Is the CA high speed rail line supposed to run on electrified Caltrains tracks?

[homersimpson101]

If the California high speed rail is going from San Jose to San Francisco, would it run on the same electrified tracks of Caltrains, or will there be a dedicated underground tunnel or aerial trackway?

 

[joelkfla]

Everything I've seen says the same tracks, and that was one of the justifications for the electrification. There are plans to build a tunnel from the current CalTrain terminal in SF to the Sales Force Transit Center, or whatever they're calling the East Bay Terminal these days.

 

[homersimpson101]

Everything I've seen says the same tracks, and that was one of the justifications for the electrification. There are plans to build a tunnel from the current CalTrain terminal in SF to the Sales Force Transit Center, or whatever they're calling the East Bay Terminal these days.

How would the high speed rail line avoid railroad crossings and overcrowding from Caltrains running on the same track?

 

[zephyr17]

Yes, that's the plan

 

[Tlcooper44]

How would the high speed rail line avoid railroad crossings and overcrowding from Caltrains running on the same track?

As things currently stand, I believe there is enough capacity to support more trains per hour on the double track mainline.

Grade crossings do not prohibit high speed trains, as long as they’re not over a certain speed (110mph?).

 

[MARC Rider]

As things currently stand, I believe there is enough capacity to support more trains per hour on the double track mainline.

Grade crossings do not prohibit high speed trains, as long as they’re not over a certain speed (110mph?).

The Acela runs through grade crossings on parts of the NEC in Connecticut.

 

[jis]

The Acela runs through grade crossings on parts of the NEC in Connecticut.

The speed limit at those grade crossings is 110mph or less.

 

[joelkfla]

How would the high speed rail line avoid railroad crossings and overcrowding from Caltrains running on the same track?

High Speed Rail trains can run at lower speeds, too. It's common in Europe for HSR to run on dedicated fully protected lines for parts of a trip, and on traditional lines at lower speeds for other parts.

 

[GDRRiley]

Yes CAHSR will be sharing 2-4 tracks with Caltrain from Gilroy to San Francisco. More quad track, signaling work and high level platforms will be required before CAHSR can use the corridor.

How would the high speed rail line avoid railroad crossings and overcrowding from Caltrains running on the same track?

They aren't going to be avoiding grade crossings they are just going to run at 110mph top speed. CAHSR has decided to let caltrain do a bunch without them involved because they are so expensive when NIMBYs and local governments try an force a design.

As things currently stand, I believe there is enough capacity to support more trains per hour on the double track mainline.

Given the mixed stopping patterns there is some capacity but not a ton, and past 6 or 8tph each direction they'll need to do some major work to increase signaling capacity.

Grade crossings do not prohibit high speed trains, as long as they’re not over a certain speed (110mph?).

above 90mph all crossings must have quad gates and above 110mph but below 125mph a custom design is needed which can stop a truck at speed without overhanging into the loading gauge. Everyone views that as a massive pain so consider 110mph the top speed of a line with crossings.

 

[George Harris]

The original thought was four tracks throughout with the middle two high speed and the outer two Caltrain and 100% grade separated. However, NIMBY's killed several of the grade separation proposals and a political promise by an absolute ignoramus in the HSR management that there would be no extra right of way required anywhere killed the four tracks throughout. (In some areas it appears that SP had sold off strips of right of way up to near the clearance outline of the existing tracks.) A lot of the NIMBY squawks were related to visual effects, including a lot related to the "unsightly" overhead for the electrification. At least the electrification made it past the NIMBY's. There were also complaints about increased noise with the HSR and electrification. Hmmm. Let's see, we replace diesel operation with electric operation and it will be noisier? These people live in a logic free zone.

 

[George Harris]

Everything I've seen says the same tracks, and that was one of the justifications for the electrification. There are plans to build a tunnel from the current CalTrain terminal in SF to the Sales Force Transit Center, or whatever they're calling the East Bay Terminal these days.

Yes, to tunnel, and it will be about a 25 mph segment due to curves. A more direct and higher speed route into Trans Bay was suggested by a couple people on the planning side, but it was firmly smacked down by the powers in charge. IMHO, the proposed terminal is grossly inadequate to handle the volume of people using it if the system is successful. The only hope to avoid this is that the ridership will drop drastically to/from points north of San Jose, which given current events passengers to/from San Francisco itself seems likely to be far less than originally estimated.

 

[GDRRiley]

Yes, to tunnel, and it will be about a 25 mph segment due to curves. A more direct and higher speed route into Trans Bay was suggested by a couple people on the planning side, but it was firmly smacked down by the powers in charge. IMHO, the proposed terminal is grossly inadequate to handle the volume of people using it if the system is successful. The only hope to avoid this is that the ridership will drop drastically to/from points north of San Jose, which given current events passengers to/from San Francisco itself seems likely to be far less than originally estimated.

Salesforce transit center can handle plenty of trains if we run ops correctly its 3 island platforms with 6 tracks. CAHSR will have one and therefore if they can turn a train in under 25 mins they can run 2TPH per track or 4TPH total. Caltrain meanwhile is going to need to get to the point where they can turn a train around in 12 mins to get 4TPH per track which means they can then to 16tph total.

 

[west point]

IMO probably there will be more 4 track stations. that way HSR can either make a transfer stop or bypass the Cal trains. Signaling will probably need high density signaling with more blocks to decrease train spacing. 79 MPH speeds will mean clearing a block of about 1.2 miles in 1 minute and 2 blocks in 2 minutes for a following train. PTC will need some updating.

 

[George Harris]

Salesforce transit center can handle plenty of trains if we run ops correctly its 3 island platforms with 6 tracks. CAHSR will have one and therefore if they can turn a train in under 25 mins they can run 2TPH per track or 4TPH total. Caltrain meanwhile is going to need to get to the point where they can turn a train around in 12 mins to get 4TPH per track which means they can then to 16tph total.

I don't see a problem with the volume of trains. Taipei Main Station handled four trains per hour each way from day one with two platforms, four tracks without problems. From what I have seen, and I could be wrong, is the station itself is undersized for any significant volume of people.

 

[NES28]

There has been discussion of connecting to a new standard gauge transbay tunnel out the other side of the station. The potentially shorter dwells created by thru operation would solve any train ops capacity issue, but exasperate people-handling concerns.

 

[cirdan]

There has been discussion of connecting to a new standard gauge transbay tunnel out the other side of the station. The potentially shorter dwells created by thru operation would solve any train ops capacity issue, but exasperate people-handling concerns.

Would the Salesforce station be deep enough to allow the line to continue in a tunnel under the bay? And where would such a tunnel go? It might be useful for commuter trains maybe, but I don't see any high speed inter city line going further in that direction, at least not until a lot of other things have changed first.

And I guess Amtrak LD trains wouldn't use it either. It might be tempting to replace the Emeryville and bus ride by a train right into SF. But that would involve running diesels down there. I don't think they would want do that somehow.

 

[railiner]

Would the Salesforce station be deep enough to allow the line to continue in a tunnel under the bay? And where would such a tunnel go? It might be useful for commuter trains maybe, but I don't see any high speed inter city line going further in that direction, at least not until a lot of other things have changed first.

And I guess Amtrak LD trains wouldn't use it either. It might be tempting to replace the Emeryville and bus ride by a train right into SF. But that would involve running diesels down there. I don't think they would want do that somehow.

I think a better connection with BART might be the way to transfer Amtrak passengers in and out of San Francisco. I believe you can do that at the Richmond station, although I don't know how convenient that actually is when toting baggage...

 

[Gary Moline]

I think a better connection with BART might be the way to transfer Amtrak passengers in and out of San Francisco. I believe you can do that at the Richmond station, although I don't know how convenient that actually is when toting baggage...

There is an elevator up to the Richmond Amtrak Stop outside the BART gates. The Richmond Amtrak is in no way a station. Even though San Joaquins and Capitol Corridor trains stop there, a whole new station would have to be constructed. I've used it in the past, but avoid it whenever possible.

 

[railiner]

In the last years of Santa Fe service to the Bay Area, they cut back their terminus from Oakland to Richmond, where their buses connected passengers on to San Francisco
Of course, that was on their own line, not the current route Amtrak uses (former SP)…