by west point
Amtrak reporting SEA <> Vancouver BC servicee cancelled due to damage to Frasier river bridge damage. Leaves a train set stranded d in Vancouver
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Upgrade Amtrak Cascades or build high-speed rail? The choice is clear
There are two visions for future passenger rail in Washington: Cascadia High Speed Rail and Amtrak Cascades. Because they run at different speeds, the cost, infrastructure and land requirements are vastly different. We oppose the proposed HSR plan and recommend Amtrak Cascades as a wiser use of land.
British Columbia, Washington and Oregon signed an agreement to build ultra high-speed rail to run at speeds of 220 miles per hour or more from Vancouver, B.C., to Portland.
The high-speed rail proposal would be costly, chiefly in infrastructure and land requirements. An independent consultant summary and full final report to the Washington Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee details the approach’s complexity, decades-long timeline and cost — likely up to $150 billion. Land requirements are vast: 220 miles of straight level right of way and 90 miles of tunnels under cities. To achieve high speed, only three stops are indicated. There are no published stations or routes. The track would need a strip of land the area of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport — about 3,000 acres — and take decades, not years to build, as is occurring in California.
...
The Washington State Department of Transportation’s new Amtrak Cascades Service Development Plan has five options. None will achieve reliable 2.5-hour trip times without new infrastructure investments. Among them: Point Defiance Bypass curve revision, where speeds are now limited to 30 mph, a new fast-rail bridge over the Nisqually River for both Amtrak and Sound Transit trains, a 110-mph third track between Lacey and Centralia, and more.
...
west point wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:23 am Brightline suddenly increases traffic Orlando <> West Palm beach & south over Amtrak failures to attract those passengers. That IMO proves just getting HrSR and not HSR. So why not just improve present tracks and the customers probably will come?Exactly. Maybe have provisions for stretches to be HSR, later, but having large stretches over the Doc Brown speed is enough, if the service is good and frequent enough.
The Washington State Department of Transportation’s new Amtrak Cascades Service Development Plan has five options. None will achieve reliable 2.5-hour trip times without new infrastructure investments. Among them: Point Defiance Bypass curve revision, where speeds are now limited to 30 mph, a new fast-rail bridge over the Nisqually River for both Amtrak and Sound Transit trains, a 110-mph third track between Lacey and Centralia, and more.A reliable and frequent schedule with trip times around 3 hours will draw plenty of people from their cars. The drive time on I-5 is steadily increasing and if Amtrak can offer a reliable 3-hour trip between Seattle and Portland, the train will be popular. The infrastructure improvements needed for 3-hour trips would also benefit Sound Transit and BNSF while HSR 220 would take a lifetime to build and cost a fortune.
Vincent wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:38 pmAny significant project to increase lanes or capacity on I-5 is going to be much more costly than upgrading the Cascade's infrastructure.What the Cascadia Rail proponents fail to point out is that spending money on I-5 will improve conditions not just for people travelling from, say, Vancouver/Seattle/Portland, but all the people who have to use I-5 to travel to those towns Amtrak skips by at 79 MPH; to people who use I-5 to complete west-east connections that Amtrak physically cannot do; to travel to suburban communities (yes, believe it or not, the majority of people do not travel city center to city center); not to mention freight.
west point wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:23 am Brightline suddenly increases traffic Orlando <> West Palm beach & south over Amtrak failures to attract those passengers. That IMO proves just getting HrSR and not HSR. So why not just improve present tracks and the customers probably will come?You have a part of the equation right, but there is more to it than just HrSR.
John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 9:38 am Eric and Tad,Agree with all but the speed issue. We once had a discussion in these parts about the difference between windshield time and train time. I can handle a 30pct+ longer train ride if I can read or work on a laptop. I get nothing done in my car other than talking on the phone.
60 odd years ago, the NP-UP joint service ran no fewer than five round trips daily Portland to Seattle. Amtrak, Brightline, or a consortium would need to do some things to drag cars off I-5 and put passengers on trains…
1) on hand Ubers. Most passengers need to get someplace else after the station.
2) High bandwidth secure Wi-Fi.
3) Quality food and beverage service.
4) Most importantly, a vector of advance faster than I-5.
Point is this. A driver can suffer the trip on I-5, or an alternate mode can offer excellent added value.