# Vancouver-Portland HSR proposed



## CHamilton (Jan 21, 2015)

High speed train proposed between Portland and Vancouver

Proposed commuter train would at travel at 290 km/h and cost more that $18B



> A group based in Portland is lobbying local governments for a high speed train that would connect the Cascadia region, from Vancouver to Portland.
> 
> 
> The proposed train would take passengers from Greater Vancouver to Seattle in less than an hour, and to Portland in less than two.
> ...


----------



## jis (Jan 21, 2015)

Seems like this is the annual "Let us propose a high speed rail bonanza" time.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 21, 2015)

Is this some of the X-Train to Vegas hustlers trying to suck in investors for another HSR rail venture that will never ride the rails?

PT Barnum was right!


----------



## Anderson (Jan 21, 2015)

While technically "More than $1b" includes "$18-22b", the two numbers carry _far _different connotations.


----------



## afigg (Jan 21, 2015)

jis said:


> Seems like this is the annual "Let us propose a high speed rail bonanza" time.


The start of new legislative sessions in most states and at the federal level would be the main reason for the rush of new transportation project proposals.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 21, 2015)

Also...is it just me or in spite of a date of 2011 on it does that site seem to have stumbled off of Geocities somehow?


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Jan 22, 2015)

British Columbia is on board the Cascadia project.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1772495/is-a-high-speed-rail-between-portland-and-vancouver-on-track/

Nathan Pachel is right in that the region needs accelerated rail in the short term, but I think HSR in the corridor would provide a good long term benefit.
It's also an easy jump to the CA HSR via Eugene, Grants Pass and Redding, providing single-seat through service.


----------



## Paulus (Jan 22, 2015)

Tokkyu40 said:


> It's also an easy jump to the CA HSR via Eugene, Grants Pass and Redding, providing single-seat through service.


----------



## XHRTSP (Jan 22, 2015)

I've ridden between SEA and PDX a few times now, and it seems like it'd be 'easy', ie as easy as these things can be with a whole bunch of money available. But going north, SEA to YVR, how the hell is that going to happen without either a bunch of tunnels and/or tearing through neighborhoods and towns?


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2015)

Tokkyu40 said:


> British Columbia is on board the Cascadia project.
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/1772495/is-a-high-speed-rail-between-portland-and-vancouver-on-track/
> 
> ...


May I ponder a bit about how anyone could reach the conclusion that BC is on board of anything, based on the material presented? How on earth did you reach that profound conclusion? How much money has BC committed to anything?


----------



## SarahZ (Jan 22, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Also...is it just me or in spite of a date of 2011 on it does that site seem to have stumbled off of Geocities somehow?


I say Angelfire.  It also needs some heavy proofreading.

I'm not trying to be mean. I just feel that if an organization wants to be taken seriously, they need to make sure everything is presented professionally (i.e. no typos, no apostrophes for plural words, etc.). My boss rejected two resumes the other day because they contained misspelled words.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 22, 2015)

jis said:


> Seems like this is the annual "Let us propose a high speed rail bonanza" time.


Followed by AU's "Let us mock and ridicule the proposal" time?


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like this is the annual "Let us propose a high speed rail bonanza" time.
> ...


Specially if they worthy of ridicule.  There unfortunately are more such than is ideally desirable. No we should not be looking for perfection. But OTOH, we should be striving for perfect imperfections either.


----------



## 12345 (Jan 23, 2015)

Why not go for 110-125 MPH speeds, electrify the Cascades routing, perhaps adding another track, and use electric motors on the Cascades Service? It'd likely be cheaper than dedicated routing and 180 MPH. I think these people are really trying to go too fast too quickly, especially in a difficult region to build track in. It'd be better to establish a routing with 90-125 before looking at 180+ mph routings.


----------



## jis (Jan 24, 2015)

For 125 mph, why electrify? How many trains per day are we talking about?


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Jan 24, 2015)

12345 said:


> Why not go for 110-125 MPH speeds, electrify the Cascades routing, perhaps adding another track, and use electric motors on the Cascades Service? It'd likely be cheaper than dedicated routing and 180 MPH. I think these people are really trying to go too fast too quickly, especially in a difficult region to build track in. It'd be better to establish a routing with 90-125 before looking at 180+ mph routings.


Why should it be either-or? HSR would be a long project so it would have to start now, but even after it's finished an accelerated DEMU service on the old line would be valuable.

That could be done now and provide early benefits while the HSR project is being developed.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 25, 2015)

Tokkyu40 said:


> 12345 said:
> 
> 
> > Why not go for 110-125 MPH speeds, electrify the Cascades routing, perhaps adding another track, and use electric motors on the Cascades Service? It'd likely be cheaper than dedicated routing and 180 MPH. I think these people are really trying to go too fast too quickly, especially in a difficult region to build track in. It'd be better to establish a routing with 90-125 before looking at 180+ mph routings.
> ...


Also, doesn't electrification allow quicker acceleration (and deceleration as well)?

While we're at it, what _is_ a decent threshold for electrifying a line in terms of service levels? Hourly service? Twice-hourly?


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2015)

As a data point Gene Skorpowski's outfit at AAF Florida have determined that it is not cost effective to electrify the Miami - Orlando infrastructure for hourly service to Orlando and half hourly service to WPB. The former at 125mph and 110mph part of the way, the latter at 80mph.

Yes, you can get better acceleration and given the profile of the Cascade Corridor, if the roughly 15 minutes or so - the possible gain in running time (very optimistically) due to better acceleration will yield that significant an additional revenue stream to justify electrification, then I suppose it should be considered. I don't know what the margin was in the analysis done by AAF, so I have no basis for saying definitely this way or that.

Another argument in favor of electrification in the Cascades is the abundant availability of hydro-electricity. From and environmental point such renewable energy source is desirable. however, how you include that in the cost benefit analysis is always an interesting challenge. Similarly in Florida the abundance of Solar energy should be a consideration considering the the electric utilities are actually setting up Solar facilities. But Solar does require top off capacity to be in place for those stormy days.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 25, 2015)

If I had to guess, at least part of AAF's calculation was down to the fact that you'd effectively have an electric line Orlando-Cocoa-Miami while still having a diesel line Cocoa-Jacksonville, meaning that FEC would be stuck with a mixed fleet in a relatively small system.

Of course, the highly express-focused model of AAF (not to mention the extremely straight RoW) means the trains won't be starting and stopping much vis-a-vis the situation in the Northwest. One other factor was likely actually having to pay for the entire project themselves, too...knocking 2-5 minutes off of trip time simply wouldn't be worth the cost (at $4.8m per route-mile, which seems to be what SCAG came up with, AAF would have to shell out about $1.15bn...which would be a _massive_ increase in the project cost from their perspective.

To be fair, if they were going for electrification I would assume that they'd be looking to go with something faster than 125 MPH Cocoa-Orlando (something in the 150 MPH range would work well), but the time savings just aren't there if the Cocoa-Miami line isn't also improved...and FEC isn't about to dump its freight business.


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2015)

Actually even in the northwest, there really are not that many stops. on an average there is a stop every 30 miles or so. What is more interesting is the gradient profile where electric shines because of the ability to reuse regenerated energy across the entire network, not just locally in the locomotive where it is generated. Remember Amtrak's claim that the ACS 64s would be paid for in saved energy costs in some relatively few years due to their ability to do regenerative braking down to something like 5 or 7mph?


----------



## Anderson (Jan 25, 2015)

jis said:


> Actually even in the northwest, there really are not that many stops. on an average there is a stop every 30 miles or so. What is more interesting is the gradient profile where electric shines because of the ability to reuse regenerated energy across the entire network, not just locally in the locomotive where it is generated. Remember Amtrak's claim that the ACS 64s would be paid for in saved energy costs in some relatively few years due to their ability to do regenerative braking down to something like 5 or 7mph?


I had forgotten that little detail, actually. Quite interesting...though that's another case where Florida doesn't shine compared to the Northwest (since Florida is...well, flat).


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2015)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Actually even in the northwest, there really are not that many stops. on an average there is a stop every 30 miles or so. What is more interesting is the gradient profile where electric shines because of the ability to reuse regenerated energy across the entire network, not just locally in the locomotive where it is generated. Remember Amtrak's claim that the ACS 64s would be paid for in saved energy costs in some relatively few years due to their ability to do regenerative braking down to something like 5 or 7mph?
> ...


But Amtrak's claim was on the NEC which isn't exactly mountainous. But one of the banes of NEC is the inability to run a train at some constant speed for any reasonable distance. There are numerous speed restrictions all over the place which means trains have to brake and then speed up again as quickly as possible. Which is where electrics shine again. AAF would have a similar situation between Miami and Cocoa, but not so much from Cocoa to Orlando.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 25, 2015)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I thought that it would mostly be MIA-WPB? From WPB onwards I've been under the impression that service would be pretty close to 110 MPH most of the way.

Also as another thought...stops on the Cascades lines may only be every 30 miles or so, but at the moment on AAF you're looking at a gap of over 150 miles WPB-Orlando (and technically an average distance between stops of 80 miles...though again, the distances are more like 40-40-160 or something like that). Granted, AAF will likely add some stops over time, but not even the most express Acela has that few stops.


----------



## Paulus (Jan 26, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Also, doesn't electrification allow quicker acceleration (and deceleration as well)?
> 
> While we're at it, what _is_ a decent threshold for electrifying a line in terms of service levels? Hourly service? Twice-hourly?


Depends on who pays for the capital costs. The maintenance costs are paid for with just a few frequencies a day, but the lowered fuel and train maintenance expenses never really end up paying for the cost of installing the overhead and new locomotives/train sets. Higher passenger ridership and revenue might, but that's going to be route dependent.


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2015)

Anderson said:


> I thought that it would mostly be MIA-WPB? From WPB onwards I've been under the impression that service would be pretty close to 110 MPH most of the way.
> 
> Also as another thought...stops on the Cascades lines may only be every 30 miles or so, but at the moment on AAF you're looking at a gap of over 150 miles WPB-Orlando (and technically an average distance between stops of 80 miles...though again, the distances are more like 40-40-160 or something like that). Granted, AAF will likely add some stops over time, but not even the most express Acela has that few stops.


There are long stretched of 90mph or less through areas like Melbourne, Rockledge etc. Lots and lots of pesky little curves, and in places a grade crossing every 200 yards and such.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 26, 2015)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that it would mostly be MIA-WPB? From WPB onwards I've been under the impression that service would be pretty close to 110 MPH most of the way.
> ...


Ok, remind me...what are the rules regarding grade crossings and top speeds? I know that AAF is closing a bunch of crossings, but I thought there was a way that you could have a grade crossing in 110-125 MPH territory?


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2015)

Grade crossing is not as much an issue as curves. You cannot have any practically manageable grade crossing above 110mph. It requires solid barriers like you see at the entrances to embassies and secure areas of airports. This has been discussed elsewhere on AU. Trust me no one will ever go through the trouble of managing such an unwieldy piece of thing. I don't think AAF will run at 125 mph anywhere on the classic FEC in the foreseeable future, and they have never expressed any intention to do so. They are more focused on end to end times than max speed anyway.

They actually will be very hard pressed to shut down any significant crossings in Melbourne/Palm Bay/Rockledge area. Mostly there are on semi-important roads. I don't think they will. At least their EIS does not say they will close down any of the significant crossings. They talk about upgrading them to eliminate whistle blowing and also committed to carry a significant part of the cost of doing so at least to Brevard County in exchange for getting the vote of the Commissioners on the bond issue rule change.

BTW, perhaps we should move some of this Florida stuff to the FEC thread. This has nothing to do with Pacific Northwest.


----------



## Bus Nut (Mar 27, 2015)

BC is on board with HSR if someone else is paying for it.

BC could do a lot to improve speeds on their conventional rail on the Canadian side. They haven't, but they ought to because it would be good for the region. I for one have made a couple of trips to Vancouver that never would have happened without an Amtrak link. Just wouldn't have happened. I brought friends, too.


----------



## neroden (Apr 12, 2015)

jis said:


> Grade crossing is not as much an issue as curves. You cannot have any practically manageable grade crossing above 110mph. It requires solid barriers like you see at the entrances to embassies and secure areas of airports. This has been discussed elsewhere on AU. Trust me no one will ever go through the trouble of managing such an unwieldy piece of thing.


Actually, I expect some rail owners will, but only for specialized private-crossing access -- where the private crossing is required by law for coastal property access, and where it's not remotely worth building a bridge due to low usage. Such crossings will stay closed 99% of the time and open only on advance notice, a bit like drawbridge raises.


----------



## neroden (Apr 12, 2015)

Bus Nut said:


> BC is on board with HSR if someone else is paying for it.
> 
> BC could do a lot to improve speeds on their conventional rail on the Canadian side. They haven't, but they ought to because it would be good for the region. I for one have made a couple of trips to Vancouver that never would have happened without an Amtrak link. Just wouldn't have happened. I brought friends, too.


The biggest single improvement possible on the Vancouver BC - Seattle route is a bypass of White Rock (along highway 99), but neither Canada nor BC nor the localities has lifted a finger.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 12, 2015)

neroden said:


> The biggest single improvement possible on the Vancouver BC - Seattle route is a bypass of White Rock (along highway 99), but neither Canada nor BC nor the localities has lifted a finger.


Actually, it was reported at yesterday's All Aboard Washington meeting that the Canadians are proceeding with a study of just such a bypass. Of course, it's a long way between a study and changes actually happening.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 15, 2015)

I find it interesting that the Southern end of this federally- designated HighSpeed Rail Corridor [Eugene-Portland] has been left out of the proposal. Sort of meshes with what the state government thinks about service south of Portland, and their proposal to fund it a lower level than in previous years.


----------



## jis (Apr 15, 2015)

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Grade crossing is not as much an issue as curves. You cannot have any practically manageable grade crossing above 110mph. It requires solid barriers like you see at the entrances to embassies and secure areas of airports. This has been discussed elsewhere on AU. Trust me no one will ever go through the trouble of managing such an unwieldy piece of thing.
> ...


That's possible I suppose, but I will believe it when I see one actually come into being.

Incidentally the rules for drawbridges on the NEC between Guildford CT and New London CT is that the bridges remain open for boat traffic and they are closed only when a train is approaching. Rich boat owners have amazing amount of political clout in Connecticut. Similar rules also apply to the drawbridges on the North Jersey Coast Line, specially the lower end of it, of NJ Transit in NJ.


----------



## neroden (Sep 1, 2015)

CHamilton said:


> Actually, it was reported at yesterday's All Aboard Washington meeting that the Canadians are proceeding with a study of just such a bypass. Of course, it's a long way between a study and changes actually happening.


Late followup, but which levels of government are funding the study?

We might see some followthrough at the federal level if Mulcair wins the election (Harper has had very consistently anti-passenger-rail policies, so anyone else would be an improvement).

British Columbia won't have elections until 2017; it is basically contested between the provincial Liberals and the provincial NDP. The Liberals were responsible for the BC Rail selloff-to-cronies scandal, after promising not to sell it off, so they're completely untrustworthy on rail. The NDP didn't do much for passenger rail when they were in power either, though I think that's better than getting involved in a major criminal corruption scandal.


----------



## neroden (Sep 1, 2015)

jis said:


> That's possible I suppose, but I will believe it when I see one actually come into being.


"Locked & gated" crossings, opened only on special occasions (maybe one or two times a year) by prior arrangement, are more common than one might think. I can probably find some on HSR lines in other countries...


----------

