Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

California high speed rail


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#21 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,245 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:13 AM

The issue with CAHSR, if I'm recalling right, is that there was an arbitrary station count thrown in on the bond item (I want to say it was 28 stations).  In the long run, this creates all sorts of questions on how infill stations might happen; what I was envisioning, in essence, would be that you'd retain the existing San Joaquin system to at least some extent (potentially having at least one transfer point aside from BFD) and then any other stations you'd need to add might nominally be the result of a regional authority adding them.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#22 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,984 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:18 AM

The Chinese use an elegant solution. The Shanghai-Beijing line is an example. There are many 300km/hr+ trains on the line each day, but each only stops at less than ten stations on a route 820 miles long which takes about 5 1/2 hours.
 
Each train has slightly different stops, with some minor stations only getting one train a day and major stations getting more. The only stations getting every train are Shanghai and Beijing. Every station in between has a through non-stop track; it is exhilarating being near that when an express passes through.
 
That allows service to every town along the line while maintaining a high speed service with minimal stops for each train. Some old local lines are retained, but many were not when they are effectively duplicated by the new HSR.


That works well if you have a situation where end to end traffic plus end to interediate point traffic is far more significant than intermediate point to intermediate point traffic. If you can't get from one intermediate point to another without an extended wait in the middle, you effectively lose that traffic.

Personally I like the Spanish system where they alternate between very fast trains serving only the endpoints or maybe a very limited number of intermediate points, and then a lower teir of trains doing virtually all the stops and charging a slightly lower fare.

#23 seat38a

seat38a

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County California
  • Interests:Trains, Planes, And Web App Development

Posted 16 November 2015 - 02:42 AM

Would the Amtrak California San Joaquins go away? The service might change but I wonder, would there still be a need for a more "local" service than HSR would provide? If that does go away, Greyhound could fill the need.

According to San Joaquin Corridor Agency, there are no plans to reduce service but actually increase service along with the CAHSR. Also, according to their business plan, if the CAHSR is delayed, then the San Joaquin may fill in temporarily by running on the dedicated HSR tracks in central valley. According to Wikipedia, the San Joaquin will share the tracks with HSR between Bakersfield and Fresno allowing the train to run at the max 125 MPH and shave about an hour off of the current sched. 

 

I'm thinking in worst case, the San Joaquin will end up using whatever stretch of dedicated rail is built. Personally, I would take 125 MPH any day over the 79 MPH. If and when San Joaquin does run on the dedicated HSR, this train will beat the pants off Acela when it comes to speed.


Edited by seat38a, 16 November 2015 - 02:47 AM.


#24 chakk

chakk

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2015 - 08:45 PM

The current cost estimate from the Calif governor's office is $68 billion to build the high speed rail systen -- about $2,000 per resident of California. Some other folks have suggested the cost will be triple that amount. So far, the citizens of Calif passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008, and the federal govt has commited an additional $3 billion. I don't think the issue is NIMBYs -- I live in the Bay Area and I probably would ride it at least once to LA (even though i will be well into my 80's when it is completed between SF and LA and I will not likely have any particular reason to go to LA at that age. But I strongly question whether it will be worth my $2,000 - and the other residents' $67,999,998,000 - to build this system, given the already available plane, rail, bus and car alternatives. And since there is currently no commitment from anyone to provide the other $55 billion, is it even realistic to assume that the line will be completed in the next 20 years?

Edited by chakk, 26 November 2015 - 08:50 PM.


#25 seat38a

seat38a

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County California
  • Interests:Trains, Planes, And Web App Development

Posted 28 November 2015 - 01:58 PM

The current cost estimate from the Calif governor's office is $68 billion to build the high speed rail systen -- about $2,000 per resident of California. Some other folks have suggested the cost will be triple that amount. So far, the citizens of Calif passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008, and the federal govt has commited an additional $3 billion. I don't think the issue is NIMBYs -- I live in the Bay Area and I probably would ride it at least once to LA (even though i will be well into my 80's when it is completed between SF and LA and I will not likely have any particular reason to go to LA at that age. But I strongly question whether it will be worth my $2,000 - and the other residents' $67,999,998,000 - to build this system, given the already available plane, rail, bus and car alternatives. And since there is currently no commitment from anyone to provide the other $55 billion, is it even realistic to assume that the line will be completed in the next 20 years?

But those roads aren't getting any better, and the airports are at capacity at least the ones that people want to fly out of. The whole carmagedon 405 widening. We spent over 2 billion dollar for all that and now its even more crowded and the time to travel through it longer.

 

Just as with the drought of ours, we can't just conserve our way out, unless we stop anyone else from moving into this State or ban showers to once a week and flushing toilets to once a day. More and more people are projected to move here and the strain on our infrastructure will be greater and greater. As you mentioned, you will be 80 something when this thing is done. Its really not about YOU, but about an investment in the future of the State. The start of the 20 years or whatever timeframe for building any investment has to start somewhere. Going from LAX to SFO is already a GOOD 4 hour ordeal from start to finish, and that is IF the flight is on time and not delayed due to fog and or other weather related issues at SFO. With all the security crap and airlines shoving more flights into an already crowed airspace on smaller aircraft, total travel time will probably only get worse.



#26 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,309 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 29 November 2015 - 01:55 PM

That is quite true. California will find and spend way more than 68 billion in the next 40 to 50 years. The question is not whether but when and on what.

#27 leemell

leemell

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 13 December 2015 - 06:53 PM

There is one other source of funding and it can be a doozy in the future.  The CHSRA gets 25% of the Cap and Trade funds every year.  This year (nearly the first) they are currently getting $750M.  Next year about $1B.  Depending on how things go, it could be a lot more.  Some outyear projections are for $60B for the next five years which gives HSR about $12-13B.  This source is a revenue stream that can be borrowed against to get the future revenues to complete the system, minus interest of course.



#28 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,245 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 December 2015 - 05:11 AM

 

The current cost estimate from the Calif governor's office is $68 billion to build the high speed rail systen -- about $2,000 per resident of California. Some other folks have suggested the cost will be triple that amount. So far, the citizens of Calif passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008, and the federal govt has commited an additional $3 billion. I don't think the issue is NIMBYs -- I live in the Bay Area and I probably would ride it at least once to LA (even though i will be well into my 80's when it is completed between SF and LA and I will not likely have any particular reason to go to LA at that age. But I strongly question whether it will be worth my $2,000 - and the other residents' $67,999,998,000 - to build this system, given the already available plane, rail, bus and car alternatives. And since there is currently no commitment from anyone to provide the other $55 billion, is it even realistic to assume that the line will be completed in the next 20 years?

But those roads aren't getting any better, and the airports are at capacity at least the ones that people want to fly out of. The whole carmagedon 405 widening. We spent over 2 billion dollar for all that and now its even more crowded and the time to travel through it longer.

 

Just as with the drought of ours, we can't just conserve our way out, unless we stop anyone else from moving into this State or ban showers to once a week and flushing toilets to once a day. More and more people are projected to move here and the strain on our infrastructure will be greater and greater. As you mentioned, you will be 80 something when this thing is done. Its really not about YOU, but about an investment in the future of the State. The start of the 20 years or whatever timeframe for building any investment has to start somewhere. Going from LAX to SFO is already a GOOD 4 hour ordeal from start to finish, and that is IF the flight is on time and not delayed due to fog and or other weather related issues at SFO. With all the security crap and airlines shoving more flights into an already crowed airspace on smaller aircraft, total travel time will probably only get worse.

 

Having dealt with both SFO and LAX, I feel justified in saying that neither airport is fun to get into or out of.  SFO is transit-accessible...but it's also a heck of a ride from SFO into the city on either BART or BART+Caltrain.  LAX is at least as much of a hike...I figure from downtown to boarding a flight you probably want to allow two hours or so: 30 minutes for travel time, 60 minutes for "standard" airport time, and 30 minutes on top of that for contingencies (e.g. missing your intended Flyaway bus, getting stuck in traffic)...in both cases, the travel time via transit (per Google Maps) is a shade over an hour.  Long story short is that neither airport is terribly accessible from the city center in some respects.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#29 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 06 January 2016 - 07:08 PM

Hi,
Here's a link to an article with current information about this project. The US Forest Service is allowing the test core drilling of soil samples for possible tunnel locations between Palmdale and Burbank.

http://www.signalscv...article/146526/

#30 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 06 January 2016 - 07:37 PM

Hi,
California High Speed Rail has announced today the award of the packages No. 4 construction contract. I believe that this is a different joint - venture firm than the other contractors working on other segments.

http://www.railwayga...speed-line.html

#31 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 14 January 2016 - 08:17 AM

Hi,
I just read an article that San Francisco city's leaders are not moving forward on raising the remaining funds to extend the Caltrains tracks from the existing station to the new station and transit facility. If they do not start THIS YEAR, San Francisco will have a grand new bus and train station facility WITHOUT ANY TRAINS!!!!!! Everyone needs to contact their representatives to get the city to start the track extension project.

Here's a link to the article.

http://sf.streetsblo...cting-caltrain/

#32 bretton88

bretton88

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 664 posts

Posted 14 January 2016 - 10:35 AM

Hi,
I just read an article that San Francisco city's leaders are not moving forward on raising the remaining funds to extend the Caltrains tracks from the existing station to the new station and transit facility. If they do not start THIS YEAR, San Francisco will have a grand new bus and train station facility WITHOUT ANY TRAINS!!!!!! Everyone needs to contact their representatives to get the city to start the track extension project.

Here's a link to the article.

http://sf.streetsblo...cting-caltrain/

This plan is badly flawed. I'm not where Streetsblog is getting their information, but San Francisco has no intention of supporting the plan in its current design. There are 3 non interlocking tracks for access on a hairpin curve, which is a huge capacity restraint. San Francisco has a different preferred alignment, so if it gets shifted to City halls preferred plan, I'm sure you'll suddenly see a lot of enthusiasm.

If I won the lottery, I'd probably build a passenger from nowhere to nowhere.


#33 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 15 January 2016 - 06:03 PM

Hi,
Thanks for the information. Is there any information on-line about these track alignment options?

#34 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 15 January 2016 - 06:05 PM

Hi,
Here's a link to information about the California High Speed Rail station planning development agreement that they just announced with Burbank

http://www.progressi...-Burbank--47015

#35 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 04 February 2016 - 08:08 AM

California High Speed Rail is preparing to submit it's 2016 business plan that may include a decision to connect the segment under construction to San Francisco first. Here's a link to the article.

http://www.fresnobee...le57420203.html

#36 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 07:00 AM

This article explains some of the issues related to the 206 business plan to connect the middle of the HSR to San Francisco first.

http://www.sacbee.co...le61457937.html

#37 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,245 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 25 February 2016 - 10:54 AM

The question of SF or LA first is a sticky one.  "LA First" would allow through-service to commence (I know the complications, but at least in theory you could get some dual-modes along the lines of NJT's (the ALP-45DP) and run diesel service to Palmdale/Lancaster, electric to Bakersfield, and then whichever you needed the rest of the way to Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento), which I think is the most vital factor here...you could put in a plan for the HSR sets but ultimately only plan to buy them once you have at least Burbank-San Jose ready to go along the HSR line.  Added bonus: In the short run, doing so should let you extend most or all of the San Joaquin service down to LAX.  In theory you could even run said service all the way from San Diego to San Francisco, though the political and operational issues there likely make for a non-starter.  Such a run would be between 120 and 150 miles depending on exact alignment; assuming an average of 80 MPH (I'm thinking that you'd basically be going 125 all the way from Bakersfield to Lancaster followed by averaging 60-80 MPH depending on your situation south of there) you'd be looking at 90-120 minutes for the run.  Knock the hour off north of there that has been mentioned and I think you'd be looking at about 7:30 OKJ-LAX (and only that long because the San Joaquins go the "wrong way around" to Oakland).

 

"SF First" is less expensive while still getting you into a major metro area (LA First is expensive as heck) and it would also allow for an improvement of the San Joaquin service if you punt on the bullet sets (getting to OKJ via SJC/Gilroy on new tracks would almost assuredly be faster than the present routing via Davis).

All of this being said, my opinion (hopefully somewhat informed) is that the connection south of Bakersfield is the key component here.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#38 WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:53 PM

I'll be interested to know more about the $2 Billion to be spent Burbank to Anaheim.

 

I'm in a fog there. Paying for the run-thru tracks at L.A.Union Station I grasp. Then a fistful or two of grade crossings made grade-separated crossings. Some widening or what to provide more capacity for the Surfliners and Metrolink. Maybe saving a few minutes around Fullerton.

 

I'd love to see the "more capacity" lead to hourly departures on the Surfliners to San Diego. They only need 2 or 3 more trains to do it. And saving a few minutes is always good.

 

But isn't all that stuff south of Union Station? What's gonna happen LA-Burbank?

 

I'd love to see "more capacity" bringing 3 or 4 more Surfliners to Santa Barbara. And saving a few minutes is always good.

 

But I haven't seen anything with any info L.A. Burbank.

 

And will any of these Southern California improvements kick in by, say, 2020, or will they all wait for the 2025 Central Valley openings?


Edited by WoodyinNYC, 25 February 2016 - 01:00 PM.


#39 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 06:21 PM

Hi,
I am hoping that this announcement will get the people in San Francisco to get moving on a final decision to connect the railroad tracks to the new railroad and transit station currently under construction. The quantity of third mainline trackage between San Jose and San Francisco should also be re-evaluated.

#40 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 06:36 PM

Hi,
Here's a link to an article about the just released city plan to connect to the new train station. This should make for an interesting year in San Francisco!

http://sfist.com/201...sh_proposal.php




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users