Not the coast. The train will go up and down the central valley. As Brent said, towns like Bakersfield stand to benefit. But - where does the train stop exactly I wonder. For it to make quick time it can't stop too many places along the way.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The Return of Rail
- Thread starter tonybelding
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Transportation
The expected route list is here:
California High Speed Rail Authority Interactive Map
I think you can serve local communities and still have speed, so long as you run a few limited-stop express trains.
A good analog might be the Paris <-> Marseille TGV, which is roughly the same distance as SF <-> LA. According to France's SNCF website, trip times are around 3 hours 20 mins, although one train takes as long as 10 hours. Roundtrip prices are $150 for a trip tomorrow, while advance-purchase, non-refundable tickets for next month are about $50.
I took this trip a few years ago. I left my apartment 15 minutes before the train was to depart, took the subway one stop to Gare de Lyon, and moments later was zipping along the French countryside at 250 KPH. No check-in, no security, no waiting to board, plenty of legroom, Internet access, cell phone availability, and so on. It was a superior travel experience all around.
graham
Active Member
They responded this afternoon. Opportunity, missed:
This is a shame - it could have been a real boost for electric cars, and very useful for regular cars. I wonder the reasoning behind the decision, and if it might change in the future?
DisneylandIsHome
Member
Let's Push It!
If we all contact them and ask about the option of transporting private cars, perhaps we can change their plans now that it is early in the process. Without that option, we might as well fly.
If we all contact them and ask about the option of transporting private cars, perhaps we can change their plans now that it is early in the process. Without that option, we might as well fly.
If they have rental offices at the rail terminals then they could possibly rent you an EV there. Since you already got close to your destination on the train your rental EV woudln't need so much range capability. Perhaps even rental Teslas someday?
I think trains are preferable, and probably save time, for distances of 500 miles or less. A trip from LA to SF by air takes me about four hours, from the time I leave my apartment to the time I set foot in a hotel. In my experience in Europe and Japan, a high speed train takes roughly the same amount of time for the distance traveled, and I've had more legroom, more access to Internet and mobile phone, and a lot less hassle. I'd generally rather take the train.
A car ferry wagon would add a nice option if it ever were to be practical. There would be a number of design challenges, however. High speed trains have to be engineered almost like an airplane, with efficient aerodynamics and smooth surfaces. On the tracks, they are combined in tightly integrated units to avoid turbulence, and as such, extra cars cannot be added as easily as on a freight train. Weight has to be balanced, and the stresses on the rails considered.
Clever engineers could probably produce a car ferry wagon to meet the challenges, provide the demand were sufficient. Then again, I would expect cost would suppress demand, as it would probably exceed the price of renting a car at the destination.
graham
Active Member
That would be a good thing for an existing EV owner - but not as good for the prospective EV owner. My hope was that a train which goes faster than you can drive would be the "Range Extender" which makes a series hybrid palatable. "I would be interested in an EV, but 3 times a year I drive to L.A, so I have to buy a gasoline powered car"
Logically people have always been able to buy short-range EVs (or have no car at all) and rent a car when they need one - but most don't. Being able to extend their own car to go to San Francisco, L.A. Sacramento, San Diego etc (and be charged when they arrive) could make 150+ mile range EV a very viable choice to pretty much all of California.
Of course by the time the train is fully functional in 2030, perhaps this problem will have solved itself already.
All the renderings that the CHSRA features appear to be off-the-shelf designs. No mention as to their procurement strategy, but I expect it would go out to tender with the usual manufacturers rather than starting from the drawing board. As far as I know, there are no other very high speed "car ferry" trains in the world, but of course that shouldn't preclude such a service.
Ironically the formerly very popular European "motorail" services have been curtailed by the TGVs and their ilk. They now tend to run during the summer on vacation routes only and no longer daily. It seems people would rather take the very fast trains and hire a car at their destination.
French Motorail: not on track - Telegraph
Ironically the formerly very popular European "motorail" services have been curtailed by the TGVs and their ilk. They now tend to run during the summer on vacation routes only and no longer daily. It seems people would rather take the very fast trains and hire a car at their destination.
French Motorail: not on track - Telegraph
graham
Active Member
Wow! I had given up hope on this passing as well! It would be a shame to be so close to the 2/3rds required and fall short...
Don't be surprised when CA has to subsidise operations. Historically, passenger rail service only made a profit on heavily travelled commuter lines. The railroads only ran passenger trains because it was expected of them. When automobiles and airlines became common the railroads dropped passenger service like a hot rock. Hence Amtrak.
To get ridership high speed rail has to undercut air service in both time and money door to door. To do that, they have to manage costs aggressively.
I suspect they'll need a subsidy. European countries, with much greater population density subsidises their passenger rail services.
The Myth of Passenger Train Profitability
To get ridership high speed rail has to undercut air service in both time and money door to door. To do that, they have to manage costs aggressively.
I suspect they'll need a subsidy. European countries, with much greater population density subsidises their passenger rail services.
The Myth of Passenger Train Profitability
An electric train may eventually become the mode of choice when oil really starts running out. I don't think the high speed rail will be a success for a while, but I expect eventually it will become indispensable. We have already seen what starts to happen to Jet travel when oil prices soar.
Actually they would only have to undercut the planes on time and not be a lot more expensive.... Remember for most business people a 3-4h train ride is effective time. It can be spent working on your laptop (using wireless internet access from the train or cellphone network) or having a lunchmeeting with collegues. Most of the time you can't get very much work done with short range plane travel. You spend so much time getting to airport, standing in security and other lines and then the same on the other end... I dare say on something like the LA-SF part train should be competitive on time and as long as total cost is not more than 50% of planes that should be it. That's my experience with Norway anyway, which is a LOT less densely populated than California (80% of the area and 8% of the population).
Cobos
There needs to be distinction between operational profitability and being profitable enough to cover the cost of borrowing for the infrastructure expenditure.
Several of the companies in the UK operate at huge operational profits - some paying over £1bn for a 7 year franchise - but then our tracks were amortised decades ago with only the occasional upgrade and regular maintenance to consider. The same is true in Japan.
The investment in tracks to enable this to happen may need to be subsidised, but that is the equivalent of a new highway, for example.
graham
Active Member
Tdave
Member
One of the most needed high speed corridors is missing from that plan: DC to NYC.
What were they thinking?
What were they thinking?
Similar threads
