High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by rst on Sunday February 12, 2017 @07:36PM (#13632167)

Other successful high-speed rail systems (France's TGV, for example) also have dedicated rights-of-way, not shared with older equipment, and rail physically built to different standards (specially welded). You really don't want genuinely high-speed trains (300 km/h) running on the same tracks as anything slower, in normal operation. And if you try to build a high-speed system on earlier rights-of-way, you get something like Acela, in the US Northeast corridor. It can go at ~150 mph on track that can support it, but there are only a few miles of the route between Boston and Washington can support that. Net: it's only half an hour faster than conventional rail on the same route and track -- and something like half the difference is accounted for by the conventional trains making a lot more stops.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by erentz on Sunday February 12, 2017 @08:36PM (#13632474)

Correct. A difference is they start by thinking of (and running) the rail network as a whole system of supporting lines. Then add high speed railway segments to the network like expressways along key routes. This is what I think CA should do/have done. It's not too late actually, they could set up a "Caltrak". Develop a state wide rail plan that covered everything but urban metros, and begin buying assets/access and merging them into one whole network. What the CAHSR is building could continue, maybe with some adaptations of that plan, to just be those "expressway" sections mentioned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by gozur88 on Monday February 13, 2017 @07:39PM (#13640252)

This. I know HSR is sexy, but for the money California should put in a conventional rail network first. People would take the train between San Francisco and LA, say, if speeds were comparable to driving.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by theoh on Sunday February 12, 2017 @08:49PM (#13632535)

I had to look this up when you said "specially welded"...

As far as I can tell, TGV tracks are built to vey tight tolerances, but Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) is a worldwide standard on new railway lines, nothing special. I most recently saw some thermite welding equipment just about to be used in Dublin (Ireland) during the laying of new tramway tracks. So there's nothing exotic about the welding process, though it is quite dramatic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by ant6n on Monday February 13, 2017 @02:48AM (#13633756)

European high-speed rail systems have some dedicated rights of way, but they definitely didn't start that way. They are systems that are integrated with regional and urban rail, and have grown to have more dedicated higher speed sections over time. Compatibility is the main reason for the success of the TGV and ICE, for example over the failed Transrapid maglev system.

All track with passenger rail on it should be welded, so not sure what your point is. Also, every passenger rail should ideally be electrified; more freight trains should be electrified as well.

Yes high speed track is built to much tighter tolerances, but high speed trains can go on lower class tracks with slower speed. Plenty of ICE trains in Germany run on 160 km/h track. Extreme examples include TGVs being pulled by diesel trains to reach beach resorts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by masklinn on Monday February 13, 2017 @07:21AM (#13634733)

> European high-speed rail systems have some dedicated rights of way, but they definitely didn't start that way.

TGV was most definitely started that way. It was engineered to be able to run on regular railway ("standard gauge high-speed train") so that the existing "inner-city" rails could be used to reach inside existing metropolis, but it was designed primarily to run on new specific rights of way, regular service started on the dedicated "LN1" (now LGV Sud-Est) between Paris and Lyon: the line is 409km (254mi) for a total ride distance (station to station) of 425km (264mi).

> They are systems that are integrated with regional and urban rail, and have grown to have more dedicated higher speed sections over time.

The size of the dedicated high-speed network grew over time, but high-speed trains were always intended to run on high-speed networks, there's just no point otherwise, "regular" trainsets will reach older lines's rated speed just fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by ant6n on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @06:32PM (#13648342)

You're nitpicking on TGV without making an argument within the discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by masklinn on Wednesday February 15, 2017 @09:37AM (#13652257)

I'm saying that your claim of european high-speed systems "definitely not having started with dedicated right of way" is absolute bullshit.

Yes they are standard gauge and can run on regular old rail and that's plenty useful, but no that's not what they were built for, it would be a complete waste of the rolling stock.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by ant6n on Thursday February 16, 2017 @11:57PM (#13666045)

You don't understand what dedicated means in the American context - which is this discussion. It would mean complete incompatibility, and building new tracks and maybe stations downtown. This is not what EU high speed rail was built on, they use a lot of legacy lines, especially earlier on, especially in Germany. Without that it wouldve failed - not being able to reuse existing infrastructure is why maglev failed.

As an aside, calling an idea complete bullshit based on an nitpick is pretty weak, especially since you're wrong: when tgv started in September 1981, they only had part of the line constructed. Without compatibility, I.e. a completely dedicated system, you could've only traveled between two random towns.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ki... by masklinn on Friday February 24, 2017 @07:16AM (#13722889)

> You don't understand what dedicated means in the American context

It means the exact same fucking thing in every context. Dedicated means infrastructure which exists solely for high-speed train, not that high-speed trains can only exist on the dedicated infrastructure.

> It would mean complete incompatibility

That's completely nonsensical. European high-speed lines are dedicated, non-high-speed trains do not run on them, it's the high-speed rolling stock which is compatible with older electrified rail lines because they use a standard gauge and compatible/switchable electrical feed (some of the more complex rolling stock having to cross multiple borders can handle 4 different power inputs).

> This is not what EU high speed rail was built on, they use a lot of legacy lines

And they use dedicated infrastructure and have done so from the start.

> As an aside, calling an idea complete bullshit based on an nitpick is pretty weak

It's not a nitpick to point out that your statement is factually entirely incorrect.

> especially since you're wrong: when tgv started in September 1981, they only had part of the line constructed.

That was still a dedicated right-of-way which it started with, putting the lie to your statement.

> Without compatibility

That has nothing to do with your original statement. Your statement was not that high-speed rolling stock should be compatible with legacy rail and able to use it. Your statement was that european high-speed rail "definitely didn't start" with "dedicated rights of way", and further that high-speed rail only have some dedicated rights of way.

[ Parent | on HN ]