Brightline West (XpressWest, DesertXpress) Las Vegas - Victorville - Rancho Cucamanga - LA Proposal

Agree with Matt. Just buy an off-the-shelf Velaro (or similar trainset) and run it up to the (FRA determined) 150mph limit. Once the Freight Railroad, err, Federal Railroad Administration joins the 21st century, and develops guidelines for running above their 150mph threshold, just increase speeds within the full capabilities of the trainsets and the track conditions. No need for reduced spec, "customized" trainsets, which is just another way of saying "less performance for a bigger price".

They have to get their $4 billion first. And how much really would it cost then to build the other 80 miles or so to LAUS? because they will need it; Victorville is an unattractive terminus.

amtrakowitz wrote:They have to get their $4 billion first. And how much really would it cost then to build the other 80 miles or so to LAUS? because they will need it; Victorville is an unattractive terminus.

I think the plan is to eventually link up with the CAHSR system at Palmdale. Building to LAUS via Cajon Pass would likely be too expensive- HSR doesn't like curves, thus tunnels are required, and there is the question of crossing active earthquake faults (must be done at surface rather than underground).

kaitoku wrote:I think the plan is to eventually link up with the CAHSR system at Palmdale

They'll be waiting forever, then. Unless of course they are building concurrent with CAHSR. Since this would be a link crossing 50 miles through relatively uninhabited terrain, I don't see how the costs ought to be too high, never mind already incorporated into existing plans.

Building to LAUS via Cajon Pass would likely be too expensive - HSR doesn't like curves, thus tunnels are required, and there is the question of crossing active earthquake faults (must be done at surface rather than underground)

Why would Cajon Pass even be considered? The geological concerns are enough, even if the topography of the terrain was not.

Victorville to Los Angeles is much farther than 50 miles. Per Yahoo Maps, Victorville to Palmdale is 50 miles, and Palmdale to Los Angeles is 82 miles, a total of 132 miles. Golly, just getting to Palmdale is 50 miles.

Matt Johnson wrote:Are 150 mph EMU trainsets really less expensive to purchase than, say, something like the Siemens Velaro? Why not buy a trainset with upgrade potential, even if you initially run at 150 mph max? (That's what Russia did in purchasing the Velaro, which runs at 155 mph currently on the Moscow - St Petersburg route)

Has DesertXpress gone through the process to seeks bids for their EMU trains yet? Who knows what the various bids will be? Who knows, it is possible than Siemens could underbid Bombardier and Alstom.

electricron wrote:Victorville to Los Angeles is much farther than 50 miles

Where did I say "Los Angeles"? The poster I was replying to mentioned that the long-term plan is to "link up" DesertXpress to CAHSR at Palmdale, a town 50 miles west of Victorville. Los Angeles is approximately 80 miles west of Victorville.

http://www.desertexpress.com/?page_id=37

Slated to begin construction in 2011, test operations are scheduled to begin in 2013. Full service is expected to begin by the end of 2014.

So, is this the first true high speed rail line that will be operational in the US?

morris&essex4ever wrote: So, is this the first true high speed rail line that will be operational in the US?

It will be if they can meet that projection, but I'm doubtful. My money's on the Tampa-Orlando line, which should be operational by 2015.

Matt Johnson wrote:

morris&essex4ever wrote: So, is this the first true high speed rail line that will be operational in the US?

It will be if they can meet that projection, but I'm doubtful. My money's on the Tampa-Orlando line, which should be operational by 2015.

Honestly, either line can have its fair share of delays. Also, California is aiming to have a test track segment online by around the same time. It's been stated that current San Joaquin Amtrak trains may run at 125mph on the segment until the full line and new trainsets are ready.

Lets hope they race to get the first line open.

jamesinclair wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:

morris&essex4ever wrote: So, is this the first true high speed rail line that will be operational in the US?

It will be if they can meet that projection, but I'm doubtful. My money's on the Tampa-Orlando line, which should be operational by 2015.

Honestly, either line can have its fair share of delays. Also, California is aiming to have a test track segment online by around the same time. It's been stated that current San Joaquin Amtrak trains may run at 125mph on the segment until the full line and new trainsets are ready.

Lets hope they race to get the first line open.

Now, what is going to pull those bilevel coaches at 125MPH? No existing diesel locomotive is geared for that speed, and if you did regear one for 125MPH speeds, acceleration would suffer.

Oh, and why "race to get the first line open?" Is there some sort of prize for accruing the largest taxpayer funded operating losses? If so, what's the prize?

Nasadowsk wrote:

David Benton wrote:the only reason i can think of , is to still be able to use diesel traction , or turbine , neither of which is a good idea . would save the upfront cost of cantenary though .

They show it with catenary in the pics.

Right now, AFAIK, the FRA hasn't set track standards / rules for faster than 150. Not like the FRA's standards at 150 are anything impressive. Tier II and keep the track somewhere close to in gauge. IIRC, Germany is +- a few mm at that speed. The FRA's more like an inch or two.

That's an ill-informed exaggeration. In reality, the FRA does have well thought out standards, although there is currently no dedicated passenger train trackage in North America requiring standards for operations above 150MPH.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
Now, what is going to pull those bilevel coaches at 125MPH? No existing diesel locomotive is geared for that speed, and if you did regear one for 125MPH speeds, acceleration would suffer.

Oh, and why "race to get the first line open?" Is there some sort of prize for accruing the largest taxpayer funded operating losses? If so, what's the prize?

This service will not use diesel locomotives. It will use emu's. And yes, in this country where there is no real high speed line, it will be a big deal to see the first one completed.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

jamesinclair wrote:Also, California is aiming to have a test track segment online by around the same time. It's been stated that current San Joaquin Amtrak trains may run at 125mph on the segment until the full line and new trainsets are ready

Now, what is going to pull those bilevel coaches at 125MPH? No existing diesel locomotive is geared for that speed, and if you did regear one for 125MPH speeds, acceleration would suffer

How greatly would acceleration suffer, in reality? especially since locomotives like the P42DC are currently certified for 110 mph but might be able to hit 125 mph with as-built gearing.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

nasadowsk wrote:Right now, AFAIK, the FRA hasn't set track standards / rules for faster than 150. Not like the FRA's standards at 150 are anything impressive. Tier II and keep the track somewhere close to in gauge. IIRC, Germany is +- a few mm at that speed. The FRA's more like an inch or two

That's an ill-informed exaggeration. In reality, the FRA does have well thought out standards, although there is currently no dedicated passenger train trackage in North America requiring standards for operations above 150MPH

Looks more arbitrary than "well thought out" to me. They do have written standards for so-called "Class 9" track, which is supposed to permit operation at 200 mph; the gauge limits for Class 9 are between 4' 8¼" and 4' 9¼", which is a half-inch narrow to ¾" broad. I can't find the UIC gauge limits at high speed operation online (all I see is "1435 mm", which is 4' 8½" and no other gauge variability stated); they use lighter rails on high speed tracks in Europe (120 lb/yd on LGVs in France, for example).

amtrakowitz wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

jamesinclair wrote:Also, California is aiming to have a test track segment online by around the same time. It's been stated that current San Joaquin Amtrak trains may run at 125mph on the segment until the full line and new trainsets are ready

Now, what is going to pull those bilevel coaches at 125MPH? No existing diesel locomotive is geared for that speed, and if you did regear one for 125MPH speeds, acceleration would suffer

How greatly would acceleration suffer, in reality? especially since locomotives like the P42DC are currently certified for 110 mph but might be able to hit 125 mph with as-built gearing.

I've seen absolutely no proof that an existing, unmodified Genesis can be used in routine, revenue service at a sustained 125MPH. It's also worth noting that the State of California bought the F59PHI, not the Genesis. I'm not saying the Blomberg trucks aren't good for relatively high speeds, but these locomotives just aren't geared for that speed.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

nasadowsk wrote:Right now, AFAIK, the FRA hasn't set track standards / rules for faster than 150. Not like the FRA's standards at 150 are anything impressive. Tier II and keep the track somewhere close to in gauge. IIRC, Germany is +- a few mm at that speed. The FRA's more like an inch or two

That's an ill-informed exaggeration. In reality, the FRA does have well thought out standards, although there is currently no dedicated passenger train trackage in North America requiring standards for operations above 150MPH

Looks more arbitrary than "well thought out" to me. They do have written standards for so-called "Class 9" track, which is supposed to permit operation at 200 mph; the gauge limits for Class 9 are between 4' 8¼" and 4' 9¼", which is a half-inch narrow to ¾" broad. I can't find the UIC gauge limits at high speed operation online (all I see is "1435 mm", which is 4' 8½" and no other gauge variability stated); they use lighter rails on high speed tracks in Europe (120 lb/yd on LGVs in France, for example).[/quote][/quote]

In the absence of heavy freight, it's quite possible to use lighter rails, and it's worth noting that tie spacing and general maintenance have more to do with speeds than the weight of the rails.