32 ms·

The tracks discussed in the article are BNSF. Amtrak already runs the Coast Starlight on that track and for much of it they can't even run the legal max 79mph d

The tracks discussed in the article are BNSF. Amtrak already runs the Coast Starlight on that track and for much of it they can't even run the legal max 79mph due to poor track conditions. The delays cause them to miss their time slot and get further delayed by freight trains coming out of LA. BNSF has zero interest in upgrading the track to handle higher speeds. That would not help operating ratio even if it let them move more freight and charge higher rents. For US railroads operating ratio is God. The funny part is high-speed passenger service is usually very profitable. The trips are so short you don't need to turnover or time out crews. A lot of routes you don't even need to put them up in a hotel, they go out and come back. That keeps labor costs very low. For the curious I once ran the numbers on China high-speed rail vs California's HSR project in terms of miles of HS track. A rough estimate was about 3x the cost to do the project here in the US. Given wages and most importantly property values in California that actually isn't out of line. China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density. Because they cover large distances on some routes they pay (all else equal) more than others do. China has simply invested more in their rail infrastructure because they see it as a priority. FWIW The USA used to do those kinds of investments. It was government-backstops of investments that allowed the Transcontinental Railroad project to happen in the first place. Plus railroad land grants (free land if you build a railroad).

alephnerd 3y ago
> China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density They also have much easier procurement. It's easy to build a railway line in China when local municipalities can rezone entire swathes of farm and urban land with minimal legal recourse.
linkjuice4all 3y ago
The general layout and terrain of the line probably make it incredibly difficult to "speed up" regardless of how much money you dump into it. While it does go through some population centers it has to meander through mountains and follow rough/barren coast lines that don't really offer great opportunities for future growth and ridership. The high speed line through the central valley makes more sense when you consider these limitations. If they're able to speed things up enough then it does become competitive with air travel - but this is definitely a case of "time = money". It's much easier for higher-paid individuals to just take a a short flight for day trips to LA/SF than sit in a train or traffic.
cagey 3y ago
> The tracks discussed in the article are BNSF. No. The unique trackage to be used between SFBA and LA is the "Coast Line" which is owned by Union Pacific. FTA: "Dreamstar signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Union Pacific Railroad, [...] that would allow Dreamstar to operate its trains on the tracks owned by Union Pacific." Ctrl+F "BNSF" finds no matches in the article.
- xenadu02 3y ago
  Apologies, it turns out we are both correct. Coast Starlight uses both BNSF and UP track. Nevertheless the point stands: neither has any intention of making the track better for passenger service. Expect frequent delays and long trip times - far longer than driving. I still hope that CA's HSR project will eventually complete the line and give us actual high-speed service. They seem to be focusing on building the middle segment because they can get it done quicker and easier, which turns the north SF and south LA extensions into a sunk cost problem: "well we already build HSR through the central valley, it makes no sense and is super embarassing not to finish it...". All told that's probably the best strategy.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density. There is only one HSR line that has been built in the western half of China, a line from Lanzhou to Urumuqi. It is pretty devoid of rails of any kind on that side. It was a huge technical achievement when they were able to build just a normal rail to Lhasa.
- xenadu02 3y ago
  I should have been more precise. There are several regions of the US where HSR could be built with similar density to China which itself has lower density than some other countries yet spent the money to build HSR anyway.

alephnerd 3y ago

> China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density They also have much easier procurement. It's easy to build a railway line in China when local municipalities can rezone entire swathes of farm and urban land with minimal legal recourse.

linkjuice4all 3y ago

The general layout and terrain of the line probably make it incredibly difficult to "speed up" regardless of how much money you dump into it. While it does go through some population centers it has to meander through mountains and follow rough/barren coast lines that don't really offer great opportunities for future growth and ridership. The high speed line through the central valley makes more sense when you consider these limitations. If they're able to speed things up enough then it does become competitive with air travel - but this is definitely a case of "time = money". It's much easier for higher-paid individuals to just take a a short flight for day trips to LA/SF than sit in a train or traffic.

cagey 3y ago

> The tracks discussed in the article are BNSF. No. The unique trackage to be used between SFBA and LA is the "Coast Line" which is owned by Union Pacific. FTA: "Dreamstar signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Union Pacific Railroad, [...] that would allow Dreamstar to operate its trains on the tracks owned by Union Pacific." Ctrl+F "BNSF" finds no matches in the article.

xenadu02 3y ago
Apologies, it turns out we are both correct. Coast Starlight uses both BNSF and UP track. Nevertheless the point stands: neither has any intention of making the track better for passenger service. Expect frequent delays and long trip times - far longer than driving. I still hope that CA's HSR project will eventually complete the line and give us actual high-speed service. They seem to be focusing on building the middle segment because they can get it done quicker and easier, which turns the north SF and south LA extensions into a sunk cost problem: "well we already build HSR through the central valley, it makes no sense and is super embarassing not to finish it...". All told that's probably the best strategy.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

> China has the same vast distances across low density areas as the USA does so you can't blame it on Europe and Japan being higher density. There is only one HSR line that has been built in the western half of China, a line from Lanzhou to Urumuqi. It is pretty devoid of rails of any kind on that side. It was a huge technical achievement when they were able to build just a normal rail to Lhasa.

xenadu02 3y ago
I should have been more precise. There are several regions of the US where HSR could be built with similar density to China which itself has lower density than some other countries yet spent the money to build HSR anyway.