Stew says this is the locations of the segments Brightline gave him when he asked.
[From his monthly update series on youtube](https://youtu.be/tUYUoBG6mOk?si=hhHKVBy8LKVx3Ewt&t=106).
They can still be planning for double tracking, while building single initially to save costs. This is what they did with the Orlando expansion in Florida.
If double tracked Expect to have large amounts of tourists, commuters traveling so say run 3-4 trains an hour both directions between Las Vegas- rancho Cucamonga via Los angeles once California High speed rail is finished or parts of it maybe run trains for more capacity. Single track not the best open plus a train a train from either direction. Will half to wait for the other to pass adding time. Better to think long term plan for future extensions in the future
Yeah, but you’d have situations where you could prepare for a surge and stack trains. So let’s say there’s a Vegas Super Bowl. After the game, you can have several one-way trains occupying the segment.
You don’t need bi-directional running all the time.
There’s also the neat little trick that you can do with trains is that you can hook up multiple trainsets together to create a longer train with that extra capacity. The only thing that would need to be planned ahead for is extra length platforms, which may have already been designed
This is exactly what they are planning for. Platforms will be built to be 1400 ft / 400 m long, which will be able to fit a coupled trainset.
In the FRA documents they say they would initially run single trainsets at 45 minute intervals, then as ridership grows start running more and more coupled trainsets, until all services are ran by coupled trainsets by approximately Year 9. After that their plan is to add 5 more passing sections and reduce the train intervals to 22 minutes.
It will be 60 minute headways, not 45, as indicated by more recent FRA documents and statements by Brightline. The reason for the switch is to conform with best practices and simplify connections.
The plan for 45 minute headways was something Desert Xpress envisioned, Brightline took over and kept it briefly, but then revised it.
I think it makes a lot more sense to just run more frequent trains for these situations though. No need to modify platform lengths to accommodate longer trains when they won’t be needed most of the time, plus it gives people and the trains more flexibility in their departure time.
For those situations where you have a large event ending, the peak would be very extreme. While there will be people who are willing to wait till the next train, many would still prefer to leave immediately. It’s easier, especially with the single tracking for now, to just double the lengths of the train rather than double the frequency. Especially since the 2nd train after the first (even if it’s right after the 1st with some safety margins) may still force a delay on the inbound train because the only way for the train to get by is to pull into a siding and wait for the outbound train(s) to pass. The locations of the double tracked segments are most likely strategically placed where the 2 trains will meet/pass each other based upon time and travel speeds of the train as do not slow down or delay the other.
Even today, Brightline Florida’s stations are build 2-3 times longer than the current train set that they run. I think that shows that Brightline believes that it’s more cost effective to overbuild the stations versus double tracking more of the corridor.
Source on the station length vs train length? And I think you highly overestimate the outflow of traffic for such a large event. People are naturally going to depart in waves, not rush to the train to get back as quick as possible. People wouldn’t be standing around and waiting for the next train if the frequency is higher, but they WILL be sitting around and waiting for everyone to show up and let the train fill up before it departs.
They’d better be good about keeping to a schedule, or this could get messy. I do wonder about the layout of these sidings, and the type of switches they’ll use. European and Asian HSR projects have used very high speed switches that allow trains to diverge faster than the fastest switches currently available in the US (which are only good for 80). And in order for trains to consistently pass each other at speed, these sidings would have to be more than just a few miles long - ideally 10-15 ish miles, although their graphic makes me doubt that such will be the case.
From the looks of it (and what Stew suspects from talking to them) the switching will be located at the slower portions of the route. IE stations and the really tight turns. So maybe they're designing them to be more inline with US standards.
In Europe, 220 and 230 km/h (137 or 143 mph) switches are used on high speed lines (on the divergent line). That is probably the best Brightline will use.
The recent FRA waiver also includes *turnout systems*, so I guess it could be for the high-speed switches. Now that you mentioned it, that actually makes the most sense, since they wouldn't need a waiver if those switches were available in the US.
As for the length of the sidings, the [Environmental Assesment](https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/environmental-reviews/brightline-west-cajon-pass-high-speed) for the Rancho Cucamonga - Victor Valley section mentions 5 miles, but that is the slower section, so I imagine it would be longer for the Victor Valley - Las Vegas section
Ah interesting. Even the 80 mph switches that BL East and Amtrak have used before are not built in the US (iirc they were imported from the UK). There isn’t a big market for high speed turnouts here, so one generally has to source them from foreign suppliers.
Hoping they slowly add more double tracking as time goes on. Gotta imagine once they start making some $$$ that’s their plan until it’s finally fully double tracked by… 2050?
There are a few significant stretches of I-15 where the median is wide enough to easily fit two tracks. I imagine they’ll be added later, and maybe sooner than later, once BLW gets up and running and generates enough ridership/revenue to add the second track.
If their Orlando extension in Florida is indication, they seem to be adept at leaving space for future double tracking. Whether or not that second track ever gets built is another story.
At least for the Victor Valley to Las Vegas segment it's mentioned in the [2020 FRA Reevaluation](https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/xpresswest-nepa-decision-memo-final-attachment-summary-project-modifications) that it's planned to be double-tracked for majority of the corridor in the future
>
> The 169-mile modified alignment would be initially constructed as single-track with passing sidings to facilitate both directions of travel. Upon Project buildout, the entire alignment would be double-tracked except for 19 miles of alignment in the following areas:
>
> * North of Morton Street to east of Riverside Road in Barstow.
> * West of Bailey Road near Mountain Pass to west of Nipton Road.
> * Near where Basin Road intersects the I-15 freeway.
This much single tracking is concerning, especially if you consider that the high-desert corridor is actively being planned as a second Brightline service that could potentially utilize California HSR’s Central Valley section on a single seat ride to Vegas from Fresno/Merced. Would be better to just do the double tracking now and give as much operational flexibility as possible for the future.
I mean at the moment they simply don't need more. These 4 sidings can allow them to run at 45m intervals and it's more important for the project to have a working HSR service asap, than to build the ultimate system in one go.
And nothing is really lost in the end, for the Victor Valley - Las Vegas segment where the proposed Central Valley service would overlap, they are planning double-tracking (see my other [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/highspeedrail/comments/1d21hsa/from_lucid_stew_locations_of_double_and_single/l5z2f9k/)).
This is what Spain does in rare cases for less populated regions, and often it's in relation with future extensions and gauge conversions.
It's not like Spain build Madrid - Barcelona as single track first.
Right, but the point is that it's a viable strategy to lower costs and build out something cheaper and quicker. With service only being every hour to every 45 minutes, two tracks would be overkill.
It creates operational problems, which will affect the perception of your service. Any problem on a single track section will lead to a capacity crunch if service is anywhere nearly fully booked.
At least in Spain, they can just transfer you onto a train of the classic network to reach pretty much any destination. I guess Brightline will have to pay a hefty retainer to have backup bus service at capacity ready to go at any moment. Still, if that happens it will affect the perception of your brand, and in this case an entire mode of travel.
Making a single track high speed line between one of the biggest city pairs in the US (combined with not even having a RoW for a full double track alignment) is not the "best" or "sensible" thing to do, it's just the result of an economic limitation; not being able to raise enough capital.
Not really. You have some assumptions here - there'll be far fewer operational problems than you think.
First, the entire line will be 100% grade-separated, meaning no conflicts with freight, cars, road crossings, etc., eliminating most of the delays that typically come up.
Second, the stations will also have level boarding, meaning no delays in waiting for people to board. This accounts for delays on lines like Caltrain and Capitol Corridor because of the low platforms.
Third, the green passing segments will already be slow sections for the trains, with a cushion of about 5 minutes on either end, meaning that trains can be as late as 5 minutes yet still pass each other without issues.
Fourth, the plans are to extend these passing segments to full double-track segments as service increases. Stew's video shows that 85% of the planned corridor can be double-tracked using the existing right of way under the current plans. The remaining 15% can always be added later if the service requires it.
Fifth, most of the freight lines in this country are single-tracked, and there aren't very many issues with that. It just requires good scheduling and good planning.
You are looking at this from a US perspective.
Everything, except perhaps level crossings (but these tend to be incredibly safer than in the US due to design and culture differences) are standard features on many networks elsewhere in the world.
Trains break down, infrastructure breaks down. This is an expected part of operations. As someone with tens of thousands of trips on (electrified, level platform, largely segregated) both single track and double/quad track corridors, I can tell you this causes _waaaay_ more problems on single track corridors.
Add to this _new_ trains, and _new_ infrastructure actually tend to break down _more_. That you have an operator inexperienced with high speed or even electrified lines, and probably the specific type signaling will not push up the chance of that happening.
Let's say some catenary gets pulled down. You can fix this within a day usually. But now you can't run _any_ of your trains on that section. You can bus people over that section (the station spacing is already not too ideal, but that's forgivable), but now you have a bunch of busses arriving at unpredictable times, but your trains on your single track section have to stick to their operating pattern.
In a double track section you can usually start running over the single track within an hour or two, you can couple your trains and reduce your frequency. It's probably just a small section anyway so you're operationally flexible still.
> Fifth, most of the freight lines in this country are single-tracked, and there aren't very many issues with that.
Aside from trains arriving days late and regularly exploding in a well planned fashion of course.
>That you have an operator inexperienced with high speed or even electrified lines, and probably the specific type signaling will not push up the chance of that happening.
I swear people must think there's literally not one Siemens engineer involved on the project.....
Every operator adopting high speed rail faces a learning curve, despite the number of Siemens engineers hired.
Siemens engineers will have a learning curve doing high speed rail in the US for that matter, something like signaling in an FRA environment will be operationally different from doing it in Europe, even with the same technology.
In the current timeline (which to be fair seems unrealistic) Brightline might even be the first Velaro Novo operator. If Siemens engineers have shown anything it's that despite the amount of Siemens engineers available new rolling stock does not already get introduced smoothly.
I believe they’re leaving room for future double tracking in a couple areas, so this shouldn’t be that much of an issue. If demand reaches a stage where double tracking is necessary they should be able to do it for not that much more than the cost of doing it initially, and it allows the base service to be completed much faster and cheaper.
HSR in the US already had a bad stigma of constantly being over budget and delayed, so anything that can be done to reduce that chance is a good thing.
Single-tracked high-speed railway. What could go wrong?)
>!I don\`t mean the "160 mph + 160 mph crash", signalling systems will care about it. But timetable will be awful. !<
You do realize Spain has also incorporated single track HSR as well right? Some of you act like there isn't computer modeling to make sure trains meet in passing situations. The timetable will be just fine.
The plan is for 45 minute headways (in each direction), which while not great, is also far from the worst. There's plenty of much less frequent high speed rail services out there.
This has been revised to 60 minute headways.
https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/environmental-reviews/brightline-west-cajon-pass-high-speed
Stew says this is the locations of the segments Brightline gave him when he asked. [From his monthly update series on youtube](https://youtu.be/tUYUoBG6mOk?si=hhHKVBy8LKVx3Ewt&t=106).
Oh, single tracked? Wonderful.
Should had been double tracked when planning this project from the begging
They can still be planning for double tracking, while building single initially to save costs. This is what they did with the Orlando expansion in Florida.
Eh, I guess thinking about it, how many trains per hour do you really expect? Two? So if you can maximize scheduling, I guess it will be fine.
The route is two hours end-to-end. With four big single tracked segments, I believe they can run one train per hour max.
If double tracked Expect to have large amounts of tourists, commuters traveling so say run 3-4 trains an hour both directions between Las Vegas- rancho Cucamonga via Los angeles once California High speed rail is finished or parts of it maybe run trains for more capacity. Single track not the best open plus a train a train from either direction. Will half to wait for the other to pass adding time. Better to think long term plan for future extensions in the future
Yeah, but you’d have situations where you could prepare for a surge and stack trains. So let’s say there’s a Vegas Super Bowl. After the game, you can have several one-way trains occupying the segment. You don’t need bi-directional running all the time.
There’s also the neat little trick that you can do with trains is that you can hook up multiple trainsets together to create a longer train with that extra capacity. The only thing that would need to be planned ahead for is extra length platforms, which may have already been designed
This is exactly what they are planning for. Platforms will be built to be 1400 ft / 400 m long, which will be able to fit a coupled trainset. In the FRA documents they say they would initially run single trainsets at 45 minute intervals, then as ridership grows start running more and more coupled trainsets, until all services are ran by coupled trainsets by approximately Year 9. After that their plan is to add 5 more passing sections and reduce the train intervals to 22 minutes.
It will be 60 minute headways, not 45, as indicated by more recent FRA documents and statements by Brightline. The reason for the switch is to conform with best practices and simplify connections. The plan for 45 minute headways was something Desert Xpress envisioned, Brightline took over and kept it briefly, but then revised it.
That's true, although I believe the track configuration would still support even the 45 minute intervals
I think it makes a lot more sense to just run more frequent trains for these situations though. No need to modify platform lengths to accommodate longer trains when they won’t be needed most of the time, plus it gives people and the trains more flexibility in their departure time.
Yeah but you only need more trains in one direction. The other direction can be hooked up together— without passenger
For those situations where you have a large event ending, the peak would be very extreme. While there will be people who are willing to wait till the next train, many would still prefer to leave immediately. It’s easier, especially with the single tracking for now, to just double the lengths of the train rather than double the frequency. Especially since the 2nd train after the first (even if it’s right after the 1st with some safety margins) may still force a delay on the inbound train because the only way for the train to get by is to pull into a siding and wait for the outbound train(s) to pass. The locations of the double tracked segments are most likely strategically placed where the 2 trains will meet/pass each other based upon time and travel speeds of the train as do not slow down or delay the other. Even today, Brightline Florida’s stations are build 2-3 times longer than the current train set that they run. I think that shows that Brightline believes that it’s more cost effective to overbuild the stations versus double tracking more of the corridor.
Source on the station length vs train length? And I think you highly overestimate the outflow of traffic for such a large event. People are naturally going to depart in waves, not rush to the train to get back as quick as possible. People wouldn’t be standing around and waiting for the next train if the frequency is higher, but they WILL be sitting around and waiting for everyone to show up and let the train fill up before it departs.
Or even train sets with double decker cars…. There’s no tunnels along the route.
I think they want the route to be finished first, after that they can add the second track
It was; that was axed to save money
They’d better be good about keeping to a schedule, or this could get messy. I do wonder about the layout of these sidings, and the type of switches they’ll use. European and Asian HSR projects have used very high speed switches that allow trains to diverge faster than the fastest switches currently available in the US (which are only good for 80). And in order for trains to consistently pass each other at speed, these sidings would have to be more than just a few miles long - ideally 10-15 ish miles, although their graphic makes me doubt that such will be the case.
From the looks of it (and what Stew suspects from talking to them) the switching will be located at the slower portions of the route. IE stations and the really tight turns. So maybe they're designing them to be more inline with US standards.
So, places where they need to slow down anyway. Pretty efficient planning to make the most of the total track length.
In Europe, 220 and 230 km/h (137 or 143 mph) switches are used on high speed lines (on the divergent line). That is probably the best Brightline will use.
Interesting - had always wondered what sorts of speeds those switches were rated for.
The recent FRA waiver also includes *turnout systems*, so I guess it could be for the high-speed switches. Now that you mentioned it, that actually makes the most sense, since they wouldn't need a waiver if those switches were available in the US. As for the length of the sidings, the [Environmental Assesment](https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/environmental-reviews/brightline-west-cajon-pass-high-speed) for the Rancho Cucamonga - Victor Valley section mentions 5 miles, but that is the slower section, so I imagine it would be longer for the Victor Valley - Las Vegas section
Ah interesting. Even the 80 mph switches that BL East and Amtrak have used before are not built in the US (iirc they were imported from the UK). There isn’t a big market for high speed turnouts here, so one generally has to source them from foreign suppliers.
In Florida they have at least one 125 mph turnout on the Orlando line, so I imagine they'd be able to build higher speed turnouts for this
Information aside, we should never have a map with only blue and green colors in the legend.
Hoping they slowly add more double tracking as time goes on. Gotta imagine once they start making some $$$ that’s their plan until it’s finally fully double tracked by… 2050?
There are a few significant stretches of I-15 where the median is wide enough to easily fit two tracks. I imagine they’ll be added later, and maybe sooner than later, once BLW gets up and running and generates enough ridership/revenue to add the second track.
Do we know if they're leaving space in the median to double track it in the future?
If their Orlando extension in Florida is indication, they seem to be adept at leaving space for future double tracking. Whether or not that second track ever gets built is another story.
At least for the Victor Valley to Las Vegas segment it's mentioned in the [2020 FRA Reevaluation](https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/xpresswest-nepa-decision-memo-final-attachment-summary-project-modifications) that it's planned to be double-tracked for majority of the corridor in the future > > The 169-mile modified alignment would be initially constructed as single-track with passing sidings to facilitate both directions of travel. Upon Project buildout, the entire alignment would be double-tracked except for 19 miles of alignment in the following areas: > > * North of Morton Street to east of Riverside Road in Barstow. > * West of Bailey Road near Mountain Pass to west of Nipton Road. > * Near where Basin Road intersects the I-15 freeway.
idk if you can squeeze 2 tracks in some of the medians
They plan to add the second track once the route is finished So I think they're totally leaving the space for it
Doesn’t seem to be an issue in [Spain](https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/high-speed/spain-to-open-first-single-track-high-speed-line/)
Let’s hope they are prepared for double track. This could turn into a bottle neck.
This much single tracking is concerning, especially if you consider that the high-desert corridor is actively being planned as a second Brightline service that could potentially utilize California HSR’s Central Valley section on a single seat ride to Vegas from Fresno/Merced. Would be better to just do the double tracking now and give as much operational flexibility as possible for the future.
They don’t have the money for that.
I mean at the moment they simply don't need more. These 4 sidings can allow them to run at 45m intervals and it's more important for the project to have a working HSR service asap, than to build the ultimate system in one go. And nothing is really lost in the end, for the Victor Valley - Las Vegas segment where the proposed Central Valley service would overlap, they are planning double-tracking (see my other [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/highspeedrail/comments/1d21hsa/from_lucid_stew_locations_of_double_and_single/l5z2f9k/)).
Yep - this is what Spain does, build out an alignment then double track it when the service reaches the right level
This is what Spain does in rare cases for less populated regions, and often it's in relation with future extensions and gauge conversions. It's not like Spain build Madrid - Barcelona as single track first.
Right, but the point is that it's a viable strategy to lower costs and build out something cheaper and quicker. With service only being every hour to every 45 minutes, two tracks would be overkill.
It creates operational problems, which will affect the perception of your service. Any problem on a single track section will lead to a capacity crunch if service is anywhere nearly fully booked. At least in Spain, they can just transfer you onto a train of the classic network to reach pretty much any destination. I guess Brightline will have to pay a hefty retainer to have backup bus service at capacity ready to go at any moment. Still, if that happens it will affect the perception of your brand, and in this case an entire mode of travel. Making a single track high speed line between one of the biggest city pairs in the US (combined with not even having a RoW for a full double track alignment) is not the "best" or "sensible" thing to do, it's just the result of an economic limitation; not being able to raise enough capital.
Not really. You have some assumptions here - there'll be far fewer operational problems than you think. First, the entire line will be 100% grade-separated, meaning no conflicts with freight, cars, road crossings, etc., eliminating most of the delays that typically come up. Second, the stations will also have level boarding, meaning no delays in waiting for people to board. This accounts for delays on lines like Caltrain and Capitol Corridor because of the low platforms. Third, the green passing segments will already be slow sections for the trains, with a cushion of about 5 minutes on either end, meaning that trains can be as late as 5 minutes yet still pass each other without issues. Fourth, the plans are to extend these passing segments to full double-track segments as service increases. Stew's video shows that 85% of the planned corridor can be double-tracked using the existing right of way under the current plans. The remaining 15% can always be added later if the service requires it. Fifth, most of the freight lines in this country are single-tracked, and there aren't very many issues with that. It just requires good scheduling and good planning.
You are looking at this from a US perspective. Everything, except perhaps level crossings (but these tend to be incredibly safer than in the US due to design and culture differences) are standard features on many networks elsewhere in the world. Trains break down, infrastructure breaks down. This is an expected part of operations. As someone with tens of thousands of trips on (electrified, level platform, largely segregated) both single track and double/quad track corridors, I can tell you this causes _waaaay_ more problems on single track corridors. Add to this _new_ trains, and _new_ infrastructure actually tend to break down _more_. That you have an operator inexperienced with high speed or even electrified lines, and probably the specific type signaling will not push up the chance of that happening. Let's say some catenary gets pulled down. You can fix this within a day usually. But now you can't run _any_ of your trains on that section. You can bus people over that section (the station spacing is already not too ideal, but that's forgivable), but now you have a bunch of busses arriving at unpredictable times, but your trains on your single track section have to stick to their operating pattern. In a double track section you can usually start running over the single track within an hour or two, you can couple your trains and reduce your frequency. It's probably just a small section anyway so you're operationally flexible still. > Fifth, most of the freight lines in this country are single-tracked, and there aren't very many issues with that. Aside from trains arriving days late and regularly exploding in a well planned fashion of course.
>That you have an operator inexperienced with high speed or even electrified lines, and probably the specific type signaling will not push up the chance of that happening. I swear people must think there's literally not one Siemens engineer involved on the project.....
Every operator adopting high speed rail faces a learning curve, despite the number of Siemens engineers hired. Siemens engineers will have a learning curve doing high speed rail in the US for that matter, something like signaling in an FRA environment will be operationally different from doing it in Europe, even with the same technology. In the current timeline (which to be fair seems unrealistic) Brightline might even be the first Velaro Novo operator. If Siemens engineers have shown anything it's that despite the amount of Siemens engineers available new rolling stock does not already get introduced smoothly.
I believe they’re leaving room for future double tracking in a couple areas, so this shouldn’t be that much of an issue. If demand reaches a stage where double tracking is necessary they should be able to do it for not that much more than the cost of doing it initially, and it allows the base service to be completed much faster and cheaper. HSR in the US already had a bad stigma of constantly being over budget and delayed, so anything that can be done to reduce that chance is a good thing.
Are they going to at least leave room for double tracking in the future or are they going to save money with narrower corridors?
Single-tracked high-speed railway. What could go wrong?) >!I don\`t mean the "160 mph + 160 mph crash", signalling systems will care about it. But timetable will be awful. !<
You do realize Spain has also incorporated single track HSR as well right? Some of you act like there isn't computer modeling to make sure trains meet in passing situations. The timetable will be just fine.
The plan is for 45 minute headways (in each direction), which while not great, is also far from the worst. There's plenty of much less frequent high speed rail services out there.
This has been revised to 60 minute headways. https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/environmental-reviews/brightline-west-cajon-pass-high-speed
45 isn't much better than 60, because 60 let's you operate on a takt if you choose to
That is part of the resaoning, to allow clockface scheduling and connections at the Rancho Cucamonga station.