Authority and US DOT Propose HSR “Demonstration” Run on Existing Tracks From LA to SD
Last week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote to DOT Secretary Ray LaHood regarding a proposed “demonstration” high speed rail run from Los Angeles to San Diego on existing infrastructure. It would have an implementation date of November of this year.
Schwarzenneger-Lahood Demo Train
First, it’s important to emphasize what the letter does not suggest. This would not be regular service but a demonstration run only. This is due to the fact that 50% of the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor is single-tracked and the signaling system is not capable of controlling trains past 90mph. The current number of trains can barely be squeezed through the corridor on time, let alone a true bullet train. The 79/90 mph speed limit will be dealt with when Positive Train Control (PTC) is implemented in the next few years.
However, a one day demonstration run from Los Angeles to San Diego and back would be a godsend. It would involve the following quite doable steps:
- At least a half-day “take over” of the railroad on a Saturday or Sunday. Regular passenger and freight train movement would be suspended or at least greatly curtailed.
- Importation of a true HSR consist and at least two or three diesel locomotives to quickly accelerate the demo train to about 120 mph (probably the maximum “waiver” speed of Amtrak’s diesel-electric locomotives).
- “One day” FRA demonstration waivers that would allow the demo train, which would “own” the railroad, to push the train to the maximum speeds allowable by the track geometry and the diesel locomotives push-pulling it.
Such a train could possibly make the non-stop 128 mile long trip in around an hour and 15 minutes. The current Amtrak Pacific Surfliner’s scheduled time is about two hours and 50 minutes.
(Take note that the Los Angeles to Fullerton right-of-way is owned by BNSF and would thus require their cooperation. It’s not to be taken for granted, of course. However, BNSF CEO Matt Rose has been a cheerleader of public HSR investment and their company has been cooperating with HSR on infrastructure planning thus far.)
The benefits of the “demo” train would be numerous. For too many people, despite it’s presence in countries as diverse as France, Spain, and China, HSR is still “vaporware” whose benefits they have a hard time imagining. This “demo” train would be “facts on the ground” near their own homes. The earned media generated by this event would have statewide and nationwide scope. If the event is properly promoted it has the potential to be a public relations game changer.
Which means that if the proposed LA to SD run is successful, the same train should do a demo run from San Jose to San Francisco. Ditto for the Amtrak San Joaquin corridor from Bakersfield to Martinez. It would be the first time that anything like true HSR, albeit in demonstration form, has pulled into any American train platform.
Let’s hope that the Governor’s office, the FRA, Amtrak, and the Authority can get this done.
Thanks for posting this, but I interpret this as requesting regular, public service – if so, this is potentially a very smart, proactive and unexpected PR move. I think the use of the term “demonstration” is meant to suggest the PR aspect rather than a one time media blast. Of course, we know this won’t be anything like the equipment we’ll see down the line, but it will get real commuters excited. Interestng they chose LOSSAN instead of taking the fight to Caltrain.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 7:53 am
Such a regular public service is simply impossible technically given the aforementioned reasons. Think about it, it would have been done already if it was so easy.
Dan S. Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
That’s my interpretation of that document as well. Sounds like Arnold is trying to set up some limited temporary revenue service runs along that corridor with a bunch of waivers. Note that he says he’s only targeting a minimum trip time of 2 hrs 10 mins. (He cites 50 minutes less than the drive time of over 3 hrs.)
Be that as it may, this particular letter in and of itself is much too ambiguous and lacking in details to get too excited about, IMHO. We should stay tuned for more substantial announcements. (Not to take away the fun to be had in postulating about what this really means, but I wouldn’t do so without the requisite grains of salt.)
I don’t disagree – it will be a heck of a feat squeezing any express service, let alone a “higher speed” one, onto LOSSAN. However, look at the phrasing in the letter: “to provide passenger service”, “operated by Amtrak” and the last paragraph. Perhaps they’re thinking of throwing down some short sections of passing track. Maybe it is possible with one round trip a day….having a real express service accessible to real commuters, EVEN at 90mph, would be a PR boost for the CAHSR (and I’d love to see their logo all over it). Maybe I’m dreaming…..but I don’t think Arnold is signing his name just for a one time deal.
This is one of the most exciting things I’ve read all year. It makes all the sense in the world to establish high speed service in the nation’s second busiest rail corridor LOS-SAN. So many of us are enthusiastic about the CAHSR project underway but are frustrated that there is nothing tangible until 2020. Let’s make the best out of our existing infrastructure, i.e. make necessary upgrades or changes to the existing corridor in order to allow higher inter-city speeds.
From the wording in the letter I don’t gather that this is to be merely a demonstration run as Dennis suggests (perhaps I’m blinded by my excitement). In order to “bring the convenience and benefits of high-speed rail to millions of people in the nation’s second-busiest passenger rail corridor” I think it will have to be a regular service that will be offered to more than media and politicians on a one-time round trip.
If this is to be regular service I think it would be practical to run at peak hours and weekends. One thing that the letter is vague about is travel time. The letter states that the San Diego-Anaheim-Los Angeles express stop service would reduce the average drive time of more than 3 hours by 50 minutes. Conservatively that puts the trip time at 2h10min which is only 35 min faster than the current Amtrak trip. If speeds of up to 120 are realized and there is only one stop at Anaheim it seems like the trip should be faster.. Don’t get me wrong, shaving any amount of time will be wildly popular.
Thanks for posting this incredible news Dennis!
1. Say you’re going to run trains at 120 MPH under controlled conditions between LA and SD.
2. Invite the press.
3. Run trains at 120 MPH under controlled conditions between LA and SD with the press on those trains.
5. ???
6. Break even.
Sounds like a plan.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 9:21 am
CA4HSR is going to assess the details of the plan before we make any recommendations, but as a concept, this definitely seems worth exploring.
thatbruce Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Will you be making more confirmed details available on this blog as you get them?
If you have any input to the process, the demonstration run or service should include the same stops as CAHSR would LA to Irvine, and in the San Diego section.
Nathanael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 12:11 am
No point in a demo on old, slow track.
Get 120mph track onto the corridor, and for a day you could have a “one train only” arrangement so that the signalling isn’t needed, and a demo will be reasonable. (It’s not 220 mph, but at least it gives *some* idea.) But there isn’t even 120 mph track there yet.
What about dusting off the JetTrain prototypes for this demo run? That way it could be demonstrated how quiet actual HSR trains actually are…
Hire Tim Allen to ride along and have him say, “More power!” to Ray LaHood.
There was an attempt to bring shinkansen trains to the I-5 rail corridor back in the 1980s, with private funding. It died after strong opposition to from beachfront property owners in San Clemente and Del Mar to the visual clutter associated with overhead catenaries, plus the whole “let’s dispense with environmental review” malarkey. Essentially the same issue prompted CHSRA to also abandon initial plans to use this corridor, though the large population in the Inland Empire plus LAWA’s insistence that Ontario get a station so it could relieve LAX also loomed large.
A “trial run” using a locomotive-drawn electric train in that corridor could stir up a hornet’s nest if the usual suspects jump to the conclusion that there’s a hidden agenda to switch the LA-SD leg to the coast after all. That would be highly counterproductive.
It might make more sense to pitch this as a way for folks in SoCal to simply come see what an actual bullet train looks like, so the concept becomes more real to them and CHSRA can gain some insight into which features they care most about. Folks in San Diego are going to have to wait longer than most before they get any HSR service, so this would also be a good opportunity to remind them of the risks associated with letting SANDAG pave over the few remaining rights of way.
Btw, when it scratched the coast corridor from its list of potential routes for the LA-SD leg, CHSRA also suggested that it might make sense to upgrade existing diesel-based Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service to 110mph, where possible, south of Irvine. Note that any new rolling stock purchase would almost certainly happen after 2015, so the diesel engines would have to conform to EPA Tier 4 emissions standards (80 less NOx and 95% less particulate matter than the current Tier 2, plus running on ULSD with <15ppm sulfur).
CHSRA has chosen to focus narrowly on electric trains, but the state legislature and voters could decide to re-frame the whole project as a combo of an electric, 220mph backbone and upgrades to Amtrak California routes from "HSR feeders" to "emerging HSR". So, I think it's reasonable to ask folks in SoCal if they'd rather have that and sooner, with enough left in the kitty to also upgrade parts of the LA-Santa Barbara segment of the Pacific Surfliner route. It might make sense to ask vendors to show not just electric models rated at 220mph, but also non-compliant tilting diesels rated at 110-125mph top speed.
Combine that event with information on positive train control and how that relates not just to safety but also to reduced operating overheads for intercity passenger rail. Unlike express HSR (150mph+), emerging HSR (110mph + FRA quiet zones) will always require some level of operating subsidy. It’s cheaper to implement up front but has to be perceived as a public service with a recurring burden on taxpayers – a classic trade-off. Lighter non-compliant trains would mean less wear and tear on the tracks, less noise at the same speed and also less fuel consumed, easing the burden. That’s really why the Caltrain waiver is potentially a sea change in the regulatory framework. However, OC/SD county voters first have to tell the state to get either CHSRA or else Caltrans’ Division of Rail to look into the implications, if any, for the south coast corridor. Note that a small section of that in or near camp Pendleton already features an early version of PTC.
So please, don’t just make this a rah-rah event for train nerds or, SD county opponents (Rose Canyon etc.) will seize on that and their positions will merely become even more entrenched. Instead, give the folks on the Pacific Surfliner route a real choice or at least, room for serious discussion. They’ll be paying part of the debt service on prop 1A bonds, so show them the respect they deserve.
Reminder: we ran a post on Speeding Up Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner in April of 2009.
Those of us with longer memories will recall the “Metroliner” fiasco, the previous attempt to run non stop trains between L.A. and San Diego. The running time was about 10 or 15 minutes faster and the passenger load about 30 to 40. Dennis is almost correct about corridor capacity. The 50% single track is in San Diego county, most of L.A. County and Orange County is now double. There are still some nasty choke points in OC, most notable San Juan Capistrano. However, we now have Metrolink and Coaster service in addition to the Surfliners and I cannot support the idea of major disruption for thousands of commuters to run a couple of round trips with exotic technology.
The proponents of this idea are the same people who pulled the double track and other LOSSAN corridor enhancement projects from the HSR funding applications because the HSR folks thought that it would improve their chances of getting more of the money. Now for political and prestige reasons they want to pretend that they are bringing HSR service. That’s how it works in California, you can’t deliver so you study or pretend.
Consider also that San Diego is decades away from HSR service. It’s an insult to San Diego county to disrupt what service they have for political propaganda.
My sources tell me that the proposed equipment is Siemens built 4 car dmus (DB class 605) to be loaned by DB. (This to be confirmed). They are capable of 150mph with tilting. Why not operate them between LAUS and Lancaster where you can substitute them for the Metrolink trains. There is still serious pro Maglev sentiment in places like Santa Clarita and Glendale and this could counter some of that. Also the RoW is almost 100% owned by LACMTA and traffic (including freight) is much less dense. This would then be a demonstration on a route which is part of the core Phase One HSR network, surely a more useful demonstration.
PD
Peter Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Per wikipedia, ICE-TD runs only 200 km/h in service, and has only reached 222 km/h in testing. That’s still lightyears ahead of current speeds, in CA of course.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Top speed is just as important as the fact that ICE-TD is a DMU and thus capable of much high acceleration rates than is a locomotive push-pulled train.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Thanks Paul for the update about what is proposed for equipment. Very exciting! I definately agree with you about a run on Metrolink’s Antelope Valley line. It being on the Phase I route and less disruptive to regular service would definately be an advantage.
Let’s run this demo on all the CHSRA corridors (except Pacheco, would have to put rubber tires on it!).
In another source you mention the possibility of using these sets for regular service of Surfliner trains 798/799 from LA to San Louis Obispo. This would be great! It would still require some big waivers to get this stuff going to 120 mph +. Basically a PTC waiver and buff strength waiver. That later was just granted to CalTrain a few weeks ago. The former is certainly a possibility.
UP would be a big impediment to this. They are politically aligned against HSR. However, the federal law’s designation of the Coast Route as an HSR corridor plus the authorization authority under ARRA would be big sticks against them. There’s big public money for this that has never existed. UP needs to be brought to heal for the public good.
Clem Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Caltrain’s crashworthiness waiver has some serious strings attached. You make it sound like they just got a waiver for free.
Rafael Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
FRA is definitely NOT going to waive buff strength requirements on any route that doesn’t have PTC. And forget about running anything at 120mph without full grade separation on top of PTC. Congress recently (H.R. 2095-110th) mandated PTC implementation by 2015 on routes that carry a lot of passengers and/or hazardous materials, but they didn’t provide funding nor give FRA the authority to define a technical standard.
Indeed, only about a decade ago, FRA forced Bombardier to bulk up their active tilt design for the Acela Express even though the NEC has ACSES installed. The Caltrain waiver is the first indication in a very long time that FRA’s position is now finally evolving beyond the obsolete “mo’ shteel is mo’ beta” mantra.
http://www.ebbc.org/?q=rail/fra.html
On a separate note, the nice, straight tracks Metrolink runs on between Palmdale and Lancaster are UPRR’s. SCRRA owns the tracks between Palmdale and Redondo Junction, including the very wiggly alignment in the I-14 corridor east of Santa Clarita. No train could run there at 120mph.
At this point, I’d worry less about demonstrating speed. People understand that the tracks we’ve got either aren’t up to the task (geometry not maintained well enough) or aren’t available for a trial run (major freight corridors). Caltrain’s route might work, at least for brief spurts, since PCJPB owns the tracks, they’re well-maintained and there’s a window with few or no trains in the mid-afternoon. Weekend service is also light. The other option is exactly what the Governor has suggested: the Camp Pendleton section of the LOSSAN.
Peter Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
How about my idea of dusting off the Bombardier JetTrain and letting it loose on LOSSAN? No need to deal with waiver of FRA safety requirements other than possibly for signalling.
If they haven’t scrapped the prototype in the meantime…
Rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 6:27 am
I hope they’ve scrapped it. It was a terrible idea because gas turbines have terrible fuel economy in part load. Even at full load, they’re not as efficient as a large diesel engine.
Trains are not planes. At 110mph, axle loads of 22.5t are still fine. There’s enough space in a locomotive for a diesel plus EPA Tier 4 exhaust gas aftertreatment systems. Use the right tool for the job and eliminate technology risk by buying trains with off-the-shelf traction subsystems. Spend the money not wasted on R&D on implementing PTC instead, again using already-debugged off-the-shelf technology.
We’re looking to deliver a transportation service, not a science experiment.
thatbruce Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Jet engines aren’t efficient at low power, which is why the JetTrain used its HEP unit below 30mph. Running the prototype in the LOSSAN corridor has platform height issues, but replace the coaches with a rake of say surfliner coaches and its workable.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetTrain
dejv Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Well, there were times when FRA didn’t require meeting buffering standards for presentation runs:
So in addition, this event wouldn’t be the first visit of true high-speed train on California soil.
For this event, a similar procedure could be taken to the one used in Europe for acceptance of trains that are too fast for available lines – say you’ve got a line that is certified for 160 km/h and it’s capable of 250 km/h if necessary quality of geometry is met. Then you tamp & stabilize the track to get it certified for required 250 km/h. Before the test are conducted, every level crossing is manned to close them at time and to guard them from bad drivers, switches are usually locked to allow regular traffic on second track while keeping the test track from accidental switch movement (the train might not be able to stop safely b/c the signalling is tailored to 160 km/h operation) and all signals are set to “green” except the last ones, that signall end of test segment.
The procedure should be modified, so the train can do some real faster service than current fast trains in semi-mixed traffic during weekends – that said, raise speeds only to the limits that allow the train to stop within existing block length and that won’t necessitate the switch locking etc.
In addition, the ICE-TD’s are a kind of white elephant for DB*, so they could be willing more trainsets, that could in turn make some usable service possible – like with three trains and 1:20 end-to-end running time, you can easily create a hourly/two-hourly peak/off-peak takt that, together with unreserved seating, will make people realize advantages of fast frequent service – if it runs long enough to spread the word (I guess a few months at most with proper PR).
* it had long hard teething period and it eventually showed up to be more expensive to operate than DB anticipated, so they replaced it by electric services whereever they could and now they run it mostly on direct trains to largely unelectrified Denmark
Rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 6:44 am
Given enough goodwill and funding, you could probably get a one-off demonstration done. It’s just that UPRR has zero goodwill.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on DB’s ICE-TD. There are plenty of viable alternatives, e.g. the Alstom Pendolino (class 390) or the Talgo 21, available in both UIC- and FRA-compliant versions. The company has decided to build a factory in Wisconsin.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Or Amfleets. They hit 125 every day all day and have been for decades.
rafael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Sure they do, but they’re super-duper-heavy FRA-compliant gear that’s expensive to run. The state of California should be looking to get more bang for its operating subsidy buck.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 8:46 am
For a single demo run how much fuel they use isn’t going to be an important factor.
dejv Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 5:38 am
For a single demo run is very important factor, if it can draw media and people attention. Do you think that ANY Amtrak’s non-Acela train is up to that job?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Yes. Passenger locomotives already running in California are rated for 110. Hitch some Amfleets to them and they can do 110 easily. Could probably get a waiver for 120-125 ( If they are rated at 110 that means they were tested for 120 or 125. ) How much diesel they use would balance out the shipping costs for a train to be shipped across an ocean for a month and back across the ocean for another month.
Nathanael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 12:14 am
Hmm: “Given enough goodwill and funding, you could probably get a one-off demonstration done. It’s just that UPRR has zero goodwill.”
San Diego-LA is perfect. Two public agencies and BNSF as tenant, no UP involved.
You’d have to do it on some day when normal traffic is REALLY REALLY LOW so that shutting the tracks down would be OK. Christmas Day?
rafael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 8:03 am
BYOR – bring your own reindeer ;-)
dejv Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 7:51 am
If I read maps correctly, UPRR isn’t involved at all in LA-SD corridor.
Talgo XXI isn’t exactly a good train because:
That means that you could rent a single short train that without any interior for passengers – IFF ADIF is willing to live without it for at least a month (the factory-to-yard journey of Astras and Trios for Portland, Tacoma and Seattle took 14 days). I think you can safely forget about this alternative.
All of Alstom Pendolinos I’m aware off have very high utilization rates, so I’d bet that it would be expensive to take them out of service for month or more and AFAIK, there are no deliveries underway, that could be delayed by trip to the other side of the Big Pond. In addition, they’re all electric trains, needing conventional locomotive to haul them (or use them to feed the train in this manner). All things combined, Pendolinos don’t seem to be viable option either.
ICE-TD’s are completely different story. DB don’t really know what to do with them so making another three sets available for two to three months shouldn’t be much difficult. This fact alone could make possible longer demonstration to make impact bigger. ICE-TD also doesn’t need locomotives for propulsion, so there’s no effect like “Wow, that sci-fi train needs our good ol’ locomotives”.
The possibility to borrow more trainsets makes possible to set up actual service, not just one demostration train for politicians, making public impact much larger. The service could include morning and afternoon-to-evening service on LA-SD line (with 3-4 hour long window around noon to allow movement of freight trains) on the Saturdays and Sundays. During weekdays, trains could be towed to SJ to run some on some of Baby Bullet trains instead of Caltrain’s own consists (in times when no freight is moving). The fares should be close to zero and widely publicized so even people who never rode a train would consider visiting the event.
Making some interior alterations, like removing few seats to make room for bikes, or setting up a presentation about high-speed rail worldwide and how it could perform in California would also help a lot.
Of course, intensive preparations with all involved (DB, Amtrak, BNSF, SDNR, SCRRA, Caltrain) would be necessary to ensure smooth execution of such ambitious plan, but the public impact would be orders of magnitude larger than see-once-and-forget presentation.
PS: running train on Caltrain could also make possible some full speed test runs on Peninsula to show local people and politicians (especially those who formed PCC) how quiet are actual high-speed trains.
Paul Dyson Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
“People understand that the tracks are not up to the task”….clearly the Governor and his advisors do not understand this or they wouldn’t have proposed it. As for the AV line, because of its curves it’s an ideal place for tilting trains. You can cut the journey time by allowing a higher speed through those curves but still be below 79mph. Of course it has nothing to do with true High Speed Rail but then neither does this demo project. It has everything to do with the Gov. wanting to show that he accomplished something towards HSR before he leaves office. I’d strongly recommend that HSR advocates be very circumspect about supporting this. I predict that there will be a lot of egg on faces before this is over.
PD
Peter Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Not to mention that a lot of people will be like “Well, if this works now, then why we spendin’ all this money on a new-fangled ‘lectric trains?”
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
I think that we can guide this in the right direction. Advocates’ push back help convince OCTA and L.A. Metro of the fiasco that was the “super-ROW” from LA to Anaheim and now they’re back to the drawing board on that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Indeed, only about a decade ago, FRA forced Bombardier to bulk up their active tilt design for the Acela Express even though the NEC has ACSES installed.
They haven’t completed installation last I heard. When Acela first started to run there wasn’t any ACSES. The vendors may have promised all sorts of vaporware but it wasn’t ready when they first started to run trains.
Justin Walker Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Rafael,
Metrolink does, in fact, own the entire rail line it operates on between Los Angeles and Lancaster.
At CP Harold (two miles south of the Palmdale Metrolink station), there is a track connection between the parallel Metrolink and UP tracks, but Metrolink trains don’t use it.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Again, I think this project has the potential of being a game changer for us.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Also, the DMU set could be used in revenue LA to SD service, with waivers and all current station stops. It would perhaps save 10 to 15 minutes at most, the constraint being track capacity.
Rafael Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
For revenue service at 110mph, there would obviously need to be some track upgrades (incl. bypass sections, i.e. quad tracks) plus signaling/traffic control upgrades plus a single, robust, integrated timetable for Amtrak PS, Metrolink, NCTD and BNSF.
In addition, grade crossing safety would need to be ensured throughout and selected grade separations implemented where rail traffic would choke off cross traffic. No-one’s going to make all those investments just to run half a dozen trains a day a little bit faster. You have to deliver commensurate ridership, i.e. run and fill a lot more trains, to amortize the capital cost and operating expenses over a sufficiently large number of customers. High speed rail is a high capacity proposition, that’s why it’s only ever implemented for major corridors.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I think you could shave 15 minutes off of the run time with an ICE-DMU, PTC, and a “sealed” corridor (four-quad gates). Without adding track capacity for now from the get-go.
Also I was mulling that the best regular revenue demo trains would be the first and last in each direction Saturday and Sunday morning. Such a train would not be “running” into its leader or freights, thus the highest possible run time savings would be possible.
I am still for turning the Surfliner corridor from LAUS to SD into a Sunday morning test track as a “proof of concept” for California. Grade crossings would be blocked by police. Interlockings blocked and clamped. ICE-DMU pushed to maximum speed with just one stop. Folks need to see that on TV.
Also, the San Louis Obispo / SF Daylight to LA corridor could make the best use of an ICE-DMU due to the light traffic. PTC and four-quad gates. 125 mph running or faster in the long sections with no grade crossings. High sustained speeds via tilting and better acceleration. Such a Daylight train would be a true incremental step to true HSR.
The above scenarios would wet the public appetitite and stoke demand.
Rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 6:50 am
Right, just think about the expectations you’d be setting/fears you would be stoking before you embark on a demonstration run. I absolutely hate the idea of itty bitty incrementalism toward the ultimate goal of true HSR service. If you’re not prepared to even advocate a moderately big bang that absolutely does involve expanded/upgraded tracks plus selected grade crossings for LOSSAN, don’t even bother. NIMBY’s would cripple any program of incremental upgrades.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Also, it might be possible to do a San Diego to LA demo run by having it depart at 8 or 9pm, thus only annuling one or two revenue passenger trains.
O/T, kinda. Check out what the chinese are building. Looks like the travel time will come down even more by the time we purchase train sets. Yeah for 236mph, until it increases again!!
Slightly O/T -
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA18) has written an op-ed for the Merced Sun-Star calling on San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced county to get behind high-speed rail, along the UPRR/CA-99 alignment alternative and with the HMF at Castle Airport. Ok, so he’s trying to bring home the bacon, that’s his job. Currently, Madera is the only city and county to have expressed a preference for using the BNSF alignment north of Calwa (south Fresno).
If there’s enough congressional support for this alternative, UPRR might possibly soften its stance. I’m not holding my breath on that, though.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:18 am
As I’ve mentioned before, UP needs to be “brought to heal” for the public good. In a federal court against US attorneys, if need be.
Peter Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:20 am
But based on what cause of action?
Paul Dyson Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Repeated violations of 49 USC 24308 for starters.
PD
Rafael Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I think you mean “brought to heel”. I also think you’re smoking the wrong kind of vegetation. UPRR, as one of the major freight operators, is a private company providing the public service of shipping heavy goods between the nation’s harbors and the vast interior, at the lowest cost per ton. Politicians from those interior states, as well as those from states with major harbors, would be extremely hesitant to force UPRR to give up scarce right of way on any of its main lines just so California can build HSR.
Don’t forget that 1 in 7 jobs in LA county is directly or indirectly connected to the LA/LB harbors. Without freight rail to the Inland Empire, High Desert and points way east and way north, those harbors would seize up. So would the freeways.
That said, UPRR is raising additional red flags regarding derailment safety and associated liability in an attempt to prevent CHSRA from acquiring new rights of way adjacent to its own. The legal term for this is chutzpah, but politically, UPRR knows it’s in a strong position: no politician wants to endanger anyone’s life. They also know that forcing UPRR to maintain its tracks and forcing its customers to maintain their rolling stock to the level required for sufficiently safe operation next to an HSR line would bust their budgets. They don’t want to get into the business of massively subsidizing, let along nationalizing, freight rail in the western US.
On the other hand, farmers and others are making it very difficult for CHSRA to secure a sufficiently straight right of way at sufficient distance from UPRR’s tracks. Don’t count on Congress to solve what other states, for better or worse, perceive to be strictly a California problem. It wasn’t their idea to run trains at 220mph, even though many can see the appeal of that.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Look at PTC. The freights hate it. Yet none of UPs friend’s in Congress were able to stop it. The right wisely did not make it a priority to stop it. I think you overestimate the political clout of UP a tad. I hope.
Rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 6:54 am
Well, hope springs eternal. FRA has been talking about PTC for decades and the freight rail lobby made sure it never got beyond talking. Nothing happened until 25 people actually died at Chatsworth and even then, Congress did not give FRA the funding nor the authority to set a national technical standard.
Perhaps you’re the one underestimating UP’s political clout in Washington.
YesonHSR Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
UP has been well treated by the state..the Alamenda corridor and now the 2nd phase thru the Inland empire area that is going to be grade free..They are not beening ‘good” corporate neighbors..I still wonder how high up the UP chain of command this No for CAHSR goes?
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Straight to the top. Can you imagine such a decision would be short of that?
Nathanael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 12:16 am
UP doesn’t need half its lines in California.
Since it merged with Southern Pacific, it’s been in a near-monopoly position and it’s getting very unpopular. Nobody in the interior is going to believe that it needs its duplicate lines in California.
You want European-style 125mph locomotives, then DB Schenker UK (formerly EWS) have some 125mph diesel locomotives they hardly use (Class 67s – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_67)
(By the way, the 125mph diesel trains used in the UK are 30+ years old…)
TomW Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Bad link… try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_67
Rafael Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
You’re missing the point: you’d want to show off modern high speed diesel and electric trains. No-one in California is going to get excited about yesteryear’s hand-me-down from a country with only a modest HSR pedigree.
Matthew Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
It has to be sexy and aerodynamic. Apparently being fast but ugly doesn’t count for a PR train.
James Fujita Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
What’s wrong with sexy? Tell the competitors to ship over their sexiest Nozomi, TGV or whatever and park them at Union Station.
Rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 7:13 am
Nozomi means express service, it doesn’t refer to a particular train design.
The extremely sexy series 500 proved too expensive to build in large numbers. The current flagships are the arguably less attractive but technically superior N700 and the new E5. Taiwan’s prettier N700T leveraged the N700 design.
That said, neither operators nor manufacturers have HSR trainsets lying around just in case California wants to conduct a demo run. Note that any diesel locomotives used to pull an electric version would need compatible couplings.
In addition, shipping trains back and forth across oceans (let alone air-freighting them) is a non-trivial logistics exercise. Doable, but someone has to foot the bill.
Dan S. Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Come on Rafael, we all know what James was talking about there. No need to flaunt your brain size quite so revealingly. Seems like someone who is taking credit for helping to run this blog would try a little harder to encourage a courteous discussion here. Otherwise, kudos to your nifty hyper-linking and recitation of facts.
Spokker Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
First time I’ve ever seen someone scolded for good posting, haha.
Are they going to put in overhead wires, install PTC, and eliminate grade crossings? If not I think people are going to get the wrong impression of high speed rail from this.
Peter Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Other than the visual impacts of OCS, I think those issues are red herrings. The people riding the trains won’t know/care whether PTC is installed or whether grade crossings are present.
nobody important Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
You know what, nevermind this comment. Ignore it. It’s not here.
Rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 7:37 am
For the LOSSAN corridor, only diesel trains at 110mph should be considered. Overhead electrification simply isn’t going to fly in the beachfront communities of San Clemente and Del Mar.
Eurostar trains have both pantographs and third rail pickups, since they had to operate on the legacy 750V DC network in the UK until HS1 was built. Third rail absolutely requires grade separation for electrical safety, though.
Btw, Bombardier’s ART uses a linear induction motor. However, no-one has ever seriously considered scaling that technology up to HSR speeds for use in short sections where an OCS would not be acceptable to the local community. LIMs require a very small air gap between the train and the central portion of the track, so any debris would have serious consequences. For short sections, the heavy windings could go into the tracks and the passive aluminum (or coated copper) plates would be attached to the underside of otherwise unpowered bogies. Those plates would need forced cooling, but some modern electric HSR concepts already feature water-cooled motors and power electronics anyhow.
Note that other sections could use those plates to provide a LIM boost to the regular rotating motors already on board. That could mean faster acceleration out of stations and/or better hill climbing ability – assuming the cooling system can handle the combined load of both traction systems. Co-ordinating the two on the millisecond time scale would also be a major engineering challenge.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“Third rail absolutely requires grade separation for electrical safety, though.” LIRR uses third rail with grade crossings and it seems hardly a warning sign at the crossings. I believe it’s only about 750V DC. I suspect it would be impossible to push 34KV AC through a third rail without it arc-ing to the ground.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
You’d never get approval for third rail and grade crossings today. The regulatory environment was a bit different 100 years ago.
James Fujita Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Are the NIMBYS of Del Mar and San Clemente more important than the NIMBYS of Palo Alto? Wouldn’t electrification be less disruptive than what’s being proposed for the San Francisco Peninsula?
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I would be for fighting the NIMBYs along the coast except that the notion of going from Riverside to San Diego via the I-215/I-15 corridor to San Diego is meritorious in-and-of itself as there is no rail along that alignment.
Dan Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
The biggest problem with Del Mar (I live there) is not the Nimby’s of 20 years ago …. it’s the track location. The single-lane track is on a bluff which is continually crumbling into the ocean. There is a long-running fight between the locals who want to add seawalls/etc to shore-up the bluff and the surfrider foundation who are against it. In any case, there is absolutely no real estate to double-track this segment unless you use eminent domain to seize a bunch of multi-million dollar bluff-front mansions. There’ve been a couple suggestions to remove the bottle neck by tunneling under the main-street (camino del mar / Hwy 101) which are opposed by some locals due more to the disruption during construction than to a fundamental anti-rail bias. There is a proposal by the Del Mar Fairgrounds to add a seasonal rail stop in Del Mar which is highly supported by the local population; it may even open next year on a temporary platform!
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I don’t think you could double track Del Mar and San Clemente on the current ROW for the reasons that Dan mentions that go above and beyond NIMBY-ism. Double-track could be done on a new alignment east of those locations in the I-5 ROW. A multi billion dollar proposition.
Probably more bang for you buck to bore underneath UCSD and build a station there, avoiding the slow turns around Sorrento and Rose Canyons.
Double track everything that can be double tracked, PTC for 110mph+, ICE style DMUs, sealed corridors and some strategic grade seps. A bargain!
Rafael Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 9:09 am
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a multi billion dollar proposition, that’s exactly what implementing CHSRA’s electric system between Riverside and San Diego would cost. A proper upgrade to LOSSAN would come at the expense of that segment.
However, I’d recommend detours via properly ventilated tunnels under the southbound lanes of I-5 for the offending sections only, in order to achieve full double tracking. Even a relatively short single track section would massively reduce line capacity, all the more so if the foundation isn’t solid.
This would presumably also eliminate objections to OCS wires from beachfront property owners, so it wouldn’t even be necessary to stick with diesels.
Rafael Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 9:04 am
There’s no beachfront property in Palo Alto.
No matter what equipment and waivers you have, it’ll take at least 35 mins to get from LA to Orange and at least 25 minutes to get from Sorrento Valley to San Diego. Between Orange and Sorrento Valley, you might be able to cut it to 50 mins if the FRA granted you all kinds of waivers to allow 110 mph with the current track and signalling system. So minimum possible running time is 1 hr 50 mins.
Of course, such a train would not intermix well with Metrolink and Coaster. It could be interesting as a brief demo, but you wouldn’t want to run it on a regular basis.
Rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 7:40 am
If Amtrak HSR were upgraded to emerging HSR status, Metrolink and NCTD services would need to be reconsidered as well. That would take money and integrated planning (always a problem when you have multiple operators), but it could be done. A bigger issue could be freight, because there’s no way that can keep up with fast passenger trains.
Does BNSF run its trains to and from SD during the day or at night?
thatbruce Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 10:06 am
The BNSF freights mostly run from Fullerton to San Diego at night. There is the occasional midday run to/from the freight/metrolink/coaster yard near Camp Pendleton, but no further south during the day.
One item I have overlooked is platform compatibility. I think there will be too large a gap at existing platforms and the “Sprinter” style movable platform extensions will be needed. Career opportunity for yours truly, I can stand at LAUS and yell out “mind the gap!” ADA access could be another issue.
I can imagine how this will work. There will be specially equipped platforms at LAUS and San Diego only, and an inability to make intermediate stops. Amtrak will sign on because Boardman and his pals don’t give a darn about pax and are trying to position themselves as the HSR operator of choice. I have yet to decide whether this will be a tragedy, comedy, farce or all three together.
PD
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Not as bad as you make it sound. Probably can use the current Metrolink/Coaster raised section with a bridge plate.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Or they could pick a common platform height like rational operators all over do….
dejv Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 2:50 am
European trains feature wheelchair lifts and they can cope with any platform height in 8-30 in range.
Come on Folks! Isn’t anybody going to comment on what this is all about.
The Governor leaves office at the end of the year. This is a political stunt to anoint Schwarzenegger with the crown of
“I brought HSR to California”
Peter Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I think someone did bring it up, actually.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 11th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
If it helps get the system built he can have as many political stunts as he wants. Getting HSR built is far more important to me than worrying about photo ops and stunts.
Paul Dyson Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 10:16 am
This is where you are quite wrong. HSR at any price, including the disruption and even destruction of the Surfliner service and a couple of Metrolink routes is unacceptable to me and many other advocates. The reality is that the LOSSAN south corridor is AT CAPACITY. The three passenger agencies and the freight operator have continued to add trains over the past 18 years without adding the signalling and track capacity to handle them. Hence the Surfliner trains have an OTP of barely 80% in spite of padding and counting 5 minutes late as on time. The only way you can run higher speed demo trains is to take other trains out of the schedule or at best extend their running times while you “clear the road” for the limited stop train. What does that accomplish?
This idea, on a smaller scale, is as dumb as building a $6 billion railroad for the HSR branch line between Anaheim and LAUS. It’s a waste of money, it disrupts such service as we have now, and gives the public an entirely false impression of what HSR is all about.
PD
rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Robert was referring to a one-off technology demonstration on a Sunday afternoon. The Governor picked the LOSSAN corridor for that because he wants OC and SD residents in particular to keep supporting the HSR project even though the starter line will only serve one major city in these two counties, i.e. Anaheim. The phase 2 extensions to Irvine and San Diego (via Riverside county) are a long way off and their funding depends on successful implementation and operations of the starter line.
There are currently no firm plan to have Caltrans’ Division of Rail to the planning work for upgrading LOSSAN to 110mph (where feasible). Any such project would be based on diesel trains operated by Amtrak under the Surfliner brand and replace the Riverside-San Diego leg of the electric HSR network that CHSRA is working on. A lot would have to happen to boost capacity first, beginning with full double tracking and modern traffic control based on modern PTC technology.
For example, there’s a dual track main line in Switzerland with corridor traffic control that features ETCS level 2 and a minimum headway of just 2 minutes at a nominal line speed of 200km/h (125mph). That’s enough capacity for 30 trains an hour!
If you have a speed mismatch or, some trains need to serve stations, you need to quad track some sections. In particular, stopping on the main line is very bad for throughput so planners would need to find room for sidings that are long enough to avoid impacting the nominal speed on the main line. If that’s not available laterally, tracks can be stacked vertically at stations (e.g. northbound above southbound). However, that makes any grade separations that are considered essential much more difficult for fairly long stretches and, the gradients involved also impact freight operations.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I also think that an HSR test run with ICE-DMUs could lead to regular “semi-HSR” service on these corridors that would be incrementally developed while full HSR is getting built.
rafael Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
“Semi-HSR”, in Obama-speak, is “emerging HSR”. And no, it would be either the electric system with higher speeds but via Riverside county or a diesel-based LOSSAN corridor upgraded to higher speeds and capacity.
Of course it’s a publicity stunt, and I say ALL THE MORE POWER TO THEM if they can get this accomplished.
Look, Cal HSR could use all of the good publicity it can find. A lot of people aren’t familiar with HSR and bringing some fast train to California would mean a lot to a lot of people. I’ve been to Japan, a lot of people haven’t. (Or to France or to Spain or to Germany or to Taiwan.)
Maybe this is Ah-nold’s last hurrah, I don’t really care. Maybe there’s a bit of PT Barnum to all of this, but what’s the harm?
And this isn’t incrementalism, I doubt very highly that going incremental on LA-SD would work precisely because of the problems listed earlier. But one or two demo runs isn’t the end of the world.
From the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100612,0,5073909.story
morris brown Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Rich Tolmach really says it beautifully:
Others pointedly questioned the governor’s motivation beyond his long-time support for high-speed rail.
“What hit me first about this was the desperation of having a ribbon-cutting shortly before the governor leaves,” said Rich Tolmach of the California Rail Foundation. “They’ve realized there’s no legacy for the governor.”
And as a aside, maybe Arnold should pay for this personally, or at least from his war chest of campaign funds. The CHSRA should not fund this, nor should the Feds.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Tolmach also opposes high speed rail, so he has an interest in talking down this proposal.
synonymouse Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Tolmach isn’t against hsr – he opposes the Tehachapis detour, a grievous error.
Nathanael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Again with your garbage. Tolmach went nuts because his favored alignment (Altamont) was not chosen (because it was worse) and since then has been attacking HSR every chance he gets.
And again, the Techachapis route is the only one which can be constructed and operated safely, unless you have a magic new tunnelling-through-fault-lines technology.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 1:19 am
Grapevine was certainly possible but a lot harder. Also, for all that trouble you would have mised the Antelope Valley. In the post peak oil world, Antelope Valley people are going to need a train ride.
I think in perhaps 30 years or less we could look at building the Grapevine/I-5 route from north to south (after full San Diego to S.F. build-out). The ROW is not going anywhere.
Joey Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 5:54 am
There isn’t much ROW to worry about since most of it would be tunneled…
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 10:34 am
That’s my point, I mean ROW in the broadest sense. The ROW from San Fernando to the tunnel bores isn’t going to get developed and then the middle of the I-5 is not going to get developed either.
Nathanael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
In 30 years or less we might have figured out safer and less cost-overrun-prone ways to build and operate tunnels which cross multiple fault lines underground, yes.
Rafael Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 9:01 am
In engineering terms, it is possible to tunnel across fault lines. The Japanese did it for the Seikan tunnel between Honshu and Hokkaido. I suspect the brand-new HSR tunnel system in central Italy crosses some fault lines. That, however, does not mean it’s a good idea for California to do the same, especially if there is a viable alternative.
The first issue is that you want to avoid a serious derailment. If a train cannot stop in time to avoid the fault line when a quake strikes, the second issue is that you may need to evacuate a stricken train full of wounded passengers.
The third issue, which is often conveniently forgotten, is that the line needs to be brought back into service as quickly as possible after it is damaged, because customers and the operator depend on the infrastructure. Minor quake damage can be addressed by constructing so-called fault crossing chambers, but getting heavy construction equipment back in there is expensive and time-consuming, especially if the tunnel walls have been compromised. In adverse geology, that could mean anything from collapse or the risk of collapse to water or natural gas seeping in.
If a fault is crossed at grade, evacuation and repairs are obviously much easier, given that the access road used for initial construction will remain in use for regular inspection and maintenance. In either case, the tracks need a special foundation right at the fault crossing to accommodate the natural slow creep of the Garlock fault. The San Andreas hardly creeps at all at Tejon Pass, which is precisely why it poses a much higher risk of a major earthquake in the next 30 years or so – definitely within the life expectancy of the HSR infrastructure.
Anyone advocating a straight shot alignment between Bakersfield and Sylmar should consider these implications.
I would also like to point out that this is a revival of an old idea.
In the 2005 program-level EIR, the CAHSRA looked at LA-SD non-electric HSR service. The final conclusion was to leave the development of such service to the Caltrans Division of Rail. As we all know, no major steps have been taken to this end since.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27717393@N05/3533255528
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 12th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Thanks for that Justin. The ought-five HSR documents seem like ancient history now. Let’s get these ICE-DMUs on the San Diego to LA and SLO corridor with some PTC and a few “sealed” (four quad gates) corridors in regular service quickly. And high speed demo runs of all the HSR parrallel ROWs I say.
rafael Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Actually, that’s not entirely true. Caltrans Division of Rail actually assembled all the documentation needed for upgrading the Amtrak California corridors to emerging HSR status in preparation for the state’s ARRA application last year. At the last minute, the Governornator decided that the state’s best chance of receiving a substantial grant lay in submitting only the documents for the electric express HSR system that CHSRA is planning.
Therefore, in light of the Caltrain waiver, it would make sense to ask if Sacramento and San Diego really want to wait for the phase 2 network expansion of the electric system or instead, secure less expensive upgrades to existing diesel-based services at an earlier date. If so, the anyhow-difficult LA-San Diego and Merced-Sacramento sections would be canceled in favor of seriously beefing up LOSSAN south of Anaheim, the Capitol Corridor north of Benicia and the San Joaquin corridor north of Merced (incl. a transfer station to HSR). New non-compliant DMUs capable of delivering affordable service at 110mph (where feasible) require investment in new track and signaling.
In addition, an appropriate plan B would be needed for LAUS-Ontario-Riverside/San Bernardino. UPRR does host Amtrak’s Southwest Chief but not Metrolink on its Colton line. Dual tracking between Pasadena and Colton would be needed to beef up capacity. A detour right past the ONT terminals could run on an aerial.
Paul Dyson Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 9:21 am
UPRR hosts the Sunset Limited, not the Southwest Chief. UPRR host Metrolink via E Ontario to Riverside. They are currently refusing to allow Amtrak to go to daily service on the Sunset from the current 3 times a week. UP is adamantly opposed to any additional passenger rail on (or even near) its lines. Part of the plan for a daily Sunset is to run it on BNSF via Fullerton to Colton so that both Chief and Sunset have connections off the San Diego line and to keep it off UP as much as possible.
There is no route through Pasadena for anything other than light rail (Gold Line).
The LOSSAN route LAUS to San Diego is an important regional route in its own right, whether or not HSR is built. There is no desire to wait for HSR for upgrades to LOSSAN. The problem is that the parochial counties that form the JPBs that run services such as LOSSAN and Metrolink don’t have the vision or the political clout to look beyond their county boundaries and deliver a regional network.
PD
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 10:41 am
” . . . don’t have the vision or the political clout to look beyond their county boundaries and deliver a regional network.”
I think Paul’s right on that. Whatever motivates the Gov.’s current “demo” initiative, it should get people thinking about incremental HSR upgrades to existing corridors once they see an ICE making some kind of run in the very near future.
Re: UP again, see http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/06/11/1455230/dennis-cardoza-get-behind-high.html. We have some friends in Congress and UP must be brought to regulartory “heel” (spelled it right this time).
Dennis Lytton Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 10:46 am
“If so, the anyhow-difficult LA-San Diego and Merced-Sacramento sections would be canceled in favor of seriously beefing up LOSSAN south of Anaheim, the Capitol Corridor north of Benicia and the San Joaquin corridor north of Merced (incl. a transfer station to HSR). New non-compliant DMUs capable of delivering affordable service at 110mph (where feasible) require investment in new track and signaling.”
Merced to Sac’to via ICE-DMU on conventional equipment on the current ROW would be great but UP would have to be brought to regulatory “heel” (spelled correctly). Ditto the Capitol Corridor.
I wouldn’t say that the LA to SD inland route should be cancelled. Absent another big enfusion of cash it’ll have to wait until phase I is open before ground can be broken on it. LOSSAN can be beefed up to 110+ with no increase in train numbers fairly quickly.
Rafael Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
UPRR has said it would consider passenger train service at up to 110mph on its network, provided that John Q Public pays for the requisite upgrades to the infrastructure. It’s not simply a question of bringing “UPRR to heel”, there are real safety issues related to signaling and real capacity issues related to speed mismatches and timetable operations (which UPRR is less keen on).
It’s not at all trivial to upgrade a corridor to higher speeds, even if the locomotives and rolling stock could handle them with no more than in-cab equipment for positive train control (which may or may not apply for Amtrak and Metrolink). Curves need higher superelevation, but that doesn’t work for freight trains. Gauntlet tracks could address that, but they’re expensive to construct and maintain. More significant is that any station on the main line will reduce throughput capacity. If you want to mix a useful number of express trains with the locals, you need quad track segments and operations based on an integrated timetable. That’s always harder when multiple operators share a line.
Above 125mph, FRA mandates full grade separation, which is difficult and expensive. Even at lower speeds, it may be required or at least strongly desired to preserve or improve cross road capacity, in addition to crossing safety.
Doing all of that such that service frequency can go up and line haul times down is neither cheap nor quick. PTC signaling and integrated traffic management alone are major undertakings, which should precede any effort to raise top speeds. Beyond PR, there is very little value in boosting that to 110mph in just a tiny section for just a handful of trains per day.
What I was suggesting is a proper upgrade to the coast corridor, not as a stopgap but as a permanent solution. Unless someone can prove there’s a significant market for high speed rail travel between SD and Riverside/San Bernardino, there would be no point in also constructing that infrastructure. This would be an either-or decision.
Paul Dyson Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I cannot “prove” there is a market for HS rail travel anywhere. But why limit this to SB/Riverside to San Diego in your question? Aren’t we also building the San Diego segment to link say Riverside to San Jose or SF? It’s no more an either/or decision than saying that we should go to SF or Sacramento but not both. SB County and Riverside County each has a population of a little over two million, concentrated along the proposed HSR alignment. That’s about 5 times the population of San Francisco.
PD
How about dusting off the three stored Rohr Turboliners that Amtrak has down in Bear, Delaware? Also, I think the Jet Train is still sitting out in Pueblo, CO.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Last I heard they were for sale cheap. There’s probably a reason or two or three or four why they are for sale cheap.
Administration pushing back against UP in Illinois:
Does anybody have more specifics on these FRA “terms” refered to below? Why is National Corridor Initiatives being so whimpy and pro-freights?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=38528
High-speed rail projects suddenly on fast track
By: Paul Merrion June 10, 2010
(Crain’s) — Federally funded high-speed rail projects in Illinois and others parts of the country could get under way in as little as two weeks, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Thursday.
Recent concerns raised by the nation’s freight railroads, which are getting the bulk of $8 billion in stimulus funding to accommodate faster passenger trains, had threatened to sidetrack President Barack Obama’s signature transportation project before it even got started.
But a high-level meeting Wednesday between Mr. LaHood and freight rail executives appears to have created some urgency to resolve those differences.
“I said to them, this is the president’s and vice-president’s vision and we need to get moving on it,” Mr. LaHood said in a brief interview. “We’re going to have some very intense meetings here for the next couple of weeks so we can get some agreements in place.”
In a move that reportedly “stunned” the rail industry, the Federal Railroad Administration last month proposed stiff terms for the grant agreements that railroads must sign with states to get funding to upgrade their rail systems.
“We have a number of issues with these guidelines, and we made our concerns known to DOT and FRA,” said a spokesman for Union Pacific Corp., which is working with Illinois to create high-speed passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis with $1.13 billion in federal funding. The “meeting was constructive and everyone remains committed to the goal.”
Among other things, the FRA said railroads must be required to pay, without limit, for any further improvements or fixes needed to meet on-time performance goals set out in the grant agreements, or else pay back the federal grants.
Even Boston-based non-profit, National Corridors Initiative Inc., a high-speed rail advocacy group, questioned whether that is feasible.
“While the objective of these guidelines — to protect the taxpayer against the (mis)use of their money when federally assisted railroad projects are built — is a valid one, the prescriptive, punitive nature of the proposed FRA regulations are and will be non-starters for any normal businessperson who has to carefully assess projects for risks to his company, or face the wrath of his stockholders,” the group said in a statement on its Web site.
Although the meeting did not address the “nitty-gritty detail” of issues raised by the railroads, Mr. LaHood said both sides renewed their commitment to get high-speed passenger rail funding agreements hammered out with states soon. A spokesman for the Illinois Department of Transportation declined to comment.
“What I’m telling you is, I believe over the next two weeks whatever issues there are are going to be resolved, at least in these four corridors we’re talking about,” including Illinois, Mr. LaHood said. “The specifics will be worked out. There’s a sense of urgency; we need to get going. We want some of this work to begin this year.”