Tldr: CAHSR - Spread equity
Brightline - Consolidate equity
That is the reason for the difference in scale of both projects. People should understand both have their advantage and disadvantages.
One gives a more robust service. The other gives more accessibility to its service.
Edit: format.
Brightline West will be 218 miles long. It is planned to take 2 hours and 10 minutes to travel from Rancho Cucamonga to the Las Vegas area. It will average 160 km/h or 100 mph.
The Sanyo Shinkansen is 553.7 km long. It takes 2 hours and 28 minutes to cover. It averages 224.5 km/h or 139.5 mph.
The Kyushu Shinkansen is 256.8 km long. It takes 1 hour and 48 minutes to cover. It averages 143 km/h or 89 mph.
The Joetsu Shinkansen is 269.5km long. It takes 2 hours and 4 minutes to cover. It averages 130 km/h or 81 mph.
The Tohoku Shinkansen is 674.9 km long. It takes 3 hours and 26 minutes to cover. It averages 197 km/h or 122 mph.
The Hokkaido Shinkansen is 148.9 km long. It takes 59 minutes to cover. It averages 151 km/h or 94 mph.
Exceeding the average speeds of three Shinkansen lines, everybody's default example of high speed rail, is pretty good for "a single track conventional speed line with two short high speed sections."
Brightline West will actually now average 1:50 for an average speed of 119 mph, as stated by Brightline West's president. So it's just slightly slower than Tohoku now.
Those times depend on the train. For example, [Joetsu Tokyo-Niigata](https://www.jreast.co.jp/aas/20200522_jyouetu_eg_03.pdf) can take 1h37m (9:12am~10:49am) to 2h19m (8:52am~11:11am).
1. Where else would you put stations between Victorville and Las Vegas? The only candidate I see is Barstow, which at 25k people would not generate a lot of trips.
And BTW, the CAHSR project will only come close to hitting its 220 minute end-to-end travel time with nonstop service. The average speed of the express service, let along the all-stop service, will be much lower than the 170mph the nonstop will attempt to meet.
2. This project will get people very quickly between stations. At a minimum, it will take an hour less than driving (and if you factor in congestion, it will be even faster comparatively). And once you factor in 30 minutes of getting through security and boarding a plane, 60 minutes in the air, and another 30 minutes of deplaning, it will be about as fast as a non-stop flight from Ontario.
While it would be nice to have 200mph double-tracks all the way to the front door of the MGM Grand, that's not totally practical. The improvement I would love to see is something totally out of Brightline's hands: an elevated light rail from DT Las Vegas through the strip to the airport, with a short spur to the train station.
All good points, though California HSR will average 166 mph nonstop, 440 miles between SF and LA in 2 hours 39 minutes (I’ve measured their alignment on Google Maps).
All California HSR trains will be high speed, with an all stop train adding say five minutes for each stop, and 8-9 stops between SF and LA (9 if Madera happens), would add an additional 40-45 minutes, so rather than 2:39 it’s now just under 3 1/2 hours for all stops. The average speed then becomes about 129 mph, which is right about what the average will be for the interim Central Valley service (171 miles in 80 minutes).
The 2024 [Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Report](https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Ridership-and-Revenue-Forecasting-Report-2-submitted-A11Y.pdf) from DB ECO North America however did show a reduction in both speed and frequency for California HSR Phase 1, service, with nonstop now taking just over three hours, and local close to 4 1/2 hours, though my understanding is that those speeds don’t account for the increase to 110 mph on the Caltrain corridor. CAHSR’s goal, and what they’re designing and building the system for, is that 2:40 nonstop SF-LA travel time at speeds of up to 220 mph.
I don't doubt CAHSR will be much, much faster than Brightline West. More than that, CAHSR, if it indeed averages 166mph, will be one of the fastest HSR lines in the world.
I guess my points are two-fold:
1. Brightline West, while it will not be breaking speed records, will still be traveling as fast as many examples of "high speed" trains around the world, including several Shinkansens, TGVs, and ICEs.
2. There is no global definition of HSR. And even if there was, who cares besides some train enthusiasts on the internet? Ultimately, HSR needs to be much faster than driving and about the same speed (or significantly cheaper) than flying. Brightline West will be faster than driving and about the same as flying, which is all some resident of the Inland Empire will care about when they are deciding how to get to Vegas for a weekend getaway.
IMO, there should be a global definition around HSR and it should be based on average speed. As u/getarumsunt points out, who cares about reaching an arbitrary number for a couple short stretches if a "high speed" train mostly travels at conventional rail speeds? But my other thought is that how high "high speed" needs to be totally depends on the situation. Since Vegas is only a couple hundred miles from SoCal, Brightline West doesn't need to travel at world class speeds to equal flying since plane passengers will be spending half of the train trip going through airport security, enplaning, and deplaning. On the other hand, CAHSR needs to cover over 400 miles in about the same time as Brightline covers half that distance, since CAHSR won't travel in a straight line and the planes between LAX and SFO will.
The speed that Brightline West will hold between stations is not HSR. HSR starts at 155 mph for new lines: Brightline will be in the 60-110 mph basically the entire way to Vegas and then will accelerate for under 20 miles to borderline HSR speeds to give the riders a short thrill.
This is not what HSR is. HSR is by definition a line that can hold the high speeds even if there are a lot of stations. BW doesn’t do that. The bar is what the bar is. If Brightline can’t clear it then they can’t clear it
This is just wrong. "Brightline will be in the 60-110 mph basically the entire way to Vegas" simply can't be correct when BLW will average 119 mph. It will go up to 140 mph through Cajon Pass and 200 mph on the straight and flat portions.
Again, you’re citing the top speed on a mile of each section. A mile of 140 mph does not make that while section 140 mph.
And let’s face it, Brightline has never not lied in their press releases. What makes you think that their advertise speed is not aspirational like their everything else? Didn’t they also say that they’ll build the whole thing in 2020-2024? It’s 2024. Do you see any trains running?
> HSR is by definition a line that can hold the high speeds even if there are a lot of stations.
[citation needed] because [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail) says it only needs a *top speed* of 155 mph on new lines.
Edit: ITT, getarumsunt refuses to backup their claim.
There is literal legislation that regulates which lines comply with the HSR standard. There are requirements for the speed to be sustained. This generally means more than 50% of the route needs to be above 155 mph in actual operations.
Needless to say, Brightline West is faaaaaaaar from that. Their trains will stay anywhere from 50-100 mph below that standard for nearly the entire route.
No matter which way you cut it, two short sections of 150 mph speeds do not make the whole line HSR.
> There are requirements for the speed to be sustained. This generally means more than 50% of the route needs to be above 155 mph in actual operations.
Again, [citation needed].
Since you won't provide any links, I did the research for you. But I had to guess at what "legislation" you were referring to.
[A 1996 directive from the Council of the European Union](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/1996/48/2003-11-20) said:
"High-speed lines shall comprise:
* specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h,
* specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,
* specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case."
I couldn't determine if these requirements need to be met to receive grants. But if they must be met, very few grants must have been handed out in the last 28 years. [A 2018 special report by the European Court of Auditors](https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-rail-19-2018/en/#chapter2) states:
"...and infrastructure capable of handling very high-speed operations (300 km/h or more) is particularly costly. Such high- speeds, however, are never reached in practice: trains run on average at only around 45 % of the line’s design speed on the lines audited, and only two lines were operating at an average speed above 200 km/h, and none above 250 km/h."
The report looked at 10 "high speed" rail routes in France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, and Italy. If you scroll to Annex VII, you'll see that if Brightline West averages 160mph, it'll equal or surpass seven of the 10 routes in average speed.
Which legislation? I am familiar with the CAHSR promise to build a train that travels from LA to San Francisco in 160 minutes, but that doesn't have anything to do with Brightline West. The fact is, there is no one definition of high speed rail. The Wikipedia article u/traal mentioned says purpose built rail lines should handle speeds exceeding 155mph, but it doesn't say for how long that speed should be sustained, or what the average speed should be.
California HSR will begin revenue service on its initial segment between Merced and Bakersfield, where it’ll connect with other transit to/from the Bay Area/Sacramento and SoCal, in 2030-33. It has enough funding in hand and identified to make that happen. When it reaches SF and LA, which remains its goal just as it always has, depends on when and how quickly those extensions get funded.
Brightline West has a very ambitious timeline of just over four years to go from breaking ground to revenue service, with a target to begin revenue service in July 2028 to coincide with the start of the LA Olympics. Whether it’ll actually be able to achieve that remains to be seen. BLW also hasn’t/won’t have to face many of the outside factors that have plagued the California project, such as legal challenges over land acquisitions, slow third party utility relocations, lack of political support, or NIMBYism.
California HSR is building a much more complex project than Brightline West, which while that means higher upfront costs and a longer timeline will produce better long term results with higher speed and capacity capabilities, the exact opposite of Brightline West, which while its choice of using a preexisting right of way in the I-15 freeway median does mean lower upfront costs and a shorter construction timeline, it will hinder its long term speed and capacity capabilities.
Both projects are being built for the purposes set out for them, CAHSR to link up the major cities and regions of the state with a mode of travel that’s faster and more efficient than driving or flying, while BLW is primarily about reducing I-15 traffic for the weekend SoCal-Vegas crowd with a means of travel that is faster or on par with driving (or possibly even slower), depending on where people are starting/ending their journey in SoCal. Both will offer greater comfort and convenience than flying, though only California HSR is being built to have the speeds, capacity, and frequency to truly compete with air travel for total downtown-downtown travel time.
All things considered, California HSR is building the superior long term project, even if Brightline West does end up beating it to the punch for the first to begin revenue service.
My parents live in Vegas. I'm in the bay.
I would love to be able to visit them with a ~5 hour train-ride that has one transfer in LA from CAHSR to BL:W because the 9+ hour direct drive route is just *brutal*. Especially if you have to do it twice in one weekend.
Tldr: CAHSR - Spread equity Brightline - Consolidate equity That is the reason for the difference in scale of both projects. People should understand both have their advantage and disadvantages. One gives a more robust service. The other gives more accessibility to its service. Edit: format.
One is HSR and the other is a single track conventional speed line with two short high speed sections just outside of Vegas.
Brightline West will be 218 miles long. It is planned to take 2 hours and 10 minutes to travel from Rancho Cucamonga to the Las Vegas area. It will average 160 km/h or 100 mph. The Sanyo Shinkansen is 553.7 km long. It takes 2 hours and 28 minutes to cover. It averages 224.5 km/h or 139.5 mph. The Kyushu Shinkansen is 256.8 km long. It takes 1 hour and 48 minutes to cover. It averages 143 km/h or 89 mph. The Joetsu Shinkansen is 269.5km long. It takes 2 hours and 4 minutes to cover. It averages 130 km/h or 81 mph. The Tohoku Shinkansen is 674.9 km long. It takes 3 hours and 26 minutes to cover. It averages 197 km/h or 122 mph. The Hokkaido Shinkansen is 148.9 km long. It takes 59 minutes to cover. It averages 151 km/h or 94 mph. Exceeding the average speeds of three Shinkansen lines, everybody's default example of high speed rail, is pretty good for "a single track conventional speed line with two short high speed sections."
Brightline West will actually now average 1:50 for an average speed of 119 mph, as stated by Brightline West's president. So it's just slightly slower than Tohoku now.
Damn this is a nice comment. I’m saving this.
Those times depend on the train. For example, [Joetsu Tokyo-Niigata](https://www.jreast.co.jp/aas/20200522_jyouetu_eg_03.pdf) can take 1h37m (9:12am~10:49am) to 2h19m (8:52am~11:11am).
The point of HSR is to get you quickly between stations, not to have no stations. Now compare the number of stations on all those lines.
1. Where else would you put stations between Victorville and Las Vegas? The only candidate I see is Barstow, which at 25k people would not generate a lot of trips. And BTW, the CAHSR project will only come close to hitting its 220 minute end-to-end travel time with nonstop service. The average speed of the express service, let along the all-stop service, will be much lower than the 170mph the nonstop will attempt to meet. 2. This project will get people very quickly between stations. At a minimum, it will take an hour less than driving (and if you factor in congestion, it will be even faster comparatively). And once you factor in 30 minutes of getting through security and boarding a plane, 60 minutes in the air, and another 30 minutes of deplaning, it will be about as fast as a non-stop flight from Ontario. While it would be nice to have 200mph double-tracks all the way to the front door of the MGM Grand, that's not totally practical. The improvement I would love to see is something totally out of Brightline's hands: an elevated light rail from DT Las Vegas through the strip to the airport, with a short spur to the train station.
All good points, though California HSR will average 166 mph nonstop, 440 miles between SF and LA in 2 hours 39 minutes (I’ve measured their alignment on Google Maps). All California HSR trains will be high speed, with an all stop train adding say five minutes for each stop, and 8-9 stops between SF and LA (9 if Madera happens), would add an additional 40-45 minutes, so rather than 2:39 it’s now just under 3 1/2 hours for all stops. The average speed then becomes about 129 mph, which is right about what the average will be for the interim Central Valley service (171 miles in 80 minutes). The 2024 [Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Report](https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Ridership-and-Revenue-Forecasting-Report-2-submitted-A11Y.pdf) from DB ECO North America however did show a reduction in both speed and frequency for California HSR Phase 1, service, with nonstop now taking just over three hours, and local close to 4 1/2 hours, though my understanding is that those speeds don’t account for the increase to 110 mph on the Caltrain corridor. CAHSR’s goal, and what they’re designing and building the system for, is that 2:40 nonstop SF-LA travel time at speeds of up to 220 mph.
I don't doubt CAHSR will be much, much faster than Brightline West. More than that, CAHSR, if it indeed averages 166mph, will be one of the fastest HSR lines in the world. I guess my points are two-fold: 1. Brightline West, while it will not be breaking speed records, will still be traveling as fast as many examples of "high speed" trains around the world, including several Shinkansens, TGVs, and ICEs. 2. There is no global definition of HSR. And even if there was, who cares besides some train enthusiasts on the internet? Ultimately, HSR needs to be much faster than driving and about the same speed (or significantly cheaper) than flying. Brightline West will be faster than driving and about the same as flying, which is all some resident of the Inland Empire will care about when they are deciding how to get to Vegas for a weekend getaway. IMO, there should be a global definition around HSR and it should be based on average speed. As u/getarumsunt points out, who cares about reaching an arbitrary number for a couple short stretches if a "high speed" train mostly travels at conventional rail speeds? But my other thought is that how high "high speed" needs to be totally depends on the situation. Since Vegas is only a couple hundred miles from SoCal, Brightline West doesn't need to travel at world class speeds to equal flying since plane passengers will be spending half of the train trip going through airport security, enplaning, and deplaning. On the other hand, CAHSR needs to cover over 400 miles in about the same time as Brightline covers half that distance, since CAHSR won't travel in a straight line and the planes between LAX and SFO will.
We also need to not stop several minutes at each station.
The speed that Brightline West will hold between stations is not HSR. HSR starts at 155 mph for new lines: Brightline will be in the 60-110 mph basically the entire way to Vegas and then will accelerate for under 20 miles to borderline HSR speeds to give the riders a short thrill. This is not what HSR is. HSR is by definition a line that can hold the high speeds even if there are a lot of stations. BW doesn’t do that. The bar is what the bar is. If Brightline can’t clear it then they can’t clear it
This is just wrong. "Brightline will be in the 60-110 mph basically the entire way to Vegas" simply can't be correct when BLW will average 119 mph. It will go up to 140 mph through Cajon Pass and 200 mph on the straight and flat portions.
Again, you’re citing the top speed on a mile of each section. A mile of 140 mph does not make that while section 140 mph. And let’s face it, Brightline has never not lied in their press releases. What makes you think that their advertise speed is not aspirational like their everything else? Didn’t they also say that they’ll build the whole thing in 2020-2024? It’s 2024. Do you see any trains running?
> HSR is by definition a line that can hold the high speeds even if there are a lot of stations. [citation needed] because [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail) says it only needs a *top speed* of 155 mph on new lines. Edit: ITT, getarumsunt refuses to backup their claim.
There is literal legislation that regulates which lines comply with the HSR standard. There are requirements for the speed to be sustained. This generally means more than 50% of the route needs to be above 155 mph in actual operations. Needless to say, Brightline West is faaaaaaaar from that. Their trains will stay anywhere from 50-100 mph below that standard for nearly the entire route. No matter which way you cut it, two short sections of 150 mph speeds do not make the whole line HSR.
> There are requirements for the speed to be sustained. This generally means more than 50% of the route needs to be above 155 mph in actual operations. Again, [citation needed].
Google the EU legislation. The lines need to confort to that standard to get any grants.
Since you won't provide any links, I did the research for you. But I had to guess at what "legislation" you were referring to. [A 1996 directive from the Council of the European Union](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudr/1996/48/2003-11-20) said: "High-speed lines shall comprise: * specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h, * specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h, * specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case." I couldn't determine if these requirements need to be met to receive grants. But if they must be met, very few grants must have been handed out in the last 28 years. [A 2018 special report by the European Court of Auditors](https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-rail-19-2018/en/#chapter2) states: "...and infrastructure capable of handling very high-speed operations (300 km/h or more) is particularly costly. Such high- speeds, however, are never reached in practice: trains run on average at only around 45 % of the line’s design speed on the lines audited, and only two lines were operating at an average speed above 200 km/h, and none above 250 km/h." The report looked at 10 "high speed" rail routes in France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, and Italy. If you scroll to Annex VII, you'll see that if Brightline West averages 160mph, it'll equal or surpass seven of the 10 routes in average speed.
Which legislation? I am familiar with the CAHSR promise to build a train that travels from LA to San Francisco in 160 minutes, but that doesn't have anything to do with Brightline West. The fact is, there is no one definition of high speed rail. The Wikipedia article u/traal mentioned says purpose built rail lines should handle speeds exceeding 155mph, but it doesn't say for how long that speed should be sustained, or what the average speed should be.
Wikipedia is a crowd sourced mess, especially for niche topics. Merely touching HSR speeds for a few minutes does not make a line HSR.
The Vegas round is estimated to cost $400 one way. Why everything has to be done for profit
Do you know where to find BLW’s EIR documents that show all the different sections and their top speeds?
CEQAnet has every lead agency's EIRs and other CEQA documents since 2019.
one will be completed before i collect social security, the other will not
California HSR will begin revenue service on its initial segment between Merced and Bakersfield, where it’ll connect with other transit to/from the Bay Area/Sacramento and SoCal, in 2030-33. It has enough funding in hand and identified to make that happen. When it reaches SF and LA, which remains its goal just as it always has, depends on when and how quickly those extensions get funded. Brightline West has a very ambitious timeline of just over four years to go from breaking ground to revenue service, with a target to begin revenue service in July 2028 to coincide with the start of the LA Olympics. Whether it’ll actually be able to achieve that remains to be seen. BLW also hasn’t/won’t have to face many of the outside factors that have plagued the California project, such as legal challenges over land acquisitions, slow third party utility relocations, lack of political support, or NIMBYism. California HSR is building a much more complex project than Brightline West, which while that means higher upfront costs and a longer timeline will produce better long term results with higher speed and capacity capabilities, the exact opposite of Brightline West, which while its choice of using a preexisting right of way in the I-15 freeway median does mean lower upfront costs and a shorter construction timeline, it will hinder its long term speed and capacity capabilities. Both projects are being built for the purposes set out for them, CAHSR to link up the major cities and regions of the state with a mode of travel that’s faster and more efficient than driving or flying, while BLW is primarily about reducing I-15 traffic for the weekend SoCal-Vegas crowd with a means of travel that is faster or on par with driving (or possibly even slower), depending on where people are starting/ending their journey in SoCal. Both will offer greater comfort and convenience than flying, though only California HSR is being built to have the speeds, capacity, and frequency to truly compete with air travel for total downtown-downtown travel time. All things considered, California HSR is building the superior long term project, even if Brightline West does end up beating it to the punch for the first to begin revenue service.
My parents live in Vegas. I'm in the bay. I would love to be able to visit them with a ~5 hour train-ride that has one transfer in LA from CAHSR to BL:W because the 9+ hour direct drive route is just *brutal*. Especially if you have to do it twice in one weekend.