down for the trip to Pittsburgh. The same process would repeat for those that wish to go to NYC from Pittsburgh.
Obviously, this is a highly synchronized dance at 350 mph, but it would provide the best of both worlds for high speed rail service.
Indeed, what you are proposing is going to require a lot of precision, but I think that properly trained people will be able to do this without a problem with the help of computers. The only issue at hand now is coming up with the infrastructure needed for this.
It would indeed require a lot of precision. The two trains would have to move as one for the time it would take for the switching to occur. The scheduling would also have to be just right.
Where the switching would take place four tracks would be necessary (two in each direction, one for the express train and one for the shuttle train). It would be cheaper to only do four tracks at locations where the switching would take place, but it would make scheduling that much more of an issue. The window would be small depending on how long the four track section would go.
Might I also say this would be impossible on today’s railroad infrastructure. It would indeed take LOTS of money to build such a system.