California High Speed Rail Thread

[SFBruin]

To me, the tunnels are the system.

They're what make this project transformative.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by TWAK

The Valley route is best because it can be built quicker and it's the cheapest to build. People from outside of state want us to spend less of our own money and want construction. So far you are getting what you wanted.

You might not be aware that there's a train you can take down to LA but it takes about 13 hours. It goes along the coast and is a great ride. In addition to HSR, local services like metrolink would be enhanced. If there are no plans to increase DART or something, I'll get very angry at the Texas plan. Is there?


Interesting, because they are going to be testing trains in 2023.
You don't mean good luck, you want us to change the whole plan!

Sure, the Valley is the cheapest and easiest sections to build. Never-the-less, I still maintain they should have built the more difficult sections first. The French and American engineers and contractors did not start building the Panama Canal at the Caribbean and Pacific portals, they started digging in the Culebra Cut because that was going to take the longest to do. It was also the most expensive and hardest to do as well.
The British and French started building the Chunnel sections long before building the rest of HSR1 in Britain, also because it took the longest time to do. If your goal is actually finishing an entire project as quickly as possible, you start with the pieces of the projects that take the longest to do.
Construction 101!

As for testing CHSR trainsets in 2023, which will more likely take 2 years to build, they should have bought them last year, by the end of this year at the latest, yet I am sad to report to everyone reading this thread that no new 200+ mph trainsets have been ordered to date. Shucks, they have not even ordered the catenaries for the sections Merced to Bakersfield yet. Good luck seeing any HSR trainsets being tested in 2023.

[TWAK]

^Well I guess California broke the construction rules in order to satisfy people demanding construction (from outside the state mostly). I'm sorry that we broke the rules but there's nothing to be done, except more building in the valley. Is Texas electrifying local rail? If not they are doing it the wrong way! Texas should also be building the cheapest sections first, because I demand to see you guys constructing your system now.

[jmecklenborg]

If CAHSR had started with the big tunnels, the critics would have booed them for that.

Build a high-speed system and they say build it slower. Build a slower-speed system and they say it should be faster. Build super-long platforms for double-set HSR trains and they say it'll never get that many passengers. Build single-set platforms and they'll say you're dooming passenger capacity.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by TWAK

The Valley route is best because it can be built quicker and it's the cheapest to build.

The I-5 route would have been roughly 40 miles shorter and so would have been cheaper for that reason alone. But it also would have not served the Central Valley where the valley's population is centered, which is the string of cities and towns along the UP mainline.

Texas

The Dallas>Houston line is roughly 1/3 the track length of CAHSR Phases 1 & 2.

Texas is making a big mistake by not planning for an integrated system that would link Dallas/FW, San Antonio, and Houston in a big triangle, with intermediate stations for Austin, College Station, Waco, etc. Such a system would comprise roughly 650 miles of track, so still not as big as CAHSR, and with no major tunnels.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The Dallas>Houston line is roughly 1/3 the track length of CAHSR Phases 1 & 2.

Texas is making a big mistake by not planning for an integrated system that would link Dallas/FW, San Antonio, and Houston in a big triangle, with intermediate stations for Austin, College Station, Waco, etc. Such a system would comprise roughly 650 miles of track, so still not as big as CAHSR, and with no major tunnels.

Aka the famous "Texas triangle" that Southwest Airlines was built on.

But Texas HSR doesn't have the money for that. Private development is turning out to not quite be as affordable as advertised. Last year the Board Chairman of Texas Central admitted this was a "$30 billion dollar project", which puts it at about the same cost as CAHSR mile for mile. The CEO is now saying the project needs a $12 billion dollar loan from the federal government to be feasible. Two Republican house representatives recently wrote a letter to the Biden admin stating their opposition to Texas HSR receiving federal funds.

For all of CAHSR's flaws, I'm not sure Texas HSR is being run much better.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

For all of CAHSR's flaws, I'm not sure Texas HSR is being run much better.

The Texas line won't be transformative. It's going to be an alternative to flying or driving between Point A and Point B and nothing more. Its one midpoint station won't be in a town center.

The failed Ohio HSR plan from the early 1980s was a bigger project than what Texas Central is planning right now. The Ohio line was going to serve the downtowns of each of the 3C's cities, and use extensive viaducts and at least one major tunnel to do so. Hard to believe, but in 1980, Dallas and Houston had only recently surpassed Cleveland and Cincinnati in size.

[craigs]

Someone mentioned the Palmdale to Los Angeles corridor, and I just traveled most of that today by car. It is challenging terrain, to say the least, and unlike anything that engineers of a HSR railroad between Dallas and Houston will ever need to worry about. The relevant differences in terrain should have been one of those numerated items, because it is certainly salient to the discussion.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The Texas line won't be transformative. It's going to be an alternative to flying or driving between Point A and Point B and nothing more. Its one midpoint station won't be in a town center.

The failed Ohio HSR plan from the early 1980s was a bigger project than what Texas Central is planning right now. The Ohio line was going to serve the downtowns of each of the 3C's cities, and use extensive viaducts and at least one major tunnel to do so. Hard to believe, but in 1980, Dallas and Houston had only recently surpassed Cleveland and Cincinnati in size.

The "transformative" part of Texas HSR has nothing to do with the physical construction or design of the HSR line. The idea is to show that the private sector could construct transportation infrastructure if that evil government would just get out of the way, and build it faster, cheaper, and without taxpayer funds.

What we've ended up with is a project that is:

-moving slower than CAHSR (Texas Central founded 2008 with zero track laid vs CAHSR started in 2008 with 119 miles under construction)

-just as expensive per mile (~$30B for 240 miles vs ~69-99B for 520 miles)

-requires taxpayer funds to get started (~$12B, although Texas Central says it will pay this back eventually. Interestingly this is almost the same as CAHSR's current funding minus cap and trade*)

*~$12.4B: $9B from Prop 1A, $2.5B from ARRA, and ~0.9B from HUD.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

the project needs a $12 billion dollar loan from the federal government

That does, indeed, make Texas Central not privately financed.

[SFBruin]

To me, the Texas and CA projects have each done the opposite things well.

CA has done a good job of securing funding and beginning construction. Texas has done a good job of hiring outside expertise.

I feel like the outcome of this is that there is going to be a lot of whining in CA, but it will get done (in 2040), and the Texas project won't get finished, but not much money will have been spent.

[arkitect13]

Ultimately i think brightline has the best chances of really setting the standards for hsr in the U.S. They have the most success, but we have yet to see there L.A to vegas line, if its anything like there Florida lines it should turn out pretty well.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by arkitect13

Ultimately i think brightline has the best chances of really setting the standards for hsr in the U.S. They have the most success, but we have yet to see there L.A to vegas line, if its anything like there Florida lines it should turn out pretty well.

^Brightline Florida involves no major bridges or tunnels, has single-track sections, and isn't electrified. Presently, its max speed is 79mph. It has killed over 40 people.

The Las Vegas line will have no entrance into Los Angeles until the mid-2030s at the earliest, and possibly the 2040s.

[Busy Bee]

I'm extremely hopeful for the Brightline West project though I'm less than pleased that they have apparently downgraded the level of infrastructure since the EIS was completed when it was still called DesertXpress. Time will tell if they build it right, let alone build it at all. As for Brightline Florida, it shouldn't be part of this discussion... people talk about it like hyperloop, like the free market gift from god, like that obnoxious railclub youtube guy... but its apples and oranges. Don't get me wrong, for what it is I think theyre doing a good job and I like watching those update videos on the nitty gritty details, but it's not high speed rail. It's not even clear if they are building it to the specifications required for electrification and top speeds higher than 120mph. The curve radii alone says no. Whether the segment between Tampa and Orlando along I-4 is built with HSR conversion in mind I do not know.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

they have apparently downgraded the level of infrastructure since the EIS was completed when it was still called DesertXpress.

And allow me to reiterate that I don't expect California to welcome the Las Vegas project on a red carpet because a big-time HSR connection between Las Vegas and LA Union Station will encourage more moves by LA companies to low-tax Nevada.

[caligrad]

^^^ Not necessarily if you're basing it off of the commute. The commute oddly will still be between 2-3 hours and that's not including giving yourself 30 mins each way to arrive early to the station. Throw in drunk/hungover tourists. No one will be excited about a commute to Vegas with rowdy and happy tourists and no one will be happy on the way home with drunk/hungover ones either, especially not at a 2-3 hour travel time.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm extremely hopeful for the Brightline West project though I'm less than pleased that they have apparently downgraded the level of infrastructure since the EIS was completed when it was still called DesertXpress. Time will tell if they build it right, let alone build it at all. As for Brightline Florida, it shouldn't be part of this discussion... people talk about it like hyperloop, like the free market gift from god, like that obnoxious railclub youtube guy... but its apples and oranges. Don't get me wrong, for what it is I think theyre doing a good job and I like watching those update videos on the nitty gritty details, but it's not high speed rail. It's not even clear if they are building it to the specifications required for electrification and top speeds higher than 120mph. The curve radii alone says no. Whether the segment between Tampa and Orlando along I-4 is built with HSR conversion in mind I do not know.

Brightline in Florida has bought 125 mph maximum speed trainsets that should last in service 25 to 30 years before needing replacement. I do not think they ever wish to run trains faster than that. They do not need to.
Tampa to Orlando by I-4 is 84 miles, here's the relative elapse times per average speeds....
84 miles / 60 mph average speeds = 84 minutes
84 miles / 80 mph average speeds = 63 minutes
84 miles / 100 mph average speeds = 50 minutes
84 miles / 120 mph average speeds = 42 minutes
And assuming HSR trains were bought and used on this segment
84 miles / 140 mph average speeds = 36 minutes
84 miles / 160 mph average speeds = 31.5 minutes
84 miles / 180 mph average speeds = 28 minutes
As the trains go faster, did you note how the difference in time savings per 20 mph increase speeds dropped. What is the sweet spot for elapse time for most passengers? Then consider the major destination on this extension will be Disney World, just 17 miles away from Orlando's Airport.
17 miles / 60 mph average speeds = 17 minutes
17 miles /120 mph average speeds = 8.5 minutes
17 miles / 180 mph average speeds = 5 minutes, 40 seconds

IMHO, I do not see the need for that market for trains going faster than 125 mph....

LA to LV is an entirely different matter because the distance between the major destinations is far greater than 84 or 17 miles.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ Not necessarily if you're basing it off of the commute. The commute oddly will still be between 2-3 hours and that's not including giving yourself 30 mins each way to arrive early to the station. Throw in drunk/hungover tourists. No one will be excited about a commute to Vegas with rowdy and happy tourists and no one will be happy on the way home with drunk/hungover ones either, especially not at a 2-3 hour travel time.

I didn't mean to suggest that people would commute daily. I am asserting that the appearance of a 90-minute train ride to Los Angeles leaving the strip every 20 minutes will make the decision to move to Las Vegas more likely for many people and many companies.

Changes to media technology and communications has already cost Hollywood some of its dominance. Cloud-based editing is now a thing, which has raised the potential of secondary production cities like tiny Knoxville, TN, which has been a post-production center since TNN/CNN started in Atlanta in the 1980s.

Atlanta, of course, has been a major film and TV production center for over 30 years, and a new studio complex was just announced this week in Nashville. These new studios are nearly immune to industry union labor rules. Not sure why one hasn't been built yet in Las Vegas but that day is coming.

[numble]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

And allow me to reiterate that I don't expect California to welcome the Las Vegas project on a red carpet because a big-time HSR connection between Las Vegas and LA Union Station will encourage more moves by LA companies to low-tax Nevada.

California already gave Brightline the ability to raise $4.2 billion in tax-exempt bonds to pay for the project, more than Nevada gave to the project.
https://hsrail.org/blog/xpresswest%E...ak-ground-soon

And most of the ROW is owned by California, which has already signed the lease agreement to lease it to Brightline. https://www.vvng.com/caltrans-and-xp...ce-along-i-15/

[Busy Bee]

In the back of my mind I keep reserving the possibility that the CHSRA understands that once Phase 1 of CHSR and Brightline West are both in operation, the LA-LV Brightline may very well be operated by and essentially part of CHSR. I'm not familiar with whether any interstate legaleez would prevent this or not. It's for this reason that I really don't want to see Brightline West build the LV line to a lesser spec that would limit the efficiencies of future operations. According to the petition or whatever they call this agreement they've made with the FRA and Caltrans allowing them to amend the original DesertXpress alignment agreements that could see shifting to the median in some sections as well as, if you can beleive it, single tracking. This should worry anyone following this project (as close as they can with the limited info coming out). There is a real risk that Brightline is trying to build this thing TOO cheap and they may very well be shooting themselves in the foot. This notion of median running without altering Caltrans interstate curve radii is a red flag that they may be entertaining running these trains much slower than advertised. They also are planning on even fewer tunnels and cuts then in the original EIS which means the grade %'s are going to get even more extreme. The last thing anyone should want to see is this thing built to a less-than global standard HSR spec.