California High Speed Rail Thread

[Busy Bee]

I'm not sure I was aware the test speed was set at 242mph...

People are going to wet their pants when they see that streaking across the Central Valley. Naysayers will be converted. Indifferent, ignorant and oblivious will be amazed. Pols will react and state government will start to get serious about expediting Phase 1. My prediction.



California high speed train request for proposals approved

By Railway Gazette International
12 April 2024




USA: The California High-Speed Rail Authority board has approved the release of a request for proposals for the supply and maintenance of high speed trainsets.

Alstom Transportation and Siemens Mobility have prequalified for the process. Their proposals are to be submitted this autumn, with the authority aiming to award a contract by the end of the year.

The contract is to cover two prototype trainsets to be delivered for testing and trial running within four years of the noticed to proceed, and four production trainsets for passenger services on the initial 275 km Merced to Bakersfield early operating segment of the planned high speed line from 2030-33. The trainsets must be capable of operating at 355 km/h (220 miles/h) and tested up to 390 km/h (242 miles/h).

The contract would include a driving simulator, spare parts and 30 years of maintenance, including a mid-life overhaul.

The federal funding contribution requires compliance with Buy America rules, although waivers may be sought for components which cannot be sourced domestically.

Rest

[badrunner]

Wish we were getting those for Brightline West. LA to Vegas in one hour.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Wish we were getting those for Brightline West. LA to Vegas in one hour.

Brightline (both in Florida and in Southern California/Las Vegas) is going to be significantly inferior to CAHSR.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Wish we were getting those for Brightline West. LA to Vegas in one hour.

The trainsets for BW and CAHSR will be almost the same. The reason they won't go as fast is not the trains, it's the tracks. Like the poster above said, BW is a vastly inferior system

[badrunner]

I don't know the specifics about the trainset for Brightline West but it's reported to go up to 186mph (through flat desert), and the journey from Rancho Cucomonga to Las Vegas is expected to take about two hours. You're right though, it might not be the train. The track itself could still impose a speed limit.

There should be a separate thread for Brightline West on here once contruction starts and we start getting regular updates.

[Busy Bee]

Curve radii inside the median that follows the highway automobile design speed mixed with >5% grades will keep the average speed significantly lower than the CHSR design speed.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Curve radii inside the median that follows the highway automobile design speed mixed with >5% grades will keep the average speed significantly lower than the CHSR design speed.

This is a fundamental distinction. CAHSR is designing a fully double tracked high speed rail line for 200+mph trains. BW is laying a track in the median of an existing interstate designed for the automobile with max speeds of 80mph. Things like curve radius for train speeds of 200+mph the interstate was not designed for. And I have gratitude for both systems and their place.

[badrunner]

There are reports that Brightline has already selected the Siemens trainset, but the linked press release is no longer live. The Brightline West home page still shows a slower TGV style train in what looks like an old rendering, and recently published articles also quote a top speed of 186mph.

Maybe they are waiting on CAHSR to make their choice first, since there are plans for a connection and interoperability.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

This is a fundamental distinction. CAHSR is designing a fully double tracked high speed rail line for 200+mph trains. BW is laying a track in the median of an existing interstate designed for the automobile with max speeds of 80mph. Things like curve radius for train speeds of 200+mph the interstate was not designed for. And I have gratitude for both systems and their place.

Yeah CAHSR should blow away Brightline West in average speed. I wish we got the same track/train setup for Brightline, but leveraging existing infrastructure has its advantages too (can it actually open on schedule?). And I'm still holding out hope we'll be seeing 200+ mph on these desert straightaways.

[Busy Bee]

The engineering of the original DesertXpress proposal was superior in nearly every way. It's r.o.w. was shifted to one side of I-15 allowing geometry for higher speeds as well as several short tunnels lowering peak grade percentages. Every decision Brightline has made has been made to make the project cheaper to build at the expense of performance. That said, it is a fair question whether the current approved plans will be sufficient for what the purpose here is. Obviously, we all want to see this thing get built and the money behind it felt making some sacrifices was worth it to do so and don't feel the negatives outweigh the positives.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The engineering of the original DesertXpress proposal was superior in nearly every way. It's r.o.w. was shifted to one side of I-15 allowing geometry for higher speeds as well as several short tunnels lowering peak grade percentages. Every decision Brightline has made has been made to make the project cheaper to build at the expense of performance. That said, it is a fair question whether the current approved plans will be sufficient for what the purpose here is. Obviously, we all want to see this thing get built and the money behind it felt making some sacrifices was worth it to do so and don't feel the negatives outweigh the positives.

The $1 billion question (actually probably much, much more than that) is how much the public is willing to pay to enjoy a higher ride quality plus a 10, 20, 30-minute faster ride.

"HSR", thanks to Brightline, is turning into "BRT". The term is going to end up meaning nothing specific.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Brightline (both in Florida and in Southern California/Las Vegas) is going to be significantly inferior to CAHSR.

That would depend on the ticket price.

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The engineering of the original DesertXpress proposal was superior in nearly every way. It's r.o.w. was shifted to one side of I-15 allowing geometry for higher speeds as well as several short tunnels lowering peak grade percentages. Every decision Brightline has made has been made to make the project cheaper to build at the expense of performance. That said, it is a fair question whether the current approved plans will be sufficient for what the purpose here is. Obviously, we all want to see this thing get built and the money behind it felt making some sacrifices was worth it to do so and don't feel the negatives outweigh the positives.

Isn't the big plan to have everyone going to Vegas from NorCal to take the DesertXPress branch while everyone going to Vegas from SoCal would take the Rancho Cucamonga (and eventually LA Union Station) branch?

[Busy Bee]

^^^

???

Are you talking about the High Desert Corridor link once CHSR is running through Palmdale?

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^^^

???

Are you talking about the High Desert Corridor link once CHSR is running through Palmdale?

Mea culpa, yes.

[Busy Bee]

The eventual plan appears to be that Brightline would concurrently operate out of Rancho Cucamonga as well as over a new High Desert link to Palmdale enabling through running to LAUS using the CHSR basin tunnels. Thus the thinking being that LAUS-LV Brightline trains would be used by those who find that route convenient and Rancho Cucamonga-LV train for those where an IE departure would be more convenient and capturing more ridership.

[ssiguy]

BusyBee...........

You stated earlier that once the first section in the Interior Corridor opens up and people see trains flying by them at lightening speed will get rid of all the naysayers, people will push for the completion of the line maybe a tad overoptimistic. Remember this CHSR is going to be saddled with a monstrous debt and so prices may be higher than one is hoping for. For one person the price maybe worth it as opposed to paying for gas but 2 or more, probably not. Also, due to opening in this section first, demand will not be near as high as it would be if it served SF or LA.

HSR is only successful if it has the connecting transit services to the stations on each end and these cities have pathetic transit ridership and frequencies. We also know that outside the big US cities, Americans are loath to take transit and especially the bus which they would have to as these cities have no rail. They could take Uber to get to the station and/or getting from the station to your final destination but that would wipe out a lot of the cost savings of taking the train in the first place. This is why Acela works in the NEC...........you have connecting transit so you don't need a car to get to where you are going.

Also, due to also not having near the ridership if it served SF and/or LA, the frequencies of the trains will not be very high taking the high speed out of high speed rail. You see this all over the US where cities build expensive rapid transit but with their low frequencies, their ridership levels are pathetic.

I appreciate your optimism and I hope you are correct but if the completion of the line depends upon the success of this section.........careful what you ask for.

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The eventual plan appears to be that Brightline would concurrently operate out of Rancho Cucamonga as well as over a new High Desert link to Palmdale enabling through running to LAUS using the CHSR basin tunnels. Thus the thinking being that LAUS-LV Brightline trains would be used by those who find that route convenient and Rancho Cucamonga-LV train for those where an IE departure would be more convenient and capturing more ridership.

I think that when the High Desert Link is built, CAHSR Trains should operate on it from Palmdale to Victor Valley/Victorville in a sort of "through running" mode overlapping with Brightline who would operate from Palmdale all the way to Las Vegas.

There could even be a CAHSR "circular" that goes from Palmdale to Victor Valley to Rancho to Union Station and back to Palmdale.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

HSR is only successful if it has the connecting transit services to the stations on each end and these cities have pathetic transit ridership and frequencies. We also know that outside the big US cities, Americans are loath to take transit and especially the bus which they would have to as these cities have no rail. They could take Uber to get to the station and/or getting from the station to your final destination but that would wipe out a lot of the cost savings of taking the train in the first place. This is why Acela works in the NEC...........you have connecting transit so you don't need a car to get to where you are going.

Also, due to also not having near the ridership if it served SF and/or LA, the frequencies of the trains will not be very high taking the high speed out of high speed rail. You see this all over the US where cities build expensive rapid transit but with their low frequencies, their ridership levels are pathetic.

I appreciate your optimism and I hope you are correct but if the completion of the line depends upon the success of this section.........careful what you ask for.

Yes, to all this. I've mentioned this in the past, and hope I'm wrong, but the entire CAHSR process is 🞵🞵🞵-backwards. You need service to SF and LA, not Bakersfield. The future of HSR in North America is dependent on getting some of the most transit-hostile geographies in existence to start taking transit at Euro- or Japan-levels. I have no idea how this will work. I imagine the vast majority of initial service will be people taking it like a Disney ride, not as actual functional urban-to-urban transit. These are metros with transit shares of 1-2%, and almost no choice riders.

If initial phase ridership 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, will voters and bureaucrats have the patience to push forward? I hope so, bc this will work in the end. But I'm worried most voters are stupid and have no long-term vision, and we're gonna get nothing past the initial phase (which can still be spun as a dramatic improvement in service quality).

[ardecila]

The most realistic scenario for successful HSR in the US requires riders to treat it like air travel. HSR can succeed because airports currently succeed at short-haul flights. It will not prompt Americans to rethink their suburban auto-oriented lifestyle, but it could cut carbon emissions substantially along with the adoption of EVs.

That means, outside of a few select cities, most riders will not ride a subway to catch their HSR train. They will take a car - drive themselves and park in a garage, get dropped off, get an Uber. So the spatial needs for an American HSR station are different from Euro and Asian ones. Local transit connections will be available, but not a realistic or desirable option for most users.

Of course, there is a second tier of wealthy riders who live or work in/around *certain* core cities. So I think we will end up with modest city-center terminals, paired with huge park-and-ride shoulder stations in the suburbs. For those who believe in the continued growth and importance of core cities, we need to fight for core-city HSR stations to remain in the program, because I fear the emerging centrist consensus around HSR will deem outlying suburban mega park-and-rides to be "good enough".