Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
Why all this concern over HSR train lengths (and their platforms).
The NEC, the busiest passenger rail corridor in the USA by far, see's Amtrak using Acela train sets that have 6 cars plus the 2 power cars at 665 and 3/4 feet.
Power + 1st class + business + bistro + business + business + business + power.
An 800 feet long platform would allow 8 Acela cars plus 2 power cars.
Only Amtrak's long distance trains with sleepers are longer - just about all Amtrak's Regional trains on the NEC are shorter than 800 feet.
Please do not suggest California's central valley will provide more riders than the NEC can. No one will take that point seriously.  |
Increasing the length of HS platforms isn’t too onerous when considering the cost of the entire project, but it enables a doubling of line capacity by running longer trainsets, either at peak or at a future date when demand necessities it, especially when you can’t boost frequencies. Another point is that having more capacity means that you can regulate ticket prices better to increase utilisation throughout the day and make the business case more viable. Limiting capacity limits revenue collection. For some context, the chairman of HS2 has stated that he is focusing on a very high utilisation (daily ridership of 600,000) and that is only possible by having lots of capacity to target commuters, business users, tourists, and other leisure riders at all hours of the day.
As for whether a future CSHR could have higher ridership than the Amtrak’s services along the NEC (total ridership was 12mn, of which Acela Express accounts for 3.5mn), that is of course debateable; aviation and intercity rail travel is quite low as it is between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It comes back to the key variables such as journey time, frequency, capacity, cost and origin/destination connectivity coming into alignment.