HS2 under review

[Horsetan]

.....Columnists are usually people who earned their stripes as journalists and as their reward for all their hard work and previously established credibility ....

The only credibility Julie Burchill has is as a petulant fifty-something teenager.

[Mike Storey]

 

 

The notion of 'fact check' segments is a routine part of contemporary reporting in the US, locally and nationally, in print and on TV.

 

Oh, I thought it was "fat cheque"...?

[Ozexpatriate]

Oh, I thought it was "fat cheque"...?

That's something they use to get the rights to broadcasting sports to make sure there is a ready audience for their political machine. Something not lost on Mr. Murdoch ever since he missed the boat on World Series Cricket to his old nemesis Kerry Packer in the 1970s.

[Horsetan]

..... Something not lost on Mr. Murdoch ever since he missed the boat on World Series Cricket to his old nemesis Kerry Packer in the 1970s.

....and look at what happened to Kerry Packer!

[Ozexpatriate]

....and look at what happened to Kerry Packer!

We're way, way off topic here but I don't see your point.

 

Wikipedia:

At the time of his death, Packer was the richest and one of the most influential men in Australia.

and channel nine still has the rights to broadcast the cricket in Australia.

[Ozexpatriate]

Disregarding the silliness of the Grauniad op ed, what is the real motivation for HS2? 

Is it one or all of these:

• The French did it, and Britain is falling behind with the legacy of the Victorian railway system
• Go green, stop burning so much aviation fuel
• The current system is not competitive with airplanes

This is a genuine question by the way rather than a rhetorical argument - I'm not a supporter or an opponent of the HS2 proposal, though of course I do like trains in general, having had the Rev. Awdry's books at an impressionable age.

 

Why do people need it?
What problem does it solve?

 

Where I live, it is not clear that high-speed rail, like Portland to San Francisco for example (640 miles), would be effective. It's just a bit too far with not enough passengers. Sadly, airplanes do the job better. (Portland to Seattle at 173 miles might but there's still a passenger volume question.)

 

The whole thing is fraught with 'chicken and egg' or 'field of dreams' (build it and they will come) kinds of questions.

[Nedrahn]

Proper journalism involves things like research, fact checking, objective reporting of facts as established by the previous two activities, and, depending upon the context of the finished piece, some logical and defensible analysis. Perhaps my jaundiced view on the matter stems from there being little evidence of any of those practices in the Australian media, it being far easier to publish press releases pretty much verbatim. Particularly disappointing is the fact that the local public broadcaster has just introduced, with some fanfare, a news segment called 'Fact Check', making a feature of something they should have been doing all along but, clearly, haven't.

 

Another disturbing feature of the media landscape here is that various columnists and their radio and TV equivalents, have somehow wormed into the public consciousness as deep and worthwhile thinkers on a variety of fairly significant topics, leading to much of the public being quite seriously, but also quite willingly, ill-informed.

 

Spot on.

 

Somewhat OT, but with regard to Press Releases I'm reminded of an article I wrote about, shall we say, 'A Ferry Company'. I contacted the company looking for publicity photos of the ships, and was shunted on to the media company that handled such things. The woman at the other end very kindly sent me a press pack, no photos, but a lot of pointless blurb and a brief history of the company. I sent it back suitably corrected...

 

Concerning newspapers (sic), it amazes me that people often show contempt for grubby, biased tabloid hatemongers, and yet then parrot some bit of nonsense because it was in the paper, so it must be true. 

[Two_sugars]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story ! ! ! ! ! !

[The Stationmaster]

Disregarding the silliness of the Grauniad op ed, what is the real motivation for HS2? 

 

Is it one or all of these:

• The French did it, and Britain is falling behind with the legacy of the Victorian railway system
• Go green, stop burning so much aviation fuel
• The current system is not competitive with airplanes

This is a genuine question by the way rather than a rhetorical argument - I'm not a supporter or an opponent of the HS2 proposal, though of course I do like trains in general, having had the Rev. Awdry's books at an impressionable age.

 

Why do people need it?

What problem does it solve?

 

Where I live, it is not clear that high-speed rail, like Portland to San Francisco for example (640 miles), would be effective. It's just a bit too far with not enough passengers. Sadly, airplanes do the job better. (Portland to Seattle at 173 miles might but there's still a passenger volume question.)

 

The whole thing is fraught with 'chicken and egg' or 'field of dreams' (build it and they will come) kinds of questions.

 

The simple answer is 'none of those'.  The problem rearing its head, and arguably already with us on the WCML, is capacity.  While Mike Storey is obviously right that businesses cases have to rely on things like passenger numbers and freight tonnages the situation when trying to get those things over a line of railway is rather more complex, and at times complicated.  The passenger business generally demands attractive journey times (which mean higher speeds) and in many cases a particular level of frequency plus it often comes with peaks which are driven not only by the obvious thing of commuters but by the less obvious of the time it takes people to get to a station on a particular in the first place although that has been a moving target over the past two or three decades due to all sorts of other changes in our social fabric.

 

But at the end it boils down to speed and frequency for passengers.  Freight is somewhat different but it has also changed over the years for a variety of reasons almost all of which are driven by economics of one kind or another - this can mean quantity, speed, or even frequency and when it becomes part of a 'just in time' delivery system it also means reliability.  Freight trains (various) also need to be economic to operate and that means making very efficient use of resources plus some traffics are dealt with through terminals which have local planning constraints such as restrictions on the hours when road delivery vehicles can operate.  In total this can mean that the old-fashioned idea of many trains running overnight is no longer either feasible or efficient - some freight flows have to operate 'round the clock' - e.g container trains from ports or trains conveying semi-finished steel as part of the steel production process.

 

The net result on some routes is a difficult traffic mix with just the right things to make infrastructure design awkward - design has to cope for high passenger seeds with, often, relatively small trains while at the same time catering for far longer freight trains running at speeds significantly slower than the fastest passenger trains although they are usually faster overall than stopping passenger trains.  And it is these different characteristics which consume capacity; anyone who can design and plan a railway can design and plan a train service on a line which is used exclusively by a single type of train running to a consistent stopping pattern with standard rates of acceleration and braking.  But start to alter the traffic mix and you need not only more skill but you face a variety of complex decisions.

 

The simple expression of this sort of thing is Eurotunnel which has a standard train path based on a passenger shuttle and the hourly capacity of the Tunnel is expressed in so many paths based on that type of train running at a certain speed with a particular headway, again based on that type of train, designed into the signalling.  If you run a non-standard train it will 'consume' a different number of paths - for example a single Eurostar used to use/consume 3 paths because it runs at a higher speed than that of a passenger shuttlee; equally a 'national railways' freight train also consumes more paths (4 or 5 I seem to recall) but in its case it is because it runs at a slower speed than the shuttle.

 

But on, for example, the WCML there is barely such a thing as a standard path - Pendolinos perhaps come nearest to that as far as the Fast Lines are concerned but even then they vary a bit in stopping patterns, the Slows are a mixture of all sorts.  So it is far more difficult to measure or identify who is consuming the capacity - you simply arrive at an overall situation driven by the established traffic/train mix - but as I've said before what was plain to see even 13 years ago (when I was looking at it in connection with work on asset lifespans) was that the WCML was going to run out of capacity if the forecast number of trains increased to match predicted growth.

 

So if you are going to run out of capacity what do you do?  You have several choices - firstly you can make better use of existing capacity by what Eurotunnel call 'domestication' - the example there being to run Eurostars on standard path timings through the Tunnel thus freeing up two paths for any single Eurostar (the reason most Eurostars are flighted in pairs through the Tunnel is because a flight of two consumes 5 paths, not 6).  But just imagine doing that on a mixed traffic railway such as the WCML or GWML - 75 mph High Speed Trains would lose traffic to road competition at a massive rate as journey times increased and operating costs would rise due to poorer resource utilisation.  So that idea is usually a non starter.

 

The next approach is also a simple idea - you run longer passenger trains to carry more people.  This might result in deceleration with a possible impact on resource use but even if that doesn't happen power use would probably increase and you will need to lengthen station platforms - to paraphrase Kenny Everett 'let's knock down Euston'.   And that is what would have to happen, all along the route - Birmingham New Street could be interesting.

 

So let's try another tack and build additional tracks alongside existing ones - after all the French have done a bit of that and so have the Belgians.  But just imagine doing that from Euston up Camden Bank and then on to Willesden and through Watford - and that's before you get to the well heeled commuter belt.  And you need to work alongside a live railway (when you can) which not only makes the job more difficult but increases costs.  Even without the paraphenalia of modern day safety requirements for work sites near a live railway it would be a difficult job.

 

So you have one alternative left - head for what are largely greenfield sites, generally well clear of existing, especially busy, bits of railway and start from scratch.  It's easier and therefore it's also cheaper and as you're not restricted by matching existing railway geography you can design curvature on a more suitable alignment for today's speeds.  Because if you are going to follow this course you'd be a mug not to match the worldwide general increase in train speeds and you do of course have increasing speed competition (=reduced journey times) to face from other modes.  No need to go mad regarding speed but you need to be looking at about 200mph in my view.

 

Mike Storey asked a question about the HS1 problem - it is a very simple one but has created considerable headaches for planners and operators - the number of platforms at St Pancras International is insufficient, and oddly it was not even sufficient to match the service design spec for CTRL (as it then was).  In my view - and a few calculations - the same happens at the new London terminus for HS2 because while certain things have not been stated on the face of it the station has insufficient platforms to service the frequency spec.  While Euston HS does not have to face certain security considerations which apply at SPI it would still be necessary to turnround trains amazingly quickly in order to get near the full design capacity spec for the route but it should be noted that the problem won't become apparent until well after the line has been in operation and other things - such as the design of vacuum cleaners could well change in that time.

 

Sorry to rattle on but I hope I've answered a couple of questions.

 

edit to correct some typos

Edited November 11, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[caradoc]

The operating problems of a mixed traffic railway so lucidly described by Stationmaster are even more difficult on a double track railway, which is what both the ECML and WCML are for a large proportion of their length. Take the WCML between Carlisle and Glasgow Central for example: Only the two extremities have more than double track (and at the Carlisle end the additional lines are freight-only). While there are alternative routes around Motherwell, and much freight diverges here, there are then conflicts at junctions, none of which have any grade separation.

 

On the WCML in Scotland the following trains operate:

 

125 mph passenger trains

110 mph passenger trains (soon, when the Transpennine Class 350s are introduced)

100 mph passenger trains

 80 mph passenger trains (Scotrail sleepers)

 75 mph passenger trains (Scotrail local services north of Lanark Jc)

 75 mph freight trains

 60 mph freight trains

 

While there are several loops, some of the freights now running are too long for some if not all, which works if every train is on time, but not otherwise. While HS2 (initially) will not address this particular route, this is why the development of such lines is essential for the future of our railways. Constructed at great expense was the M74 Glasgow-Carlisle motorway, on which slow traffic is totally banned: However the same does not apply to the WCML.

[Kenton]

 

the paper that puts the country's security at risk by publishing the secrets that the traitor Snowden has stolen.

If you want to keep a secret there are only two rules.

 

1. don't share it with anyone

2. don't write* it down for someone to be able to share it.

 

The error is not in the person being able to release a secret it is in the breaking of those simple rules.

 

Similarly relevant to this, if you are going to commit murder do not film and record the event.

 

* any other form of record.

 

You cannot blame the "free" press for being "free" with their interpretation. The political persuasion of a newspaper might influence if I will read it or not, the quality of (or otherwise) may also have some influence. But at least we are free to discuss that and they are free (at the moment) to write it.

 

On HS2, I think it was the right solution for 20 even 50 years ago but it is doing nothing for the now or immediate future and I do not see it as being the solution for 50 years from now. It just is not innovative or inspiring or far reaching enough. It affects only a small number of people and bring potential improvement to so few.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Kenton

[Mod6]

Apart from a bit of OT posting, this is now covering similar material to the other HS2 topic - any objections to merging them before we have two significant parallel topics running?

 

EDIT - OK done

[Ozexpatriate]

But at the end it boils down to speed and frequency for passengers.  Freight is somewhat different ...

Mike, thanks for your in depth reply.

 

My impression was that the HS2 proposal was intended solely for passenger services. Is this correct?

 

The most interesting thing I learned about French TGV line design is that achievable speed with electric traction is a function of alignment, not gradient. So instead of meandering up valleys to find the lowest gradient like traditional canal and railway builders did,TGV tends to go more straight, up and over in its line profiles. Furthermore, downhill traction regeneration helps make up for the uphill grades. (Yes, this is a simplistic view.) This illustration has kicked around the web for years. I'm not sure how much difference this makes to route planning for HS2 though.

 

Sorry if there are duplicates here (I haven't trawled though the 52 pages of this thread) and joined in only with the op ed in the Guardian.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Ozexpatriate

[Mike Storey]

Mike, thanks for your in depth reply.

 

My impression was that the HS2 proposal was intended solely for passenger services. Is this correct?

 

The most interesting thing I learned about French TGV line design is that achievable speed with electric traction is a function of alignment, not gradient. So instead of meandering up valleys to find the lowest gradient like traditional canal and railway builders did,TGV tends to go more straight, up and over in its line profiles. Furthermore, downhill traction regeneration helps make up for the uphill grades. (Yes, this is a simplistic view.) I'm not sure how much difference this makes to route planning for HS2 though.

 

Sorry if there are duplicates here (I haven't trawled though the 52 pages of this thread) and joined in only with the op ed in the Guardian.

 

HS2 is designed primarily for passenger train use (although mixed use at night is a possibility, but that would require sufficient freight locos to be equipped with appropriate on-board equipment to suit the advanced signalling, which is not likely to be economic), but one of the key objectives is thus to free existing, conventional routes for more freight paths, by displacement of existing passenger services. Freight train path demand has been growing, on average, even faster than passenger pathing demand, since privatisation, so it is a key need out of all this. Controversy rages over this balance - will too many existing passenger services to stations not to be served by HS2, lose too many services to freight paths as a result.

 

HS1 was largely designed to LGV topographic up-and-over principles, but then so are almost all French Autoroutes - which make them very power and fuel hungry. As regenerative technology improves, this energy inefficiency may matter less on high speed rail routes, but the go-around-or-under-hills principle traditionally used was to allow less powerful (and thus cheaper) motive power and heavier trains to operate, when speed was constrained well below current capabilities. The Italians have used a mix of winding and straight within their high speed routes, to the benefit of their (successful) tilting train technology (although now foreign-owned). The Spanish, Belgians, Dutch and Chinese use French technology, and the Germans use their own version of the French approach. Shinkansen routes in Japan evolved over time, progressing from pretty level in 1960's to big dipper as each line was built and motive power technology improved. The HS2 route has to achieve a great deal more consensus over routing, due to a very high population density, a population highly resistant to localised, potentially detrimental change (whatever the perceived wider benefit) and other planning constraints. Whilst the LGV approach is the simplest, it may not be possible to go "straight" where optimum topographically, given these other problems, which exist far less in most other countries.

 

Not sure why a 600 mile hi speed route is considered "too far" in the US? That would take around 3.5 hours to transit (if 200mph used), which compares very favourably to a short haul flight, when considering check-in, extended security, interminable walks/buggy rides around and waiting in airports plus gaining and losing altitude. The Chinese system involves transits much greater than that, as do many European systems to a lesser extent, and virtually all are successful.

[Joseph_Pestell]

My recollection is that when St Pancras was first proposed as a Eurostar terminal, Waterloo was to be retained for part of the service - thus providing enough platform capacity. Then someone realised that having two depots would be costly and the economics of HS1 Phase 2 were not so good without everything going to St Pancras (back then there was stilll capacity needed on HS1 for trains to Manchester etc.).

 

So, as usual where infrastructure investment is involved in this country (under all Governments), the decision was fudged.

[Adrian Wintle]

Not sure why a 600 mile hi speed route is considered "too far" in the US? That would take around 3.5 hours to transit (if 200mph used), which compares very favourably to a short haul flight, when considering check-in, extended security, interminable walks/buggy rides around and waiting in airports plus gaining and losing altitude. The Chinese system involves transits much greater than that, as do many European systems to a lesser extent, and virtually all are successful.

 

The real issue is whether there is a consistent traffic volume that is travelling exclusively between the end points. If they are actually going other places, then the delays of changing travel modes outweigh the possible advantages of rail travel. Air transport has a couple of advantages over rail transport in that it's routing is more flexible and it is easier to scale capacity on an as-required basis. Note also that the scheduled flight time from PDX to SFO is 2:05, so the train would need to be something special for passengers to accept an extra 75% travel time, even if the hassles on each end were less.

 

Also, the Portland-San Francisco corridor mentioned has few population centres on it, so there is little scope for intermediate stops (Eugene and Sacramento would probably be the only viable ones), so the economics really would have to built on the end-to-end traffic.

 

The problem with high-speed rail in North America is distance and population density. Add to that a lack of the Chinese 'build it over any objections and at any cost' attitude, and it is unlikely to happen except in a few shortish corridors. The NE corridor (Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington) is the only current 'high speed' corridor, although a couple of others have been mooted (e.g Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis, San Francisco-Los Angeles).

 

Adrian

Edited November 12, 2013 by Adrian Wintle

[Re6/6]

It was interesting to hear 'Hezza' on the 'Today' programme this morning pitching in with support for HS2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24909070

 

Good to see something reported accurately in the Grauniad after that awful 'trainspotters' piece http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/12/hs2-cost-benefit-estimates-mumbo-jumbo-heseltine

 

On the opposite side was a Prof. Henry Overman (a professor of economic geography) who was arguing about the figures for 'cost benefit analysis' and saying that the money would be better spent on alternative transport upgrades, rolling out this now discredited idea.

 

During the exchanges between the two protagonists Justin Webb, the interviewer, pointed out the IED report (£80B cost figure) was rubbished and said to be inaccurate. At least that can be seen as an admission by the BBC news dept that they were wrong in making such an issue about it whilst leading with in on all the BBC news outlets for most of the day. I recall at the time there was very little airtime given to the opposite views and counter arguments. As ever, no proper checking, research or calculation was done before making it a 'newsworthy' item.

 

It would be good if they (the BBC) broadcast the true voting percentage figures of the IOD report. "A majority of the IOD is against the project" (or words to that effect)...60% (majority) of 4% of the membership that reported back in the poll.  

Edited November 12, 2013 by Re6/6

[10800]

Maybe Nigel Harris' open letter editorial in Rail found some ears in the BBC then?

[Re6/6]

Maybe Nigel Harris' open letter editorial in Rail found some ears in the BBC then?

I look forward to the reply from the BBC Trust, if he gets one. I'm not holding my breath that there'll be any admission of bias.

[Mike Storey]

The real issue is whether there is a consistent traffic volume that is travelling exclusively between the end points. If they are actually going other places, then the delays of changing travel modes outweigh the possible advantages of rail travel. Air transport has a couple of advantages over rail transport in that it's routing is more flexible and it is easier to scale capacity on an as-required basis. Note also that the scheduled flight time from PDX to SFO is 2:05, so the train would need to be something special for passengers to accept an extra 75% travel time, even if the hassles on each end were less.

 

Also, the Portland-San Francisco corridor mentioned has few population centres on it, so there is little scope for intermediate stops (Eugene and Sacramento would probably be the only viable ones), so the economics really would have to built on the end-to-end traffic.

 

The problem with high-speed rail in North America is distance and population density. Add to that a lack of the Chinese 'build it over any objections and at any cost' attitude, and it is unlikely to happen except in a few shortish corridors. The NE corridor (Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington) is the only current 'high speed' corridor, although a couple of others have been mooted (e.g Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis, San Francisco-Los Angeles).

 

Adrian

 

Thanks Adrian, but London - Paris flight time is a scheduled c.1.5 hours (depending on which airport to which airport), but Eurostar has decimated airline market share with a 2.5 hrs (ave) journey time, despite similar check in and security/ border control issues. However, I accept we are dealing with completely different market sizes.

 

I do so hope SF - LA is still very much on the cards for a High Speed rail link, as two of my closest work colleagues, before I retired, emigrated over there to work on it!!!

[jamie92208]

Thanks Adrian, but London - Paris flight time is a scheduled c.1.5 hours (depending on which airport to which airport), but Eurostar has decimated airline market share with a 2.5 hrs (ave) journey time, despite similar check in and security/ border control issues. However, I accept we are dealing with completely different market sizes.

 

I do so hope SF - LA is still very much on the cards for a High Speed rail link, as two of my closest work colleagues, before I retired, emigrated over there to work on it!!!

According to the latest issue of Trains (a 2 page spread) the first work on SF-LA should start in the next couple of months from Fresno north  followed by South from Fresno.

 

Jamie

[The Stationmaster]

My recollection is that when St Pancras was first proposed as a Eurostar terminal, Waterloo was to be retained for part of the service - thus providing enough platform capacity. Then someone realised that having two depots would be costly and the economics of HS1 Phase 2 were not so good without everything going to St Pancras (back then there was stilll capacity needed on HS1 for trains to Manchester etc.).

 

So, as usual where infrastructure investment is involved in this country (under all Governments), the decision was fudged.

The original proposal was indeed to retain Waterloo and - more importantly North Pole Depot (with no intention to create a second depot beyond a possible stabling site, the intention being that all trains would run from St Pancras to North Pole if they required any sort of servicing beyond a turnround interior clean).

 

But LCR decided to change that original proposal for a number of very good reasons (and possibly one or two not so good ones, as follows -

 

Retaining Waterloo was always going to constrain the 'shape of the train service for some very good reasons which I'm not going to explain at this time of night,

Secondly there seems to have been an increasing view that the level of business was insufficient to support two terminals with all their associated costs (not just Eurostar staff but also paying for all the border security in its various forms).

But there was a view that getting out of Waterloo would deter many passengers from a sector stretching south & west of London (I believe that has to some extent turned out to be the case)

Using North Pole for empties to/from St Pancras required a very expensive reversing siding to be built at White City.

Using North Pole required all the 'Three Capitals' sets to be equipped with a BR ICMU for running over lines electrified with BR 25kv electrification which meant modifying the entire fleet.

Coming out of Waterloo would allow all the 3rd rail pick up kit to be removed with its very occasional reliability problems when it came to lifting the shoes (which were out of gauge in France).

Coming out of Waterloo completely would avoid the very hefty rent being paid for office accommodation there but it would involve expensive relocation of the training school and simulator.

 

I don't know any of the numbers but the passenger service impact apart and the lack of platform space at St Pancras ignored there would seem to have been a very good financial case for coming out of Waterloo and consequently North Pole as well.  (incidentally the number of platforms at Waterloo was also inadequate)

[Ozexpatriate]

Not sure why a 600 mile hi speed route is considered "too far" in the US? That would take around 3.5 hours to transit (if 200mph used), which compares very favourably to a short haul flight, when considering check-in, extended security, interminable walks/buggy rides around and waiting in airports plus gaining and losing altitude.

The likely volume of passengers is already served by aircraft. Increasing the capacity won't increase the demand. Plus there are three major airports in the bay area offering a wider choice of destinations than one railway station - which in the bay area was a thorny problem even when rail was the king of passenger transportation.

 

In any case, the opinion offered was not mine but directly from someone who is very much a HS2 insider. He considered it the extreme range of viability where the two modes of transport intercept in terms of door-to-door journey time and the passenger volume/frequency factors become the deciding point.

[Ozexpatriate]

 Note also that the scheduled flight time from PDX to SFO is 2:05, so the train would need to be something special for passengers to accept an extra 75% travel time, even if the hassles on each end were less.

 

Also, the Portland-San Francisco corridor mentioned has few population centres on it, so there is little scope for intermediate stops (Eugene and Sacramento would probably be the only viable ones), so the economics really would have to built on the end-to-end traffic.

Flight times to the Bay area from PDX are tricky. On one carrier, PDX-SFO and PDX-OAK are scheduled for about 2:00 hours. On other carriers PDX-SFO is 1:50 or even a spread of 1:40 - 1:50 depending on time of day.  Flights from PDX-SJC (which is actually a slightly longer distance) are about 1:40. Actual wheels-up time is less than this for all these flights. I suspect that the extra time is for ground congestion and there is also the possibility that the route is served by turboprops - which in that case takes longer in the air.

 

Sacramento is actually a little dogleg out of the most direct route from Portland to San Francisco, but it is on the USHSR route plan for phase 3. Eugene (pop. 158,000) is not a big passenger volume contributor, except perhaps for University students at the end of term, or for college football games, (were there to be college football specials!)

 

I do so hope SF - LA is still very much on the cards for a High Speed rail link, as two of my closest work colleagues, before I retired, emigrated over there to work on it!!!

You can find the current US high speed rail plan here. It is 382 miles from LA - SF (Google) so this could well be a very viable route. It is listed as scheduled for 2015 by the US HSRA. This is wildly optimistic and won't happen in that timeframe.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Ozexpatriate

[Adrian Wintle]

Flight times to the Bay area from PDX are tricky. On one carrier, PDX-SFO and PDX-OAK are scheduled for about 2:00 hours. On other carriers PDX-SFO is 1:50 or even a spread of 1:40 - 1:50 depending on time of day.  Flights from PDX-SJC (which is actually a slightly longer distance) are about 1:40. Actual wheels-up time is less than this for all these flights. I suspect that the extra time is for ground congestion and there is also the possibility that the route is served by turboprops - which in that case takes longer in the air.

 

Sacramento is actually a little dogleg out of the most direct route from Portland to San Francisco, but it is on the USHSR route plan for phase 3. Eugene (pop. 158,000) is not a big passenger volume contributor, except perhaps for University students at the end of term, or for college football games, (were there to be college football specials!)

 

You can find the current US high speed rail plan here. It is 382 miles from LA - SF (Google) so this could well be a very viable route. It is listed as scheduled for 2015 by the US HSRA. This is wildly optimistic and won't happen in that timeframe.

 

I just popped PDX to SFO into AA's booking system and the first flight that came up was 2:05. With even faster gate-gate times the business case for HSR gets worse. I mentioned Eugene as it is the only city of any size on the direct route between Portland and SF - it may give an idea of the issues to realize that there is effectively no intermediate stop or traffic on that route. Also, as I understand  it, the engineering of the route may be a bit challenging (read; expensive) in the northen CA/southern OR area (something about mountains...)

 

I hadn't realized that there was actually any activity on the US HSR plan - I thought it was still a pipe dream.

 

Adrian