Talk:High-speed rail in the United States/Archive 1

Pacific Northwest Corridor
Some needs to add a full article dedicated to the Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene, OR to Vancouver, BC.
 * Stub added. -Matjamoe (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stimulus Package
Something on the HSR from the stimulus package is needed in here I have only heard the vaguest details something more certain would be nice to be placed in here--Mystic force (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you!
 * Added at the end of the "Latest developments" section and in the new "Next steps" section. -Matjamoe (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

FT photo and caption
I don't know how anyone can claim that FP7's and FP9's (Total US production 310) were the "Dominant passenger locomotives in the US" when they were outsold more than 3.5 to 1 by the contemporary E7, E8, and E9 models (Total US production 1111). I am going to comment out the photo and caption for now. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro and Other Issues
Not wishing to pick fault with a well written article, but that is a very long introduction- could some of it possibly be moved into sections? Also (as is stated above), there are not many citations in the article- it would be good to see it made more verifiable. Regards HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi HJ. I'm in the process of doing a major rewrite of this article; there was a lot of data missing, and key points were buried in the middle. Citations are on their way. 68.91.122.189 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I'm pretty much done. Comments on the new format? Most of the "unreferenced" claims are cited in their tree articles (i.e. Romancecar, Hiawatha, EMD FT, etc), so I think it'd be redundant to put them here. I'll leave the tag up though so as to encourage others to add citations as they feel necessary 68.91.122.189 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC).
 * An article should be able to stand on it's own references, and should not force the reader to search through a series of articles in order to find all the references. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete future
The "future" section discusses stuff from the Clinton years. That probably should be somehow archived as "history of future" rather than be the first thing one reads under "future".Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ccrrccrr's criticism of this section. In fact, when cleaning up several sections of the article, I simply deleted that section altogether. The stagnant tone of the section does not match the rather dramatic movement in this area recently, and the whole section seemed obsolete without being historical. If anyone would like to add it back in, please rewrite it first. The only helpful part seemed to be a brief description of maglev, which might warrant its own section at the end of the article. For now, I just added a "see also" reference to the United States section on maglev proposals. -Matjamoe (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia?
''Streamliners in the US were significantly set back by a 1940s FRA rule which required enhanced safety features for all trains traveling above a 79mph limit. Since the infrastructure required for cab signaling, automatic train stop and other enhancements was uneconomical in the sparsely-populated American West, this rule effectively killed further development of high speed rail outside of the Northeast, where the Pennsylvania Railroad and others had installed cab signaling beginning in the 1930s. No other English-speaking country adopted this rule, and while the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia all operate trains at 100mph (160 km/h) or higher using conventional lineside signaling'' - Can we get a source for this? In Australia only the VLocity operates at 160kph, and only on track that feature upgrades described in the Regional Fast Rail project, but are these requirements the same as what the unsourced claim says aren't required elsewhere? LamontCranston (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any trains in Canada that operate that fast either. TastyCakes (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Vision of High-Speed Rail in America"
A new section has been added, "Vision of High-Speed Rail in America," which was placed under the History section. It was apparently moved from the High-speed rail article, and appropriately so. I'm thinking about deleting the new section, because

(1) the content belongs in the Current plans/Federal efforts section;

(2) much of the content is already covered under the Current plans/Federal efforts section (including one of the graphics);

(3) much of the remaining content does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view, but rather as a proponent of the policies of the Obama administration (the reader can go to the linked Obama press release for that);

(4) I'm not sure about the accuracy of some of the claims (I am aware of nothing on the FRA website or Strategic Plan that talks about 250 mph trains, for example); at a minimum, sources are needed. Any objections to deleting? – Matjamoe (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I deleted the section. – Matjamoe (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

70mph Trains
I know it may not be true HSR, but how about having a list of all the places where trains are allowed to go faster than 79MPH, given that a) 79MPH is a very distinct, federally-set cut-off--every location above it basically has to be an "exception to the rule" and b) it shouldn't be a long list? Jason McHuff 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. "High-speed rail in the US" should discuss HSR as defined in the US, regardless of what the globally accepted definition is.  Alcuin 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You sound bitter about the rest of the world considering much faster speeds to be High-speed rail. LamontCranston (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree if the article is renamed to "Faster than 79 mph rail in the United States". Then everybody should be happy. AadaamS (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * High-speed rail is 200km/h+, period. But since the Acela is the only train that satisfies that criteria, I think there should be a subsection titled "intermediate speed rail." We're not the only country that does this 160km/h is also as a "super express" type benchmark in Australia and rural (narrow-gauge) areas of Japan, both of which are more comparable to the US in population densities. Canada's LRC would also fall into this "intermediate" category. 68.91.122.189 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A good idea, but I think the section named "intermediate speed rail" should be added to the Rail_transport_in_the_United_States article and not this one since this article is named "high speed rail". Also, I don't quite understand your comment on population densities since Japan is higher than 10x the population density of either the US, Canada or Australia. In fact, I can't find any mention of the 79 MPH speed limit and its significance to the US rail network in my previously linked article. Perhaps something should be added over there? AadaamS (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The FRA released a strategic plan today that clears this up, I think. They now have three tiers of "high-speed rail"&mdash;"HSR-Express" (150 mph+), "HSR-Regional" (110-150 mph), and "Emerging HSR" (90-110 mph). These terms are unambiguous and from an official source, so I've modified the introduction to comport with the official definitions. Doing so conveniently disposes of the need to create nonstandard terms, such as "intermediate-speed rail." It also establishes that 79-90 mph is not within the ambit of HSR, and even 90-110 mph isn't really "full-fledged" HSR (the definition of "Emerging HSR" sounds like it's a transition stage toward HSR-Express or HSR-Regional). I would note that HSR-Express and HSR-Regional are within, or much closer to, the internationally accepted definition of HSR. Matjamoe (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The situation in the US is really embarassing - even the Acela Express averages only 63 - 79mph on its route, which is the only "high-speed" track in America. That's an average speed obtained by commuter trains in Europe or Asia. I say average speed, not top speed. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How many miles is the train network here?
Supposedly the Chinese will have 16,000 miles by the end of 2020 so how much do we currently have and will have by then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Acela, 456 miles. But that isn't really High-speed rail. By 2020? Who knows. LamontCranston (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Section: Acela Express and recent high-speed interest
I think this section contain far too much detail about the Acela service, such as exactly which speed sections go where on the Acela Express. The title of this article is "High-speed rail in the United States" and the casual reader would go to this article to find information about the high-speed network in the U.S. as a whole. The fact that there is very little high-speed rail in the U.S. is no reason to include details that imo belong in the dedicated Acela Express article. Length, ridership and travel time ought to be enough. AadaamS (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interurbans?
Someone seems to have made a valiant but misguided attempt to expand the article with a history of the US interurban system. I fail to see how a system conveying people over short distances at speeds of 20-50 mph and which mostly died in the 1930s bears any relevance to modern high speed rail which should primarily aim to provide service over hundreds of miles. The claims made in the article are superficial resemblances at best and the references that are provided, at least in regards to interurbans being a predecessor of high speed rail in Europe and Japan, are, in my opinion, dubious at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.210.95 (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Michigan City Turns Down Millions of Dollars, Saying Federal Money Is Not Free by John Schwartz published December 22, 2011

from Talk:Tea Party movement 99.181.153.29 (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada
RE: Constitutional impediments in Canada to the Bullet Train for North American Union (and other means of vertical integration)

http://comment-aire.x11s.org/WP/2013/02/project-of-the-century-bullet-train-for-north-american-union/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.189.66 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Factual error?
The lede currently says, "According to that definition Amtrak's Acela Express which runs on the Northeast Corridor is the only operational high-speed train in the U.S. " NEC regional trains routinely do 125 mph along sections of rail that allow that speed. The Acela is only slightly faster (135 mph) in New Jersey, a bit faster in Rhode Island (150 mph), but in many sections the regional trains and Acela's have the same speed limit. Clearly, the NEC regional does more than 110 for substantial distances. Doesn't that qualify as high speed service under the definition? Jehochman Talk 13:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

lead section
The lead section mentions the California High-Speed Rail project but not the Acela which is the only HSR in operation. I suggest the California project be deleted from the lead until it is in operation and the Acela express be briefly mentioned. AadaamS (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on High-speed rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707182722/http://www.fra.dot.gov:80/us/press-releases/250 to http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/250

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on High-speed rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101215030836/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/time/20101210/us_time/08599203619700 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101210/us_time/08599203619700
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111074439/http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.06_Trains_USA.pdf to http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.06_Trains_USA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on High-speed rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/state-to-get-less-money-than-expected-for-high-speed-rail.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111214101919/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20110509/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_high_speed_trains_midwest_1?bouchon=602,il to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20110509/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_high_speed_trains_midwest_1?bouchon=602,il

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on High-speed rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513202543/http://www.nctcog.org/trans/cmp/SECTION5-RailTransportation.pdf to http://www.nctcog.org/trans/cmp/SECTION5-RailTransportation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214150558/http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/618 to http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/618
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207210953/http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/Gateway.pdf to http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/Gateway.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424174446/https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751-Home/S93751--Repository/ECHSR_Public_Hearing_Brochure.pdf to https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751-Home/S93751--Repository/ECHSR_Public_Hearing_Brochure.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219195437/http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/618.shtml to http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/618.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214150558/http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/618 to http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/618

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed UIC reference.
Here's the current UIC map, an earlier version of which was used as a reference. Note two things. First, it is labeled as sourced to ...Amtrak, by the look of it. "Input UIC members." Next note that the big map shows the NEC from Boston to DC, but the inset shows NYC to DC. Perhaps they're on to something there. Anmccaff (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you might be reading it too much. "Input UIC members" used in European maps too. Z22 (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And? They are also self-reported, by the look of it. Anmccaff (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on High-speed rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720214528/http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971 to http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825213905/http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/515 to http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/515
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014428/http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/The_Source_blog_Senate_clears_15M_for_Amtrak_Gateway_tunnel_planning.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/The_Source_blog_Senate_clears_15M_for_Amtrak_Gateway_tunnel_planning.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102162937/http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/227.shtml to http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/227.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-speed rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524015258/http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31 to http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-speed rail in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824205301/http://cascadiahighspeedrail.org/about/default.html to http://cascadiahighspeedrail.org/about/default.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ncppp.org/councilinstitutes/WhatHappenedtotheTTC11091.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Commercial for Virgin Hyperloop One
Wide parts of subsecection "New Developments" under the section "Texas" read like a commercial / fan mail for Virgin Hyperloop One and doesn't fit into the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rook wave (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Update Map
Brightline just opened the Orlando segment and with that came 125 mph trains, so the map needs to be updated to indicate this. 163.11.6.248 (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. I also added the speed increases to Lincoln Service and the Michigan Line, and made some other tweaks. QuincyMorgan (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits of 6 December 2023
Here's the 6 December 2023 edits by 195.252.220.57.

This makes a comparison between Acela service (Northeast corridor) and Brightline service (east coast of Florida) in terms of speed, and while the Acela has a higher max speed, but if I have read correctly, the "before and after" versions of the article disagree as to which has the higher average speed. Citations to sources seem to be lacking.

Another curiosity (albeit intentional) is that in this context, "higher speed" means higher than normal speed, but not as high as "high-speed". However, there are evidently differing definitions for what is allowed to be described as a "high-speed" train rather than merely a "higher-speed" train (e.g. article from "Business Insider" claims that "train is considered high-speed when it travels at 124 mph or more").

The comment disparaging the pre-existing content as resembling something written by a "marketing intern" serves mostly to reveal the evident bias of the editor.

So for me, this set of edits seemed to be intent on disparaging the Brightline, even though Acela and Brightline are non-competing services that both represent an upgrade from standard train service. Whether either of these train services is preferable to driving your own car will depend on your personal situation. Fabrickator (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The previous version didn't have sources in the lede either, so on that count it's hard to say the new version is better or worse. What is better with the new version is the clear presentation of the international definition of high-speed rail, so that the following statements about Amtrak and Brightline (whatever they end up being) are properly contextualized. Einsof (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know I didn't have sources, which is entirely my fault. I will create an account and add some. This is my first time editing Wikipedia, so if there are style guides or something I am not aware of I would love to be pointed in the right direction! 195.252.220.57 (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see my edits have a lot of issues, I will do my best to rectify them. I should say that I took the Brightline average speed figure from the Brightline's own Wikipedia page. 195.252.220.57 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I did my best to fix my sloppy edits from yesterday. Hopefully there are fewer issues now. 195.252.220.57 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)