can anyone tell when the high speed trains would be put in action? what the trains look like, rolling stock etc..? hyperrailnut
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
I believe Caltrain is simply adding a third track between San Jose and SF for an express train, not high-speed. Caltrain will be shut down on weekends to allow for construction.
A recent bill was introduced in the legislature that will eventually allow for high-speed service on the SF peninsula, as part of the SF to LA high speed corridor.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
You are talking about the new "Baby Bullet" service that is SUPPOSED to begin in 2003 on Caltrain. The Baby Bullet trains will have a top speed of 79 MPH. The OFFICIAL Caltrain rundown on the Baby Bullet trains is at this website: http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain/whatsnew/CTX_fact_sheet.html
According to that Caltrain website there will be 3 or 4 high speed sidings added to the Caltrain line. This will NOT be a complete 3rd main track for the Caltrain system. At this point it looks like Caltrain will only install 3 or 4 high speed sidings at SELECTED locations.
I hope this little posting of mine helps to give you a bit more info on this project! --Daniel
Posted by hyperrailnut (Member # 1559) on :
Hi Mr.Daniel, thanx, i enjoyed the info, BIIIGG locos and BIIIIGGG cars, looks comfy too.
The loco is really good, is it genesis?
hyperrailnut
Posted by vthokie (Member # 1456) on :
79....figures. That's like calling the Amtrak Cascades (also 79 mph max) "high speed rail". You know, I'll bet we could get what the FRA considers "high speed" (90 or greater) without spending a dime, just by getting rid of that stupid 79 mph law. I'm sure that there's track out there right now that could easily support 90 or 100 mph with no modification.
Also, I find it kind of sad that Amtrak creates a bunch of hype for raising speeds on the Chicago - Detroit route from 79 to 90 mph after installing an expensive new signal system, while it quietly downgrades hundreds of miles from 90 to 79 mph. (City of New Orleans, Southwest Chief, etc...)
Posted by vthokie (Member # 1456) on :
...Continuing my rant, why can't they just make the limit 80 mph?! What's with this 79 nonsense? It reminds me of a parking lot I drove through once...all throughout the parking lot there are speed limit signs posted at "19". I guess 20 mph would be just a little too fast, but 19mph is just right.
Posted by MPALMER (Member # 125) on :
The CalTrain line has many grade crossings; not sure if that influences the 79mph limit.
Posted by Ken V (Member # 1466) on :
quote:Originally posted by hyperrailnut: The loco is really good, is it genesis?
[This message has been edited by Ken V (edited 05-22-2002).]
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
You'll have to go to the FRA to ask them how they determined that 79 mph be the speed limit for CTC-only track; personally, I have no clue. Cab signals usually raise the permitted speed limit to 90 mph. Grade crossings are not a factor, unless there are high accident rates at them.
Well... www.cahighspeedrail.org is still the place for whatever's news on high-speed rail projects in California. According to the site, they're still planning on having 200-mph train service operate between San Francisco/Sacramento and Los Angeles/San Diego (via Bakersfield!)...So far, they've ruled out Maglev as having too high a capital cost and probably not enough return for the investment, but they haven't figured out just what type of train to run on the lines, although it is going to be electric. (Personally, I'd recommend the Talgo 350, i.e. if there's an FRA-compatible version out there; this is the train that they're planning to run in Spain, between Madrid and Barcelona, at a whopping 220 mph top speed. On top of that, any Talgo is completely compatible with low-level platforms, so no unnecessary building of new terminals or high platforms at old terminals should occur.)
Posted by vthokie (Member # 1456) on :
Maybe Amtrak should ask for a waiver on stretches of track that can safely accomodate speeds greater than 79 mph. They shouldn't have to reduce their speed from 90 to 79 just because the freight railroads upgrade to CTC and remove the old block signals. I mean, heck, it's supposed to be a signal upgrade, right?! I'm sure that Amtrak operating at 90 or even 100 on existing straight, open stretches of track would still be safer than driving a car on the interstate, yet no one is calling for overly conservative speed limits on our nation's highway system!
BTW, any news on the Chicago - St. Louis upgrades? Isn't that line supposed to see 110 mph operation in the near future? Also, when is Chicago - Detroit going to see 110 mph speeds?
[This message has been edited by vthokie (edited 05-22-2002).]
[This message has been edited by vthokie (edited 05-22-2002).]
Posted by Ken V (Member # 1466) on :
vthokie, I agree with everything you're saying. Unfortunately, Amtrak has to follow the FRA regulations, no matter how lame they may be.
[This message has been edited by Ken V (edited 05-22-2002).]
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I'd like to see the FHA over-regulate the highways in the same manner that the railroads are over-regulated by the FRA...
You think that they (the FHA) have got enough dough in that Trust Fund of theirs to build truck-only expressways, just like there are some car-only parkways in existence? Imagine that...:P
(click to enlarge)