# Brightline West!



## Brian_tampa

https://t.co/sDen1BjRNX

Brightline will be the new owner of Xpresswest it has been reported by the WSJ. From the article:

_A Florida company has agreed to acquire the operator of a planned high-speed rail system connecting Las Vegas and Southern California, in a deal that may breathe new life into the long-delayed project._

_Brightline Trains LLC, based in Miami, Fla., was expected to announce Tuesday that it had agreed to acquire XpressWest, a private rail project developed and owned by famed Las Vegas Strip contractor Tony Marnell._

_Financial details weren’t disclosed._

_“The introduction of high-speed rail between Las Vegas to Southern California will bring significant economic and environmental benefits to our state and support increased tourism,” said Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval._

_Brian Annis, secretary of the California State Transportation Agency, added: “California has a vision for a modernized rail network that is fast, clean and convenient for travelers, and the introduction of Brightline service linking Southern California to Las Vegas will help us achieve that vision.”_

I wonder how much influence the new Japanese owners had in this deal? Lots of questions at this time.

EDIT: More info from Palm Beach Post:

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/brightline-buys-private-rail-line-connecting-los-angeles-and-las-vegas/kXeHo7yhMBOVWe5OFeNRFI/

_“Brightline is changing transportation in our country by connecting heavily trafficked corridors that are too long to drive and too short to fly,” said Wes Edens, the billionaire co-founder and co-chief executive of Fortress Investment Group, which owns Brightline. “Our experience in Florida is proving that private-sector investment has a meaningful role to play in developing transportation infrastructure. We're excited to bring Brightline's world-class and convenient travel experience to Southern California and Las Vegas.”_

_Brightline said its plans include buying 38 acres of land adjacent to the Las Vegas strip for construction of a train station and mixed-used development._

Plans for more TOD in Las Vegas. What will they do at the other end? Keep it in Victorville or extend it further to be closer to LA?


----------



## cpotisch

Brian_tampa said:


> https://t.co/sDen1BjRNX
> 
> Brightline will be the new owner of Xpresswest it has been reported by the WSJ. From the article:
> 
> _A Florida company has agreed to acquire the operator of a planned high-speed rail system connecting Las Vegas and Southern California, in a deal that may breathe new life into the long-delayed project._
> 
> _Brightline Trains LLC, based in Miami, Fla., was expected to announce Tuesday that it had agreed to acquire XpressWest, a private rail project developed and owned by famed Las Vegas Strip contractor Tony Marnell._
> 
> _Financial details weren’t disclosed._
> 
> _“The introduction of high-speed rail between Las Vegas to Southern California will bring significant economic and environmental benefits to our state and support increased tourism,” said Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval._
> 
> _Brian Annis, secretary of the California State Transportation Agency, added: “California has a vision for a modernized rail network that is fast, clean and convenient for travelers, and the introduction of Brightline service linking Southern California to Las Vegas will help us achieve that vision.”_
> 
> I wonder how much influence the new Japanese owners had in this deal? Lots of questions at this time.
> 
> EDIT: More info from Palm Beach Post:
> 
> https://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/brightline-buys-private-rail-line-connecting-los-angeles-and-las-vegas/kXeHo7yhMBOVWe5OFeNRFI/
> 
> _“Brightline is changing transportation in our country by connecting heavily trafficked corridors that are too long to drive and too short to fly,” said Wes Edens, the billionaire co-founder and co-chief executive of Fortress Investment Group, which owns Brightline. “Our experience in Florida is proving that private-sector investment has a meaningful role to play in developing transportation infrastructure. We're excited to bring Brightline's world-class and convenient travel experience to Southern California and Las Vegas.”_
> 
> _Brightline said its plans include buying 38 acres of land adjacent to the Las Vegas strip for construction of a train station and mixed-used development._
> 
> Plans for more TOD in Las Vegas. What will they do at the other end? Keep it in Victorville or extend it further to be closer to LA?


So now Brightline is in charge of bringing rail service back to Las Vegas? I get the feeling that we might end up with a network of Brightline routes all over the country. I know it's really early, but considering their success in Florida, I wouldn't be too surprised if they eventually become the second Class I passenger railroad in the U.S...


----------



## Brian_tampa

Brightline Press Release regarding Xpresswest purchase:

Brightline to Build Express Intercity Passenger Rail Connecting Southern California and Las Vegas
MIAMI – Sept. 18, 2018 –

HIGHLIGHTS:

* Brightline agrees to acquire XpressWest, a high-speed rail project with rights to develop a federally approved corridor connecting Southern California and Las Vegas
* Brightline will acquire 38 acres of land adjacent to the Las Vegas strip for the construction of a station and mixed-use development
* Brightline currently operates passenger rail service in Florida between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, and is expanding to Orlando, with plans to further expand into Tampa
* This project will be Brightline's first corridor outside Florida and the second privately funded express intercity passenger service in the nation

Today Brightline, the nation's only privately owned, operated and maintained express intercity passenger rail system, announced its expansion to the West Coast with the acquisition of XpressWest, a high-speed passenger rail project with rights to develop a federally approved corridor connecting Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada. This project would be only the second privately funded express intercity passenger rail in the United States, following Brightline's Florida rail corridor.

“Brightline is changing transportation in our country by connecting heavily trafficked corridors that are too long to drive and too short to fly,” said Wes Edens, co-founder and co-chief executive officer of Fortress Investment Group. “Our experience in Florida is proving that private-sector investment has a meaningful role to play in developing transportation infrastructure. We're excited to bring Brightline's world-class and convenient travel experience to Southern California and Las Vegas.”

“The introduction of high-speed rail between Las Vegas to Southern California will bring significant economic and environmental benefits to our state and support increased tourism,” said Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval. “Brightline has built a proven model for privately funded high-speed rail service in Florida and we are excited to welcome them to Nevada.”

Brightline will link one of the most traveled routes in the country, connecting more than 22 million people living in Southern California with Las Vegas, one of the most visited cities in the U.S. According to ridership studies, travelers make more than 50 million annual trips between Las Vegas and Southern California. Today those travelers are limited to traveling by air or car, and Brightline expects to offer a convenient alternative that will make the trip in less than two hours.

As a result of the XpressWest acquisition, Brightline will take over the development, construction and operation of the project and work with federal and local transportation officials to connect Las Vegas with Victorville, California, *with future plans to expand into the Los Angeles area*.

The first phase of the corridor is expected to be built on a right of way within and adjacent to Interstate 15, traversing 185 miles with no at-grade or pedestrian crossings. Construction is expected to begin next year and Brightline is planning to begin initial service in 2022.

“Brightline's model is setting a new standard for train travel in America,” said Patrick Goddard, president of Brightline. “Today's announcement is an important milestone for our company as we reimagine transportation between these major metropolitan areas. We look forward to working with the region's stakeholders to make this vision a reality.”

“The XpressWest team has done an incredible job bringing this project together and we're confident that Brightline will fulfill our mission and promise to the region,” said Tony Marnell, founder and chief executive officer of Marnell Companies. “We've been impressed with what Brightline has accomplished in Florida and are excited to be part of the team that is working to deliver privately funded high-speed rail to improve mobility in America.”

The planned Las Vegas Station is expected to be located within the resort corridor and will be a major intermodal hub with access to taxis, buses, shuttles, and limousines. As part of the project, Brightline is acquiring approximately 38 acres of land adjacent to the Las Vegas strip for construction of the station and mixed-used development.

The first planned Southern California station is expected to be located in Victorville within a 30- to 45-minute drive of the approximately four to five million people who live in the Inland Empire and eastern Los Angeles County, and within close proximity to Southern California's remaining 17 to 18 million residents. Planning for additional stations and connectivity to California Metrolink and eventually California High-Speed Rail is underway.

“California has a vision for a modernized rail network that is fast, clean, and convenient for travelers, and the introduction of Brightline service linking Southern California to Las Vegas will help us achieve that vision” said California State Transportation Agency Secretary Brian Annis. “Brightline will be beneficial for our economy and our transportation system.”

Similar to Brightline's operations in Florida, the corridor between Southern California and Las Vegas is expected to generate major regional economic benefits, including construction and permanent job opportunities and local and state tax revenue.

In addition to Brightline's Florida development and operations and its anticipated development and operations between Las Vegas and Southern California announced today, Brightline continues to explore intercity rail opportunities across North America.

Edit: added bold text for the future extension to the LA area. How much will that cost and how long?


----------



## VentureForth

No no no no no.... I see this as a total death knoll to FECI - though if anyone is capitalized enough to make it happen, it'd be the Fortress Group.

The whole reason Brightline is supposed to work is because it will bring tremendous real estate revenue to properties already owned by FECI, offsetting the cost of operating and building Brightline.

Businesses that expand way too fast fold faster. They can talk all they want about desiring to expand, but spending a LOT of money where there is no revenue in the foreseeable future is crazy.

They're loudly talking about expansion to Tampa before even getting Orland built, talking about the Texas HSR, talking about Jacksonville, and now talking about Vegas to LA? FECI has NO current real estate interest in ANY of these areas to provide a loss-leading rail service. They can't even cover salaries with what's generating revenue yet. I don't doubt they will improve, but there is WAY too much talk about expansion before they can get their core business fully off the ground. For crying out loud, they've only been in service for 9 months!


----------



## cirdan

VentureForth said:


> No no no no no.... I see this as a total death knoll to FECI - though if anyone is capitalized enough to make it happen, it'd be the Fortress Group.
> 
> The whole reason Brightline is supposed to work is because it will bring tremendous real estate revenue to properties already owned by FECI, offsetting the cost of operating and building Brightline.


Do you know for a fact that the Fortress Group doesn't have real estate in Vegas?

And maybe even if they don't, maybe they have struck a deal with those who do have real estate to receive payment in return for leveraging their assets.

I'm pretty confident that the people at Brightline are smart enough to understand their own business model.

And anyway, what does it mean to say they acquired X-presswest? The company doesn't have any land or assets as far as I am aware. No income. Just an idea and a website and some preliminary studies that are probably dated by now so would have to be re-done anyway.I expect the company would have bbeen dusbanded sooner or later anyway.

I don't think Brightline will be paying much for that. It's hardly going to wreck them financially.

I don't interpret this as meaning that we'll be seeing construction start very soon.

I think it's more along the lines of, this is cheap and useless, but you never know what it might be useful for one day.


----------



## VentureForth

I don't know their real estate holdings, and I suppose Fortress is much wider vested than FECI is as an individual group.

I just don't see what they are buying. Didn't seem to be anything they couldn't develop on their own.

Maybe they are big enough.


----------



## chrsjrcj

I have to agree with VentureForth here. How many start ups have failed because they tried to grow too quickly?

I do hope it does become a reality. That is a huge gap in the passenger rail network.


----------



## MikefromCrete

It wasn't too long ago that I was lecturing some people on this site about envisioning a too quick expansion of the Brightline network before even the start of Orlando service, Apparently, Fortress wasn't listening to me. This Las Vegas service is a big surprise. I would hope they get Orlando and Tampa going before going too deeply into this Las Vegas venture. I mean, we all hope Brightline is successful, but let's run it first! Of course, I'm not a big thinking financial guy, so maybe they know something I don't.


----------



## frequentflyer

Isn't the line between LAS and Victorville owned UP? Is there a parallel line?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I would like to see them grow, not necessarily more slowly, but closer to their own back yard. In other words, do the Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville sections, then make their "new" line something like Orlando to New Orleans, which Amtrak is never bringing back. I think, as solid as they seem as a company right now, it is risky to go jumping around to different areas of the country all at once.


----------



## CCC1007

frequentflyer said:


> Isn't the line between LAS and Victorville owned UP? Is there a parallel line?


The proposal is to build a new line parallel to I-15, which should have great visibility to the semi regularly plugged roadway and the drivers that would be stuck in traffic or moving slower than the train.


----------



## Brian_tampa

My take on this huge expansion is that when Softbank bought Fortress last year, the new owners either had plans for Brightline before the purchase or Wes Edens convinced them of the potential for Brightline to expand outside of Florida. It would not surprise me if Softbank is providing equity or loans to Brightline or FECI to enable this.

What will happen if the Vegas Brightline does actually get built and operational in 4 years? How would that impact the CA HSR project in terms of public perception and be a motivating force to get the CHSRA built sooner?


----------



## chrsjrcj

Was just gonna say, I am not a finance expert either, but I wonder how much of a factor SoftBank plays in all this? They probably have a pretty big wallet?


----------



## cocojacoby

https://www.wsj.com/articles/las-vegas-high-speed-rail-venture-gets-new-owner-1537243260?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1


----------



## DSS&A

Railway Age article on Brightline's "Los Vegas Division":

https://www.railwayage.com/news/brightline-goes-west-plans-la-las-vegas-high-speed-rail/?RAchannel=news


----------



## AGM.12

From what i have been able to see is that Brightline bought the rights of Xpress West name and other intellectual properties needed for service branding, as well as 38 acres of Vegas real estate. It also has the makings of a public private partnership. If that's the case, then they could get it built fairly soon.


----------



## TC_NYC

When Howard was building Starbucks he was quick to expand the chain past it's Seattle roots into Chicago because he wanted it to be shown that the chain was viable nationally. Seems FECI is trying the same strategy with Brightline and I commend the effort. Building a high speed rail line between LA and Vegas has to be one of the most common sense projects in the nation and I think it will certainly pay dividends for FECI/Fortress/Softbank.

Now if they announced they where building a corridor from Denver to Chicago I would be a lot more skeptical, but I think LA-Vegas will be a great success.


----------



## VentureForth

How will they make a train trip competitive with a $100 1 hour flight or $30 in gas for up to 8 people?

Comparing to the SWC's trip from LA to Kingman (almost same terrain/distance), it takes the train over 7 hours.

Best option here is getting the Boring company to work with Hyperloop and bore a straight line through the mountains.


----------



## VentureForth

TC_NYC said:


> When Howard was building Starbucks he was quick to expand the chain past it's Seattle roots into Chicago because he wanted it to be shown that the chain was viable nationally.


Howard's irrecoverable infrastructure cost was on several orders magnitude less.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Would this route have demographics similar to Brightline's route in Florida? (Cities where people live and work, connecting to cities where people go for vacations?) Or similar to, say, New Yorkers going to Atlantic City or one of the CT casinos?

In other words, would this be similar to the setup they already have? (I don't know--I have never been to Los Vegas.) If they are copying a model that is already looking like it will be successful in Florida, then perhaps the gamble (sorry, that just slipped out




) isn't as great as it at first appears.


----------



## VentureForth

I'll tell you this - there is a TON of car traffic that leaves the LA basin and heads to the Vegas dessert. There are also 28 daily Friday departures that start at only $185 pp, round trip.


----------



## Palmetto

chrsjrcj said:


> I have to agree with VentureForth here. How many start ups have failed because they tried to grow too quickly?
> 
> I do hope it does become a reality. That is a huge gap in the passenger rail network.


Midway Airlines comes to mind. Too bad, because their onboard service was very goof.


----------



## Palmetto

frequentflyer said:


> Isn't the line between LAS and Victorville owned UP? Is there a parallel line?


There is no railroad between LAS and Victorville presently. The UP runs down to join the BNSF just east of Barstow, and they have trackage rights on BNSF to get to the L.A. area.

Both the BNSF and the UP have lines running through Cajon Pass. It's the BNSF line that goes to Victorville, but it's crowded. I would think that one or the other of the freight companies have been approached about how to access L.A. Victorville is in the middle of nowhere, and from what I've read, traffic is at its worst between there and L.A.


----------



## bretton88

This feels a lot like Brightline's Orlando expansion. I have to suspect FECI has other holdings in Vegas besides the 38 acres they are buying. It is definitely a prime corridor to do real estate development on. I wonder if they are doing true HSR or the HSR light like they are doing in FL? I feel like it would save some capital costs doing HSR light.


----------



## AGM.12

Hopefully, this move will not make Brightline follow the path of Auto Train when they expanded to the midwest route at Louisville.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

AGM.12 said:


> Hopefully, this move will not make Brightline follow the path of Auto Train when they expanded to the midwest route at Louisville.


Wasn't it a major derailment that did the auto train in?


----------



## Anderson

Yeah...basically, in Las Vegas they seem to have 4x the land they have in downtown Miami (MiamiCentral is a 9 acre plot vs 36 in Las Vegas). So, the model looks pretty similar. I have to suspect that SoftBank (not Fortress) had this in mind. If anyone can finance this sort of thing, it is SoftBank.

I will say that, unlike Orlando-Tampa (which I think is likely to involve some sort of state support or another given the project proposal), which at least has a clear synergy with the existing project, or Jacksonville (which could probably be done for a song, but where I suspect they are only ), this will probably need to be a "firewalled" project. In theory, even Orlando-South Florida is buffered from West Palm-Miami.

If Brightline were to use the exact same plans that XpressWest tried, I would be worried, particularly since those pretty explicitly relied on CAHSR happening. My guess is that we're going to see a substantially revised plan come into the mix, probably using the same (or similar) equipment as is being used in Florida. The main problem with this particular project is still going to be getting into the LA basin (since I really don't see "drive to Victorville and _then_ board the train" working, while the passes are jammed full).

Also, as far as "moving too fast" (not an unreasonable criticism), let's not forget that the planning phase on this one will probably take several years. Even if they start on this project tomorrow morning, they wouldn't be in a position to begin construction until after Orlando (at least) is built.


----------



## Anderson

crescent-zephyr said:


> AGM.12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, this move will not make Brightline follow the path of Auto Train when they expanded to the midwest route at Louisville.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it a major derailment that did the auto train in?
Click to expand...

It ultimately was, but remember...that part of the Auto Train also had a host of issues (it was never as popular as the Lorton-Sanford route, which apparently spawned a second daily frequency at one point and was running in multiple sections at another) and it failed long before the company did (undone by three derailments in under two years; in at least two of the three cases, cracked wheels on Auto-Train equipment were a contributing issue).


----------



## cirdan

Brian_tampa said:


> My take on this huge expansion is that when Softbank bought Fortress last year, the new owners either had plans for Brightline before the purchase or Wes Edens convinced them of the potential for Brightline to expand outside of Florida. It would not surprise me if Softbank is providing equity or loans to Brightline or FECI to enable this.
> 
> What will happen if the Vegas Brightline does actually get built and operational in 4 years? How would that impact the CA HSR project in terms of public perception and be a motivating force to get the CHSRA built sooner?


To make an impact, the Vegas train would have to get closer to LA than just Victorville.

Being able to use CAHSR infrastructure is thus an integral part of the plan.

In other words, CAHSR has to be built first.


----------



## Brian_tampa

cirdan said:


> To make an impact, the Vegas train would have to get closer to LA than just Victorville.
> 
> Being able to use CAHSR infrastructure is thus an integral part of the plan.
> 
> In other words, CAHSR has to be built first.


I would think that Brightline will ultimately build a new Los Angeles area station with TOD that is closer to the center of the region. Victorville and Palmdale will become intermediate stops if they choose to use the same route Xpresswest was planning on building to Palmdale. Victorville to Las Vegas would be similar to building Orlando to WPB. To make it work, Brightline has to build further into the LA basin.

As far as CA HSR having to be built first, if Brightline goes with 125mph equipment they can negotiate agreements with the freight railroads to use their routes to gain access into the LA basin. The grapevine route is more likely due to the nature of Cajon Pass. The PR announcing the purchase of Xpresswest specifically said no decision on trainsets or final track design had been made yet as it was all under review. Even at 125mph maximum authorized speed, running time of less than 2 hours can be possible. Since CA HSR will not be operational into LA for at least 20+ years, I doubt that Brightline is too concerned about interoperability issues with CA HSR at this time. As long as they design it to allow for future electrification then they can use 125mph maximum speed diesel trainsets for the first 20-25 years. Once it is electrified, those diesel trainsets can be transferred to other Brightline routes in place by that time.

Edit: Also, as pointed out by others, Brightline is looking to cut the cost in half (from $7B to $3 - $4B). If they don't require electric 170mph trains they won't use them. Unlike CA HSR, Brightline has to make a profit and can use trainsets that aren't the fastest and latest technology available.


----------



## frequentflyer

Brian_tampa said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> To make an impact, the Vegas train would have to get closer to LA than just Victorville.
> 
> Being able to use CAHSR infrastructure is thus an integral part of the plan.
> 
> In other words, CAHSR has to be built first.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that Brightline will ultimately build a new Los Angeles area station with TOD that is closer to the center of the region. Victorville and Palmdale will become intermediate stops if they choose to use the same route Xpresswest was planning on building to Palmdale. Victorville to Las Vegas would be similar to building Orlando to WPB. To make it work, Brightline has to build further into the LA basin.
> 
> *As far as CA HSR having to be built first, if Brightline goes with 125mph equipment they can negotiate agreements with the freight railroads to use their routes to gain access into the LA basin.* The grapevine route is more likely due to the nature of Cajon Pass. The PR announcing the purchase of Xpresswest specifically said no decision on trainsets or final track design had been made yet as it was all under review. Even at 125mph maximum authorized speed, running time of less than 2 hours can be possible. Since CA HSR will not be operational into LA for at least 20+ years, I doubt that Brightline is too concerned about interoperability issues with CA HSR at this time. As long as they design it to allow for future electrification then they can use 125mph maximum speed diesel trainsets for the first 20-25 years. Once it is electrified, those diesel trainsets can be transferred to other Brightline routes in place by that time.
> 
> Edit: Also, as pointed out by others, Brightline is looking to cut the cost in half (from $7B to $3 - $4B). If they don't require electric 170mph trains they won't use them. Unlike CA HSR, Brightline has to make a profit and can use trainsets that aren't the fastest and latest technology available.
Click to expand...

I agree with your entire post, and think that Brightline has had discussions with UP and BNSF about added capacity and what it will cost. I am sure Brightline has spoken to the Nevada and California congressional delegation too to some funds swung their way.


----------



## cirdan

Brian_tampa said:


> As far as CA HSR having to be built first, if Brightline goes with 125mph equipment they can negotiate agreements with the freight railroads to use their routes to gain access into the LA basin.


I think this may be easier said than done.

Even 125mph running is not easy to achieve and may require considerable investment in straightening out curves etc.

And even after they've done that and spent all that money, they don't actually own the ROW.

There is a reason the initial segment of Brightline is limited to 79mph, and this despite being straight as a piece of string in places.


----------



## Brian_tampa

The 125mph running would be limited to Palmdale to Las Vegas. Obviously, on the UP or BNSF lines into the LA basin it would be 79mph maximum. The route beyond Palmdale to Las vegas, I have read, Xpresswest designed it for 150+ mph running. It is mainly flat. Brightline would, if anything, modify the Xpresswest design to not allow for such fast speeds in order to save money.

I mentioned 125mph equipment only to say that running diesel trainsets on UP or BNSF is much more realistic than installing catenary for electric trainsets that go faster. Not saying that they would go 125mph on all sections.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

cirdan said:


> Brian_tampa said:
> 
> 
> 
> My take on this huge expansion is that when Softbank bought Fortress last year, the new owners either had plans for Brightline before the purchase or Wes Edens convinced them of the potential for Brightline to expand outside of Florida. It would not surprise me if Softbank is providing equity or loans to Brightline or FECI to enable this.
> 
> What will happen if the Vegas Brightline does actually get built and operational in 4 years? How would that impact the CA HSR project in terms of public perception and be a motivating force to get the CHSRA built sooner?
> 
> 
> 
> To make an impact, the Vegas train would have to get closer to LA than just Victorville.
> 
> Being able to use CAHSR infrastructure is thus an integral part of the plan.
> 
> In other words, CAHSR has to be built first.
Click to expand...

If we're depending on California, good luck.

I found this latest update of the California High Speed Rail Plan. They now expect it to be done by … 2040!

http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/CSRP_Final.pdf


----------



## crescent-zephyr

The drive time from LA Union Station to Las Vegas is 4 hours 40 minutes.

The Chief takes almost 3 hours to get from LA Union Station to Victorville.

Victorville to Vegas is 188 miles.... so 125 could do it in about 1.5 hours.

So.... IF brightline could get trackage rights they could do it in 4.5 hours. About the same as driving time. That's of course without using any California High Speed right of way that may or may not get built anytime soon.


----------



## RSG

VentureForth said:


> I'll tell you this - there is a TON of car traffic that leaves the LA basin and heads to the Vegas dessert. There are also 28 daily Friday departures that start at only $185 pp, round trip.


I-15 has become a major bottleneck from Barstow to Vegas. In addition to the party people, there is the usual Interstate Highway traffic---trucks, tourists, and the like. Add in the buses and shuttles, along with drivers who might not be paying close attention to driving, and it's becoming a safety hazard in an area where there are not an abundance of emergency services.

Anything that would take pressure off the existing highway system would likely do quite well, if done correctly. [Which means no seven hour trips for $100+ each way.]


----------



## Anderson

Well, and it seems probable that some investments could get a better runtime than Amtrak presently has Los Angeles-San Bernadino, too. I think 4.5 hours Union Station to Las Vegas might be a bit too long.

Practically speaking, I have to wonder what could be done on the Palmdale side of things (which implies a different catchment area).


----------



## Brian_tampa

Exactly! Based on the experience here in Florida, with OTP percentages above 95, I would think that Brightline would enter into a dispatching agreement similar to what they have done with FECR. There is no excuse for a passenger train to take 3 hours to get to Victorville from LAUS. if Brightline were to put up the money for additional tracks and other improvements on the grapevine route, I am sure they could get similar results as seen with FECR. I mention the grapevine route as that seems to be the politically favored route with the most support. UP, BNSF, and FECR (or any other railroad) have no incentive to run passenger trains at expedited schedules that will disrupt their main business of delivering freight unless they are compensated for it.

Before buying Xpresswest, which must have been under consideration for a long time, Brightline would have met with UP and BNSF to determine the feasibility of gaining access to the LA Basin. Included in those discussions would be the ability to negotiate an agreement that would allow Brightline to obtain OTP numbers in the 90s. Brightline is not X Train or the Florida Fun Train. They know what they are doing and are very methodical about their decisions.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

"There is no excuse for a passenger train to take 3 hours to get to Victorville from LAUS."

Well it's 119 rail miles. That's an average of 40 mph, which is what you would expect from freight rail with 3 intermediate station stops. Let's say the train loses 20 minutes total (both the dwell time and the loss time in acel/ decel) that's 2 hours and 35 minutes with an average speed between 45 and 50. Those are good average speeds on freight lines.

The Brightline sets would shave a few minutes off with faster acel / decel, so without the intermediate stops you could probably get it around 2:15.

Also... You do know that Brightline and FEC are practically the same company. Negotiating with UP or BNSF will be much more difficult.


----------



## jis

Why are we seemingly assuming that they must use the congested Cajon Pass line via San Bernaredino anyway when it might be musch easier to get a better partner in Metrolink to get to Palmdale.Afterall extending the passenger line from Victorville to Palmdale vicinity has been part of the plan all along to eventually connect up with CAHSR if/when it happens. My guess is, for now any approach to LAX will not be via San Bernardino and will not involve UP or BNSF.


----------



## Anderson

Doesn't UP own the Antelope Valley line?

Anyhow...
-Driving Victorville-Las Vegas is 188 miles (per Google maps). Let me round that off to 190 miles.

-Driving Palmdale-Victorville is 52 miles (per Google maps). Let me round that off to 50 miles.

-Driving Los Angeles-Palmdale is 65 miles, give or take (per Google maps).

The total distance (c. 240 miles) is the same as Miami-Orlando. Even presuming that you could get the average speed up to about 90-100 MPH on a greenfield line (I think that is a stretch), that still leaves getting over the mountains and into Los Angeles. Runtime Las Vegas-Palmdale eats up 2:24-2:40. The question is what you can manage for that last 65 miles...at 60 MPH, the time is 1:05. At 50 MPH, the time is 1:18. At 45 MPH, the time is 1:27. So at the long end of both timetables, runtime is 4:07. At the short end, 3:29. The latter is, in my view, viable; the former is just a little bit too long.

Edit: Revising and extending the analysis, I'm checking timetables:
-For Metrolink, Palmdale-Union Station runs 1:59 on "local" trains and 1:42 on the daily semi-express (which eliminates six stops and corresponds to three minutes lost per stop). This would seem to indicate 1:36 on a run that is an express operation save for Burbank, or 1:33 on a run of the route which only stopped at either Burbank _or_ Palmdale. Of interest is that the end-to-end time Lancaster-Union Station is 2:09 and the implied time for that on a semi-express run would be 1:52.

-The stopping patterns are different (ranging from 2-4 intermediate stations), but Lancaster-Union Station was indicated as 2:32/2:48 for the same run on SP's _Owl _in 1957 and 2:33/2:29 for the SP's _West Coast_ at the same time. The _San Joaquin Daylight _marked 2:26/2:23 in 1957 and 2:17/2:14 in 1971...so I find it fascinating that a commuter train today can out-pace what was available then.

-Route length is given as 68 miles Palmdale-Los Angeles in the timetable for the _Owl_ (neither the _West Coast_ nor the _San Joaquin Daylight_ made that particular stop, and even the _Owl_ only did it as an off-timetable flag stop).

I still think _some_ improvements would be needed here (the total runtime floor is about four hours based on the various timetables, which is probably at the outer edge of viability for covering operating costs and interest for LA-Vegas itself)...but then again, the route as a whole (if routed in this manner) is around 310 route-miles, which is also pushing the edge of your viability envelope for "higher speed" rail in terms of distance.


----------



## Brian_tampa

crescent-zephyr said:


> Well it's 119 rail miles. That's an average of 40 mph, which is what you would expect from freight rail with 3 intermediate station stops. Let's say the train loses 20 minutes total (both the dwell time and the loss time in acel/ decel) that's 2 hours and 35 minutes with an average speed between 45 and 50. Those are good average speeds on freight lines.
> 
> The Brightline sets would shave a few minutes off with faster acel / decel, so without the intermediate stops you could probably get it around 2:15.
> 
> Also... You do know that Brightline and FEC are practically the same company. Negotiating with UP or BNSF will be much more difficult.


An average of 40 mph over 119 miles is what Amtrak gets. Amtrak also does not fully compensate the freight railroads for their use of the tracks and gets what they pay for in terms of performance. Brightline's business model is to pay for the required infrastructure needed to get a viable and modern passenger operation. Brightline is installing 200 miles of second main track with 60mph crossovers every 8 miles on the FECR. I think they would do what is required in CA to get whatever operating time they believe will make them profitable. I am assuming that Brightline looked at the numbers and have already asked the freight railroads, in general terms, what it would take to get a similar operating agreement as they have with FECR.

I don't think using Cajon Pass is an option due to the amount of trains and the route. If anything, they will go to Palmdale and then south.

FECR was owned by the same entity when they made the agreement with Brightline. But the agreement was written so that FECR was not disadvantaged and was later sold to the Mexican mining company. Fortress owns many companies, including Sprint communications and Brightline. Did you know Sprint sued Brightline last year over a billing dispute? Being part of Fortress or FECI does not mean the businesses are not run independently.


----------



## Palmetto

I agree about not being able to use the BNSF Cajon Pass route. In fact, the railroad is planning to add more triple track between the Summit and Barstow to accommodate its own trains.

But why would Brightline build a route SOUTH from Palmdale when Victorville is to its EAST and Las Vegas is to its NORTHEAST.


----------



## Ryan

He’s talking about the route in the other direction. Over the mountain by something other than the Cajon Pass to Palmdale and then south to LA.


----------



## Brian_tampa

Brightline would probably not build a new route but use the existing rail line into Santa Clarita via Antelope Valley then down to Burbank and LA. Brightline needs to get into or nearer to the Los Angeles Basin to attract more passengers. Since the HSR project will not be built for another 20+ years between Palmdale and LA, they need to do something before then. Also, politically California wants the route to Las Vegas to connect with their HSR at Palmdale.


----------



## Brian_tampa

Metro is planning to build a multi-modal transportation corridor between Palmdale and east of Victorville. That is the route that Xpresswest intended to use to connect to CA HSR at Palmdale.

https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/

Here is a map:

https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/hdc/images/map_corridor_hidesert_eng.pdf


----------



## crescent-zephyr

"An average of 40 mph over 119 miles is what Amtrak gets. Amtrak also does not fully compensate the freight railroads for their use of the tracks and gets what they pay for in terms of performance."

What is your source that Amtrak doesn't full compensate the freight railroads?

The speeds are based on track conditions, not on how much Amtrak pays. I mean yes, Amtrak can pay extra to super elevate curves etc. To allow for faster running, is that what you are talking about?


----------



## jis

Brian_tampa said:


> Metro is planning to build a multi-modal transportation corridor between Palmdale and east of Victorville. That is the route that Xpresswest intended to use to connect to CA HSR at Palmdale.
> 
> https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/
> 
> Here is a map:
> 
> https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/hdc/images/map_corridor_hidesert_eng.pdf


Exactly! That was my point. I don't see Brightline trying to use Cajon Pass.


----------



## Brian_tampa

I do not have a specific source other than general knowledge of how Amtrak was setup at its inception and what I have read over the decades regarding the rate that Amtrak pays the host railroads. When I talk about compensation, it is not just about obtaining the right to operate X number of trains each way per day on a route for X dollars per train. It is also about compensating for the impact on the freight operations caused by a higher speed train such as an Amtrak train. Brightline has compensated FECR by building new track, paying FECR for operating rights, and covering their part of the costs to maintain the infrastructure required to operate frequent higher speed passenger trains.


----------



## jis

Also paying 50% of the cost of the entire Florida Dispatching Company (FDC) which controls dispatching of FECR and will also dispatch any AAF owned railroad like Cocoa to Orlando and eventually to Tampa. In exchange it gets equal dibs at controlling the general rules of dispatching for the entire railroad under control of the FDC.


----------



## cirdan

Brian_tampa said:


> I do not have a specific source other than general knowledge of how Amtrak was setup at its inception and what I have read over the decades regarding the rate that Amtrak pays the host railroads. When I talk about compensation, it is not just about obtaining the right to operate X number of trains each way per day on a route for X dollars per train.


The money that Amtrak pays the railroads doesn't makie any of them rich. The only reason they tolerate Amtrak in the first place is because the law says they have to.

If you want any of the big freight railroads to voluntarily accept and welcome passenger trains, you need to pay them quite a bit more.


----------



## jis

The only practical way to run a reliable higher speed passenger system on a big freight railroad ROW is to negotiate with them to put down an additional track or two on their ROW as AAF is doing with FECR.And of course that costs more money that Amtrak can practically get until something changes. So here we are where we are.

Speaking of Palmdale to Los Angeles basin routing of CAHSR ... http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-speed-rail-palmdale-burbank-20180919-story.html#



Anderson said:


> Doesn't UP own the Antelope Valley line?


No. LAUS to Burbank Jct, and thence to Lancaster of the Antelope Valley Line is owned by SCAX with UP retaining trackage rights. So Brightline would mostly have to deal with SCAX.

The Coast Line beyond Burbank Jct is owned by UP with SCAX and Amtrak trackage rights. But that would not be part of a Palmdale to LAUS route before the CAHSR is constructed down (well, mostly under) the grapevine.


----------



## cpotisch

cirdan said:


> Brian_tampa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a specific source other than general knowledge of how Amtrak was setup at its inception and what I have read over the decades regarding the rate that Amtrak pays the host railroads. When I talk about compensation, it is not just about obtaining the right to operate X number of trains each way per day on a route for X dollars per train.
> 
> 
> 
> The money that Amtrak pays the railroads doesn't makie any of them rich. The only reason they tolerate Amtrak in the first place is because the law says they have to.
> 
> If you want any of the big freight railroads to voluntarily accept and welcome passenger trains, you need to pay them quite a bit more.
Click to expand...

Agreed. By law the Class Is have to let Amtrak use the tracks, and the amount payed just has to offset costs directly resulting from Amtrak's use of the tracks. So the frights don't have to be paid enough to fully compensate for the complications of dispatching and scheduling trains. There's no doubt in my mind that if it weren't required to by law, Amtrak would not be able to use those tracks.


----------



## cpotisch

Anderson said:


> Well, and it seems probable that some investments could get a better runtime than Amtrak presently has Los Angeles-San Bernadino, too. I think 4.5 hours Union Station to Las Vegas might be a bit too long.
> 
> Practically speaking, I have to wonder what could be done on the Palmdale side of things (which implies a different catchment area).


I disagree that it would be too long. Currently to get between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, you either have to fly, take a bus, or drive. Taking the train is much more convenient than flying, much more comfortable than a bus, and of course unlike a car, you don't have to drive. So I think the convenience and comfort of the train could easily compensate for any extra running time.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Any comparison to what Amtrak pays to use tracks vs. new startups like the Star in Minneapolis which uses BNSF?

In this situation it doesn't even matter, because Amtrak paying more money doesn't automatically raise the speed limit on a line. That would be a whole nother significant investment.

I wasn't assuming that Brightline would want to use the route of the chief. But that route actually exists, which makes it slightly more appealing than a route that may or may not get built. (Yes I realize the theoretical x train route to vegas may or may not get built itself).

Obviously, if a more favorable line is available, that would be a logical choice to use.

Hey, if all goes well Brightline could end up being the operator of the surfliners and run through trains vegas to San Diego. No way to know without a crystal ball.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I agree with cpotisch that 4.5 hours would not be too long, especially if the train ride is promoted as part of the vacation experience to the casinos. Base the trains on the current Brightline model, including a lounge at each end (with free food) for passengers in the premium cars, plus modern, clean, comfortable seats for all passengers, and maybe a café on the train with good-quality food.

The time would fly by, especially when you compare it to the same amount of time one has to put up with on the Northeast Regional for a trip between, say, Philly and central Connecticut.

crescent-zephyr, never mind Brightline running the Surfliners--I want them to take over the NEC!


----------



## RSG

cpotisch said:


> Currently to get between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, you either have to fly, take a bus, or drive.


Practically correct, but technically incorrect. One can always take the _Southwest Chief_ to Kingman, then the Commuter Services [dba Amtrak Thruway Express] shuttle to Vegas. Then back again, if one so desires.


----------



## cpotisch

RSG said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently to get between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, you either have to fly, take a bus, or drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Practically correct, but technically incorrect. One can always take the _Southwest Chief_ to Kingman, then the Commuter Services [dba Amtrak Thruway Express] shuttle to Vegas. Then back again, if one so desires.
Click to expand...

That includes a bus ride, doesn't it?


----------



## RSG

cpotisch said:


> RSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently to get between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, you either have to fly, take a bus, or drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Practically correct, but technically incorrect. One can always take the _Southwest Chief_ to Kingman, then the Commuter Services [dba Amtrak Thruway Express] shuttle to Vegas. Then back again, if one so desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That includes a bus ride, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It's actually an airport-style shuttle van (one large, one small). Though it sounds miserable on the surface, I've found it to be quite comfortable (though cozy) and the time passes pretty fast [faster if one has a smartphone or other electronic device]. Plus, the employees of the company which operates the shuttle are very low-key and accomodating.

Since posting my original comment, I notice that booking such a trip eastbound directly is not possible from any station west of KNG, so one would have to travel to a station past KNG and do a western version of the Toledo Shuffle.


----------



## cirdan

cpotisch said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and it seems probable that some investments could get a better runtime than Amtrak presently has Los Angeles-San Bernadino, too. I think 4.5 hours Union Station to Las Vegas might be a bit too long.
> 
> Practically speaking, I have to wonder what could be done on the Palmdale side of things (which implies a different catchment area).
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that it would be too long. Currently to get between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, you either have to fly, take a bus, or drive. Taking the train is much more convenient than flying, much more comfortable than a bus, and of course unlike a car, you don't have to drive. So I think the convenience and comfort of the train could easily compensate for any extra running time.
Click to expand...

To compete on time, a train has to be significantly faster than friving. This is because driving time is measured door to door whereas train times don't include the time it gets to and from the station at either end, plus any waiting time at the station. You typically don't turn up at a sttaion with second to spare, so to make the comparison totally fair, that has to be accounted for too.

This goes for airlines too.

Now, personally I believe that trains have other advantages besides speed, and that there are plenty of people who wopuld take the train even if it took longer, as long as that excess time stayed within reason. For example because the time you spend on a train can be used productively whereas driving time is essentialyl wasted time. But if you are going to compete on speed alone, then you need to compare like to likes, and that means the train must be faster than driving to be equal, and must be a lot faste rto be faster.


----------



## Anderson

My read is that for a train to be _operationally _self-sufficient, it doesn't need to be _significantly_ faster than driving, but it needs to be at least competitive with "pure" drivetime. Getting into the 60 MPH average speed range is often sufficient. However, it also:
-Needs to be reliable (and indeed, a slightly slower train can win out if traffic conditions tend to create very large error bars around travel time)

-Generally needs some level of frequency (since I can presumably drive at any point during the day, but a low-frequency train not only constrains my outbound trip, it also necessarily constrains my return)

"Productive time" versus "wasted time" is another consideration (though its application vs flying is harder to calculate, since if you can fly through security and then board late you might get 30-45 minutes of useful time in the terminal as well as mid-flight).

Of note, the US tends to use a three-hour rule in calculating how long people are willing to take on the train (vs flying). Japan uses a four-hour rule. I tend to think that after a pretty good amount of the post-9/11 nonsense we're probably closer to three and a half hours (particularly on connection-required routes, which add an additional time burden [and hassle] to flying).

The big issue in this case is the sheer size of the LA basin (and with it, the distances required to get to LAX [or BUR or LGB, though only B6 flies direct to LAS from either of those two]).


----------



## cpotisch

cirdan said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and it seems probable that some investments could get a better runtime than Amtrak presently has Los Angeles-San Bernadino, too. I think 4.5 hours Union Station to Las Vegas might be a bit too long.
> 
> Practically speaking, I have to wonder what could be done on the Palmdale side of things (which implies a different catchment area).
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that it would be too long. Currently to get between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, you either have to fly, take a bus, or drive. Taking the train is much more convenient than flying, much more comfortable than a bus, and of course unlike a car, you don't have to drive. So I think the convenience and comfort of the train could easily compensate for any extra running time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To compete on time, a train has to be significantly faster than friving. This is because driving time is measured door to door whereas train times don't include the time it gets to and from the station at either end, plus any waiting time at the station. You typically don't turn up at a sttaion with second to spare, so to make the comparison totally fair, that has to be accounted for too.
> 
> This goes for airlines too.
> 
> Now, personally I believe that trains have other advantages besides speed, and that there are plenty of people who wopuld take the train even if it took longer, as long as that excess time stayed within reason. For example because the time you spend on a train can be used productively whereas driving time is essentialyl wasted time. But if you are going to compete on speed alone, then you need to compare like to likes, and that means the train must be faster than driving to be equal, and must be a lot faste rto be faster.
Click to expand...

Most Amtrak trains already take longer than driving, yet people still ride. I really don't think that speed is the main factor here.


----------



## cpotisch

Anderson said:


> My read is that for a train to be _operationally _self-sufficient, it doesn't need to be _significantly_ faster than driving, but it needs to be at least competitive with "pure" drivetime. Getting into the 60 MPH average speed range is often sufficient. However, it also:
> 
> -Needs to be reliable (and indeed, a slightly slower train can win out if traffic conditions tend to create very large error bars around travel time)
> 
> -Generally needs some level of frequency (since I can presumably drive at any point during the day, but a low-frequency train not only constrains my outbound trip, it also necessarily constrains my return)
> 
> "Productive time" versus "wasted time" is another consideration (though its application vs flying is harder to calculate, since if you can fly through security and then board late you might get 30-45 minutes of useful time in the terminal as well as mid-flight).
> 
> Of note, the US tends to use a three-hour rule in calculating how long people are willing to take on the train (vs flying). Japan uses a four-hour rule. I tend to think that after a pretty good amount of the post-9/11 nonsense we're probably closer to three and a half hours (particularly on connection-required routes, which add an additional time burden [and hassle] to flying).
> 
> The big issue in this case is the sheer size of the LA basin (and with it, the distances required to get to LAX [or BUR or LGB, though only B6 flies direct to LAS from either of those two]).


Exactly. If you drive, there's really no way to get anything done. If you take the train, you can sit back or do some work, and when you arrive at your destination, you'll be much more ready for the day ahead. So even if the train takes longer, you can still effectively save time over driving.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I think speed is not a factor here particularly because, as I understand it, these riders are going on vacation to a casino city, not to a high-pressure corporate meeting that they feel they have to get to as soon as possible.

Also, I think if people are going on vacation and gambling (and perhaps drinking and overeating and in general not being in good shape when they leave), they might appreciate a nice train on the way home where all they have to do is sit down and go to sleep, rather than drive.

It would also depend on what the drive is like. Is it bumper-to-bumper freeway traffic? Or is it hours of desert with nothing out there except a few cows? I would think either would be a miserable drive, and the train would be better.

As for cost, do the hotels charge for parking? Or is it free at casinos because they want you to stay? If parking costs a lot, that is something else people hopefully would factor into whether or not to take the train.


----------



## Anderson

cpotisch said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and it seems probable that some investments could get a better runtime than Amtrak presently has Los Angeles-San Bernadino, too. I think 4.5 hours Union Station to Las Vegas might be a bit too long.
> 
> Practically speaking, I have to wonder what could be done on the Palmdale side of things (which implies a different catchment area).
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that it would be too long. Currently to get between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, you either have to fly, take a bus, or drive. Taking the train is much more convenient than flying, much more comfortable than a bus, and of course unlike a car, you don't have to drive. So I think the convenience and comfort of the train could easily compensate for any extra running time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To compete on time, a train has to be significantly faster than friving. This is because driving time is measured door to door whereas train times don't include the time it gets to and from the station at either end, plus any waiting time at the station. You typically don't turn up at a sttaion with second to spare, so to make the comparison totally fair, that has to be accounted for too.
> 
> This goes for airlines too.
> 
> Now, personally I believe that trains have other advantages besides speed, and that there are plenty of people who wopuld take the train even if it took longer, as long as that excess time stayed within reason. For example because the time you spend on a train can be used productively whereas driving time is essentialyl wasted time. But if you are going to compete on speed alone, then you need to compare like to likes, and that means the train must be faster than driving to be equal, and must be a lot faste rto be faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Amtrak trains already take longer than driving, yet people still ride. I really don't think that speed is the main factor here.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Amtrak isn't picking up the tab for all of the capex on a new corridor.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not projecting that a LA-Vegas train won't generate ridership...I'm just thinking that it can't generate the ridership needed at over four hours' runtime to handle the debt load.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

"I think speed is not a factor here particularly because, as I understand it, these riders are going on vacation to a casino city, not to a high-pressure corporate meeting that they feel they have to get to as soon as possible."

Vegas is a large city. There will be vegas area residents wanting to travel to LA as well. Vegas is also a big convention town so many people do travel to vegas as part of their work.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I did not realize that--thanks for clarifying for me, crescent-zephyr.


----------



## Anderson

There's also the fact that even if time isn't an _absolute_ consideration, it is still a relative one. Think of it this way: If you head out after work on Friday and board a 5:30 PM train, a four-and-a-half hour trip doesn't get you to Las Vegas until 10:00 PM (and probably to your hotel room until about 10:30). Yes, that can be part of the experience, but that doesn't mean that you'll be able to generate the ridership needed to cover the capex on this project. It isn't the running costs that worry me (I suspect _those_ can probably be covered). Over $100m/yr in interest payments are the concern...though if it can, boy would that make the project _massively_ profitable once the bonds are paid off.


----------



## Palmetto

Put "gambling cars" on the train, and open them up when the train crosses into Nevada.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

What's your other options? Driving takes just as long, flying will take the same amount of time by the time you get out to lax and allow time for security.

When / if high speed gets built into LA, you are probably going to beat the flying times unless you live close to an LA airport. The vegas airport is super convenient to the strip, it's practically on the strip (and should be connected by monorail...)


----------



## TinCan782

Palmetto said:


> Put "gambling cars" on the train, and open them up when the train crosses into Nevada.


By the time you cross the border into Nevada you are only 45 driving miles from Las Vegas (Primm to LV). 45 minutes at 60 MPH.


----------



## leemell

Brian_tampa said:


> Metro is planning to build a multi-modal transportation corridor between Palmdale and east of Victorville. That is the route that Xpresswest intended to use to connect to CA HSR at Palmdale.
> 
> https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/
> 
> Here is a map:
> 
> https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/hdc/images/map_corridor_hidesert_eng.pdf


They've already started acquiring property for this route.


----------



## leemell

jis said:


> The only practical way to run a reliable higher speed passenger system on a big freight railroad ROW is to negotiate with them to put down an additional track or two on their ROW as AAF is doing with FECR.And of course that costs more money that Amtrak can practically get until something changes. So here we are where we are.
> 
> Speaking of Palmdale to Los Angeles basin routing of CAHSR ... http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-speed-rail-palmdale-burbank-20180919-story.html#
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't UP own the Antelope Valley line?
> 
> 
> 
> No. LAUS to Burbank Jct, and thence to Lancaster of the Antelope Valley Line is owned by SCAX with UP retaining trackage rights. So Brightline would mostly have to deal with SCAX.
> 
> The Coast Line beyond Burbank Jct is owned by UP with SCAX and Amtrak trackage rights. But that would not be part of a Palmdale to LAUS route before the CAHSR is constructed down (well, mostly under) the grapevine.
Click to expand...

CHSRA is not going down the Grapevine, but through Tehatchipi Pass and down to Palmdale, then mostly along State 14 and under the San Gabriels.


----------



## leemell

Mystic River Dragon said:


> I think speed is not a factor here particularly because, as I understand it, these riders are going on vacation to a casino city, not to a high-pressure corporate meeting that they feel they have to get to as soon as possible.
> 
> Also, I think if people are going on vacation and gambling (and perhaps drinking and overeating and in general not being in good shape when they leave), they might appreciate a nice train on the way home where all they have to do is sit down and go to sleep, rather than drive.
> 
> It would also depend on what the drive is like. Is it bumper-to-bumper freeway traffic? Or is it hours of desert with nothing out there except a few cows? I would think either would be a miserable drive, and the train would be better.
> 
> As for cost, do the hotels charge for parking? Or is it free at casinos because they want you to stay? If parking costs a lot, that is something else people hopefully would factor into whether or not to take the train.


They all charge these days, and quite bit.


----------



## leemell

FrensicPic said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put "gambling cars" on the train, and open them up when the train crosses into Nevada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time you cross the border into Nevada you are only 45 driving miles from Las Vegas (Primm to LV). 45 minutes at 60 MPH.
Click to expand...

This is a complementary project. The High Desert Corridor just getting underway. It is an Interstate Highway with rail ROW built into it. It will terminate between Victorville and Palmdale. Palmdale is the current northern terminal of Metrolink. In the future, it will be a station for the California HSR. Property acquisition has begun. XpressWest has been in talks with CHSRA about rights and interconnect. Tony Marnell, the developer of XW, made a presentation to the CHSRA Board last January. XW currently has all the FRA, EIR and ROW clearances to be begin construction, so, it they wish, they can get a running start rightaway.


----------



## jis

leemell said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put "gambling cars" on the train, and open them up when the train crosses into Nevada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time you cross the border into Nevada you are only 45 driving miles from Las Vegas (Primm to LV). 45 minutes at 60 MPH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a complementary project. The High Desert Corridor just getting underway. It is an Interstate Highway with rail ROW built into it. It will terminate between Victorville and Palmdale. Palmdale is the current northern terminal of Metrolink. In the future, it will be a station for the California HSR. Property acquisition has begun. XpressWest has been in talks with CHSRA about rights and interconnect. Tony Marnell, the developer of XW, made a presentation to the CHSRA Board last January. XW currently has all the FRA, EIR and ROW clearances to be begin construction, so, it they wish, they can get a running start rightaway.
Click to expand...

Isn’t Lancaster the terminal for Metrolink, one stop beyond Palmdale? Or am I remembering wrong?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put "gambling cars" on the train, and open them up when the train crosses into Nevada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time you cross the border into Nevada you are only 45 driving miles from Las Vegas (Primm to LV). 45 minutes at 60 MPH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a complementary project. The High Desert Corridor just getting underway. It is an Interstate Highway with rail ROW built into it. It will terminate between Victorville and Palmdale. Palmdale is the current northern terminal of Metrolink. In the future, it will be a station for the California HSR. Property acquisition has begun. XpressWest has been in talks with CHSRA about rights and interconnect. Tony Marnell, the developer of XW, made a presentation to the CHSRA Board last January. XW currently has all the FRA, EIR and ROW clearances to be begin construction, so, it they wish, they can get a running start rightaway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isnt Lancaster the terminal for Metrolink, one stop beyond Palmdale? Or am I remembering wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, the terminus is Lancaster.


----------



## Woodcut60

Well, if this is ever to materialize, I'd be the first to buy a ticket... I'd love to be able to take a train to Las Vegas.


----------



## neroden

This is bizarre, but Brightline hasn't really committed to anything. Buying the carcass of XpressWest -- the bits of land and government permits they'd accumulated -- was probably pretty cheap. Best thought of as taking out an option.

I agree with everyone else that they'll go via Palmdale and the Metrolink route to LA. The High Desert Corridor is therefore critical. I expect Brightline to put in the corporate input, and the money, to make sure that the railway corridor is preserved from Palmdale to Victorville, including the necessary tunnels, and isn't "cut for costs". This isn't a large investment of money to save the space.


----------



## TinCan782

neroden said:


> This is bizarre, but Brightline hasn't really committed to anything. Buying the carcass of XpressWest -- the bits of land and government permits they'd accumulated -- was probably pretty cheap. Best thought of as taking out an option.
> 
> I agree with everyone else that they'll go via Palmdale and the Metrolink route to LA. The High Desert Corridor is therefore critical. I expect Brightline to put in the corporate input, and the money, to make sure that the railway corridor is preserved from Palmdale to Victorville, including the necessary tunnels, and isn't "cut for costs". This isn't a large investment of money to save the space.


AFAIK, no tunnels would be required between Victorville and Lancaster/Palmdale. There are none on State Routes 138 and 188 across that stretch.


----------



## leemell

neroden said:


> This is bizarre, but Brightline hasn't really committed to anything. Buying the carcass of XpressWest -- the bits of land and government permits they'd accumulated -- was probably pretty cheap. Best thought of as taking out an option.
> 
> I agree with everyone else that they'll go via Palmdale and the Metrolink route to LA. The High Desert Corridor is therefore critical. I expect Brightline to put in the corporate input, and the money, to make sure that the railway corridor is preserved from Palmdale to Victorville, including the necessary tunnels, and isn't "cut for costs". This isn't a large investment of money to save the space.



I don't know if they got it for cheap, but the EIR and FRA ROD required hundreds of millions of dollars to process and get through the process, that includes the preliminary engineering of the whole route and design.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> There's also the fact that even if time isn't an _absolute_ consideration, it is still a relative one. Think of it this way: If you head out after work on Friday and board a 5:30 PM train, a four-and-a-half hour trip doesn't get you to Las Vegas until 10:00 PM (and probably to your hotel room until about 10:30). Yes, that can be part of the experience, but that doesn't mean that you'll be able to generate the ridership needed to cover the capex on this project. It isn't the running costs that worry me (I suspect _those_ can probably be covered). Over $100m/yr in interest payments are the concern...though if it can, boy would that make the project _massively_ profitable once the bonds are paid off.


That traffic is pretty much tidal. You may see great pressure as everybody tries to get a seat on after work trains on Friday heading for Vegas, and then a comparable return flow on Sunday evening. At other times demad will be much lower. How many people want to trave to Vegas mid-day on Wednesday? A handful of overseas tourists maybe.This is not really comparable to South Florida where you are tapping into daily commuter flow potential (especially at the intermediate stops) at the same time as all-week, but potentially seasonal, tourist flows (more liklely end to end), You can then basicaly use pricing mechanisms to encourage toursits to travel at times that there aren't many commuters and so spread demand over all services.

The Vegas to LA line doesn't have many intermediate centers of population, except commuters at the LA end. And if you're ending the service at Palmdale, you miss that opportunity too. Can a twice a week peak make a capex-heavy project like that pay?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

If you actually run into LA then you're linking the 28th largest city in the US, with the 2nd largest city in the US. Gotta be more than a few tourists wanting to ride that train.


----------



## leemell

crescent-zephyr said:


> If you actually run into LA then you're linking the 28th largest city in the US, with the 2nd largest city in the US. Gotta be more than a few tourists wanting to ride that train.


Not just tourists, gamblers and show goers and partiers (sp). I15 is very frequently jammed on Friday and Sunday nights.


----------



## Anderson

(1) As a handy example, LAX-LAS shows 25 flights on next Tuesday (2 Oct) and Wednesday (3 Oct) (each) and 24 on Saturday (6 Oct). So while there's an additional "pulse" of flights on Friday, that isn't a massive tide. As noted before, Vegas can attract a decent slug of convention business and the like.

(2) How tidal is the traffic to/from Orlando?

(3) Presuming stops at LA, Burbank, Palmdale, Victorville, and Las Vegas (basically a stop every 60-90 minutes), how much intermediate traffic will they get LAX/Burbank-Palmdale? I agree that the loads and yields probably won't be on par with South Florida, but this also won't be a non-zero figure. I don't see LA-Victorville as being a major factor, and LA-Vegas and Victorville-Vegas are pretty well tied to one another (they just catch different chunks of the LA basin).

Now, with all of this being said, I agree that the model will have to be different LA-Vegas. Laying on an extra $50-100m in capex for trainsets to accommodate the weekend "surge" is going to be a dubious decision if they want to add capacity then (though of course, it is always plausible to at least use those sets to do a "short run" of some sort on other days)...each set, even sold out at $150/ticket, would only be generating $5.3m in revenue per year for that round trip (against any operating costs). Competing with (for example) an Alaska Air flight that's selling at $41 a week out LAX-LAS is going to be tricky...but to Brightline's advantage, Burbank-Vegas flights are much rarer (3x-7x/day) and much more expensive (JetBlue's cheapest flights surrounding the weekend of the 6th are in the $160-180 range, and nobody else flies the route direct).


----------



## MikefromCrete

crescent-zephyr said:


> If you actually run into LA then you're linking the 28th largest city in the US, with the 2nd largest city in the US. Gotta be more than a few tourists wanting to ride that train.


It seems to me that a first class train service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is a slam dunk, and not just for tourists and gamblers. Outside of the tourist/entertainment industry, Las Vegas is a large city and I imagine its residents have many ties to the L.A. area. All corridor services -- as well as commuter lines -- have their picks and valleys. If Fortress wants to spend their money, let's get going. I can't believe there's all this hang-wringing over filling an important gap in the passenger train network. It's about a thousand times more useful than a New Orleans-Jacksonville train that everybody here seems to think is important.


----------



## jis

I think New Orleans - Jacksonville has more to do with connecting the dots to complete the national network. The folks who find that important will find an LA - Las Vegas - Salt Lake City more exciting than just LA Las Vegas, whereas the important multi-frequency corridor focused crowd would find the LA - Las Vegas service more exciting. It just depends on ones perspective.

It also turns out that Brightline is firmly a multi-frequency corridor camper. They, for example, will not touch either the New Orleans - Jacksonville or the Las Vegas - Salt Lake City segments with a ten foot barge pole. Whereas Los Angeles - Las Vegas is in the middle of their sweet spot.

It all depends on ones perspective.


----------



## cpotisch

MikefromCrete said:


> It's about a thousand times more useful than a New Orleans-Jacksonville train that everybody here seems to think is important.


I wouldn't say that. Florida is incredibly isolated when it comes to rail service, and a direct link to New Orleans would cut travel times west literally by days.


----------



## frequentflyer

Looking at Google maps who owns the line between Victorville and Palmdale?


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Looking at Google maps who owns the line between Victorville and Palmdale?


Hard to tell from Google maps, but from the more authoritative SPV Railroad Atlas of California, no one, since there is no direct route from Victorville to Palmdale at present. At least not one that does not involve a backup move or two.

If routes involving backup moves or Wyeing are included then it is a combination of BNSF and UP.


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at Google maps who owns the line between Victorville and Palmdale?
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to tell from Google maps, but from the more authoritative SPV Railroad Atlas of California, no one, since there is no direct route from Victorville to Palmdale at present. At least not one that does not involve a backup move or two.
> 
> If routes involving backup moves or Wyeing are included then it is a combination of BNSF and UP.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.5672242,-118.1187362,2321m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.3800924,-117.4007535,864m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613

You scroll out and see the where the line between Palmdale and Victorville connect to the main lines from Metrolink and UP/BNSF


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> I think New Orleans - Jacksonville has more to do with connecting the dots to complete the national network. The folks who find that important will find an LA - Las Vegas - Salt Lake City more exciting than just LA Las Vegas, whereas the important multi-frequency corridor focused crowd would find the LA - Las Vegas service more exciting. It just depends on ones perspective.
> 
> It also turns out that Brightline is firmly a multi-frequency corridor camper. They, for example, will not touch either the New Orleans - Jacksonville or the Las Vegas - Salt Lake City segments with a ten foot barge pole. Whereas Los Angeles - Las Vegas is in the middle of their sweet spot.
> 
> It all depends on ones perspective.


This is not a surprise...you don't build a corridor (which at this stage is generally going to involve over $1bn in capex if you don't already own the line, and several hundred million dollars even if you do) for a small number of trains per day. There's just no way to make the numbers work, and in some respects there's no way to make the ridership work with a big enough distance involved in your major markets.

Taking Miami-Orlando, Brightline is (depending on how you interpret the bond issue numbers) basically paying about $125-150m per round-trip to put such a corridor together and have at least joint control over operations. This is helped by the pre-existence of a good chunk of the infrastructure, but even then a good bit of work was needed WPB-MIA.

I think it is also worth noting, for example, that SLC-Las Vegas has bupkis in the middle. If there were a string of midsized cities (think Des Moines or Omaha) along the interstate between the two that would be one thing, but you're basically looking at a route that cannot support ridership, which is too long for a viable multiple-frequency daylight service (under the best of conditions that's a five-hour run) that would probably cost $5bn+ to set up (and that's presuming no engineering nightmares blow up the cost). Moreover, the market isn't even "that" big...Las Vegas is at around 2.25m, but SLC is only about 1.15m.

This isn't to say (for example) that there might not be room to negotiate an externally-subsidized service which involves running one or two trains per day through (if you could guarantee priority, etc.)...it just isn't going to be Brightline's model.

New Orleans-Jacksonville is a bit better in terms of intermediate markets (Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola, and Tallahassee are along the line), but even if you magically "fix" the Mobile Bay issue (not cheap), the run to Pensacola (357 miles) is a killer (probably four hours under the best of conditions) and only Tallahassee is of any size along the way.


----------



## leemell

frequentflyer said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at Google maps who owns the line between Victorville and Palmdale?
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to tell from Google maps, but from the more authoritative SPV Railroad Atlas of California, no one, since there is no direct route from Victorville to Palmdale at present. At least not one that does not involve a backup move or two.
> 
> If routes involving backup moves or Wyeing are included then it is a combination of BNSF and UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.5672242,-118.1187362,2321m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.3800924,-117.4007535,864m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613
> 
> You scroll out and see the where the line between Palmdale and Victorville connect to the main lines from Metrolink and UP/BNSF
Click to expand...

The High Desert Corridor is an entirely new route and ROW. Land acquisition began in June. It is/will be owned by CalTrans.


----------



## TinCan782

frequentflyer said:


> Looking at Google maps who owns the line between Victorville and Palmdale?


Union Pacific (ex-SP)

http://cs.trains.com/ctr/b/mileposts/archive/2017/10/30/fifty-years-of-the-palmdale-cutoff.aspx

http://www.donwinter.com/Railroad%20Infrastructure%20and%20Traffic%20Data/Regions/Southern%20California/Route%20Descriptions/Colton-Palmdale%20Cutoff.htm


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think New Orleans - Jacksonville has more to do with connecting the dots to complete the national network. The folks who find that important will find an LA - Las Vegas - Salt Lake City more exciting than just LA Las Vegas, whereas the important multi-frequency corridor focused crowd would find the LA - Las Vegas service more exciting. It just depends on ones perspective.
> 
> It also turns out that Brightline is firmly a multi-frequency corridor camper. They, for example, will not touch either the New Orleans - Jacksonville or the Las Vegas - Salt Lake City segments with a ten foot barge pole. Whereas Los Angeles - Las Vegas is in the middle of their sweet spot.
> 
> It all depends on ones perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a surprise...you don't build a corridor (which at this stage is generally going to involve over $1bn in capex if you don't already own the line, and several hundred million dollars even if you do) for a small number of trains per day. There's just no way to make the numbers work, and in some respects there's no way to make the ridership work with a big enough distance involved in your major markets.
> 
> [snip]
Click to expand...

The majority of the XW ROW is on BLM property for which they already negotiated and have the signed rights to build the tracks on.


----------



## Anderson

leemell said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think New Orleans - Jacksonville has more to do with connecting the dots to complete the national network. The folks who find that important will find an LA - Las Vegas - Salt Lake City more exciting than just LA Las Vegas, whereas the important multi-frequency corridor focused crowd would find the LA - Las Vegas service more exciting. It just depends on ones perspective.
> 
> It also turns out that Brightline is firmly a multi-frequency corridor camper. They, for example, will not touch either the New Orleans - Jacksonville or the Las Vegas - Salt Lake City segments with a ten foot barge pole. Whereas Los Angeles - Las Vegas is in the middle of their sweet spot.
> 
> It all depends on ones perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a surprise...you don't build a corridor (which at this stage is generally going to involve over $1bn in capex if you don't already own the line, and several hundred million dollars even if you do) for a small number of trains per day. There's just no way to make the numbers work, and in some respects there's no way to make the ridership work with a big enough distance involved in your major markets.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The majority of the XW ROW is on BLM property for which they already negotiated and have the signed rights to build the tracks on.
Click to expand...

Even if land acquisition is a non-expense, the cost-per-mile of construction of 125 MPH track is still, IIRC, somewhere in the range of $5-10m/mile just to "drop the rails" (depending, of course, on variables such as how much grading you need to do, bridge construction, and whether you're single-track-with-sidings or double-track). Stations are on top of this, as are storage yards/maintenance facilities and equipment.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

cpotisch said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about a thousand times more useful than a New Orleans-Jacksonville train that everybody here seems to think is important.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that. Florida is incredibly isolated when it comes to rail service, and a direct link to New Orleans would cut travel times west literally by days.
Click to expand...

I am a supporter of the Gulf Coast train project, but in it's current iteration it will do relatively little to improve connectivity. Connections to the Crescent and SL would both be overnight. Even travelling Los Angeles to Jacksonville would be a less than 3 hours faster via the SL and Gulf Coast route when compared to the current routing of SWC-CL-SS. If traveling Chicago to Florida, a CONO extension would actually be slightly slower than the CL and SS (it would be faster in the opposite direction, but only because of the long connection in Washington). The best way to improve connectivity to Florida would be a more direct route to Chicago on upgraded tracks (with intermediate connections to the Crescent and Cardinal), or at the very least a timed connection to the SL at New Orleans.


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think New Orleans - Jacksonville has more to do with connecting the dots to complete the national network. The folks who find that important will find an LA - Las Vegas - Salt Lake City more exciting than just LA Las Vegas, whereas the important multi-frequency corridor focused crowd would find the LA - Las Vegas service more exciting. It just depends on ones perspective.
> 
> It also turns out that Brightline is firmly a multi-frequency corridor camper. They, for example, will not touch either the New Orleans - Jacksonville or the Las Vegas - Salt Lake City segments with a ten foot barge pole. Whereas Los Angeles - Las Vegas is in the middle of their sweet spot.
> 
> It all depends on ones perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a surprise...you don't build a corridor (which at this stage is generally going to involve over $1bn in capex if you don't already own the line, and several hundred million dollars even if you do) for a small number of trains per day. There's just no way to make the numbers work, and in some respects there's no way to make the ridership work with a big enough distance involved in your major markets.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The majority of the XW ROW is on BLM property for which they already negotiated and have the signed rights to build the tracks on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if land acquisition is a non-expense, the cost-per-mile of construction of 125 MPH track is still, IIRC, somewhere in the range of $5-10m/mile just to "drop the rails" (depending, of course, on variables such as how much grading you need to do, bridge construction, and whether you're single-track-with-sidings or double-track). Stations are on top of this, as are storage yards/maintenance facilities and equipment.
Click to expand...


With passenger loads to be about 15,800 a day at the start, that would be 39 Round Trips trains a day LV to Victorville, more than just a small number of trains. Brightline did say they expected to lay out somewhere around $3.5B. By your estimate that would be about $1.85B at most to "drop the rails". Leaves $1.85B for rest. Mind you, Brightline did say for "about half" the cost. BTW, last estimate for the XW line was $8B.


----------



## Anderson

(1) The "small number of trains" was in the context of not wanting to extend to Las Vegas (which I don't think we can see supporting anywhere _near_ that many trains).

(2) Well, let's presume that number is about right in terms of frequencies, and that those 39 departures would have about a 2:15 runtime (80 MPH average speed; getting up to 90 MPH average speed doesn't get you under 2:00, so this seems reasonable). 39 departures spread over 16 hours means that you're going to have a peak rate of 3x trains per hour in each direction, so you're probably looking at needing about 15-20 trainsets. To get 200 pax/train on average (which is about what 15,800/day comes to) you'd probably need closer to 400 seats per train...so you're probably looking at about a 7-8 car set, plus two locomotives, for the service. If each set is about $40m, this would come to $600-800m for equipment. This would leave about $1bn for the rest of the project...

(3) ...which would probably go to some mixture of the two stations (likely with about a half-dozen tracks given those frequency levels), an equipment yard capable of storing those sets, plus the cost of getting through the mountains heading into Vegas. I stand by the $10m/mile estimate for the desert run, but there _will_ be additional costs when dealing with a mountain range.

I write this presuming, of course, that Palmdale-Victorville isn't included. If it is, that's probably another $400-600m for the tracks, plus a slew of additional trainsets (since runtime increases).


----------



## frequentflyer

@Leemell, you seem very knowledgeable on this, the Victorville to Palmdale is key, what is the timeline that Caltrans has for this project?

The Brightline guys are pretty sharp, and I am sure their business plan includes downtown LA ASAP.


----------



## cpotisch

Anderson said:


> (1) The "small number of trains" was in the context of not wanting to extend to Las Vegas (which I don't think we can see supporting anywhere _near_ that many trains).
> 
> (2) Well, let's presume that number is about right in terms of frequencies, and that those 39 departures would have about a 2:15 runtime (80 MPH average speed; getting up to 90 MPH average speed doesn't get you under 2:00, so this seems reasonable). 39 departures spread over 16 hours means that you're going to have a peak rate of 3x trains per hour in each direction, so you're probably looking at needing about 15-20 trainsets. To get 200 pax/train on average (which is about what 15,800/day comes to) you'd probably need closer to 400 seats per train...so you're probably looking at about a 7-8 car set, plus two locomotives, for the service. If each set is about $40m, this would come to $600-800m for equipment. This would leave about $1bn for the rest of the project...
> 
> (3) ...which would probably go to some mixture of the two stations (likely with about a half-dozen tracks given those frequency levels), an equipment yard capable of storing those sets, plus the cost of getting through the mountains heading into Vegas. I stand by the $10m/mile estimate for the desert run, but there _will_ be additional costs when dealing with a mountain range.
> 
> I write this presuming, of course, that Palmdale-Victorville isn't included. If it is, that's probably another $400-600m for the tracks, plus a slew of additional trainsets (since runtime increases).


So that works out to a total of something like $2.5B, right? Do you think it's realistic that they would be wiling to spend that much on this?


----------



## leemell

As I wrote before, the last info release was that property acquisition start in June of this year.


----------



## Anderson

(1) As I said, there's probably an expensive engineering issue somewhere in the mix (my guess is the mountains on approach to Las Vegas). I'd probably throw in $200m half-and-half for stations/parking lots (if you go with those ridership estimates, there isn't jack in terms of useful transit to Victorville...sorry, the SWC doesn't cut it, though this _would_ make a decent transfer point to/from Vegas...so you'd need _thousands_ of parking spaces) and a major equipment facility, storage tracks (20 trainsets at 850' each would effectively require about three and a half to four miles of storage space), etc.

(2) I think it's more likely that they would be willing to raise/spend more if they can get to downtown LA. I've always been dubious about the Victorville terminus plans. I think what it comes down to is that I don't buy the ridership numbers on a 4-4:30 train trip. 15,800/day translates into 5,767,000 riders per year and I'm not seeing _that_ on the corridor in question, particularly to/from Victorville. I can buy perhaps a third of that, but remember: Per their 2013 study, Brightline expected somewhere between 1.5m and 2.2m riders between Orlando and South Florida...and that's with three downtown stations in South Florida. One thing that, in my mind, utterly screws Victorville as a terminus is the fact that it's a "one-way" service (e.g. I can use the train to get _from _Victorville _to_ Las Vegas, but a train _from_ Las Vegas _to _Victorville is nigh-on useless).

My best guess is that you'd get ridership similar to the Brightline estimates out of Victorville...but it would be at least somewhat pulse-heavy (e.g. lots of pax on Thursdays and Fridays outbound and Sundays returning; there's a reason that one of the wackier proposals was Thursday/Friday out and 2x Sunday return) compared to Brightline. There isn't an underlying commuter market, though I think a mix of off-day vacationers and convention business would keep ridership from being utterly empty on other days.

(3) I think the question is also whether you'd get equity and/or bond support from the casinos themselves. Remember, Brightline is (in many respects) spending other peoples' money.

(4) Something I will throw in as well (which I only just found) is that the line is apparently near the planned Ivanpah Valley Airport (which is intended as a reliever for McCarran); depending on the details here, it is entirely possible that you could pump a decent slug of ridership out of _that_, especially given that the proposed airport location is as far from the Strip as Dulles is from downtown DC.


----------



## VentureForth

Half the battle of getting to Vegas from LA is getting to Victorville to begin with. WHO would want to drive to Victorville, then not just want to finish the drive in to LV?


----------



## Anderson

VentureForth said:


> Half the battle of getting to Vegas from LA is getting to Victorville to begin with. WHO would want to drive to Victorville, then not just want to finish the drive in to LV?


Taking the question seriously, that's still nearly 400 miles of wear and tear on a car, including the relevant fuel consumption (which is going to run anywhere from 8-20 gallons of gas), and if you're on a peak travel day there's still traffic on I-15 to contend with...as well as parking fees in Las Vegas (which have the chance to add another $30-40 to a trip). So it's probably a non-zero market, but it also isn't going to be _anywhere _near 5.5-6.0m pax/yr.


----------



## railiner

I am just wondering what effect such a press release will have on real estate speculator's along the proposed route, or station's....

And how much insider dealing may be involved....


----------



## Anderson

It seems unlikely that the aforementioned release would have much impact, given that the project has been languishing for quite a while.


----------



## leemell

Not to mention that very little of it is private land.


----------



## seat38a

I think many of your on here are too focused on LAX when calculating the time and hassle of flying between SoCal and Vegas. The SoCal LAS market is spread out among BUR, LAX, SNA, LGB, and ONT. Not everything is a hassle via LAX. Burbank alone has 10 flights a day by Southwest and 5 by JetBlue.

SNA has 7 daily flights by Southwest and another 7 by others.

A big part of the of the Las Vegas air traffic is generated from the other regional airports and NOT all LAX based. Generally speaking from experience and hearing from others, we will do our best to avoid LAX for flights to LAS just so we don't have to deal with the hassles of LAX and we can show up an hour before our flight and get through security and be on our plane.

If the train can't make it between LA and LAS in under 5 hours, I think its going to be tough. But the key is going to be, the train has to be ON TIME.


----------



## leemell

seat38a said:


> I think many of your on here are too focused on LAX when calculating the time and hassle of flying between SoCal and Vegas. The SoCal LAS market is spread out among BUR, LAX, SNA, LGB, and ONT. Not everything is a hassle via LAX. Burbank alone has 10 flights a day by Southwest and 5 by JetBlue.
> 
> SNA has 7 daily flights by Southwest and another 7 by others.
> 
> A big part of the of the Las Vegas air traffic is generated from the other regional airports and NOT all LAX based. Generally speaking from experience and hearing from others, we will do our best to avoid LAX for flights to LAS just so we don't have to deal with the hassles of LAX and we can show up an hour before our flight and get through security and be on our plane.
> 
> If the train can't make it between LA and LAS in under 5 hours, I think its going to be tough. But the key is going to be, the train has to be ON TIME.


Well, with a dedicated dual track ROW and brand new equipment, that should not be much of a problem.


----------



## VentureForth

leemell said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of your on here are too focused on LAX when calculating the time and hassle of flying between SoCal and Vegas. The SoCal LAS market is spread out among BUR, LAX, SNA, LGB, and ONT. Not everything is a hassle via LAX. Burbank alone has 10 flights a day by Southwest and 5 by JetBlue.
> 
> SNA has 7 daily flights by Southwest and another 7 by others.
> 
> A big part of the of the Las Vegas air traffic is generated from the other regional airports and NOT all LAX based. Generally speaking from experience and hearing from others, we will do our best to avoid LAX for flights to LAS just so we don't have to deal with the hassles of LAX and we can show up an hour before our flight and get through security and be on our plane.
> 
> If the train can't make it between LA and LAS in under 5 hours, I think its going to be tough. But the key is going to be, the train has to be ON TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, with a dedicated dual track ROW and brand new equipment, that should not be much of a problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Like that's gonna be affordable for anyone. Why not go ahead and electrify it?


----------



## leemell

VentureForth said:


> Yeah. Like that's gonna be affordable for anyone. Why not go ahead and electrify it?


Anybody heard anything new on this project?


----------



## DSS&A

It was announced today that construction work will start on this high speed rail line in 2020. The top speed will be 150mph.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/high-speed-california-las-vegas-train-plan/story?id=65264856

Here is another article with similar news:

https://www.ktnv.com/news/high-speed-train-to-ca-back-on-track-construction-set-for-2020


----------



## Anderson

A little surprised by the 150 MPH top speed (is that doable without electrification?) since all signs had been pointed to a replication of the Florida operation. Otherwise, good to hear.


----------



## leemell

No, that indicates electrification, and I did see but cannot remember where, but part of the message was they intend to build the Palmate to Victorville leg first.


----------



## Anderson

That's...interesting, to put it lightly, since electrification (absent dual-modes or a loco swap) would prevent them from running into LA unless/until CAHSR gets going.


----------



## DSS&A

A huge $200 Million project to double track the existing line from Los Angeles (Bob Hope airport arsa near Burbank) to Palmdale was just approved this month. Money was approved fornthe engineeri g and environmental work to starr right away.

This probably played a factor in Virgin Rail's decision.

I was also surprised by the 150mph decision, especially since Amtrak's HSR equipment can do 160mph and the assembly line is active ay Alstom and the FRA track condition requirements are the same for 150mph and 160mph. FRA made this change for Amtrak's NE corridor and the new Alsom equipment it is buying. The FRA requirements change for speeds above 160mph.

https://www.avpress.com/news/metrol...cle_917a0b98-b80c-11e9-87bf-f309011a0721.html


----------



## Anderson

It is entirely possible that the equipment might be capable of 160 but they're only promising 150. Given what happened with the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm timetables (they promised 60 minutes and came in over 70 minutes), under-promising might not be a bad idea. Of course, if Virgin doesn't want to go with the Alstom equipment (perhaps going with a Siemens design?) that might also be at play.


----------



## richardbetsey

leemell said:


> No, that indicates electrification, and I did see but cannot remember where, but part of the message was they intend to build the Palmate to Victorville leg first.


The currently proposed route is from Las To Victorville, CA. At some point in the future the line would be expanded from Victorville, CA to Palmdale, CA. There is a lot of controversy here in Las Vegas about the line initially just going to Victorville . Depending on where you live the drive to Victorville in a car is anywhere from 45 minutes to over 2 hours. The question is why would you drive that amount of time to board a train to Las Vegas. The drive from Victorville to Las Vegas is about 2 3/3 hours. There is no time line for the connection to Palmdale at this time. The last I heard about the California high speed rail project proposed date to complete the link from Palmdale to Burbank was 2038. that assumes the high speed rail project will ever be built. It is billions of dollars over budget.
I am not sure what Brightline knows that we here in Las Vegas don't know. As a side note Amtrak had train service From the Los Angeles Union Station to Las Vegas for many years. Amtrak had to discontinue that service in 1990 (If I remember correctly) because no one was using it.
The idea of high speed rail to Las Vegas is great but unless it connects directly to various points in Southern CA including Los Angeles international Airport there is considerable doubt here in Las Vegas if it can succeed.


----------



## Anderson

At least in re the LA-Vegas service Amtrak ran, my understanding is that it tended to run fairly full LA-Vegas but then ran fairly empty Vegas-SLC. It also took about eight hours and ran once a day.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

richardbetsey said:


> As a side note Amtrak had train service From the Los Angeles Union Station to Las Vegas for many years. Amtrak had to discontinue that service in 1990 (If I remember correctly) because no one was using it.


 Got a source for that claim?


----------



## VentureForth

crescent-zephyr said:


> Got a source for that claim?


According to Wiki, the Desert Wind was discontinued because they were no longer mandated to operate the Pioneer and Desert Wind (Why, I'm not sure). Stakeholders were given an opportunity to make the case to retain them, but that effort (obviously) failed.

I don't think that there was really an issue with regards to ridership specifically between LA and Las Vegas. I think the overall performance of the Pioneer and Desert Wind overall between Portland, LA and Chicago was not favorable.

Link to Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Wind


----------



## crescent-zephyr

The article you linked to says “The Desert Wind was discontinued on May 12, 1997, a victim of Amtrak's reoccurring budget cuts that also eliminated the Pioneer days earlier.”

Now budget cuts... that’s believable! Ha.


----------



## VentureForth

Well, it's related to the Pioneer cancellation "Days prior". The article on the Pioneer discusses the loss of the mandate.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> The article you linked to says “The Desert Wind was discontinued on May 12, 1997, a victim of Amtrak's reoccurring budget cuts that also eliminated the Pioneer days earlier.”
> 
> Now budget cuts... that’s believable! Ha.


Budget cuts indirectly. The reason these trains offs happened was primarily because inadequate number of Superliners were ordered to run everything after the Hi-Levels were taken off line. It was lack of equipment that did these trains in. These were never mandated trains as part of the original system. They were added by Amtrak as experimental service and lived as long as they could. Just before their discontinuance the entire CZ/DW/Pioneer mix was a mess, with each train running some set number of days a week, and none daily west of Salt Lake City. Discontinuance made it possible to restore all remaining services to daily AFAIR.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> Budget cuts indirectly. The reason these trains offs happened was primarily because inadequate number of Superliners were ordered to run everything after the Hi-Levels were taken off line. It was lack of equipment that did these trains in. These were never mandated trains as part of the original system. They were added by Amtrak as experimental service and lived as long as they could. Just before their discontinuance the entire CZ/DW/Pioneer mix was a mess, with each train running some set number of days a week, and none daily west of Salt Lake City. Discontinuance made it possible to restore all remaining services to daily AFAIR.


That makes perfect sense. It did seem like a wacky mix of combined trains that just couldn't possibly be efficient. So with that in context, it would seem that a dedicated, specific train from LA to Las Vegas could be done efficiently and could retain a huge demand. Well, until the passengers lose all their money on the slots...

Honestly, most major cities in the West that were abandoned when the Desert Wind/Pioneer were discontinued are still serviced by SOME service, except Las Vegas and Boise, ID. The LV link is important, albiet not looking like it would be a part of the Amtrak network. Boise would be the largest city in the West previously served that would remain without rail service.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

ahhhhh yes that does make sense. And honestly... probably a good move. Having daily service on core trains is probably better than having 3 day a week service scattered around the country.


----------



## Siegmund

The overnight traffic SLC-Vegas wasn't that bad either, at least in the years that the time in SLC was palatable. The CZ's schedule east of Denver got slower and slower, and pushed the SLC times into the middle of the night. (In the 70s and 80s, SLC was ~6am eastbound and ~11pm westbound; by the end of the Desert Wind it was more like 3am and 1am.)

That, ironically, meant that southern Idaho had better times the last few years of the Pioneer than it previously had - at the expense of Ogden.

I have my doubts about the equipment claims. The "old" CZ/Wind/Zephyr of the 80s ran daily, with no Hi-Level equipment except the second dining car. The 3- and 4-day-a-week operation is spectacularly inefficient for trainset utilization. Now, perhaps they didn't buy enough equipment for the Capitol and City and cannibalized western trains when they were converted.


----------



## Siegmund

> Boise would be the largest city in the West previously served that would remain without rail service.



Phoenix might disagree.

Though by a funny coincidence, a restored Pioneer would miss Boise for the same reason the Sunset misses Phoenix - one of the two ends of a former loop off the main line having been severed.


----------



## jis

Siegmund said:


> I have my doubts about the equipment claims. The "old" CZ/Wind/Zephyr of the 80s ran daily, with no Hi-Level equipment except the second dining car. The 3- and 4-day-a-week operation is spectacularly inefficient for trainset utilization. Now, perhaps they didn't buy enough equipment for the Capitol and City and cannibalized western trains when they were converted.


You have to look at the total bilevel equipment available system wide. There was a big discussion about whether the EB should remain at thrice a week to have enough equipment to continue running the DW and Pioneer at least a few days a week or not. It was not just what exact equipment was used for the CZ/DW/Pioneer pool. The Capitol and CONO were converted because not enough single level LD equipment was ordered to cover everything as the second tranche of the once considered Amfleet II and Viewliner I orders never came about. If they had enough single level equipment left after the toilet conversion they could have run the DW and Pioneer in their original form, but somehow by then the mantra of overnight trains must have Sleepers had caught on anyway, and that was not given any serious thought either. Not that there was enough equipment left to do that either. And remember, a significant portion of the Superliner II order got siphoned off to the Auto Train too. You have to look at the entire system and what was available or not, to run which trains or not. Those were tough times. Some of us lived through those arguments back then too.

Unfortunately at Amtrak it has always been living hand to mouth and making tough choices about robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is the way it has been and is. Hopefully it might change some day.


----------



## Anderson

I believe the line still runs through Phoenix. The main issue there is that Amtrak agreed to move to its current line before the UP/SP merger (when the line was set to be abandoned) and then the merger threw those plans out the window.


----------



## jiml

Siegmund said:


> The overnight traffic SLC-Vegas wasn't that bad either, at least in the years that the time in SLC was palatable. The CZ's schedule east of Denver got slower and slower, and pushed the SLC times into the middle of the night. (In the 70s and 80s, SLC was ~6am eastbound and ~11pm westbound; by the end of the Desert Wind it was more like 3am and 1am.)
> 
> That, ironically, meant that southern Idaho had better times the last few years of the Pioneer than it previously had - at the expense of Ogden.
> 
> I have my doubts about the equipment claims. The "old" CZ/Wind/Zephyr of the 80s ran daily, with no Hi-Level equipment except the second dining car. The 3- and 4-day-a-week operation is spectacularly inefficient for trainset utilization. Now, perhaps they didn't buy enough equipment for the Capitol and City and cannibalized western trains when they were converted.


I think you'd have to look at how the hi-levels were distributed system-wide. For example, during the period we rode a Texas Eagle that had only two Superliners in the consist - our sleeper and the diner. All the coaches and the lounge were ex-Santa Fe hi-levels.

Edit to add: I just caught the post which was below this one and says much the same thing.


----------



## jiml

Anderson said:


> I believe the line still runs through Phoenix. The main issue there is that Amtrak agreed to move to its current line before the UP/SP merger (when the line was set to be abandoned) and then the merger threw those plans out the window.


I believe the one side is severed.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> I believe the one side is severed.


Correct. West of Phoenix at present it is not in an usable form, and part of that segment is used for storage of out of use freight cars. It will take some significant amount of money to get it back into main line shape again.


----------



## jiml

A lot of money! In the documentary about the 1995 incident on those tracks (and the many subsequent YouTube explorations) I think it was shown to be mostly jointed rail. Between that and lack of use, meeting current passenger trains standards would be a stretch likely not met by even the most optimistic ridership projection.


----------



## Anderson

So, I get why the Heritage sleepers were pulled. Why were the Hi-Levels taken out of service?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Anderson said:


> So, I get why the Heritage sleepers were pulled. Why were the Hi-Levels taken out of service?


Same reason, they were Old and Maintence Nightmares, with Parts having to be Custim made @ Great Expense!( plus the Heritage Cars had the Retention Toliet Issue as Cliff said))


----------



## Anderson

Actually, the Heritage sleepers were pulled because of the dump toilet issue IIRC (otherwise, I think Amtrak would have preferred to keep running them versus having to slash routes).


----------



## bretton88

Anderson said:


> It is entirely possible that the equipment might be capable of 160 but they're only promising 150. Given what happened with the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm timetables (they promised 60 minutes and came in over 70 minutes), under-promising might not be a bad idea. Of course, if Virgin doesn't want to go with the Alstom equipment (perhaps going with a Siemens design?) that might also be at play.


150 is also a nice round number. I suspect that 150 number comes from taking the easy way out on the press releases. My guess is we'll see the trains go as fast as regulations and the route engineering allows. My only thought is, if they're building this for high speeds, why stop at 150? For the route they're building the incremental costs of building a route capable 186mph or even 200 shouldn't be much higher. With Victorville being the California end point, I'd think you'd want to make the journey as fast as possible to make it a viable alternative for people to not just keep driving onward.


----------



## Anderson

bretton88 said:


> 150 is also a nice round number. I suspect that 150 number comes from taking the easy way out on the press releases. My guess is we'll see the trains go as fast as regulations and the route engineering allows. My only thought is, if they're building this for high speeds, why stop at 150? For the route they're building the incremental costs of building a route capable 186mph or even 200 shouldn't be much higher. With Victorville being the California end point, I'd think you'd want to make the journey as fast as possible to make it a viable alternative for people to not just keep driving onward.


This is true, but for various reasons you also run into several constraints:
(1) Regulatory limits requiring a lot more expense in terms of track conditions, approvals, etc.
(2) Having to buy substantially more expensive trainsets.
(3) Increasing operating costs as top speeds rise.

A realistic possibility would be that they can get sets that can do 186, but don't want to have to deal with any regulatory issues surrounding having Class 9 track instead of Class 8 track.


----------



## bretton88

Anderson said:


> This is true, but for various reasons you also run into several constraints:
> (1) Regulatory limits requiring a lot more expense in terms of track conditions, approvals, etc.
> (2) Having to buy substantially more expensive trainsets.
> (3) Increasing operating costs as top speeds rise.
> 
> A realistic possibility would be that they can get sets that can do 186, but don't want to have to deal with any regulatory issues surrounding having Class 9 track instead of Class 8 track.


Trainsets probably won't cause significantly more expense, even the new Acelas are capable of 186. You do make a good point about class 9 track, that might be the limiting point. My guess is the alignment will be capable of greater than 160, but they may have decided economic sweet spot might be 160 with energy costs and increased maintenance costs to go above 160.


----------



## Brian_tampa

The new economic impact report is out. This was presented to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee yesterday. They expect to begin building phase 2 across the High Desert Corridor to Palmdale by no sooner than 2029. The report has detailed plans for the Apple Valley station and VMF as well as the massive developments (Desert Gateway area) around the station location.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> I believe the line still runs through Phoenix.


The line west of Phoenix has right-of-way intact and has tracks on it but they are "embargoed" and would have to be rebuilt to operate passenger trains on them.


----------



## neroden

jiml said:


> A lot of money! In the documentary about the 1995 incident on those tracks (and the many subsequent YouTube explorations) I think it was shown to be mostly jointed rail. Between that and lack of use, meeting current passenger trains standards would be a stretch likely not met by even the most optimistic ridership projection.


Pffft, rebuilding track is easy if the political will is present. This isn't a complicated segment technically -- they probably could send one of those "rail renewal" trains right down it and replace the entire line in one go. And ridership projections for a daily Phoenix-LA service are sufficient to make it make sense. But there has been hostility from the state of Arizona government, and very little interest from the City of Phoenix, so nobody's been trying to raise the funding.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> So, I get why the Heritage sleepers were pulled. Why were the Hi-Levels taken out of service?


I believe they had the retention toilet issue too. 

A small number were refitted and run on the Heartland Flyer. The Pacific Parlor Cars were dealt with by closing the restrooms (since there were restrooms on other cars, you didn't need them on lounge cars). 

But the rest were slowly removed from service as the Superliners arrived, and then the last ones were removed around the same time as the Heritage sleepers were pulled, and they had the same retention toilet issue, so I suspect it was the same reason.


----------



## DSS&A

The award of the Bonds for construction of the Las Vegas to California has been delayed due to additional Federal review related to Virgin Trains' slight changes to their plans.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.re...ions-for-high-speed-rail-project-1951551/amp/


----------



## DSS&A

Virgin Trains has announced its Las Vegas station location and initial facility details.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin...big-station-south-of-las-vegas-strip-1959236/


----------



## railiner

DSS&A said:


> Virgin Trains has announced its Las Vegas station location and initial facility details.
> 
> https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin...big-station-south-of-las-vegas-strip-1959236/


Didn't see any mention of "one armed bandits" ...
The Amtrak station had them in the passageway into the Plaza Hotel....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Didn't see any mention of "one armed bandits" ... The Amtrak station had them in the passageway into the Plaza Hotel....


The slot machines at McCarran are some of the stingiest I've ever seen. I presume this is because it's an extremely captive audience with many layers of payments billed to each pull. Makes me wonder if an entity like Amtrak would be allowed to purchase retail rights in or near a station and then sublease them to a gambling concern in exchange for a commission on earnings. Could help offset the cost of serving a city like Vegas.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> The slot machines at McCarran are some of the stingiest I've ever seen. I presume this is because it's an extremely captive audience with many layers of payments billed to each pull. Makes me wonder if an entity like Amtrak would be allowed to purchase retail rights in or near a station and then sublease them to a gambling concern in exchange for a commission on earnings. Could help offset the cost of serving a city like Vegas.



I don't see any reason why not...really no different than Amtrak developing any of their properties for retail, thru a contractor. In the case of the Plaza Hotel, Amtrak was just a tenant. The hotel was built on the site of the old Union Pacific station. UP either sold it or leased it to the hotel developer.


----------



## Anderson

They've got about a hundred acres of land to develop. The one-armed bandits will have somewhere to go ;-)


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Same development model as Brightline?


----------



## Anderson

Very likely something similar. The biggest issue I see is that while development options are obvious with Las Vegas, Victorville and other possible station locations are probably a bit more limited for the time being. Now, if they can turn around and offer a quick enough trip into LA, they could probably make a _fortune _off of that.

(Edit: And of course, in a related thought, up in the Bay Area I suspect there's an absolute killing to be made if somebody can plug a reasonably fast line into either Oakland or San Jose from the other side of the mountains and then milk the development rights on the other side...)


----------



## DSS&A

Virgin trains has purchased in escrow 284 acres for their Apple Valley station site as a part of their Las Vegas service that is under development.

https://www.vvdailypress.com/news/2...pletes-land-purchase-for-apple-valley-station

https://www.ktnv.com/news/virgin-trains-usa-buys-land-in-california

https://www.vvng.com/virgin-trains-usa-closes-escrow-on-284-acres-in-apple-valley/


----------



## mainemanman

Possibility they might run trains through on the San Bernardino line? Of course, they would have to use the Cajon Pass, therefore meaning they'd have to negotiate with BNSF, but the plus side is a one-seat ride to Los Angeles and not having to use a car to drive up to Victorville.


----------



## jis

mainemanman said:


> Possibility they might run trains through on the San Bernardino line? Of course, they would have to use the Cajon Pass, therefore meaning they'd have to negotiate with BNSF, but the plus side is a one-seat ride to Los Angeles and not having to use a car to drive up to Victorville.


That is not their plan. When they get to LA they will do so via Palmdalevia Metrolink trackage (and their own to Palmdale), not San Bernardino.


----------



## west point

Plans have a way if changing. Believe what will happen when construction starts, Since its BEE line construction is in full operation that helps the MIA <> Orlando appear well on the way. Once all the Bee line bridges are complete then that is another milestone.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Plans have a way if changing. Believe what will happen when construction starts, Since its BEE line construction is in full operation that helps the MIA <> Orlando appear well on the way. Once all the Bee line bridges are complete then that is another milestone.


Well Cajon Pass issue has nothing to do with construction plans. There is no capacity to be had for any reasonable price through Cajon Pass. We are not talking of one train a day. We are talking hourly service over many hours of the day. Just won't happen.

BTW, the name of the highway in question in Florida is Beachline or State Rt. 528. They always said the route will be along 528 since day one. That is what the EIS said and that is where it is. These things just don't randomly move around.


----------



## mainemanman

jis said:


> That is not their plan. When they get to LA they will do so via Palmdalevia Metrolink trackage (and their own to Palmdale), not San Bernardino.


Ok, I see. Wasn't aware they were still planning to go beyond Victorville. That makes a lot more sense.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> Well Cajon Pass issue has nothing to do with construction plans. There is no capacity to be had for any reasonable price through Cajon Pass. We are not talking of one train a day. We are talking hourly service over many hours of the day. Just won't happen..



Is Cajon Pass that expensive? What's keeping a new Cajon Pass rail line from being made. Certainly a Tejon Pass rail can be done (at least theoretically).


----------



## west point

Actually it was changed from BEE line to Beach line in 2006. Drove the BEE line a lot before and after !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Road_528


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Actually it was changed from BEE line to Beach line in 2006. Drove the BEE line a lot before and after !
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Road_528


Anyway, the point is it is Beachline now, not BEE line


----------



## nullptr

Some positive news for this project from the last week. They got the okay from the state of California to issue tax-exempt bonds and will probably get a $10million tax credit from the state as well.









California OKs $600M in bonds for Virgin Trains high-speed rail project


A California finance committee Tuesday unanimously approved the allocation of $600 million in tax-exempt bonds to go toward the Virgin Trains USA high-speed rail project between Las Vegas and South...




www.reviewjournal.com












Virgin Trains Poised to Win California to Vegas Train Tax Credit


Virgin Trains Poised to Win California to Vegas Train Tax Credit




www.bloombergquint.com


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> This is true, but for various reasons you also run into several constraints:
> (1) Regulatory limits requiring a lot more expense in terms of track conditions, approvals, etc.
> (2) Having to buy substantially more expensive trainsets.
> (3) Increasing operating costs as top speeds rise.
> 
> A realistic possibility would be that they can get sets that can do 186, but don't want to have to deal with any regulatory issues surrounding having Class 9 track instead of Class 8 track.



One compromise might be to build the general geometry/ alignment capabale of 180mph or whatever, while initially running slower than that with cheaper trains and signalling system etc. Ideally the same type they are using as in Florida so they can exchange equipment and pool know-how, maintenance, spares etc as needed. Seeing the alignment is mostly in desert, just easing curve radii just a little more on first construction is not going to cost an arm and a leg. But going in and fixing that later would cost significantly greater amounts of cash. Then maybe when the first generation of trains come up for replacement they can go for something faster, which presumably by then will mean the technology is more mature and thus more affordable.


----------



## leemell

*Caltrans and XpressWest Complete Lease Agreement*






Caltrans and XpressWest Complete Lease Agreement | Caltrans


Caltrans and XpressWest Complete Lease Agreement for High-Speed Passenger Rail between Las Vegas and Southern California




dot.ca.gov


----------



## DSS&A

Brightline will study an extension of their line further southwest of Victorville to Rancho Cucamonga, CA using the I-15 highway cooridoor.









Virgin Trains in early talks to extend high-speed rail closer to LA


The company planning a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Southern California is in early talks to extend the line closer to Los Angeles.




www.reviewjournal.com


----------



## joelkfla

DSS&A said:


> Brightline will study an extension of their line further southwest of Victorville to Rancho Cucamonga, CA using the I-15 highway cooridoor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virgin Trains in early talks to extend high-speed rail closer to LA
> 
> 
> The company planning a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Southern California is in early talks to extend the line closer to Los Angeles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reviewjournal.com


The article says they "expect to break ground" by the end of 2020. Based on Brightline's history in FL, I'd be very surprised.

I'm also not holding my breath for the proposed FL extensions to WDW & Tampa, although the route to Orlando's airport seems to be moving along nicely now.


----------



## Qapla

Many of the delays experienced in Florida came from the NIMBY lawsuits - not the rail company's ability to move forward ... as can be seen with their current progress now that the law suits have been settled


----------



## McIntyre2K7

joelkfla said:


> The article says they "expect to break ground" by the end of 2020. Based on Brightline's history in FL, I'd be very surprised.
> 
> I'm also not holding my breath for the proposed FL extensions to WDW & Tampa, although the route to Orlando's airport seems to be moving along nicely now.



I think the extension to Tampa gets built just due to the fact they already have the right of way using Interstate 4 from Orlando to Tampa. I assume Disney is going to cough up some land as well. The only problem would be as to where to place the Lakeland stop. The crazy thing is we could have had high speed rail but then Florida Governor Rick Scott turned down federal money to build it. Now 9 years later they want to build it and Rick Scott has invested in the company that wants to build the line.


----------



## Bob Dylan

McIntyre2K7 said:


> I think the extension to Tampa gets built just due to the fact they already have the right of way using Interstate 4 from Orlando to Tampa. I assume Disney is going to cough up some land as well. The only problem would be as to where to place the Lakeland stop. The crazy thing is we could have had high speed rail but then Florida Governor Rick Scott turned down federal money to build it. Now 9 years later they want to build it and Rick Scott has invested in the company that wants to build the line.


More Swamp Creatures cashing in!!!


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

DSS&A said:


> Brightline will study an extension of their line further southwest of Victorville to Rancho Cucamonga, CA using the I-15 highway cooridoor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virgin Trains in early talks to extend high-speed rail closer to LA
> 
> 
> The company planning a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Southern California is in early talks to extend the line closer to Los Angeles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reviewjournal.com



If they can build a new Cajon HSR line then Tejon should be easy


----------



## dlagrua

If Brightline takes over the planned Xpresswest route from LA to Las Vegas this only connects two population centers. Point is Las Vegas gets tourism from 50 states The discontinued Amtrak Desert Wind once served Chicago, Omaha, Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles,, and Las Vegas, while also serving six different states including IA. . The drawback was that it only operated 3 days a week. This seems like a more effective use of a train.


----------



## McIntyre2K7

dlagrua said:


> If Brightline takes over the planned Xpresswest route from LA to Las Vegas this only connects two population centers. Point is Las Vegas gets tourism from 50 states The discontinued Amtrak Desert Wind once served Chicago, Omaha, Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles,, and Las Vegas, while also serving six different states including IA. . The drawback was that it only operated 3 days a week. This seems like a more effective use of a train.



In theory yes but it's cheaper to fly to LA and take a bus or another flight into Vegas vs flying into Vegas. Plus the Brightline train would probably run every hour like the one in Miami does. It wouldn't surprise me if they had late night service as well (10:30pm, Midnight, 1:30am). 50 million trips a year (one way) is amazing. I assume they are going to want to have 10-15 million passengers a year. Amtrak could bring that line back but just have it terminate in Vegas. I believe the western terminus will be Victorville, CA and that should have connections with the CHSR project when complete.


----------



## cirdan

Qapla said:


> Many of the delays experienced in Florida came from the NIMBY lawsuits - not the rail company's ability to move forward ... as can be seen with their current progress now that the law suits have been settled



Nevetheless, realistic plannng anticipates NIMBYs and budgets time and costs for dealing with them.


----------



## neroden

By taking over the XPressWest project, they've taken over a project which has already passed a large number of the NIMBY hurdles. There will be more, no doubt, but it's passed a lot of them already.


----------



## Qapla

Perhaps ... but that is not how it is perceived. When a company like Virgin Trains (Brightline) announces a plan to add service, many expect that service to come "in a couple years" - not 10 or more years before they can even begin work due to the lawsuits. It doesn't matter if they "planned" for the time and expense, the delay brought by such litigation causes needless delays and cost overruns that should not be needed - and most people look at the rail company as "dragging their heals" and not getting the job done in a timely and efficient way.

In most cases, it does not take that long to build a road or expand one ... it should not take rail that long either.


----------



## neroden

It takes that long to build a road where *I* live.  We have plenty of anti-road NIMBYs here.


----------



## cirdan

McIntyre2K7 said:


> In theory yes but it's cheaper to fly to LA and take a bus or another flight into Vegas vs flying into Vegas. Plus the Brightline train would probably run every hour like the one in Miami does. It wouldn't surprise me if they had late night service as well (10:30pm, Midnight, 1:30am). 50 million trips a year (one way) is amazing. I assume they are going to want to have 10-15 million passengers a year. Amtrak could bring that line back but just have it terminate in Vegas. I believe the western terminus will be Victorville, CA and that should have connections with the CHSR project when complete.



I think XPress West may well be able to take a segment of the LA to Vegas market. But I don't think many people going to Vegas from further afield will fly into LA and then catch the train. The trek from the airport to Union Station is just a bit too much to make that an attractive proposition.

If XPress West could stop at the airport directly, Orland sytle, that would be a different story.


----------



## me_little_me

cirdan said:


> I think XPress West may well be able to take a segment of the LA to Vegas market. But I don't think many people going to Vegas from further afield will fly into LA and then catch the train. The trek from the airport to Union Station is just a bit too much to make that an attractive proposition.
> 
> If XPress West could stop at the airport directly, Orland sytle, that would be a different story.


Amtrak could provide service from other cities like SLC, PHX, CHI & NYC. It would be roundabout, slow, in old cars with few features, "flex menus" and microwaved M&Ms and burgers, and sometimes nice/sometimes surly staff who make up their own rules. It would only run 3 days a week (midweek only) on standard bumpy freight tracks. But you would get Guest Rewards points!


----------



## Palmetto

me_little_me said:


> Amtrak could provide service from other cities like SLC, PHX, CHI & NYC. It would be roundabout, slow, in old cars with few features, "flex menus" and microwaved M&Ms and burgers, and sometimes nice/sometimes surly staff who make up their own rules. It would only run 3 days a week (midweek only) on standard bumpy freight tracks. But you would get Guest Rewards points!



Why do that when Las Vegas has its own international airport?


----------



## Mailliw

Apparently flights to LAX are cheaper and there's probably more options too.


----------



## me_little_me

Palmetto said:


> Why do that when Las Vegas has its own international airport?


You let the airport people run the Amtrak trains?

I guess that posting went over your head.


----------



## McIntyre2K7

cirdan said:


> I think XPress West may well be able to take a segment of the LA to Vegas market. But I don't think many people going to Vegas from further afield will fly into LA and then catch the train. The trek from the airport to Union Station is just a bit too much to make that an attractive proposition.
> 
> If XPress West could stop at the airport directly, Orland sytle, that would be a different story.



There's already a bus that goes from LAX to Union Station that runs every 30 minutes so it should be a huge deal.


----------



## DSS&A

Nevada approves $200 Million in HSR Bonds for Virgin Trains HSR project today:









Nevada OKs $200M in bonds for Vegas-to-SoCal high-speed train


After being docked for over 10 years, the long-talked about high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Southern California appears ready to leave the station.




www.google.com


----------



## joelkfla

DSS&A said:


> Nevada approves $200 Million in HSR Bonds for Virgin Trains HSR project today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevada OKs $200M in bonds for Vegas-to-SoCal high-speed train
> 
> 
> After being docked for over 10 years, the long-talked about high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Southern California appears ready to leave the station.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com


Kind of a pain that you have to whitelist the site _and _register an account, but it's a good article with a lot of info about the plans.


----------



## nullptr

The September 30th deadline means we will probably hear more news about this soon. And after the bonds are issued you would think they'd be motivated to start construction quickly.


----------



## west point

Construction now with Covid-19 has companies falling all over themselves to get a low bid in. + plenty of out of work persons to hire. Personal knowledge that is happening in the Orlando area. All the governments are trying to get projects started earlier. Orlando airport has pushed some projects for the terninal expansion up to 3 months earlier. Bright line at airport and other locations as well. The loss of passenger traffic at MCO has alllowed closure of roadways all day loong that would have only been closed at night. Saving contractors and airport authority money.


----------



## DSS&A

The statement of trains running by the end of 2023 and "trains operating at speeds up to 200 mph means that there will be an equipment order ASAP!! Alstom would have an advantage with its Acela 2 production line active, but HSR 200 mph would require a few equimemt adjustments and different FRA tests than the current Acela 2 tests at Pueblo, CO.


----------



## joelkfla

DSS&A said:


> The statement of trains running by the end of 2023 and "trains operating at speeds up to 200 mph means that there will be an equipment order ASAP!! Alstom would have an advantage with its Acela 2 production line active, but HSR 200 mph would require a few equimemt adjustments and different FRA tests than the current Acela 2 tests at Pueblo, CO.


Current Brightline rolling stock is all Siemens. Does Siemens offer 200-mph-capable trainsets?


----------



## nullptr

joelkfla said:


> Current Brightline rolling stock is all Siemens. Does Siemens offer 200-mph-capable trainsets?



The Siemens Velaro is based on what is used on the DB ICE service and should be plenty fast enough. I remember there being a Siemens display in Sacramento awhile back Siemens looks to wow Sacramento with high-speed rail demo.

In general, I would imagine the groups that showed interest in bidding on the California high-speed rail rolling stock would be the same ones interested in this. Wayback Machine


----------



## joelkfla

DSS&A said:


> Alstom would have an advantage with its Acela 2 production line active, but HSR 200 mph would require a few equimemt adjustments and different FRA tests than the current Acela 2 tests at Pueblo, CO.


The DOT website says Pueblo is capable of testing only up to 160 mph.

Question: Would FRA testing be required if the manufacturer certifies that they have completed their own testing, or if the equipment has been in service in other countries? Especially considering that the equipment would be in use on privately owned trackage with no interchange to public or shared track.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> The DOT website says Pueblo is capable of testing only up to 160 mph.
> 
> Question: Would FRA testing be required if the manufacturer certifies that they have completed their own testing, or if the equipment has been in service in other countries? Especially considering that the equipment would be in use on privately owned trackage with no interchange to public or shared track.


Well, if the FRA takes the FAA approach which led to the MAX fiasco, then clearly not. But I don;t think that idea will fly post 737MAX, even at FRA, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## cirdan

joelkfla said:


> Current Brightline rolling stock is all Siemens. Does Siemens offer 200-mph-capable trainsets?



Yes, Siemens does. The ICE / Velaro has already been exported to several countries, including Spain, Russia, China as well as the new generation Eurostar ...

I was thinking that maybe Brightline might also reach out to Texas Central and place a joint order for Japanese-style trains. The two projects are comparable in that they both aim to build a new and standalone line from scratch over a similar sort of distance.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Well, if the FRA takes the FAA approach which led to the MAX fiasco, then clearly not. But I don;t think that idea will fly post 737MAX, even at FRA, in a manner of speaking.



But wasn't the problem there that they accepted other people's testing, including the flawed thinking behind it.

I don't see any reason why the FRA must insist a test is physically performed in the USA. They could send some of their technicians over to Germany along with their measuring equipment and do the tests there. Surely the result of such a test should be entirely equivalent to the same test being done in the USA, except that you save the costs of building a 200mph test track.


----------



## leemell

China has been building the Siemens Velaro under license.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Here's my question: are they actually planning on 200 Mph running or is that just an eventual aspiration?


----------



## leemell

Announced trip times are consistent with 200 MPH.


----------



## Qapla

I really don't know the answer to this - but ... when Honda, Toyota, Nissan Mercedes, Subaru or any of the other non-US car makers bring a new model to the US that has been being used in other countries for several years do they have to submit it to extreme safety tests on US roads when it is a proven vehicle already?

If not, why can't they do the same with a train that has been running without problems in another country instead of spending the time and money to test it in the US when it is already proven technology?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

US-spec road vehicles have to be crashed in US-spec crash tests to be sold on the open market in the US. There are a few exceptions here and there but those are pretty rare. For most cars the only way to avoid US-spec testing is to be brought over as an antique (25+) on the collectors market.


----------



## John Santos

At least until the FRA gets up to speed (oops!), why can't they test the trains on the actual tracks they will run on?

Several of the routes will be on brand-new, exclusive tracks, so there is no existing freight or passenger traffic to avoid or impede. They wouldn't be testing the new trains on the NEC. (Actually, they could do some testing on the NEC, after all the crash testing, signaling, breaking and acceleration tests, etc. have been completed elsewhere, and not above the current NEC speed limits.)

By the time the next generation of trains need to be tested, the various 200MPH tracks will be very busy and not suited for testing (we hope!), but the FRA would have had decades to update their facilities.


----------



## cirdan

John Santos said:


> At least until the FRA gets up to speed (oops!), why can't they test the trains on the actual tracks they will run on?



I guess the track and the trains will all be completed around about the same time so the system can go live as soon as possible after completion. By which time it would be quite costly to make any changes should any problem be detected. So it would be better to have either a prototype or a pre-series train delivered ahead of the others to catch any such problems, as this would mean only one train needs to be modified rather than the entire fleet.

Doing that would mean the tracks would have to be ready before the first train arrives, which would impyl well ahead of the rest of the trains arriving. Maybe doing that would create timing problems, with building the route already being the difficult built. NIMBYs can't really stop you making a train in a factory, but they can do lots of things, both reasonable and unreasonable, to slow down or stop construction in the field. So the route construction is the critical bit.

So it might actually make sense to do the testing elsewhere if a suitable location can be found.


----------



## John Santos

cirdan said:


> I guess the track and the trains will all be completed around about the same time so the system can go live as soon as possible after completion. By which time it would be quite costly to make any changes should any problem be detected. So it would be better to have either a prototype or a pre-series train delivered ahead of the others to catch any such problems, as this would mean only one train needs to be modified rather than the entire fleet.
> 
> Doing that would mean the tracks would have to be ready before the first train arrives, which would impyl well ahead of the rest of the trains arriving. Maybe doing that would create timing problems, with building the route already being the difficult built. NIMBYs can't really stop you making a train in a factory, but they can do lots of things, both reasonable and unreasonable, to slow down or stop construction in the field. So the route construction is the critical bit.
> 
> So it might actually make sense to do the testing elsewhere if a suitable location can be found.


Most of the routes would be 2-300 miles long. I'm sure 20 to 30 miles would be plenty long for a test track. Building a test track SOMEWHERE is a required step in building any such railroad. Why not build it as the first 25 miles of the new route? While the rest of the line is completed, the already done part is used to test the prototypes of the trains. It will probably take several years for all the trainsets to be delivered, and many years to build the complete route, but some of it will be usable for testing (so what if the station platforms or waiting rooms aren't ready, or a bridge or tunnel in the most difficult part of the route isn't done - they aren't needed for testing the trains.)

How were they planning to test the trains for the California High Speed Rail project? Was that only going to be Acela-speed (slow by world standards) or faster?


----------



## Mailliw

Legally it has to be much faster than Acela. LA to San Francisco is supposed to take less than 3 hours. The train needs to go over 200mph, at least in the Central Valley.


----------



## leemell

The initial 119 miles of the CAHSR is the will be the test track. Speeds must be at least 220mph as it is supposed to run at this speed. It will likely be tested a higher speeds.


----------



## west point

Unless FRA regulations are ever changed the tests now are required to be 10% above the max authorized operational speed. So 220 MPH max speed will be tested at 242 MPH. Just as Acela-2s 160 will need tested to 176 MPH. 
Testing protocols seem to test in 5 MPH increments with some low starting mark. Maybe something like this. 50 - 55 - 60 - ………. - 150 - 155- 160 - 165 ……..210 - 215 - 220 - 225 - 230 - 235 - 240 - 245 - 250 - 255 - 260, etc. I would imagine tests will continue to highest speed possible. 
Limits would be undesirable train dynamics, FRA saying no faster, train will not achieve any faster, CAT dynamics, etc. That way if authorized speed of track is raised then carrier does not have to go back and test train set again.


----------



## me_little_me

leemell said:


> The initial 119 miles of the CAHSR is the will be the test track. Speeds must be at least 220mph as it is supposed to run at this speed. It will likely be tested a higher speeds.


So John Santos' suggestion would be feasible? The first built section of ExpressWest would make a good test track. Especially if the first built section is in the desert where there is no reason to try and run revenue trains until more track is completed because there is no station to get on and no station to get off.


----------



## Palmetto

A little off topic, but have not the environmentalists objected to this project in some way?


----------



## leemell

That mostly all occurred when the then DesertExpress got the NEPA environmental, CalTrans, BLM FRA and Nevada clearances and certification. That was about 2012-2014.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Palmetto said:


> A little off topic, but have not the environmentalists objected to this project in some way?


Using an environmental law to attack a project does _not_ make someone an environmentalist. The vast majority of environmentalists are supportive of mass transit in general and passenger rail in particular. Even those who are unenthusiastic about a new train to Vegas would still prefer that over more cars and planes. It's not uncommon for wealthy rural landowners to claim loyalty to any cause that might give them an edge over an adversary. That's how we end up with "environmentalists" who spend their time and money attacking renewable energy projects.


----------



## John Santos

Thanks everyone for the positive feedback. Clearly my idea isn't original if that's what CHSR was planning to do, but if no one is looking to closely, I'll claim credit 

As I understand it, part of the CHSR track has already been built and more is still under construction and they are planning to use it for San Joaquin valley service (but not build the most expensive and most useful part over the mountains and into the LA basin.) Could this track, before it actually goes into revenue service, be used as a test track for other HSR trains? Or is it a series of disjoint short sections interconnected with regular speed tracks already in use by the San Joaquin service? Or are they planning to put it into service with conventional corridor trains as soon as it's available?


----------



## MARC Rider

How much of the actual route will be run at 220 mph? For examples, although the Acelas can go 150 mph, they only do that for a short stretch of track in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. (Actually, my gps usually clocks them at ~148 mph there.) The average speed (~80 mph) between New York and Washington is, in fact, higher than the average speed between New York and Boston (~70 mph), even though the maximum speed on that section is only 135 mph, and only for a short stretch in New Jersey. To speed them up, they really don't need a faster maximum speed, they need to eliminate the bottlenecks that force them to run more slowly for the vast majority of the route. (Hi, Metro-North! Hi Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel! Hi Susquehanna River Bridge!  )

I wonder if California HSR (or the Brightline Las Vegas service) really needs trains that can go 220 mph when they start up. Maybe they should first get the system built, and then worry about the bells and whistles once there's something that's actually a practical form of transportation with wide public support. It would certainly be easier and cheaper to obtain rolling stick certified for a lesser maximum speed.


----------



## joelkfla

MARC Rider said:


> How much of the actual route will be run at 220 mph?


I would expect just about all of Brightline, since it's new track being laid in the desert alongside an Interstate.


----------



## Palmetto

Devil's Advocate said:


> Using an environmental law to attack a project does _not_ make someone an environmentalist. The vast majority of environmentalists are supportive of mass transit in general and passenger rail in particular. Even those who are unenthusiastic about a new train to Vegas would still prefer that over more cars and planes. It's not uncommon for wealthy rural landowners to claim loyalty to any cause that might give them an edge over an adversary. That's how we end up with "environmentalists" who spend their time and money attacking renewable energy projects.



Fine. Anyone have an answer to the question, which I will re-state: Has there been any opposition to this project from any group?


----------



## leemell

About a decade ago.


MARC Rider said:


> How much of the actual route will be run at 220 mph? For examples, although the Acelas can go 150 mph, they only do that for a short stretch of track in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. (Actually, my gps usually clocks them at ~148 mph there.) The average speed (~80 mph) between New York and Washington is, in fact, higher than the average speed between New York and Boston (~70 mph), even though the maximum speed on that section is only 135 mph, and only for a short stretch in New Jersey. To speed them up, they really don't need a faster maximum speed, they need to eliminate the bottlenecks that force them to run more slowly for the vast majority of the route. (Hi, Metro-North! Hi Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel! Hi Susquehanna River Bridge!  )
> 
> I wonder if California HSR (or the Brightline Las Vegas service) really needs trains that can go 220 mph when they start up. Maybe they should first get the system built, and then worry about the bells and whistles once there's something that's actually a practical form of transportation with wide public support. It would certainly be easier and cheaper to obtain rolling stick certified for a lesser maximum speed.



The average speed for the CHSR will be about 186mph with all of the stops. All the tunnels will be built for 200+mph.


----------



## leemell

John Santos said:


> Thanks everyone for the positive feedback. Clearly my idea isn't original if that's what CHSR was planning to do, but if no one is looking to closely, I'll claim credit
> 
> As I understand it, part of the CHSR track has already been built and more is still under construction and they are planning to use it for San Joaquin valley service (but not build the most expensive and most useful part over the mountains and into the LA basin.) Could this track, before it actually goes into revenue service, be used as a test track for other HSR trains? Or is it a series of disjoint short sections interconnected with regular speed tracks already in use by the San Joaquin service? Or are they planning to put it into service with conventional corridor trains as soon as it's available?



About 40% of the Central Valley portion is complete. 77 miles of guideway complete. No track or system yet, RFP that went out about 4 months ago. Deadline was October. Track is near the end construction period.


----------



## MARC Rider

leemell said:


> About a decade ago.
> 
> 
> The average speed for the CHSR will be about 186mph with all of the stops. All the tunnels will be built for 200+mph.


Would the service be competitive if it started up at a slower average speed (like 100 mph)? They could build the alignment to be eventually upgraded for the higher speed, but might be able to save money on tracks, signaling, and, apparently, rolling stock.

It seems to me that going straight from essentially a third-world passenger railway service in an area that's not used to riding trains to world-class sate of the art might be a jump too far. Better to get a system built in the first place and get people riding it.

What are the average speeds of high-speed rail services in other countries?


----------



## west point

At one time believe there was a study that if the Elizabeth "S" curve and the track from north PHL past Frankford was straightened that at least 5 -7 minutes could be knocked off the schedule from Newark to North PHL ? Believe that was figured on just 150 MPH on that section not the 160 planned for Acela-2s. Think of how many traveling passenger minutes that would save per day. Also that would place PHL <> NYP under 1 hour which is a magic time for attracting many more passengers. That is an example of getting rid of the slow sections.


----------



## joelkfla

MARC Rider said:


> Would the service be competitive if it started up at a slower average speed (like 100 mph)? They could build the alignment to be eventually upgraded for the higher speed, but might be able to save money on tracks, signaling, and, apparently, rolling stock.
> 
> It seems to me that going straight from essentially a third-world passenger railway service in an area that's not used to riding trains to world-class sate of the art might be a jump too far. Better to get a system built in the first place and get people riding it.
> 
> What are the average speeds of high-speed rail services in other countries?


I feel just the opposite: the shorter the travel time, the greater the acceptance.

If you start out offering a product that doesn't impress, customers may not give you a second chance.


----------



## west point

It is not a good time now but I've wondered when Amtrak is going to cut running time on the NEC. The non stop NYP <> WASH certainly had a good o time record with an average of arriving 10 minutes early. But the good on time certainly has helped the last couple years.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

MARC Rider said:


> Would the service be competitive if it started up at a slower average speed (like 100 mph)? They could build the alignment to be eventually upgraded for the higher speed, but might be able to save money on tracks, signaling, and, apparently, rolling stock.
> 
> It seems to me that going straight from essentially a third-world passenger railway service in an area that's not used to riding trains to world-class sate of the art might be a jump too far. Better to get a system built in the first place and get people riding it.
> 
> What are the average speeds of high-speed rail services in other countries?


The alignment and structure is most of what makes the project so expensive, so lowering the speed on the same alignment wouldn't save much money relative to the overall cost but could significantly lower the passenger appeal.


----------



## DSS&A

Brightline launched $3.2 BILLION bond sale for the Los Vegas to California HSR project.









Brightline launches $3.2B bond sale for Vegas-to-LA high-speed rail line


Brightline, the company behind the XpressWest high-speed rail project, began an up-to-$3.2 billion bond offering for the initial financing of the project.




www.google.com


----------



## nullptr

DSS&A said:


> Brightline launched $3.2 BILLION bond sale for the Los Vegas to California HSR project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brightline launches $3.2B bond sale for Vegas-to-LA high-speed rail line
> 
> 
> Brightline, the company behind the XpressWest high-speed rail project, began an up-to-$3.2 billion bond offering for the initial financing of the project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com



Some interesting information in that article. Wes Edens says they are "100% committed" to opening the whole Las Vegas - Victorville - Rancho Cucamonga - LA Union Station line at the same time, seemingly in 2023. That is a more aggressive timeline then I have heard for the parts past Victorville.

Also, a Forbes article about the bond sale seems to confirm that Siemens will be making the trains for this system. Not super surprising but it's the first time I've seen it stated in an article.









Rail Startup Brightline Kicks Off $3.2 Billion Bond Sale For LA-To-Vegas High-Speed Train


Sale of the tax-exempt debt will allow construction of the line to begin late this year, with a goal to start passenger service in 2024.




www.forbes.com


----------



## jis

nullptr said:


> Also, a Forbes article about the bond sale seems to confirm that Siemens will be making the trains for this system. Not super surprising but it's the first time I've seen it stated in an article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rail Startup Brightline Kicks Off $3.2 Billion Bond Sale For LA-To-Vegas High-Speed Train
> 
> 
> Sale of the tax-exempt debt will allow construction of the line to begin late this year, with a goal to start passenger service in 2024.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


So does this hint that Velaro derivatives are coming to the US?


----------



## nullptr

jis said:


> So does this hint that Velaro derivatives are coming to the US?



I won't claim to be particularly good at recognizing the model of train in photos, but the renders in their Brightline west fact sheet do look like Velaros.


https://www.gobrightline.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/LA_To_Vegas_Fact_Sheet.pdf



A follow-up question is will they be made in their Sacramento plant? I don't think they're obligated to because this shouldn't fall under Buy America (I think?) but maybe the logistics still make sense for it to be built there.


----------



## jis

nullptr said:


> I won't claim to be particularly good at recognizing the model of train in photos, but the renders in their Brightline west fact sheet do look like Velaros.
> 
> 
> https://www.gobrightline.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/LA_To_Vegas_Fact_Sheet.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> A follow-up question is will they be made in their Sacramento plant? I don't think they're obligated to because this shouldn't fall under Buy America (I think?) but maybe the logistics still make sense for it to be built there.


Brightline has tended to abide by Buy America for all their projects so far. My guess is they see that as a politically useful point (even if not required, which is doubtful) specially when tax exempt bonds are involved.

Interestingly, those Velaros seem to be lacking catenary in that flyer.


----------



## neroden

nullptr said:


> Some interesting information in that article. Wes Edens says they are "100% committed" to opening the whole Las Vegas - Victorville - Rancho Cucamonga - LA Union Station line at the same time, seemingly in 2023. That is a more aggressive timeline then I have heard for the parts past Victorville.


2023 doesn't seem possible. This does tell me that they're trying to get it all opened at once though, which makes sense. And as fast as possible, which also makes sense.

The Cucamonga-LA Union section is essentially impossible to do quickly, politically speaking, since it doesn't have environmental clearance yet, it requires extensive land acquisition, and, most importantly, it's lots of tiny little parcels through highly-populated land. I see no route which avoids difficult land acquisition arguments. There's no way that opens with the rest of the line, although it's a nice aspirational goal.

Cajon might not be that hard; there seems to be a lot of space next to the railways, US highway, and expressway, and not a lot of NIMBYs on the corridor. It looks like they're hedging their bets there by trying to build to Palmdale and to Rancho Cucamonga simultaneously, which makes sense, since for ridership purposes they really need to get to one or the other. This reduces the odds of delay by having two routes; whichever opens first, they can start running trains.


----------



## jis

They are now having a few problems with the Bond Market agreeing to Bond prices that are acceptable to Brightline. To address it, Brightline is buying back a bunch of bonds that they sold for the Florida construction to reduce their overall indebtedness.


----------



## chrsjrcj

Could they just use Metrolink’s line from Rancho Cucamonga to Union Station? Even if they’re limited to 80 mph, it’s better than nothing and Metrolink could electrify the San Bernardino line in the process.


----------



## neroden

chrsjrcj said:


> Could they just use Metrolink’s line from Rancho Cucamonga to Union Station? Even if they’re limited to 80 mph, it’s better than nothing and Metrolink could electrify the San Bernardino line in the process.


Maybe, but the single-track section is a killer. The San Bernadino Line needs to be double-tracked, and there's a lot of contention over the right-of-way needed to do that.

Marengo St. to Raymond Ave and again Raymond Ave to El Monte and again El Monte to Gliman Rd. It's already a problem for Metrolink service, this being the busiest of Metrolink's lines.

...and again Hamburger Lane past Baldwin Park to Irwindale Ave, but here at least the right-of-way is present. West of El Monte the right-of-way has been encroached upon and highway lanes would need to be taken.

The obvious solution is to remove the El Monte Busway, or remove lanes from I-10 and relocate the El Monte Busway onto them, but if that's possible politically, I'll be *extremely* surprised.

Double-tracking the Palmdale line is easier!


----------



## nullptr

I had the impression that as part of SCORE, Metrolink planned on double-tracking, or at least adding siding, to the San Bernardino line? I could be mistaken though.

But yeah, if Brightline wants a 1 seat ride on their Velaros to LA union station they will need to get one of those two lines electrified.


----------



## jiml

chrsjrcj said:


> Could they just use Metrolink’s line from Rancho Cucamonga to Union Station? Even if they’re limited to 80 mph, it’s better than nothing and Metrolink could electrify the San Bernardino line in the process.


Apart from the double-tracking issue, that actually makes some sense. People tend to forget that highly-regarded European high-speed trains sometimes run on conventional track at lower speeds for significant distances to reach terminals.


----------



## nullptr

Brightline West released a new website with construction timing information









VPM1 - Brightline West Construction


Welcome to Brightline West’s online meeting! The purpose of this meeting is to provide information about Brightline West’s high-speed rail construction between Victor Valley and Las Vegas. Community involvement is important to our team. Ongoing stakeholder and public engagement will occur...




brightlinewestconstruction.com


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> The obvious solution is to remove the El Monte Busway, or remove lanes from I-10 and relocate the El Monte Busway onto them, but if that's possible politically, I'll be *extremely* surprised.


Removing the El Monte Busway is an absolute non-starter. LA Metro has invested heavily in making it an express toll lane and bus rapid transit line. Removing lanes from any freeway in Southern California is also political suicide.



neroden said:


> Double-tracking the Palmdale line is easier!


Agreed, plus CAHSR is "supposed" to be building an electrified rail corridor from Palmdale to Los Angeles, that could almost certainly host Brightline trains -- if -- it ever gets built (and that seems like a big if). 

That said, connecting to the rest of the network in Rancho Cucamonga is very attractive... but the biggest issue is securing the ROW over the Cajon Pass. There's not a lot of room in the I-15 ROW to squeeze a train in. 

On the other hand, there's plenty of room along the CA-138 ROW now that the planned conversion to a freeway has been shelved once again. LACMTA has also said it's willing to consider funding part of the construction along that corridor.


----------



## neroden

Apparently Caltrans and LA are both cooperative with providing the space for an elevated line near I-5 across Cajon.

From Rancho Cucamonga to downtown, though, I just see no plausible place to put the tracks without removing highway lanes.


----------



## jis

Brightline West unable to sell bonds so officially delays construction of Brightline West indefinitely....

Article from Bloomberg


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> Brightline West unable to sell bonds so officially delays construction of Brightline West indefinitely....
> 
> Article from Bloomberg


Florida déjà vu.


----------



## rickycourtney

I think this line from the Bloomberg article sums it up best:

_"The failure to sell the bonds shows that deal sweeteners* and juicy yields** weren’t enough to overcome investor concerns about a project that depends on the recovery of the pandemic-ravaged travel and entertainment industries and has few comparisons in the U.S."_

*: cutting the size of the sale, buying back FL bonds, more equity from Brightline
**: 7% to 7.5%, which is about four times what the highest rated state and local governments pay


----------



## nullptr

Found on twitter, Brightline is asking for a waiver for the Valero [sic] trainsets for brightline west.








Petition for Waiver of Compliance


Search, browse and learn about the Federal Register. Federal Register 2.0 is the unofficial daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.




www.federalregister.gov





Interesting aspects include that the trainsets will be built in Germany, they are either forming a partnership with a certain oil company or whoever prepared this document misspelled "Velaro", and the say it will operate on sealed corridor, which I would think rules out them operating on the metrolink Rancho Cucamonga to LA union station corridor.


----------



## Mailliw

Siemens Velaro looks pretty good, but unless Brightline can run through to LA I'm afraid this project will be stillborn.


----------



## me_little_me

nullptr said:


> Interesting aspects include that the trainsets will be built in Germany, they are either forming a partnership with a certain oil company or whoever prepared this document misspelled "Velaro", and the say it will operate on sealed corridor, which I would think rules out them operating on the metrolink Rancho Cucamonga to LA union station corridor.


Or they meant the song that Dean Martin sang "Volare"


----------



## nullptr

Looks like Siemens is trying to get in on some of the infrastructure spending the might be coming from the federal government. In the process of doing that they released a graphic that is partially promoting Brightline west, without naming them though.




They also made a video that reminds me of some of the Superbowl car commercials from the last few years.


----------



## nullptr

Brightline West asked for an exemption from "PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF 49 U.S.C. § 10901" for the Victor Valley to Rancho Cucamonga segment, something they had already received for the Las Vegas to Victor Valley portion.

Here is the petition


https://www.progressiverailroading.com/resources/-1/2022/BrightlineSTBVegas.pdf


And the article I found it in








Rail News - Brightline on track to begin Las Vegas high-speed rail project. For Railroad Career Professionals







www.progressiverailroading.com





It is for the tracks to be in right of way of I-15. I guess I didn't realize that this section and the Las Vegas-Victor Valley segment are going to be single track with passing sidings. But they say that is enough for 25 trains a day each direction and 45 minute headways. That has to be pretty unique for a high speed rail line.


----------



## joelkfla

nullptr said:


> Brightline West asked for an exemption from "PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF 49 U.S.C. § 10901" for the Victor Valley to Rancho Cucamonga segment, something they had already received for the Las Vegas to Victor Valley portion.


It seems that would make it a lot more convenient for Angelenos and Orange Cty residents, being in the middle of several freeways and connecting with Metrolink direct to LA Union Station.


----------



## cirdan

nullptr said:


> It is for the tracks to be in right of way of I-15. I guess I didn't realize that this section and the Las Vegas-Victor Valley segment are going to be single track with passing sidings. But they say that is enough for 25 trains a day each direction and 45 minute headways. That has to be pretty unique for a high speed rail line.



How about future proofing? Is there space in the ROW to insert a second track later without having to rip it all up and start from scratch?


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> How about future proofing? Is there space in the ROW to insert a second track later without having to rip it all up and start from scratch?


If they do things the way they are in Florida, the single track segments are mostly in double track ROW but with only one track built for now.


----------



## nullptr

Ah yeah, I looked it up after I posted that. In their NEPA reevaluation report they say they have plans to double track all but 19 miles of the route.




from here DesertXpress "XpressWest” - Las Vegas to Victorville | FRA


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> If they do things the way they are in Florida, the single track segments are mostly in double track ROW but with only one track built for now.



Although in Florida that's pretty easy because with the exception of the final section to Orlando, they are building on a ROW that was historically double track. So unless they do something insanely stupid such as selling off the extra strip of land, the option of double tracking at some point in the future will always be there.

When you are building from scratch this takes a much more positive and proactive decision and one that may incur greater up-front costs that cannot be mapped to immediate benefits.


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> Although in Florida that's pretty easy because with the exception of the final section to Orlando, they are building on a ROW that was historically double track. So unless they do something insanely stupid such as selling off the extra strip of land, the option of double tracking at some point in the future will always be there.
> 
> When you are building from scratch this takes a much more positive and proactive decision and one that may incur greater up-front costs that cannot be mapped to immediate benefits.


I was not talking of the FECR segment in Florida. I was specifically talking of the new segment along State Rte 528. There are significant segments where the space available for the ROW is being maintained for two tracks but the current ROW preparation is for a single track (with strategically placed passing sidings with high speed switches, since double track all the way is quite unnecessary for 20 trains each way per day. Future addition of a second track is thus not precluded. I suspect they will do something similar in Nevada and California.

The FECR segment is being fully double tracked, except a short segment on a bridge. So that is a non-issue.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> since double track all the way is quite unnecessary for 20tph each way per day.


What does *tph *stand for?


----------



## Ryan

Trains per hour.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> What does *tph *stand for?


Actually what I said in that statement is absurd. What I meant to say is 20 trains per day each way, which really amount to maybe 1.3tph on an average each way, but is really likely to be more like 1tph each way, and about 16 trains per day each way.

I have corrected it in the original.


----------



## Ryan

I thought that sounded a little high.


----------



## nullptr

More optimistic statements about the project from Brightline. I don't know how seriously to take them but it at least means they'll probably start trying to get support for a bond sale again.









Fortress to Finalize Financing Plans for $8 Billion Vegas Rail Line


Brightline Holdings, Fortress Investment Group’s rail company, will finalize the financing plans for its $8 billion project laying train tracks to Las Vegas from southern California within the next six months, Chief Executive Officer Michael Reininger said during a press briefing Tuesday.




www.bloomberg.com


----------



## VentureForth

They are sure ready to borrow a LOT of money without proven revenue yet. Yes, they have a great product and following. But is it enough?


----------



## jis

Most airlines borrow a lot of money without necessarily having proven revenues. All that they have are projections. Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't. Nothing different in case of Brightline West, or East for that matter.


----------



## VentureForth

Do startup airlines raise $8-$12B in bonds? I don't know - just asking.


----------



## George Harris

jis said:


> Most airlines borrow a lot of money without necessarily having proven revenues. All that they have are projections. Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't. Nothing different in case of Brightline West, or East for that matter.


Major difference, other than maintenance facilities which may even be leased, airlines have virtually no fixed facilities. They are operating from/to publicly funded airports and their main transportation facility is air. Their major investment is in planes which can be used by others if the venture fails. 

This may have already have been said, as I have not reread the entire thread, but: Given that Florida is near flat, the major geographic issues faced by any LA to LV route are beyond any current Brightline experience. Following any current route into LA which is probably build to allow a 70 mph speed or less, and for some of the railroad routes, much less, is simply another exercise in fantasy land. Long tunnels into the LA area ? NO!! Building tunnels in seismically active areas is beyond ignorance and well into stupidity. A major consideration is selecting the CAHSR route south of Bakersfield was avoidance of tunnels under fault lines, not tunnels altogether as high speeds through this area would be impossible without tunnels. Unless and until this section of the CAHSR has been built and can be used by a LV rail line to access LA, I would stay far far away from any investment in this thing.


----------



## jis

George Harris said:


> Building tunnels in seismically active areas is beyond ignorance and well into stupidity.


So are the Japanese ignorant or stupid or both? They appear to have impeccable record of running trains through many tunnels through severe earthquake zone and have operated them through many serious earthquakes.


----------



## jis

VentureForth said:


> Do startup airlines raise $8-$12B in bonds? I don't know - just asking.


May or may not be bonds, but they do get billions of dollars of funding from somewhere. And in addition the infrastructure builders of the infrastructure that must be in place for said airlines to operate very often do get funding from binds. It turns out that an outfit like Brightline has to play both roles - that of building the infrastructure and of getting rolling stock and operating the thing eventually, hopefully.


----------



## MARC Rider

George Harris said:


> Building tunnels in seismically active areas is beyond ignorance and well into stupidity.


Better tell that to BART and MUNI up in San Francisco, who have been operating trains in tunnels in the vicinity of the San Andreas and Haywood Faults for decades now.


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> Better tell that to BART and MUNI up in San Francisco, who have been operating trains in tunnels in the vicinity of the San Andreas and Haywood Faults for decades now.


Whoops, that's Hayward Fault.


----------



## VentureForth

I would venture to say that George has plenty of experience in working with the Japanese HSR to understand the difference between the relative movement between tectonic plates in Japan vs the San Andreas fault. Obviously, rail has been built across the most active faults in California, but none have ever been HSR.

I believe most of Japan lies on one of two major plates. If I understand it anywhere close to right, its a compression fault as opposed to the SA fault which is a shear fault.


----------



## neroden

Brightline West's initial plans are to run over Cajon to the Inland Empire. Their second-tier plans are to transfer passengers to the existing (surface) line from Palmdale to LA. If CAHSR ever makes it across Tehachapi, they will also take passengers from the north at Palmdale. 

Fast access to downtown LA remains a problem; one best addressed by removing lanes from I-10 to double-track the San Bernadino Line, but apparently the asphalt-worshippers and their religion continue to have such an iron grip on California that this is not currently being considered.


----------



## Chris I

VentureForth said:


> I would venture to say that George has plenty of experience in working with the Japanese HSR to understand the difference between the relative movement between tectonic plates in Japan vs the San Andreas fault. Obviously, rail has been built across the most active faults in California, but none have ever been HSR.
> 
> I believe most of Japan lies on one of two major plates. If I understand it anywhere close to right, its a compression fault as opposed to the SA fault which is a shear fault.


This is all moot. The safety mitigation regardless of fault line type is the same: earthquake sensors that automatically stop trains when the ground starts shaking. P-waves can be detected and will provide a few critical seconds to stop trains:



https://www.preventionweb.net/files/workspace/7935_casestudy4.pdf


----------



## VentureForth

I'm really not concerned about the safety requirements for stopping the train in an emergency (I trust they are adequate) - rather, I'm interested in the physical rail creep across fault lines.


----------



## neroden

VentureForth said:


> I'm really not concerned about the safety requirements for stopping the train in an emergency (I trust they are adequate) - rather, I'm interested in the physical rail creep across fault lines.


For shear faults crossed underground the plans seem to typically include an oversized cavern; this is so when the land slips side-to-side the tunnel can still connect on both ends (albeit probably with lower speed track than originally due to the added "S" curve).


----------



## George Harris

Maybe I did not make myself clear: I was talking about tunnels across faults. Obviously many parts of the world are in earthquake zones and build all types of transportation facilities in earthquake zones and across fault lines. But you absolutely do not want to cross a fault line in a tunnel. BART's Transbay Tube has an earthquake movement joint at each end, and one at least has performed as designed. This movement joint is located at the transition between bored tunnel and sunken tube. The tunnel maintained its integrity, but there was movement. There was a need to redo some of the track in the immediate vicinity of that joint, but that this would be needed in case of earthquake was understood from the get-go. I have seen it. 

Japan has obviously had numerous quakes that damaged transportation facilities. The Shinkansen trainsets have fixtures to reduce tilting and lateral movement of derailed trains. The concrete based track form in use on most of the newer lines also helps trains stay generally in line with the track and not overturn. Being single level and fairly wide also helps prevent overturning. There have been two derailments of Shinkansen trainsets in earthquakes. One in Japan was a complete trainset moving at a fairly high rate of speed, I don't know the speed precisely, but all people on the train literally walked off. Somewhat shaken, and probably some scrapes and bruises, but none the less all were ambulatory. The last car of a trainset bounced off the track during a quake in Taiwan, with the train going near the 300 kph limit, but again, stayed upright and after an exciting quick stop with no reported injuries. In one case where the Taiwan HSR crossed an active fault, an extra wide fill was used instead of a structure. There are other numerous features in the design and construction of the trains and fixed facilities to mitigate the effects of a quake. It is not possible to completely prevent damage or derailments but what is reasonably doable to reduce damage and danger is done. 

In the major 1999 earthquake in Taiwan there was an approximate 2 meter vertical movement at the fault line. This vertical movement went for several kilometers. It was east side up primarily as there was an increase in elevation of the major mountains on the island. We lived there at the time, and got a good shaking even though some 150 km from the epicenter. Around 2400 people were killed and there was billions of dollars in damage. If it had not been in the middle of the night the death toll would have been much higher. I spent a week involved in preliminary inspection of damaged structures. Many buildings "pancaked", particularly lower floors of 3 to 4 story buildings. Some were simply tilted. There was at least one fully pancaked school building. 

The Taiwan HSR does not cross this particular fault. That you can have large vertical and horizontal movements at faults is why you do not tunnel across faults. If surface or elevated, the damage can ultimately be "buffed out" even though it may leave you with alignment jogs that result in permanent speed restrictions. 
Earthquake sensors are close to being a political "hey look, we are doing something" than of being of real benefit. The warning time is normally in seconds, particularly if close to the point of origin. In other words, less than the time it would take for a train to stop or for you to get outside the building you are in. This is not a hurricane warning where you get hours or days, or even a tsunami warning which may be down to several minutes or more.

Neoroden is correct about using an oversize bore in case you do cross a fault, but again, the best is not to cross it underground at all. The question becomes, how oversize, how long a taper, how much collapse of surrounding ground into the tunnel, etc. It is one thing to go bouncing off the rails if on ground or on structure. It is quite another to hit a mound of rubble and/or offset tunnel wall, ceiling, or floor underground.


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> Whoops, that's Hayward Fault.


So, blaming poor Hayward for your typo error, eh? When it's your fault, own up to it.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Most airlines borrow a lot of money without necessarily having proven revenues. All that they have are projections. Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't. Nothing different in case of Brightline West, or East for that matter.



But the market knows that airlines do sometimes make a profit . And given a good business case they may indeed make a profit .

Nobody has run a profitable inter city train service in decades , let alone made huge profits doing so . It’s a much more difficult concept to sell .


----------



## cirdan

VentureForth said:


> I'm really not concerned about the safety requirements for stopping the train in an emergency (I trust they are adequate) - rather, I'm interested in the physical rail creep across fault lines.


I assume that the structure and rails get inspected after an earthquake, even if there is no obvious damage . And that repairs are made as appropriate . In Japan structures are designed to be easy to repair . So maybe rather than casting everything in one piece a tunnel may be made of interlocking segments


----------



## George Harris

cirdan said:


> I assume that the structure and rails get inspected after an earthquake, even if there is no obvious damage . And that repairs are made as appropriate . In Japan structures are designed to be easy to repair . So maybe rather than casting everything in one piece a tunnel may be made of interlocking segments.


 Yes, structures and track get thorough inspection after any earthquake when there is the slightest possibility of there being an issue. I am certain the Japanese have a thorough detailed program for this sort of thing. Again, dealing with fault movement when you are on earthworks or structure is completely different from when you are underground. Mitigation, or more anticipation of movement by having a larger cross section in the vicinity that allows for adjustment of the alignment without digging a new tunnel, at least if your guess is not exceeded, but whether the lining is in segments or not is near insignificant. It will be destroyed in the vicinity of the fault. This is not the same as movement of the BART sunken tube across the bay, which by the way best I recall does not cross a fault line, but did move some in a quake. Going off the rail or even off the structure or trackbed in total if you are outside is far less a disaster than doing so in a tunnel.


----------



## Petur

Amtrak doesn't stop in Las Vegas, even though the tracks are in place. Amtrak's Desert Wind route ran from *1978 to 1997* between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City with several stops, including a station at 100 S. Main St., behind the Plaza downtown. Now their is a Route called Brightline Vegas.






__





Brightline West | Brightline


Brightline ticket booking




www.gobrightline.com






This is their offers page!






__





Explore Our Full List of Offerings | Brightline


Check out Brightline's current offers and save on your next ride.




www.gobrightline.com






Anyone have more info or want to talk about Amtrak. 


or trains in General, let me know.

-Petur


----------



## VentureForth

Petur said:


> Amtrak doesn't stop in Las Vegas, even though the tracks are in place. Amtrak's Desert Wind route ran from *1978 to 1997* between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City with several stops, including a station at 100 S. Main St., behind the Plaza downtown. Now their is a Route called Brightline Vegas.


Hi Peter. Welcome to Amtrak Unlimited. Please feel free to take a look at all the posts on this thread. You will find that there is a lot of great information here that we've been talking about for the last three years. Most folks here are very much in tune with what is happening on Brightline and Brightline West, as well as Amtrak's sad history in allowing the Desert Wind to be discontinued.

You are in good company. We all can't wait to see what the future has in store for privately funded rail services as well as Amtrak's future.


----------



## JermyZP

It looks like the Victorville to Rancho Cucamonga has be moved higher in priority in an agreement with California.









Brightline West Project Advancing in California - Railway Age


The planned $8 billion Brightline West high speed rail line is another step closer to connecting Las Vegas with Southern California.




www.railwayage.com


----------



## Petur

Yes, That is true.


I'm very happy, finally there is a route my California to Las Vegas!

I'm a new train foamer lol

-Petur


----------



## Petur

JermyZP Check this article out


Attached URL at bottom

Desert high-speed rail line could block sheep, mountain lions. Democrats want more crossings

''The California Department of Transportation, better known as Caltrans, is overseeing the private project that would add a zero-emissions railway from Victorville to Las Vegas as a connection between the entertainment hub and Los Angeles.''

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article255474876.html#storylink=cpy




https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article255474876.html


----------



## VentureForth

I wouldn't say finally until track is actually getting laid. This sort of thing can take decades to develop and can easily be abandoned. I hope it does work out!!


----------



## MARC Rider

Petur said:


> ''The California Department of Transportation, better known as Caltrans, is overseeing the private project that would add a *zero-emissions railway*_ [my emphasis] _from Victorville to Las Vegas as a connection between the entertainment hub and Los Angeles.''



A "zero emissions railway?" The only "zero emissions" railway is one that's been abandoned. Even electrified lines have emissions, as there are emissions from most of the common types of electrical generation, and as far as I know, Brightline is planning to run diesels on this line. Yeah, maybe the emissions per passenger mile are lower than several hundred single-occupancy cars, but there will still be emissions.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> A "zero emissions railway?" The only "zero emissions" railway is one that's been abandoned. Even electrified lines have emissions, as there are emissions from most of the common types of electrical generation, and as far as I know, Brightline is planning to run diesels on this line. Yeah, maybe the emissions per passenger mile are lower than several hundred single-occupancy cars, but there will still be emissions.


The Las Vegas Brightline West project is slated to be electrified since the planned speeds are infeasible using diesel traction.


----------



## VentureForth

So, yes, there will be emissions, but at the power source, not off the train itself. Though, this could be powered by Hoover Dam, so could be emissions almost-free.


----------



## joelkfla

VentureForth said:


> So, yes, there will be emissions, but at the power source, not off the train itself. Though, this could be powered by Hoover Dam, so could be emissions almost-free.


Or solar and/or wind. CA leads the nation in solar, with more than 3x the next nearest state, and NV is 6th. CA is also 6th in wind power.

I wouldn't be surprised if Brightline built their own solar farm to partially power the trains. Seems like the area they'll be traveling through would be a prime location.


----------



## cirdan

VentureForth said:


> So, yes, there will be emissions, but at the power source, not off the train itself. Though, this could be powered by Hoover Dam, so could be emissions almost-free.



Buying electricity from an existing dam that is not being upgraded would only displace other customers and force them to buy from other sources. Thus it is not net zero emissions.


----------



## leemell

joelkfla said:


> Or solar and/or wind. CA leads the nation in solar, with more than 3x the next nearest state, and NV is 6th. CA is also 6th in wind power.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if Brightline built their own solar farm to partially power the trains. Seems like the area they'll be traveling through would be a prime location.



CHSR is entirely renewable power, solar and wind. Brightline West will be the same.


----------



## George Harris

leemell said:


> CHSR is entirely renewable power, solar and wind. Brightline West will be the same.


I suspect this is true only in the minds of certain dingbat politicians, with which California is well supplied.


----------



## leemell

CHSRA has designed and will build their own solar arrays and purchase only from renewable sources.


----------



## neroden

At this point solar and wind are simply cheaper than anything else. We still have issues with heavy construction; electric backhoes, bulldozers, etc. are perfectly *feasible* and would be cheaper to operate than the gasoline versions, but because these are such niche products made in such small quantities, manufacturers have been quite late to produce the electric versions; they usually start with the high-volume products.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> At this point solar and wind are simply cheaper than anything else. We still have issues with heavy construction; electric backhoes, bulldozers, etc. are perfectly *feasible* and would be cheaper to operate than the gasoline versions, but because these are such niche products made in such small quantities, manufacturers have been quite late to produce the electric versions; they usually start with the high-volume products.



this is changing . For example many mining companies are now going electric . Not just for environmental reasons but also because of ventilation . As the scale ramps up the prices will come down .

to me the bigger greenwash is mass buying green electricity without supporting additional capacity which is just displacing other consumers .


----------



## neroden

cirdan said:


> this is changing . For example many mining companies are now going electric . Not just for environmental reasons but also because of ventilation . As the scale ramps up the prices will come down .
> 
> to me the bigger greenwash is mass buying green electricity without supporting additional capacity which is just displacing other consumers .


Soooo, in most (if not all) of states which have a renewable energy portfolio requirement -- requiring utility companies to have a certain percentage of their electricity be renewables -- if I then buy renewable electricity by contract from a third party which isn't the utility, this *doesn't count* towards the utility's required-by-law renewable percentage, so they have to procure more renewables. That's how it works in NY, anyway.

At this point it's almost becoming irrelevant because the market forces are so strong that nearly every company is buying far more renewable energy than legally required, because it's cheaper than the alternatives.


----------



## cirdan

Another interesting Brightline West article.









Brightline West Makes Progress - Railway Age


Brightline West, the planned private-sector high-performance passenger railroad, is moving toward its goals of bringing passengers to Las Vegas and giving them a way to get there from Los Angeles. The railroad announced that plans are now set to bring its trains into Rancho Cucamonga, a...




www.railwayage.com


----------



## VentureForth

cirdan said:


> Another interesting Brightline West article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brightline West Makes Progress - Railway Age
> 
> 
> Brightline West, the planned private-sector high-performance passenger railroad, is moving toward its goals of bringing passengers to Las Vegas and giving them a way to get there from Los Angeles. The railroad announced that plans are now set to bring its trains into Rancho Cucamonga, a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.railwayage.com


I don't doubt that Brightline West can be operational before CHSR has any form of functionality. They just need to improve ride comfort if they are going to use electric derivatives of their East Coast cousins. Even Metrolink was more comfortable in 40-50 year old Bombardier Bi-Levels than Brightline Miami. (Metrolink Note: Those Hyundai Rotem cab cars are claustrophobic)


----------



## MARC Rider

cirdan said:


> Another interesting Brightline West article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brightline West Makes Progress - Railway Age
> 
> 
> Brightline West, the planned private-sector high-performance passenger railroad, is moving toward its goals of bringing passengers to Las Vegas and giving them a way to get there from Los Angeles. The railroad announced that plans are now set to bring its trains into Rancho Cucamonga, a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.railwayage.com


"25 daily round trips?" That's more than runs than in the Northeast Corridor, where they have 47 million people, and the train passes through at least 5 metro areas with populations of 1 million or more. This thing is going to run from a suburban transit hub passing through sparsely populated desert with the only large city directly served being Las Vegas. It will require a 2-seat ride from the densely populated parts of Los Angeles, which will probably depress ridership. It seems to me they'd be better off trying to make arrangements with Metrolink to run through trains.


----------



## leemell

VentureForth said:


> I don't doubt that Brightline West can be operational before CHSR has any form of functionality. They just need to improve ride comfort if they are going to use electric derivatives of their East Coast cousins. Even Metrolink was more comfortable in 40-50 year old Bombardier Bi-Levels than Brightline Miami. (Metrolink Note: Those Hyundai Rotem cab cars are claustrophobic)


Brightline West has a contract with Siemens for 200MPH Velaros.


----------



## leemell

MARC Rider said:


> "25 daily round trips?" That's more than runs than in the Northeast Corridor, where they have 47 million people, and the train passes through at least 5 metro areas with populations of 1 million or more. This thing is going to run from a suburban transit hub passing through sparsely populated desert with the only large city directly served being Las Vegas. It will require a 2-seat ride from the densely populated parts of Los Angeles, which will probably depress ridership. It seems to me they'd be better off trying to make arrangements with Metrolink to run through trains.


50,000,000 one way trips a year between LA and LV. They are anticipating 11,000,000 on the train.


----------



## joelkfla

leemell said:


> 50,000,000 one way trips a year between LA and LV. They are anticipating 11,000,000 on the train.


Huh?


----------



## leemell

joelkfla said:


> Huh?


50 million is the total. 85% is by car or bus.


----------



## MARC Rider

toddinde said:


> I suspect they’ll get it to Union Station sooner rather than later. But I think they’ll own the market. Rail always seems to be judged on a totally unrealistic inconvenience factor as if all the other modes are totally convenient. Let’s face it, air travel is a total pain. You have to get across town to the airport, get there early for security, flights are delayed and cancelled right and left. It’s terrible. Then there’s driving. It’s dangerous, it’s congested, there are trucks blocking traffic, it’s aggravating, and there are frequent delays. The bus takes away some of the dangers and hassles of driving, but it’s cramped, slow, and uncomfortable. Let’s judge the train against reality and not fantasy. The train wins hands down.


The sooner they can operate a one-seat ride directly into Union Station, the better off they'll be. The plan seems to require travelers to either take a 75-minute ride on a commuter train to reach their proposed terminal in Rancho Cucamonga, or drive at least an hour through the LA suburban sprawl to reach the station. And that drive is the worst part of the traffic.


----------



## Alice

The train isn't competing with buses, it is competing with planes. I just looked up flights from the LA area to Las Vegas between noon and 3pm today. 32 from LAX, 3 from Burbank, 1 from Long Beach, 1 from Santa Ana. That is quite a bit of demand, especially since I do not think it is the busiest part of the weekend. I haven't been following this train closely, but earlier incarnations were going to start the party when you boarded, an amenity that isn't such a good idea by plane or car.


----------



## jis

Alice said:


> The train isn't competing with buses, it is competing with planes. I just looked up flights from the LA area to Las Vegas between noon and 3pm today. 32 from LAX, 3 from Burbank, 1 from Long Beach, 1 from Santa Ana. That is quite a bit of demand, especially since I do not think it is the busiest part of the weekend. I haven't been following this train closely, but earlier incarnations were going to start the party when you boarded, an amenity that isn't such a good idea by plane or car.


There will be no party on this one. It will be a comfortable and fast means of transportation.

I think you may be confusing this one with the other proposal called X-Train or something like that, which was intended to be a party train...









Los Angeles Might Be Getting Occasional Party Train to Vegas


Posted by The X Train on Saturday, August 8, 2015 A party train to Las Vegas is apparently getting pretty close to finally taking its maiden voyage, but it'll only be making occasional trips...




la.curbed.com


----------



## MARC Rider

Alice said:


> The train isn't competing with buses, it is competing with planes. I just looked up flights from the LA area to Las Vegas between noon and 3pm today. 32 from LAX, 3 from Burbank, 1 from Long Beach, 1 from Santa Ana. That is quite a bit of demand, especially since I do not think it is the busiest part of the weekend. I haven't been following this train closely, but earlier incarnations were going to start the party when you boarded, an amenity that isn't such a good idea by plane or car.


Oh, I think there's a market for the service, I'm just not sure about 25 round trips per day, which might be more than the Northeast Corridor, especially when the train doesn't even give you a one-seat ride into the city. I suspect when they start, they won't be doing 25 round trips per day.


----------



## Alice

jis said:


> There will be no party on this one. It will be a comfortable and fast means of transportation.
> 
> I think you may be confusing this one with the other proposal called X-Train or something like that, which was intended to be a party train...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles Might Be Getting Occasional Party Train to Vegas
> 
> 
> Posted by The X Train on Saturday, August 8, 2015 A party train to Las Vegas is apparently getting pretty close to finally taking its maiden voyage, but it'll only be making occasional trips...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> la.curbed.com


You are right, I'm mixing them up.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> There will be no party on this one. It will be a comfortable and fast means of transportation.
> 
> I think you may be confusing this one with the other proposal called X-Train or something like that, which was intended to be a party train...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles Might Be Getting Occasional Party Train to Vegas
> 
> 
> Posted by The X Train on Saturday, August 8, 2015 A party train to Las Vegas is apparently getting pretty close to finally taking its maiden voyage, but it'll only be making occasional trips...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> la.curbed.com



Is the X-train even a current topic? I vaguely remember that they had given up some years ago.


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> Is the X-train even a current topic? I vaguely remember that they had given up some years ago.


I have not seen anything about them. I had to search for a bit to find the article I linked. I only vaguely remembered it and did not even remember their name, which made the search a little more challenging.


----------



## me_little_me

Alice said:


> You are right, I'm mixing them up.


But then there is no reason, if economically feasible, for Brightline West to add party cars at suitably higher cost to their trains.


----------



## cirdan

me_little_me said:


> But then there is no reason, if economically feasible, for Brightline West to add party cars at suitably higher cost to their trains.



In the same way that airlines or bus companies could hypothetically add party areas at a suitably high cost. I guess that the problem is that such a suitably high cost is too high for the market to bear in a sustainable manner. Even for Las Vegas levels of extravagance. 

I think even X-train wasn't thinking of running a multiple times a day schedule but at best a single round trip a day on selected days and that probably also seasonally dependent. That could be made to work with suitably modified pass-me-down equipment, but not for very expensive high speed train cars that would need to sit around idle for most of the time while still making enough money to recover their costs.


----------



## VentureForth

leemell said:


> Brightline West has a contract with Siemens for 200MPH Velaros.



A comfortable HSR trainset doesn't necessarily mean that Brightline can have the interior screwed up. The trains in Florida were nice. The seats were unbearable, in my own personal opinion.



Alice said:


> ...were going to start the party when you boarded, an amenity that isn't such a good idea by plane or car.


They tried that in Florida in the 90's. Google Florida Fun Train. Neat concept, woefully wrong direction with regards to cash flow. Thing that makes me upset is that I was in FL when they started ops and I never got a chance to try out the fun!


----------



## me_little_me

me_little_me said:


> But then there is no reason, if economically feasible, for Brightline West to add party cars at suitably higher cost to their trains.


I think my words came out wrong. Probably should read:
*But then there is no reason, if economically feasible, that Brightline West can't add party cars at suitably higher cost to their trains.*


----------



## VentureForth

I totally agree. If they can make their bank, added features - particularly those that generate revenue - should certainly be pursued.


----------



## MARC Rider

VentureForth said:


> I totally agree. If they can make their bank, added features - particularly those that generate revenue - should certainly be pursued.


Depends how much the added features cost relative to the additional revenue generated.


----------



## cirdan

MARC Rider said:


> Depends how much the added features cost relative to the additional revenue generated.



If they expect it to pay its own way. 

I understand a lot of stuff in Vegas does not pay its own way but is cross-subsidized by stuff that does. For example casinos cross-subsidizing hotels because they know that one wouldn't work without the other. If the train can be sold in that sort of category, the train only needs to bring in more benefits to those who pay the money than it costs them in support. Personally I doubt whether that will be the case. It would only be the case if it meant there are sufficient numbers of people who ride the train who would otherwise not be coming to Las Vegas at all.


----------



## neroden

Although I consider it depressing that this is true, selling alcohol is almost *always* highly profitable.


----------



## Mailliw

A bar car seems like a perfect fit for Brightline West, even if it's only half a car.


----------



## cirdan

Mailliw said:


> A bar car seems like a perfect fit for Brightline West, even if it's only half a car.



True, but a bar car hardly qualifies it as a party train.

Or if it does then Amtrak is missing a trick.


----------



## NorthShore

jis said:


> I have not seen anything about them. I had to search for a bit to find the article I linked. I only vaguely remembered it and did not even remember their name, which made the search a little more challenging.



I actually still own one share of stock in the overriding company, which (having learned a lot about its history) I consider a sham. And, to my knowledge, their plan fell through and is no longer being pursued.


----------



## cirdan

I don't believe that the concept of HSR is compatible to that of party trains.

But just a thought here.

Maybe if a third party wants to sporadically run a party train, Brightline West might be more amenable to letting them use their ROW than UPRR (or whoever it is that that owns the current ROW there). People having a party don't necessarily want to arrive as quickly as possible, and thus conventional equipment moving at normal speeds could be used if it can be rendered compatible to the safety standards of HSR (which seems to be possible on NEC for example). Suitably positioned sidings could be used to get the party train out of the way and allow high speed trains to overtake as necessary.


----------



## GDRRiley

Brightline west should have spare capacity same with CASHR. We just don't know at this time what they'll do with time we could see through running on each. SF or SJ to vegas would be popular and again eat into a popular airline flight.


cirdan said:


> I don't believe that the concept of HSR is compatible to that of party trains.


you can get 150mph coaches and loco which would be cheaper. theres also the overweight abominations that are old acela express sets, but I don't know if ether track owner would let you run a 160mph set on their network, they may only want 200mph+ units.


----------



## GDRRiley

MARC Rider said:


> "25 daily round trips?" That's more than runs than in the Northeast Corridor, where they have 47 million people, and the train passes through at least 5 metro areas with populations of 1 million or more. This thing is going to run from a suburban transit hub passing through sparsely populated desert with the only large city directly served being Las Vegas. It will require a 2-seat ride from the densely populated parts of Los Angeles, which will probably depress ridership. It seems to me they'd be better off trying to make arrangements with Metrolink to run through trains.


Both the west coast HSR lines are planning on lots of service and trying to take low cost airline share which fly every 30-45mins between these places. The CAHSR plan is 8RT an hour SJ to LA with 4 extending south to Anaheim and 4 north to Sac. Brightline doing every 30 mins isn't a big stretch
through running on metrolink is an option but that would mean paying to double track and electrify it and potentially work on upgrades to support 110mph. Could it be done yeah will it maybe.


----------



## jis

me_little_me said:


> But then there is no reason, if economically feasible, for Brightline West to add party cars at suitably higher cost to their trains.


I was at a gathering of FECRS yesterday which visited the Birghtline facilities at OIA. Among our hosts was a gentleman from the track construction department whose primary assignment is on Brightline West, but is currently on loan to Brightline Florida.

According to him Brightline West will be using articulated 7 car trainsets operating at 300kph (186mph). So there is no question of adding cars. Either the sets will have a party car or not, and according to him they won't.

I also learned that the Rancho Cucamonga plan involves building tracks along one of the I-15 RoWs down Cajon Pass to Rancho Cucamonga. He said that the I-15 RoW has fewer curves and has much higher gradient than the classic BNSF line. Those gradients are well within the capabilities of their planned electric trains. There will be no freight traffic on their line. It is too hard to maintain track alignment for high speed and run heavy freight on the same track.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> According to him Brightline West will be using articulated 7 car trainsets operating at 300kph (186mph). So there is no question of adding cars. Either the sets will have a party car or not, and according to him they won't.


Will the bogies be located between cars, like Talgos?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Will the bogies be located between cars, like Talgos?


Well, they won't be Talgos apparently. More likely that they will be something like TGVs if they use shared (Jacobs) trucks. But the details are not quite known yet.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> I also learned that the Rancho Cucamonga plan involves building tracks along one of the I-15 RoWs down Cajon Pass to Rancho Cucamonga. He said that the I-15 RoW has fewer curves and has much higher gradient than the classic BNSF line. Those gradients are well within the capabilities of their planned electric trains. There will be no freight traffic on their line. It is too hard to maintain track alignment for high speed and run heavy freight on the same track.


That'd be interesting to see. I'm all for it.


----------



## NES28

jis said:


> Well, they won't be Talgos apparently. More likely that they will be something like TGVs if they use shared (Jacobs) trucks. But the details are not quite known yet.


The word is that they like the Siemens Velaro trains, like DB ICE trains. These could be built at the Sacramento factory.


----------



## GDRRiley

joelkfla said:


> Will the bogies be located between cars, like Talgos?


No these are most likely Siemens Velaro Novas which look like the most likely option for both


jis said:


> According to him Brightline West will be using articulated 7 car trainsets operating at 300kph (186mph). So there is no question of adding cars. Either the sets will have a party car or not, and according to him they won't.
> 
> I also learned that the Rancho Cucamonga plan involves building tracks along one of the I-15 RoWs down Cajon Pass to Rancho Cucamonga. He said that the I-15 RoW has fewer curves and has much higher gradient than the classic BNSF line. Those gradients are well within the capabilities of their planned electric trains. There will be no freight traffic on their line. It is too hard to maintain track alignment for high speed and run heavy freight on the same track.


7 car sets is odd, they aren't doing 200m which would be an 8 car set?

186mph doesn't seem right, pretty sure its been confirmed Victorville to Vegas will be 200mph while Victorville to Rancho Cucamonga is 180mph. Yep 4-4.5% grades which is fine as the Velaro family already does 4% grades in Germany


NES28 said:


> The word is that they like the Siemens Velaro trains, like DB ICE trains. These could be built at the Sacramento factory.


They'll have to be built in the US if they are using federal funds. We could see a joint order between CAHSR and them as both to start don't need many train sets.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> I don't believe that the concept of HSR is compatible to that of party trains.
> 
> But just a thought here.
> 
> Maybe if a third party wants to sporadically run a party train, Brightline West might be more amenable to letting them use their ROW than UPRR (or whoever it is that that owns the current ROW there). People having a party don't necessarily want to arrive as quickly as possible, and thus conventional equipment moving at normal speeds could be used if it can be rendered compatible to the safety standards of HSR (which seems to be possible on NEC for example). Suitably positioned sidings could be used to get the party train out of the way and allow high speed trains to overtake as necessary.


Actually, IIRC the French occasionally did an overnight "party train" with their TGVs (Paris-Nice IIRC).

Another thought here: How one defines "party train" or "party car" is a good question. There are some conceptions which would be incompatible and others which would be quite compatible. _For example_, if you're just designating a car as a "party car" and giving them a fairly full bar to play with (and perhaps some big screen TVs on the walls at each end of the car), that seems doable. You could even go cashless-but-paid if you basically preauthorize somebody for up to $X (where $X is a fairly high amount - say, $150-200) and just bill them by scanning their tickets (since most tickets - physical or digital - are scannable with either a bar code or a QR code).

Even a "standing bar" concept wouldn't be too hard to envision - that's just an Amcafe with most of the seats pulled out. A situation where you have the following configuration for the train could enable that:

LOCO-COACH-COACH-COACH-COACH-COACH-CAFE/BAR-PARTY-PARTY-LOCO

["PARTY" is basically where the party-class pax would be seated.]

Another version would be something like this (based on the long Eurostar sets):

LOCO-PARTY-PARTY-CAFE/BAR-COACH-COACH-COACH-COACH-COACH-COACH-CAFE/BAR-BUSINESS-BUSINESS-LOCO

Both trains aren't married to car counts; it's just a general concept.

Essentially, you have two "premium class" areas with different classes of service aimed in different directions. You'd probably need 3-4 OBS for such a train: A "standard" cafe attendant for each cafe (though you could plausibly only use one cafe), an extra bar server for the Party Class Bar, and possibly an additional attendant for the other premium cabin for at-seat service.


----------



## cirdan

I agree, and think it comes down to how you define a party car.

I was on a private tour in Switzerland (this was about 25 years ago) in which we were in a saloon car that had tables and chairs at one and where food and drinks were served (the food came from a kitchen in an adjacent car, but this car had a well stocked bar with a wide choice of drinks to suit all tastes and a competent barman who knew how to mix whatever you wanted). At the other end of the car was a large area that had been cleared of all seats and there was a small band (a guy on a keyboard and a guy with a guitar) and a dance floor. As the evening progressed and more people had drunk sufficient alcohol the number of dancers increased to the point that space was at a premium.

All in all we had a wonderful time (I drank quite a bit and I have no recollection how I got home in the end). This was a corporarte thing so drinks and food weren't being payed for individually. But I guess the car we were in was a special purpose car, converted from a surplus revenue car, that would normally sit in storage somewhere and only come out when chartered.

The tour was quite a long one, taking us from Zurich to Brig over the Lotschberg and back. 

For a high speed set, the critical question would be, would such a car generate more revenue than a regular seating car? And especially in a fixed consist where it cannot be dropped out easily, it would need to do so on all runs, not just at weekends in the evening.


----------



## jis

Brightline West acquiring land in Rancho Cucamonga for its station...









Rancho Cucamonga, transit agency agree to sell land for Brightline West station - Trains


RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. — The Rancho Cucamonga City Council and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority have approved sale of a 5-acre property for a station for the Brightline West high-speed rail service. The San Bernardino Sun reports the two bodies approved the sale earlier this...




www.trains.com


----------



## GDRRiley

The always exciting EIR is out
Brightline West – Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project | FRA

Planned operations: the system would start with 45 minute headways all day. Trainsets would be comprised of 7 cars. After 10 years, the line would be upgraded to support 22.5 minute headways. After 7 years, they would switch to 14 car trains (comprised of 2x7 car trainsets


----------



## joelkfla

GDRRiley said:


> The always exciting EIR is out
> Brightline West – Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project | FRA
> 
> Planned operations: the system would start with 45 minute headways all day. Trainsets would be comprised of 7 cars. After 10 years, the line would be upgraded to support 22.5 minute headways. After 7 years, they would switch to 14 car trains (comprised of 2x7 car trainsets
> View attachment 30224


Actually, if you read Attachment A – Operating Assumptions Memo | FRA, they plan to start service with 1/3 of the trains coupled (14 cars), increase that to 2/3 in year 4, and all coupled in year 7.

That attachment includes a detailed ridership analysis and a proposed schedule. Travel time is 2:20.


----------



## MARC Rider

GDRRiley said:


> The always exciting EIR is out
> Brightline West – Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project | FRA
> 
> Planned operations: the system would start with 45 minute headways all day. Trainsets would be comprised of 7 cars. After 10 years, the line would be upgraded to support 22.5 minute headways. After 7 years, they would switch to 14 car trains (comprised of 2x7 car trainsets
> View attachment 30224


OK, I guess they did some sort of ridership analysis, but I can't see having more frequent service than the NEC with longer trains on a route that terminates at the far edge of the LA metro area and doesn't have many people or large towns in between the two terminals. And if they think they can make it go with real estate development along the route, dumping millions of people into a desert, such a project would deserve to be opposed as vigorously as possible.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> OK, I guess they did some sort of ridership analysis, but I can't see having more frequent service than the NEC with longer trains on a route that terminates at the far edge of the LA metro area and doesn't have many people or large towns in between the two terminals. And if they think they can make it go with real estate development along the route, dumping millions of people into a desert, such a project would deserve to be opposed as vigorously as possible.


One base assumption that may be premature and/or incorrect is that Rancho Cucamonga forever will be its terminus in the LA basin. There have been reports about background negotiations with MetroLink to get from the Rancho Cucamonga area to LAUS, nothing concrete enough to make any announcements, specially since it involves electrification and all that.

But meanwhile, for the time being, Ranch Cucamonga is a heck of a lot better than terminating at Victorville.


----------



## VentureForth

There is already a Metrolink station at Rancho Cucamonga (same station as proposed terminus?), so perhaps a schedule coordination, especially on weekends. Also of note, though not sure of its relevancy, is that it is about a 15-30 minute bus ride (or a 10 minute Uber) to Ontario airport.


----------



## joelkfla

VentureForth said:


> There is already a Metrolink station at Rancho Cucamonga (same station as proposed terminus?), so perhaps a schedule coordination, especially on weekends. Also of note, though not sure of its relevancy, is that it is about a 15-30 minute bus ride (or a 10 minute Uber) to Ontario airport.


The document states that schedules will be coordinated, but there's not much they can do with Metrolink running on a 30 or 60 minute headway and BW running every 45 minutes. Typical connection appears to range between 15 & 30 minutes.

Here's a snippet:


----------



## crescent-zephyr

joelkfla said:


> Typical connection appears to range between 15 & 30 minutes.


Keystone Corridors have that long of a dwell time in Philadelphia. This would certainly work nicely!


----------



## GDRRiley

joelkfla said:


> Actually, if you read Attachment A – Operating Assumptions Memo | FRA, they plan to start service with 1/3 of the trains coupled (14 cars), increase that to 2/3 in year 4, and all coupled in year 7.
> 
> That attachment includes a detailed ridership analysis and a proposed schedule. Travel time is 2:20.


I'm aware I just simplified that because I didn't want to copy the charts



joelkfla said:


> The document states that schedules will be coordinated, but there's not much they can do with Metrolink running on a 30 or 60 minute headway and BW running every 45 minutes. Typical connection appears to range between 15 & 30 minutes.


metrolink plans on increasing that, at some point the goal is to turn their service into regional rail, 15 min transfer time is fine, the brightline train will be there you leave metrolink go through security and board brightline 



MARC Rider said:


> OK, I guess they did some sort of ridership analysis, but I can't see having more frequent service than the NEC with longer trains on a route that terminates at the far edge of the LA metro area and doesn't have many people or large towns in between the two terminals. And if they think they can make it go with real estate development along the route, dumping millions of people into a desert, such a project would deserve to be opposed as vigorously as possible.


The terminals are the whole reason this train exists, remember LA is not very downtown focused and so serving the inland empire directly is a good thing and will likely stay long term at a train every 20 mins in peak times
I expect the Apple Valley (or where ever the wye is to high desert corridor) to Vegas section to be double tracked given they'll want to run trains to the bay area and into LA union


----------



## jis

Indeed, one thing people seem to overlook is that this Rancho Cucamonga project does not negate the eventual construction of the high desert connection to Palmdale and CAHSR.


----------



## GDRRiley

intresting chart showing just how slow they plan to cross at sections, makes sense as a way to cut costs and with a ~4% grade you aren't going to be doing 180mph


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Indeed, one thing people seem to overlook is that this Rancho Cucamonga project does not negate the eventual construction of the high desert connection to Palmdale and CAHSR.


Quite. A situation where they send (at least) one train per hour to Rancho Cucamonga and one train per hour to Palmdale is quite plausible.

One thing that's also interesting to muse over is the intermediate traffic this will likely kick out between Apple Valley and the LA Basin.

Also, as noted, having service to RC and then extending to LAUS (with a possible intermediate stop?) seems quite plausible. That's a 40-ish mile trip, so one intermediate stop would be in line with South Florida (and with the plan to add Hesperia).


----------



## Caesar La Rock

GDRRiley said:


> intresting chart showing just how slow they plan to cross at sections, makes sense as a way to cut costs and with a ~4% grade you aren't going to be doing 180mph



The ICE trains in Germany have no problem doing 300kmh/186mph on this 4% grade up and down the Hallerbach Viaduct as shown in this video. This is on the Cologne–Frankfurt high speed rail line, which opened up 20 years ago. The Siemens Velaros will have no problem maintaining track speed up and down the 4% grades on the route Brightline West is using, especially the newer versions of the Velaros. With that said, Brightline West does have those restrictions for a reason.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> One base assumption that may be premature and/or incorrect is that Rancho Cucamonga forever will be its terminus in the LA basin. There have been reports about background negotiations with MetroLink to get from the Rancho Cucamonga area to LAUS, nothing concrete enough to make any announcements, specially since it involves electrification and all that.
> 
> But meanwhile, for the time being, Ranch Cucamonga is a heck of a lot better than terminating at Victorville.


OK, I looked at the EIS a bit. On tables 1 & 2, they're claiming a total Las Vegas - "Southern California" Total travel demand of 49 million riders in 2025, ramping up to 63 million in 2044. Total ridership on the NEC, according to RPA, was about 12 million in 2019, the last year before the pandemic. Yeah, Southern California is heavily populated, and the Las Vegas Metro areas has 2.2 million people (about 600,000 fewer people than the Baltimore metro area). There's not much in between except Victorville, which has a little under 150,000 people., so even if it's a high-growth area and doubles its population, that's still not going to amount for a whole lot. And the high desert is really not the best place to start transplanting people in a region of the country characterized by drought. 

Aside from New York, Boston, and Washington, the NEC has at least three other metro areas with populations of greater than 1 million, plus a number of other metro areas and cities with populations of 500,000 to 1 million. Nearly all of the larger cities have an extensive ecosystem of mass transit connections feeding the intercity train route, and a long history of the local population using the train as a viable means of transportation. And yet, the NEC only had 12 million riders a year at its peak! I can't believe Brightline will be getting 49 million passengers a year in the first year of its operation, especially since any connections to LAUS or CAHSR is still speculative at this point. Having a terminus in Rancho Cucamonga is like terminating the NEC at Baltimore and Providence and counting on everybody to ride MARC and MBTA into Washington and Boston. 

I really don't think they're going to have the passengers to support running high speed trains on 45-minute headways between Las Vegas and Ranch Cucamonga. The NEC can barely do it (and it's not doing it now), and that's subsidized up the wahoo. I'm not even sure how Brightline is justifying the capital expenditure as a private, for-profit company. I suppose they have plans to develop properties by the stations, but I can't see how they can make money running trains over the long term, at least not the kind of money that would interest typical capitalist investors.


----------



## GDRRiley

MARC Rider said:


> OK, I looked at the EIS a bit. On tables 1 & 2, they're claiming a total Las Vegas - "Southern California" Total travel demand of 49 million riders in 2025, ramping up to 63 million in 2044. Total ridership on the NEC, according to RPA, was about 12 million in 2019, the last year before the pandemic. Yeah, Southern California is heavily populated, and the Las Vegas Metro areas has 2.2 million people (about 600,000 fewer people than the Baltimore metro area). There's not much in between except Victorville, which has a little under 150,000 people., so even if it's a high-growth area and doubles its population, that's still not going to amount for a whole lot. And the high desert is really not the best place to start transplanting people in a region of the country characterized by drought.


The main ridership is not LA or Vegas to Victorville its LA to Vegas. Cities take very little water and you can make that nearly 0 if you ban things like lawns and other outdoor water uses


MARC Rider said:


> Aside from New York, Boston, and Washington, the NEC has at least three other metro areas with populations of greater than 1 million, plus a number of other metro areas and cities with populations of 500,000 to 1 million. Nearly all of the larger cities have an extensive ecosystem of mass transit connections feeding the intercity train route, and a long history of the local population using the train as a viable means of transportation. And yet, the NEC only had 12 million riders a year at its peak! I can't believe Brightline will be getting 49 million passengers a year in the first year of its operation, especially since any connections to LAUS or CAHSR is still speculative at this point. Having a terminus in Rancho Cucamonga is like terminating the NEC at Baltimore and Providence and counting on everybody to ride MARC and MBTA into Washington and Boston.


The connection to CASHR between Palmdale and Victorville is not specualtive, its a plan with upto 2B in LA county money behind it. Its still years away but its most likely going to happen


MARC Rider said:


> I really don't think they're going to have the passengers to support running high speed trains on 45-minute headways between Las Vegas and Ranch Cucamonga. The NEC can barely do it (and it's not doing it now), and that's subsidized up the wahoo. I'm not even sure how Brightline is justifying the capital expenditure as a private, for-profit company. I suppose they have plans to develop properties by the stations, but I can't see how they can make money running trains over the long term, at least not the kind of money that would interest typical capitalist investors.


Brightline isn't doing this because they think they'll make money they are certain they can get ridership, if they weren't over the pass it would be a lot harder. Now that they are into the inland empire they've got plenty of riders 
they thankfully aren't clueless investors only interested in the short term and nearly all HSR lines make money


----------



## Touchdowntom9

Caesar La Rock said:


> The ICE trains in Germany have no problem doing 300kmh/186mph on this 4% grade up and down the Hallerbach Viaduct as shown in this video. This is on the Cologne–Frankfurt high speed rail line, which opened up 20 years ago. The Siemens Velaros will have no problem maintaining track speed up and down the 4% grades on the route Brightline West is using, especially the newer versions of the Velaros. With that said, Brightline West does have those restrictions for a reason.



Cool video. Regarding your last comment, what are the primary reasons they would have those speed restrictions?


----------



## Touchdowntom9

MARC Rider said:


> OK, I looked at the EIS a bit. On tables 1 & 2, they're claiming a total Las Vegas - "Southern California" Total travel demand of 49 million riders in 2025, ramping up to 63 million in 2044. Total ridership on the NEC, according to RPA, was about 12 million in 2019, the last year before the pandemic. Yeah, Southern California is heavily populated, and the Las Vegas Metro areas has 2.2 million people (about 600,000 fewer people than the Baltimore metro area). There's not much in between except Victorville, which has a little under 150,000 people., so even if it's a high-growth area and doubles its population, that's still not going to amount for a whole lot. And the high desert is really not the best place to start transplanting people in a region of the country characterized by drought.


I think you might be swapping some numbers around. They arent projecting 50mm in ridership--thats total ridership between the two areas (includes car/air travel as well I believe, and infers 25mm in round trips). At the bottom of the chart they project ridership in the single digit (6-8) millions for the first few years. See the snip below.


----------



## MARC Rider

Touchdowntom9 said:


> I think you might be swapping some numbers around. They arent projecting 50mm in ridership--thats total ridership between the two areas (includes car/air travel as well I believe, and infers 25mm in round trips). At the bottom of the chart they project ridership in the single digit (6-8) millions for the first few years. See the snip below.
> View attachment 30370


Whoops. OK, so they think they're going to get half the ridership that the NEC gets. That suggests that they can support running half the trains the NEC runs, or one every 120 minutes, not one every 45 minutes.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Whoops. OK, so they think they're going to get half the ridership that the NEC gets. That suggests that they can support running half the trains the NEC runs, or one every 120 minutes, not one every 45 minutes.


That is freight railroad thinking  You schedule passenger trains at a frequency that makes the service conveient, and not just to minimize the number of runs that you need to carry the total expected ridership.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> That is freight railroad thinking  You schedule passenger trains at a frequency that makes the service conveient, and not just to minimize the number of runs that you need to carry the total expected ridership.


That might be true, but Brightline isn't supposed to be getting any subsidies from anybody. Maybe, by the magic of having more convenient service, they can attract enough riders to pay for the every 45-minute service, but will the revenue from the extra riders cover the increased costs of running the more frequent trains?


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> That might be true, but Brightline isn't supposed to be getting any subsidies from anybody. Maybe, by the magic of having more convenient service, they can attract enough riders to pay for the every 45-minute service, but will the revenue from the extra riders cover the increased costs of running the more frequent trains?


Where did you get that idea specifically as it applies to Brightline West? 

As a matter of fact it will get subsidies in various ways even in Florida. One could facetiously ask what do riders have to do with selling real estate using the service as a carrot? It is more complicated than just filling seats most efficiently.


----------



## cirdan

GDRRiley said:


> they thankfully aren't clueless investors only interested in the short term and nearly all HSR lines make money


sadly I believe this is not the case. Very many high speed lines lose money hand over fist (especially when you take into account recovery of construction costs, which in many cases are magically swept under the rug). Such lines are built by governments who believe the broader societal benefits offset the expense. Whether or not this is true depends on the assumptions you are prepared to accept.


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> sadly I believe this is not the case. Very many high speed lines lose money hand over fist (especially when you take into account recovery of construction costs, which in many cases are magically swept under the rug). Such lines are built by governments who believe the broader societal benefits offset the expense. Whether or not this is true depends on the assumptions you are prepared to accept.


Actually I think among HSR projects there is quite a mix covering the entire gamut from those that manage to even recover their construction costs through those that are profitable operationally to the other extreme where it was always known to be a vanity project and continues as such. In this respect HSR is no different from any other transportation project.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

When are they supposed to break ground on construction for the project? Or do they still need to raise money from that bond offering before that happens?


----------



## GDRRiley

Touchdowntom9 said:


> When are they supposed to break ground on construction for the project? Or do they still need to raise money from that bond offering before that happens?


they need money from bonds which would require the states to reauthorize them


----------



## NES28

The environmental document for the added portion over Cajon Pass (next to I-15) providing a connection to Metrolink was just published and is out for public comment.


----------



## NES28

Construction of Brightline West should be pretty fast since structural elements are pretty limited (i.e. no major bridges).


----------



## Touchdowntom9

NES28 said:


> Construction of Brightline West should be pretty fast since structural elements are pretty limited (i.e. no major bridges).


Good point. Hopefully they can work on all the major sections simultaneously and get this rolling as fast as possible once the debt is raised.


----------



## NES28

They certainly did that with Brightline in Florida.


----------



## GDRRiley

A bit older news but this is a document brightline sent to the FRA. They plan on using Valero Novas not Valero Classics. 8000KW of power would make it seem like its the 360kmh/220mph version

.


----------



## Anderson

GDRRiley said:


> A bit older news but this is a document brightline sent to the FRA. They plan on using Valero Novas not Valero Classics. 8000KW of power would make it seem like its the 360kmh/220mph version
> 
> .


This makes me wonder - power consumption decisions aside, if they're going for the 220 MPH version, why not just file for that? Admittedly, tech developments over time can outrun some of these plans, so that's always a possibility here - and so is "under-promise and over-deliver"...but is there any real difference in what they'd need to do with the FRA?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> This makes me wonder - power consumption decisions aside, if they're going for the 220 MPH version, why not just file for that? Admittedly, tech developments over time can outrun some of these plans, so that's always a possibility here - and so is "under-promise and over-deliver"...but is there any real difference in what they'd need to do with the FRA?


Well they have to get the track and the train certified either way. So at least from the 30,000' level, no. But the details to be certified for higher speed will probably be more stringent.


----------



## GDRRiley

Anderson said:


> This makes me wonder - power consumption decisions aside, if they're going for the 220 MPH version, why not just file for that? Admittedly, tech developments over time can outrun some of these plans, so that's always a possibility here - and so is "under-promise and over-deliver"...but is there any real difference in what they'd need to do with the FRA?


they are already going to be all class 9 track unless sections of Cajon pass slow below 160mph then that could be 8.
Geometry could certainly be and issue along with number/length of sidings
I suspect the only place they'll go 220mph is on CASHR if they get a a track sharing thing worked out


----------



## Touchdowntom9

GDRRiley said:


> A bit older news but this is a document brightline sent to the FRA. They plan on using Valero Novas not Valero Classics. 8000KW of power would make it seem like its the 360kmh/220mph version
> 
> .


Hey, if they are spending billions on such a major project, thank god they are getting the newest possible rolling stock. Glad to see they are going all out here and not being complacent with older tech

I'm floored that so much work had to go into a deck just to request a door style that has been used in countless other European counties



GDRRiley said:


> they are already going to be all class 9 track unless sections of Cajon pass slow below 160mph then that could be 8.
> Geometry could certainly be and issue along with number/length of sidings
> I suspect the only place they'll go 220mph is on CASHR if they get a a track sharing thing worked out


Would you expect the track to have a wide range of speed restrictions or is it likely that it will be running at or very close to 160mph the entire time? I would almost prefer to run at a constant speed rather than briefly breaking 200 just to slow to 100 moments later (not a realistic comment but hopefully you get the gist).


----------



## GDRRiley

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Hey, if they are spending billions on such a major project, thank god they are getting the newest possible rolling stock. Glad to see they are going all out here and not being complacent with older tech


because it has to be made in the US if they want fed money and Siemens is bidding on CASHR I was more surprised at the time when they didn't announce it was using a 220mph platform


Touchdowntom9 said:


> I'm floored that so much work had to go into a deck just to request a door style that has been used in countless other European counties


the FRA is stuck decades behind in most cases


Touchdowntom9 said:


> Would you expect the track to have a wide range of speed restrictions or is it likely that it will be running at or very close to 160mph the entire time? I would almost prefer to run at a constant speed rather than briefly breaking 200 just to slow to 100 moments later (not a realistic comment but hopefully you get the gist).


Cajon pass is going to be on the slower side because they don't have space for large curves and they are again pushing 4-4.5% grades.

re reading the FRA document it says 50 miles with an approximate 140mph top speed so that could be class 8 from RC to Apple valley


----------



## Touchdowntom9

GDRRiley said:


> because it has to be made in the US if they want fed money and Siemens is bidding on CASHR I was more surprised at the time when they didn't announce it was using a 220mph platform
> 
> the FRA is stuck decades behind in most cases
> 
> Cajon pass is going to be on the slower side because they don't have space for large curves and they are again pushing 4-4.5% grades.
> 
> re reading the FRA document it says 50 miles with an approximate 140mph top speed so that could be class 8 from RC to Apple valley


If the slowest parts of the BLW route are essentially equal to the fastest parts of the NEC, well then that would be incredible.


----------



## GDRRiley

Touchdowntom9 said:


> If the slowest parts of the BLW route are essentially equal to the fastest parts of the NEC, well then that would be incredible.


Its what you'd expect from a new built line.
The S line improvments should deliver a 160mph railway once they put wires up and with tilting trains


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: A number of posts on SEHSR have been moved from this thread to the SEHSR thread:






SEHSR (South East High Speed Rail) discussions


When the CSX S Line tracks allow high speed rail between Raleigh, NC and Richmond, VA along the I-85 Corridor as part of the future SEHSR Line, what will that mean for the future of Amtrak’s Carolinian? I heard that the Carolinian could be rerouted onto the S Line for a much quicker trip between...




www.amtraktrains.com





Please post any further SEHSR related posts to the SEHSR thread and restrict posts to this thread to its subject matter which is Brightline West.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and participation.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

GDRRiley said:


> A bit older news but this is a document brightline sent to the FRA. They plan on using Valero Novas not Valero Classics. 8000KW of power would make it seem like its the 360kmh/220mph version
> 
> .



I was looking at the specs for the Velaro Novas on Siemen's website and these are going to be some really long trainsets. The 7 car trainsets that Brightline West will be getting is going to be 202 meters long, which equates to about 662 ft 8in long. About the same length as a 7 car ICE 4 train from Germany, albeit much faster. I saw lengths of each car being mentioned on Siemen's site as being 28.75 meters long which equates to 94 ft 3in long (I assume the driving cars at each end maybe slightly longer). 









Velaro Novo


Velaro Novo sets new standards when it comes to economic efficiency and sustainability.




www.mobility.siemens.com


----------



## GDRRiley

Caesar La Rock said:


> I was looking at the specs for the Velaro Novas on Siemen's website and these are going to be some really long trainsets. The 7 car trainsets that Brightline West will be getting is going to be 202 meters long, which equates to about 662 ft 8in long. About the same length as a 7 car ICE 4 train from Germany, albeit much faster. I saw lengths of each car being mentioned on Siemen's site as being 28.75 meters long which equates to 94 ft 3in long (I assume the driving cars at each end maybe slightly longer).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Velaro Novo
> 
> 
> Velaro Novo sets new standards when it comes to economic efficiency and sustainability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mobility.siemens.com


200m is the standard length for a high speed trainset. Car lengths are up this generation to reduce the number of bogies
It will be intresting to see if California buys any 400m trainsets or if they are all 200m and get coupled when needed


----------



## Caesar La Rock

GDRRiley said:


> 200m is the standard length for a high speed trainset. Car lengths are up this generation to reduce the number of bogies
> It will be intresting to see if California buys any 400m trainsets or if they are all 200m and get coupled when needed


I agree, California is going to be an interesting order as I wonder if they'll go for the Novas as well or get the classic version of the Velaros? One thing I should point out, China Railways has a 10ft 8 1/2 inch wide version of the classic Velaros, so a wider version of those trains can be ordered. I think for startup operations, they'll get 200m sets first.


----------



## GDRRiley

Caesar La Rock said:


> I agree, California is going to be an interesting order as I wonder if they'll go for the Novas as well or get the classic version of the Velaros? One thing I should point out, China Railways has a 10ft 8 1/2 inch wide version of the classic Velaros, so a wider version of those trains can be ordered. I think for startup operations, they'll get 200m sets first.


Novas if they get picked. No reason to not go for the latest. Siemens will already be building them in the US for brightline.
These are 10ft10in wide already, the first ones will be 200m there is 6-8 planned. Not sure if brightline has said how many sets they expect to need now and into the future


----------



## Mailliw

Is Brightline West actually ordering 7 car trainsets? The configuration in the FRA document looks like it's just Siemens sample configuration. I'd be surprised if Brightline went with both a cafe car and a 3 class setup with lie-flat seats.


----------



## Anderson

Mailliw said:


> Is Brightline West actually ordering 7 car trainsets? The configuration in the FRA document looks like it's just Siemens sample configuration. I'd be surprised if Brightline went with both a cafe car and a 3 class setup with lie-flat seats.


I would be a bit surprised, but it's _possible_? The best justification would be if they plan to offer that third class partly in conjunction with some casinos for high rollers, which might make some sense in the event that they extend all the way into LA (where the runtime might hit or exceed three hours, with a _lot_ of endpoint business).


----------



## Septa9739

I would think you’d almost have to go with seven car sets just to have any hope of profitability. Otherwise, they could hit the Amtrak LD problem where a sold out train really struggles to break even. (Well that and wonky accounting.) I also pause at the 12,000,000. That would be about that of the whole NEC, just a slightly ambitious goal.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Mailliw said:


> Is Brightline West actually ordering 7 car trainsets? The configuration in the FRA document looks like it's just Siemens sample configuration. I'd be surprised if Brightline went with both a cafe car and a 3 class setup with lie-flat seats.


Unless Brightline West has a change of heart, that's the available configuration with the Velaro Novas as presented by Siemens themselves. Either a 7 or 14 car set that train is available as per Siemens. They're basically an updated, lighter, and much faster version of a German ICE 4 train.


----------



## cirdan

Caesar La Rock said:


> Unless Brightline West has a change of heart, that's the available configuration with the Velaro Novas as presented by Siemens themselves. Either a 7 or 14 car set that train is available as per Siemens. They're basically an updated, lighter, and much faster version of a German ICE 4 train.


My understanding is that the 7 car configuration is just an example of what can be done, maybe tailored with a specific customer use case in mind. With distributed traction systems and equipment you can probably order anything from a 3 car set to a 20 car set and it would only take relatively minor tweaks to be made feasible.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

cirdan said:


> My understanding is that the 7 car configuration is just an example of what can be done, maybe tailored with a specific customer use case in mind. With distributed traction systems and equipment you can probably order anything from a 3 car set to a 20 car set and it would only take relatively minor tweaks to be made feasible.



That is very true. I'm just going by what Brightline West has indicated they wanted, but yes trains of those sizes can be ordered. Granted, it would be really odd to see a three car train capable of doing 200+mph unless it's a test set lol.


----------



## Willbridge

cirdan said:


> My understanding is that the 7 car configuration is just an example of what can be done, maybe tailored with a specific customer use case in mind. With distributed traction systems and equipment you can probably order anything from a 3 car set to a 20 car set and it would only take relatively minor tweaks to be made feasible.


There might be a software limit in the traction system regarding how many units it can control.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Willbridge said:


> There might be a software limit in the traction system regarding how many units it can control.



For high speed trainsets, 2 seems to be the usual number, although China Railways and Eurocity that operates international trains from England to cities in Europe using 16 car trainsets. Most railways in Europe, the max amount of trainsets controlled by the driver (what they call the engineer over there) is about 3 or 4 units.

Never seen much more then that other then in England and the Netherlands, where I've seen videos, pictures, and even have pictures I've purchased myself of trains made up of up to five multiple units in one train. Of course that was with older multiple units, as newer trains over there seem to be with the standard of many European railroads of having either a long trainset, or 2-3 shorter trainsets to form a service.


----------



## GDRRiley

cirdan said:


> My understanding is that the 7 car configuration is just an example of what can be done, maybe tailored with a specific customer use case in mind. With distributed traction systems and equipment you can probably order anything from a 3 car set to a 20 car set and it would only take relatively minor tweaks to be made feasible.


the 7 car set is 202m, they lengthend each car which is why its down from 8 for a 200m set


----------



## cirdan

Caesar La Rock said:


> Never seen much more then that other then in England and the Netherlands, where I've seen videos, pictures, and even have pictures I've purchased myself of trains made up of up to five multiple units in one train. Of course that was with older multiple units, as newer trains over there seem to be with the standard of many European railroads of having either a long trainset, or 2-3 shorter trainsets to form a service.


I guess the older sets did not use software for control and there was often also no or only severely limited feedback from the controlled unit to the controlling unit. I think on the old Dutch trains there was a single red light on the engineer's console that was labelled something like "malfunction on controlled unit" (in Dutch of course) and then it was the engineer's task to figure out what that malfunction might be (or even which unit it was occurring on). Sometimes a reset would suffice to clear a pertinent malfunction with nobody being any the wiser.

The number of units that could be controlled, or the length of the train that could be controlled, was thus essentially limited only by attenuation of the control signals along a not very well EMC-protected cable connected using sometimes dirty or corroded contact sockets between units. But with rather robust low frequency pulses being used for the controls, there was plenty of reserve.

On a software based system, the number of units that can be controlled can sometimes be limited by very trivial things such as the number of software addresses that are available or how they are allocated or even the compatibility of different software versions and how these talk to one another. These can equally be fixed by essentially trivial programming (comparatively speaking) should there be a need. Its just that nobody has so far ever had a need to run three or more ICE sets together for example.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

cirdan said:


> Its just that nobody has so far ever had a need to run three or more ICE sets together for example.


Older multiple units, I need to do more research into Dutch's older generation of multiple units. As for England, it was a matter of coupling the units up with a knuckle coupler (only for trains with electro pneumatic brakes), connecting the jumper hoses, and the train was off after a brake check.

I don't think the need for trains that long will come, whether it's DB, SNCF, Brightline, etc. Many countries have standardized on high speed trainsets being either 200 or 400 meters long (there are some exceptions to that length, but a thread on that subject in the international rail would be cool).

Many of those countries also have some of the same issues we're trying to address ourselves in the US (see Amtrak's long distance fleet replacement thread). Like trying to order rolling stock that can carry many passengers while trying to fit onto platforms that aren't long, ordering rolling stock that is friendly to disabled and wheelchair passengers, etc.


----------



## jis

Caesar La Rock said:


> Older multiple units, I need to do more research into Dutch's older generation of multiple units. As for England, it was a matter of coupling the units up with a knuckle coupler (only for trains with electro pneumatic brakes), connecting the jumper hoses, and the train was off after a brake check.


The last few times I have done serious local service riding in the UK I noticed that most of the new EMUs and DMUs have some variety of Scharfenberg Couplers that automatically connect up control lines and brake lines. The operator just sits in the cab and presses button to decouple and also to test completion of coupling. That is why they can separate two units so swiftly in service and have them head off different ways at a junction station.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> The last few times I have done serious local service riding in the UK I noticed that most of the new EMUs and DMUs have some variety of Scharfenberg Couplers that automatically connect up control lines and brake lines. The operator just sits in the cab and presses button to decouple and also to test completion of coupling. That is why they can separate two units so swiftly in service and have them head off different ways at a ju7nction station.


The Dutch have been doing something similar since pre WW2, using couplings that I think are not actually strictly real Scharfenberg but something quite similar. Electric and pneumatic contacts were established through pins mounted on the coupler and engaged automatically. Nevertheless the control protocol is not digital but is something that uses electrical pulses and that remained basically unchanged from the 1930s right up until the 1970s or thereabouts, which was why virtually any type of unit could be coupled to any other type, and even diesel and electric units could be run in mixed trains. The modern units that came since about the mid 1980s use digital computerised control which is why older and newer units never ran in mixed trains, and indeed even as every generation since then re-invents the wheel, even different generations of modern unit cannot run in coupled sets AFAIK.

The Dutch were also AFAIK also early adopters of units being separated or joined up en-route, which is how many smaller branch lines were able to gain direct train connections to the major cities.


----------



## VentureForth

GDRRiley said:


> the 7 car set is 202m, they lengthend each car which is why its down from 8 for a 200m set


86.5' cars vs 75'? How long can train cars be? Seems like this would limit turning radii - perhaps not an issue if the goal is high speed where you don't want tight turns anyway. But it'll have to enter an urban environment at some point, I'd imagine.


----------



## GDRRiley

VentureForth said:


> 86.5' cars vs 75'? How long can train cars be? Seems like this would limit turning radii - perhaps not an issue if the goal is high speed where you don't want tight turns anyway. But it'll have to enter an urban environment at some point, I'd imagine.


sounds right the document I linked above I believe states it 
85ft is the common pax car length with some freight cars going to 89-90ft long


----------



## Caesar La Rock

The intermediate cars of an 8 car Velaro set is 79' 3in. and the driving cars at either end are 84' 4in. We're looking at some really long sets that'll be at 202m long or 662' 8in long.


----------

