SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   California High Speed Rail Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180558)

electricron Jul 18, 2020 8:01 AM

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.

SFBruin Jul 18, 2020 11:55 AM

^ You should work for the CAHSR authority.

Pedestrian Jul 18, 2020 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8984979)
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.

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

Quote:

Caltrain has already started electrifying its tracks to shift from diesel to electric service. The agency’s trains are expected to match the 110-mph speeds the high-speed trains would travel while on the Peninsula.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/art...n-15398354.php

But the CalTrains would need to stop more often:

Quote:

High-speed rail service along the San Francisco to San José corridor will be a blended system which will support modernized Caltrain service and high-speed rail service primarily on shared track largely within the existing Caltrain corridor. This approach minimizes impacts on surrounding communities, reduces project cost, improves safety and expedites implementation.

The Authority is continuing the planning and environmental process to further define the blended system. System improvements that will be defined during the planning and environmental review process include passing tracks, that can be used by high-speed rail to pass Caltrain trains that need to stop more frequently, system upgrades to support higher train performance and speed, system safety improvements, including grade crossings, and stations.

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

Pedestrian Jul 18, 2020 9:11 PM

Quote:

New proposal on Caltrain sales tax ballot measure would allow 3 counties to control money
Rachel Swan
July 18, 2020 Updated: July 18, 2020 1:44 p.m.

Officials in San Francisco and Santa Clara counties have set new conditions to approve a November sales tax measure for Caltrain, the Peninsula rail line that’s facing financial ruin.

Under the proposed agreement obtained by The Chronicle, all funds generated by the one-eighth-cent sales tax would go back to the county in which they are collected. The money would be deposited in an account controlled by the county’s transit agency, which would then have the authority to give all of it — or a fraction of it — to Caltrain.

Top staff at the rail agency say they desperately need the tax to pass. When COVID-19 hit, Caltrain lost 95% of its riders, a severe blow for a system that relies on fares to cover 70% of its operating costs. Agency staff say that without the tax — which they project would generate $100 million a year — they will either have to shut down service or cut it so severely that hardly anyone would use it.

But the tax has to go through a long and complicated approval process even to get on the ballot. It needs to pass through four transit boards as well as the boards of supervisors in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. This week, two San Francisco supervisors tried to scuttle the tax by declining to introduce it at a board meeting, in hope it would not get a hearing or a vote.

The supervisors, Aaron Peskin and Shamann Walton, have long been frustrated with the governance structure of Caltrain because it is run entirely by San Mateo County Transit District, known as SamTrans, which manages and operates the system for a three-county Joint Powers Board. Walton is also a Caltrain board director . . . .
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.

electricron Jul 19, 2020 6:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8985308)
From what I've read, the plan is to run the CalTrains and HSR trains at the same speed.
But the CalTrains would need to stop more often:

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.

Pedestrian Jul 19, 2020 9:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8985598)
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).

electricron Jul 19, 2020 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8985620)
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.

Pedestrian Jul 19, 2020 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8985682)
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.

SFBruin Jul 19, 2020 9:20 PM

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

Pedestrian Jul 20, 2020 3:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8986021)
Is the current ROW appropriate for 100+ mph?

If so, 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.

jmecklenborg Jul 23, 2020 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8980708)
I genuinely don't want to poop on progress but the Peninsula investment as currently being pursued has the potential to be a colossally shortsighted endeavor. The CHSRA should have insisted on a 4-track Caltrain/HSR row with full grade separation top to bottom. For the life of me I don't know how they are going to accommodate 12 HSR trains/hour through 2-track stations at any reasonable speed. It just seems like all these millions will likely be wasted when they realize that you can't pull off proper operation of Caltrain and HSR without a row to facilitate it which includes dedicated tracks bypassing stations and zero potential interaction w/ people or vehicles.


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.

SFBruin Jul 27, 2020 1:14 PM

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.

electricron Jul 27, 2020 1:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8992890)
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.

ardecila Jul 27, 2020 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8992890)
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.

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.

Car(e)-Free LA Jul 27, 2020 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8993012)
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.

ardecila Jul 27, 2020 7:38 PM

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.

twoNeurons Jul 27, 2020 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8993012)
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.

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 🚂

jmecklenborg Jul 27, 2020 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8993012)
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.

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.

jmecklenborg Jul 28, 2020 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8993385)
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.

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.

SFBruin Jul 28, 2020 4:08 AM

I'm still worried about how they are going to get through the Pacheco pass.

Are there land tunnels that long in other parts of the world like Switzerland?

electricron Jul 28, 2020 4:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8993881)
I'm still worried about how they are going to get through the Pacheco pass.

Are there land tunnels that long in other parts of the world like Switzerland?

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.

mrnyc Jul 28, 2020 12:56 PM

^ 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

SFBruin Jul 29, 2020 5:46 AM

^ Interesting.

I did not know the history behind this.

202_Cyclist Aug 25, 2020 3:42 PM

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/

N830MH Aug 26, 2020 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 9021566)
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

M II A II R II K Sep 27, 2020 4:00 PM

California High-Speed Rail Advances

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

Quote:

.....

- Everybody wants to get back to ‘normal’ after the COVID pandemic passes, right? But as Andy Kunz, President and CEO of the US High-speed Rail Association, pointed out during a Friday webinar on the future of transportation, ‘normal’ sucked. Did we forget, he asked, how a few months ago everyone was stewing almost daily in mind-numbing traffic and rotting in long airport lines? “Do we really want to return to the ‘normals’ of climate change, high cost, and low mobility?” --- His organization wants a 1950’s-style Federal Highway Act, just like the one that built the interstate highway system, only this time dedicated to building a nationwide network of clean, electric, high-speed rail tracks. “We envision a 17,000-mile network with state-of-the-art trains that travel faster than 200 mph.” And thanks to decades of political sparring against entrenched highway and petroleum interests, the keystone of that vision is finally underway. 118 miles are under construction in the Central Valley right now,” said Brian Kelly, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

.....



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




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

eltodesukane Sep 30, 2020 2:28 AM

"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

Bob Belcher Sep 30, 2020 6:04 PM

President Xi please annex California

redblock Nov 12, 2020 3:18 PM

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#

curt-pdx Nov 27, 2020 8:48 PM

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

Busy Bee Nov 27, 2020 9:07 PM

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

N830MH Dec 10, 2020 3:55 AM

All,

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

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

El Chapo Jan 7, 2021 5:06 PM

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


Quote:

California’s high-speed rail project is now poised to receive some $20 billion in federal funding, thanks to yesterday’s two senate seat runoff elections in Georgia. “I think this will be great news for CAHSR,” said Andy Kunz, President & CEO of the US HSR association. He added that between Joe Biden’s support for rail and the expected stimulus bill that will come out of the White House, coupled with a Democrat-controlled legislature, California’s rail project in particular stands to gain.

California has an enormous advantage in the competition for stimulus funds because it’s not just “shovel ready”–it’s under construction. “With federal support for economic recovery, the California High-Speed Rail Authority stands ready to put dollars to work,” wrote the authority’s Michele Boudreau, in an email to Streetsblog. “We’re well underway on the biggest and greenest infrastructure project in the nation. We stand ready to create more jobs and boost more small businesses both across the state and across the country.”
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2021/01/0...s-look-peachy/

Busy Bee Jan 7, 2021 8:13 PM

Feeling good

jmecklenborg Jan 7, 2021 8:39 PM

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.

Busy Bee Jan 7, 2021 8:47 PM

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

LosAngelesSportsFan Jan 7, 2021 10:18 PM

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

N830MH Jan 8, 2021 6:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 9152873)
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!

jmecklenborg Jan 9, 2021 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9152782)
^Been right there with you all along jmeck...

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.

Busy Bee Jan 9, 2021 6:51 PM

^Which is a nauseating possibility for so many reasons.

CrazyCres Feb 11, 2021 2:18 PM

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

electricron Feb 11, 2021 2:41 PM

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:

eltodesukane Feb 11, 2021 2:49 PM

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.

electricron Feb 11, 2021 3:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eltodesukane (Post 9187819)
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?

kodak black Feb 11, 2021 5:02 PM

Feds Love Cali Bullet Train

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

jmecklenborg Feb 11, 2021 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kodak black (Post 9187978)

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.

jmecklenborg Feb 11, 2021 9:07 PM

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

Busy Bee Feb 11, 2021 9:51 PM

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

electricron Feb 12, 2021 3:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9188398)
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.

Busy Bee Feb 12, 2021 3:11 PM

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.