|Quoting JoFMO (Reply 57):|
You need a certain runtime to get high yield passengers from the airlines. This time is usually considered as under 3 hours. So without running at 225mph/360km/h ,which is best practice in now, you would loose out on a very important proportion of customers, time conscious passengers Bay Area - Los Angeles.
Not arguing that. But is it still economical for three times the cost to initially build it?
|Quoting JoFMO (Reply 57):|
It will definitely not be an Acela. Acela train sets are tilting trains and fulfill the ridiculous US crash test requirements. That makes them very heavy and they destroy the track much more than normal trains. Acela also runs only 250km/h.
California will buy complete different real new high speed trains. Most likely from Japan, Germany or France. But don't rule out the Spaniards, Koreans or Bombardier. Manufacturing will most likely be in the USA anyway.
I emphasized your post to point out key arguments. First, would the foreign built trains even to fulfill the US crash requirements? Do not get me wrong, I know they are very safe and have great to outstanding safety records, but can they apply to the current US regulations?
Second, this is the first I've heard of Acela trains destroying tracks. Also, I failed to find a link to say otherwise. I would like to see your source please. Not saying I don't believe you, just never heard of this.
Third, and all honesty, Bombardier already developed the jet train, which in my opinion would be the best option. It eliminates the need for a catenary system, thus saving costs on maintenance and the initial purchase.
Another point to use the jet train: eliminates the need for much needed electricity. As we all know, this state already has enough problems regarding power, so a self powered jet train would be a better alternative.
|Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):|
Ever been down the Central Valley? It's a huge, long, flat expanse. There will only be a few slow spots through the mountains at the south end of the Central Valley and at the very north where you have to curve around from one valley into the other. For the vast majority of the trip, the route could run right next to I-5, which is an almost perfectly straight line.
The sticky point would be from Bakersfield - Los Angeles - San Diego. True, a majority of the trip is flat, and I don't think San Fransisco would be too much of a problem, just San Diego to Bakersfield.
|Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 61):|
So is the southern half of Germany (loads of hills and mountain ranges) or Spain. Tunneling today is much cheaper using tunnel drills than it was years ago using conventional means like drilling and blasting. Even blasting is cheaper today and goes fasterwith the new mobile large shothole drills as used in rock quarries.You can easily remove several twnthousand tons of rock in one go.
But does this take into account of the issuance/laws/etc CA
has in place? Blasting is virtually unheard of (in populated areas) which could mean everything is done by drilling. Not necessarily a bad thing, just could be very expensive. The key here is are the builders ready to overcome all the red tape?
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.