daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 26th, 2017, 06:59 PM   #6961
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,550
Likes (Received): 798

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
What is Bakersfield's interest in having a greenfield site? They must know that that's a surefire way to reduce ridership and thwart downtown revival.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not sure - especially since it'd use existing ROW - but my guess is the notion by residents that the greenfield site would be less disruptive since the other option would mean viaducts through town.

It makes absolutely no sense, especially once you start thinking about TOD and the fact that it'd be rather difficult to get to, but it does seem the Authority is still pushing for the downtown site. Although, that's just the impression I've gotten from glancing over the EIR, since I haven't read through the entirety of the draft linked above, yet.

*and I suppose "greenfield" is a bit generous. It's just on the outer edge of town.
__________________
MCRP '16
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 26th, 2017, 10:26 PM   #6962
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
Wait, what does the DB consultant contract have to do with anything? They've only barely just awarded the contract...Did I miss something?

AFAIK, DB's role is more about maximizing use of the system by informing desired fare management systems, station design, the location of facilities, etc.
Yeah that was perhaps a bit of a leap; what I was going off of were comments made by a representative of DB Engineering and Consulting USA made during the Oct. 19 CAHSRA Board. It seemed to me that DB USA clearly had some opinions regarding the alignment of the project through the various construction packages. Video at the pertinent section below at 13:40 (Warning: Intense German Scolding in the following video! ):




So my thinking has been that DB has already done quite a bit of work behind the scenes before they were awarded the contract, and came into the project in November with a full suite of ideas regarding the most efficient and cost effective path forward, not just for track alignment but for stations etc. But you're right, they've only started officially as of November, so not that much time, hopefully we'll see the real benefits of the partnership in the 2018 business plan.

Quote:
Yah. The IOS is planned to get to Bakersfield - if possible - with a contingency for an interim station just outside the city in Shafter. The uncertainty mostly stems from Bakersfield seeming insistent that the Authority choose an alignment that will allow the station to be placed in a greenfield site, rather than in/alongside the existing station, downtown.

The sooner they decide on the alignment, the better: It means it can be tacked-on to one of the existing Construction Packages.

The same goes for San Jose: The trouble is the Pachecho Pass alignment (i.e. tunneling under the Diablos now seems to mean one, long tunnel instead of multiple shorter ones). Ultimately, the final alignment and mix of tunnels/viaducts/at-grade segments will determine how soon they make it to SJ.

I mean, this was behind the confusion that the Authority was somehow back peddling - or incompetent - by 're-orienting' work to the Bay Area rather than LA. In reality, it was due to vocal opposition to the desired alignment through Santa Clarita (e.g. the [refined] SR14 alignments, which were preferred by the Authority, were not favored by the public) and insistence that a tunnel under the Angeles National Forest be studied: This means delays and thus meant attention went to the north segment since it would thus be finished, first.
Even if it was extenuating circumstances I have to say, even as an Angeleno and Southern Californian, I'm still happy they decided to finish the Northern Leg of Phase 1 first. Just as a mental exercise I can far more easily imagine the "Fresno-San Jose/San Jose-Merced" market than I can the "LA-Merced/Anaheim-Fresno" market. I will admit though that if the IOS ends without SoCal OR the Bay Area I will be disappointed, and I'm waiting with bated breath on the results of the Pacheco Pass study hoping they push through. That said having the funds and plan in hand to connect the Central Valley is a great reassurance, and a finished Central Valley HSR will probably will itself to the major population centers through inertia alone.
And yep I agree overall re: Public Criticism, it's easy to criticize without all the facts; it doesn't help that at least for our major paper here in SoCal, the LA Times, the reporter on the HSR beat is an avowed skeptic and critic, Ralph Vartabedian. He never misses on opportunity to luxuriate in the woes of the CAHSRA, so all the print news we get here about CAHSR is negative. The fact is that a project of this scope is inherently complicated, especially so in a state with stringent environmental laws and a population of well heeled NIMBYs, and quite frankly especially so in a country where the government can't just seize your land for nothing and bulldoze your house just because you're in the way of their megaproject. But they get finished and in time seem indispensable and hopefully it'll be the same case here.
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2017, 10:32 PM   #6963
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231

Also regarding the Bakersfield greenfield site, it wouldn't surprise me if that was an intentional ploy to decrease the success of HSR in the city. Bakersfield is a very republican area (the House Majority Whip in Congress Kevin McCarthy represents Bakersfield) and there's nothing the California GOP love to hate more than "Jerry Brown's Crazy-Train". Considering the current state of the party in California, pretty much all they have is railing against the "choo-choo train" and they take any chance they can get!
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 04:48 AM   #6964
Nacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 117
Likes (Received): 59

I often ride Amtrak Cascades instead of driving on business trips. Yet I don't want HSR. Building more passing loops, signal upgrades and viaducts to get rid of crossing at grade on Amtrak Cascades would cut my transit time in half for a small fraction of the cost to upgrade Amtrak Cascades to HSR.

We could do this entirely with domestic equipment and labor. That may sound nationalistic, but it is simply realistic. It will be a lot easier to get Republican politicians from Idaho to vote for a national rail project if the locomotives are made by MotivePower in Boise.

I think that progressives in the USA have unrealistic expectations of public transport. Look at the situation in the Netherlands, which has better connecting mass transit than we have and one of the highest population densities in the world.

Total Dutch HSR Lines: 1 (to Belgium)

Dutch Transit By Trip: (excluding air travel)
50% automobile
25% bike
20% walking
5% public transit

Reliable inter-city rail that does not get stuck behind a freight train for three hours or have to slow down for at-grade crossings would be a massive upgrade on what we currently have, and would make passenger rail faster than cars.
Nacre no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 08:00 AM   #6965
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231



For sure I don't think you'll find much argument here about upgrading standard Amtrak service to speed up and smooth out trips, after all we're all talking about trains . In fact here in California one of the hypothetical rail projects I'm most exited about is, instead of HSR, potential improvements to the Pacific Surfliner route. Here's a great recent article describing the route's potential with upgrades:



A High-Speed Train From San Diego to L.A. Is Possible Even Without High-Speed Rail

snippet from the article:

Quote:
Phase One of California high-speed rail, between San Francisco and Anaheim, will only open in 2029, and the High-Speed Rail Authority has so far done little work on Phase Two, which includes the line between Los Angeles and San Diego, via the Inland Empire. Since high-speed rail service to San Diego is so far on the horizon, it is worth discussing medium-term improvements, which would take several years instead and upgrade service before high-speed rail arrives.

Examples of these interim improvements already exist. For instance, the Northeast Corridor – the East Coast rail line that runs from Boston to Washington D.C. – has been improved slowly over many decades, is electrified and runs at an average speed of 60 to 80 miles per hour. Some European countries, including Britain, Sweden and Switzerland, have not built high-speed networks but instead upgraded legacy lines. In those countries, upgraded lines average between 70 and 90 miles per hour, supporting multiple trains per hour on the busier lines. San Diego is bigger than any Swedish or Swiss city, and the five-county Los Angeles metro area is bigger than Sweden and Switzerland combined. If domestic trains in Sweden and Switzerland can support one to two trains every hour, fast service between Los Angeles and San Diego should support at a minimum a train every half hour, and potentially much more.

The Los Angeles-San Diego corridor is 128 miles long, and is for the most part straight. Target trip times of two hours should be achievable even with the frequent stops on the Pacific Surfliner. The aspirational trip time is about 1:45 or 1:50, which would be competitive with driving even outside rush hour. The investment required for this ranges from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to the very low billions. This is still slower than the eventual trip time envisioned by Phase Two of the high-speed rail project, currently projected at 1:18, via an indirect route through the Inland Empire.

The way to achieve trip times lower than two hours on legacy track is to combine new federal regulations and strategic investments intended to take advantage of the new rules. In late 2016, the Federal Railroad Administration released new regulations for passenger rail safety, which allow lightly modified European trains to run on U.S. tracks. Previously, unique U.S. rules required trains to be heavier. This follows a regulatory change from 2010 that allows trains to run faster on curves, subject to safety testing. The existing diesel locomotives are too heavy to take advantage of this change, but lighter electric passenger trains face no such obstacle.

This means that the region needs to invest in electrifying the corridor from San Diego to Los Angeles, and potentially as far north as San Luis Obispo. Between San Diego and Los Angeles, the likely cost – based on the California high-speed rail electrification cost – is about $800 million.

So with the very improvements you suggest, plus to be fair a BIG one with electrification of the route, could get the LA-SD Surfliner trip down to 1:45; competitive with even off-peak driving and a service for real commuting as opposed to day tripping (not that there's anything wrong with that!) And it could be done for billions less than high speed rail, and started now!


All that said though, I think you're selling HSR as a transit mode a bit short. I think countries around the world have shown that HSR fills a valuable niche and provides an important piece to the whole mobility pie. From looking at Europe and Asia it seems that experience has shown that HSR is the ideal form of travel for the 200-700 mile trip (car for shorter trips, plane for longer), and California as well as other corridors in the US just happen to fit that sort of trip. Also, and this can't be overlooked, HSR also provides a fast transit option to communities poorly served by air and vehicle otherwise. Sure from LA to SF you can say "why don't I just fly?" but what about Bakersfield and Merced? For those folks it's either a four hour car trip or a prohibitively expensive plane ticket out of a regional airport. HSR by contrast finally offers the smaller overlooked metros the ability to connect with their region as a whole in a fast and economical way, and that's not just an economic good but a social one too.
__________________

Last edited by aquamaroon; November 27th, 2017 at 08:05 AM.
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 08:27 AM   #6966
Smooth Indian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 812
Likes (Received): 241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
I often ride Amtrak Cascades instead of driving on business trips. Yet I don't want HSR. Building more passing loops, signal upgrades and viaducts to get rid of crossing at grade on Amtrak Cascades would cut my transit time in half for a small fraction of the cost to upgrade Amtrak Cascades to HSR.

We could do this entirely with domestic equipment and labor. That may sound nationalistic, but it is simply realistic. It will be a lot easier to get Republican politicians from Idaho to vote for a national rail project if the locomotives are made by MotivePower in Boise.

I think that progressives in the USA have unrealistic expectations of public transport. Look at the situation in the Netherlands, which has better connecting mass transit than we have and one of the highest population densities in the world.

Total Dutch HSR Lines: 1 (to Belgium)

Dutch Transit By Trip: (excluding air travel)
50% automobile
25% bike
20% walking
5% public transit

Reliable inter-city rail that does not get stuck behind a freight train for three hours or have to slow down for at-grade crossings would be a massive upgrade on what we currently have, and would make passenger rail faster than cars.
I am pretty sure everyone worth his/her salt on this thread will support and actively vouch for having better and faster conventional passenger railway. However, in the USA making all these improvements i.e. passing loops, overpasses/underpasses, signaling improvements, electrification is cumbersome given the ownership of the tracks and not very SEXY for the politicians to market to the public. The CAHSR is an attractive proposal and still took decades of planning, marketing and lobbying to get the ball rolling

Of the numbers you provide for percent breakdown of trips in Netherlands how many of the automobile and cycling trips are really very short local trips where public transit is not much of an option?
What are the unrealistic expectation made of public transit in the USA?
__________________

aquamaroon, DanielFA liked this post
Smooth Indian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 11:34 AM   #6967
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,550
Likes (Received): 798

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth Indian View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
I often ride Amtrak Cascades instead of driving on business trips. Yet I don't want HSR. Building more passing loops, signal upgrades and viaducts to get rid of crossing at grade on Amtrak Cascades would cut my transit time in half for a small fraction of the cost to upgrade Amtrak Cascades to HSR.

We could do this entirely with domestic equipment and labor. That may sound nationalistic, but it is simply realistic. It will be a lot easier to get Republican politicians from Idaho to vote for a national rail project if the locomotives are made by MotivePower in Boise.

I think that progressives in the USA have unrealistic expectations of public transport. Look at the situation in the Netherlands, which has better connecting mass transit than we have and one of the highest population densities in the world.

Total Dutch HSR Lines: 1 (to Belgium)

Dutch Transit By Trip: (excluding air travel)
50% automobile
25% bike
20% walking
5% public transit

Reliable inter-city rail that does not get stuck behind a freight train for three hours or have to slow down for at-grade crossings would be a massive upgrade on what we currently have, and would make passenger rail faster than cars.
I am pretty sure everyone worth his/her salt on this thread will support and actively vouch for having better and faster conventional passenger railway. However, in the USA making all these improvements i.e. passing loops, overpasses/underpasses, signaling improvements, electrification is cumbersome given the ownership of the tracks and not very SEXY for the politicians to market to the public. The CAHSR is an attractive proposal and still took decades of planning, marketing and lobbying to get the ball rolling

Of the numbers you provide for percent breakdown of trips in Netherlands how many of the automobile and cycling trips are really very short local trips where public transit is not much of an option?
What are the unrealistic expectation made of public transit in the USA?
Of course, the important caveat is that a lot of the ROW that existing passengers services operate on (at least, in CA) is privately owned/maintained. Freight is hostile to it, at best. Either way one looks at it, we'd have needed all-new, dedicated passenger ROW anyways...

CAHSR is a backbone/trunkline for what is emerging as an actual statewide rail system. That's its purpose. That's why it's being built through the CV...that's why monies are being provided for local projects.

They are planning how to best interface existing rail services with HSR, going forward.



There have been rumors about a major increase in frequencies for MetroLink, but it may just be that. Although, I would not be surprised to continue seeing increased funding for improvement.

Anyways, the state has shown interest in actually using existing infrastructure, if possible (e.g. Caltrain).

We seem to always be in the impossible situation where half call for entirely new infrastructure and the other half insists we should just make do with what exists.

Either or doesn't get us 100% there: Doing a little fo both does. Blending is always an option :P
__________________
MCRP '16
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:27 PM   #6968
Nacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 117
Likes (Received): 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth Indian View Post
Of the numbers you provide for percent breakdown of trips in Netherlands how many of the automobile and cycling trips are really very short local trips where public transit is not much of an option?
That is my point, though. Reduced automobile dependence in Europe is more a product of pedestrianized urban areas rather than high speed rail lines and metro systems.

Note that I am not against public transit, as I use the train wherever practical. But just digging a tunnel through Seattle for high speed rail would cost at least $6 billion USD. Based on California's numbers it would then cost an additional $29 billion to fully replace the Vancouver-Portland line with HSR.

For $1 billion we could implement all of the improvements I suggested to the existing line. (Electrification would be increase that a bit.) I don't really care if the evil railroad companies benefit if it also saves the taxpayers $34 billion.
Nacre no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 08:20 PM   #6969
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

In Europe passenger trains have priority over freight on almost all routes. The opposite is true for Amtrak everywhere except parts of North Eastern corridor. That's a major problem not allowing higher reliability, more trains per hour etc.
__________________

aquamaroon, DanielFA liked this post
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2017, 10:49 PM   #6970
bifhihher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 41
Likes (Received): 20

I think we should try to find a sweet spot. Rail freight is not big in Europe, there is work to do in that area
__________________

aquamaroon liked this post
bifhihher no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:42 AM   #6971
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231

Some California High Speed Rail odds 'n ends:

The video of the November 15th meeting is now on Youtube:



A little bit of a dry civic watch so just the highlights of two specifics: this is the meeting where they awarded the DB contract and they also discuss construction updates. Regarding construction updates, of the 17 major projects listed (source here), 3 are completed and another 7 are online. The completed projects are:

Tuolumne Street Bridge




Fresno River Viaduct




Cottonwood Creek Viaduct


(doesn't look like much but it's still 250 feet long!)


Of the other projects some of the main ones online are the San Joaquin Viaduct and Cedar Viaduct already mentioned, as well as the SR99 realignment and the Fresno Trench & State Route 180 Passageway:





In addition, Construction Packages 2,3 and 4 are well underway in pre-construction activities.

-------------------------------------------

Regarding the funding from the state's Cap-and-Trade program, it looks like the money is finally coming through:

Quote:
California Nets $860M From Carbon Auction

California Nets $860M From Carbon Auction
November 21, 2017 3:52 PM
Filed Under: Abducting Southern California Boys, Auction, Cap-And-Trade, Carbon, Emissions


SACRAMENTO (AP) — California will collect $860 million from auctioning carbon-emissions permits after the allowances sold out at a record price for the second straight quarter, according to state data released Tuesday.

Auction results released by the California Air Resources Board showed that demand remains strong for pollution permits since California lawmakers renewed the state’s cap-and-trade program in July. The program requires polluters to obtain a permit for each ton of greenhouse gases they release. The number of available permits declines each year.

Auction proceeds pay for a variety of environmental, transportation and other projects including high-speed rail and clean-vehicle subsidies.

Permits sold for $15.06 for current emissions, the highest price ever. That’s the nearly $1.50 above the auction floor and up from $14.75 in August. Permits for emissions in 2020 and beyond sold for $14.76 in last week’s auction.

Lawmakers voted in July to reauthorize the cap-and-trade program through 2030. Before that demand for permits plummeted as businesses waited to see if the program would continue.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/...on-california/
(emphasis mine)

So the Cap-and-Trade program, which had seen dismal returns due to market uncertainty, has finally spiked in demand. 25% of the revenue goes to HSR, so that works out to $215 million in the quarter alone. Combined with the $375 million dollars already procured by HSR from the program this year, and you're looking at $590 million for HSR from Cap-and-Trade this year, with millions more to come (if I've double counted please feel free to let me know.) All in all, excellent financial news for CAHSR going forward! (of course, private investment is still going to be required to get this thing over the finish line.)
__________________
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:51 AM   #6972
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231

Quote:
Originally Posted by bifhihher View Post
I think we should try to find a sweet spot. Rail freight is not big in Europe, there is work to do in that area
Yeah good point. I think something American passenger rail supporters fail to appreciate is what a fantastic freight rail system the US has, and how the US is second to none when it comes to rail-shipment efficiency:

US Freight Railroads are the Envy of the World | TIME.com
Quote:
It’s not just that they are self-sufficient and fuel-efficient, employ 175,000 workers and have poured $500 billion into their trains, tracks and terminals since 1980. They are also quite literally the engines of our economy. America’s passenger rail is a global joke, but our freight rail is the envy of the world, carrying over 40% of our intercity cargo. Trains carry much less of Europe’s freight, which is why trucks clog Europe’s highways. And America’s rail-shipping rates are the world’s lowest, reducing the cost of doing business in the U.S.; they’ve fallen 45% in real dollars since the industry was deregulated three decades ago.
(article from 2012 so some things may have changed)

In the US rail is for goods and not people; in Europe it seems to be the reverse. And honestly, from say BNSF's perspective, you can see why they only begrudgingly accept Amtrak when in their view passengers are a sideshow to the "real" purpose of rail.
All that said, again Europe and Asia I think have shown that completely giving up on passenger rail was a mistake, and it's time to invest again. Passenger rail though has to understand that until they have their own dedicated tracks they are second priority to freight.
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 12:19 PM   #6973
P2O5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 105
Likes (Received): 125

The experience in Ireland was that rail freight became woefully uncompetitive for anything but bulk goods (mining products, timber etc.) as the distances goods needed to travel were small (under 250km in almost all cases). If transporting by rail this then meant unloading from ship or truck to a train, travelling to a depot to switch freight to trucks again within 50-250km, and then complete the journey by road - all the while increasing time and monetary costs every time extra freight handling was required. It's much easier to have trucks roll on and roll off ships here, or drive from one side of the island to the other (most journeys no longer than, or substantially under, 4 hours) without switching mode twice.

The situation in mainland Europe is of course much less extreme than that, but this might be an analogue to partly explain the comparatively poor modal share of freight in Europe as nearly everywhere in Europe is near the sea by US standards - geographical determinism perhaps.
__________________

aquamaroon, DanielFA liked this post
P2O5 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:49 PM   #6974
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231

Yep! That's a good/fair point, the issues may be geographical and cultural(i.e. smaller nation states) than anything else. Also, European nations had a nasty habit of going to war with one another throughout the 20th century, and so probably weren't that interested in coordinating on international freight rail routes! (it's why to this day Russia uses a separate track gauge than Western Europe/China; they got attacked by the Germans one too many times)
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 12:28 AM   #6975
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,550
Likes (Received): 798

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post

There have been rumors about a major increase in frequencies for MetroLink, but it may just be that. Although, I would not be surprised to continue seeing increased funding for improvement.

Anyways, the state has shown interest in actually using existing infrastructure, if possible (e.g. Caltrain).
And here it is...

Quote:
Metrolink Plans for Increased Service and Partial Electrification
Regional rail agency plans for growth over the next 10 years.






So what can be done to make Metrolink more useful? The agency – which operates across five Southern California counties - is looking at a modernization program, announced earlier this month in a report entitled Integrated Service and Capital Plan (with Discussion on Electrification). It proposes far-reaching service improvements, including wiring some lines for electric operations, increasing frequency, and coordinating service planning with intercity rail as well as local buses. What Metrolink is seeking mirrors what some of the most forward-thinking foreign regional rail networks have achieved, such as those of Switzerland. And yet, some elements in the plan remain lacking.

...the upcoming state rail plan may have also played a role. The state is [proposing] concrete goals, including a policy for evaluating multimodal lifecycle costs in decision making. This policy heavily favors electrification.
__________________
MCRP '16

aquamaroon, DanielFA liked this post

Last edited by phoenixboi08; November 29th, 2017 at 12:33 AM.
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 12:32 AM   #6976
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231

Thanks for the link! I think the rail advocate mentioned, Clem Tillier, makes a good point: there's perhaps a better than even chance that Metrolink will become the southern counterpart to Caltrain, and an electrified HSR will run to Union Station alongside Electrified Metrolink tracks in a similar HSR/Commuter-Rail relationship.


ETA: for reference, the track that HSR would use would be that Orange trunk line in the center of the map phoenixboi08 posted, the one with stops in Anaheim-Fullerton-Norwalk-LA-Burbank (at that point the HSR would split off to go into its tunnel under SR-14/Angeles National Forest and up to its next stop in Palmdale. And like mentioned, maybe an "Electrolink" line would follow it up to Palmdale as well!)
__________________

mrsmartman, DanielFA liked this post
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2017, 09:16 AM   #6977
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,157
Likes (Received): 274

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunfuns View Post
In Europe passenger trains have priority over freight on almost all routes. The opposite is true for Amtrak everywhere except parts of North Eastern corridor. That's a major problem not allowing higher reliability, more trains per hour etc.
In the Netherlands there are about 5 passenger trains for every freight train and the majority of those freight trains are limited to about 4 corridors of which one is a purpose built freight only line. This may give the false impression that passenger trains always get priority. Track capacity is however divided into slots. Bar a few exceptions, the train using its asigned slot usually gets priority, regardless what kind of train it is. However trains can be asked to give up their slot if that optimises capacity.
__________________
Public transport: Mode of transport that takes to much time to take you from the place you're not currently located, to the place you didn't want to go to, at a time that doesn't really suit you.

DanielFA liked this post
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2017, 12:22 AM   #6978
aquamaroon
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: City of Stars
Posts: 2,026
Likes (Received): 3231



CAHSRA released a 2017 year in review video. Nothing too new but nice to have it in one place! Also slight addendum to my last video post: The Fresno/Cottonwood Creek viaducts aren't 100% completed. Essentially substantial construct is complete and the final "crossing the t's/dotting the i's" work is being done on the structures.


-----------------------------------------------------


To step away from CA HSR for a bit, I wanted to check in on the Big Enchilada of US passenger rail: the Northeast Corridor, NEC. Specifically I had a question on Washington Union Station and its planned renovation. As part of Amtrak's plan to convert the NEC to full HSR by 2040, Union Station has planned upgrades in store:









For those of you who closely follow the NEC, would you happen to know the latest updates on the Union Station Master Plan? Thanks!
__________________

mrsmartman, pai nosso, Tommy Boy, DanielFA liked this post
aquamaroon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2017, 09:53 PM   #6979
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3706

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
That is my point, though. Reduced automobile dependence in Europe is more a product of pedestrianized urban areas rather than high speed rail lines and metro systems.

Note that I am not against public transit, as I use the train wherever practical. But just digging a tunnel through Seattle for high speed rail would cost at least $6 billion USD. Based on California's numbers it would then cost an additional $29 billion to fully replace the Vancouver-Portland line with HSR.

For $1 billion we could implement all of the improvements I suggested to the existing line. (Electrification would be increase that a bit.) I don't really care if the evil railroad companies benefit if it also saves the taxpayers $34 billion.
Good mass transit and railways play a role in reduced auto dependence too.
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2017, 02:08 AM   #6980
dysharmonica
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
That is my point, though. Reduced automobile dependence in Europe is more a product of pedestrianized urban areas rather than high speed rail lines and metro systems.

Note that I am not against public transit, as I use the train wherever practical. But just digging a tunnel through Seattle for high speed rail would cost at least $6 billion USD. Based on California's numbers it would then cost an additional $29 billion to fully replace the Vancouver-Portland line with HSR.

For $1 billion we could implement all of the improvements I suggested to the existing line. (Electrification would be increase that a bit.) I don't really care if the evil railroad companies benefit if it also saves the taxpayers $34 billion.
No freight line owner will allow electrification -- just ask Seattle and their Sounder system.

80% of SoundTransit Link expenses are on building new right of way, because working with the freight line owners is impossible. Yes what you propose sounds nice .. on paper. It will never happen.
__________________

DanielFA liked this post
dysharmonica está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium