DesertXpress Projects 2011 Construction Date
That’s the report from the San Bernardino Sun:
Proponents of a high-speed train that would link this High Desert city to Las Vegas say they are confident that the impending completion of environmental and financial plans will allow construction of a new rail line to begin in 2011.
“There will probably be at least some type of ground breaking, but the heavy construction will begin in 2011,” Desert Xpress president Tom Stone said by teleconference on Thursday.
This is great news – seeing HSR construction actually under way in California would be a huge boost to the SF-LA project. There’s nothing quite like seeing steel in the ground to make a project real, to show the public this is actually doable.
Of course, that’s assuming they get their financing. DesertXpress is still keeping that information under wraps, but the SB Sun article did give some indications where their funding may come from:
The Desert Xpress and Maglev options could respectively reach costs in the neighborhoods of $5 billion or $12 billion to $15 billion. Neither side has announced a completed financing arrangement, and the Federal Railroad Administration has not yet approved environmental statements for either plan.
Those on the Desert Xpress side assert that they can accomplish their project with private funding – although they may seek a federal loan – and can begin construction well before a Maglev line could happen.
Desert Xpress executives expect to make an announcement in about one month regarding a major investor for their project, Stone said. He said those talks are confidential.
It would be interesting to see who that major investor is. The article mentions that China’s Export-Import Bank has offered $7 billion to the maglev project, money that would seem better suited to DesertXpress, given the low probability that maglev will ever be built along this corridor.
Still, I’ve always been impressed by the quality of the proposal and the team behind DesertXpress, and I would not doubt Tom Stone when he says he is on course to line up the funding and break ground in 2011. Let’s hope he is successful, because construction on Vegas HSR would only benefit the cause of SF-LA HSR.
I just hope DX is smart enough to design their system such that its technology is 100% compatible with California HSR, such that a future connector in the High Desert will permit DIRECT service between LV and Anaheim/SF/Sac, perhaps even SD, via mutual trackage rights.
No-one traveling between these end points is remotely interested in having to transfer in Palmdale.
The implication is that DX should be using:
- steel wheels
- standard gauge 1435mm
- non-compliant trains
- top speed 220mph
- electrification at 25kV @ 60Hz
- identical signaling (probably ERTMS feat. ETCS level 2)
- identical platform height (~1000mm)
Of these parameters, only standard gauge is assured at this point because the other aspects require either new FRA/CPUC/NPUC rules or, CHSRA hasn’t made up its mind yet. Unfortunately, if DX purchases the “wrong” kind of rolling equipment, direct service would be at the very least more difficult to implement and possibly not time-competitive with flying from NorCal or SD.
Note that the DX alignment will feature a 4% gradient at grade near the Nevada border. On paper, the Velaro E, AGV, AVRIL etc. are all capable of that top speed and can also handle that gradient, just at substantially reduced speed (~90mph). However, the manufacturers would have to warrant that this still applies in the heat and dust conditions of the Mojave desert. Both cooling and brake fading would need to be checked.
If DX doesn’t care about ever running its own trains up to SF/Sac, then it can stick with running trains at just 150mph. However, in order to leverage the line from Mojave/Palmdale to Anaheim, they will still need to keep up with California’s express HSR trains in terms of acceleration performance.
Prior (integrated) planning prevents piss-poor performance.
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Turns out the steepest sections are actually at 4.5%, but fortunately they’re short.
Nathanael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 12:47 am
Is it possible for them to reduce the grade using pure earthworks, or is it overpass/underpass constrained?
Similar question about the curves; would minor lane relocation of the highway do the trick for relaxing the tightest curves?
Peter Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
It’s not even that it is overpass/underpass constrained, it’s a matter of it being at between 4 and 4.5% grade for a couple of miles at a stretch. That would be a LOT of earthworks.
Some of the the curves could possibly be mitigated with aerials that “cut the corner” and briefly leave the median and the ROW overall.
Nathanael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Oh, very interesting. Is this one stretch around the mountains, or several stretches? (I had trouble sifting out the relevant details in the voluminous documents.)
Peter Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
It’s a number of portions.
Peter Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
“I had trouble sifting out the relevant details in the voluminous documents.”
Welcome to my world. Once you’ve sifted through and summarized 3800 pages of medical records, nothing will faze you. Except for perhaps 6000 pages of medical records.
Peter Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Mountains are steep. The only way to mitigate that with earthworks would be to tunnel… I only saw two tunnels, in short succession, in my review of the maps.
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
DX would have to dig a fairly long crest tunnel to avoid the steepest section of the alignment. That costs more up front than operating trains that can power through at grade. The easiest way to achieve that is to select a lightweight design (i.e. not FRA compliant) with a large fraction (50% or more) of all axles powered and a larger-than-usual reduction gear ratio plus stronger bogie frames, axles and wheels. For reference, the ICE3′s is 2.87:1.
As a fringe benefit that won’t much matter to DX, higher gear ratios also mean higher acceleration at low speeds. The big downside is that the top speed of the vehicle is limited by the motor bearings.
Afaik, no manufacturer currently offers a distributed EMU with switchable transmissions, even though the large number of motors means they could each be powered off, shift between low and high gears and power on again in turn. The motor control system could precisely control the speed of the rotor during shifting to further reduce wear and tear on the gears – the rail equivalent of double-clutching like a pro, just computer-controlled. The whole operation would take a second, if that much. Voila, performance envelope pushed.
Peter Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
To quote Richard Mlynarik: “Mmmm, profits.”
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I don’t have a problem with train vendors turning a profit.
Improving hill climbing ability without sacrificing top speed would reduce or eliminates then need for miles tunneled through mountains, which mean far more profits for the civil engineering contractors. Moreover, faster acceleration means higher line haul times through any section featuring tight curves that cannot be rectified, plus shorter station approaches etc.
Of course, there are technical constraints. Primarily, designers have to make conservative assumptions about the coefficient of friction between the wheels and the rails in adverse weather conditions. Distributing the traction across more axles reduces the required minimum value, but meeting the axle load limit becomes more difficult. Shorter cars would solve that, as would lighter transformers, battery packs and cooling systems.
Another consideration is emergency braking distance on a steep descent section, even if speed at the crest isn’t all that high. It’s a huge issue for freight trains, fortunately much less so for relatively light passenger trains with multiple independent brake systems.
Peter Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
True, buying a few slightly more expensive trainsets is a LOT cheaper than a digging miles and miles of tunnels…
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Yeah, unlike established HSR operators with a legacy fleet to worry about, California and Nevada HSR are clean slates. Then again, the promise of off-the-shelf technology that is already proven in systems of similar scale was one of the reasons CHSRA decided against maglev, which can readily handle grades as high as 8% if the vertical transition curve radius is large enough.
Ironically, one of the other reasons was that there wouldn’t be enough ROW width for legacy steels wheels operators Caltrain and UPRR and maglev HSR in the SF peninsula. Now a member of the Caltrain board is threatening to shutter operations in 2012 and, the businesses that rely on freight rail have long been negligible contributor to the tax base of the three counties.
Maybe, just maybe, common sense will prevail and planners will discover that modifying both the the HSR and the Caltrain service models while putting some constraints on freight operations, plus reasonable regulatory relief, would drastically reduce the need for quad tracking to begin with.
A fully grade separated dual track main line with a headway of 3 minutes can support a total of 20 trains per hour, each way. The German word for operating at regular intervals is “Taktverkehr”, which roughly translates to “metronome traffic”. Twenty tph is massive capacity. With ETCS level 2, you can safely go as low as 2 minutes at 200km/h (i.e. 30 tph, actually implemented on one super-busy line in Switzerland). Of course, if you mix speeds or stop at a station on the main line, you lose slots on the timetable.
On the other hand, if you implement well-designed sidings to serve two or more stations in sequence to achieve reasonable dwell times, you don’t lose any slots. If you mix speeds such that the faster trains regularly give up some of the gains they’ve already on slower trains by stopping, in this case in Millbrae and/or the mid-peninsula station, you lose fewer slots. This is relevant during Caltrain’s rush hours, no-one ever said the HSR operator must be free to run express trains at any time of day.
DX sucks. Maglev is 10 times better cause 1. it’s a lot faster and 2. it actually ends in in a real city. You know that they haven’t even had ANY environmental studies for an extension from Victorvile to Palmdale? Plus they keep delaying the construction date. They said they would begin construction in march of this year a while back, then they said summer 2010 and now they’ve skipped a whole year forward. Something tells me they’re gonna do the same thing next year.
Transrapid technology now costs the same price as regular high speed rail. Watch the videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_2F6sGqjHE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSNaxF34Kpk
Donk Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Why do Maglev supporters always use the Victorville argument, when the Maglev system is only going to make it to Primm in the first phase? Even if it is built it will never make it past Primm, just like the Shanhai airport Maglev will never make it into Shanghai.
I heard that the Shanghia Maglev is the only HSR system in the world that doesn’t recoup its operating costs. Anyone know if this is correct?
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Yeah, Primm isn’t exactly a real city…
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Maglev is a completely unfunded pipedream that would compete with California’s own steel wheels system for right of way in the Inland Empire. It’s simply never actually going to reach LA or Anaheim. The first and only phase would be LV to Primm, which is where the Ivanpah Valley relief airport for McCarran is supposed to be built, with federal funding.
USDOT should nix that project and ensure DX commits to a steel wheels connector as a condition of any federal loan they ask for. About 1/3 of all air traffic into LAS hails from California cities that will eventually be on the HSR network. If DX and CHSRA do it right, passengers will be able to travel between LV and multiple cities that Las Vegas residents actually want to go to, as a mere fraction of the cost of maglev – and hence, at lower fares. So what if the trip between Anaheim and LA takes 2.5 hours instead of 1.5? Just run at 220mph through the desert, provide WiFi on board and offer at-seat hot meals (cp Eurostar).
Note that California isn’t going to permit on-board gambling while the trains are within its borders no matter what technology is chosen.
nobody important Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
DX is only going to go 150mph. Probably to make it cheaper. If they want to connect to CAHSR and run on their tracks, they better run faster because they would slow down the other trains.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
“DX is only going to go 150mph”
Because there are no regulations in the U.S. for speeds above 150 mph.
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
No, I suspect it’s essentially a regulatory hurdle. FRA doesn’t have any rules for operating at higher speeds yet and DX doesn’t want to get caught up in red tape. Laying the tracks costs almost the same, the trains cost almost the same, the signaling costs the same. Only the OCS would have to be beefed up for operation at 220mph.
The 150mph probably doesn’t refer to the top speed of the trains, just an artificial speed limit DX chooses to impose on itself to get to market asap. It’s not even that they’re concerned maglev might beat them to the punch. It’s that I-15 east of Victorville is a massive bottleneck for growing Nevada’s tourist industry.
Screw both of them, extend CHSRA from Mojave to Vegas. Don’t give DX the ROW if they aren’t committed to 200mph and a connection to the CA system.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Well, they’re not currently committed to 200 mph simply because there are currently no regulations for faster than 150 mph. Not because their system won’t support faster than 150 mph.
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
CHSRA has no mandate to even do the planning work for an extension to Las Vegas. The DX line and the connector will both have to be funded without any contribution from the state of California, if only because it is broke.
On the other hand, if DX does decide to leverage the California system, the Golden State will generate some trackage fee income. That will make a small but significant contribution toward getting the spurs out to San Diego, Sacramento and Irvine actually built.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Yeah but my worry is we give valuable, state-owned ROW to DX, they build a line with 50mph kinks in the middle of it, in the middle of the desert (put an iconic bridge over it!), they go out of business because no-one in their right mind is going to drive to victorville to get on a train, and then the state ends up dumping money into curve straightening, and eventually a connection to palmdale, even though Mojave makes more sense.
Just build a direct line from LV to Mojave. Who cares if it’s not done by 2012. no-ones going to ride the damn thing until the CA line is built and connected to it anyway.
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Which ROW is the state supposedly giving DX? Plus, where are these 50mph kinks you’re talking about?
As for “no-one in their right mind is going to drive to victorville to get on a train”, this is a private investment project. Apparently, they think a sufficient number of visitors from the Inland Empire and SD county and the High Desert and the Palm Springs area will in fact drive as far as Victorville because the congested part of I-15 lies to the east of that.
But I’ll agree with you that a connector enabling direct service to LA and Anaheim would greatly increase ridership. Service to SF would be competitive against airlines only if the connector were Mojoave-Barstow and/or WiFi on board were available and/or there was a tech convention on. Sac to LV might be faster but nevertheless more marginal in terms of incremental ridership. SD to LV would struggle against airlines unless the connector ran through Cajon Pass.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“Which ROW is the state supposedly giving DX?”
Um. The median of the 15? That freeway was built with a huge median so it could be expanded cheaply by adding new lanes in the median without ripping out overcrossings. That money was invested at time of construction by the state and federal governments; it would have been cheaper at the time to build it without such a large median. DX now wants to utilize that investment for a private railroad.
“Plus, where are these 50mph kinks you’re talking about?”
The doc peter linked to in the other thread, numerous 3000ft curves. Without tilting trains, which DX has offered no indication of buying, you’re going through there how fast? There’s plenty of 5000 and 6000 foot curves as well. You yourself mentioned that 75mph is all that is realistic for 4% grades, well as peter pointed out, there’s plenty of 4.5% grades in there too.
200mph trains from Mojave to Vegas would connect the entire state to LV in under 4 hours (ish). If the demand is there from SD, and/or if the line from Mojave-LAUS gets crowded, build another connection at cajon.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Well, they haven’t stated ANY indication of the technology they are looking at buying. They very well may go with tilting trains. At this point they haven’t even decided between diesel and electric yet.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
They’ve also stated they want to run trains to LAUS, which means they need trains that can make the LAUS-Palmdale run without slowing down the CHSRA trains.
So now they need trains that can tilt enough to take a 3000ft turn at a respectable speed, and also powerful enough to accelerate up the grade from Sylmar to Palmdale where the CHSRA run simulations show their flat-out velaros hitting around 180mph.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Or they may share tracks with Metrolink…
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
So then they would need FRA compliant trains that can hit 180mph uphil, handle 4.5% grades, tilt upwards of 8 degrees and leap small buildings in a single bound? That doesn’t make the situation easier, it just makes it worse.
“they may end up upgrading their fleet when they connect to Palmdale.”
That just delays the issue, it doesn’t change it. Either they’re going to find supertrains to run on this line, or it’s not going to run very fast.
If DX can’t build a straight, fast line without (explicit) government involvement, then maybe we should have some government involvement. I’m all for letting private companies fail, but by giving them ROW we’re investors, and without a concrete plan for connecting to LA directly, I don’t see any reason for us to invest.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Touche.
My guess then is that they will not climb very fast. Tilt trains seem likely. Perhaps an uprated version of the ICE-T? It is currently only certified to 230 km/h, but could maybe be upgraded?
If they travel the distance in 1:24 minutes, then, assuming the distance of 186 miles (from wikipedia) is correct, they would need to average 133 mph. That sounds like they’re looking at tilt trains…
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Last I heard they were looking at Reginas. I don’t think those tilt. But I think you’re right, if they’re going to average 133mph on the line as it’s shown in those docs, perhaps they are looking at something like the pendolino.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Hmmm, according to the EIS, they’re looking at between 1:40 and 2:00, not 1:24, and a distance between 183 and 200 miles, depending on the chosen station locations. That would give an average speed of 110 mph. Which sounds more reasonable on a mountainous, curvy route.
That appears to offer them the option of using more standard trains minus tilt.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/DXE_Draft_EIS-Chapter-1_P_N.pdf
Page 2 discusses travel times and distances.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
That makes more sense, though that’s quite bad news for their ridership projections.
The grades could still hurt them, here’s the tractive effort curves for the Velaro.
4.5% grade looks like it would be around or under 60mph vmax.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
A question:
In railroading, going uphill is expensive, but essentially “dumb;” you just add power.
Downhill, though, is another story. How do you maintain a reasonable level of control with a margin of safety at the speeds your are talking of down a 4.5% grade?
This is the sort of operation that seperates the men from the boys, as one engineer has put it.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Were their ridership studies done for 1:26 or 1:40, though?
Joey Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Wait … where in either system is there a 4.5% grade?
Joey Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Never mind, I see it. Did DX even bother to hire any actual engineers?
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
I love how everyone seems to immediately accuse engineers of being incompetent…
Joey Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
You can’t have incompetent engineers if you don’t have any engineers at all… ;)
rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 5:17 am
@ DP Lubic -
as long as the velocity at the crest of a hill isn’t too high, the brakes on an HSR train should handle and emergency stop on a 4.5% descent just fine. These puppies are much lighter than a mile-long freight train with nothing but pneumatic brakes to prevent a runaway situation.
dejv Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 8:06 am
D. P. Lubic -
There’s driving power/braking power/weight tradeoff:
- you can only install cheek discs on driving axles because of quill drive
- you can get the braking power necessary by increasing number of trailer axes with four discs on axle (+ cheek discs), but then you lose number of powered axles
- you can compensate that by using more powerful motors (up to 1100 kW like TGVs for highest top speeds or 1600 kW for V <= 230 km/h like in Taurus)
- you can have both motor and extra discs in truck (on separate brake shaft, like Taurus), but then, the weight of truck soars
- in addition, the weight of traction equipment also rises with installed power.
This problem arises only on long grades, for short grades, you can use standard rolling stock and just make braking distance longer (this is what Germans did on their Köln-Frankfurt route with numerous short 4.0 % grades).
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Also, like Rafael implied elsewhere, they may end up upgrading their fleet when they connect to Palmdale.
rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 5:13 am
Right, but HSR trainsets have a long life expectancy, something like 40 years. They wouldn’t just throw the old ones out, though perhaps there’s a market for used ones.
dejv Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Rafael –
that’s quite cultural – Japanese trainsets are generally taken out of service after 20-25 years, DB are just now seeking replacement for their ~20 y. o. ICE1s while SNCF says they will continue to use TGV PSE sets until they’re forty.
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 10:56 am
@ Andy Duncan -
I thought I-15 was on federal land. If so, the state of California has no jurisdiction over it.
Mind you, it’s not clear to me that DX actually wants to build in the median. It’s a desert, it would be cheaper for them to build the tracks next to the freeway.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 11:36 am
“I thought I-15 was on federal land. If so, the state of California has no jurisdiction over it.”
So what? It’s taxpayer land with a big ass taxpayer-funded median that DX wants for free.
“Mind you, it’s not clear to me that DX actually wants to build in the median. It’s a desert, it would be cheaper for them to build the tracks next to the freeway.”
I don’t know what could be more clear than their stated intention to do just that, as outlined in their EIS. If it’s cheaper for them to build in the desert, they’re certainly going out of their way to stay in the median.
Peter Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Yeah, the maps attached to the EIS show the tracks in the median for nearly the entire route.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Federal government doesn’t own much road if any. The states own the Interstates and US Highways.
I hope DX does well, because DX and Cal HSR’s futures are going to be linked, whether or not DX finds a way to directly link their trains to Cal HSR or not (and I sincerely hope they do).
Private investors are going to be watching DX very closely and whatever happens with them will ultimately affect Cal HSR’s ability to get private investment.
And it sounds like DX will get shovels into the ground before Cal HSR does, so their experiences, discoveries, blunders, triumphs and challenges will provide Cal HSR with a test case to compare notes.
Maglev needs to die. The extra speed isn’t worth the extra cost or the incompatibility issues.
It shouldn’t be that hard to connect Palmdale with Victorville and upgrade DX for Cal HSR. The two running together would be much stronger than either one would be without the other.
Officials have always gone the more expensive, difficult way rather than to use the rational, money-saving approach. I can’t believe that we even consider a rail line without proper electrification while some newly-industrialized countries build state-of-the-art railways. Nobody seems to consider that by the time those lines are finished (2020), there will probably be trains running at higher speeds than 220 mph! 150 mph with no electrification is like proposing a bus line when a light rail would be better.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
They would need electrification to run 150 mph. 125 mph would be diesel.
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
There’s always the possibility of buying a number of FRA-compliant Talgo XXI diesels to get the ball rolling and implement electrification as phase 2, at which point the diesel trainsets will be sold to Amtrak or whoever.
The fact that they’re considering electrification up front suggests that they know 125mph isn’t going to deliver enough ridership. They’re also aware that the Obama administration favors express HSR at speeds over 150mph, so anticipating permission to run at 220mph in the future does make sense.
O.T. — but surely of interest:
One of the constant themes of proponents of the HSR project is how environmentally friendly and wonderfully “green” the California HSR project will be.
In an article just released by Arpad Horvath and Mikhail Chester of the Berkeley Transportation Institute
http://its.berkeley.edu/btl/2010/spring/HRS-life-cycle
the authors take a much deeper look at this assertion. As with so many complex subjects, the answer is not black and white. Quoting from the article:
But is it? The answer is, it depends.
It depends on the type of power used to make the electricity to send the new trains up and down 800 miles of tracks. It depends on the energy efficiency of the train put into service. It depends on which emissions are measured. It depends on how many passengers are on a train, in a car, or on a plane when totaling up energy expended or emissions released. And it depends on the emissions created by building a large, new infrastructure requiring vast amounts of environmentally-intensive material.
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Yeah, sure. If you’re going to burn coal to run the trains, the CO2 emissions aren’t going to be small. However, AB32 obliges the utilities to cut their emissions, so the commitment to run HSR off renewable electricity means it will be a customer for the more expensive green juice. A smart grid that distributes load over multiple generating plants will anyhow be needed to cope with the vagaries of clouds and wind. Small hydro, geothermal and gas turbines, possibly fired with biomethane, are all able to deliver power on demand to fill in the gaps.
Rafael Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
As for seat capacity utilization on HSR trains, DB gets about 50%, RENFE 65% and SNCF 75%. IDK the numbers for other countries. RENFE and SNCF are definitely turning substantial operating profits on their respective HSR networks, but there is wrangling over the trackage fees the separate infrastructure owners get to charge.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
The KTX has about 70% seat occupancy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 11:44 am
…it’s been my recent experience that the Northeast Corridor Regionals get 110-120%…..
Alon Levy Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Recent experience doesn’t matter. The thought experiment that explains this is that if one tenth of the trains run at full capacity and nine tenths are completely empty, then passengers will only see the one tenth that are full. While the perceived load factor of the Northeast Corridor may well be above 100%, the real load factor is much lower. Amtrak’s route performance numbers imply an average load factor of 45% on the Regional and 60% on the Acela.
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Considering how poor the Acela’s line haul times are – especially north of NYC – and the high fares, 60% is actually surprisingly high. I suppose that’s partly because Amtrak can only run relatively few of them per hour, so potential ridership gets aggregated over a larger interval.
Peter Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Electricity generated by coal produces more CO2 than that generated by natural gas or renewable sources. Wow. I guess you need a PhD to figure that out…
HSR will drive major investment in renewables in CA simply by virtue of being a guaranteed purchaser of LARGE amounts of renewable energy.
Spokker Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
“And it depends on the emissions created by building a large, new infrastructure requiring vast amounts of environmentally-intensive material.”
This doesn’t matter if we have to make some kind of investment in improving transportation capacity anyway. The alternative is building more runways and freeway lanes. How about all the freeway widening/improvement projects in Southern California alone? 405 widening/connector projects. I-5 widenings. 710 tunnel. Nobody brings up emissions caused by the construction of such projects. Rail, however, is intensely scrutinized like no other mode of transportation.
Reality Check Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Right. It’d be interesting to see the outcome if these Berkeley ITS guys did a net CO2 emissions analysis of a project right in their backyard: the Caldecott tunnel 4th bore project. Enviro-minded opposition arguments raised many points that all would point to a large net CO2 increase related to increased traffic (from latent demand) and the induced new traffic from new East Contra Costa sprawl and mode-shift from BART to driving, etc. And then there’s the CO2 related to all that construction and concrete production, etc. Oh, and where’s the business plan talking of the O&M costs, profitability, etc.?
Reality Check Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
A dumb nit-pick, but it seems the ITS webmaster goofed the URL spelling: …/HSR-life-cycle would have made more sense than …/HRS-life-cycle.
Clem Reply:
June 8th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Those guys published some seriously flawed numbers before. They over-estimated the energy consumption of a high-speed train by several hundred percent by using numbers straight out of a CHSRA EIR… and we know how reliable those are, right Morris?
One particular parameter, which appears to underlie many of your calculations and conclusions, caught my eye: the claim, attributed to the HSR authority, that a high-speed train will consume 170 kWh per VKT. Such a figure seemingly flies in the face of even the most basic back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Please consider the following examples.
A TGV service running Paris – Lyon covers 425 km in 2 hours using a train with a rated power at the wheel/rail interface of about 9 MW. Let’s give it 10 MW at the pantograph. At 170 kWh per VKT, such a train would consume 72 MWh for the journey–and yet, if it were to run at full throttle for the entire 2 hours (which we certainly know it doesn’t!), it could only draw 20 MWh.
Another more extreme example: a TGV service running Paris – Nice (including some mileage on slower tracks) covers about 935 km in 5.5 hours, let’s say with a *double* trainset drawing a maximum of 20 MW. At 170 kWh per VKT, the journey takes 159 MWh, but at full throttle
the train can consume only 110 MWh. And of course, it would not run at full throttle the whole way–especially for that portion of the journey that takes place on conventional, slower tracks.
For such an important parameter in your analysis (it dominates many of your bar graphs), I would have expected somewhat deeper vetting than a simple reference to the Authority’s EIR/EIS, or at least an explanation for why this figure appears so high. Where is the disconnect?
wu ming Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 10:46 am
california doesn’t burn coal hardly at all – it’s a combo of natural gas, nuclear, hydro and renewables, with a dash of oil-powered peaker plants – and the CAHSR is mandated to run off of renewables. and that’s not even getting into the environmental cost of the materials for the infrastructure that would have to be built to take up the slack form having no HSR (more highway lanes, more airport runways).
FUD fail.
It seems DesertX has been trumping a financier for quite some time. What’s the delimma in someone pulling the trigger? I am leaning to calling this thing as BS.
Meg Whitman’s the Republican nominee, I sure hope she understands how important high-speed rail is to providing a foundation for a “new California.”
Jerry Brown, I don’t think we need to worry about gaining his support.
Tony D. Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Whitman understands the importance of technology. She most likely understands adhering to the will of the people (voters) as well. If elected, she has also promised jobs, jobs, jobs. What better way of transforming our state economically than to continue support for HSR. Besides, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (which also represented her former company Ebay) wholeheartedly endorses HSR. In short, no need to worry if Whitman winds up in office.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 10:30 am
She’s a Republican. Anything else she says or promises is irrelevant, unless she turns out to be a RINO like the current guy in charge.
HSRforCali Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I somewhat think she may support it given she’s so far remained neutral on the project. The reasoning behind this is probably because Poizner would’ve attacked her for supporting government spending if she announced her support for high-speed rail.
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
She’ll end up supporting HSR if there’s sufficient private investment, because older Republicans consider that the gold standard for any transportation infrastructure they don’t intend to use themselves.
I’d be more worried about Jerry Brown. His father was the one that made all the capital investments in water and other infrastructure. His base are the public sector unions that deliver social services like education and guarding prisoners.
However, both have made getting the state’s fiscal house in order a top priority. Neither has any chance of success as long as the state constitution lets voters mandate new spending programs not tied to tax hikes by a simple majority and then insists on a balanced budget that must be passed with a 2/3 supermajority. It’s a recipe for permanent gridlock, ideological posturing and inefficient spending.
The issue isn’t left vs. right, it’s the legislative foundation that’s badly broken. It could be fixed via a ballot initiative to amend the constitution, which ironically – and somewhat alarmingly – also requires just a simply majority. Unfortunately, neither candidate has come forward to call a spade a spade and make this fix a policy position for the 2012 election cycle (or a special election before then). If one of them did and the other didn’t, that ought to weigh heavily in voters’ minds.
Off topic, but Alstom just announced a new line of non-articulated high speed trains.
200-400km/h, UIC and wide profiles, 8-cars per 200m trains with 600 passengers.
It’s going to be fun to hear Alstom’s marketing department talk about how it’s ok for these not to have jacob’s bogies:
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 11:06 am
These are the ETR1000 models, right? Jacobs bogies would be safer in crash, but its possible Trenitalia (the HSR division/brand of state-owned FS) wants to easily reconfigure train length. Also, articulated trainsets require expensive special lift mechanisms in the heavy maintenance facility.
Ultimately, the customer gets to define the spec. 600 seats per trainset compares to 545 for a TGV Duplex and 587 for the Talgo AVRIL, but that features cars that are short and wide enough for 3+2 seating. I wonder what the loading gauge is in Italy, must be wider than the ones in France and Spain.
dejv Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 12:22 am
The pendolinos aren’t uncoupled even during heavy maintenance. Why should be this different? I guess they just don’t have the jakobs-bogie fetish that SNFC has. Those lift mechanisms are industry standard for efficient heavy rail maintenance, from streetcars to high speed trains.
dejv Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Italy’s general loading gauge is pretty restricted, certainly not wider than that of the rest of continental Europe. The new and refurbished mainlines (incl. HSLs) feature UIC-GC profile. BTW Talgo Avril at 3200 mm fits at platforms (1675 mm from track center), but they’re certainly wider than regulations regarding vehicle width permit (the car has to fit 3150mm wide envelope in 250m radius curve).
I guess the high seat count is possible with all-2nd-class seating and by dumping bistro/restaurant car.
rafael Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 4:49 am
The cars on the AVRIL are just 13m long, so they can be wider that usual and still meet the loading gauge in a 250m curve. Note that the tractor cars are regular length and width, plus they’re taller. The second and last cars are aerodynamically shaped to implement a smooth transition in the cross-section.
dejv Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 7:58 am
I understand the length/width tradeoff, but 3200 mm wide car just doesn’t fit to 3150 mm envelope no matter what you do. The Spain might have widened their loading gauge (the non-tilting Talgos were also 3200 mm wide), but the rest of continental Europe didn’t*, so AVRIL concept as shown is far from interoperable with European standard-gauge network.
* with exception of Scandinavian countries, where they run world widest passenger cars (Reginas, 3450 mm wide. Note that on former OSShD railways where most mainlines allowed through running of Soviet cars (3250 mm wide), this capability is being gradually lost as the loading gauge gets “improved” to UIC-GC.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Talgo seems to think the envelope is more like 3290mm (it’s a bit hard to read), according to their presentation on the avril.
3290mm is also what wikipedia lists as the absolute outside dimensions for the TSI GA and GB gauges.
Perhaps Talgo is banking on everyone having already built their lines to the slightly larger gauge, or they’re banking on the rework of those lines.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Actually, they specifically list UIC 505-1 as the dynamic envelope. Only page I can find talking about that is this forum post in french (Google translated), which states that the dynamic envelope of UIC 505-1 is 3290mm in a 250m radius curve.
dejv Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 10:57 am
OK, but then you’re running oversized load where speed and other restrictions apply. Some lines permit wider loads (like those OSShD lines allowing oversize loads up to 3400 mm, or another lines that can accomodate full-length full-width Schnabel cars in every curve), but that’s just some lines, not general network.
And of course, train must fit static envelope that is smaller than dynamic one. For example, static UIC-GC envelope is 4650 mm high and dynamic one is 4700 mm high. Lateral margin of 70 mm at each side doesn’t sound unreal in this context.
BTW, Talgo isn’t the only manufacturer that shortens carbodies to make them wider – the other is Bombardier with their Spacium 3.o6 trains for Paris RER, that are far from Talgo’s 3200 mm:
(interestingly, this train design outperforms most double-deckers in terms of seats per train length)
Andre Peretti Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 6:09 am
An unpublicised feature of this new train: it doesn’t share any patents with the SNCF, contrary to the AGV which does. Alstom could even offer it to DB, which has not been possible for the TGV and AGV because of SNCF’s opposition. The adaptation of the Jacobs bogie to high-speed trains was jointly developped by Alstom and the SNCF. It’s a shared patent.
The SNCF has always insisted on high-speed trains being un-deformable and will certainly not be interested in Alstom’s new product.
AndyDuncan Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Interesting. I wonder if, like Alstom, SNCF’s insistence on articulated trains had more to do with that being what the SNCF produced than any inherent advantage to the train type. If Alstom can’t get a duplex AGV built with acceptable axle loads, it would be interesting to see if SNCF changed their tune.
rafael Reply:
June 10th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
It’s not uncommon in the HSR industry to see manufacturers custom-design trains to customer specifications, in this case Trenitalia. The design isn’t targeted at a tender from SNCF.
Btw, if there’s was a shared patent on Jacobs bogies, it’s probably expired by now. Alstom is most definitely exporting the AGV, its first customer is NTV in Italy. Yes, there are two competing HSR operators in that country.
Missiondweller Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Wow, that’s a cool looking train!
Good news in SF:
– Proposition G puts San Francisco voters on record supporting city plans to locate San Francisco’s high-speed rail terminal at the Transbay Transit Center at First and Mission streets in the South of Market area. Voter support was overwhelming.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/09/BAL91DQ6E9.DTL#ixzz0qNtQqr5H
Rafael Reply:
June 9th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
I suspect few voters are familiar with the arcane details of rail curvature, superlevation, station throat design and platform height harmonization. They trust the TJPA to deliver a world-class railway station and, therein lies the rub.
It’s not the concept of a multimodal transit hub for SF and neighboring counties that’s flawed. It’s the specifics of the engineering solution TJPA has come up with: a three track tunnel with curves so tight it cannot be excavated using the cheapest technology (TBMs), a mile-long station throat (limited throughput) and fixed platform assignations (4 for HSR, 2 for Caltrain regardless of actual future ridership).
In addition, the location is not intermodal with existing high-capacity rail transit (BART, SF Muni), just low-capacity buses (AC Transit etc.) Extending the tracks to the East Bay at a future date would be hugely expensive due to the presence of skyscrapers between the TBT and the Bay.
Bottom line: the portion of the TBT that lies below ground, plus the DTX tunnel, don’t offer good value for the very high price tag. SF voters don’t much care too much about that, since most of their contribution will go toward the swank above-ground portion. Indeed, the more expensive the below-ground components, the more inward investment for SF, right? Well, only if CSHRA actually manages to scrape together all of the funding it needs.
If SF insists on waste, it could end up killing the entire HSR starter line. Without an access tunnel, all the city would be left with is a seriously overpriced bus terminal.