Saturday Open Thread
I’ve been rather busy of late – so much so that I totally missed this blog’s 2nd anniversary, which was a week ago today.
I launched this blog on March 6, 2008, after having spent about 2 or 3 months trying in vain to figure out how to build a more robust HSR site in Joomla (I don’t even remember why I was even trying to use that platform). Finally, one evening, I gave up and just threw up a simple page on Blogger, and after a few months, the site finally took off.
Why did I start it? At the time there wasn’t really any single source for pro-HSR information or discussion. And as the Prop 1A vote neared, such a source struck me as being quite necessary. That turned out to be an accurate assessment, as the run-up to the November 2008 election saw a lot of uninformed articles and discussion about HSR that this blog helped push back against, creating and delivering talking points that got picked up by other HSR supporters, including those affiliated with the official campaign.
After the November 2008 victory, this blog became a key element of pro-HSR activism in the state. As 2009 went on, more groups joined that effort, partly in reaction to the federal money coming our way, partly in reaction against the NIMBYs determined to protect a failed status quo at any cost. Finally, at the beginning of 2010, we helped relaunch Californians For High Speed Rail as a grassroots hub for HSR advocacy. The blog continues to put out valuable information and host wide-ranging discussion, and CA4HSR is ramping up its work in support of the project.
It’s been quite a fascinating and eventful two years in high speed rail here in California, and I have no doubt that’ll continue to be the case. This blog will continue as well, and I look forward to liveblogging the opening day of service from SF to LA and Anaheim, sometime around 2020.
Robert,
Happy 2nd birthday to your blog!! Come 2020, I, too, look forward to taking the train with you and all HSR supporters and to live tweeting/blogging about our inaugural HSR ride from SF to LA. Let’s get the trains built!
Sharon
lyqwyd Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Yes, happy 2nd Birthday!
We should invite HSR-Six for the inauguration.
Can’t wait until I can call a shuttle bus to pick me up at my house and take me to the LA/Ontario Airport High Speed Rail Station. It feels like my suburban life has a whole new world opening up to it. Multiple major California cities will be linked to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (LA Metro Area), where I live. San Diego, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Francisco, San Jose, and capitol city Sacramento. Las Vegas and Phoenix will fell like our next door neighbors. And California will resemble other European nations when the system is complete. Exciting, Amazing, Finally.
I’d definitely be going up to SF a lot more if we had the system by now, maybe even Sacramento to visit the Golden State Railroad Museum.
Second anniversary already? I’ve been following this blog since march or April of 2008, back when you first started. Don’t remember why or how I stumbled upon it, but I’m glad I did. Keep up the good work Robert and thanks for giving us a meeting, info and discussion area for HSR supporters in California and across the world.
Well! Just leaked out is the true story of Morshed’s sudden departure.
Rather than the announced reason, being Morshed wanted to retire, what happened is the following:
Pringle after being blasted by the LAO at the Jan. committee meeting over the business plan, was so upset that he want back and got the board to immediately have Morshed fired. It became a done deal right away.
Pringle and his So. Cal. fully control the control the board now. Barker, the deputy director has had close ties with Pringle on many issues and as you now note, he is doing all the talking now.
So there you have it.
This has become pretty widely known now in Sacramento; I’m surprised the Cruickshank, will all his inside info didn’t know this, or perhaps didn’t want to disclose this.
Thank you, Robert.
I recently heard an anti-HSR activist complain about having to drive to Sacramento to attend the hearings. I suggested that the HSR would make that more convenient.
lyqwyd Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
hahahahahaha! That is awesome.
One interesting bit so far in the big pile of HS2 docs is the plan to run trainsets compatible with existing british loading gauge to allow through-routing of trains in phase one to destinations like glasgow, edinburgh and newcastle that would otherwise require a transfer until new UIC compatible lines could be drug to those destinations.
In the video that clem linked to a few weeks ago, the engineer giving the speech talked about the huge costs that would entail with regards to rolling stock, pointing out that the eurostars were far more different from the TGVs than they might appear.
Through-routing would seem to make sense, especially since the extensions aren’t planned for quite some time. Apparently they decided that such through routing was more valuable than the option to buy “off-the-shelf” (whatever that means) trainsets. Perhaps they can save costs by going with a modified version of the existing eurostars, juiced up to run the 360kph speeds they want to run on that route.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
The Day One plan is to run Euston-Birmingham shuttles (3tph base, 4tph peaks) with completely off the shelf UIC (European TSI, GC loading gauge, 760mm platform height, etc) equipment. They refer to this as HS2 captive equipment. “The standard design allows follow-on orders at a later stage as and when the high-speed network grows.”
The Day One proposal is the 16 sets (200m) of UIC “captive” equipment for the shuttles, costed at UKP25m per set with a low 18% cost risk; versus UKP37.5m each for 45 classic-compatible sets, with a 40% cost risk optimism bias for the Special Local Needs (nb Caltrain! nb CHSRA!) of this unique design.
Since the UIC loading gauge line would not extend beyond the Birmingham HS2 wye junction in the first stage, any other equipment that runs on the proposed HS2 would need to be compatible with the classic BR network (circa 915mm platform height, minute loading gauge, etc.)
Given that the proposed expansion of Euston is to 10x415m UIC platform tracks, 2x415m UIC/classic “hybrid” platform tracks, and 12 classic (6x320m+6x280m); and given the proposed 6x400m UIC platform track size of the new Birmingham Fazely/Curzon Street terminal is 6x415m UIC, I think it is fair bet to place that they assume there will someday be more than 4tph running and other UIC-train destinations north of Birmingham.
(The only two other stations on the proposed first phase of this vapourware HS2 line — the Crossrail interchange at Old Oak Common and the Birmingham parkway station — would both be UIC-only.)
There are all sorts of different possible UIC route and service extension alternatives (some claim fantasies…) sketched out in Appendix 4 of the HS2 Demand Model Analysis report. Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Preston, Carstairs, Glasgow, Edinburgh…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
That came out misleadingly, sorry. All trains, UIC captive and classic/hybrid, are supposed stop at Old Oak Common, for starters. It doesn’t appear to be spelled out anywhere, but one assumes that those stations with have solely TSI 760mm platforms, with the classic equipment using its required “Stepping arrangements – provision to enable passengers to safely alight or board at platforms of TSI or UK standard design” technical equipment/kludges to allow this to happen.
Anyway, no need to take my word for anything. Read it all yourselves!
“The Day One proposal is the 16 sets (200m) of UIC “captive” equipment for the shuttles, costed at UKP25m per set with a low 18% cost risk; versus UKP37.5m each for 45 classic-compatible sets, with a 40% cost risk optimism bias for the Special Local Needs (nb Caltrain! nb CHSRA!) of this unique design.”
Ok, thanks for that, I was looking for the split of UIC/CC trainsets. It’s truly a mountain of documents. Given that I don’t read french, german or japanese, it’s the first time I’ve been able to read HSR docs this detailed. Quite interesting. Highly recommend it to other people on this board.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
GFD, that was a reply to RM. Thought I hit the right button. guess not.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
You’ll like this:
Clearly they’re confused over in Old Europe: they need to speak urgently with our CHSRA/consultant cost-plus fraudsters who are busy dreaming up their own inches and slugs based “standards” for California and having wet dreams about the years of acceptance “testing” they’ll be “required” to undertake.
Clem Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
But we need that Central Valley Test Track… to make sure no relativistic trainset shrinkage occurs at the dizzying velocity of 220 mph, and that Coriolis forces on the east rail are limited to less than three-eighths of a slug-foot per second squared!
Alon Levy Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
The planning in Britain is better than in California, but the cost control on HS2 reminds me of an American war (a kilometer of new track shouldn’t be costing $100 million), and the 12 tracks at Euston would make Diridon and Pringle proud.
Yes, thank you very much for creating and running this blog!
This blog has been loads of fun. I just hope we aren’t still arguing about pacheco and palmdale 10 years from now.
Deleted the trollish comment and the replies that followed. Carry on!
You should really think about putting a disclamer on your comment as “Opinion” and nothing more. That kind of talk is dangerous around here.
Dave Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Sorry my comment was directed at the new fellow, I forgot his name.
Dave Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Sorry Robert, you can delete my reply to the troll. I responded a little late.