CHSR and Caltrain trains will be sharing tracks over 47 miles between SJ and SF. The CHSR trains will reach maximum speeds of just 110 mph while the Caltrain trains will reach 79 mph, lets say 80 mph to make the following math simpler.
47 miles / 110 mph = 0.427 hours or 25.6 minutes.
47 miles / 80 mph = 0.587 hours or 35.3 minutes.
The CHSR train will make just one intermediate stop, so add 2 minutes or so for 27-28 minutes. The Caltrain train will make 19 intermediate stops, so add 38 minutes or so for 73 minutes. It actually takes around 93 minutes or so per the schedule now, because the train does not go 80 mph all the way.

Let's assume CHSR is running trains every half hour over these 47 miles, and Caltrain is running trains every half hour as well. Let's give the Caltrain train a half hour start. In about a half hour it will go around 16 miles (one third 47 miles). That's when CHSR departs 16 miles behind the Caltrain train. In another half hour, the Caltrain goes another 16 miles. In that same second half hour, the CHSR train goes 6/7 of the 47 miles, around 40 miles. It passes the slower Caltrain once. The CHSR train will reach the end of the 47 miles long before the Caltrain train, but it will not pass a second Caltrain train as both should reach the end station at the same time. So only one passing siding is needed under the best of circumstances, i.e. the Caltrain train leaving after the CHSR train, and therefore a half hour before the next CHSR train.

^ You should work for the CAHSR authority.

From what I've read, the plan is to run the CalTrains and HSR trains at the same speed.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/art...n-15398354.php

But the CalTrains would need to stop more often:

https://hsr.ca.gov/high_speed_rail/p...ons/sf_sj.aspx

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...l-15417294.php

I have serious doubts that if the SF MTA can divert the money from CalTrain, they won't do it. They are always looking for more money for Muni. And the same in Santa Clara which is trying to fund Phase 2 of BART through San Jose.

Those extra stops, 19 vs 1, means the CHSR train would still catch and pass the slower Caltrain train, just further along the route than before.

Remember, the CHSR train covers that distance in 27 minutes with one stop. Instead of adding an additional 38 minutes to 35 minutes, we now would be adding it to 25 minutes, totaling 25 + 38 = 63 minutes for the Caltrain train. That is still adding 2 minutes per stop to both train times. 27 minutes for CHSR +30 minutes head start for Caltrain is 57 minutes, 6 minutes shorter than what the Caltrain needs. So even in the best possible scenario, the express trains passes the all stop trains once. All we did is shift where the pass happens. Wherever that pass happens, the trains can be scheduled to make the pass there with a shorter head start.

I'm not arguing it won't work. Just telling you (and everyone) what I've read about HOW it will work: Trains running at same speed between stations, new sidings (i.e "passing tracks") to allow the HSR to pass stopped CalTrains (presumably at stations where the HSR doesn't stop).

There are 19 intermediate stations at least, the express HSR trains will only stop at one, that leaves 18 others to choose from for that pass to occur. It is possible to set a schedule where they need just one passing siding. Any additional passing sidings just adds flexibility to the scheduling of the trains.
I doubt they will need 19 or more passing sidings, whether they be at stations or between them.

Nobody said how many they will need but I expect there to be more than one CalTrain on the route while each HSR train travels up the peninsula (the CalTrain schedule provides much more frequent service) so they will need more than one passing track and the more the merrier because of what you call the added flexibility. I'm sure the HSR folks can figure it out.

If the current ROW is appropriate for 100+ mph, then they should convert it in the next 5 - 10 years.

Yes, the ROW is appropriate (with elimination of grade crossings, addition of passing tracks and some other modifications that will require "displacement" of 62 homes and 202 businesses according to the Chronicle article I linked above). The controversy was over 4-tracking it which would require displacing more properties.

As for "converting it", that's at least partly underway--the major item is the electrification that is underway. The timing for other infrastructure upgrades is such as to allow high-speed service on the Peninsula by 2031. The immediate goal was to make CalTrain service comparable to BART service through the electrification, thus finally ringing at least the southern part of the Bay with heavy rail.

The capacity of the system is limited by the 6 stub tracks in Transbay, not the Peninsula tracks. 4 platforms will be dedicated to CAHSR and 2 to Caltrains. The HSR trains each need a 30 minute slot to perform a turnaround, so the system capacity is 4 HSR trains per hour. The Caltrains commuter trains don't need any turnaround servicing so there will be 6 per hour served by just 2 platforms.

The limited capacity of the Transbay Terminal is forcing the hand of the second Transbay crossing - the long-contemplated 4-track structure that would carry two passenger rail tracks and two BART tracks.

Turning Transbay into a through station triples or quadruples its capacity since the turnaround functions (cleaning/restocking the trains) can be performed elsewhere.

Could they build the terminal stop at Millbrae / SFO and have people take Caltrain into downtown San Francisco?

I feel like that would be better.

They could do anything. But would they?
They have been selling this to the public for decades as a downtown to downtown HSR line alternative to flying and taking local transportation to and from the airports.

No, they cannot. Prop 1A (now part of state law) requires direct service from Los Angeles to San Francisco with a total travel time of 2h40m or less. A forced transfer to Caltrain would not be direct service, and would not meet the travel time requirement. If the state does not meet these requirements fully, it opens the project up to further lawsuits either in good faith (people who want faster trains) or in bad faith (people who want no train at all).

They could theoretically amend the law by putting the question back to the voters as another ballot initiative, but it's not likely voters would approve a worse-quality service, and it's really a locally-focused question that shouldn't be voted on state-wide. What does a person from Barstow or Long Beach know about Millbrae or nerdy transportation planning questions in SF?

In reality the 2h40m travel time is probably not realistic given the amount of money that is available... so CHSRA is planning for the 2h40m time, knowing that they probably won't be able to achieve that in practice. They will either meet the requirement on a technicality by running a single express train per day that is a red ball, clearing all other trains out of the way, or they will get the system built first and then ask for a change in the law to allow for slower travel times.

Of course, if they'd had the sense to go via Altamont and the Grapevine, they could do 2:30 with no trouble at all but I digress.

Arguably the language of Prop 1A also requires San Jose and Palmdale to be on the mainline. Altamont and the Grapevine would bypass both of these cities, respectively.

Same problem - the Legislature got too specific when drafting the language, and now it has forced CHSRA into costly decisions to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Part of me agrees that San Jose should be on the mainline, it is the transportation hub of Silicon Valley with ample light rail/bus and eventually BART connections. A better, more transit-oriented future for Silicon Valley (California's biggest economic engine) really requires better alternatives to the car than what exist today.

Palmdale, not so much. Maybe with Virgin considering a route for Las Vegas trains into the LA basin via Cajon Pass, the HSR mainline can be rerouted to the Grapevine... but again, this would require an amendment to Prop 1A and is unlikely to pass.

To be completely honest, the most useful train will likely be a direct train from downtown to downtown. It’s likely that that will also be the train that has the most number of passengers. Contrary to how many people think… Ridership is usually greatest between the two major population centres and Most of the trains really should be nonstop. I know that politically it does it make a lot of sense because the small towns and medium-size centres feel snubbed but the reality of it is most of the ridership will come from people going from San Francisco to Los Angeles direct.

If you go to Japan (and I know it’s a different country with different problems and challenges) out of 16 to 18 trains per hour only one of them makes every single stop 75% of trains only stop at major population centers… Like Osaka, Nagoya, and Tokyo on the original bullet train line. People who live in Bakersfield for example, likely will not use the train to go to LA as often as people from LA going to San Francisco.

The new Chou line under construction In Japan will likely have a direct train every 10 minutes or so with only one all stop train per hour.

High speed trains or more like short haul airplane routes than choo-choo trains 🚂

It is currently the plan that all trains will stop at the following stations:
1. LA Union Station
2. Burbank
3. San Jose
4. SFO
5. DTSF Transbay

The SFO and Burbank stops are necessary for all express trains because the situation getting in an out of each terminal stop is not ideal and those stops allow for things to be cued in an orderly way (at a station) rather than on a random siding.

Also, for people who are new to this, no trains will terminate at LA Union Station, but rather will continue and terminate at Anaheim. There will be plenty of space for trains to be serviced there near the stadium.

San Jose will benefit much more than San Francisco from CAHSR. That's why there has been so much opposition to CAHSR generally - San Francisco real estate interests know damn well that:

1. San Jose will have several more express runs to LA than SF each day, since some trains will terminate at San Jose thanks to the capacity issues in the Transbay Teminal.

2. Air travel from SF or San Jose to LA is essentially the same thing right now, but the train trips to LA from San Jose will be 45 minutes faster than a trip from SF to LA.


Will the entry of CAHSR into the equation single-handedly enable San Jose to pilfer large office tenants from San Francisco and become the dominant city in Northern California? No, but it makes it a much more of a practical alternative than it is currently.

Delete.

Switzerland has some really long tunnels. They just recently completed the Gotthard Base Tunnel in late 2016. With a route length of 57.09 km (35.5 mi), it is the world's longest railway and deepest traffic tunnel and the first flat, low-level route through the Alps. The main purpose of the Gotthard Base Tunnel is to increase local transport capacity through the Alpine barrier, especially for freight, notably on the Rotterdam–Basel–Genoa corridor, and more specifically to shift freight volumes from trucks to freight trains. And also, by the way, express passenger trains by cutting one hour of existing travel time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

What makes the CHSR different is who will be able to use the new tunnels. You will not see freight trains using them in California if they choose to run light weight HSR trainsets.

^ for reference the pacheco tunnel is to be 13 miles (21 km), with another smaller tunnel 1.5-mile (2.4 km).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacheco_Pass_Tunnels

^ Interesting.

I did not know the history behind this.

Brightline Bets on High-Speed Rail From LA to Vegas
 

Brightline Bets on High-Speed Rail From LA to Vegas


By Howard Fine
Monday, August 24, 2020
Los Angeles Business Journal


"Plans for a $5 billion high-speed rail line to connect Southern California to downtown Las Vegas have taken several steps forward in recent weeks.

Miami-based Brightline Trains earlier this month received $200 million in private activity bonds from the Nevada State Board of Finance to help fund its planned 170-mile high-speed rail line between downtown Las Vegas and Victorville, which has a target completion date of 2023.

That follows a $600 million bond award from California announced in April..."

https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2...rail-la-vegas/

Please used a different thread. Not on California high-speed rail. There is existing thread.

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show...198371&page=82

California High-Speed Rail Advances

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2020/09/2...rail-advances/




https://i1.wp.com/sf.streetsblog.org...pg?w=800&ssl=1




https://i1.wp.com/sf.streetsblog.org...%2C100%2C616px

"Q. The California High-Speed Rail Authority was established 23 years ago.
During that time China has built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail. We are still working on the first 119 miles. What are we doing wrong?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/u...peed-rail.html

President Xi please annex California

Here is a video flyover of the current preferred alternative for the route between Palmdale and Burbank.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...v=UaMYg5Ja5Wo#

This was posted on the US highspeed thread https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threa...post-170731861, but John at The Four Foot has a really nice 4-part work in progress update of the ROW with drone footage, google maps and construction on the ground from South to North, so starting with


CP 4: • Video Link


CP 3: • Video Link


CP 2: • Video Link


and a lot of good stuff in the final segment
CP 1: • Video Link

Again, THANK YOU John at The Four Foot

Yeah those are great. He still has one more to go though.

All,

You can sign the petition. This is for high-speed rail all over America.

https://www.hsrail.org/2020-federal-...nPNNtKh5DYPscU

California HSR is Peachy
The state's rail modernization project is looking up thanks to Georgia's election results

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2021/01/0...s-look-peachy/

Feeling good

About 2 years ago I posted on this thread that Newsom's "cancel" was a political save-face stunt and CAHSR would get back to business when Trump was booted. Somehow events in Georgia now mean Amtrak Joe will take the helm with control of both houses plus a VP from California. So it's pretty unlikely that CAHSR won't get a major infusion of federal support in 2021.

^Been right there with you all along jmeck...

Tremendous news! I hope this speeds things up and we get the rail that we need

I'm agree with you. They will speeds it up and step forward. Get it done! ASAP!

Also, Elaine Chow is gone, who was responsible for that stunt back in 2017 that needlessly delayed funding to the Caltrains electrification.

We won't see any of those sorts of obstructionist games for at least two years and possibly four.

I do believe that Republicans stand a chance of winning back the House in 2022 and it's a coin flip with the Senate.

^Which is a nauseating possibility for so many reasons.

Revised California high-speed rail plan reaffirms Central Valley segment as a priority

After a year’s delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and an uprising in the California Legislature, the head of the state’s financially strapped high-speed rail project unveiled a “revised draft business plan” today restating an initial operating segment between Merced and Bakersfield as the project’s priority.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority Board voted unanimously to ask the legislature to issue $4.1 billion in state bonds authorized by voters 12 years ago to get that line up and running.

Construction now underway is expected to cost $330 million more than was anticipated in last year’s first try at the plan, and track laying won’t be finished until 2023, a year later than last year’s document.

But the rail authority is investigating, as an interim cost-saving measure, whether it can begin Central Valley high-speed service with leased 186-mile-per-hour trainsets on a single-track railroad with passing tracks if it doesn’t degrade service frequency or travel times. Double tracking would have to be completed before the San Francisco Bay Area is linked to the line with 220-mph trains, officials said.

Link: https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wir...-as-a-priority

https://trn.trains.com/~/media/image...mw=1000&mh=800

Single track high speed rail operations, does that happen anywhere else in the world? 186 mph max speeds in the interim, not the promised 220 mph max speeds? So now they will be buying and operating on "used" train sets?

Look at the map, there are huge gaps in just the environmental studies, they have not started the studies towards Sacramento and San Diego yet, and they have not completed the studies through the mountains yet. A closer look, the studies are completed as far north as Merced and as far south as Bakersfield, but the construction underway does not reach Merced nor Bakersfield. It's Madera to the north and the Kern County Line to the south, literally the county line being in the middle of nowhere.

Where do they plan to depot the initial trainsets? Merced and Bakersfield are out, how about Fresno? Have they even made that determination yet? Whoops, they are still in because the initial operating segment will include those two cities even though there is no construction underway within them, CHSR needs an additional $500 million to reach them - really? So initial operations is still years away from reality.

And this is 15 years after starting the project and 10 years after getting its' first Federal funding grants.
And we now discover that the State has been holding back over $4 Billion in bonding money voters approved 12 years ago.

This project has been over promised and under delivered for a decade. :surrender:

Those billions $ for the California High Speed Rail would be better spent on some local transportation projects, like expanding the San Francisco BART network or expanding the The Los Angeles Metro Rail.
Those would be more useful to more people.

I agree. But wasn't one of the reasons why CHSR got first crack at the money being that it could generate a profit and therefore cash to spend on the other local rail projects?

Feds Love Cali Bullet Train

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2021/02/1...-bullet-train/

It would be amazing if the feds fully funded both the SF and LA approaches sometime in the next two years.

We just printed $5 trillion+ in 2020 without causing inflation. $100 billion for CAHSR, $100 billion for the Northeast Corridor, and $100 billion for the rest of the country would get a lot of construction happening nationwide by 2023.

Also, the NY Times' Ezra Klein unintentionally spread some mild falsehoods re: CAHSR in today's column...we all know that big money is coming the project's way, so we should expect that the Pacheco Pass tunnel if not the southern link between Bakersfield and LA is fully funded by the end of 2020:

Once you start looking for this pattern, you see it everywhere. California talks a big game on climate change, but even with billions of dollars in federal funding, it couldn’t build high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The project was choked by pricey consultants, private land negotiations, endless environmental reviews, county governments suing the state government. It has been shrunk to a line connecting the midsize cities of Bakersfield and Merced, and even that is horribly over budget and behind schedule.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/o...o-schools.html

They could probably pick up used Alstom Eurostar trainsets for a song.

That is what Canada did when VIA bought unused and unfinished Nightstar trains and called them Renaissance cars. VIA already wants to retire them. UK rolling stock is considered wide at 9 feet, in the USA that would be considered thin.
Width of various UK passenger coaches:
Class 390 Pendolino 8 ft 11 in
Class 373 Eurostar (Alstom) 9 ft 3 in
Class 800 Azuma 8 ft 10 in
VIA Renaissance 8 ft 11 in

Width of various USA passenger coaches:
Siemens Venture 10 ft 6 in
Amfleet I 10 ft 6 in
Superliner 10 ft 2 in
Bombardier Multilevel 10 ft
Bombardier BiLevel 9 ft 10 in
Siemens S70 light rail vehicle 8 ft 8 in

Are you seeing the size differential yet, North American "loading gauge" is on average 1 feet wider than the UK. Although the old Eurostar trainsets were the widest railcars operating in the UK. Passengers will notice that thinner interior cabin with either smaller seats or smaller aisles or corridors.

They did in Canada. When VIA replaces their Renaissance cars with Ventures, watch what the reviews will write. The reviewers will notice and will sing praises to the new cars for wider seats and wider aisles. :tup:

It would be slightly better for CHSR to lease or buy European HSR trainsets that did not operate in the UK.
Width of ICE Velaro trains 9 ft 8 in (CRH3 10 ft 8 in)
Width of TGV Atlantique 9 ft 6 in passenger

Two low cost train companies are leasing the older Eurostar and Duplex sets already. As SCNF upgrades to the newest rolling stock, the retiring rolling stock are being used by IZY and Ouigo. IZY using Eurostars and Ouigo using Duplexes.
Ouigo ridership had climbed steadily since 2013, from 1.5 million passengers per year to 13 million passengers per year in 2018. Would be interesting to see what they had in 2019 before the pandemic hit. IZY just started operations in 2016, wiki does not report ridership yet.

ps, all data reported came from various wiki pages.

My god man. You are a master at suffocating a casual conversation with a bunch of numbers. Yes I am fully aware of loading gauge. It's not like there is a huge market out there for second hand high speed trainsets. The only ones I can think of are the first-gen Eurostar and the second-gen TGV.