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

41–50 of 297 posts

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

#41

Post by Animats »

erentz wrote: post #33
Animats wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ra…

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.

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

#42

Post by privong »

CalChris wrote: post #24
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…

> a repeat of the BART mistake. 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. No one can remember why they did this.

> 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].

Perplexing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohr,_Inc. (you'll need manually add the period to the end of the URL, because of how HN converts this into a link)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#System

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

#43

Post by mtkd »

privong wrote: post #42
CalChris wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a repeat of the BART mistake. 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. No one can remember why they did this.

> 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…

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

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

#44

Post by ingsoc79 »

mtkd wrote: post #43
privong wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 most likely would have happened, if the airplane hadn't been invented. Now you can fly from Delhi to London in 8-9 hours.

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

#45

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

Animats wrote: post #41
erentz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ra…

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.

> EU high speed rail is much lower, requiring bogies between cars.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Most high speed rail in Europe does not have bogies between cars.

Example from Austria with 550mm platform height:

* Local trains: http://blog-oebb.at/backend/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cityj...

* High speed rail: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Railjet-...

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

#46

Post by ghshephard »

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…

"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 at least once per month."

I'm curious how that happened to you - I used to fly SFO-LAX from time to time, and was surprised that they didn't even really worry about me missing my flight - they just told me to catch the next one in line. United runs 27 flights daily from SFO to LAX, and presumably have some extra planes they can inject into the system if needed... (SFO is a United Hub)

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

#47

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

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?

One advantage of rail is you can put a station in the middle of a metro area, removing travel time to the airport.

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

#48

Post by Animats »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #45
Animats wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> EU high speed rail is much lower, requiring bogies between cars. Can you clarify what you mean by that? Most high speed rail in Europe does not have bogies between cars. Example from Austria with 550mm platform height: * Local trains: http://blog-oebb.at/backend/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cityj... * High speed rail: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Railjet-...

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.)

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

#49

Post by CalChris »

privong wrote: post #42
CalChris wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a repeat of the BART mistake. 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. No one can remember why they did this.

> 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…

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:

http://myprogressiverailroading.com/rail_forum/maintenance_o...

BTW, Pittsburg uses 5'6" as well.

DC Metro is even more ridiculous. It's only 1/4" different from standard gauge.

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

#50

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

Animats wrote: post #48
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU high speed rail is much lower, requiring bogies between cars. Can you clarify what you mean by that? Most high speed rail in Europe does not have bogies between cars. Example from Austria with 550mm platform height: * Local trains: http://blog-oebb.at/backend/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cityj... * High speed rail: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Railjet-...

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 does

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.

Post reply on HN