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
72 replies to this topic

#61 MattW

MattW

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East of Atlanta, GA

Posted 11 November 2016 - 03:56 PM

Here is a nice explanation and rebuttal to an LA Times article on this from the CAHSRBLOG:

 

 

The argument Vartabedian, Ibbs, and other critics are making is that shorter stations make it harder to operate a “double” train set, as systems like Japan’s Shinkansen often do. But you could just as easily operate two single-sets with shorter headways. That would maintain your capacity.

Here’s an example. Sometimes the Shinkansen operates a single trainset:

6LJddD.gif

And sometimes it operates a double set:

GYuFR3.gif

(Both gifs come from this video.)

Many European systems commonly operate single sets, such as Eurostar, the TGV, the AVE, and so on. So the CHSRA isn’t doing anything significant here in terms of capacity. But the savings is significant and welcome.

The same is true of tunneling. Lowering the tunnel speed from 220 to 200 mph provides a big cost savings on the cost of tunneling, but at a minor time penalty – that will likely be made up by other time savings elsewhere, including going almost directly from Palmdale to Burbank under the mountains rather than going via Santa Clarita.

So the CHSRA’s decision is sensible, as is often the case. But HSR critics will find something to criticize no matter what they do.

I would hope that even if platform length is limited to one trainset now, that provisions are kept to allow doubled trainsets later. I wouldn't imagine much would be required, just making sure there's enough space off each end of the platform kept clear to allow future extension.


Forum's official broken record about expanded Georgia passenger service!

#62 west point

west point

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 05:39 PM

As well as leaving space for future platform extension provision must be made for utility connections. Duct work for each kind of utility is capped at the end of each platform. For drains they must be low enough for future extensions.

#63 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 November 2016 - 10:21 AM

I would hope that even if platform length is limited to one trainset now, that provisions are kept to allow doubled trainsets later. I wouldn't imagine much would be required, just making sure there's enough space off each end of the platform kept clear to allow future extension.

 

 

 

 

Actually, platforms themselves are not that expensive to build. In Spain I was once at a station where the platforms were much longer than actually required, but the extra section was fenced off and there were no lights or seats. I've also seen something similar on the metro in Brussels.

 

Building something like a platform edge alongside an operational and heavily used main line track causes all sorts of extra costs due to the provisions for safe working that may require work to stop as trains pass or trains to be suspended as work proceeds. It may actualkly work out cheaper in the long run to just build for the maximum length, fence it off and forget all about it until such a time as you may need it..



#64 Anthony V

Anthony V

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 July 2017 - 03:40 PM

After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.



#65 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 July 2017 - 06:59 PM

After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.

The San Joaquin will be too slow for a dedicated high-speed rail line. It will utilize it on the segment as far south as Bakersfield for a period of time but once the line is completed from San Francisco to Los Angeles the San Joaquin will likely no longer use the line. In fact, it will actually likely be shortened to another stop, potentially Madera, where passengers could transfer to a high-speed train to reach Bakersfield and Los Angeles.
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SJC-LAX, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB MSP-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS-ALB, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-DNC, SM ORL-NYP, SS FTL-WAS
New Routes: LSL NYP-CHI, CZ CHI-RIC, CS SJC-SEA, EB SEA-MSP

#66 Paulus

Paulus

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:57 PM

After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.

 

In addition to the above post, the San Joaquins diesel locomotives will in no way be suitable for the extensive tunneling involved in the Bakersfield to LA section.



#67 VentureForth

VentureForth

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond Hill, GA

Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:35 AM

I know it's not HSR, but Dallas' DART Light Rail ridership was woefully underestimated and they are stuck with a max of three car units.  I hate to see this sort of limitation in new designs.

 

FWIW, Leemill, the two gifs you show don't really tell the whole story.  The unit in the top GIF is the Tokaido line, and it runs three different levels of express trains at nearly 20 minute headways with upwards around 1,000 people per train.  EVERY Tokaido Shinkansen is 16 cars.  It's always a single train.  They do have the capacity to use double deckers on this train, but they've actually taken them off since the 100-series.  The 2nd gif is the combination of two trains that go together for a while then go their separate ways.  I can't remember which two, but they head out West towards Nagano or North.  I think they are two 8-car trains.

 

Regardless, they shouldn't limit themselves to short stations.  Plan for expansion.


Edited by VentureForth, 17 July 2017 - 11:48 AM.

14,223 Amtrak Miles. Many more to go.
Completed Routes: Capitol Limited, Palmetto
Also Ridden: Carolinian, Crescent, Pacific Surfliner, Piedmont, Southwest Chief, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Texas Eagle


#68 Caesar La Rock

Caesar La Rock

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2017 - 10:17 PM

This is interesting.

 

http://www.mercuryne...et-train-suits/



#69 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 27 September 2017 - 02:54 PM

Hi,
The Fresno Bee newspaper has an article interviewing the CAHSR chairman with an overview on the current status of the project.

http://www.fresnobee...e175196711.html

#70 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,192 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 09 October 2017 - 02:45 PM


A consortium led by German Rail (DB) has emerged as the frontrunner in a tender to select an “early train operator” for the California high-speed rail network.

 

DB Engineering & Consulting USA, a consortium of DB International US, DB, Alternate Concepts, and HDR will be recommended to the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) board of directors for contract award on at their next meeting on October 19.

 

http://www.railjourn...tml?channel=523



#71 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2017 - 03:56 AM

 

After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.

 

In addition to the above post, the San Joaquins diesel locomotives will in no way be suitable for the extensive tunneling involved in the Bakersfield to LA section.

 

 

Surely this is the smallest of problems. If the present diesel locomotives are still active when the tunnel is completed they can easily be tranferred to another service. 



#72 Green Maned Lion

Green Maned Lion

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,761 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 10 October 2017 - 07:31 AM

I doubt there will be any Chargers in service when such a tunnel is built; heck I doubt Ill be in service.
Travelled: Broadway Limited (1), Lake Shore Limited (6), Capitol Limited (7), Empire Builder (1), Southwest Chief (2), Sunset Limited (1), California Zephyr (3), Coast Starlight (2), Silver Meteor (5), Silver Star (5), Silver Palm (2), Crescent (1), Cardinal (4), Auto Train (4), Pennsylvanian (2), Palmetto (1), Acela Express (1), Empire Service (1), Northeast Regional (11), Keystone Service (1) --- Total Miles: 50,144 --- Total Trains: 61
Most important: Keep it Simple, Stupid!
Posted Image
Dream of love, dream of me, for you are my love. I love you.
Avatar and sig were done by my fiance, Corvidophile.

#73 Shawn Ryu

Shawn Ryu

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC or Chicago
  • Interests:trains baseball hockey

Posted 21 November 2017 - 10:36 PM

https://twitter.com/...153531825094656

 

Reminder why California needs this bad.


Edited by Shawn Ryu, 21 November 2017 - 10:37 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users