|
lol don't let Deutsche Bahn anywhere NEAR the system. Those clowns are a crushing mass of arrogant, incompetent German mediocrity.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Germany has an amazing rail system, but DB, at least of late, has had lots of challenges. I don't think that would necessarily impact any foreign operating agreements, tho.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...-on-efficiency |
Quote:
|
People can't imagine any situation different from their own. Certainly it will be an expensive option to commute compared to public transit, when viewed in isolation, but coastal California housing is also extremely expensive.
Average home price, San Jose: $1.4M / $9885 monthly Average home price, Fresno: $400K / $2824 monthly With the savings from living in Fresno, you could spend up to $313/day on your commute and still save money. Surely some people will look at the extreme cost of living in the Bay Area and take this deal. Especially when remote work now means you only have to commute a few days a week. Of course at those prices you could already do this with airplanes, and I'm sure some people do. The actual rate of commuting on HSR will depend on a lot of details: the ease of access (security, on time performance, etc), the final fares between cities, and how the operator allocates seats to long-distance vs short-distance passengers. |
Which tunnels do people think get started first? The ones connecting Gilroy to the Central Valley Wye at Pacheco Pass or the ones between Palmdale and Burbank?
|
The Pacheco Pass will get underway before the basin tunnel.
|
Quote:
|
As others have alluded to, BW selected the NA spec Siemens model because they already have insider confirmation that CHSRA are doing the same. This makes complete and total sense as they can piggyback a better negotiated joint order (a possibility at least), knowledge share as well as eventually interline with identical equipment.
|
Quote:
The main advantage of the EMU arrangement is more driving wheels, which means less wheel slippage, and should be better at climbing and descending mountains. Note, I wrote should be better, we will have to wait for the finished project to be certain. |
Quote:
I find it surprising that the news about the Federal government granting $3.4 Billion for the San Francisco tunnel to connect Caltrain/CAHSR to Salesforce Transit Center hasn’t been addressed on the forum. This is another indication of how far along the Bay is with preparation vs SoCal. The saving grace for SoCal is Brightline. Their project alone will propel SoCal to electrify Metrolink faster and will push the High Desert Corridor High Speed rail connection along. Its construction is a big blessing https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/tran...fe4357d4c.html |
The DTX announcement was posted in the SF transit thread.
|
Some more Bay Area transit specific developments that are relevant to CAHSR. Notably, it would allow for 4 HSR trips/hr.
Anyone have any suggestions which design option would be best? Quote:
|
At grade seems to make the most sense. I'm sure VTA will pick the most expensive to pocket their wallets.
|
Quote:
https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...-2048x1029.jpg https://sfyimby.com/2024/05/meeting-...-san-jose.html |
Wish these renders included some aerial views cause I am totally lost as to what's going on in them.
|
That feels like they're putting the cart before the horse - those 2.5 to 13 billion dollars could be used on the Pacheco Pass tunnels so that the HSR actually gets to San Jose.
Look at the Millbrae station, built for HSR 20 years ago and looking so out of place as a local transit center. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even the at grade option seems to mean digging up the tracks if I'm looking at those cross sections properly. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Diridon is getting the UPGRADES!! I like the at-grade option. I can't believe they are going to dig under the building and create another floor that the building will be on top of
|
Quote:
I had the same reaction to the renders that came out a few weeks ago for the stations on the IOS. They seemed way too grandiose for most of the stations in the Central Valley, which aren't going to see huge passenger loads, especially if high speed connections to the Bay Area and LA never happen. Maybe Fresno should get something a bit more than basic. But apart from Fresno, the other Central Valley stations should make do with with functional simplicity. It would be better to spend scarce resources on extending the high speed rail line as far as possible. These station plans also remind me of the $900 million that LA Metro is spending on the station that connects the Crenshaw Line to the LAX People Mover. That $900 million compares to the $2 billion construction cost for the whole Crenshaw Line. I think this fixation on elaborate stations, at the expense of extending rail lines, is extremely misguided. |
High-speed rail board supports new recommendations for L.A.-to-Anaheim segment
https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/d...ail-13-rcg.jpg Work continues on the California High Speed Rail line’s Conejo Viaduct. (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times) Colleen Shalby Los Angeles Times May 17, 2024 The California High Speed Rail Authority’s board of directors supported new recommendations for a planned rail segment between Los Angeles and Anaheim, clearing it for a critical environmental review after the initial proposal received pushback from the community. The final environmental report is expected to take more than a year to finish, outgoing Chief Executive Brian Kelly said at Thursday’s board meeting, calling it the “final requirement we have on environmental documentation for phase one of the high-speed rail system” in compliance with federal grant obligations. The first phase to connect the state includes a 494-mile rail line from Anaheim to San Francisco. Construction is currently underway on a 119-mile stretch in the Central Valley. Recommendations for the 33-mile rail segment from Los Angeles to Anaheim includes four mainline tracks that would be used by the bullet train, other passenger rail and BNSF freight trains. It eliminates the initial plan to develop a freight facility for BNSF, which owns the railroad stretch from Los Angeles to Anaheim, in the city of Colton that would have housed trains not in operation. The idea received pushback from the Colton community and from BNSF. The recommendations include a train maintenance facility at either E. 15th Street in Los Angeles or E. 26th Street in Vernon, at-grade crossings in Anaheim where the highway and high-speed rail line would be level, and no intermediate stations. The proposed line would include underground, above-ground and surface-level portions. . . . . |
:previous:
I don't know if I like the idea of shared tracks and at-grade crossings, but I guess that would only be from LAUS to ARTIC? Here's another article, from Urbanize Los Angeles: This is how California High-Speed Rail would reach Anaheim A staff presentation to the California High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors reveals how the mega-project's first phase will reach its eventual southern terminus in Anaheim. The staff recommendation, supported by the Board of Directors at its May 16 meeting, calls for high-speed trains to share track between Los Angeles Union Station and ARTIC in Anaheim. The high-speed rail project would require the construction of one additional mainline track within right-of-way owned by BNSF, resulting in a total of four. Additionally, two of the four tracks would be electrified. With this build scenario, BNSF would able to operate up to ten freight trains per day - including on tracks which were previously planned to be passenger-rail exclusive. High speed passenger trains would be able to run at a peak service frequency of two trains per hour, per direction, which is a slight reduction from earlier plans. This alternative cuts the estimated cost of the Union Station to Anaheim corridor from $9 billion to $6.9 billion, largely by cutting plans to build a new rail yard for BNSF in Colton, a proposal which the railroad had soured on. Two options remain on the table for the proposed maintenance facility for high-speed rail vehicles, including one on 26th Street in Vernon and a second at 15th Street south of Downtown Los Angeles. Staff has recommended the Vernon location due to lower costs and requirements for displacement, as well as operational flexibility. Potentially left on the cutting room floor are two optional intermediate stations, which could be located next to the existing Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs and Fullerton Stations. Both will be studied as part of the project’s environmental review, although only one of the two may be built. [...] https://la.urbanize.city/sites/defau...?itok=-JXSp3OP CAHSR Union station to Anaheim route (CAHSRA) https://la.urbanize.city/sites/defau...?itok=bhx1VpFp Four mainline tracks (CAHSRA) https://la.urbanize.city/sites/defau...?itok=xheEBiUx Aerial view of California High Speed Rail trains leaving Union Station through proposed run-through tracks (CAHSRA) https://la.urbanize.city/sites/defau...?itok=DZlcErbA The main entrance of ARTIC (Wikimedia Commons) |
Yeah, I don't understand planning for at-grade crossings. That portion of the route will get shut down all the time because of collisions with automobiles, just like with Metrolink.
|
I don't understand any of it. It's like NASA insisting on a capsule heat shield that's maybe good 80% of the time and everyone is standing around pretending that's a normal and acceptable thing to do.
Will LAUS-ANAHEIM operate at very high speed? No, but that doesn't justify building it like Brightline Florida. |
Removing all the at-grade crossings would benefit most of the parties involved.
:???: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Edit: Found this in the presentation. Given the majority of this line will be at grade, it's safe to assume this section will not exceed 125 mph. Not sure what the actual operation speed will be though. Quote:
|
Is it 2 HSR trains per hour PLUS additional Metrolink and Amtrak trains? If so I'm curious how many of those would be allowed. Hopefully this doesn't limit Metrolink. This section is slated for 4 Metrolink trains per hour under SCORE...
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Could they go through a dense urban area at 220mph? I would think there’s some kind of federal regulation for that.
|
Quote:
But since it’s not, the federal speed limit is 110-125 mph. Which if you think about it is still pretty darn fast for only being separated by crossing barriers. |
I believe speed limit is capped at 110 mph through populated urban corridors. Don't ask me to find the regulation.
|
Quote:
However, any rail line with grade crossings is limited to 110mph (FRA Class 6). To go faster than 110, you need to fully grade-separate or remove all crossings. There is a limited exception in the law where trains can run at 125mph through grade crossings IF the road is equipped with a vehicle arrest system, but it was a technological dead-end. 25 years ago IDOT and a few other states tested a number of arrest systems, but none of them were ever approved by FRA so everyone kinda gave up on 125mph. This is why IDOT had to settle for 110mph top speeds on the Chicago-St Louis line. There's a bit of a double standard here - FHWA approved the arrest system for the Kennedy Expressway reversible lanes, and it has been working successfully for decades at high speeds... but FRA refused to accept it for rail/road grade crossings. |
Quote:
|
Trying to explain better.
125 mph is the max allowed speed by regular passenger trains. To go faster, your signal system and trains must be certified by the FRA on an individual basis. Meaning bespoked regulations for High Speed Rail. Legally, regular passenger trains can go faster than 110 mph, up to 125 mph, on as what previously was mentioned, with vehicle restraint systems, none of which has ever been approved by the FRA under its regulations. So, effectively through regulations, 110 mph is the max speed with grade crossings, to go faster the corridor needs to be fully grade separated. To go faster than 90 mph, all public crossings must be gated with signals. For regular passenger trains to go faster than 80 mph, cab signaling is required. And of course, track quality, curvature, and other conditions affect max track speeds. And, on corridors where trains are approved to go faster than 80 mph, there may be sections of tracks where the trains must go slower for any variety of reasons. |
Quote:
So my hope is that it's 2 HSR trains plus 4 Metrolink trains (SCORE frequencies) plus some amount of Amtrak per direction per hour. |
Quote:
A slower max speed train speeds can have more fixed blocks along a certain length of track than higher max train speeds. Then there is the possibility for using moving blocks which requires an even more robust signaling system. There are many variables that can affect train frequency along a section of track. |
Environmental review of Burbank-Palmdale high-speed rail released
https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/d...-02-day-v2.png A rendering of the kind of electrified high-speed rail train California plans to run in the San Joaquin Valley. (California High-Speed Rail Authority) Colleen Shalby Los Angeles Times May 24, 2024 Since the earliest plans for the California High-Speed Rail Project, the segment connecting the Central Valley to Los Angeles has been fraught with controversy and technical conundrums. Political pressure and other concerns ultimately pushed the route away from the Grapevine and over the Tehachapis to the Antelope Valley, where it is planned to run along the State Route 14 corridor into the San Fernando Valley. A final environmental review for a critical 38-mile leg from Palmdale to Burbank was released Friday. If approved by the authority’s board of directors next month, the entire route between Los Angeles and San Francisco would be environmentally cleared for construction. The California High-Speed Rail Authority’s board of directors is expected to make a decision in late June on whether to accept the document, which includes several possible variations of the route with consideration to concerns about cost, aesthetics and environmental impacts raised by community members over the past two years. “This environmental document is the culmination of years of analysis and stakeholder engagement and is a huge milestone in connecting high-speed rail between two of our major metropolitan centers, San Francisco and Los Angeles,” outgoing authority Chief Executive Brian Kelly said in a statement. . . . . The preferred route from Palmdale to Burbank is a 38-mile stretch that would connect the Palmdale Transportation Center to the Hollywood Burbank Airport. It would include four tunnels ranging from about 12 to 13 miles in length and would operate underground through the Acton area, the Angeles National Forest and the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in order to reduce impacts on communities and environmental resources. The trip between the two stations would take about 15 minutes. . . . . |
^ This bit is encouraging:
Quote:
|
If the Burbank CAHSR station is underneath the Burbank Airport does that mean that the security to enter the train station will be heightened?
I remember going to the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center Smithsonian Museum on the Dulles Airport grounds and because it was inside the airport perimeter the security to enter the museum was a lot higher than it was to go to other Smithsonian museums on the Mall. Wonder if it will be the same for the Burbank station. |
I doubt it. BART has a station literally at the SFO International Terminal as well as Airtrain stations at each of its domestic terminals (1, 2, 3), all of which don’t have any additional security.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The pressure is building from multiple sides for Metrolink to electrify. From Brightline now having a vested interest and lobbying to electrifying the San Bernardino line to the EIR being complete for SoCal by next year for the Antelope Valley and Santa Ana lines… all clear directives to electrify and stop toying with hydrogen for now. Maybe later for far out lines, but the core system is gonna need catenary stat!! Then we can purchase those FLIRT trains like Caltrain and all this will be capable of 110 mph speeds.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 8:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev