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
85 replies to this topic

#61 MattW

MattW

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,724 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
  • 1,463 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
  • 2,110 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

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 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
  • 978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Largo, Florida

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.
<p>Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP

#66 Paulus

Paulus

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 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
  • 5,691 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
  • 537 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
  • 226 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
  • 21,812 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
  • 2,110 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
  • 8,142 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.


#74 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,585 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 11 December 2017 - 05:59 AM

The problem is that the LA area probably needs an insane amount of investment into its transit systems.  What they have is nice, and the medium-term plans for more cross-connecting lines and the like are useful, but the area is so spread out that getting reasonable-frequency two-seat or three-seat rides between various locations is a very real problem (while having more than two transfers in a trip is going to weigh against using transit).  The Bay Area is a bit better off (if only because development is awkwardly jammed into various corridors) but in the long run there's going to need to be much more expansion of the feeder networks in the LA area to really make CAHSR useful.


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)

#75 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2017 - 07:46 AM

The problem is that the LA area probably needs an insane amount of investment into its transit systems.  What they have is nice, and the medium-term plans for more cross-connecting lines and the like are useful, but the area is so spread out that getting reasonable-frequency two-seat or three-seat rides between various locations is a very real problem (while having more than two transfers in a trip is going to weigh against using transit).  The Bay Area is a bit better off (if only because development is awkwardly jammed into various corridors) but in the long run there's going to need to be much more expansion of the feeder networks in the LA area to really make CAHSR useful.

 

I think the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, that those corridors will atract development and high denisty residential and commercial developments will estbalish themsleves around the stations. Thus in addition to serving structures that are already there (which is very difficult iof they are spread out) you are also catalyzing future development which will be more transit frienldy.

 

You can observe in places as diverse as New Orleans or Houston how a lot of stuff is being built or refurbished near light rail stops but a couple of block further away all is much more static. If you project a continuation of this develoment into the future, the percentage of people served by light rail will grow organically, even if you don't add further lines. But the adding of lines becomes necessary as the existing corridors run out of usable plots.



#76 Green Maned Lion

Green Maned Lion

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 11 December 2017 - 07:58 AM

Alternatively you can look at NJTs RiverLINE for proof that you need more than a rail line for TOD.
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.

#77 WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:33 PM

Alternatively you can look at NJTs RiverLINE for proof that you need more than a rail line for TOD.

What is it with the RiverLINE? From a comfortable distance to be fully ignorant, I assume that a line connecting one ghetto rust bucket (Trenton) to another ghetto rust bucket (Camden) lacks the usual compelling business case for a commuter line -- reasonable housing to plenty jobs. Is there more or less to the problem?

 

(Wildly off-topic. LOL. If the answer is provocative, the mods will need to move the discussion.)



#78 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,812 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:46 PM

You got it. That is why I won't respond here ;) If you wish to get a perspective on it, send me a PM.



#79 Green Maned Lion

Green Maned Lion

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 11 December 2017 - 04:08 PM

It has 4 basic problems. The main one is that it is connecting Camden and Trenton, which are as you suggest, via the garden scape of such gems as Palmyra, Riverside, Willingboro, Burlington, and Bordentown (the only town I can think of on the line thats even remotely nice). Its second problem is that to use it to go to Philly, you have to get off the train in Camden at Walter Rand, or go way the heck out of your way heading to Trenton. 

 

Its third problem is that the fare is so low, you can't argue the fare is too high, yet its farebox recovery is under 10%, which precludes any and all further investment in the thing. 

 

Finally, service ends at 9:30, making it risky for commuting into New York City, and useless for excursions into NYC. It is so useless, though I live on the line- walking distance - I haven't rode it in years, and when I am heading into NYC, I park at Hamilton. 

 

My point is that transit lines CAN produce TOD and urban revitalization. It has to be reasonably quick, frequent, properly priced, reliable, and operate a sufficiently appropriate number of hours. If you can justify the investment, it seems to help if it runs on steel rails. But it also has to go from a given place A to a given place B that has at some attraction on the line.

 

It doesn't work if you just connect one dead industrial city with another dead industrial city through a riverscape of superfund sites. (I live surrounded by one of them, which is how I got my house so cheap.)


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.

#80 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,110 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2017 - 03:48 AM

It has 4 basic problems. The main one is that it is connecting Camden and Trenton, which are as you suggest, via the garden scape of such gems as Palmyra, Riverside, Willingboro, Burlington, and Bordentown (the only town I can think of on the line thats even remotely nice). Its second problem is that to use it to go to Philly, you have to get off the train in Camden at Walter Rand, or go way the heck out of your way heading to Trenton. 

 

Its third problem is that the fare is so low, you can't argue the fare is too high, yet its farebox recovery is under 10%, which precludes any and all further investment in the thing. 

 

Finally, service ends at 9:30, making it risky for commuting into New York City, and useless for excursions into NYC. It is so useless, though I live on the line- walking distance - I haven't rode it in years, and when I am heading into NYC, I park at Hamilton. 

 

My point is that transit lines CAN produce TOD and urban revitalization. It has to be reasonably quick, frequent, properly priced, reliable, and operate a sufficiently appropriate number of hours. If you can justify the investment, it seems to help if it runs on steel rails. But it also has to go from a given place A to a given place B that has at some attraction on the line.

 

It doesn't work if you just connect one dead industrial city with another dead industrial city through a riverscape of superfund sites. (I live surrounded by one of them, which is how I got my house so cheap.)

 

This

 

Also, it helps if you serve locations that produce high ridership.

 

One of the new lines in New Orleans serves the Superdome. The first line in Houston served a hosital complex and two major university sites.

 

Many light rail lines that are built on the cheap utilize abandoned railroads. Of course that's much cheaper than building from scratch. But typically they thus serve only the type of place that you would find along an abandoned railroad.

 

In other words, build on the cheap and you will get something cheap. Get some proper funding and build something proper and the results will show.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users