|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 17, 2011 13:37:51 GMT -8
Dessert-express can provide one-seat rides from San Francisco, Fresno, Bakersfield, LA, San Diego etc.
Maglev will ALWAYS require a transfer.
When the competition is a 50 minute plane ride, transfers are a major problem.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 18, 2011 17:46:26 GMT -8
Dessert-express can provide one-seat rides from San Francisco, Fresno, Bakersfield, LA, San Diego etc. Maglev will ALWAYS require a transfer. When the competition is a 50 minute plane ride, transfers are a major problem. If your going to take the fastest time route, the case for Maglev is actually even stronger. Even with the Palmdale extension ( assuming it's built) and CHSR 220 Mph cars (assuming that's possible), Maglev would still be faster than DesertXpress, at 310 Mph. Oh, and btw, a Southwest flight between LA and LV is actually 55 Minutes. And that doesn't include waiting in lines.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 18, 2011 21:05:34 GMT -8
If your going to take the fastest time route, the case for Maglev is actually even stronger. Even with the Palmdale extension ( assuming it's built) and CHSR 220 Mph cars (assuming that's possible), Maglev would still be faster than DesertXpress, at 310 Mph. Oh, and btw, a Southwest flight between LA and LV is actually 55 Minutes. And that doesn't include waiting in lines. There are very few cases in the world where maglev presently makes sense. Maglev is inflexible because there can be no track sharing with any other services. Maglev is very expensive to construct because maglev guideway typically needs to be constructed completely as an aerial structure. Maglev systems are also horribly inefficient in terms of energy use (imagine how much a train weighs and the sort of energy required to levitate it continuously). Maglev also only provides speeds slightly higher than that of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains. The CA high-speed rail project in its current form suffers in that it imposes a brand new rail system nearly completely ignoring and working around our current rail system. European rail systems aren't strong merely because of their HSR lines; they're strong because the HSR lines are overlain on and integrated with a robust system of conventional rail. Maglev, IMHO, only makes sense where you have a mature system of conventional rail and HSR lines and faster-than-HSR travel is desired in key already-developed markets.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 19, 2011 5:33:50 GMT -8
Justin, That mostly sounds about right. Tokyo-Osaka fitting the bill for what you point out in your last sentence. I'm not so sure about the energy consumption though. Back in the day I was following Transrapid when they planned on doing either Baltimore-Washington, Pittsburgh-?, and maybe one other corridor, that was all before the HSR seemed to supercede it. Per Transrapid, they are more energy efficient than ICE: I think that one of the key benefits of HSR over Maglev is the ability to use pre-existing track where it exists. The "value engineering" being touted by CAHSR incorporates some of this idea. Instead of insisting on "exclusive access" trackage from LA to Anaheim like they originally proposed, they shifted gears a while back and are now looking at sharing track with Metrolink, while moving the freight traffic to a dedicated track. That saves a ton of money, and wouldn't have been an option if you were building CAHSR with Maglev. I think that in a world with no steel rail trains, if you did a lifetime cost/benefit analysis, and assumed that Maglev could actually be built and operated for the distances involved, you might end up finding that Maglev "might" be cheaper. The primary benefits being less tunneling with the 10% grade climb, coupled with the better energy efficiency, assuming that is correct, and decreased running times due to overall speed and reduces accel/decel times. You would have to estimate total energy consumer over 40-50 (?) years, and then make estimates about what that energy would cost in that time frame. I don't believe that anyone can do that with any degree of accuracy, but the general trend is up, and there is no reason to think that will change anytime soon. Having said that, I think that Maglev probably won't be built anywhere large scale other than Tokyo-Osaka, and maybe not even there. The problem is two-fold in my mind: 1) second to market behind steel wheel HSR, and the interoperability issue and 2) perceived cost higher than HSR, which is somewhat hard to refute given no large scale system has been constructed. It would/will be interesting to see what the Tokyo-Osaka system ends up doing (in 2045 ): www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T101020005605.htmRT P.S. I rode the Maglev demo train at the 1986 Vancouver Exposition, and it made quite an impression on me at the time. I remember thinking that other than the slight acceleration, you would swear that you weren't even moving the ride was so smooth. Haven't experienced anyting like that since then. Not sure if that is still the case on say the Emsland track at much higher speeds.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 19, 2011 17:49:30 GMT -8
One big problem with Maglev is the issue of junctions. As far as I know, no one has made a simple, reliable "switch" for Maglev to easily allow trains to switch tracks or branch off in different directions.
For a single, high-capacity route (like Tokyo-Osaka, or even Washington-Boston someday) where you need to build two new tracks just for extra-high-speed passenger trains, and high speed rail already exists, it can make sense to have a single line.
But steel rails and modern high-speed switches make it possible to run local, express and super-express service on the same tracks. And commuter trains can even share the tracks in the urban areas. Furthermore, trains can continue onto regular tracks at slower speeds (as done extensively in France and Germany) to reach more distant rural areas that don't merit exclusively HSR service.
Unless someone makes reliable switches for Maglev, it will never make sense to build a whole, nation-wide maglev network before building a regular steel rail high speed network first.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 19, 2011 19:04:42 GMT -8
Maglev is very expensive to construct because maglev guideway typically needs to be constructed completely as an aerial structure. The Baltimore-DC plan actually calls for much of the maglev corridor to be "at-grade". So it can't be impossible. Maglev has much higher potential than steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains. The test in France a few years ago is likely going to be as fast as the TGV is gonna get. And even so, i'm not sure if a 574 KPH train is even possible on DesertXpress' rails, or on the CHSR system, even. One big problem with Maglev is the issue of junctions. As far as I know, no one has made a simple, reliable "switch" for Maglev to easily allow trains to switch tracks or branch off in different directions. For a single, high-capacity route (like Tokyo-Osaka, or even Washington-Boston someday) where you need to build two new tracks just for extra-high-speed passenger trains, and high speed rail already exists, it can make sense to have a single line. But steel rails and modern high-speed switches make it possible to run local, express and super-express service on the same tracks. And commuter trains can even share the tracks in the urban areas. Furthermore, trains can continue onto regular tracks at slower speeds (as done extensively in France and Germany) to reach more distant rural areas that don't merit exclusively HSR service. The switches might be feasible if they were done not far from stations, where the train would cross over at slower speeds. I don't think you need to build a interstate maglev system. As a matter of fact, this whole long term idea of an interstate HSR system in general might be simply a pipe-dream. At some point, the airplane probably takes over on super-long routes.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 13, 2011 13:46:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 13, 2011 14:58:58 GMT -8
The funding may be a little dubious at this political moment of time, but in the long run, a project which keeps moving forward is better than one stuck at the station.
All of these little approvals were steps which needed to be taken.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 13, 2011 20:50:48 GMT -8
I'm very pessimistic about ANY Vegas HSR (DX or Maglev) obtaining funding for several years, much less breaking ground. You can thank a retarded US House of Rep. for that; they might as well have as much intelligence as turkeys.
I'm sick of Republicans...
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 18, 2012 13:54:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 19, 2012 8:42:53 GMT -8
I actually think a Las Vegas - Victorville - Palmdale - Los Angeles HSR should have been completed first before going for a statewide version, which I still support. But Las Vegas - Los Angeles probably could have gotten operational first.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 19, 2012 13:10:31 GMT -8
I actually think a Las Vegas - Victorville - Palmdale - Los Angeles HSR should have been completed first before going for a statewide version, which I still support. But Las Vegas - Los Angeles probably could have gotten operational first. I think it has a chance of funding, specifically because it could get done quickly and La Hood and Reid both support it. Metrolink has about a billion dollars of upgrades coming its way from CAHSR funds, much of which will be spent on Palmdale to LAUS. It would then be left to figure out where the funds will come from to get from Victorville to Palmdale where there will either be direct tracks to LAUS, or a cross platform transfer to a substantially upgraded Antelope Valley line. Hopefully they'd figure out how to do a one seat ride the whole way to Las Vegas from Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 8, 2012 9:28:54 GMT -8
There have been a couple of web articles on extending HSR between Victorville and Palmdale yesterday: Curbed L.A.: "Vegas High-Speed Rail Starts Planning Extension to Palmdale"KCET: "Desert High-Speed Rail Stays On Track: Groundbreaking Could be in a Year"What would it actually take to extend this to downtown Los Angeles? I admit to not fully understanding the technology. Would new tracks need to be built? Could existing tracks be electrified and shared with Metrolink? Does this need to be "double tracked"? One can argue of Palmdale versus Cajon Pass to get between Victorville and Los Angeles, but with the Palmdale route, it would make eventual San Francisco to/from Las Vegas high speed rail much more likely sooner and would help bring momentum for the rest of the California High Speed Rail project. I don't think an initial Palmdale alignment would proclude another alignment eventually being being connecting Las Vegas to the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 8, 2012 10:06:56 GMT -8
There have been a couple of web articles on extending HSR between Victorville and Palmdale yesterday: Curbed L.A.: "Vegas High-Speed Rail Starts Planning Extension to Palmdale"KCET: "Desert High-Speed Rail Stays On Track: Groundbreaking Could be in a Year"What would it actually take to extend this to downtown Los Angeles? I admit to not fully understanding the technology. Would new tracks need to be built? Could existing tracks be electrified and shared with Metrolink? Does this need to be "double tracked"? One can argue of Palmdale versus Cajon Pass to get between Victorville and Los Angeles, but with the Palmdale route, it would make eventual San Francisco to/from Las Vegas high speed rail much more likely sooner and would help bring momentum for the rest of the California High Speed Rail project. I don't think an initial Palmdale alignment would proclude another alignment eventually being being connecting Las Vegas to the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. The Curbed article seems to answer your questions at least in part (admittedly they are not the most reliable news source): The collaboration between Metro and DesertXpress will help the train get to Downtown LA's Union Station by electrifying Metrolink tracks between Palmdale and LA.... Here's hoping they would do something reasonable. Regarding Cajon, I think that could make sense later, but Palmdale is the low hanging fruit. After the difficulties CAHSR has been having, low hanging fruit sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 8, 2012 14:22:00 GMT -8
CAHSR's revised proposal for the LA segments calls for using existing Metrolink infrastructure so that implies electrification of existing tracks from Union station to Anaheim; and double tracks/electrification from Union station to Palmdale.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 8, 2012 14:47:38 GMT -8
Electrifying from Palmdale to Union Station would be awesome, IMHO. The potential for links to Cal HSR and/ or to Vegas would be too great to pass up.
Also, we ought to consider that in the middle would be Glendale and Burbank. Share the tracks and add tracks where possible, and we could have electric shuttle trains to downtown Burbank.
And the link from Palmdale to Victorville always seemed like the logical ultimate goal for the DesertXpress.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 3, 2012 6:21:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 17, 2015 16:25:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jul 8, 2020 14:08:25 GMT -8
The Sunday July 5, 2020 Daily Breeze newspaper had a article about the VnV train. The proposal is to build as far as Rancho Cucamoga for the Los Angeles area station from Victorville. It would use the Interstate 15 ROW and only cost Five Billion dollars for this portion.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 3, 2020 14:45:07 GMT -8
They are taking a two pron approach to connect to SoCal.
The first option is the modified High Desert Corridor project will provide a rail link between Palmdale and Victorville (the freeway sprawly original proposal was killed last year in a lawsuit settlement). If complete, it will provide 1-seat train service between Union Station and Las Vegas and potentially 1-seat Bay Area to Las Vegas. This option depends on CAHSR completing the Central Valley to LA segment AND securing full funding for the High Desert portion. Desert Xpress itself has not committed any funds to build the High Desert Corridor.
The second option is going down to San Bernardino or Ontario that is being explored now. The advantage here is there is no need to wait for CAHSR or High Desert Corridor EIR as it can proceed independently. The downside is there is no planning for any interconnection with existing rail infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 4, 2020 16:38:09 GMT -8
They are taking a two pron approach to connect to SoCal. The first option is the modified High Desert Corridor project will provide a rail link between Palmdale and Victorville (the freeway sprawly original proposal was killed last year in a lawsuit settlement). If complete, it will provide 1-seat train service between Union Station and Las Vegas and potentially 1-seat Bay Area to Las Vegas. This option depends on CAHSR completing the Central Valley to LA segment AND securing full funding for the High Desert portion. Desert Xpress itself has not committed any funds to build the High Desert Corridor. The second option is going down to San Bernardino or Ontario that is being explored now. The advantage here is there is no need to wait for CAHSR or High Desert Corridor EIR as it can proceed independently. The downside is there is no planning for any interconnection with existing rail infrastructure. Measure M does provide $1.85 billion for the High Desert Corridor, but it is designated as highway funding and not available until 2063. But if there is political willingness, it is possible that they move that over to transit and accelerate that funding by borrowing and discounting that amount. So they could for example, borrow $1.2 billion now and repay it with $1.85 billion later. The current plan is to shift some of the $3 billion in funding for the Gold Line Eastside from 2050-2057 to 2022-2035, so that $635.5 million is available to be spent in 2022-2035, this would "cost" $700-$750 million of the 2050-2057 funding. metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4539340&GUID=B6044D05-C6B6-47F8-9EA2-9728A6B71B1F&FullText=1
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 5, 2020 10:05:25 GMT -8
I'm aware of Measure M funding is for the original High Desert Corridor which was a highway with a potential option for HSR in the median. That project was killed last year as I mentioned. However, the LA-SB county joint authority for High Desert Corridor still exist so I'm assuming they will push for the rail only option and seek to redirect the Measure M funds allocated to the High Desert area of LA County.
Also, can SGV funds be moved out of SGV to fund projects in other areas of LA County? I thought that was not possible so it was the reason why we have all these white elephant rail lines in the suburbs instead of funding expansion in the core urban areas.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 5, 2020 12:14:44 GMT -8
I'm aware of Measure M funding is for the original High Desert Corridor which was a highway with a potential option for HSR in the median. That project was killed last year as I mentioned. However, the LA-SB county joint authority for High Desert Corridor still exist so I'm assuming they will push for the rail only option and seek to redirect the Measure M funds allocated to the High Desert area of LA County. Also, can SGV funds be moved out of SGV to fund projects in other areas of LA County? I thought that was not possible so it was the reason why we have all these white elephant rail lines in the suburbs instead of funding expansion in the core urban areas. It isn't possible to move funds designated to SGV to other areas. However, a lot of the funding for projects in the later years are not dedicated to specific regions and are for countywide "system connectivity" projects ($3 billion for the "Gold Line Eastside Extension Alignment 2", $200 million for Green Line Norwalk Extension, $65 million to Westwood to LAX Sepulveda Line, $1.85 billion for High Desert Corridor)--Legally, the Metro board can move funds out of "system connectivity" projects to fund other "system connectivity" projects more easily (but it may still be politically difficult to move those funds out). Because Measure M is a "forever tax", the best hope is that all the listed projects get completed as soon as possible, and then the projects that Measure M will fund in the future will be mostly up to Metro staff (kind of like how they have discretion in spending Proposition A and C money today--though unfortunately most of the A & C money is spent to fund operations and backfill the continued loss of fare revenue).
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 12, 2021 12:54:25 GMT -8
Here’s an update on the Palmdale-Victorville high-speed rail project. They are expecting preliminary engineering, a service plan, and ridership and revenue studies completed in November. There are some preliminary plans and estimates—single track with passing tracks where needed, 60 minute headways, 30 minute trip. Brightline plans for trains to stop for 6 minutes in Victorville before continuing on to Vegas. Metro has asked them to refine their plans to allow express service with no stop in Victorville and/or just a 2 minute stop.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 1, 2022 6:01:28 GMT -8
Snip below with more in the link. www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/will-this-be-the-year-the-lv-la-high-speed-train-leaves-the-station-2616212/For years there’s been talk about a high-speed train between Las Vegas and Southern California, but that train has yet to leave the station. A few scheduled groundbreaking dates have come and gone with no action, with the most recent one spoiled by the pandemic in 2020. Now the company behind the project, Brightline West, is targeting the end of this year to get construction started and finally get tracks laid for what is hoped to be a transportation revolution between Southern Nevada and California.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Aug 1, 2022 7:19:38 GMT -8
I'm surprised that they have expanded the initial operating segment to include the connection at Rancho Cucamonga instead of just Victorville.
Should make it more viable, provided Metro/Metrolink works to increase the frequency on the San Bernardino Line.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 1, 2022 17:03:36 GMT -8
I've been looking into these plans a lot for a regional rail video, and I'm skeptical of the idea that's been thrown around a lot online that they would be able to run Brightline trains on the SB line tracks with much frequency. While those are publicly-owned tracks (except for a brief detour onto UP tracks at el monte station), and while Metrolink is working to double-track portions of it as part of SCORE, the section within the median of the 10 freeway seems as if it'll be pretty much impossible to double-track without significantly rebuilding the median of the 10 and taking car lanes away. (Which, hey, I'm for, but we all know the politics of that in this city.) And Metrolink is already planning to run their own trains as frequently as they can through the single track, and Brightline is targeting under-one-hour headways themselves. So I think paying to electrify that line for squeezing an occasional through train to Union is not something Brightline will do, and they'll wait (a long, long, long time) for the SD portion of CAHSR to do it for them, and leave it terminating at RC for now.
(Speaking of the San Diego CAHSR route, it's planned to run either along the 60 or 10, and the only way that would be possible is to tunnel under the freeway or take car lanes, and I'm pretty certain the plan is to actually take car lanes... So if Brightline paid to double-track and electrify the SB track portion between El Monte and Union, that would be a significant boon to future CAHSR plans. But I think they'll hope people will just take metrolink and connect.)
|
|