Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 297 posts

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#31

Post by lispm »

magila wrote: post #8
niftich wrote: post #2

Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve connectivity between more than just the two te…

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

France has tracks with 320km/h.

Germany uses 300km/h on some tracks. Here the view from a train at that speed overtaking cars on the Autobahn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js3XDTE5Iyg

China learned from it, here using a version of a German Siemens ICE train, Shanghai/Beijing in under five hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvytUaRs2dU

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#32

Post by _red »

jimmybobbyjones wrote: post #23
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

> The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, I have no trouble imagining that the train can compete with flying between SF and LA. Even if the train has to stop in several backwater towns along the way. The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours…

That assumption is: plane with current on-time arrival percentage vs train with mythical 100% on-time arrival.

There are a whole host of additional problems that affect rail travel that you never have to think about with air-travel.

Currently, Amtrak OTA is 80% - so that means 1/5 of your trips will experience a delay of some sort.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#33

Post by erentz »

Animats wrote: post #25
erentz wrote: post #6

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 Cor…

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] [1] https://www.youtube.com/wa…

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.)

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#34

Post by magila »

lispm wrote: post #31
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

France has tracks with 320km/h. Germany uses 300km/h on some tracks. Here the view from a train at that speed overtaking cars on the Autobahn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js3XDTE5Iyg China learned from it, here using a version of a German Siemens ICE train, Shanghai/Beijing in under five hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvytUaRs2dU

320 kph is the maximum cruising speed. Average speed for a trip is typically much less than that because the trains can only hit 320 kph on certain stretches of track. Even 320 kph is about 30 kph short of what the California trains are planing to average. From what I understand the operating costs go up considerably between 320 kph and 350 kph due to the need for much more stringent track maintenance.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#35

Post by hansef »

0max wrote: post #20
WildUtah wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can get the trains to take you directly into the city center, it can often be a better option. That's because Boston and NYC are both navigable without a car. Only one side of the SF-LA link can claim to be close to that ideal. But the time and hassle of airport parking and security and delays might be able to keep a 3.5 hour train ride viable even in CA. That would require a train system that allowed passenge…

You don't think Measure M passed last year would make any difference? http://theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/factshee...

I live in LA and travel to the Bay for work frequently. I can walk to a Metro station from my house in Highland Park in 10 minutes and be at Union Station in 13 minutes. If I could spend 3 hours on the train to SF from Union instead of driving to Burbank, arriving an hour before my flight, and then spending an hour on a plane, I would do it every time.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#36

Post by lispm »

magila wrote: post #34
lispm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has tracks with 320km/h. Germany uses 300km/h on some tracks. Here the view from a train at that speed overtaking cars on the Autobahn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js3XDTE5Iyg China learned from it, here using a version of a German Siemens ICE train, Shanghai/Beijing in under five hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvytUaRs2dU

320 kph is the maximum cruising speed. Average speed for a trip is typically much less than that because the trains can only hit 320 kph on certain stretches of track. Even 320 kph is about 30 kph short of what the California trains are planing to average. From what I understand the operating costs go up considerably between 320 kph and 350 kph due to the need for much more stringent track maintenance.

> 320 kph is the maximum cruising speed. Average speed for a trip is typically much less than that because the trains can only hit 320 kph on certain stretches of track.

France and Spain have those tracks in Europe.

The newer German tracks with 300km/h are operated at 300km/h with the ICE 3. Even through towns and tunnels. It's not the average speed, but a typical cruising speed on those tracks. France has more and longer high-speed tracks, thus the high-speed trains operate at higher average speed than in Germany.

Operating at 300km/h and beyond is indeed expensive. As are high-speed train in general. Still Western Europe now has an extensive amount of high-speed tracks:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/High_Spe...

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#37

Post by MK999 »

jjawssd wrote: post #11
jimrandomh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are also much, much cheaper per mile. Something is wrong with construction in the US that makes rail lines dramatically more expensive here.

I'm interested in finding out more about this issue

Why Trains Suck in America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#39

Post by privong »

sand500 wrote: post #38

As I see it, the price of rail tickets will be pretty high.whats stopping the price of flights from being halved in the next couple of decades and killing this train service too?

> whats stopping the price of flights from being halved in the next couple of decades and killing this train service too?

The construction of the high-speed rail system is/will be heavily subsidized by the government. So presumably, the government will have a vested interest in keeping the train service running and will subsidize operating costs if airlines cut prices in that manner.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#40

Post by khuey »

_red wrote: post #32
jimmybobbyjones wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, I have no trouble imagining that the train can compete with flying between SF and LA. Even if the train has to stop in several backwater towns along the way. The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours…

That assumption is: plane with current on-time arrival percentage vs train with mythical 100% on-time arrival. There are a whole host of additional problems that affect rail travel that you never have to think about with air-travel. Currently, Amtrak OTA is 80% - so that means 1/5 of your trips will experience a delay of some sort.

Amtrak doesn't own the right of way for most of their routes.
Post reply on HN