Oh, yeah, California part II. I like the proposal to use Dallas Union Station and personally I believe that can be done via a two level or two tiered platform. High Speed Rail being elevated because Dallas Union Station is already designed that way with the former passageways to the track platforms and upper level waiting room on the 2nd Level. So basically, just knock out one or two small sections of wall facing the platform on the second level that were bricked up from the old days and your all set. The part I think is stupid is the tunneling under the cities to make this into a high speed subway in sections. Like California that is going to balloon costs considerably.
I don't think this will ever get funded because Dallas City Council is going to jump ship on it soon, my guess. TXCOG has always been a rail transit dreamer agency, they like to pay for and publish a dream of a rail transit system but DFW does not get a whole lot from them when it comes to building anything.
Anyways, interesting reading via link below.
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/01/how-long-before-we-can-ride-a-bullet-train-to-fort-worth/
Less like CAHSR part deux than Brightline Wild Wild West, from the sound of how they want to route it -- 90% in 'public rights of way'. I'm surprised they're not making more of why it's highly expedient for a 40-mile-long HSR route to terminate/originate 70 feet in the air-- gravity handling much of the braking and acceleration issues to get reasonable timing and cost.
I see no mention of the extreme 90-degree curve at the "TC station" if they intend for there to eventually be a one-seat ride from Fort Worth to Houston, especially if that curve happens 70 feet in the air (which of course it should, in my opinion at least...)
You put that thing in a subway, and then jigger TC to come in underground to match, and an awful lot of prospective "high speed" in a rail solution becomes of relatively less value. The Chinese, for example, know how to do it but with 30-foot-diameter TBMs to get the necessary track separation, etc. ... and of course nothing from China can probably be expected to thrive in Texas unless at least double-dereferenced.
Otherwise build the thing to 110mph or PRIIA standards and run it as HrSR, perhaps accommodating CAHSR-style political intermediate stops... but make actual use of the new infrastructure details for minimum trip time. It remains to be seen whether the electrification of Caltrain along the peninsula and the supposed shoehorning of the CAHSR trains into San Francisco on that rather constrained plant are actually going to have the effects touted for them.
OvermodI see no mention of the extreme 90-degree curve at the "TC station" if they intend for there to eventually be a one-seat ride from Fort Worth to Houston, especially if that curve happens 70 feet in the air (which of course it should, in my opinion at least...)
Really beginning to think myself that our government can't really build a well engineered High Speed Rail system. Even the NEC was inherited from a private company. All they have built from the ground up is the Pueblo test track so far. Even after building that you would think they would take the lessons learned and apply them with the next built system or next project but it seems like the projects are so compartmentalized or silohed that there is no real learning curve going on as we progress. I think the main issue is there is no assembly line (project after project) approch like China used. Instead it is a piecemeal / fits and starts approach with no common people between projects. We'll see how Brightline does I still think they have an advantage over government.
A rather bad omen for the future for our government and rail projects.
Japan is marching forward with its maglev project. Tunneling 10 meters a day it was reported. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/photo/48303565
Part of the problem is that the current form of Federal government loves the ideas of enormous Keynesian (in the original formal sense) but is also acutely aware of all the different political positions of "potential voters" concerned with very large, very expensive efforts that benefit comparatively few and extend across a great many effective election cycles.
CAHSR is a terrifying cautionary tale in so many respects -- it would be nice to say 'look at the way they have done it, and do everything different and better' but many of the structural problems wouldn't be resolved by better execution. All this before you get into 'fair' apportionment of construction costs among the several States involved in a given LD route, with the breakdown of traffic for true HSR service being very different from that of something like an electrified Empire Builder service. As far as I have been able to figure, the actual 'spine' HSR provision hasn't really changed from the High Speed Mass Transit days in the mid-Sixties: that system has to be procured, and built, and operated, purely on a Federal scale, with Federal-level funding sources but not the typical Federal-project methods. I see no possibility of even extended-regional or corridor-bridge services on the order required for TACV, let alone class-nine track largely on elevated structures. Remember this is already a country that has thrown up its hands on even practical route electrification -- something for which an example as primitive as the PRR's use of the RFC is still more or less applicable.
You need a directed and long-term vision even to start. That's not something the present system of government likely provides outside a military excuse like that for a 'defense highway system'...
OvermodPart of the problem is that the current form of Federal government loves the ideas of enormous Keynesian (in the original formal sense) but is also acutely aware of all the different political positions of "potential voters" concerned with very large, very expensive efforts that benefit comparatively few and extend across a great many effective election cycles.
Some of that is perception though, here is my opinion......
I do participate in all levels of Democracy. It is very frustrating at times because you can pick out the Social Media warriors and the folks that just listen to cable news shows. It is just sad and they are very visible by what they say and how they phrase their concerns. Politicians of either party are trying to get a job done but their efforts are masked by political slogans and social media. Now it is true some of them are guilty in the political sloganeering but they only say those dumb sound bites to get the people with the 3 min interest level that only tune in between channel surfing or only look on the internet as well say those things to land campaign funding (they all do this). My Rep comes across in media as really dumb and political but I talk to him one on one and he is probably among the most intelligent people I have met before and he knows exactly what is going on with each issue (pros and cons). I really hate his public image but I am very happy he is not what his public image conveys.
So this is why I come across and encourage railfans and rail enthusiasts to get off the couch or out of the home office and go talk to people about what your interested in seeing done or accomplished. Sometimes you get the cold shoulder but more often than not you can make a difference. I have made an impact just via sending an Email. Prefer phone or face to face though. This is the larger issue with rail passenger service or rail issues. Railfans and rail enthusiasts rarely bother to show up or give their input. Feel like I am the Lone Ranger at times. Like I said you have to be persistent sometimes but a lot of times I make a decent case and can persuade.
Overmod Part of the problem is that the current form of Federal government loves the ideas of enormous Keynesian (in the original formal sense) but is also acutely aware of all the different political positions of "potential voters" concerned with very large, very expensive efforts that benefit comparatively few and extend across a great many effective election cycles. CAHSR is a terrifying cautionary tale in so many respects -- it would be nice to say 'look at the way they have done it, and do everything different and better' but many of the structural problems wouldn't be resolved by better execution. All this before you get into 'fair' apportionment of construction costs among the several States involved in a given LD route, with the breakdown of traffic for true HSR service being very different from that of something like an electrified Empire Builder service. As far as I have been able to figure, the actual 'spine' HSR provision hasn't really changed from the High Speed Mass Transit days in the mid-Sixties: that system has to be procured, and built, and operated, purely on a Federal scale, with Federal-level funding sources but not the typical Federal-project methods. I see no possibility of even extended-regional or corridor-bridge services on the order required for TACV, let alone class-nine track largely on elevated structures. Remember this is already a country that has thrown up its hands on even practical route electrification -- something for which an example as primitive as the PRR's use of the RFC is still more or less applicable. You need a directed and long-term vision even to start. That's not something the present system of government likely provides outside a military excuse like that for a 'defense highway system'...
The EU and the UK seem to be doing quite well since the rail infrastructure is operated by a single entity in each country with open access. Passenger and freight operators, some quasi-government, some private compete on the same routes. Result? Better services and various fares.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.