Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

  by Thomas I
 
Chafford1 wrote:... The Spanish planned this top speed for their Madrid - Barcelona high speed line but this has now been scaled back to 186mph. ...
Seems you are not up to date: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48100 :P :wink:

  by heyitsme23
 
Hi guys, is there any news that this for sure will be on the ballot or not? its a very exciting venture, but is it just a pipe dream?

  by Chessie GM50
 
Can someone please define for me the line between "highspeed rail" and "very highspeed rail" for me?

And also, if 200 mph seems to be the limit, how can the french run it as fast as they do?

  by RVRR 15
 
The French run over 300 mph only during tests (like that last one at about 357 mph). Fastest normal top speed for the TGV is 196 mph. Most of these countries are shooting for about 217 mph (or 350 km/h) in normal service.
A survey carried out in 2004 in the UK
That study is probably biased. If you are worried about kilowatt-hours per seat, increase the number of seats, because the energy consumption will not vary too much. Besides, carbon dioxide has zero effect upon "global warming"; it's an absurd assertion to claim that a gas that exists in trace amounts in the atmosphere (0.03 percent on average) can have such a warming effect, especially since the plants are continuously breathing it in and turning it into oxygen molecules by expiration.

BTW, the nominal power of the TGV is 14 kilowatts per seat. If you ride the train for three hours at maximum horsepower, that's 42 kilowatt-hours per seat. You increase the wattage by increasing the horsepower, not the speed. If your power/weight ratio is within certain bounds, you won't have to raise your horsepower.

(Edit: Noticed the thread on the DesertXpress thing that I don't think will get built. Sounds like someone's either trying to prove John Mica right, or defy Mica's claim that Amtrak's standing in the way of privately-financed high-speed rail development. The DesertXpress concept just isn't logical to me.)

  by Chafford1
 
Chessie GM50 wrote:Can someone please define for me the line between "highspeed rail" and "very highspeed rail" for me?

And also, if 200 mph seems to be the limit, how can the french run it as fast as they do?
There are various definitions of 'high speed'. The European Union defines a new high speed line as one where the speed is 250 km/h (155mph) or more and an uprated (i.e. existing) high speed line as one where the speed is around 200 km/h (124mph).

The current fastest commercial services (excluding Maglev) are run by French TGV and German ICE3 trains on the LGV Est line between Paris and Strasbourg at up to 320 km/h (199mph). The Spanish Madrid to Barcelona line will exceed this (possibly this year) when maximum speeds are increased to 350 km/h (217mph).

  by Nasadowsk
 
Or, there's the US definition where anything over 80mph is called 'high speed'....

I was under the impression that at least in parts of Europe, 100 - 125mph was basically the standard for mainline running.

  by heyitsme23
 
I thought in the US it was an average speed of 90 mph is high speed (thats what the HSR corridors requirements, sustained speeds of 90 mph or more for a certain percent of the route)

  by RVRR 15
 
I've never seen "high speed" on the rails expressed in terms of average speed. Only top speed.
The European Union defines a new high speed line as one where the speed is 250 km/h (155mph) or more and an uprated (i.e. existing) high speed line as one where the speed is around 200 km/h (124mph)
Top speed on electrified traditional rail corridors, in countries like France and Germany, for non-tilt trains, is 137 mph (or 220 km/h); tilt trains in Germany that run on traditional rail corridors operate at 143 mph (or 230 km/h).

Funny how the EU definition starts with the bottom figure at 155 mph, isn't it? Coincides with the new restricted top speed of the ICE 1 on the NBS.
  by george matthews
 
Chafford1 wrote:Looks as if the whole scheme might be in danger:

http://www.kcbs.com/High-Speed-Rail-May ... at/2765272
I have seen reports in the British press of California's budget difficulties. Money for investment would not be easy to find.

Re:

  by neroden
 
RVRR 15 wrote:Besides, carbon dioxide has zero effect upon "global warming"
OK, please go back to school. Mods, this sort of disinformation shouldn't be allowed to stand. Every reputable scientist knows that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in fact causing global warming. I could go into great detail, since unlike RVRR15 I have a science education, but it's off topic.
  by lpetrich
 
That bond issue is still on the ballot.

But it looks so expensive that I'm concerned that it'll be scaled back.

My guess is that the Bay Area part will be changed from San Jose - San Francisco to San Jose - Oakland or Emeryville, because the construction is easier. Although much of the SF-SJ ROW can be expanded to 4 tracks, something that has been done in some places, there is still much of it that has room only for 2 or 3 tracks. And though the East Bay ROW's south of Oakland are mostly single-track, parts of them can be expanded to double-track without much trouble.

And that the line will initially be Los Angeles - San Jose or even Palmdale - San Jose.
  by lensovet
 
initial segment will be Anaheim-Los Angeles. Following this Los Angeles-Bakersfield-Fresno-Gilroy-San Jose-SF will be built. MAS will be 220 mph in the central valley.

Going to Oakland has been ruled out as part of the environmental and feasibility studies.
  by lpetrich
 
Anaheim - Los Angeles? Complete with electrification? Or just an adding some track and improving the signals?

That seems like a rather tiny project compared to all the new construction that they will have to be doing between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I recently read several of the documents in the Library section of the project's official site, and it looks like they are committed to San Francisco instead of to Oakland -- it would be too expensive and awkward to go to Oakland.

And elevated trackways through Livermore and Pleasanton and Dublin? And four tracks wide through downtown Livermore? I almost couldn't believe it.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 49