Highway Meduims for New Rail Contructions

morris&essex4ever wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:The economics are already conducive to the speed. What are you talking about? There's no point in not having a faster train.

Not when the costs outweigh the benefits. Given that Desert Xpress will run on a dedicated right of way, the 150 mph running will be done much longer than the Acela which can only hit it for what about 25 miles? The average speed of Desert Xpress should be about 130 mph with a top speed of 150. This is comparable to HSR systems around the world.

By holding speeds down to 150 mph, you're making the costs outweigh the benefits by removing one of the inherent benefits of having a dedicated right-of-way—being able to host speeds of 186 mph or faster. When France built their LGVs, the first TGV ran at a top speed of 168 mph, and it wasn't long after that before speeds were increased.

Also, that's not an accurate comparison with the Acela Express. Should more of the infrastructure be upgraded (particularly the catenary wire, what with the trainset having an active-tilt system), more of the NEC should then be capable of speeds of above 140 mph at least, thus giving average speeds in the low triple digits.

amtrakowitz wrote:

morris&essex4ever wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:The economics are already conducive to the speed. What are you talking about? There's no point in not having a faster train.

Not when the costs outweigh the benefits. Given that Desert Xpress will run on a dedicated right of way, the 150 mph running will be done much longer than the Acela which can only hit it for what about 25 miles? The average speed of Desert Xpress should be about 130 mph with a top speed of 150. This is comparable to HSR systems around the world.

By holding speeds down to 150 mph, you're making the costs outweigh the benefits by removing one of the inherent benefits of having a dedicated right-of-way—being able to host speeds of 186 mph or faster. When France built their LGVs, the first TGV ran at a top speed of 168 mph, and it wasn't long after that before speeds were increased.

Also, that's not an accurate comparison with the Acela Express. Should more of the infrastructure be upgraded (particularly the catenary wire, what with the trainset having an active-tilt system), more of the NEC should then be capable of speeds of above 140 mph at least, thus giving average speeds in the low triple digits.

The cost of building to Class 9 standards almost certainly exceeds any marginal gain from Class 8. There is only a thirteen minute gain by increasing to 150mph instead of 125mph. 186+mph would have even less savings due to increased acceleration times and decreased areas where such a speed increase may be obtained. Unless it achieves a major boost in passenger revenues than a 150-160mph operation, which is highly unlikely, it is an unwarranted expense.

The point is never as fast a train as possible, nor competing with trains in other nations, the point is as fast as is reasonable and competing with the most relevant travel modes for the same journey.

Paulus Magnus wrote:The cost of building to Class 9 standards almost certainly exceeds any marginal gain from Class 8. There is only a thirteen minute gain by increasing to 150mph instead of 125mph. 186+mph would have even less savings due to increased acceleration times and decreased areas where such a speed increase may be obtained. Unless it achieves a major boost in passenger revenues than a 150-160mph operation, which is highly unlikely, it is an unwarranted expense.

The point is never as fast a train as possible, nor competing with trains in other nations, the point is as fast as is reasonable and competing with the most relevant travel modes for the same journey.

Excellent points, sort of what I was trying to point out earlier. Additionally, the Los Angeles to Las Vegas market should be aimed at providing services to everyday tourists and gamblers, not at the well-to-do. That means using trains that can operate at a profit will discounted coach fares, sponsored by hotels and casinos.
Slower speed trains run on HSR tracks in both Europe and Asia. These government financed or subsidized rail corridors aren't used exclusively by the fastest trains. Only a few HSR trains actually turn a profit, but that's just for operations, I don't believe any have actually paid off the capital costs of building and maintain the tracks.

Paulus Magnus wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:

morris&essex4ever wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:The economics are already conducive to the speed. What are you talking about? There's no point in not having a faster train.

Not when the costs outweigh the benefits. Given that Desert Xpress will run on a dedicated right of way, the 150 mph running will be done much longer than the Acela which can only hit it for what about 25 miles? The average speed of Desert Xpress should be about 130 mph with a top speed of 150. This is comparable to HSR systems around the world.

By holding speeds down to 150 mph, you're making the costs outweigh the benefits by removing one of the inherent benefits of having a dedicated right-of-way—being able to host speeds of 186 mph or faster. When France built their LGVs, the first TGV ran at a top speed of 168 mph, and it wasn't long after that before speeds were increased.

Also, that's not an accurate comparison with the Acela Express. Should more of the infrastructure be upgraded (particularly the catenary wire, what with the trainset having an active-tilt system), more of the NEC should then be capable of speeds of above 140 mph at least, thus giving average speeds in the low triple digits.

The cost of building to Class 9 standards almost certainly exceeds any marginal gain from Class 8. There is only a thirteen minute gain by increasing to 150mph instead of 125mph. 186+mph would have even less savings due to increased acceleration times and decreased areas where such a speed increase may be obtained. Unless it achieves a major boost in passenger revenues than a 150-160mph operation, which is highly unlikely, it is an unwarranted expense.

The point is never as fast a train as possible, nor competing with trains in other nations, the point is as fast as is reasonable and competing with the most relevant travel modes for the same journey.

Raising average speeds as high as possible should not entail "unwarranted expense". The difference between Class 8 and Class 9 track, incidentally, is one quarter of an inch in terms of minimum gauge (4' 8" for Class 8 and 4' 8¼" for Class 9), so the new-build expense between building both classes is most likely negligible, as would be the continued maintenance costs in terms of maintaining minimum and maximum gauges; wear and tear would depend upon the vehicle used.

And again, there's no benefit to incurring the additional expense of building a dedicated right of way and not running at speeds that maximize both average and top speeds. The cheaper way to go is to use tilt trains on an existing right of way, especially since there won't be much difference in average speeds between the traditional railroad and the new-build railroad even assuming that you can run at 150 mph rather than "up to 150 mph" as DesertXpress is advertising (and as Amtrak advertises for the Acela Express). Of course, "cheaper" here depends on the whims of the politicians and causing cost overruns either via interference, corruption or overregulation.

BTW, the FRA page assumes an average speed of 132 mph with the 150-mph operation. If speed was increased to 200 mph (the top speed permissible on Class 9 track), one can assume average speeds in the region of 175 mph even over the distance of 186 mph that DesertXpress is proposed to travel over, which would reduce the journey time from 1:24 to 1:04 (or a very significant difference of 20 minutes).

amtrakowitz wrote: BTW, the FRA page assumes an average speed of 132 mph with the 150-mph operation. If speed was increased to 200 mph (the top speed permissible on Class 9 track), one can assume average speeds in the region of 175 mph even over the distance of 186 mph that DesertXpress is proposed to travel over, which would reduce the journey time from 1:24 to 1:04 (or a very significant difference of 20 minutes).

I don't think 20 minutes is that significant--there's a lot more to transportation choices than just speed. Planes are roughly the same speed than the Acela Express and are cheaper, but the Acela Express is selling out (or it was when I was on it last week). There's a lot more expense to increasing track speed than making sure the gauge is precise--there's ballast, signalling, increased energy use, more noise mitigation, etc to contend with. That's quite a lot of money for a gain of less than half an hour. I think building a line and incrementally increasing speed if it's successful is the way to go.

20 minutes is 24 percent of an estimated 84-minute journey, so it is quite significant. The longer the distance traveled, the larger the time savings (e.g. comparing average speeds of 175 mph to 132 mph over a distance of 450 miles, the former gets you there in 2:34 versus 3:25 for the latter, saving 50 minutes).

It makes no sense to build an entirely new railroad that is not part of the general railway network and not initiate the industry's best practice on it. There would be no "cost savings" from deliberately going slower. Besides, if the choice of trainset is indeed the BBD Zefiro, that would be an EMU with passenger space in the forward power car, something that the FRA disallows for going faster than 125 mph on those parts of the general railway network upgraded to allow 150-160 mph operation (e.g. the NEC); that would mean that the FRA rules would not apply on DesertXpress' right of way and there is no logic to holding speeds down to "up to 150 mph".

When one says that there are a lot more to transportation choices than "just speed", what is one referring to? What could make a slower train competitive? And why does "incrementally" increasing speed make sense when it's already been done elsewhere? If one wants to talk increments, then the 0-series bullet train in Japan started at a 130 mph top speed way back in 1964, and things only got faster from there.

amtrakowitz wrote:When one says that there are a lot more to transportation choices than "just speed", what is one referring to? What could make a slower train competitive? And why does "incrementally" increasing speed make sense when it's already been done elsewhere? If one wants to talk increments, then the 0-series bullet train in Japan started at a 130 mph top speed way back in 1964, and things only got faster from there.

How about costs, how about fares? The Los Angeles to Las Vegas market is a tourist market. Tourists will always look for the cheapest fares. Only in the business travel market can high fares be tolerated.

electricron wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:When one says that there are a lot more to transportation choices than "just speed", what is one referring to? What could make a slower train competitive? And why does "incrementally" increasing speed make sense when it's already been done elsewhere? If one wants to talk increments, then the 0-series bullet train in Japan started at a 130 mph top speed way back in 1964, and things only got faster from there.

How about costs, how about fares? The Los Angeles to Las Vegas market is a tourist market. Tourists will always look for the cheapest fares. Only in the business travel market can high fares be tolerated.

Tourists don't go only for cheapest fares. If that were true, we'd see huge numbers of tourists taking long-distance buses, but they usually fly instead. Part of it is also convenience and comfort. An Acela station is way more convenient for many people than airports. Rail travel is comfortable (much more than air or bus travel), and I think people going to Vegas want a bit of comfort and glamour travelling there.

ferroequinologist wrote:

electricron wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:When one says that there are a lot more to transportation choices than "just speed", what is one referring to? What could make a slower train competitive? And why does "incrementally" increasing speed make sense when it's already been done elsewhere? If one wants to talk increments, then the 0-series bullet train in Japan started at a 130 mph top speed way back in 1964, and things only got faster from there.

How about costs, how about fares? The Los Angeles to Las Vegas market is a tourist market. Tourists will always look for the cheapest fares. Only in the business travel market can high fares be tolerated.

Tourists don't go only for cheapest fares. If that were true, we'd see huge numbers of tourists taking long-distance buses, but they usually fly instead. Part of it is also convenience and comfort. An Acela station is way more convenient for many people than airports. Rail travel is comfortable (much more than air or bus travel), and I think people going to Vegas want a bit of comfort and glamour travelling there.

However, DesertXPress requires first driving two hours or so to reach the station and then to pay a ticket priced as much or higher than airfare (midweek round trips from LAX start at $67 with only one week advance purchase, DXP wants $110 round trip; incidentally that makes flying cheaper than bus).

In my experience, those who say that non-business travelers aren't interested in cheapest fares are ignoring that the predominant travel mode is the cheapest fare in both dollars and when adjusted for perceived cost of time.

However, DesertXPress requires first driving two hours or so to reach the station and then to pay a ticket priced as much or higher than airfare (midweek round trips from LAX start at $67 with only one week advance purchase, DXP wants $110 round trip; incidentally that makes flying cheaper than bus).

I can't see European visitors doing that. They would want to take the train from Los Angeles all the way. If they rent a car at all they will want to drive all the way. What is being proposed is absurd.

george matthews wrote:

However, DesertXPress requires first driving two hours or so to reach the station and then to pay a ticket priced as much or higher than airfare (midweek round trips from LAX start at $67 with only one week advance purchase, DXP wants $110 round trip; incidentally that makes flying cheaper than bus).

I can't see European visitors doing that. They would want to take the train from Los Angeles all the way. If they rent a car at all they will want to drive all the way. What is being proposed is absurd.

Well, yes. Nor would anyone from SoCal want to do that, which is the largest single market for Las Vegas. It's too expensive for them to build all the way into LA on their own however, due to mountains, hence the connection to CAHSR at Palmdale, but if memory serves, the folks behind DXP owns quite a lot of land in Victorville and are apparently of the idea that using Victorville as the southern terminus could lead to large real estate profits via development.

Well, yes. Nor would anyone from SoCal want to do that, which is the largest single market for Las Vegas. It's too expensive for them to build all the way into LA on their own however, due to mountains, hence the connection to CAHSR at Palmdale, but if memory serves, the folks behind DXP owns quite a lot of land in Victorville and are apparently of the idea that using Victorville as the southern terminus could lead to large real estate profits via development.

Well, if they think that then let them go bust finding out it's nonsense.

Rail traffic depends on the existence of a network. I can't see people driving to take a train, but I can imagine them taking a train all the way.

george matthews wrote:Rail traffic depends on the existence of a network. I can't see people driving to take a train, but I can imagine them taking a train all the way.

I'll agree with the network. Never-the-less, they don't need to get 25% of the tourists out of their cars to make a profit. And I believe you'll find many drivers riding the trains once they watch DesertXpress trains flying pass them like their standing still on the freeway. A train going 150 mph by a car going 80 mph will make the car driver feel like he is a snail. The train doesn't need to compete with planes initially, it needs to compete and win against cars.
DesertXpress is relying upon CHSR to finish the connection through the mountains into the LA basin, the rail network that's needed. When that occurs, DesertXpress can then take on the planes. Even when they reach Union Station in downtown LA, passengers will still have to find a way to get to the station, whether it's in downtown LA or Victorville.

george matthews wrote:

Well, yes. Nor would anyone from SoCal want to do that, which is the largest single market for Las Vegas. It's too expensive for them to build all the way into LA on their own however, due to mountains, hence the connection to CAHSR at Palmdale, but if memory serves, the folks behind DXP owns quite a lot of land in Victorville and are apparently of the idea that using Victorville as the southern terminus could lead to large real estate profits via development.

Well, if they think that then let them go bust finding out it's nonsense.

I'm quite happy to let them go bust finding out its nonsense. I'm less happy to have them do so with $5 billion dollars of taxpayer money via RRIF loans which is how they are currently proposing to fund this.

electricron wrote:

george matthews wrote:Rail traffic depends on the existence of a network. I can't see people driving to take a train, but I can imagine them taking a train all the way.

I'll agree with the network. Never-the-less, they don't need to get 25% of the tourists out of their cars to make a profit. And I believe you'll find many drivers riding the trains once they watch DesertXpress trains flying pass them like their standing still on the freeway. A train going 150 mph by a car going 80 mph will make the car driver feel like he is a snail. The train doesn't need to compete with planes initially, it needs to compete and win against cars.
DesertXpress is relying upon CHSR to finish the connection through the mountains into the LA basin, the rail network that's needed. When that occurs, DesertXpress can then take on the planes. Even when they reach Union Station in downtown LA, passengers will still have to find a way to get to the station, whether it's in downtown LA or Victorville.

They probably do need to get 25% of the tourists out of their cars in order to make a profit. The five billion dollars in loans that they want would result in annual financial payments of 275-300 million dollars, but at DXP's own projected revenues, it would take until 2031 until that represented less than 75% of their entire annual revenue. Operational profits for HSR prior to interest and taxes do not exceed 10% (for overall networks, individual lines may be higher), which means that they'll quickly go bankrupt.

And it's always poor form to rely on someone else doing most of the work, especially when they could easily change the routing away from Palmdale and save several billion dollars in construction costs and up to twelve minutes in travel time, leaving DXP up a creek without a paddle (of course, the sorry excuse of a study that the contractors did does mitigate that potential).