Huge supporter of rail but sadly I believe there are a number of mistakes being made. This is a classic example of how projects like this in the US need to be monolithic, self contained, and gold plated to the hilt. The correct action would have been for CA to incrementally acquire and build railways along a number of corridors. Take the SF bay for example. There should be one agency running Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, the ACE. It should electrify and improve all the routes. Extend reach to Monterey and other Central Valley locations. And do the same in Southern California.
The incompatibility of CAHSR with other rail strikes me as a repeat of the BART mistake.
Other successful high-speed rail systems (France's TGV, for example) also have dedicated rights-of-way, not shared with older equipment, and rail physically built to different standards (specially welded). You really don't want genuinely high-speed trains (300 km/h) running on the same tracks as anything slower, in normal operation. And if you try to build a high-speed system on earlier rights-of-way, you get something like Acela, in the US Northeast corridor. It can go at ~150 mph on track that can support it, but there are only a few miles of the route between Boston and Washington can support that. Net: it's only half an hour faster than conventional rail on the same route and track -- and something like half the difference is accounted for by the conventional trains making a lot more stops.
Correct. A difference is they start by thinking of (and running) the rail network as a whole system of supporting lines. Then add high speed railway segments to the network like expressways along key routes. This is what I think CA should do/have done. It's not too late actually, they could set up a "Caltrak". Develop a state wide rail plan that covered everything but urban metros, and begin buying assets/access and merging them into one whole network. What the CAHSR is building could continue, maybe with some adaptations of that plan, to just be those "expressway" sections mentioned.
This. I know HSR is sexy, but for the money California should put in a conventional rail network first. People would take the train between San Francisco and LA, say, if speeds were comparable to driving.
I had to look this up when you said "specially welded"...
As far as I can tell, TGV tracks are built to vey tight tolerances, but Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) is a worldwide standard on new railway lines, nothing special. I most recently saw some thermite welding equipment just about to be used in Dublin (Ireland) during the laying of new tramway tracks. So there's nothing exotic about the welding process, though it is quite dramatic.
European high-speed rail systems have some dedicated rights of way, but they definitely didn't start that way. They are systems that are integrated with regional and urban rail, and have grown to have more dedicated higher speed sections over time. Compatibility is the main reason for the success of the TGV and ICE, for example over the failed Transrapid maglev system.
All track with passenger rail on it should be welded, so not sure what your point is. Also, every passenger rail should ideally be electrified; more freight trains should be electrified as well.
Yes high speed track is built to much tighter tolerances, but high speed trains can go on lower class tracks with slower speed. Plenty of ICE trains in Germany run on 160 km/h track. Extreme examples include TGVs being pulled by diesel trains to reach beach resorts.
> European high-speed rail systems have some dedicated rights of way, but they definitely didn't start that way.
TGV was most definitely started that way. It was engineered to be able to run on regular railway ("standard gauge high-speed train") so that the existing "inner-city" rails could be used to reach inside existing metropolis, but it was designed primarily to run on new specific rights of way, regular service started on the dedicated "LN1" (now LGV Sud-Est) between Paris and Lyon: the line is 409km (254mi) for a total ride distance (station to station) of 425km (264mi).
> They are systems that are integrated with regional and urban rail, and have grown to have more dedicated higher speed sections over time.
The size of the dedicated high-speed network grew over time, but high-speed trains were always intended to run on high-speed networks, there's just no point otherwise, "regular" trainsets will reach older lines's rated speed just fine.
I'm saying that your claim of european high-speed systems "definitely not having started with dedicated right of way" is absolute bullshit.
Yes they are standard gauge and can run on regular old rail and that's plenty useful, but no that's not what they were built for, it would be a complete waste of the rolling stock.
You don't understand what dedicated means in the American context - which is this discussion. It would mean complete incompatibility, and building new tracks and maybe stations downtown. This is not what EU high speed rail was built on, they use a lot of legacy lines, especially earlier on, especially in Germany. Without that it wouldve failed - not being able to reuse existing infrastructure is why maglev failed.
As an aside, calling an idea complete bullshit based on an nitpick is pretty weak, especially since you're wrong: when tgv started in September 1981, they only had part of the line constructed. Without compatibility, I.e. a completely dedicated system, you could've only traveled between two random towns.
> You don't understand what dedicated means in the American context
It means the exact same fucking thing in every context. Dedicated means infrastructure which exists solely for high-speed train, not that high-speed trains can only exist on the dedicated infrastructure.
> It would mean complete incompatibility
That's completely nonsensical. European high-speed lines are dedicated, non-high-speed trains do not run on them, it's the high-speed rolling stock which is compatible with older electrified rail lines because they use a standard gauge and compatible/switchable electrical feed (some of the more complex rolling stock having to cross multiple borders can handle 4 different power inputs).
> This is not what EU high speed rail was built on, they use a lot of legacy lines
And they use dedicated infrastructure and have done so from the start.
> As an aside, calling an idea complete bullshit based on an nitpick is pretty weak
It's not a nitpick to point out that your statement is factually entirely incorrect.
> especially since you're wrong: when tgv started in September 1981, they only had part of the line constructed.
That was still a dedicated right-of-way which it started with, putting the lie to your statement.
> Without compatibility
That has nothing to do with your original statement. Your statement was not that high-speed rolling stock should be compatible with legacy rail and able to use it. Your statement was that european high-speed rail "definitely didn't start" with "dedicated rights of way", and further that high-speed rail only have some dedicated rights of way.
Probably a different mistake but BART uses 5'6" rail gauge. Standard US rail gauge is 4'8.5". This means that every railcar, every everything, has to be custom made with no economies of scale.
> BART uses 5'6" rail gauge. Standard US rail gauge is 4'8.5".
Interesting. When I saw this, I wondered if it was to match another standard gauge that was judged to be superior. But, looking at the list of rail gauges on wikipedia[0], 5'6" is the gauge for railways in India ("Indian broad gauge" to be specific). The initial BART rolling stock seems to have been build by Rohr, Inc.[1], which is based in California. So it seems unlikely that they were benefiting from any economies of scale from Indian rail construction. Rohr also seems to have built rolling stock for the Washington, D.C. metro, which uses a near-standard 4'8.25" gauge[2].
There is the theory that Rohr was an aerospace company and didn't know about standards; I find this hard to believe. Some say there was a study about car dynamics. But the article I read said that no one actually remembers. The design docs are in a transportation library in Monterey and they apparently don't say. Here's a collection of theories, all plausible with no confirming evidence:
if, 150+ years ago, when we were building all the rail infrastructure in India, someone said - that there would be no fast line from Delhi to London in 100 years - people would think you were nuts - right now it's tricky to get from London to Berlin, India is near impossible
It is pretty common knowledge why they did this. Original plans for the BART had it traveling over the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin County. Due to high winds across the bridge, they wanted a wider gauge to prevent trains from tipping.
With strange, custom-construction-requiring stuff like this, I tend to wonder how much of it would be explained by "help self/a buddy get rich". It's practically guaranteeing that there's going to be a single company supporting it for all time, which is a potentially-extremely-lucrative business deal.
If that's the case, obfuscating the reasons for these decisions is a rational move.
It's a bit cynical to say this but running HSR on an incompatible network protects it against future politicians who may seek to sabotage it by merging networks.
This sounds similar to the reason why the Glasgow Subway runs on a 4' (1219mm) gauge: to stop it from being taken over by the numerous (at the time privately owned) railways around the city which were all standard gauge.
I want to believe that the different gauge standards is a bit like the proliferation of programming languages in software - they solve their slightly different problem space well. Is this true?
What's the incompatibility? It's 4' 8.5" standard gauge with 25KV AC catenary. (BART is 5' 6" with 1KV DC third rail, both of which are unique to BART.)
The construction process does seem to be insufficiently standardized. There's all that falsework and ground paving. Compare the way it's done in China, with standardized bridge sections placed on pylons by a very specialized machine.[1]
They're insisting on a 50" above rail platform height for starters. Higher than anywhere else in the world and incompatible with all other rail in the US let alone CA. There is no comprehensive planning between the different agencies running commuter and regional rail and CAHSR to work towards common inter-operable standards. This should be state wide, if not across the whole west coast. (We really need state wide rail planning.)
50" is about normal. US northeast corridor is 48 inches; China is 49.2". Japan's Shinkansen is 49.2" EU high speed rail is much lower, requiring bogies between cars.
Eurostar does, and some TGV trainsets do. But some other high speed rail trainsets in Europe don't.
If the floor is below the top of the wheels, there has to be a narrow section at the car ends. The wheels have to go someplace. The lost space can be minimized by sharing a bogie between two cars.
(If the floor is below the axle line, as with ultra low floor trams, it's really complicated.)
Eurostar is the exception to every train. It's a monster of complexity because it has to work on three systems. It also does not have 550mm platform height. I think it has 750?
> some TGV trainsets
But not because of the platform height but because of stability in case of a crash. The TGVs with bogies between the cars has the same general height setup as the traditional ones.
> (If the floor is below the axle line, as with ultra low floor trams, it's really complicated.)
Sure, but that's hardly relevant here. Trams are generally set up completely different. Vienna for instance has the ULF tram and it's being phased out because such a low floor setup is just generally a bad idea for many different reasons. The new rolling stock will be Bombardier Flexity.
Eurostar is 760mm. The EU TSI requires 550mm or 760mm; the UK rail network has a blanket exemption excluding it from that (platforms are more-or-less universally 915mm in the UK).
A large part of what made the shinkansen work in ways that the current US rail system doesn't is its dedicated right of way, so I think building it separately makes some sense.
sharing with freight otrain slower commuter trains really reduces the value of HSR, especially on an older, slower right of way.
Capitol Corridor improvements from Richmond to San Jose are something that could be done right now to dramatically improve transportation in the region. And all we need to do is nationalize the UPRR. Who would complain, really?
In Toronto and surrounding area we've seen the expansion of our suburban rail network, through incremental purchase of track, over the past decade. It's owned by one company (Metrolinx, which is a gov. Body) and it seems to be working out well. It's taken a long time (it feels like) to see progress in certain corridors but the rider ship and effect its having on the surrounding regions of Toronto is clearly identifiable.
This approach has its problems too, but I do agree with you hear type of monolithic projects always become a boondoggle.
The incompatibility of CAHSR with other rail strikes me as a repeat of the BART mistake.