🚀 go-pugleaf

Stephen Sprunk wrote, On 2008-11-07 10:16:
> Lüko Willms wrote:
>> Am Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:57:43 UTC,  schrieb Stephen Sprunk 
>> <stephen@sprunk.org>  auf misc.transport.rail.americas :
>>> CAHSRA is obviously going to have to go with non-FRA trains under 
>>> some sort of waiver to get to their 200mph+ goal.  If CalTrain goes 
>>> non-FRA as well, they could share tracks, provided there is 
>>> sufficient ability for the HSTs to pass slower commuter trains.  It 
>>> would really hurt both systems to have completely segregated tracks.
>>
>>   Not if they can share some big stations for interchange between fast
>> and slow trains. 
> 
> The problem isn't stations or interchange of passengers; the problem is 
> that many parts of the ROW aren't wide enough for four tracks, which 
> means that if commuter and HSR trains can't share, one or the other will 
> have to be single-tracked part of the way, which hurts capacity and 
> causes any late trains to snowball.  Even if you could manage to get two 
> tracks for each, multiple stopping patterns (e.g. local commuter, 
> express commuter, local intercity, suburban intercity, nonstop 
> intercity, etc.) are much more difficult; three or four tracks for all 
> trains gives a lot more flexibility -- provided you have sufficient 
> interlockings.

It's trivial if you design your timetable and rolling stock
and infrastructure together to function as an efficient system.
eg 
http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/Caltrain-Timetabling/200710-Hillsdale-FLIRT-HSR.pdf

Tragically, the CHSRA program has been explictly designated a
contractor welfare and cost-maximization program, so this is certain
not to happen: the corrupt agency's route choice of the highest cost,
highest construction risk, least ridership potential, most-PBQD-
enriching, least-multi-use "alternative" in Northern California
screams this policy at the top volume to everybody in or wanting in
on the engineering/construction racket.

The course that has been set will play out like this: ignorant and
incompetent (guaranteed by definition) and likely rent-seeking
(ie corrupt as well) US transportation consultants will create
study papers, based on advanced US rail signalling practices
and rolling stock and maintenance levels, that show that four to
six parallel tracks are "necessary" to "meet service goals"
"reliably" in light of "industry practice" and "mix of traffic."
Then it becomes "necessary" to maximize construction cost in
order to satisfy the "requirements" identified in the "studies".
Everybody wins!

There's no-one anywhere in the process who has any interest
in cost containment or in system optimization.  There's no
place where any expert (ie non-US, non-English-as-a-first-language)
review will be used as other than a rubber stamp, and overriding
it all there is simply no political interest anywhere in maximizing
public benefit.

That's just how things play out around here.
Too bad for the world.