California HSR

[George Harris]

CAHSR has released a shortlist of qualified builders. In short, Alstom and Siemens... Anyone surprised?

https://hsr.ca.gov/2024/01/05/news-...-electrified-high-speed-trains-in-california/

By now when I hear "world class" I tend to break out with an allergic reaction. It usually means taking THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE IN WESTERN EUROPE, THEREFORE IT IS THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE DONE EVERYWHERE without thought or analysis. I do have absolute faith in the ability of the CAHSR agency to mess up everything it touches. I think I am now old enough and far enough removed from the project, along with others involved in some of these issues to now being able to state the following: We, being old heads with experience on at least one other HSR system, had a few primary recommendations: Alignment: Make the alignment as straight as practical horizontally using larger than minimum radius curves both horizontally and vertically and do not be concerned about any grades being less than 4.0%, but try for 3.5% or less. Steeper is better if it leads to shorter. Use continuous viaducts to the greatest extent practical, particularly down the central valley. (Eliminates almost all road crossing, drainage, trespassing, and access headaches.) Track: Use a not-ballasted track form throughout. Consider the Japanese concept where the track is on precast concrete slab segments with final alignment based on a leveling course inserted under the slab. Use 141RE or 136RE rail. Better internal stress distribution than any other section in the world. Vehicles: Use single level, preferably Shinkansen outline and technology to the greatest extent practical. Best aerodynamic of all available. Single level means easier boarding / deboarding and less vehicle weight per seat, wide section make 3+2 standard and 2+2 premium wide enough seating and aisles. Lower cross section means lower center of gravity means more stability in seismic events. Clearances: Oversize, how much TBD, lower aerodynamic resistance, hence lower energy consumption and heat rise. Best I can tell, we are batting zero for four, but then we were a few old heads that did not have French or German accents.

 

[Tlcooper44]

By now when I hear "world class" I tend to break out with an allergic reaction. It usually means taking THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE IN WESTERN EUROPE, THEREFORE IT IS THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE DONE EVERYWHERE without thought or analysis. I do have absolute faith in the ability of the CAHSR agency to mess up everything it touches. I think I am now old enough and far enough removed from the project, along with others involved in some of these issues to now being able to state the following: We, being old heads with experience on at least one other HSR system, had a few primary recommendations: Alignment: Make the alignment as straight as practical horizontally using larger than minimum radius curves both horizontally and vertically and do not be concerned about any grades being less than 4.0%, but try for 3.5% or less. Steeper is better if it leads to shorter. Use continuous viaducts to the greatest extent practical, particularly down the central valley. (Eliminates almost all road crossing, drainage, trespassing, and access headaches.) Track: Use a not-ballasted track form throughout. Consider the Japanese concept where the track is on precast concrete slab segments with final alignment based on a leveling course inserted under the slab. Use 141RE or 136RE rail. Better internal stress distribution than any other section in the world. Vehicles: Use single level, preferably Shinkansen outline and technology to the greatest extent practical. Best aerodynamic of all available. Single level means easier boarding / deboarding and less vehicle weight per seat, wide section make 3+2 standard and 2+2 premium wide enough seating and aisles. Lower cross section means lower center of gravity means more stability in seismic events. Clearances: Oversize, how much TBD, lower aerodynamic resistance, hence lower energy consumption and heat rise. Best I can tell, we are batting zero for four, but then we were a few old heads that did not have French or German accents.

Thanks for sharing this - I just experienced the Shinkansen, and I’ve ridden most European HSR systems. There’s no comparison.

I know more about trains and transit than anyone in my family or friend circle, so they often come to me with questions about things. CAHSR is famous for being bad, but I often struggle to articulate effectively why it’s so bad beyond the usual pop-transit reasons.

You have people like Alan Fisher saying that it’s actually good - we should spending way more money on it and get it done. A good thought in principle, but still feels like an incomplete analysis.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

What if.... the first step had been to build the passenger right of way from Bakersfield to Palmdale to Burbank Airport. Build it to HSR standards but for step 1 - just get amtrak on it going 90. Great. NOW work on the dedicated HSR for the rest of the route.

 

[Anderson]

What if.... the first step had been to build the passenger right of way from Bakersfield to Palmdale to Burbank Airport. Build it to HSR standards but for step 1 - just get amtrak on it going 90. Great. NOW work on the dedicated HSR for the rest of the route.

I think a few of us have been muttering this for a *long* time.

 

[George Harris]

Thanks for sharing this - I just experienced the Shinkansen, and I’ve ridden most European HSR systems. There’s no comparison.

I know more about trains and transit than anyone in my family or friend circle, so they often come to me with questions about things. CAHSR is famous for being bad, but I often struggle to articulate effectively why it’s so bad beyond the usual pop-transit reasons.

You have people like Alan Fisher saying that it’s actually good - we should spending way more money on it and get it done. A good thought in principle, but still feels like an incomplete analysis.

I trust that the "no comparison" meant that the Shinkansen was significantly better.
As to CAHSR, the concept is great. Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of the details in the implementation leave much to be desired. See what I wrote earlier on that. The real need is there. But, the implementation is a poster child of how things tend to get done California government style. As said earlier, many of the things being done make me want to scream and beat my head against a wall. We should get it done, and the quicker the better. As to spending more money on it: That is a California reality.

What if.... the first step had been to build the passenger right of way from Bakersfield to Palmdale to Burbank Airport. Build it to HSR standards but for step 1 - just get amtrak on it going 90. Great. NOW work on the dedicated HSR for the rest of the route.

There was a push by some earlier to make that happen, but it died a fairly quick death. There were several reasons for this: First, many thought they could get the geographically easier portion down the valley into construction quicker. Second, in the real world, if there is such a thing in California, this would be the most expensive section per mile to construct. Third, there were those that could not be convinced that you could build a railroad designed for 220 mph that could reasonably be operated at half that speed, plus that diesel powered trains could not handle the 3.5% grades that would likely be there. Fourth, as part of three, there were people that wanted to "simplify" the system by reducing the design speed to something like 110 mph max. This last resulted in many that wanted this to be first shutting up on the basis that later was better than never, as once the line was built for the lower speed, upgrading for the higher speed would certainly require major realignments.

One of the nice things about railroads, is that it is relatively easy to change superelevations with changes in design speeds, so long as increasing superelevation does not result in spirals that are too short. (The spiral issue is a major consideration in increasing curve speeds in the Northeast Corridor that most people don't think about.) Therefore, the segment could have been built with all alignment components designed for 220 mph, except superelevation in curves which could be made to be comfortable for 110 mph or less. The Caltrain trainsets of 4 to 5 cars per engine could easily go up a 3.5% or even 4.0% grade.

 

[Anderson]

I trust that the "no comparison" meant that the Shinkansen was significantly better.
As to CAHSR, the concept is great. Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of the details in the implementation leave much to be desired. See what I wrote earlier on that. The real need is there. But, the implementation is a poster child of how things tend to get done California government style. As said earlier, many of the things being done make me want to scream and beat my head against a wall. We should get it done, and the quicker the better. As to spending more money on it: That is a California reality.

There was a push by some earlier to make that happen, but it died a fairly quick death. There were several reasons for this: First, many thought they could get the geographically easier portion down the valley into construction quicker. Second, in the real world, if there is such a thing in California, this would be the most expensive section per mile to construct. Third, there were those that could not be convinced that you could build a railroad designed for 220 mph that could reasonably be operated at half that speed, plus that diesel powered trains could not handle the 3.5% grades that would likely be there. Fourth, as part of three, there were people that wanted to "simplify" the system by reducing the design speed to something like 110 mph max. This last resulted in many that wanted this to be first shutting up on the basis that later was better than never, as once the line was built for the lower speed, upgrading for the higher speed would certainly require major realignments.

One of the nice things about railroads, is that it is relatively easy to change superelevations with changes in design speeds, so long as increasing superelevation does not result in spirals that are too short. (The spiral issue is a major consideration in increasing curve speeds in the Northeast Corridor that most people don't think about.) Therefore, the segment could have been built with all alignment components designed for 220 mph, except superelevation in curves which could be made to be comfortable for 110 mph or less. The Caltrain trainsets of 4 to 5 cars per engine could easily go up a 3.5% or even 4.0% grade.

I mean, if electric locos couldn't handle it and no dual-mode sets were on offer, would having to "pop the toasters" at Bakersfield have been the end of the world if you needed electric power on the run? [Also, with something like the ACS-64s, you'd be to 125 LAX-BFD.]

 

[daybeers]

One of the nice things about railroads, is that it is relatively easy to change superelevations with changes in design speeds, so long as increasing superelevation does not result in spirals that are too short. (The spiral issue is a major consideration in increasing curve speeds in the Northeast Corridor that most people don't think about.)

What do you mean about spirals?

 

[cirdan]

What do you mean about spirals?

I understood it to mean the transitional section between superelevation and flat track.

 

[frequentflyer]

I remember talk from the beginning of using the Shinkansen trainsets and technology on the CAHSR. What changed?

 

[GDRRiley]

What if.... the first step had been to build the passenger right of way from Bakersfield to Palmdale to Burbank Airport. Build it to HSR standards but for step 1 - just get amtrak on it going 90. Great. NOW work on the dedicated HSR for the rest of the route.

it would have just been from Bakersfield to Palmdale as Palmdale to LA is already owned by LA metro and with some work can get much faster.
BNSF was willing to let the state run at 90mph but the state decided to not fund the upgrades needed as it was part of a larger goal to try and get running times under 5.5 hours so a crew could make a round trip in 1 shift.
The other baby step that failed was the upgrading in the coast line during the mid 90s when prop 156 in 92 and 181 in 84 were rejected by voters which would have resulted in over 500m available for upgrades between LA-SF

I remember talk from the beginning of using the Shinkansen trainsets and technology on the CAHSR. What changed?

Those train sets meet 0 crash safety standards in the US so they could be used but only on a completely separated right of way. so no blended running

 

[crescent-zephyr]

it would have just been from Bakersfield to Palmdale as Palmdale to LA is already owned by LA metro and with some work can get much faster.

ahhh that makes it even worse!!! So what really needed to happen was the state needed to fund a right of way from Palmdale to Bakersfield, build it to high speed standards and then just rent out slots to whoever gets there first. Amtrak, BNSF, Metroline, whoever!

 

[Anderson]

What do you mean about spirals?

Curve radii dictates maximum.speed. you can mitigate a little bit with superelevation, but the radius is largely destiny.

 

[cirdan]

Those train sets meet 0 crash safety standards in the US so they could be used but only on a completely separated right of way. so no blended running

Sure, but isn't the same true of German and French high speed trains? Which is why Acela Express and Avelia Liberty are quite different from the platforms own which they are based.

As for beaded running, is it not the goal that when the line is complete it will be a dedicated corridor end to end? Blended running will thus be a temporary thing for the intermediate steps.

 

[Tlcooper44]

Sure, but isn't the same true of German and French high speed trains? Which is why Acela Express and Avelia Liberty are quite different from the platforms own which they are based.

As for beaded running, is it not the goal that when the line is complete it will be a dedicated corridor end to end? Blended running will thus be a temporary thing for the intermediate steps.

As far as a I know, a Japanese HST set has never been adapted to American standards, where as a French train has.

As German train (aside from the Acela test trains in the 90s) has not, but Seimens has such a massive presence in the US, especially California, that it makes sense to include them - plus they’re building HrST sets for Amtrak.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

As for beaded running, is it not the goal that when the line is complete it will be a dedicated corridor end to end? Blended running will thus be a temporary thing for the intermediate steps.

Won't the Caltrain corridor up the peninsula to SF permanently be blended running (i.e. non-HSR sharing ROW with commuter)?

 

[cirdan]

Won't the Caltrain corridor up the peninsula to SF permanently be blended running (i.e. non-HSR sharing ROW with commuter)?

Yes, I understand this is the plan. However if I understand correctly there is no freight sharing on that corridor , meaning the commuter service could be conceived to be part of the HSR concept, adopting the same signaling system, safety provisions etc. the commuter service would thus sit firmly on the HSR side of the fence from the permitting perspective, even if it is not itself an HSR service .

 

[joelkfla]

Yes, I understand this is the plan. However if I understand correctly there is no freight sharing on that corridor , meaning the commuter service could be conceived to be part of the HSR concept, adopting the same signaling system, safety provisions etc. the commuter service would thus sit firmly on the HSR side of the fence from the permitting perspective, even if it is not itself an HSR service .

There is freight traffic on the peninsula. I believe it operates primarily at night.

To wit:
"There has been passenger rail service on the corridor for more than 150 years. Caltrain currently operates passenger rail and shares the tracks with freight trains operated by Union Pacific Railroad. Caltrain owns most of the corridor. Freight trains deliver and receive shipments at the Port of San Francisco. In the future, California High Speed Rail will also share these tracks."

SOUTHEAST RAIL STATION STUDY Final Report - 2022

 

[GDRRiley]

Sure, but isn't the same true of German and French high speed trains? Which is why Acela Express and Avelia Liberty are quite different from the platforms own which they are based.

No the FRA crash standards allow eruo spec trains with some minor changes as FRA T3. T3 are allowed to run with conventional (T1), conventional alternative (euro mainline spec T1alt), or T2 (Acela Express) at upto 125mph with the NEC having a waver for 160mph
The American Pionner 220 has some minor changes comapred to its euro version but its mostly the euro edition. there are some documents in the BLW thread going back and forth between the FRA and brightline on what needed to change.

As for beaded running, is it not the goal that when the line is complete it will be a dedicated corridor end to end? Blended running will thus be a temporary thing for the intermediate steps.

No the plan is the system will always be blended between Gilory and SF and LAU to Irvine

Yes, I understand this is the plan. However if I understand correctly there is no freight sharing on that corridor , meaning the commuter service could be conceived to be part of the HSR concept, adopting the same signaling system, safety provisions etc. the commuter service would thus sit firmly on the HSR side of the fence from the permitting perspective, even if it is not itself an HSR service .

there is freight and its not leaving. UP has tired to get a short line to run it but no one wants it

 

[user 1215]

I wish Metrolink would go up to Tehachapi...

 

[GDRRiley]

I wish Metrolink would go up to Tehachapi...

There has been talk of reaching Mojave but then the line leaves LA county so then Kern and or the city would need to fund operations

 

[GDRRiley]

there is freight and its not leaving. UP has tired to get a short line to run it but no one wants it

I also somehow forgot that LA-Anaheim/Irvine will be shared with freight including the LA-Fullerton section of the BNSF southern transcon

 

[user 1215]

There has been talk of reaching Mojave but then the line leaves LA county so then Kern and or the city would need to fund operations

I also believe the extremely busy transcon joins the track…

 

[JamesWhitcombRiley]

What do you mean about spirals?

Spirals are explained on the web. It's the shape of highway exit loop ramps. They're shaped a bit like horseshoes, not arcs of circles, which would be a hard turn at the beginning and the end.

I thought maybe George Harris was talking about S-curves, tilting both ways on a long train. So, good to know.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Since this is the newest and most up to date thread on the subject, (I think anyways.... ) I'm going to post this here since manufacturers and rolling stock and interiors (iirc) were posted upthread.

Interior renderings of CA Bullet Train....

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/high-speed-rail-train-18615271.php

 

[west point]

What is going to be very important is the loading gauge of these trains. Is CA HSR go with Amtrak's MAX gauge or maybe wider and taller than present Superliners and new Western trains yet to be specified? It could be that the cars might have the exit vestibules are at present widths. Then the outside could be wider about 2 - 4 inches above the vestibule widths giving much wider inside allowing seat being wider? All this will depend on clearances on Caltrain, transit center in downtown San Fran, Sab Jose, and LAX Union Station which will be getting a rebuild shortly.