3 ms·

Where is this myth that CAHSR will be the slowest HSR in the world coming from? I see it in sibling posts as well. CAHSR will travel up to 220 MPH (350 km/h) wh

Where is this myth that CAHSR will be the slowest HSR in the world coming from? I see it in sibling posts as well. CAHSR will travel up to 220 MPH (350 km/h) which makes it the fastest non-maglev train in the world. Now it will travel slower within city limits in the Bay Area and Los Angeles as it shares a corridor with non-high speed trains, but that is not unheard of in other networks around the world. As for the 2.5x over-budged, it is well known that the initial cost estimates were too low. The current rising of the estimate is largely due to inflation. This will keep happening while the project remains under-funded (which is precisely what the ill intentioned hyperloop idea was meant to do). I very much doubt that it will rise to 160 billion USD though (that is unless it remains unfunded for another decade or two).

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Yeah I just did some research and I think that claim is a misleading soundbite. Copying from my other comment I just left: The French TVG route from Paris to Lyon is 243 miles and takes 1 hours and 59 minutes, an average of 121 mph. So if our train travels 220mph sometimes and 110mph sometimes and the French TGV averages 121 mph on longer routes, then I'd say we're in the ballpark of building French TGV style trains in California, which sounds great to me!
- runarberg 4y ago
  Even if you do average speed instead of max speed CAHSR is still among fastest (if not the fasted) non-maglev train in the world. It will make a non stop run between LA union station and Transbay transit center in SF (a distance of around 760–790 km if my calculations are correct) in under 2 hours and 40 minutes. This will be an average speed of 280–300 km/h (or 180–190 MPH). In a quick google search I couldn’t find any trains—not even maglev trains—with faster average speed.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    You do understand that the 2hr 40 minute number is total and absolute garbage? It's weird seeing folks peddling fantasy land numbers here. Back in 2013 peer review board already said they were bogus, and it's only gotten a LOT worse. For example, I think San Jose to SF have ALREADY been switched to shared tracks at ground level - tracks that are going to be mixed in with caltrain trips. Gilroy is going to switch to sharing some freight lines (100mph)? I'm sure down in Burbank / LA area similar give backs will occur. This is all a major change from 220MPH which required elevated viaducts and 50 MILE (!!) turning circumferences! 220MPH actually WOULD be impressive but no chance of it. They've re-routed away from grapevine, they've added tons of stops. They've removed the dedicated trackways and rights of way (you CANNOT blast through downtown caltrain stops at 220MPH). They are going to in shared track situations (aka - Amtrak delays land for those like me who used to do amtrak).
    - runarberg 4y ago
      Sorry, no. All Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) have been approved between LA and SF with the exception of DTX between King and 4th to Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco and between Palmdale to Burbank. The latter has Draft EIR/EIS that has a pretty clear strategy of maintaining 220 MPH (or close to it) mostly in tunnels under the San Gabriel mountains. So the strategy to reach the goal 2:40 is pretty sound^[1]. Now I would like to add that nothing here is a novel technology, there are plenty of build out systems worldwide with non-maglev trains maintaining a speed of 200 MPH or close to it, and even a handful of systems that maintain 220 MPH. The geography of the Central Valley even lends it self nicely to this with it’s flat surface and relatively straight lines between stations. The only novel thing here is maintaining a 220 MPH in several tunnels. However I don’t think this will be an impossible engineering challenge, and the EIR/EIS statements agree with that. Also note that initial planning was for 200 MPH inside those tunnels, but after the preferred alternative of shared 110 MPH corridor between Gilroy and San José was approved, then it was decided to increase the speed in the tunnels to 220 MPH to make up the lost time. I think this was a good decision as you say, the challenges of building a fast corridor within city limits are probably greater then the challenges of going really fast inside tunnels. And as hinted the trains will only blast through caltrain stops at a max speed of 110 MPH, not 220 MPH. I do want to emphasize the fact that the approved EIR/EIS has on the credibility of the project achieving its goals (this goes into concerns you raised in your other post). This means that interested parties had their chance to scrutinize every aspect of the plan, that includes engineering challenges as well as civic challenges (including right of way acquisition). I do agree that the property acquisition has proven difficult in the Central Valley (particularly around construction packages 1 and 2-3). This is in no small part down to the amount change orders and difficulty of utility relocations along the right of way. My understanding is that the authority has learned from these challenges and is now forcing its contractors to finish all the advanced design before they begin construction on that segment. This should significantly reduce the number of change orders which would make it easier to acquire the needed parcels. --- 1: There is a case for the DTX to actually slow things down (I very much doubt the trains will be traveling much faster then 50-60 MPH this last mile), but this will only be like a minute or two. So I will give you 2:42 hours is actually a likely final number.
renewiltord 4y ago
IMHO every claim of performance on speed/completion/timeline/budget made by CA-HSR so far has been false and no claim has been true. But point taken on claimed speed - we have only their claims to go on. It isn't fair to examine them on the slow speed only, which is what I was doing. However, I am somewhat curious about your certainty of the quality of this thing. I am willing to do the following on longbets.org: - CA-HSR will not deliver regular service on IOS by current predicted 2029 date - 10 years from now, budget estimates will be at least $160 b We can pick terms at your convenience. I will commit a maximum of $10k to this through an intermediary who will meet you in San Francisco. If I lose, you get the $10k to a charity of your choice. If I win, you will donate to the charity of my choice 125 tickets (equal value at the CA-HSR-claimed $80/ticket) on CA-HSR for SF-LA.
- runarberg 4y ago
  I’m not gonna bet any money on this and I discourage anyone from doing so. Willingness to bet proves nothing about a merit of a prediction, and only loosely about ones faith in it. 10 years is a long time, and a lot can happen in that time. In 2017 there was an administration in the White House that was quite hostile to public infrastructure projects and withheld all the federal funding the previous administration had promised. For all we know there will be another administration like that in 2 or 6 years which does the same (or even more) to sabotage the project. In 2018 a new CEO took over the project and took a hard policy against over promising. This is when we saw the initial operating segment being scaled back to only include Bakerfield to Merced by the end of this decade. Since then we’ve actually seen a lot truer projections which have come true. For example Construction Package 4 is almost complete and pretty much on time and on budget.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Right - and if you asked the new guy if they will actually run at 2:40 minutes - and he answered, the answered would be - no way. Project is still badly managed. This was in early 2021: “It is beyond comprehension that as of this day, more than two thousand and six hundred calendar days after (official approval to start construction) that the authority has not obtained all of the right of way … ” wrote Tutor Perini Vice President of Operations Ghassan Ariqat to Garth Fernandez, the contracting chief at the state rail authority. And that has only continued. They literally are asking Tutor to build on land they don't own, utility relocations have been going on for YEARS. And the costs to now tunnel back to the coasts (long tunnels near seismic fault lines!). I don't think any plan is credible on that front. The rights of way as you get closer to SF and LA are going to be BRUTAL to get.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

Yeah I just did some research and I think that claim is a misleading soundbite. Copying from my other comment I just left: The French TVG route from Paris to Lyon is 243 miles and takes 1 hours and 59 minutes, an average of 121 mph. So if our train travels 220mph sometimes and 110mph sometimes and the French TGV averages 121 mph on longer routes, then I'd say we're in the ballpark of building French TGV style trains in California, which sounds great to me!

runarberg 4y ago
Even if you do average speed instead of max speed CAHSR is still among fastest (if not the fasted) non-maglev train in the world. It will make a non stop run between LA union station and Transbay transit center in SF (a distance of around 760–790 km if my calculations are correct) in under 2 hours and 40 minutes. This will be an average speed of 280–300 km/h (or 180–190 MPH). In a quick google search I couldn’t find any trains—not even maglev trains—with faster average speed.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  You do understand that the 2hr 40 minute number is total and absolute garbage? It's weird seeing folks peddling fantasy land numbers here. Back in 2013 peer review board already said they were bogus, and it's only gotten a LOT worse. For example, I think San Jose to SF have ALREADY been switched to shared tracks at ground level - tracks that are going to be mixed in with caltrain trips. Gilroy is going to switch to sharing some freight lines (100mph)? I'm sure down in Burbank / LA area similar give backs will occur. This is all a major change from 220MPH which required elevated viaducts and 50 MILE (!!) turning circumferences! 220MPH actually WOULD be impressive but no chance of it. They've re-routed away from grapevine, they've added tons of stops. They've removed the dedicated trackways and rights of way (you CANNOT blast through downtown caltrain stops at 220MPH). They are going to in shared track situations (aka - Amtrak delays land for those like me who used to do amtrak).
  - runarberg 4y ago
    Sorry, no. All Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) have been approved between LA and SF with the exception of DTX between King and 4th to Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco and between Palmdale to Burbank. The latter has Draft EIR/EIS that has a pretty clear strategy of maintaining 220 MPH (or close to it) mostly in tunnels under the San Gabriel mountains. So the strategy to reach the goal 2:40 is pretty sound^[1]. Now I would like to add that nothing here is a novel technology, there are plenty of build out systems worldwide with non-maglev trains maintaining a speed of 200 MPH or close to it, and even a handful of systems that maintain 220 MPH. The geography of the Central Valley even lends it self nicely to this with it’s flat surface and relatively straight lines between stations. The only novel thing here is maintaining a 220 MPH in several tunnels. However I don’t think this will be an impossible engineering challenge, and the EIR/EIS statements agree with that. Also note that initial planning was for 200 MPH inside those tunnels, but after the preferred alternative of shared 110 MPH corridor between Gilroy and San José was approved, then it was decided to increase the speed in the tunnels to 220 MPH to make up the lost time. I think this was a good decision as you say, the challenges of building a fast corridor within city limits are probably greater then the challenges of going really fast inside tunnels. And as hinted the trains will only blast through caltrain stops at a max speed of 110 MPH, not 220 MPH. I do want to emphasize the fact that the approved EIR/EIS has on the credibility of the project achieving its goals (this goes into concerns you raised in your other post). This means that interested parties had their chance to scrutinize every aspect of the plan, that includes engineering challenges as well as civic challenges (including right of way acquisition). I do agree that the property acquisition has proven difficult in the Central Valley (particularly around construction packages 1 and 2-3). This is in no small part down to the amount change orders and difficulty of utility relocations along the right of way. My understanding is that the authority has learned from these challenges and is now forcing its contractors to finish all the advanced design before they begin construction on that segment. This should significantly reduce the number of change orders which would make it easier to acquire the needed parcels. --- 1: There is a case for the DTX to actually slow things down (I very much doubt the trains will be traveling much faster then 50-60 MPH this last mile), but this will only be like a minute or two. So I will give you 2:42 hours is actually a likely final number.

renewiltord 4y ago

IMHO every claim of performance on speed/completion/timeline/budget made by CA-HSR so far has been false and no claim has been true. But point taken on claimed speed - we have only their claims to go on. It isn't fair to examine them on the slow speed only, which is what I was doing. However, I am somewhat curious about your certainty of the quality of this thing. I am willing to do the following on longbets.org: - CA-HSR will not deliver regular service on IOS by current predicted 2029 date - 10 years from now, budget estimates will be at least $160 b We can pick terms at your convenience. I will commit a maximum of $10k to this through an intermediary who will meet you in San Francisco. If I lose, you get the $10k to a charity of your choice. If I win, you will donate to the charity of my choice 125 tickets (equal value at the CA-HSR-claimed $80/ticket) on CA-HSR for SF-LA.

runarberg 4y ago
I’m not gonna bet any money on this and I discourage anyone from doing so. Willingness to bet proves nothing about a merit of a prediction, and only loosely about ones faith in it. 10 years is a long time, and a lot can happen in that time. In 2017 there was an administration in the White House that was quite hostile to public infrastructure projects and withheld all the federal funding the previous administration had promised. For all we know there will be another administration like that in 2 or 6 years which does the same (or even more) to sabotage the project. In 2018 a new CEO took over the project and took a hard policy against over promising. This is when we saw the initial operating segment being scaled back to only include Bakerfield to Merced by the end of this decade. Since then we’ve actually seen a lot truer projections which have come true. For example Construction Package 4 is almost complete and pretty much on time and on budget.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Right - and if you asked the new guy if they will actually run at 2:40 minutes - and he answered, the answered would be - no way. Project is still badly managed. This was in early 2021: “It is beyond comprehension that as of this day, more than two thousand and six hundred calendar days after (official approval to start construction) that the authority has not obtained all of the right of way … ” wrote Tutor Perini Vice President of Operations Ghassan Ariqat to Garth Fernandez, the contracting chief at the state rail authority. And that has only continued. They literally are asking Tutor to build on land they don't own, utility relocations have been going on for YEARS. And the costs to now tunnel back to the coasts (long tunnels near seismic fault lines!). I don't think any plan is credible on that front. The rights of way as you get closer to SF and LA are going to be BRUTAL to get.