California High Speed Rail Thread

[Inkoumori]

Does anybody have a rough estimate on how much speed (both average and top) would be lost as a result of sharing tracks with Metrolink/Caltrain?

All you have to do is look at Acela.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

Acela Express trains are the only true high-speed trainsets in North America; the highest speed they attain is 150 mph (240 km/h), though they average less than half of that.

because they share track with Amtrak.

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Does anybody have a rough estimate on how much speed (both average and top) would be lost as a result of sharing tracks with Metrolink/Caltrain?
And I want real answers, not biased ones from track-sharing booster forumers.

I just hope one day the whole corridor can be grade-seperated on it's own track. Hopefully it doesn't become one of those VERY ANNOYING "the route is too busy to build a new track, and construction would disrupt existing services" situations. I can easily see this happening.

I don't have a rough estimate of how much speed. I'm guessing at least a little speed would be lost. I mean, you want the train operators to be focused, so they'll want to slow down if there's two different carriers on the track. There are lives at stake.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

This blog post suggests that there is a slight difference between the dynamic envelopes of Caltrain and CHSRA (namely, platform height) which would make it slightly more expensive to design island platforms which serve both services, though...

You have a valid point with existing CalTrain rolling stock. But isn't CalTrain wishing to buy new EMU trains, which can be built to use the same platforms as CHSR trains? Or the other way around, where CHSR trains are built to use the same platforms as CalTrain trains?
Besides, on the peninsula, the CHSR trains are only going to need platforms at just one or two stations between San Francisco and San Jose. At just those stations, dedicated platforms can be built for them.

Something like this instead:
Side Platform 1 CalTrain
Track 1
Track 2
Island Platform 2 CHSR
Track 3
Track 4
Side Platform 3 CalTrain

Or like this
Side Platform 1 CalTrain
Track 1
Island Platform 2 CHSR
Track 2
Track 3
Island Platform 3 CHSR
Track 4
Side Platform 4 CalTrain

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by electricron

You have a valid point with existing CalTrain rolling stock. But isn't CalTrain wishing to buy new EMU trains, which can be built to use the same platforms as CHSR trains? Or the other way around, where CHSR trains are built to use the same platforms as CalTrain trains?
Besides, on the peninsula, the CHSR trains are only going to need platforms at just one or two stations between San Francisco and San Jose. At just those stations, dedicated platforms can be built for them.

Even if they intend to buy new equipment, short of being ordered to, they should be loath to scrap current equipment--assuming it still runs--since the majority of Caltrain services will still run into King Street Sta. and ridership has been on an increasing trend nationwide since its national nadir 10-20 years ago, which means any new equipment orders will likely come up short. In any event, there is a transitional period during which both older and newer equipment will be used.

Something like this instead:
Side Platform 1 CalTrain
Track 1
Track 2
Island Platform 2 CHSR
Track 3
Track 4
Side Platform 3 CalTrain

From an engineering standpoint, this one is superior. I think it has the least lead curve needed needed to platform all four tracks.

[Gordo]

When Caltrain switches to EMUs, the plan is eventually all new equipment (on a relatively quick schedule), because otherwise the point of buying the EMUs will go to waste (shorter headways allowing more service).

A large part of Caltrain's fiscal problems these days is that they can't add more service during the times when it's needed and trains are at capacity, because the tracks are at capacity at the chokepoints.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ivymike

All you have to do is look at Acela.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

Wait, so average, it'll run at only 70 Mph while sharing with Metrolink/Caltrain? I mean, in an urban area, I guess that's kind of fast, but is that really gonna be a true alternative to Metrolink's 45 Mph average?

I think 90-100 Mph on average would be sweet.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Gordo

When Caltrain switches to EMUs, the plan is eventually all new equipment (on a relatively quick schedule), because otherwise the point of buying the EMUs will go to waste (shorter headways allowing more service).

A large part of Caltrain's fiscal problems these days is that they can't add more service during the times when it's needed and trains are at capacity, because the tracks are at capacity at the chokepoints.

Again: how old's the current equipment? I don't think it's that old...so retaining current equipment for peak overflow service for at least five years beyond the equipment replacement cycle will still be useful.

The other advantage of electrifying the trunk from King Street to Didiron: it provides a service core. Didiron can be used as a commuter hub, with less-frequent trains from elsewhere in the Bay Area converting into a very-frequent service through the region's urban core from Didiron to King St. and Transbay Terminal.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Again: how old's the current equipment? I don't think it's that old...so retaining current equipment for peak overflow service for at least five years beyond the equipment replacement cycle will still be useful.

The other advantage of electrifying the trunk from King Street to Didiron: it provides a service core. Didiron can be used as a commuter hub, with less-frequent trains from elsewhere in the Bay Area converting into a very-frequent service through the region's urban core from Didiron to King St. and Transbay Terminal.

It's not a matter of too old to keep - it's a matter of too slow to keep. The biggest reason for upgrading to EMUs on the corridor is to allow more trains per hour, and the only way to do that is to have trains with faster acceleration/deceleration. Throwing even one train in there without the same acceleration causes the whole schedule to not work, and would especially screw things up during peak times.

Don't worry though, the plan is to sell the current equipment to the Capitol Corridor (Amtrak California operates both Capitol Corridor and Caltrain, using cross-trained personnel) line, which already uses Caltrain equipment at times for overflow and plans to increase service (they're now at 32 trains a day and plan to go to ~60, assuming funding can be found and track upgrades around Richmond and north of San Jose proceed as planned) at around the same time that Caltrain goes all-EMU. I can't seem to find it online, but the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority entered into a MOU a little over a year ago with Amtrak California regarding this.

[hammersklavier]

Sounds good...in theory. The reason I'm so hard about this issue is because here in Philly SEPTA is replacing its half-century old Silverliner IIs and IIIs with new Silverliner Vs...the order replaces the equipment and then some, but it still is almost certainly too small to handle demand, given that many SEPTA trains system-wide are already SRO at peak hours. Also, this new equipment offers fewer seats per car and is still not double-decked...and we can't keep the older equipment because (a) it's breaking down and (b) the Gubmint told us we gotta toss it away.

[Gordo]

I totally understand what you're saying, it's just kind of a unique problem here - the capacity constraint is speed, not lack of equipment, and unfortunately it won't help to have some extra slow equipment on hand if we move to a fast equipment-based schedule.

The only way that peak capacity can be increased now is to add cars to trains, which does happen on special days - I've used Caltrain on days where some borrowed cars from Capitol Corridor have been used, but this makes the consist too long for many stations, so the extra cars can only be boarded internally from the other cars (and this tends to slow down everything and lead to delays systemwide).

[electricron]

Even if CalTrain didn't retire their old railcars, they could still use them with new electric locomotives that accelerate faster than their diesels.
Per Nippon Sharyo, the max speed for "Gallery" cars are 79 mph. Per Bombardier the maximum design speeds of their "BiLevel" cars are 95 mph, although I doubt anyone operates them that fast. Never-the-less they probably could go faster on faster tracks, and they should accelerate faster with a faster locomotive.

[Gordo]

^Caltrain is planning on EMUs, not electric locomotives.

The entire plan for electrifying Caltrain has always been about providing a service similar to what BART provides in other parts of the Bay Area for 1/10th the cost. Don't think of this being an upgrade to a commuter rail system, but rather an upgrade to a RER/BART-type system from a straight commuter rail setup.

Here's an older brochure on Caltrain's plans, which have changed somewhat since it was published:

http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Penin...ut_Jan2009.pdf

Since the brochure was published, the FRA granted Caltrain's waiver to operate EMUs and diesel-powered freight on the same tracks (time-separated). The talk of Caltrain diesel equipment being kept is referring to the SJ-Gilroy segment, but there is still discussion that it would make more sense to sell all diesel equipment and transfer operation of that segment to ACE or Capitol Corridor (both Amtrak California lines co-financed by the state and counties, rather than financed solely by the three Caltrain counties).

[NYonward]

Originally Posted by ivymike

All you have to do is look at Acela.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

because they share track with Amtrak.

The reason Acela has to slow down is because of speed restrictions due to older tracks and ties as well as at-grade crossings in the CT area especially.

[Beta_Magellan]

It’s also not a good reference for track-sharing with Metrolink, which has a lot of single-track segments, freight conflicts, and a curvy right of way. It would cost so much to do a stopgap upgrade to Metrolink to accommodate HSR (or even HSR trains being pulled by a diesel locomotive, as sometimes happens with the TGV) that they’re probably better off just waiting until they have the funds for full build-out in LA.

To me, this is one of the strongest arguments why CAHSR should have started as a Los Angeles-Bakersfield line and then gone north, rather than starting in the middle and extending the ends. Although starting in the middle makes political sense (in some ways it’s the hardest sell of the whole system, it avoids the NorCal-SoCal conflict, and having a “nowhere-to-nowhere” line theoretically is an incentive to complete the system), a Los Angeles-Bakersfield line would have gotten rid of one of the greatest engineering barriers to CAHSR (the pass—couldn’t remember how to spell it) and would have provided a usable demonstration segment connecting a mid-sized city to LA.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

It’s also not a good reference for track-sharing with Metrolink, which has a lot of single-track segments, freight conflicts, and a curvy right of way. It would cost so much to do a stopgap upgrade to Metrolink to accommodate HSR (or even HSR trains being pulled by a diesel locomotive, as sometimes happens with the TGV) that they’re probably better off just waiting until they have the funds for full build-out in LA.

To me, this is one of the strongest arguments why CAHSR should have started as a Los Angeles-Bakersfield line and then gone north, rather than starting in the middle and extending the ends. Although starting in the middle makes political sense (in some ways it’s the hardest sell of the whole system, it avoids the NorCal-SoCal conflict, and having a “nowhere-to-nowhere” line theoretically is an incentive to complete the system), a Los Angeles-Bakersfield line would have gotten rid of one of the greatest engineering barriers to CAHSR (the pass—couldn’t remember how to spell it) and would have provided a usable demonstration segment connecting a mid-sized city to LA.

Take your pick, either the Grapevine/Tejon pass (I-5), Cajon Pass (I-15), or Soledad Pass (CA-14)... Possibly also Tehachapi Summit along CA-58 as well! Haha

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Beta_Magellan]

Tehachapi was the one I had in mind—it was, until recently, the preferred alternative to access Palmdale.

However, now Grapevine is back in the picture, due to cost escalation of the Palmdale route. Instead of heading out to Palmdale before going to Bakersfield, Grapevine would provide a straighter shot with a possible station at Santa Clarita. From the latest CAHSR minutes (pdf):

Conceptual Review of the I-5 (Grapevine) Alignment
There are several reasons to consider undertaking a conceptual study of the I-5 (Grapevine) alignment between Bakersfield and Sylmar, including reevaluation of the main reasons the alignment was not selected for further study at Program level. If a feasible Grapevine alignment alternative can be identified for investigation in the Project IR/EIS processes, such an alternative could have several benefits, including:
 Could be about 25 miles shorter than an alignment via Palmdale, allowing at least a 7-9 minute travel time saving.
 May result in a significant cost saving ($ Billions) over an alignment via Palmdale.
 Could allow a HST station location at Santa Clarita, resulting in direct access into the existing San Fernando Valley ROW corridor at the north.
 Might provide a greater opportunity for phased implementation to Southern California, providing faster access to potential HSR users in the Los Angeles (LA) Basin.

Phased implementation seems to be a key word here—there was almost no way for an interim HSR solution along the Palmdale route due to curviness and track capacity, but it might be possible via the Grapevine.

This looks like a good move overall—saving travel time, construction time, operating expenses, and capital costs. The only real downsides are that the Grapevine’s by no means immune to overruns (due some big seismic issues—a big reason it wasn’t originally chosen, along with a bubbly market in Palmdale IIRC) and that this kind of screws over DesertXpress, which will probably now have to wait for CAHSR’s Inland Empire segment and find some way through Cajon. Overall, though, this seems like a good move—after all LA-SF is far more important than LA-LV.

[glowrock]

It really isn't a huge issue getting HSR north from Santa Clarita to the Grapevine/Tejon Summit, as the grades are relatively low, at least along I-5 itself. However, and it's a BIG however. The grade from Tejon Pass into the Central Valley is VERY steep, and I don't see a good way of getting around this. There is something like a 3000+ foot drop in elevation in only a 7-8 mile route on I-5, no way can HSR handle those kinds of grades. I'm sure something can be done in terms of having a bunch of switchback-style tracking, but this will add substantial length and cost to any connection. Hmm...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Gordo]

^To keep grades and turn radii within HSR guidelines, it was proposed before that the Grapevine would have something like a 15 mile-long tunnel. At-grade is not possible, so it would have to be a tunnel or combo of at-grade and extremely long/complicated viaducts.

However, the primary reasons that the Grapevine was originally eliminated were:

1. Smaller population served, since it misses Palmdale and other assumed future high-growth areas.
2. No service to Palmdale airport, which was/is considered to eventually be an overflow airport for LAX and Ontario.
3. Most importantly, the tracks would cross multiple active faults while in a tunnel, which is extremely risky, potentially disastrous (both in terms of potential loss of life and potential years out of service for the whole line in the event of a major earthquake), and ridiculously expensive to build to try to mitigate these risks.

I can't imagine that the overall calculus has changed even with increased costs for Tehachapi, but maybe something that I'm not aware of has potentially reduced costs for the Grapevine.

[electricron]

Engineers are always wishing to take a second, third, even a fourth look at what they are engineering, especially if you are willing to pay for it. Often one will find another solution overlooked before. Never-the-less, the original engineering evaluations are just as true today as they were. What usually changes is new technology, and that would be the birth for the new solution.

I do not believe new technology has arisen that will make a change in the route possible.

[Beta_Magellan]

Yeah—the minutes only says they’re reexamining it, so Palmdale’s hardly dead yet. Hopefully they overlooked some ingenious way to mitigate the seismic risks or found a less tunnel-dependent route, but it’s just as possible they’ll end up confirming that Palmdale’s the way to go and there’s no way around spending a lot of money to get out of LA.