Brightline Trains West!

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Last edited:
GDRRiley said:
I'd prefer CAHSR get their grant money over brightline so that CAHSR can get the IOS done by 2030
Click to expand...
I admit I'm torn on this. While I want to see CAHSR succeed I also believe Brightline West has a good chance to be the first successful HSR in the US outside of the NEC and could be a boost to other such projects such as the one in Texas.
 
I honestly don't care who builds it first, Brightline West or CAHSR. As long as we have one in the country that'll be successful and it'll show everyone else in the US that it can be done.
 
CA HSR is in major, major funding trouble. The whole Phase 1 is $106b, and have only identified about $20b of funding. Even the initial initial operating segment is $8-10b short.

Brightline West says the whole Vegas/RC route is around $12b, they need $3.5B of FSP federal funding to accomplish that.

If you were a person at FRA/FSP and had the decision to either.
A. Give 8b to MAYBE finish a project in 2030-2033 with a serviced population of 2 million people.
B. Give 3.5b to MOST LIKELY finish a project in 2028 that serves 2 major urban areas with a total population of ~20 million people + 2 major tourist destinations.

Which one would you give the money to?

Edit: CASHR is actually asking for 8b... out of the total 12b available
 
Last edited:
Caesar La Rock said:
I honestly don't care who builds it first, Brightline West or CAHSR. As long as we have one in the country that'll be successful and it'll show everyone else in the US that it can be done.
Click to expand...
I don't see any fundamental reason why something that works very well in China, Japan, Europe, even North Africa and a few other places beside, should not work in the US.

Where I see the bigger danger is that the initial line may be hobbled by design inadequacies, such as suboptimal sites of end points and that this may hurt ridership.
 
wxmeddler said:
CA HSR is in major, major funding trouble. The whole Phase 1 is $106b, and have only identified about $20b of funding. Even the initial initial operating segment is $8-10b short.

Brightline West says the whole Vegas/RC route is around $12b, they need $3.5B of FSP federal funding to accomplish that.

If you were a person at FRA/FSP and had the decision to either.
A. Give 8b to MAYBE finish a project in 2030-2033 with a serviced population of 2 million people.
B. Give 3.5b to MOST LIKELY finish a project in 2028 that serves 2 major urban areas with a total population of ~20 million people + 2 major tourist destinations.

Which one would you give the money to?

Edit: CASHR is actually asking for 8b... out of the total 12b available
Click to expand...
Not that I'm justifying it, but the first Shinkansen line in Japan, was underestimated deliberately in order to get the line built. It was billed at 200 billion yen (late 1950s yen), but in fact costed 400 billion yen. Projects costing more then initially budgeted isn't a new thing in the world, especially if it's a first for the country.
 
wxmeddler said:
CA HSR is in major, major funding trouble. The whole Phase 1 is $106b, and have only identified about $20b of funding. Even the initial initial operating segment is $8-10b short.

Brightline West says the whole Vegas/RC route is around $12b, they need $3.5B of FSP federal funding to accomplish that.

If you were a person at FRA/FSP and had the decision to either.
A. Give 8b to MAYBE finish a project in 2030-2033 with a serviced population of 2 million people.
B. Give 3.5b to MOST LIKELY finish a project in 2028 that serves 2 major urban areas with a total population of ~20 million people + 2 major tourist destinations.

Which one would you give the money to?

Edit: CASHR is actually asking for 8b... out of the total 12b available
Click to expand...
Admittedly this is partly a result of time-value of money issues, but when the project was initially proposed the cost was in the $30bn range. Then it jumped to $66bn. Then to $90bn or so, before it got hauled back in. Now it's back up (over $100bn, presumably with over $90bn yet to be spent). Just as a frustrating note, that's enough money to buy a controlling stake in UP right now.

We're already at roughly an estimated 150% overrun in costs in current-year dollars, BTW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_California_High-Speed_Rail
Also, per the 2012 plan, from what I can tell the IOS was supposed to be operational two years ago.

If I was at the FRA and had the power to do so, I'd just about blackball CAHSR for failing to deliver on the IOS in anything resembling a timely manner, pending completion of the IOS, except for studies.
 
Anderson said:
If I was at the FRA and had the power to do so, I'd just about blackball CAHSR for failing to deliver on the IOS in anything resembling a timely manner, pending completion of the IOS, except for studies.
Click to expand...
By the fact it's an intra-state (only goes through 1 state) service, the federal government is unwilling to throw money at it in any meaningful way to get the project rolling to a pace that it can actually meet it's timelines. California, not without it's own budget woes and with a flatlining population is also doing the same thing. So you have a situation in which no party wants to fund it for fear of being left bag holding for the entire project. The consequence of this is that money trickles in with cap and trade and occasional grants. That limits the amount they can spend / year, which holds them back on staffing and construction size. The solution for CAHSR to stop project costs from rising is ironically to actually spend money faster. But that schedule involves spending money at near 3x their current rate.
 
It seems from that article that Brightline West is next in the pipeline and will be done before the Brightline Tampa extension (which doesn't even get a mention). This may have been likely but was never explicitly stated AFAIK.
 
cirdan said:
It seems from that article that Brightline West is next in the pipeline and will be done before the Brightline Tampa extension (which doesn't even get a mention). This may have been likely but was never explicitly stated AFAIK.
Click to expand...
Although having the Las Vegas service up and running by 2028 (as stated in the article) seems a tad optimistic to me
 
joelkfla said:
"Although not a true high-speed operation, the Brightline Florida service will surpass speeds of 125 mph in some areas"

Did they increase the max operating speed beyond 125 while I wasn't looking?
Click to expand...
No they did not surpass 125mph anywhere in Florida in commercial service. For testing yes, but not in commercial service. They are just plain wrong. But one must admit that it plays better when one wants to beat up on Amtrak. 🥴
AmtrakMaineiac said:
Although having the Las Vegas service up and running by 2028 (as stated in the article) seems a tad optimistic to me
Click to expand...
Brightline Florida was supposed to have been done by 2015 too. Adding a few years to 2028 would not be very much out of the realm of possibilities.
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
Although having the Las Vegas service up and running by 2028 (as stated in the article) seems a tad optimistic to me
Click to expand...

While I understand it is optimistic, it's a different animal compared to the Florida project. Unlike Florida, Brightline West is building the right of way, rather then using an existing right of way that may have something that could impact service like drawbridges. Although I have been wrong before on something that I thought was straight forward. We shall see.
 
Caesar La Rock said:
While I understand it is optimistic, it's a different animal compared to the Florida project. Unlike Florida, Brightline West is building the right of way, rather then using an existing right of way that may have something that could impact service like drawbridges. Although I have been wrong before on something that I thought was straight forward. We shall see.
Click to expand...
In my experience, for any project involving rail construction in the US, it is prudent to add 3 to 5 years to the original projected date, irrespective of what it involves. :rolleyes: And depending on the complexity, doubling the cost before it is all said and done, is usually not outside the realm of possibilities, though there are a few exceptions I can think of. Brightline Florida is not an example of an exception BTW IIRC.
 
Caesar La Rock said:
While I understand it is optimistic, it's a different animal compared to the Florida project. Unlike Florida, Brightline West is building the right of way, rather then using an existing right of way that may have something that could impact service like drawbridges. Although I have been wrong before on something that I thought was straight forward. We shall see.
Click to expand...
also, far fewer nimbys in the high desert.
 
cirdan said:
also, far fewer nimbys in the high desert.
Click to expand...
Compensated for by way more NIMBYs in the valley and California's "Permitraj"? Afterall they have to make it down Cajon Pass to Rancho Cucamonga. And then there is the Victorville - Palmdale connection to connect to CAHSR if/when it comes by there too.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top