Amtrak starts direct service to B.C.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

how fast does the train go now and how long does a typical trip between Vancouver and Seattle take?

4 hours. Figure out the average speed from that...

The US has set the standard at 120mph for "high speed rail". But considering Seattle to Vancouver is only about 150 miles, that's more than reasonable.

8 hours to San Fran... I'll even take that.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Xerx

Probably because they will still share track will heavier freight trains.

That seems to be the case.
The Acela trains were designed to run on existing trackage that has been upgraded to handle a passenger train that can run up to 150 mph (240 km/h), but because of the cost of maintaining this high speed track, only some sections (typically straight and flat) are brought up to this top-level standard.

The rest of the tracks are improved enough so that the Acela can run between 80 and 100 mph over them so the average speed of the run can be advertised as 'faster than 100 mph'.

The difficulty that Acela has is that it is sharing tracks with the freight traffic that the railways are running (and profiting from), so Amtrak has to make agreements with these railways so the Acela doesn't get slowed down by the freight traffic. Amtrak doesn't own any of the tracks it runs on because it was set up back in the 70s to let the railways drop their money-losing passenger services. Amtrak owns the cars and runs the passenger service on tracks owned by the railways.

California is trying to build a true TGV-style high speed rail between LA and San Francisco (with future extensions to Sacramento and San Diego), but TGV-style trains work best on their own dedicated tracks that are as straight and flat as can be engineered. They might get Phase One running by 2020, and after spending an estimated $30 Billion the extensions could be opened before 2030.

A few years ago, California voters approved a $9 Billion measure to construct the initial segment of the planned California High-Speed rail network. Construction may start in 2012, and could take 8 to 12 years to finish Phase One, with no timeline or funding for building the extensions.

There are rumours that another TGV-style high speed rail is to be built between LA and Las Vegas, but I've been hearing variations of this idea since the early 80s. I was down there 10 years looking for properties, and the realtor was trying to convince me that 'when the new high speed rail is built, Las Vegas will become a commuter suburb of LA'.
Such were the pre-recession dreams.

[simonfiction]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The difficulty that Acela has is that it is sharing tracks with the freight traffic that the railways are running (and profiting from), so Amtrak has to make agreements with these railways so the Acela doesn't get slowed down by the freight traffic. Amtrak doesn't own any of the tracks it runs on because it was set up back in the 70s to let the railways drop their money-losing passenger services. Amtrak owns the cars and runs the passenger service on tracks owned by the railways.

That's pretty interesting, I wasn't aware of the set up. Any ideas how it works in other countries where high speed rail has been a success, such as Europe? Do they share lines with freight or are there dedicated lines for passenger rail?

Those rumours sound exciting. I hope I one day get to bomb it down the west coast to California on true high speed rail right from downtown

[Metro-One]

In Japan all the high speed passenger rail trains (at least the segments i was on) do not share their tracks with freight, as is true for many commuter lines as well (which I wish was the case for WCE, allowing us to have bi-directional and more frequent service).

And they are built as straight and flat as possible, with many elevated and tunneled sections.

If one wished to have a true HSR to Vancouver, I personally believe an entirely new rail bed would have to be constructed, and for it to actually enter downtown Vancouver (To the Pacific Union Station) there would be many elevated and tunneled portions needed to get it there. And we all know how much some bitch about having elevated guideways....

But that is my dream as well, I wish this proposal was one for a true HSR (not our watered down North American counterpart). Because all Canada would have to build for this segment is 40 to 50km of rail, the rest would be the states responsibility, Canada could get its first true HSR for a bargain in that respect. But we all know in Canada the west coast is not important enough for that and in the USA the Pacific Northwest is not important enough for that...

[SpongeG]

i think europe is the same they all have their own lines - maybe not the chunnel - but either side will

if they wanna do it right they need to let amtrak build its own line between seattle and vancouver - no sharing its own dedicated line

[jsbertram]

Germany has ICE, France has TGV, Spain has AVE.

All are High Speed Rail passenger systems using dedicated trains and tracks. The rest of the rail systems are used by freights and local / commuter passenger services.

The Chunnel uses a different passenger train between Paris and London, the Eurostar. I remember when the Chunnel opened, the Eurostar train would could only run between Dover and Paris because the landowners in England were blockading any improvements to the rail systems to allow the Eurostar to get to London. I had to switch trains at Dover, and we took the 'Tweedle Dum & SloPoke" regular BritishRail train into London.

Later, some rail improvements were made to get the Eurostar into London using existing tracks, but it was limited to 80 - 100 MPH just like the rest of the trains between London and Dover - but at least there wasn't a change of trains at Dover. On the French side of the Tunnel, the train runs over 185 MPH (which the staff liked to emphasise in several languages each time the top speed is reached).

A few years ago (several decades after the Chunnel opened), the new St. Pancras International Station was opened (replacing Waterloo as the London Terminal), along with the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link connecting St. Pancras to Dover with a High Speed Rail line. Several miles of this new link were tunnelled under London to allow Eurostar and other HSR trains to bypass the congestion of London. With HSR running from London to Paris your trip is usually less than 2 1/2 hours.

I've recently heard that Germany is building new trains similar to Eurostar so they can run HSR trains between Berlin and London in time for the 2012 Olympics.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i think europe is the same they all have their own lines - maybe not the chunnel - but either side will

if they wanna do it right they need to let amtrak build its own line between seattle and vancouver - no sharing its own dedicated line

Nice idea, but the US Congress is already b*tching about subsidizing Amtrak every year. There's no way they'd allow Amtrak (a US federal govt-subsidised organization) to spend money in Canada instead of other 'more important' (ie: pork-barrel re-election) spending.

The best we'll get is HSR improvements up to Blaine, and then Ottawa & Victoria will have to spend on the improvements between White Rock and Vancouver.

[Metro-One]

it was implied that we would have to pay for our own portion! That is what makes it a bargain, we would only have to build less than 50km of a high speed rail line, while the lions share would all be within the US.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

it was implied that we would have to pay for our own portion! That is what makes it a bargain, we would only have to build less than 50km of a high speed rail line, while the lions share would all be within the US.

The thing is we don't necessarily need to build the new track all the way downtown, we could alternatively connect it to our skytrain network and passengers could then use that to get downtown. I'm not sure there are any corridors available to Pacific Central that could be upgraded to high-speed rail and not be shared with freight. We could do tunneling following a similar north south route that the Canada Line follows through Vancouver, but everyone would be up in arms over the cost to upgrade a route that already "works perfectly fine"(it doesn't but that is what they will say). But if we could do a mostly at grade high speed rail line overland to the most optimal skytrain station, we would save lots of money and also avoid duplicating existing routes. If Canada Line is good enough for the airport, surely it should be good enough for a few times daily commuter line from Seattle or further south(we could always ramp up an extra skytrain or two when the amtrak arrives to clear the temporary backlog).

[huenthar]

The Amtrak report on the corridor speculated about terminating the line at Scott Road station rather than maintaining service to Pacific Central. In either case we'd need a proper White Rock bypass that would hopefully be dedicated lines for passenger rail (maybe with an extra line built for an upgraded freight line as well?).

I'd rather the service run into Vancouver like it currently does, and the only real route is the Burnaby Lake/Grandview Cut route. I'm not convinced another set of tracks couldn't be engineered running down that ROW... As for speed along that route I think it's fine if the train runs at slower city speeds while it's traveling through the heart of the city... With no stops, is its current speed from Surrey to Pacific Central any slower than SkyTrain?

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by madmigs

The thing is we don't necessarily need to build the new track all the way downtown, we could alternatively connect it to our skytrain network and passengers could then use that to get downtown. I'm not sure there are any corridors available to Pacific Central that could be upgraded to high-speed rail and not be shared with freight. We could do tunneling following a similar north south route that the Canada Line follows through Vancouver, but everyone would be up in arms over the cost to upgrade a route that already "works perfectly fine"(it doesn't but that is what they will say). But if we could do a mostly at grade high speed rail line overland to the most optimal skytrain station, we would save lots of money and also avoid duplicating existing routes. If Canada Line is good enough for the airport, surely it should be good enough for a few times daily commuter line from Seattle or further south(we could always ramp up an extra skytrain or two when the amtrak arrives to clear the temporary backlog).

i know thats the reailty but so bad

okay welcome to um surrey and enjoy another hour of transfers before you get to where you wanted to go

lets just do it - screw the people! do it properly

there is a lot of business between the two cities - people could get it done quicker and eaier with a proper train route

[Metro-One]

Exactly, you do what they do in Japan where there is also no more room for new at grade rail beds, you build it elevated, it needs to terminate near downtown. having it terminate in Surrey would pretty much kill a large portion of its competitive advantage.

[SpongeG]

we want to attract business we need to say to them we have a rail connection that can get you from vancouver to seattle in 90 minutes or whatever it would be and in california in XX hours

we can't sell the city on a half ass system

[dleung]

High speed rail ALWAYS goes downtown. Vistors don't do transfers, nor want to have anything to do with the "local" transit system.

[jsbertram]

and lets not forget that Seattle-ites can already use SkyTrain for their trip.

a) LINK light rail from Downtown Seattle to Sea-Tac airport
b) fly to YVR
c) Skytrain Canada Line to Downtown Vancouver

[aberdeen5698]

Surely nobody here seriously thinks that we are going to spend money on 50km of high speed rail line to benefit a relatively few US-bound travelers when we can't get funding for infrastructure projects (like the Broadway corridor) that will benefit well over 100,000 passengers every day? Can you imagine the political backlash?

[Political_R]

Originally Posted by dleung

High speed rail ALWAYS goes downtown. Vistors don't do transfers, nor want to have anything to do with the "local" transit system.

I am not exactly sure, but I would rather be closer to the final destination than further away since it would be a hassle to transport luggage to Skytrain. I use Vancouver's transit system because it is convenient to use while I am there. I stick to the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans" It would probably be best to utilize a downtown station and improve the current tracks by widening curves and continuously welding the rail. As much as this would cost, adding track capacity across the Fraser River would provde significant benefits to rail travel in the area and allow for commuter rail expansion. As expensive as it would be, there are many more benefits than a connection to the U.S. White Rock, Delta, and Langley could be connected by commuter rail, adding redundancy to the transit network.

[simonfiction]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Surely nobody here seriously thinks that we are going to spend money on 50km of high speed rail line to benefit a relatively few US-bound travelers when we can't get funding for infrastructure projects (like the Broadway corridor) that will benefit well over 100,000 passengers every day? Can you imagine the political backlash?

The return on that investment would justify it, surely? If we added a direct line to downtown Vancouver from Seattle's 3.5 million by building such a short amount of track, the benefits to the economy would help us with the rest of our infrastructure, such as the Broadway corridor. Or am I just being naive? Economics was never my strong point

Either way, it's a bargain. And who knows when the US political mindset will change again. This might quickly become a missed opportunity.

[Metro-One]

Also, to build such an HSR correctly, we would have to relocate the Canadian and American customs office at the destination station in Vancouver (akin to YVR), that way the train would not have to stop at the border, it could reach full speed within Canadian territory, and the travel time could be advertised technically as much shorter (due to no stop at the border).

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by huenthar

I'd rather the service run into Vancouver like it currently does, and the only real route is the Burnaby Lake/Grandview Cut route. I'm not convinced another set of tracks couldn't be engineered running down that ROW... As for speed along that route I think it's fine if the train runs at slower city speeds while it's traveling through the heart of the city... With no stops, is its current speed from Surrey to Pacific Central any slower than SkyTrain?

Well I never took Amtrak but I know Via, with a longer train takes around 20 mins from pacific central to around sapperton.

But returning is the one that takes the longest since they need to back up into the station, I think amtrak might do that same...