Jimmie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't run the numbers. Given that 2 to 3%
> grades are not unusual on commuter rail. For
> things like over and underpasses that would be the
> reason in the valley. Hard to believe a short
> grade like an overpass would slow a 125 mph to "30
> to 40 mph." Or even a 40 foot rise for the massive
> vanity sculpture crossing of the freight tracks.
> Near Fresno I think.

I'd have to look at the profiles, I'm thinking this is somewhat speculative. Bodies in motion still tend to stay in motion, the last time I read the Newton, And, having taken a train down the Acolita grade with a dynamiter and one operating dynamic at 90 mph., I can attest that no half a mile of 4% grade, would have delayed us much....

My problem with roller coaster 4% grades is why? In flat level terrain with long rural open approaches to many of this structures would anyone 1) need to build a 4% grade, and 2) use so much unnecessary energy to power the train? The negative roller coaster effects on passengers would be less at 110 or 125 mph. than at 250

Another stupid decision of any sort at the CAHSRA would never surprise me at this point in the absurd bloated gold plated parody it has become. I just watched them dedicate an underpass thet cost 4 or 5 times as much as an overpass... I guess that when the State adopted a business model to manange and contract being paid by a percentage of the work you manage, it isn't much incentive to cut costs...

But so far, like with so many of these AI generated images of space aliens on the internet nowadays, I've see no actual "evidence" for the existence of, nor of the purported need for 4% grades, except in this discussion. And, several other comments seem to dispute this purported "siting" of a lot of long or otherwise troublesome 4% grades.