Talk:New York high-speed rail

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

This article lacks references.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

New York (state)

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I agree with the below comments that all the speculative talk by politicians should be removed and the entry should stick to the facts. The entry never even mentions the documented history: That there was a government plan about 10 years ago to invest money in upgrading the NYC-Albany line, that some or much of the money was spent, but the intended improvements didn't materialize. There should be a section about the botched plans to remodel the old Amtrak turbotrains by a company called Super Steel. My recollection is that Amtrak and the state got into a dispute about who owned the trains, and they now are in storage.

The proposed travel time on this page makes no sense... Albany-NYC under two, Buffalo-NYC under 3. The Buffalo-Albany segment is much longer than the Albany-NYC segment. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NYC to Alb is roughly 150 mi. Alb to Buff is ~300 mi. I think the main difference is in the topography - the NYC to Alb route goes through mountains and is very curvy. The Buffalo route, on the other hand, goes through mostly flatter lands (esp once you get past Syracuse), which would in turn result in much higher speeds. If the NYC->A route took 1.5 hours, and the rest of the trip the same amount of time (therefore still within the design constraints), your average speed for the second segment is still only 150 mph - not really impossible on a straight, flat track. lensovet 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more constraints on speed in the Hudson Valley north of NYC; more curves, more built-up areas where grade separation may be tricky/impossible/outrageously expensive, etc. There's also a huge impediment to high speeds between Albany and Buffalo, namely CSX and its mainline freight traffic, but that is not, strictly speaking, a technical obstacle. --CComMack 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming BUF-ALB is 300 miles (483km), that would mean the trains would have to go over 300 miles per hour... Faster than the Shanghai Maglev!!! Trains have to stop, accelerate, etc. This would be about three times faster than Acela. This is ridiculous, and has to be an error. The fastest rail-bound trains in the world currently travel in the 185-200 mph range, top speed. -newkai t-c 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the references on this page just now—it was still using the old {{ref}} template. On the idea about factual inaccuracies: there seems to be some confusion between what politicians are calling for and saying, and plausibility. This article doesn't really address plausibility, although it's not inaccurate that politicians may be calling for something that may or may not be plausible. A 500mph maglev does seem to be a bit of a stretch, but when you look at public projects they often start out much more ambitiously than they end up. The Second Avenue Subway was going to be a six-track system in the 1920s. It's still not built today, but it looks like it will be...as a two-track system. That said, it would be nice if this article addressed plausibility more. Bolwerk 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton to Potsdam Rail?

There was once upon a time talks for establishing rail service from Scranton to Syracuse serving Binghamton, but I have never seen anywhere that suggests talks to extend that service northward through Watertown to Potsdam. In fact, when I searched "Scranton to Potsdam" or "Potsdam, NY Passenger Rail" on Google it only brought me to Wikipedia links or websites that quote from Wikipedia.

As much as I would love for there to be passenger rail service to Potsdam (I am a student at SUNY Potsdam and rail service would benefit the area greatly, though would probably unfortunately be sparsely used initially), I don't think it should be written about on Wikipedia if there isn't evidence of talks of this service.

Can someone try to find a source for rail service north of Syracuse? If not, I think it should be removed from the article. Also, sources for talks of rail service to Scranton and Binghamton should be cited, not just about the NE Pennsylvania grant. --Jondude11 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some major work. I really don't even know how I accurate those sources are. Like I wrote above, BUF-ALB <1 hour is impossible, even with a Maglev. -newkai t-c 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much of this article doesn't make sense to me. Should there really even be an article for "New York High-Speed Rail" if there aren't even formal plans for it yet? Hmm... What do you all think? -Jondude11

It's sort of a perennial planning process, which has stepped into the political limelight several times in the last few decades without impressive results, but the plans aren't going away (the politics of it are way too good), and it is leading to an incrementalist approach to increasing train speeds which is getting some results. So I'd keep the article, but it needs serious pruning to keep it out of the realm of the implausible. We can start with canning the entire Scranton-Potsdam section as completely unrealistic. —CComMack (t–c) 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a confusion of rail service and high-speed rail service. For example, a hamlet northeast of Syracuse wants rail service (OnTrack), but it wouldn't be anywhere near high-speed.[1] -newkai t-c 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think about it, all rail service involving Binghamton I have ever read about (Binghamton-NJ or NYC and Binghamton-Syracuse) was simply standard rail service. I remember the plan was to upgrade the tracks to 45 or so mph... That's not high-speed or even standard speed... That's low-speed! -newkai t-c 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all true - but I haven't even heard anything about rail service, whether high-speed, normal-speed, or low-speed to Potsdam. I think if there were talks about it, I'd hear about it, I live there 2/3 of the time! It's just so highly unrealistic. Just this year Greyhound left the area due to low ridership and Adirondack Trailways had to take over with a government subsidy. Though rail service here would be great, it's highly unrealistic. -Jondude11 05:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may violate rules about original research on WikiPedia because it does sort of put two and two together, but it actually seems that this proposal exists. It's simply coupled partly with proposals for service from Scranton to Hoboken. First, see the map [2] on the high-speed rail task force site [3]. Then look into the proposals for Scranton to Hoboken service. It seems they want to have this line feed into Hoboken, but not complete the trip to New York City, which would be illegal without electrification. It doesn't appear that the map is referencing freight to me. Bolwerk 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows it as a corridor, not a high-speed corridor. Scranton-Potsdam could be put in the Transportation in New York article. Since it is not a planned high-speed route, it does not belong here. Thanks for the map link though! -newkai t-c 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New York high-speed rail. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]