California High Speed Rail Thread

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I have not been to Phoenix or driven into the desert east of San Bernardino, but 250 miles of HSR through that wasteland will likely be very cheap to build as compared to the Calfornia HSR in the central valley since there will be much less meddling with parallel corridors and few local stations out there in the true middle-of-nowhere.

Just throwing this out there, but I wonder if the extreme desert temps will require ballastless track (slab track) to negate rail deformation? This could drive up the per mile cost and would also probably apply to Xpresswest/Brightline/whateverthehellitmightbe...

[phoenixboi08]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Just throwing this out there, but I wonder if the extreme desert temps will require ballastless track (slab track) to negate rail deformation? This could drive up the per mile cost and would also probably apply to Xpresswest/Brightline/whateverthehellitmightbe...

That's a good point.

I'd also imagine it'd have an impact on the catenary, right?

I've tried following the Saudi HSR project, but information can be scarce...

[Busy Bee]

The catenary is probably an easier solve as OCS already uses a system of flexible tensioning to counter expansion/contraction.

[CaliNative]

All the current construction is in northern and central California. I say start a high speed electrified rail line between L.A. and San Diego. If the geological complexities and high cost of tunneling through the San Gabriel range can be solved, maybe one day the northern and southern segments can be linked. If not, the high speed rail will have two useful segments, one in the north and one in the south.

[Busy Bee]

Or we can start acting like the richest country and richest state that we are and build the fucking thing as intended.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Or we can start acting like the richest country and richest state that we are and build the fucking thing as intended.

The detractors have somehow succeeded in completely fooling the public. Somehow the most basic information -- that over 100 miles of the project are physically under construction as we speak -- is not generally known.

My youngest brother has an engineering degree and is in grad school at UCLA. He didn't know the thing was under construction until I told him last month. He didn't believe me and only conceded that the project is in fact under construction after consulting his phone.

[dubu]

is it going up to oregon?

[Busy Bee]

^No. Though as the project moves forward I fully expect the chatter about a Portland-Seattle-Vancouver hsr link to heat up, but don't ever expect a connection to the California system, there's not a government on earth that would pursue such a venture. You'd really need a metropolitain area in the very top of Northern California with a population of 3 million at minimum to create a scenario where such a link would be feasible or reasonable.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Just throwing this out there, but I wonder if the extreme desert temps will require ballastless track (slab track) to negate rail deformation? This could drive up the per mile cost and would also probably apply to Xpresswest/Brightline/whateverthehellitmightbe...

Pretty sure any track designed for 350km/h needs ballastless track. All of the 350km/h routes here in China are fully balastless - the only time you see ballast used is on routes designed for lower speeds (<250km/h).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^No. Though as the project moves forward I fully expect the chatter about a Portland-Seattle-Vancouver hsr link to heat up, but don't ever expect a connection to the California system, there's not a government on earth that would pursue such a venture. You'd really need a metropolitain area in the very top of Northern California with a population of 3 million at minimum to create a scenario where such a link would be feasible or reasonable.

A HSR rail line is a not just high speed but very high capacity. The California HSR system is going to have a gigantic capacity -- twelve 1,000-passenger trains per hour per direction through the Central Valley. California has the population to support such a system. The Pacific Northwest does not.

The Pacific Northwest chatter is coming from the belief on the part of the nerds in those cities that their area is one of the great hubs of the universe, which it is not. Neither Portland or Vancouver are significant population or business hubs. Each are on the level of a Memphis or Indianapolis or Columbus. Seattle is bigger but nowhere close to the level of Chicago, Houston, Dallas, SF Bay, etc.

So not only does the Pacific Northwest not have the population to support a California-type high speed rail system, it's got all sorts of topographic challenges between the cities and getting in and out of each city quickly (with at the very least the level of service that will soon exist on CAHSR's approach to SF and LA) will be at least as expensive but with far fewer potential passengers.

[phoenixboi08]

Well yes.
I think more so than the population, which I'm often uncertain of how proximate a measure that truly is of ridership for projections, knowing more about the particular travel market(s) would be nice.

This report is handy, but they did some frustrating things now that I look back at it.

I don't believe they examine the air markets between US and Canadian cities, for one.
And they only show the travel markets within specific sub-regions but don't show how they relate (ie. I'm sure many flights take place between Vancouver/Seattle/Portland-California, so on).

Nonetheless, it's an interesting thing to ponder.





There's definitely a market for enhanced connections between Seattle-Portland (not sure that's so surprising), but the existing Cascades service can certainly be expanded to fulfill most of this, I would think?

I'm sure they're studying plenty of alternatives (including simply upgrading the existing Amtrak Cascades route, with new infrastructure where warranted). Something like what Illinois has been doing will likely happen before too long, I'd imagine.

But for my curiosity, Coast Starlight and Cascades Amtrak Services essentially achieve a Vancouver-Sacramento link, right? I’d think long-term upgrades of both to achieve a 110mph avg speed (150mph top speed) is perfectly reasonable, including major expansion of daily service. An end-to-end travel time of 8hrs isn’t horrible, most trips wouldn’t be traveling the entire route anyways, and intermediate services could add additional capacity. Basically, it’s not so far-fetched an idea.

I mean, the 300+mph idea is...a bit. But these existing services can be upgraded quite a bit.

[dubu]

the cities in the nw are all spread out and its too hilly for fast trains. so many people go to california from here. there could be a greyhound station, hotels and big parking garage at the last stop at the oregon border. it would be better then taking two planes or driving the whole way. thats too expensive though.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Pretty sure any track designed for 350km/h needs ballastless track. All of the 350km/h routes here in China are fully balastless - the only time you see ballast used is on routes designed for lower speeds (<250km/h).

This isn't accurate. There are 350km/h row with traditional ballast track. LGV Est is one example. Remember the plume of dust from the vitesse trials several years ago?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08

There's definitely a market for enhanced connections between Seattle-Portland (not sure that's so surprising), but the existing Cascades service can certainly be expanded to fulfill most of this, I would think?

Hard to imagine that there is enough business to create anything beyond traditional 110mph service Pacific Northwest, although that region does benefit from cheap hydro power so it might make a bit more sense to electrify than elsewhere.

California actually needed the HSR segment in the Central Valley to cross that expanse quickly. Plus, as has already been mentioned, the level terrain makes it relatively easy to build, and relatively inexpensive, as the actual HSR section of CAHSR is pretty much limited to the Central Valley, and will cost less than $10 billion. The extravagant $77 billion figure thrown around by the media accounts for the much more complicated lower-speed city approaches, commuter rail enhancements, tunnels that would have been necessary for any improved rail service high speed or otherwise, and the cost of the trains themselves.

When comparing the cost of trains versus airports, the media always counts the capital costs of the trains but not the capital costs of the airports. Same with highway expansions -- the costs of the vehicles necessary to make the expansion worthwhile are never considered.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Hard to imagine that there is enough business to create anything beyond traditional 110mph service Pacific Northwest, although that region does benefit from cheap hydro power so it might make a bit more sense to electrify than elsewhere.

California actually needed the HSR segment in the Central Valley to cross that expanse quickly. Plus, as has already been mentioned, the level terrain makes it relatively easy to build, and relatively inexpensive, as the actual HSR section of CAHSR is pretty much limited to the Central Valley, and will cost less than $10 billion. The extravagant $77 billion figure thrown around by the media accounts for the much more complicated lower-speed city approaches, commuter rail enhancements, tunnels that would have been necessary for any improved rail service high speed or otherwise, and the cost of the trains themselves.

When comparing the cost of trains versus airports, the media always counts the capital costs of the trains but not the capital costs of the airports. Same with highway expansions -- the costs of the vehicles necessary to make the expansion worthwhile are never considered.

CHSR has to get through this very tricky period of not being established industry and therefor not being able to access many of the funding sources airports/airlines do (I'll get to cars later). With decades of revenue figures from all across the nation, it's possible to predict with a great deal of accuracy exactly how many people will use an airport now and in the future based on economic conditions, population trends, and airport location/accessibility. Because of this banks and other private investors are very willing to lend money to airports for a capital improvement project, since they can be relatively assured that they'll be paid back in full with interest (in fact airport bonds are considered lower risk than many municipal bonds, and they pay some of the lowest interest rates available). Airlines do have some financial risk associated with them, but at the worst an airliner is still going to be a very valuable object to reprocess with relatively simple turnover.

Since the US doesn't have a history of HSR (at least to to scope and scale CHSR aims for) its future revenues are in doubt. They could be great, they could be crappy, and there's no real way of knowing for sure until it's built. So like any other risky but potentially transformative project the state has to stand up and pledge itself to pay the bill no matter which way it goes. And the risks are pretty significant, since building the whole thing with brand new custom built tech means that it'll all be virtually worthless if this whole thing goes south. People tend to associate taxpayer dollars as "their money", and so naturally some are going to get miffed on the state taking a bit of a gamble with it (note: I'm a supporter of CHSR, I'm just trying to explain how a project like this is guaranteed to engender more controversy than an airport project).

As for cars, while allegedly road improvements are paid for by gas taxes more often than not general funds need to thrown into the pot to fill some gaps. Americans tend to view owning a car as a necessary living expense like having a home or buying groceries, which may not necessarily need to be true but that's another conversation entirely. People tend to view their cars as a sunk cost, that they'll need regardless of if anything else is build or isn't.

[jmecklenborg]

I happened to drive out in the Mohave Desert in in 2002 where hundreds of jets were mothballed following the terrorist attack. Those used jets could be sold to any carrier anywhere whereas trains tend to be much more specialized. We retained a robust fright locomotive and rail car construction business in the United States because the needs of our railroads are unique and our used equipment can't be used in most parts of the world because it poses a danger to passenger trains.

CAHSR won't be completely divorced from the freight rail network which is why the trains will need to be able to survive a crash with the heaviest trains in the world. That's not a big deal from a design perspective so much as it is from ordering the trains from an overseas manufacturer and then the eventual resale of the trains.

I'm not a streetcar expert but I'd bet that the PCC standardization was motivated in part by the desire to create a large secondary market throughout the U.S. Instead, they ended up being sold overseas.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Building a maglev between San Francisco and Anaheim in line with Phase 1 of HSR would require 90 more miles of grade separation and would not improve SF or LA commuter rail at all. Doubtful that a maglev switching operation would allow full speed passing at local stations.

The reason why maglev hasn't taken over the world is because its ONLY advantage is a slightly higher top speed, but compromises in dozens of ways.

It's unlikely that in 100 years airline travel or rail travel will have changed significantly.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

If it made so much sense the whole world would be doing it. Outside of one short line in Japan, they are not. "Conventional rail" doesn't have to mean antiquated. No one goes around dismissively calling automobiles that sit on rubber tires "conventional autos" .

I don't know that much about rail, so I'm going out of what I know here... It would appear to me that MagLev often isn't used due to costs. Having an extremely smooth ride and faster speeds are some great benefits. Not sure why a line like that wouldn't improve commuter rail anyways.

As for the automobile comparison, an argument could be made that automobiles in their current form are starting to become antiquated. I stand my comments regarding conventional rail.

[jmecklenborg]

A maglev system has to be totally and completely separate from the existing rail system. That means it can't use the approaches to existing passenger rail stations, which is where "conventional" HSR saves a ton of money. Also, HSR trains can travel onto conventional rail branches and so offer a one-seat ride.

In California all of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 HSR track from Burbank south to Anaheim and from LA Union to San Diego is going to parallel existing commuter and freight rail tracks. The entire corridor -- roughly 200 miles of existing ROW -- is going to be fully grade separated and fenced meaning existing diesel commuter rail will be able to travel at a much higher speed than it does currently. The four parallel tracks mean HSR and commuter rail trains will be able to switch onto the other mode's dedicated tracks during inspections and physical repairs and so cause no interruption to service. Maglev definitely can't do that.

The situation will be similar between SF and Gilroy, where an existing 2-track commuter corridor will be replaced with a 3-track fully electrified line that is fully grade separated. That corridor is planned to also operate at 110mph, and with the faster acceleration enabled by the electrification of Caltran, they will be able to run one more commuter train per hour per direction even after the introduction of HSR's four trains per hour into the corridor.

If a Maglev (or the never-will-exist hyperloop) were built between LA and SF, there would be no improvement to either region's existing commuter rail service, and each would require the sort of 40+ mile viaduct between San Jose and San Francisco that the Silicon NIMBYs already blocked for HSR.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

A maglev system has to be totally and completely separate from the existing rail system. That means it can't use the approaches to existing passenger rail stations, which is where "conventional" HSR saves a ton of money. Also, HSR trains can travel onto conventional rail branches and so offer a one-seat ride.

In California all of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 HSR track from Burbank south to Anaheim and from LA Union to San Diego is going to parallel existing commuter and freight rail tracks. The entire corridor -- roughly 200 miles of existing ROW -- is going to be fully grade separated and fenced meaning existing diesel commuter rail will be able to travel at a much higher speed than it does currently. The four parallel tracks mean HSR and commuter rail trains will be able to switch onto the other mode's dedicated tracks during inspections and physical repairs and so cause no interruption to service. Maglev definitely can't do that.

The situation will be similar between SF and Gilroy, where an existing 2-track commuter corridor will be replaced with a 3-track fully electrified line that is fully grade separated. That corridor is planned to also operate at 110mph, and with the faster acceleration enabled by the electrification of Caltran, they will be able to run one more commuter train per hour per direction even after the introduction of HSR's four trains per hour into the corridor.

If a Maglev (or the never-will-exist hyperloop) were built between LA and SF, there would be no improvement to either region's existing commuter rail service, and each would require the sort of 40+ mile viaduct between San Jose and San Francisco that the Silicon NIMBYs already blocked for HSR.

Or just tunnel it. 80% of Japan’s Chuo line will be tunneled. People forget that another issue HSR and Maglev have is noise pollution. Noise pollution is strictest in Japan which is why they tend to focus more on aerodynamic trains and minimizing tunnel impacts and noise from caternary wires.

Maglev is an easy fit for for Japan because their rail was all Built as narrow gauge. There was nothing to share so as such their high speed rail was already all built from scratch on dedicated tracks. Evidence of this is in Tokyo and Osaka and a few other places where the high speed rail has its own station not right in downtown. Tokyo’s rail center is Shinjuku or Shibuya... Tokyo station and Shinagawa are both less central, although Tokyo station is one of the original stations.

Osaka’s main station (Umeda) is across the river from the bullet train station Shin-Osaka.

Japan also built extremely efficient systems which make transfers not really that painful. Convenience and high quality service is hugely important culturally and made HSR more like commuter rail. Get in and find a seat. Prices are more or less fixed. Europe chose the airline model offering massive discounts in advance and gouging last minute travel.

Transferring from your local station only station to a Major station is common. Like if only all-stops served say Palo Alto and you’d hop off in San Jose to grab the limited stop from San Jose on the way to LA. ( more or less the same price so you might as well.

The point is that Maglev can work just as HSR can, you just have to be organized and to built systems around it to support it.

When the Chuo line is complete it will be faster to take the bullet train from Nagoya to Tokyo (40 min) than take the subway to Nagoya airport. That’s food for thought... turn Nagoya into a satellite of Tokyo?

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Or just tunnel it. 80% of Japan’s Chuo line will be tunneled.

If I could just impress upon you the absolutely massive expense of tunneling, especially in built up areas. The Chuo Shinkansen is being built by perhaps the planet's premier transit infrastructure corporation, who has decades of experience in tunneling projects, through a lightly populated area where terrain sinkage is not a major consideration, with very few stations in-between (stations are often the most expensive portion of an underground transit line). In short there is no one on earth more capable of building a tunneled maglev right now more quickly, cheaply, and efficiently than JR Central. And yet, a line about one third the length of the Phase 1 CHSR (aka SF to LA) will have the same approximate total cost and take five more years to finish even after the Japanese government pumped additional funding to speed things up. In transit architecture tunnels are always a thing to avoid if you can help it, they are always the slowest to build and most expensive option.