CALIFORNIA REVEALS HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PLANS:

[Guest ___]

The California High-Speed Rail Authority has released its "alternatives analysis," the most detailed view yet of how the project might forever transform the region from San Francisco to San Jose. The $40-billion-bullet train would whisk passengers at speeds up to 125 mph along the Caltrain corridor and travel to Los Angeles.

 

Service is expected to begin late next decade. The authority is proposing three track alignment options: raised tracks on either open aerial structures or filled-in berms; adding two tracks next to the existing Caltrain railroad; or underground tracks through either a tunnel or open trench.

 

At no point would the tracks cross a road at street level. The authority plans to select a track alignment in early 2011, and construction is expected to start in late 2012. [united Transportation Union, 10-1-09, from Mercury News report]

[disturbman]

125mph (200kph)!!!   No need for a bullet train to achieve such a speed. I would find my government stupid to spend so much money for such a low achievement. 200kph! That's quite low. If I remember correctly some steamers were capable of such speeds. 200kmh is what Talgo 6 tracted trains can achieve on some parts of the conventional rail network in France. I know, france is not North America but still... I was hopping for something faster.

 

Can you remind me how long will be the first stretch to open (or even the SF to LA stretch)?

[Guest ___]

Current top speeds for convention FRA rail is rated for 124 (199 kph), so I can see why they refer to these trains as bullets if they are to run over 125 (200 kph). It's the same reason why we call the Acela a bullet though it seldom runs over 134.

 

The train was built for 150, but does not enter close to that speed anywhere on the line, nor could it maintain 150 for very long.

[bikkuri bahn]

I believe the 125mph speed refers only to the section along the SF peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose, where some sharing of track may occur with the Caltrain commuter trains (which will be upgraded with electric high(er) speed double decker trains like those in Europe).  The mandate is for 2 hour 40 minute service between SF and Los Angeles, so speeds along other stretches of the route, such as in the Central Valley, will have to reach 220mph or thereabouts, which is true high speed running.

[to2leo]

I won't pay much attention to this until a shovel is placed.  Too many false starts.  200kph is pretty amazing when considering what we do have right now.

[Guest ___]

I won't pay much attention to this until a shovel is placed.  Too many false starts.  200kph is pretty amazing when considering what we do have right now.

 

Agreed, CA is in one of the worst shapes financially at the moment. They're near critical, so I don't see them building this any time soon. Everyone loves to toss around the term "Stimulus funds" but the reality is there is not THAT much money going around. And certainly not enough to make much of a dent in the preliminary engineering work, yet alone RoW acquisition and construction. I do not see anything happening any time soon. At best I see this failing to pass referendum.

[bikkuri bahn]

You'll probably see the first true (over 150mph) high speed rail in the Americas in Brazil sooner than California, thanks to the World Cup 2014 and Olympics in 2016 being held there.  There is a good chance that the rolling stock will be Japanese.

[railzilla]

With the curent FRA rules there will be never a true High Speed Train in the USA. Simply put the FRA requires the trains to be very heavy, even with modern technologies a train with the same crashworthiness can be built much lighter. So a train which can run undern the newest European TSI rules on Mainlines with mixed traffic cannot do so in the US. Look at the Acela. Even the TGV has a very good track record in surviving different kinds of mishaps they had to alter it for the Acela. Result its over 50% heavier, uses longer braking distances and requires more maintenace and draws more energy. Even worse they had to give up the articulated design which makes the TGV so save. At the end a standard TGV is safer,faster,lighter and cheaper. So as long these rules don't change who ever wants to run High Speed Rail in teh US cannot just simply buy trains from all over the world like the Chinese did, but need to do many changes. Especially trainsets with no powerhead like the Shinkansen,ICE3,AGV will have a bad start. Also i fear the tracks have to be built to a much higher axle load than its European and Asian counterparts.

BTW this is not only true for high speed rail but also for any passenger rail, modern DMUs are only allowed to run when the line is seperated from freight traffic.

[disturbman]

I thought they were thinking to completely segregated tracks with the freight trains and freight corridors (like puting walls in between) so they can avoid train crashing on HSR tracks.

 

If it goes like that I can see the HST being a success in the US. Trains need to get faster than 125mph and to be as leight as they can. The only death recorded in relation to TGVs happened when someone decided to cross the track as the train was coming. Nobody ever died in a TGV. Injured yes but none the less it's a very safe train and concept. Same goes with the Shinkansen: no death recorded.

 

The FRA should forget about Freight company lobbying and adapt her regulations.

[Guest ___]

I thought they were thinking to completely segregated tracks with the freight trains and freight corridors (like puting walls in between) so they can avoid train crashing on HSR tracks.

 

If it goes like that I can see the HST being a success in the US. Trains need to get faster than 125mph and to be as leight as they can. The only death recorded in relation to TGVs happened when someone decided to cross the track as the train was coming. Nobody ever died in a TGV. Injured yes but none the less it's a very safe train and concept. Same goes with the Shinkansen: no death recorded.

 

The FRA should forget about Freight company lobbying and adapt her regulations.

 

Wouldn't matter the FRA and it's higher ups, the STB and and FedDOT will not allow for lower crash standards for grade separated non-mix traffic on a single use line. As we're learning with the recent Metro train incident in DC which is grade separated, with no mixed traffic use, that those cars as heavy and as big as they were still crumpled up. If anything as a result of the DC incident, you'll see more stringent crash safety requirements trickle up to mixed use traffic applications.

 

The FRA will not look at SNCF's safety record, nor the Shinkansen's when less than fifteen years ago, the major failure and subsequent incident involving that ICE train that nailed that bridge. It's no a matter freight rail lobbying as so much it is federal accountability issues brought forth by the media after public outrage over fatal rail incident. I can guarantee you, if there is any major incident over an Acella incident where there are fatalities, anyone who ever put wrench to metal will be under a microscope for months.

 

The difference between the FRA and the US and the Japanese, French or other high-speed rail providing countries is the fact that North American is much more litigious that these other countries running high speed trains.

[disturbman]

Sure,  but, and correct me if I'm wrong, the last DC accident mostly showed that the safety system was not strong enough. Data I saw about the TVM that such failure of the safety system could occur once every millions of year. that's pretty high and I can't think you can really do better since, at the end, accidents like that (or mass failures) are inevitable and totally seldom. Engineers can try to prevent them and make a system as strong as they can but the worst can still happen and building trains like tanks will not help. Nobody will try to make a plane crash worthy. If your plane as a technical failure you are likely to die in the issuing crash. Everybody accepts it. Why shouldn't that be the same with trains? After all, train is the safest way of travel.

 

Until proven the opposite the HST are very safe and the worst accident (the Eschede accident you mentioned) was a combination of really bad circumstances... And now that I think about it german trains really have problems with their wheels (ICE1, ICE3, Berlin S-Bahn and some Regio).

 

But the safety record of the TGV is very impressive. That's the nice thing with the TGV. The train set is very stable and rigid. No deformation can occur when derailing. Of the three aciddents (all derailments) that happens at high speed (270kph, 300kph and 250kph) nobody died and 8 people were injured inside the trains. That's quite low.

 

To me the safety desired by the FRA and other federal agencies is possible to obtain but in another way. No need to make a special american regime when things work more than well everywhere else in the word.

[to2leo]

Hey Disturbman,

You are so right about taking a different look at safety.  Heavy, bulky train does not equal safety as shown in many other HST countries.

 

They are so many tried and true technologies to choose from, it should not be hard for US to mix and match to fit.

[bikkuri bahn]

And now that I think about it german trains really have problems with their wheels (ICE1, ICE3, Berlin S-Bahn and some Regio).

 

Slightly OT, but DB seems to have addressed this problem, at least for ICE, by going to Japan:

 

http://steelguru.com/news/index/2009/06/29/MTAwMjcx/Sumitomo_Metals_and_Sumitomo_Corp_inks_railway_wheels_deal.html