Passenger Trains > article: cahsr needs another $100 billion.........

https://reason.com/2024/03/14/californias-high-speed-rail-needs-another-100-billion-thats-a-great-reason-not-to-build-it/

66

The author and the organization (Reason Foundation) will impress me, if they dig deeper and conclude that most of that $100 billion is not to build anything, but to prop up the state of California, for example, launder the money to make sure bond payments don't default. For now, my statement is only a fringe conspiracy theory.

are there any decisions on what route cahsr will take into the l.a. basin and into the bay area?

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> are there any decisions on what route cahsr will
> take into the l.a. basin and into the bay area?
>
> 66

Not that I'm aware of, especially since "official" CA HSR web site has hid the fantasy "construction packages" proposals.

Let's not even go that far. They are proposing a single-track railroad* between Madera and Wasco. It seems they are so desperate to move that money elsewhere that they openly admit this.

* with sidings. :-)

that's interesting.  thanks for that info............

66

They should call it the John Graft Line, lol.

Is graft ever added in to estimates and studies as a line item?
Probably not.  Maybe they should in all future studies... list it
as miscellaneous expense with all the less costly items itemized
below.

$100 billion more.... 

Regardless - looking forward to its completion so that I may one
day be able to share my 3D Nikon Z6 XXIV holograms!

/Mitch

cchan006 Wrote in part:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Let's not even go that far. They are proposing a
> single-track railroad* between Madera and Wasco.
> It seems they are so desperate to move that money
> elsewhere that they openly admit this.
>
> * with sidings. :-)

I beleive they have retracted this asinine proposal. But it doesn't make any difference. The initial segment will draw very little traffic especially if they charge the true cost of the service. So it won't really matter how many tracks and sidings they have.

WP17 

Sidings as in single-track? I would think it would at least be double-track out on the main.

Victor Baird

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's not even go that far. They are proposing a
> single-track railroad* between Madera and Wasco.
> It seems they are so desperate to move that money
> elsewhere that they openly admit this.
>
> * with sidings. :-)

As long as the grading and structures are designed for two tracks, that need not be a failure. It is much more efficient to build to a timetable than to build and fit a timetable to it. That's the problem with figuring 'freight railroad' (oh I hate that term) capacity for a passenger project. The capacity of the line varies daily according to the distribution of traffic.

That need not happen on CAHSR. Figure a clock face headway you want to start with, e.g., 30 minute. Diagram the service. Move one direction up and down through time until meeting points fall in desired places. The meeting points of the northward and southward trains are the centers of the 2d track segments. Now draw a (whatever the Schedule Tolerance, e.g., 10 min) late line on a train in either direction. The point where a 10 minute train meets an on time train either side of the meeting point is the end of the second track, plus the distance needed to clear, get the switch, and get the signal. Turnouts can be, for rxample, No 43 110 mph turnouts. I think there are higher speed turnouts but don't have my book available (Modern Railway Track - Coenraad Esveld). Keeping a 10 minute schedule tolerance should not be too difficult on a railroad the management fully controls (shouldn't be).

Switzerland did something similar when the Lötschberg Base Tunnel became too expensive to completely double track.

Now, the rest of the CAHSR debacle I can't be quite so kind about.

TAW

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goneon66 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > are there any decisions on what route cahsr
> will
> > take into the l.a. basin and into the bay area?
> >
> > 66
>
> Not that I'm aware of, especially since "official"
> CA HSR web site has hid the fantasy "construction
> packages" proposals.
>
> Let's not even go that far. They are proposing a
> single-track railroad* between Madera and Wasco.
> It seems they are so desperate to move that money
> elsewhere that they openly admit this.
>
> * with sidings. :-)

The Merced to Bakersfield section will be constructed with double-tracks and electrified infastructure after the newest round of Federal grant.

Brightline West, I believe, the current plan calls for electrified single-track with station sidings.

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Switzerland did something similar when the
> Lötschberg Base Tunnel became too expensive to
> completely double track.

No doubt it can be done. But if typical acceleration takes 4-5 miles and braking about 2-3 miles to/from 300 km/h (ATC-compliant acceleration and non-emergency braking for Shinkansen train sets). There's a lot of miles wasted running below 300 km/h (186 mph). Unlike inside a tunnel, sidings shouldn't be located arbitrarily based on timing, but should be located based on where station stops should be, populated areas to justify ridership, so that meets have more than one purpose - to actually embark/disembark passengers?

FYI, Shinkansens with multiple powered units accelerate faster than European designs, so the distance wasted below top speed will be MORE, since Japanese (and even Chinese) are totally not involved with CA HSR at the moment.

It's likely the fools who proposed the single track railroad didn't give this much thought. Let's hope the asinine proposal (WP17's words) doesn't come back.
 

will74205 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Merced to Bakersfield section will be
> constructed with double-tracks and electrified
> infastructure after the newest round of Federal
> grant.

Makes it sound like the single track "proposal" was a "scare" to coerce Federal funding? If that was the case, are you OK with that? This "proposal" was definitely discussed here on TO.

> Brightline West, I believe, the current plan calls
> for electrified single-track with station sidings.

We're not talking about Brightline West.

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> are there any decisions on what route cahsr will
> take into the l.a. basin and into the bay area?
>
> 66

CAHSRA preferred route can be seen here:
https://buildhsr.com/map

San Jose to Merced section FEIR already certified.
Bakersfield to Palmdale, Palmdale to Burbank still in DEIR, with a few route alternatives. Burbank to Los Angeles FEIR already certified, and one preferred route selected.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> will74205 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Merced to Bakersfield section will be
> > constructed with double-tracks and electrified
> > infrastructure after the newest round of Federal
> > grant.
>
> Makes it sound like the single track "proposal"
> was a "scare" to coerce Federal funding? If that
> was the case, are you OK with that? This
> "proposal" was definitely discussed here on TO.
>
> > Brightline West, I believe, the current plan
> calls
> > for electrified single-track with station
> sidings.
>
> We're not talking about Brightline West.

Of course building electrified double track infrastructure is preferred from the start to save money on overall cost, but on a passenger only line single track with proper sidings can support trains every 30 minutes.
I am glad they got the money to do double track now, but single track operation will be fine until more tph is needed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/24 16:07 by will74205.

will74205 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cchan006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > will74205 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Merced to Bakersfield section will be
> > > constructed with double-tracks and
> electrified
> > > infrastructure after the newest round of
> Federal
> > > grant.
> >
> > Makes it sound like the single track "proposal"
> > was a "scare" to coerce Federal funding? If
> that
> > was the case, are you OK with that? This
> > "proposal" was definitely discussed here on TO.
> >
> > > Brightline West, I believe, the current plan
> > calls
> > > for electrified single-track with station
> > sidings.
> >
> > We're not talking about Brightline West.
>
> Of course building electrified double track
> infrastructure is preferred from the start to save
> money on overall cost, but on a passenger only
> line single track with proper sidings can support
> trains every 30 minutes.
> I am glad they got the money to do double track
> now, but single track operation will be fine until
> more tph is needed.

That's what UTA Frontrunner did for their line from Ogden to Provo.  There are some longer stretches of doube-track, especially in Salt Lake itself.  But all of the other 'sidings' are stations - the siding in Vineyard eventually became a station - so trains are passing at station stops which minimizes the 'waiting for nothing' appearance to passnegers or outsiders.  The downside is that delays can cascade, and UTA is locked in to 30 min headways minimum right now.  They have to build out more double-track if they want to reduce headways to anything approaching 15 minutes.

Nathan

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Switzerland did something similar when the
> > Lötschberg Base Tunnel became too expensive to
> > completely double track.
>
> No doubt it can be done. But if typical
> acceleration takes 4-5 miles and braking about 2-3
> miles to/from 300 km/h (ATC-compliant acceleration
> and non-emergency braking for Shinkansen train
> sets). There's a lot of miles wasted running below
> 300 km/h (186 mph). Unlike inside a tunnel,
> sidings shouldn't be located arbitrarily based on
> timing, but should be located based on where
> station stops should be, populated areas to
> justify ridership, so that meets have more than
> one purpose - to actually embark/disembark
> passengers?

1. You can't run the railroad you wish you had.
2. You can design a railroad for the traffic you wish to run.
3. You can't build the railroad you wish you had without the funds you wish you had.

The sum of the three wishes is that you can design for the traffic you wish to run limited by the funds you have.

I agree that the optimum is sidings at stations. However, do the station locations and meeting points support the desired service plan? That's particularly unlikely if the service plan is clock face. Thus, there may need to be intermediate meeting points to support the service plan.

That's where nonstop meets on sections of second main track (not sidings) come in.

I found the turnouts I was looking for on another source, saving me a day going through boxes in the storage unit.

SNCF uses a No 65 136 mph turnout. DB uses another design No 50 for the same speed. China and Spain also have 136 mph turnouts in service, but I don't have details.
Sure, schedules need to include 136 mph over turnouts, but that's the railroad you have, not the one you wish you have.


> It's likely the fools who proposed the single
> track railroad didn't give this much thought.
> Let's hope the asinine proposal (WP17's words)
> doesn't come back.
>  

Either that or it is a reality check, in which case, I hope they know how to figure an operating plan for the railroad they've got.

One of the fortunate factors of my design for Amtrak Cascades was single track with double track meets (see wish 3) was that a No  48 turnout has a speed limit of over 110 mph, so neither train slows for the meet. For 186 mph, 136 looks like the best that can be done, so at least one of the trains must be scheduled at that speed through the turnouts (making the plan asymmetrical - easier to schedule both for the turnout speed). Granted that acceleration is slow at high speed, it's the price to pay when the price can't be paid in infrastructure.

TAW

BOONDOGGLE FROM THE BEGINNING!
Nuff said!

Mike

2720 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BOONDOGGLE FROM THE BEGINNING!
> Nuff said!
>
> Mike

I agree, it's been a joke and always will be a joke!

2720 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BOONDOGGLE FROM THE BEGINNING!
> Nuff said!
>


... but not nearly as much of one as the Washington uHSR project. (They call it ultra in order to sound cooler than California, which claims it will operate at the same 220 mph.)

TAW

i think the bummer IN THIS DAY AND AGE is what the voting public might think of the future funding of any public rail transit projects with their tax dollars. 

also, i think cahsr would be more competitive with the airlines between lax-sfo on a route along/near I-5 down the san joaquin valley.........

66