CA4HSR to Simitian: Show How Your Plan Meets Prop 1A
Californians For High Speed Rail today issued the following press release regarding Senator Joe Simitian’s statements on funding the high speed rail system. (Note: I am a member of the board of directors for CA4HSR.) The release comes as a key State Senate committee is holding a hearing this Thursday that will impact the future of the project. CA4HSR is organizing to ensure that Senator Simitian and other legislators act to support the project, and refuse to give in to NIMBY demands to destroy the HSR project that voters approved in November 2008.
Here’s the statement in full:
Californians For High Speed Rail to State Senator Joe Simitian: “Demonstrate how your Proposal Meets the Intent of Proposition 1A.”
San Francisco, May 3rd, 2011 – Today, Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR) called on State Senator Joe Simitian to demonstrate how his demand for a scaled-back high-speed rail (HSR) project on the Peninsula meets the true intent of Prop 1A. CA4HSR is also calling on Senator Simitian to drop his demand to eliminate phased construction.
Senator Simitian made his demands for a scaled-back project with no phased construction to the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) at a hearing last week at the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2, which he chairs. His demands were based on a proposal he recently released with Representative Anna Eshoo and Assemblymember Rich Gordon.
“Frankly, we are skeptical that the Simitian proposal is realistic,” said Daniel Krause, Executive Director of CA4HSR. “Voters did not approve a system that could technically run one train a day at high-speeds along the Peninsula, which Senator Simitian suggested as a possibility at the hearing. They approved a project that can run fast and frequent high-speed trains throughout the day.”
To meet Proposition 1A requirements for frequent service and a 30 minute travel time between San Francisco and San Jose, the corridor will ultimately require full-grade separation and four-tracks along a majority of the corridor. “The emphasis on limited funding and ‘scaling back’ the project in the Simitian proposal indicates a lack of commitment to grade separate the entire corridor and to expand capacity sufficiently,” said Brian Stanke, Chair of Californians For High Speed Rail.
The most troubling aspect of the Simitian proposal is the demand to eliminate phasing-in construction of HSR improvements, such as grade separations. Given the uncertainty in funding and the Simitian proposal’s endorsement of expensive trenches, CA4HSR is perplexed by this demand.
Bianca Walser, CA4HSR board member and resident of Menlo Park said, “As a mother of two small children, I’m really worried about the long-term impacts of this proposal. Grade separations will improve pedestrian safety, improve air quality, and eliminate annoying train horns. If full grade separation is not completed, we will be prevented from improving our rail service and from making our community safer, more connected, and more sustainable.”
San Carlos resident Matthew Arata added, “Traffic back-ups on streets that cross the tracks, which are already bad, will become unbearable as rail traffic increases. I urge the sponsors of this proposal to see the HSR project as something we can leverage to improve problems we already have on the Peninsula, rather than taking a confrontational approach that will lead to an exacerbation of our problems.”
“We urge Senator Simitian to work with us to build a system that meets the needs of Californians for decades to come and his constituents. We support studying a wide range of options that includes phasing, to ensure that the voter mandates, including 30 minute travel times from San Francisco to San Jose and 2 hours, 40 minute travel times from San Francisco to Los Angeles. As gas prices rise, it’s more important than ever that we build rail infrastructure that meets the needs of both high speed rail and Caltrain,” said Daniel Krause, Executive Director of CA4HSR.
A new Fresno Bee story says in a move to cut costs, HSR engineers are now weighing the cost of managing, rather than avoiding, effects of running at-grade through Fresno on homes, businesses, agriculture and wildlife.
Reality Check Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:00 am
Meanwhile, in a similar cost-cutting vein, a new Bakersfield Californian story headline reads “Bullet train could run up Grapevine after all.”
Nathanael Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
That’s not gonna be cost-cutting, but they do have to look at it to demonstrate that it won’t be.
Nathanael Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Looking further at the rationale given in the meeting notes, it seems that the costs for getting from the San Fernando Valley to Palmdale have turned out to be much higher than expected, so they’re going back to see if the Grapevine route has a feasible route (which is unclear) of comparable cost.
They don’t expect it to be cheaper, but if it’s about the same price (as they now expect thanks to the increased costs for the other route), *and it’s feasible*, the advantage of the shorter distance will be significant.
So it’s all a question of feasibility. Can they actually find a Grapevine route with manageable grades, manageable seismic problems, and manageable flooding and environment problems? They sound doubtful, but like them I hope they can.
Donk Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Are all of these changes just a result of the change in leadership of the Authority, to Van Ark? It really is shocking how many major changes have been proposed recently, many which have been proposed here for years. Or maybe Elizabeth thinks this is all because of the efforts of CARRD.
We are now looking at Anaheim-LA shared track, SF-SJ phased construction on shared track, reduced aerial routing thru Fresno, revision of the Grapevine route. The only place that seems to be getting more expensive is the proposal to tunnel under Dodger Stadium. Next they need to whack the budget for the San Jose area, as those assholes still think they deserve like $10B alone to build their station and all of the gold-plated viaducts going into and out of San Jose.
GoGregorio Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 8:20 am
San Jose already has enough platforms as it is, I don’t know why they feel the need to make it um, more iconic. With the ones under construction now, there’s like 8 there already. Why isn’t that enough for HSR, Caltrain, ACE and Capitol Corridor? It’s not like the latter are there particularly frequently to begin with.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
It’s named after Diridon. That’s the only reason they wanted to make the station bigger and more important.
VBobier Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Tunnel under Dodger Stadium? The McCords and MLB may not allow It, If I’m wrong, Ok, But this idea may stay an idea without any money for the moment.
StevieB Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
The tunnel would not actually go under Dodger Stadium but it would go under Elysian Park which is adjacent to the stadium. The stadium is a convenient landmark.
VBobier Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
I see. What No Station near the Stadium too? ;)
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Its good to see that the Fresno Bee is catching up to a story that was on this blog over a month ago.
Of course the real beneficiary of all of these new options (including the Simitian plan on the Peninsula) is PB, which continues to rake in study funds. They will be happy to study the project for the next 30 years, so long as you keep throwing money at them. The amount of waste is tremendous. Right now, they have people pursuing land acquisition, when at the same time they study new routing. What an organization.
BruceMcF Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Given the difference between the costs of the studies and the cost of construction, if they proceeded without doing the studies, someone dedicated to finding fault would pivot 180 degrees and complain about charging ahead without looking where they are going as being “a tremendous amount of waste”.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 10:09 am
It’s the same people doing the “studies” every single time. Lots of out of the box innovative thinking is sure to follow.
And strangely enough, they’re also the people who will “win” the construction contracts in consortia. Works every time.
Funny, that.
Elsewhere in the world, the things called “studies” are supposed to (and quite often do) develop and analyse these things called “alternatives“. Hereabouts, however, and uniformly, we prefer to just shovel hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds directly into the pockets of proven criminals who have no intention of doing anything put pad their own bottom lines.
If CHSRA were serious about anything it would have real experts with real records of real cost-effective project delivery involved. This in no way even remotely describes anybody connected with its lead project “design” consultant nor the sub-consultant trough-lickers.
Walter Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 10:41 am
“Proven criminals?” Are we talking about people who have been convicted of criminal behavior in a court of law, or just people who design train systems you don’t like?
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
sub-consultant trough-lickers
LOL!
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
You seem to imply that people acting as consultants can have links with a bidding consortium. Isn’t that illegal? Normally, a bidder found to have links with a consultant is automatically disqualified.
David Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Here’s an article from 2002 comparing PB’s Grapevine study with an Australian company’s.
http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/0602/0602_1.pdf
“Quantm proposed to use the
next canyon east, avoiding tangling with
I–5 at the tight spot.”
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Damn those Australians, always thinking that they know better.
Clem posted the executive report containing the alternatives that the Quantm firm generated here which various people have seized upon as being the ultimate word on how to do stuff, but I haven’t seen the 1994 study to compare.
Nathanael Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Yuck. Looking at it again, their Grapevine alignment is full of giant flashing red flags to me. Extensive construction in a flood plain. 3.5% grades. The crossing of the San Andreas Fault is very close to the tunnel entrance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I read the article three times and it’s comparing PB’s Tehachapi costs to Quatum’s Tehachapi costs and cavalierly concludes that the Grapevine is cheaper. Searched vainly for a quote for the cost of using the Grapevine.
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
From the Fresno business paper story on the Tejon proposal it is clear that the engineers took their own look at the route possibilities and were positive enough to recommend looking deeper. This is not a fishing expedition – they know exactly where to look for fatal flaws.
But I am thinking the real impediments may not be so much of an engineering nature, but political. In particular I wonder if another unheralded 800 lb gorilla in the room is Caltrans. If Caltrans is against hsr on its I-5 property that could be a real problem since Tejon activates the I-5 option whereas Tehacahapi effectively negates it. Caltrans would be misinterpreting its mission, very possibly under the nefarious influence of that infamous Big Oil-Reason Foundation cabal.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
If Caltrans is against hsr on its I-5 property that could be a real problem since Tejon activates the I-5 option whereas Tehacahapi effectively negates it.
Why would Caltrans object to a tunnel hundreds of feet below the roadway?
VBobier Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I have no idea, but It’s a good question. Maybe they feel It would cause cracks in the I5 freeway?
If Caltrans says No to Tejon, Then Tehacahapi is It, Like It or not. Unless someone has another way to get into Los Angeles from Bakersfield?
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I am referring to sidling or occupying the media on either I-5 or 99. ROW’s are hard to come by and expensive and these are highway people so they could very protective and anticipating their own expansion needs and plans. All you have to do is look at the UP or BART and appreciate how jealous they are.
BTW I suspect the UP might be sympathetic to the Tejon idea. It could make for improved relations with the hsr.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Caltrans doesn’t own the ROW the State of California does.
VBobier Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I read what’s on that pdf file, So Caltrans was interested in HSR back in 1994? I like the price and the route, But $2.4 Billion is from 1994 isn’t It? So would anyone know what 1994 dollars would be in 2011 dollars?
There is a way to meet Prop 1A with only two tracks.
Basically, you would have four tracks at the stations so that the slower “local” trains would let the “express” trains pass first.
Secondly, you can allocate 5 of 10 trains/hour as “coupled” trains that mate one bullet train with one express EMU Caltrain, similar to how Japanese and Koreans operate “coupled” bullet trains to increase traffic capacity. This would actually be similar to the Japanese model(two different train models coupled) than the Korean model(two same train models coupled), but nothing prevents Caltrain from adopting the CAHSR bullet train model as its express train model, right? The coupled trains would separate/join at the SJ station.
What’s required is that the two-track Caltrain corridor must be grade-separated, but this can be done. Just ask Asian railway operators.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Caltrain has no need for the CAHSR ‘bullet’ train model, because the trainsets that remain captive on the Caltrain corridor, even those for the Caltrain express, have no need to go awesomely fast. Only 125mph tops, not 220mph+.
But being able to couple together any CAHSR model and any Caltrain model would support operations similar to what you propose, assuming that the Caltrain stations involved are long enough for a combined train and that cooperation of that nature is possible between Caltrain and CAHSRA.
Useless Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:50 am
@ thatbruce
> Caltrain has no need for the CAHSR ‘bullet’ train model, because the trainsets that remain captive on the Caltrain corridor, even those for the Caltrain express, have no need to go awesomely fast.
But the acceleration rate of Caltrain’s trains impact the overall travel time of CAHSR’s bullet trains sharing the same track. High acceleration rate is critical in making this scheme work, and planned UIC Bi-level EMUs may not have enough acceleration rate to make this scheme work.
This is a strategy that saves money on track construction but requires expensive high-acceleration train sets, but additional cost on train set is nothing compared to additional track construction cost of the four-track scheme.
Not to mention that there would be interoperability issues when coupling a European Bi-Level EMU with an Asian bullet train, so both Caltrain and CAHSR’s train sets should be of same origin.
> But being able to couple together any CAHSR model and any Caltrain model would support operations similar to what you propose, assuming that the Caltrain stations involved are long enough for a combined train and that cooperation of that nature is possible between Caltrain and CAHSRA.
The coupled train sets are “express” trains making one or two stops between SF and SJ. Even making only one or two stops helps Caltrain local passengers because passengers could transfer to local trains at the express stop.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
But the acceleration rate of Caltrain’s trains impact the overall travel time of CAHSR’s bullet trains sharing the same track. High acceleration rate is critical in making this scheme work, and planned UIC Bi-level EMUs may not have enough acceleration rate to make this scheme work.
You seem to have confused speed profiles with acceleration profiles. They’re not the same, that is, a trainset capable of 200mph+ may have a lower acceleration rate than a generic commuter EMU capable of ‘only’ 100mph. If we feel like invoking rafael, I’m sure we’ll get enough graphs to illustrate the point.
Not to mention that there would be interoperability issues when coupling a European Bi-Level EMU with an Asian bullet train, so both Caltrain and CAHSR’s train sets should be of same origin.
Or at least, using the same specifications for interoperability.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I feel confident in saying that 1950s aviation provides a valid solution to this problem, for there too was acceleration an issue: Hydrogen peroxide rockets as auxiliary propulsion.
Useless Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
@ Paulus Magnus
Train set coupling is a technique used daily elsewhere.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Rockets, however, are a far niftier solution.
VBobier Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
They run out of fuel and oxidizer fairly quickly.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
You don’t need all that much if you’re just briefly accelerating however, especially if you can store it within a train set.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
You’ll recall Rafael’s interesting theory that airliners regenerate:
We just need to apply this technology (on board kerosene synthesis from atmospheric CO2 and H20, presumably) to all other transportation modes, not limited to HSR acceleration.
VBobier Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
@ Paulus Magnus: then It would have to be liquid type, Not a solid fuel rocket, As once solid fuel is lit, Their a bit hard to stop, At least according to all the time I spent watching to NASA launches.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
why not compromise on jet engines instead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet_train
VBobier Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
I’d rather not in either case as both Jets and Rockets produce lots of heat, Good enough to start fires and HSR trains are electric and metals like aluminum transmits heat pretty quickly.
Useless Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
@ thatbruce
> You seem to have confused speed profiles with acceleration profiles. They’re not the same, that is, a trainset capable of 200mph+ may have a lower acceleration rate than a generic commuter EMU capable of ‘only’ 100mph. If we feel like invoking rafael, I’m sure we’ll get enough graphs to illustrate the point.
No I am not. Asian high speed trains accelerate faster than European high speed trains due to frequent stops in their systems. Faster acceleration and train set coupling are the techniques that Asian railway operators use to increase traffic capacity without raising the top speed. So similar techniques could be brought to Caltrain corridor to do with just two grade-separated tracks(with by pass tracks at the station) instead of four.
On the second thought, Caltrain already has express train service with bypass tracks already installed, so just refine the bypassing and introduce train set coupling to double the capacity.
> Or at least, using the same specifications for interoperability.
Which is easier said than done. For this scheme to work, both HSR bullet train sets and Caltrain local train sets must come from same vendor in order to ensure interoperability.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
For this scheme to work, both HSR bullet train sets and Caltrain local train sets must come from same vendor in order to ensure interoperability.
Uh-huh. Even America manages to have different manufacturer’s equipment work together, and have for instance EMD kit controlled by Bombardier kit. Your ‘must’ there is more akin to ‘should’.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
>blockquote>You seem to have confused speed profiles with acceleration profiles.
What matters is (a) average speed and (b) signalling headway.
Closely matched average speeds (eg all trains are the same type and make all the same stops and can quickly reattain cruising speed after any slowdown) results in the highest train throughput for a given signal-limited headway.
Average speed is determined by (1) top speed (2) acceleration and deceleration performance (c) speed restrictions and (d) number of station stops and dwell time at stations.
The combination of combinations of, on one hand a higher top speed with a smaller number of stops (eg inter-regional train operated at gratuitously high speed), and on the other hand of a lower top speed and more stops (eg Caltrain service that actually serves human beings along the Caltrain corridor), results in worst disparity of average speeds, and hence pessimised train capacity in the corridor. In other words, you spend vastly more on infrastructure and more on energy and you get less train service out.
Good engineering suggests attempting to reduce the disparities in average speeds of trains on a shared corridor, first by using operational intelligence (ie “timetabling”, an utterly unknown and quite literally foreign notion to America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals) to minimise the number of different average speeds; then use “timetabling” to minimise the number of locations (ie expensive and problematic to build hundreds of tons of parallel track infrastructure) at which different average speeds result in overtakes; and the while investing, where economically justifiable, in improving train performance and logistics (eg better acceleration, but most of all reduced dwell time) that make slower trains less unlike faster trains.
I suggest scenario “15/15/15A” in http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/Caltrain-Timetabling/201104-takts.pdf
is such a considered (and affordable, and implementable, and operable) set of trade-offs.
As for coupling together trains that would have different stopping patterns: that’s so nonsensical that there’s nothing to say about it, regardless of “acceleration rate”.
nonsense, generally. Freebird!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I just want to make sure I’m reading it correctly. On any of them the shaded areas are where you have to build four tracks to allow for delays that will inevitably occur? And in 15/15/15A there is no HSR service to San Jose? Transfer to Caltrain in Redwood City?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
The obvious short San Mateo missing piece can be triple-tracked (downtown San Mateo) and quadrupled (Burlingame) as a auxiliary phase for extra robustness some years down the line.
In reality, nothing approaching 8tph is going to operate for the next 20 years, so there’s plenty of time to sort that out.
At lower frequencies, there’s sufficient redundancy and a sufficiently low (ie 2) number of different train types and train operators that delays do not propagate uncontained and recovery is possible.
Thanks for asking! We all know you’re really really really interested in learning from answers and modifying your views as a considered result.
Anybody who could even find San José (Capital of Silicon Valley!) on a map would know that Central Valley-Fremont-SJ trains enter the Caltrain ROW so close to the terminal station (or, in the interesting scenario in which they run through SJ “downtown” using the BART subway alignment, don’t enter the Caltrain ROW at all) that they effectively operate entirely independently of the shared corridor diagrammed.
It would just add irrelevant clutter to show the potential 16tph paths running on a separate line into SJ on a diagram illustrating operations of the Caltrain corridor.
Diridon Interdimensional Hypergalactic can be served by as many HS trains as its ridership justifies, entirely independently of Caltrain to SJ. That’s the point! Don’t borrow trouble (in this case, mix up different classes of trains) unless there’s a real benefit (eg tens of billions of saved cost) to doing so.
Thanks for asking!
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
planned UIC Bi-level EMUs may not have enough acceleration rate to make this scheme work
Regardless of the scheme, bi-level UIC EMUs have just as much oomph as any state-of-the-art high-speed train. Take for example the Stadler KISS… 125 mph top speed, about 330 metric tons fully loaded, and 6000 kW available at the wheel/rail interface (on a short-term basis). That sort of giddy-up is right up there with high-speed trains.
It’s fully TRIPLE the power-to-weight ratio of a Caltrain diesel consist.
Useless Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
@ Clem
> It’s fully TRIPLE the power-to-weight ratio of a Caltrain diesel consist
We already discussed the acceleration performance of high speed trains before.
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/1050/acceleration.jpg
Current high speed train sets would hit 110 mph in under 2 minutes or better. Now you tell me how quickly a Stadler KISS would accelerate to 110 mph.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I don’t know the KISS’s profile, but I’ve seen a YouTube video of the FLIRT’s acceleration. I forget how long it takes it to get from 0 to its top speed of 160 km/h, but I computed the time penalty of acceleration and it is 25 seconds, which is on a par with an idealized N700-I and better than any other high-speed train.
Feel free to look up acceleration videos of a KISS. I’m sure they exist.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
One could just ask them. In Amurrrrricun, even:
http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/news/2011/04/29/stadler-rail-expands-presence-in-north-america-ope/
Useless Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
@ Alon Levy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWD4MhX8cSc
Well, FLIRT’s acceleration is 70 sec for 0 – 160 km/hr. Not bad. Beats bullet trains by 20 sec.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Don’t forget, if a bullet train and a FLIRT take the same time to do 0-160, the FLIRT will still lose less time from acceleration. The reason is that the FLIRT has a higher acceleration rate at low speed and a lower acceleration rate at higher speed, which means that during its acceleration it spends less time at low speed than the bullet train.
As a result, an idealized N700-I does 0-160 in 54 seconds, but the time penalty is still the same.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Given that if an EMU and HSR are coupled together, there is a physical device ensuring that the combined unit is accelerating at the same rate, regardless of the acceleration characteristics of each individual unit.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
HSR and low-speed trains don’t really get coupled together. In Japan, they couple Shinkansen and Mini-Shinkansen trains, but the Mini-Shinkansen trains are full-fat high-speed trains, just ones with a narrower loading gauge so that they can run on legacy lines. JR East’s proposed model for California is actually based on the Mini-Shinkansen E6 rather than the full Shinkansen E5.
The discussion of the acceleration of FLIRTs and KISSes is about using them as the Caltrain commuter trains; the faster they accelerate, the less speed difference there is between Caltrain locals and HSRs, and the less passing track infrastructure is required for a given capacity.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Now you tell me how quickly a Stadler KISS would accelerate to 110 mph.
Assuming that you red-lined them, 45 seconds. 41 seconds to reach 99mph, their rated top speed (they’ve got a stated acceleration of 1.1m/s/s). Even allowing for flattening of the acceleration profile as the top speed is reached, its still easily in the ’2 minutes or better’ range.
The fastest model mentioned in that graph, the N700, apparently has an acceleration of 0.76 m/s/s, which puts 0-110mph at 64 seconds.
As I said, an awesome maximum speed isn’t the same as a high acceleration rate. Unsurprisingly, Skyscraper City has a thread about this as well.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
In 64 seconds, the (idealized) N700 only reaches 100 mph, not 110; to get to 110, another 10 seconds are required. You need to account for loss of acceleration at higher speed: the acceleration rate in m/s^2 can’t be higher than the power-to-weight ratio in kW/t divided by current speed at m/s.
You need to apply the following formulas for acceleration, using SI units only:
1. Let the train’s power-to-weight ratio be k, and the deceleration due to track resistance be a + bx + cx^2 where x is the current speed. Then, at medium speed, the maximum rate of acceleration is equal to x/k – a – bx – cx^2.
2. Let m be the initial acceleration rate. This rate can be maintained at speed lower than k/m, beyond which acceleration follows the formula given in 1.
3. Suppose we want to compute acceleration from speed v_1 to v_2. If v_1 < v_2 <= k/m, then acceleration takes exactly (v_2 – v_1)/m time, and exactly (v_2^2 – v_1^2)/2m distance. If k/m <= v_1 < v_2, then acceleration takes time equal to the definite integral of x/(k – ax – bx^2 – cx^3) from x = v_1 to v_2, and distance equal to the integral of x^2/(k – ax – bx^2 – cx^3). If v_1 < k/m < v_2, then split the calculation into two parts, one on each side of k/m.
4. To compute the time penalty of acceleration, divide the acceleration distance by v_2 and subtract the result from the acceleration time.
Note that kW/t is an SI unit, since it is exactly equal to W/kg. Speed is given in m/s and acceleration in m/s^2.
For the N700, k = 24, and you can use the CAHSR technical memos to obtain a = 0.0082, b = 1/3250. The technical memos do not give a value of c; they make an assumption based on other trains, which fails miserably since they assume a 16-car N700 faces the same air resistance force, and thus much lower deceleration, as an 8-car European train. A European train can be assumed to have c = 0.000018; the Fastech 360 has about c = 0.0000145 judging by test performance. The effect of the choice of c is trivial except at very high speed: with v_1 = k/m and v_2 = 75, the difference in acceleration time is 5 seconds, and the difference in acceleration time penalty is less than a second.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Correction: in point #1, x/k should read k/x. Obviously, acceleration should increase with the P/W ratio.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Forgot to mention this useful page if you want to plug in numbers and so forth.
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Way too simplistic. You have to take into account adhesion limits, friction, drag, etc. The only way to do these calculations with sufficient accuracy is by numerical integration.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
but it will calculate it in furlongs for you if you want it to.
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Under 100 seconds at the short term power rating (6000 kW or more than 8000 horsepower).
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Here is the EMU acceleration curve, compared to an Alstom AGV. Not too shabby for a stinkin’ commuter train. Note how the 6000 kW short-term rating really helps it get up to 110 mph, shaving the acceleration time from 140 sec down to 90 sec.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Your link doesn’t work.
thatbruce Reply:
May 5th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Try this one instead.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Trains have to slow down too. In local service you don’t want the train to get up to 110. Shoulda saved the link to the charts and graphs and eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one. The sweet spot for local service is around 70 MPH.
Clem Reply:
May 5th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
I’ll remember that, the next time that I’m on the Trenton local with Alice.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2011 at 12:28 am
You are confusing Stockbridge with Woodbridge. You don’t have to haul things to the dump in Woodbridge they pick up at the curb. The story would have been “we had turkey”. No cause to be in Group W either.
Anyway the local to Matawan goes to Woodbridge. Secausus, Newark, Newark Airport, North Elizabeth, Elizabeth, Linden, Rahway, Avenel, Woodbridge, Perth Amboy, South Amboy, Matawan. The Trenton local goes to Metropark which is in the Iselin section of Woodbridge. …. Linden, Rahway, Metropark, Metuchen, ( Meh-touch-en ) Edison, New Brunswick, only if something is wrong-Jersey Ave-and then only southbound, Princeton Junction, Hamilton, Trenton. And for what it’s worth between New Brunswick and Princeton Junction wheezy old Jersey Arrows hit 100 fairly often.
… Pity seeing that Alice is only half a mile from the railroad track… I wonder if you could see it from the belfry…
The voters “mandated” a lot of expensive aspirations in Prop 1A but they didn’t tax themselves to pay for it. That’s a rather weak mandate, if it amounts to one at all. As a result there is little choice but to adopt some kind of phased approach to building HSR, the incremental approach that RailPAC has proposed since day one. Each phase or building block should deliver value as part of a system as well as being part of the whole. Thus Caltrain plus Altamont and perhaps Stockton to Sacto electrified as a regional network would deliver value and give two segments of HSR compatible route as part of the statewide system. Upgrades from Sylmar to Los Angeles as well as LAUS run through tracks would also give immediate local value and be part of HSR later. That’s probably as much as we can fund at the moment but it can be sold as HSR to the voters as trains to somewhere. This of course puts Bakersfield to Fresno well down the list as there is near zero local value in moving the San Joaquins off their existing route, or a High Speed diesel shuttle between those cities.
thatbruce Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 10:47 am
I’d put Bakersfield to LA fairly high up on the list of priorities, as its the current ‘missing link’ between North and South California (and taking the Coast between the two is rather slow, albeit with some occasional nice scenery).
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:12 am
I believe we are beginning to see better the stone in the CHSRA’ shoe: developers. The ones at Palmdale want to force the hsr to deviate their way and the ones at Lebec want to deny the hsr access. In the light of the overall State air pollution dilemma environmental objections at the Grapevine area range from trivial to bogus. It is home to a blinking major notorious freeway. As I have suggested before, the CHSRA needs to secure this ROW straightway – Tejon’s problem is that it is a better route and the rail mode as customary risks getting kicked to the curb. I wonder what the Lebec developers position is toward an expansion of the freeway.
Filling the mountain crossing gap should indeed be project #1 for the CHSRA, even if you have to go the stupid Tehachapis. But at least make the latter diesel so Amtrak can use it.
Nathanael Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Mmm-hmm. Developers.
And Disney doesn’t want it to go across their precious land between the San Fernando Valley and Palmdale (which actually may be the reason they’re reconsidering the Grapevine.)
Today the San Mateo Daily Journal is running a highly-scientific poll gauging support of phased Peninsula HSR alongside a story entitled ““.
Reality Check Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Let me try that posting once more:
Today the San Mateo Daily Journal is running a highly-scientific poll gauging support of phased Peninsula HSR alongside a story entitled “Rail authority pursuing four track system“
Eric M Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:24 am
But their poll is deceptive. Look at your choices of answers:
1* Yes, it would electrify Caltrain, save it money and save properties from being taken
2* No, high-speed rail should run full speed through the Peninsula
3* I don’t support high-speed rail at all
4* Not sure
If you look at number 2, they are trying to make people think the train will go along the peninsula at 200 mph. Also, they just happen to throw in “save properties from being taken”. Hmmmm, wonder how they want this poll to end up!! The San Mateo Daily Journal knows the results they want and structured the answers to fit that. “Scientific poll”, yeah right!!!
Paulus Magnus Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:32 am
I do believe you may have missed the sarcasm.
Eric M Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 11:53 am
I may have, my bad!! LOL
YESonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Even that slanted poll has over 55% for HSR
joe Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
It’s a troll. The paper is trolling for hits, links and eyeballs.
Off topic, but the 241 toll road inadvertently makes the case for rail investment and Amtrak will actually manage to remain faster than HSR for a particular major route.
Reply to Syno….
(and the ones on the Peninsula want to force 4 tracks for 50 miles, along with siezure of as much peninsula property as possible – at bargain basement ED prices – for a vast remodeling of the priciest peninsula real estate into sardine style $1M per unit condos. You’ll notice the Van Ark, CHSRA, Galgiani, Robert and his little army of foaming HSR ants, came out immediately (like within hours, if not minutes) with a unified voice AGAINST minimizing community impacts and cost in the Peninsula. Stay within the existing ROW? BLASPHEMY! Hmmm, oddly unified in their adamant requirements to overbuild on this stretch. Wonder who’s writing their playbook…)
YESonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
What little PA online no longer has a rant board against HSR!!
DOT is starting to hand out the FLA monies ..Illinois is getting 186 million for CHI-STL
And so it begins…
http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/transportation/33169-return-of-proposed-grapevine-high-speed-rail-route-could-threaten-connection-to-las-vegas.html
Elizabeth Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
For those of you interested in the Grapevine issue, the Authority has already posted the audio from today’s operations committee meeting at which the Palmdale / Grapevine issue was discussed.
http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/2011_May.aspx
YesonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Really its nothing but drama with every single idea or decision.. it’s just a study already some are taking it as if this thing is now going at totally different route.
Also, it looks like $400 million of the Florida money may have been given out with Illinois getting $186 million. Guess we’ll hear more soon.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-high-speed-rail-0505-20110504,0,7779074.story
YesonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Yes I’d like to know where the rest of the money went.. and at 400 million gone that only levves 1.6 billion left.. if it’s split down the middle between us and the Northeast corridor that means 800 million apiece.. certainly not what they wanted to get to Merced and Bakersfield.. I suppose we’ll know in a few days maybe what we going to get.