High Speed Rail in New Mexico?!?

Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:45 Why High-Speed Rail?
1:28 Bills Considered
1:57 Current NM Rail Status
2:40 Current US Rail Status

7:17 Current International Systems
8:06 What Does NM Need?
10:52 Recommended Requirements
12:50 Conclusion

Sources and image credits are listed below:

NM Capitol:

Katy Freeway Image:

Car Crash:

US Oil Reserves:

Bill Soules:

Bills Discussed:

Amtrak Image by Jerry Huddleston:

Rail Runner Image by Jerry Huddleston:

US High Speed Rail Map:

Acela Image by Derek Yu:

California HSR image by shannon1:

Florida Image:

Brightline:

Pitbull image by Angela George:

DART Map by Jorflores1:

BART Map:

HART:

Pacific NW HSR:

Texas HSR:

Piedmont (Atlanta to Charlotte) HSR:

Colorado Front Range Rail:

Skinkansen Map by Hisagi:

California High-Speed Rail Business Plan:

Brightline Extension Cost Estimate:

[nevreiha]

at this point i think its important that HSR is seperate from other rail transport, amtrak shows why this is needed to avoid freight rail

[yardhog]

Two points about California high speed rail. One, new right of way had to be bought. Land prices are crazy stupid for that. Two, the money in PR against it has been a tell, also. Highway proponents don't want to loose that money to rail infrastructure purchases and building. Airline industry doesn't want to loose the short haul market. Hence the PR against it.

[michaelgreen]

California is not a flat state like Florida. In order to build a high speed train in California you have numerous passes that you have to traverse, that adds cost to the project. The reason the first phase was built in central California is because this area is flat and it connects Bakersfield with Fresno. When those track are completed Amtrak will have access to these tracks until phase 2 is completed connecting San Francisco to LA. New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the Union, unless the economy of New Mexico becomes as big as California or gets Federal funding, the high speed train in New Mexico will just be a paper train.

[busysaru]

I moved to Vienna, Austria, and I never need a car! The transit system here is so quick and efficient that I can do everything I need by train, subway, bus or tram. And the year transit card costs only $365/year! I also have a discount on the city bike system. The same can be said for Zurich, Amsterdam, Geneva and Paris.

NM needs to expand its bikeways, and roundabouts with efficient smart signalling systems to make biking, walking and ever car travel more efficient. Roundabouts mean no more waiting at intersections, and they're safer for bike and pedestrians as well. That means you save money and time.

[fasdaVT]

California is building highspeed rail in the central valley because that's the flat part of the state. It has to be 200 mph because it isn't competing with cars like brightline its competition is airplanes. It not needing to make a profit is a good thing because instead of settling for good enough they will get it done right the first time. The biggest hurdle that California has is that unlike Brightline it needs to some very complicated tunnels through the mountains and fault lines.

[davidjackson]

Thanks for the great discussion. You have very good train knowledge.

[MateodeJovel]

Definitely start with the Brightline Model, and once its up and running, electrification can come online down the line. Even the projects in Europe and Asia started with an incremental approach (e.g. Japan started Tokyo-Osaka only), so your suggestions to start with a "Brightline" service makes sense.

[atholmullen]

Design the corridor for high speed electric, including alignment for >200MPH, then pare back the construction in a manner similar to Brightline's Orlando extension. Start with single track where the volume allows, diesel trains and 125MPH. Then upgrade when the demand justifies increased frequency.

I'd suggest inviting BrightLine to build the system using the state proposed money plus federal grants plus commercially obtained funds (bonds or loans). The state would retain ownership of the infrastructure and BrighLine would get an exclusive operation period with option to extend that exclusive period as part of each infrastructure upgrade package.

Also, it is possible to have "bi-modal" trains - diesel electric with pantographs so that they can operate from overhead wires where available. This would allow, for example, for electrification of urban sections to reduce noise and emissions while deferring electrification between urban areas. The bi-modal locomotives could be replaced with faster electric-only units once the track is fully electrified.

[davidjackson]

Brightline is serving 7 million and will be 11 million with Orlando and Tampa. Frontrunner serves 2.5 million over only 80 miles and Utah is growing faster than Florida and Texas on a percentage basis. Texas central would serve 15 million. New Mexico is not even a drop in the bucket in comparison. A few hundred thousand on the railrunner line is about what the SMART train services and that is struggling also. The conditions are not there for NM I am sorry to say. A million in Honolulu is not enough for HART too. I love trains too and live in California's valley. That project is half a century away from doing any good. Thanks again for your great analysis.

[robinrussell]

Forget the Amtrak route to Raton. Trains creep through there at 20 mph. Those tracks were built 100 years ago.
The California High Speed Rail is going to be completed. You can count on that. Although Brightline does a fantastic job, it is not high speed rail.
But, great job, I would love to see New Mexico high speed rail. I love visiting and taking the Rail Runner.

[Dqtube]

If such a system, then definitely from the beginning as electric, its operation is cheaper and offers more convenience. As for speed, the question is whether you want to build it to compete only with cars or also with airplanes, as in California. If there are not enough funds for a full-size HSR line, it can be divided into sections where sections with easier and more straightforward terrain can have a maximum speed of up to 200 mph and sections with complicated sections only 110-120 mph. Many tracks in Europe have been built this way, not many tracks have a top speed of 200 mph for their entire length.

[Yormsane]

This is a really interesting discussion, many thanks for uploading it. Are there any plans to expand the RailRunner down to Las Cruces? Connecting the two biggest cities along an existing rail corridor, then electrifying that whole RailRunner system would seem like a good start. And what about a west-east section too, along the I-40 corridor? Those far-flung communities also deserve a convenient rail link to ABQ. Lots to think about here, I'll be following the project proposals closely.

[douglasgraebner]

Interesting video, I do have some thoughts to add:

1) full HSR is unrealistic but you don't need that-as you say even 110-ish is a good speed for competing with cars (and makes more sense with the kind of distances and populations involved); at that speed driving time to/from the train stations will matter a lot. Plus for a lot of trips you can probably get away with a park and ride.
2) Is there a lot that can be done as "low hanging fruit" with rail runner, for instance negotiating more slots with BNSF to allow more consistent all-day service? Something that looks more like a regional/all day rail pattern makes a lot of sense. If there's a push to allow electrification generally on mainline freight rail that will also help. This can also build political support for serious intercity rail since people will actually have a practical example they can see themselves.
3) I would be cautious about trying to fit every rail transit need into a single project, especially since the RGV from Taos to ABQ (relatively concentrated, some of suburban areas that may need service) will have different transport needs from the southern half of the state (longer distances that can be covered quickly but probably won't involve as many stops). It's better IMO to have a clear breakdown of RGV regional rail transport, local/city level rail transport where appropriate, and state-level rail transport with projects tailored to the locality. E.g. continuing to operate Rail Runner as a separate regional system for RGV local trips and concentrate intercity rail on major centers. This also takes a lot of pressure off the "who gets a train station"
convo-you can make sure *everyone* gets transit connections and go from there to picking the connection that makes the most sense. Maybe it doesn't make sense to have the NM intercity connector stop at San Antonio, but if there's a frequent and reliable bus or local service from there to Socorro it's a lot easier to swallow not getting a station.
4) Pendant to the above, I would pay *extremely* close attention to making sure transfers to local systems (either rail runner or other non-intercity services) are as smooth and seamless as possible. Close study of Swiss-style timed transfers for any non-intercity services you can't get to better frequencies than "every 15 minutes" would be extremely useful-e.g. if you want people to use this to get from a suburban ABQ rail runner stop to Las Cruces, it works a lot better if they have a timed transfer at downtown ABQ.
5) This is a little off the wall, but I wonder if (pending BNSF cooperation on necessary electrified infrastructure) a Karlsruhe style tram-train would make sense for say the ABQ or Isleta Pueblo-Taos area as an adjunct to the intercity system? I don't think there are many (any?) US examples but the area seems pretty conducive since you have an existing corridor, a series of cities and towns with decent but not insane spacing and not a lot in between them, and probably some benefit from running trams directly through without having to plow a whole ass mainline in and maybe giving local transit a kick in the butt. You could even table upgrading the ABQ BRT to a modern euro tramline that branches off to old town and some of the areas that don't really have transit RN.
6. I would definitely make sure that you can connect to Front Range rail when that happens, but that should be easy if you don't use wacky custom gauges or anything like that. Likewise, if you go via I-40 it makes a lot of sense to think about a possible connection to Flagstaff. One thing I'm surprised you didn't mention is El Paso; if you can get Texas cooperation you could pull a LOT of ridership to/from there and in general no reason to leave a connection to an enormous population center like that on the table. In general, if you have a cheap extension that gets you a lot of new ridership, may as well take it.
Sorry for the wall of text, just had a lot of thoughts etc.

[ronclark]

The Brightline model may work because there already exists an existing rail corridor they have access to. Of the 270 miles between Miami and Orlando, they are only building less than 50 miles of new corridor, and single track with a few passing sidings. Along the existing FEC rail corridor, they are just double tracking and improving bridges. They plan to average 80 mph, taking less than 3.5 hours to travel between Orlando and Miami.
Note the important statistic I wish to emphasize is 3.5 hours of elapse time. Around the 3 hour point is where trains start to gain more market share than flying. For example, Amtrak’s Acela has 70% market share over flying NYC to DC with an elapse time of 3 hours, but just 50% between NYC and Boston with an elapse time of 3.5 hours. So Brightline is aiming for about a 50% market share with flying in Florida.

Another important point to recognize is the traveling distance of less than 300 miles. Most passenger trains in the USA off the NEC Acela runs at average speeds of less than 50 mph. Believe it or not, brightline’s goal of 80 mph average speeds matches what Acela does. That is awesome. But To get that high an average speed, the train makes fewer station stops, they double tracked the entire freight corridor between Miami and Cocoa, resignaled the entire corridor for faster speed trains, etc spending over $3 billion. And that is just one railroad corridor.
I do not think Brightline would attempt this same formula Atlanta to Chicago. Why? It is over 700 miles between Atlanta and Chicago, and assuming the rail corridor could be double tracked, resignaled, and otherwise upgraded to achieve 80 mph average speed, the elapse time would be around 9 hours. Much longer than the three hour goal I mentioned earlier, three times more. Doing this on a rail corridor twisting its way through the Allegheny Mountains. Not likely.

But to achieve average speeds of even 80 mph, FRA regulations additional set points are reached that add expenses to both the trains and rail corridors. Over 80 mph, cab signaling is required. Over 90 mph enforced and strengthened grade crossing gates are required, over 110 mph grade separations at crossings are required, over 125 mph special FRA regulations are required for operations.
Now the entire corridor does not need to be built to the same standard. For example, Brightline runs at a maximum speed of 60 mph between Miami and Fort Lauderdale, 79 mph between Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, 110 mph between Palm Beach and Cocoa, and 125 mph Cocoa to Orlando. And even in these huge sections, local conditions can cause speed restrictions that will force the trains to slow down.
The longer the route, and the faster the trains, the harder it is to maintain the tracks and higher train speeds.
Trains make great linear transport, as vehicles must travel along a linear corridor. It’s not like ships which can move in any direction they please outside a ship channel. So it is easy for map lurkers to keep drawing the line further and further. But most people do not travel in straight lines over long distances. Instead of going north from Atlanta to Nashville, we might wish to travel west from Atlanta to Birmingham, or east from Atlanta to Charleston. The advantage flying from the airport in Atlanta is that you can fly to hundreds of destinations in just about every compass point. A HSR train station in Atlanta will only give you a linear line of destinations, in just a few compass points.

[jordanmartinson-exno]

How come no one is talking about Brightline's actual highspeed train LA to Vegas....

[MaxiAir]

Looking at your assessment from a European perspective, I wonder why California HSR is so expensive? We are dealing with very similar hurdles in Germany, as they are in California. Environmental aspects and NIMBYism are enormous factor here as well (some projects are in the discussion for 30+ years now) and still, 120km (75miles) of 300kph (186mph) able newly built corridor came out to less than 3 billion and opened about 5 years ago. after inflation, in todays money it might be closer to 4 billion, but that would still be just around 50 million per mile, fully electrified and not built along existing rights of way. Brightline will only operate 110 mph on the FEC corridor and only reach 125mph on their newly built segment to Orlando airport after diverging from the mixed use FEC. Given that the freight trains on the Florida East Coast railway don't seem to be using super long trains with engines in the middle of the consists, I see no reason why electrification wouldn't be super beneficial. Electric locos usually pull at least twice what their Diesel counterparts pull, while doing away with the energy loss in combustion engines. these trains could change engines north of the split point or also electrify the rest of the line to Jacksonville, making future passenger service there much more likely.
Back to California HSR, its crucial to fund the project to completion asap, to avoid further cost increases and deliver benefits sooner than later, whatever the costs. These costs (even at CHSR levels) will pale in comparison to their benefit and after a decade or two the rail line will be an irreplaceable part of California transport infrastructure.

For New Mexico and Colorado I'd love to see electrified rail at speeds of 155mph, with track curvatures being designed for 225mph, so that the right of way could be upgraded in the future. Electrification brings huge benefits and 155mph rolling stock is readily available in Europe or with the new Acela trains. I'm not very well informed on the regional details of your population distribution in NM, but usually when we build new HSR lines for 155, 186 or more we try to also benefit smaller population centers along the way. Giving them stops on the line and with higher speed regional trains operating at 115 to 125mph (standard is around 100 mph here for many regional trains). All of that is usually mixed with several electrified freight trains an hour operating around 70mph (with some sidings to let passenger trains pass) and plenty of freight trains throughout the night. This leads to super high utilization, while still always prioritizing passenger trains over freight.

[LemonDove]

I’d love to be able to take a train from ABQ to visit family in the Denver area. I hate driving and flying. Trains are so much more pleasant

[RVail]

There are no longer any BNSF freight trains using the ABQ - Raton corridor, AFAIK. Maybe a few random trains at random times, but no daily freight trains. There are some new battery-powered trains being used in Europe that are also capable of running either on diesel power or on catenary electric power. Brightline West is planning on using catenary electric for their Las Vegas to SoCal passenger train. A direct "as the crow flies" ABQ to Phoenix train doesn't seem at all likely, due to the terrain. However, Amtrak could create a new Denver - Phoenix passenger train, which could use the existing Raton - ABQ segment, then follow the SW Chief route westwards to Ash Fork, AZ, then south on BNSF freight tracks to Phoenix. Option #2 would travel south from ABQ to El Paso, then follow the existing Sunset Ltd. route past Tucson before branching north to downtown Phoenix. The tracks running southwest of Phoenix (going to Yuma) are no longer in service. Maybe New Mexico should consider buying the Raton - ABQ corridor from BNSF, and then extend the Rail Runner service along that route. The existing freight line between ABQ & El Paso would need some mandated upgrades before passenger trains could safely run along there.

[brentboswell]

10:20 Las Cruces to Alamogordo-are you nuts? There's a prominent geographic feature in the way (the Organ Mountains). In addition, much of the Tularosa basin is taken up by the White Sands Missile Range, White Sands National Park, and Holloman Air Force Base.

[robertwalsh]

You can use existing rail corridors. Just adding a track and double tracking bridges makes a lot of difference. Adding long third rail passing tracks where the topography makes it feasible. Look at the Brightline Coca to Miami FEC corridor. Nice presentation.