Debate Over HSR Routing Near LA Union Station Heats Up Again
One of the controversies simmering just beneath the surface with the routing of high speed rail is the debate over where to put the tracks between Union Station and Glendale. The best route would follow the current Metrolink tracks, adjacent to the Los Angeles River. However, that has generated some controversy among those living next to the tracks and advocates of river restoration and the state park located in the area. Their view seems to be that the tracks will inherently disrupt the experience of reconnecting the neighborhood to the park. Another set of concerns involves getting the tracks out of Union Station and north to the LA River in the first place.
Since these issues emerged last fall, the California High Speed Rail Authority has been working to propose methods to ensure that the tracks would not act as a barrier between the neighborhood and the riverfront park, or potentially cause the demolition of housing near Union Station. The latest set of proposals, included in the Palmdale-LA Alternatives Analysis report, involves burying and even tunneling the tracks through the area:
It would head due north from the station, passing over Vignes Street and descending under Main Street, to enter a tunnel at Spring Street. Other roads between Vignes Street and Spring Street would need to be closed or grade separated. It would transition from cut and cover to bored tunnel construction within LASHP. The bored tunnel would continue due north deep below the Elysian Park neighborhood and Elysian Park, curve gently northwest beneath I-5 and the southern tip of the Elysian Valley neighborhood, and align with San Fernando Road or the existing Metrolink tracks. It would surface at the south end of the Rio de Los Angeles State Park.
This also protects houses in the neighborhood near Union Station. It seems a solution worth of further consideration.
However, even this has generated criticism, as LAist reports:
With recently-released proposals showing where tracks could be placed throughout Los Angeles as part of California’s high speed rail project, some residents and environmental groups are ready to fight at least one possible route. That’s because it could temporarily shut down Los Angeles State Historic Park, one of the few green spaces around downtown, for several years, according to the Downtown News…
An attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council called the proposal unacceptable. “Downtown is one of the most park-poor areas in the country, and in a neighborhood that doesn’t have green space, we have this amazing resource just blocks away from home that people can enjoy,” Damon Nagami told the Downtown News.”It’s something the community fought hard for and we can’t lose.”
Of course, Nagami does not appear to be aware that the proposal would not close the park permanently, but that it would merely be a temporary closure in order to build an environmentally-friendly mass transit system that can run on 100% renewable energy and make a significant dent in pollution, carbon emissions, and oil consumption in California.
To be clear, I’m not at this point advocating for or against any solution. But a temporary closure of a park in order to build this system doesn’t seem like a dealbreaker.
There needs to be a sense of perspective here. Our dependence on oil is causing massive environmental damage to California, particularly to central Los Angeles. One of the top environmental priorities we have as a state is to build sustainable mass transit alternatives. Obviously that has to be balanced against other environmental needs. If permanent closure of a park were on the table, I’d probably agree with the criticism. But a temporary closure, while inconvenient, seems worth it given the massive rewards the community would gain from the HSR project.
This is true not only for HSR. Other environmentally-friendly and sustainable systems require some tradeoff. For example, massive wind power projects in the Pacific Northwest are facing problems due to electrical grid limitations produced by environmental opposition to building new transmission lines. Southern California has seen some environmentalists fight the construction of transmission lines to enable new solar projects to be built in the Mojave Desert.
If we refuse to build renewable energy or sustainably powered trains because they would impose changes on the existing landscape, we are merely condemning ourselves to suffering the environmental and economic damage from our dependence on oil. There has to be a way to build these projects economically and affordably. A temporary park closure isn’t ideal, but if that’s the best way to build the tracks, then it would seem worth doing.
Putting words in other peoples’ mouths is quite the unsanitary habit.
YesonHSR Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
You are also quite an Asshole…so were is your effort to save Muni??
Brian Stanke Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 7:49 am
So now you are knocking Robert for giving Nagami the benefit of the doubt? It is now “unsanitary”? Really?
Matthew Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Most of the quotes I’ve read on articles covering this issue are from people who realize it would be a temporary closure, but who don’t want to lose their park for a couple years. Downtown LA has had a population boom over the last few years, which is good news for public transit, and HSR in general, but people who just moved there don’t want to live a couple years without their park. I think that construction segmenting, development of other open space alternatives, e.g. http://piggybackyard.org/ etc. can make construction of this alignment possible without a big decrease in quality of life to people who have chosen to live in a sustainable part of the city. They’re not ignorant, though, they have a pretty good idea of what they do and don’t like about that alignment.
HSRforCali Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Park poor? Please… Downtown just broke ground on a new civic park:
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articles/2010/07/20/news/doc4c3f53ae66769004285629.txt
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Meh, just put a park on top of LAUS. That’ll solve all our problems, right?
StevieB Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
The park you linked is in the heart of the civic center mainly between the Hall of Administration and the County Courthouse among other public buildings. There is no housing within walking distance and the park is chiefly used by government employees for lunch.
HSRforCali Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Yeah, and there’s even less development around the LA State Park.
BrianM Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
There’s unquestionably more housing around LA State Historic Park, and its value to the community cannot be overstated. Anyone who sees it on any weekend can immediately get an idea how many people really value that park, and it’s undeniable that there aren’t many parks of any size that are viable alternatives for people living in the service area of this park.
That said, the right way to frame that alternative is to point out that construction would be staged and the park could be kept from ever being completely closed. I was down on the under-the-park alternative when I thought it would literally close the park for several years, but that’s not what’s going to happen, and proponents should make that clear.
Matthew Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Yes, if you want to get to LA State Park, you have to go to the ass end of Chinatown. It’s not super central.
It would seem to me that even the potential temporary closure of the park can be mitigated by segmenting construction and constructing temporary bridges over the below-grade construction sites. Any thoughts?
Re: Sylmar-Palmdale, the SR-14 South alignment looks like a disaster. There’s an insane amount of tunneling on it. The Soledad Canyon alignment looks like the winner there…least tunneling, though it still requires 11-12 miles (with a 7 mile long tunnel no matter which route you take).
Joey Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Why are all the desirable alignments getting eliminated these days?
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Which ones specifically and where?
Joey Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Program alignment south of Diridon Station, this … I guess I’m talking about the downtown Burbank station option too, though that doesn’t technically fall under alignments.
Caelestor Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Let Burbank be the counterpart to San Jose, and its airport the counterpart to SJC.
Why would you build an HSR station at any of those airpors?
mike Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Yeah, with either SR-14 East or West (the two carried forward) you’re looking at 15+ miles of tunneling. Oh well, at least SR-14 South is gone.
HSRforCali Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
It’s only a matter of time until Synonymous brings up his Tejon argument…
synonymouse Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Well, if they had fleshed out instead of closed out the alternatives we could compare overall tunnelling.
Doesn’t it seem odd to spend so much on a tunnel that goes east instead of north?
Joey Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Yeah, until you see the justification.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I have a feeling he brings it up when they let him order at the drive through window.
Has anyone bothered to take a look at the supplemental LA-Anaheim Alternatives Analysis? Since the topic is on LAUS, there is a new plan to have LAUS to be done at grade instead of elevated. There are drawings in Appendix 1 of the supplemental AA and it’s worth looking at. Metrolink and Amtrak will also gain run-through tracks while the existing Gold Line tracks/platform and 101 flyover would have to be altered as well.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
link: http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100717142455_LA-A%20Supplemental%20AA%20Appendix%20I.pdf
Justin Walker Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 10:14 am
The inclusion of at-grade facilities at LAUS and of the shared-track alternative for LA-Anaheim was a major victory for HSR in Californa.
While the people on the peninsula are fighting away, we in SoCal now have consensus on something.
Anyways, the Supp. AA drawings you’ve referenced call for reinstating LAUS Tracks 13, 14, 15, and 16. Metrolink has already begun construction on restoring 13 and 14 and has plans for restoring 15 and 16 in the pipeline.
At-grade facilities at LAUS will be great for everyone, especially given that Amtrak/Metrolink and CAHSR will have run-through tracks. Current operations at LAUS will be much more efficient with run-through tracks and effective capacity will be greatly increased.
Based on the drawings, though, it looks like the Gold Line platform and both the north and south approaches will need to be relocated. Hopefully the scope of these modifications can be greatly reduced.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 11:08 am
I’m very much agree that it’s quite the promising start. But …
The bat shit insane scheme with separate, incompatible platforms at different heights for two artificially “different” classes of trains (just what is a “commuter train” supposed to be, anyway?), and presumably with beyond-bat-shit-insane non-standard untested failure-assured “commuter rail” train control, is just asking for trouble and expense and delay and failure.
As I was speculating a couple entries back re LAUS-Burbank(-Palmdale), I can’t see any good or valid reason not to get rid of this expensive and failure-prone “mixed traffic” nonsense and simply — SIMPLY! — operate a dedicated fleet of HSR-regulation-compatible, HSR-signalling-compatable, HSR-platform-compatible Metrolink-branded “commuter” (whatever that is supposed to mean) trains on the nice new shiny tracks. That’s the way everybody with a clue does it: Japan, Spain, Germany, etc. Even the sad backward English-speaking British pretty much get it!
And yes, I know the situation is a bit more complicated! What do you do about LAUS-Anaheim-Ocenaside runs for starters? Some suggestions: cross-platform transfer to at Anaheim. Run non-stop Anaheim-LAUS (saves duelling stations and platforms at points between, but doesn’t fix the 400lb gorilla problem of duelling train control systems.) Extend the non-FRA shuttles to Orange and build a cross-platform transfer there?
Keep things simple: keep the shiny new working stuff safely isolated from the FRA rail cesspool.
And no, even thinking about Amtrak would be insane. Die die die.
All in all you’re right: a single level, less grandiosely insanely oversized overpriced station and a single set of tracks, less grandiosely insanely oversized and overpriced, is quite the promising indication of something not going completely wrong for just once. (No such luck in Northern California, where Caltrain staff, and the electeds who rubber stamp their actions, are actively seeking out the worst possible outcome for its passengers and taxpayers.)
Good luck.
Ben Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 11:39 am
I agree that the platform height thing is annoying, however, changing Metrolink’s platform height would probally require every station to be reconstructed at an extreme expense with the new height with not much gain for it.
I also can’t fault Metrolink for having low height platforms either, they did what they could with their small budget to get service up and running without a lengthy fight with the FRA.
It may not be optimal, but it’s better than nothing…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
operate a dedicated fleet of HSR-regulation-compatible, HSR-signalling-compatable, HSR-platform-compatible Metrolink-branded “commuter” (whatever that is supposed to mean) trains on the nice new shiny tracks.
But but but they wouldn’t be able to use the stuff they rent from Utah that Utah bought used from New Jersey!!!
Pure idle specualtion on my part with almost nothing to back it up: Buying Caltrain and Metrolink brand new fleets is cheaper than building incompatible systems. Even in the short term. Definitely cheaper in the long term.
That’s the way everybody with a clue does it: Japan, Spain, Germany, etc. Even the sad backward English-speaking British pretty much get it!
Even Amtrak and VIA do it. Acela could, in theory, stop at any station with level boarding.
thatbruce Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Unlike Caltrain, Metrolink operates over a much larger region than will be covered by HSR tracks, and thus would need both a FRA and non-FRA fleet. But why should they buy HSR trainsets? Codesharing works for airline, it already works for trains, so a Metrolink ticket can be made to work on a HSR service covering the same route.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
thus would need both a FRA and non-FRA fleet.
Why? They could either upgrade the signals on the nether reaches of their network so the HSR compatible trains and the freight trains could share track or have cross platform transfers at the stations where the scary electric trains stop running and the manly diesel trains start running.
If ridership increases they will need more cars/trains. They could run the new stuff on the new tracks and run the old stuff on the old tracks.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
So far we do not know whether the FRA will permit freight trains and non-compliant trains to share tracks. Caltrain’s waiver was granted under the condition that freight only runs at night on the Peninsula, except between Diridon and Santa Clara. The way I understand it, that temporal separation would not be possible in Socal to a large extent.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
If they can ‘t get a waiver for it have cross platform transfers at the stations where the scary electric trains stop running and the manly diesel trains start running. Happens all over the world where the electricity supply stops.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Right. But some parts — perhaps increasing parts over time — can be made exclusively non-FRA.
Orange-Anaheim-LAUS-Burbank-Sylmar-Palmdale for instance.
Which is precisely the point.
Mixed regulations leading to disastrous hybrid home-grown quasi-technical kludges is what one wants to avoid if at all possible. Keep the FRA trains way way far away from the non-FRA tracks and life becomes simpler, hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper, and vastly more reliable.
You’re confusing “post 19th century rail technology” with “HSR trainset”. Just buy any old “commuter train” that runs anywhere else in the first world and run them on the same tracks that the high speed trains also just happen to use, but which will be sitting idle much of the time otherwise. Don’t run them on the FRA tracks. And don’t whatever you do run the FRA trains on the nice new tracks. Keep Is Simple Stupid.
Intercity trains are unlikely to make any stops between Anaheim and LAUS, whereas trains running on the same tracks serving the same platforms using the same post-19th-century rail technology but with “Metrolink” painted on the side are much more likely to do so.
StevieB Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
What would you do with the Newhall, Santa Clarita, Via Princessa and Acton Metrolink stations that are not going to be on the new CAHSR line between LAUS and Palmdale?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Run scary electric trains that are compatible with HSR to them
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Well, yes, if Metrolink was planning on upgrading. They’re not. So, now what?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
someday the 40 year old cars they are renting from Utah that Utah bought used from New Jersey will wear out. In other words someday they will be upgrading the fleet. The tracks are going to be there for a very very long time after today’s rolling stock is becomes an artificial reef
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
They’re upgrading their fleet with the new Hyundai-Rotem CEM vehicles right now. They’re not going to dump those in favor of EMUs any time soon.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
I know this may come as shock but you can replace diesel locomotives with electric locomotives seamlessly. Those ancient cars from New Jersey did it all the time when they were in New Jersey. T
Joey Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Those CEM cars are still the yucky FRA variety though.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
If they were the yucky FRA variety they wouldn’t have Crash Energy Mangement. Or they could run them on the old tracks and run the new stuff on the new tracks or sell them off to Utah or Metra or drive them off the edge of a cliff becauser replacing them is cheaper than contorting the new system to accomodate them.
Joey Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
No they’re still FRA compliant. They’re just designed to dissipate crash energy better in addition to being uselessly heavy. None of this rules out mixed traffic, however.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I’d do a cost/benefit analysis.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Richard, if all that’s necessary is Kodama trains stopping at all HSR stations, then you don’t need the extra infrastructure. There already are plans to run some local trains, which within months of opening would default to the same type of schedule in Japan, with plenty of Kodama runs at rush hour.
If the idea is to have a high-ridership modernized commuter rail system, as you advocate for Caltrain, then you need more. You need all those extra stops. It’s way cheaper to work them in than to build brand new corridors as LA is planning for LA-Santa Ana or to do nothing as LA is planning for Burbank.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 9:45 am
Alon,
The point is that they are intending, no questions about it, to be build a parallel, high quality, quasi-modern, fully grade separated new pair of rail tracks alongside existing rail tracks that carry a small number of Metrolink trains and a significant amount of freight traffic.
The issue I have is with the idea of planning to retain the obsolete, interference-prone, accident-prone, inefficient FRA passenger trains running parallel to and right next to these new and underutilized and expensive new tracks when it is possible to kill two birds with one stone?
Unlike the SF Peninsula, getting rid of freight on most of the Metrolink corridors is not an option. Unlike the SF Peninsula, headways are generous, and saturation of two-track lines isn’t imminent. (And if it were, investing in strategically expanding the modern passenger infrastructure seems like a far better bet than throwing good money after bad in FRA black hole land.)
Unlike the SF Peninsula, stops are widely spaced and few: eg LAUS 0km — Commerce 12.8 — Norwalk 25.9 — Buena Park 33.8 — Fullerton 39.2 — Anaheim 48.9. The local/express/intercity average speed discrepancy (inversely related to track capacity) is lower.
The real question is why anybody (other than a Olde Tyme Railroader at Metrolink who doesn’t understand, know about, or care for newfangled Euroweenie toy trains) would possibly not want faster, more reliable, more efficient, fully grade separated, freight-free regional passenger service.
New passenger infrastructure is necessary to make HSR work, and in the LA basin it has to be separate from the freight tracks anyway, so why not make it work for as many passengers as possible?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 11:43 am
For the service levels Metrolink is currently providing, you’re right – Kodama runs make the most sense. However, Metrolink service levels are pitiful. The trains don’t even run every hour off-peak, and unlike with Caltrain, there are no plans for electrification. If Metrolink wants higher service levels, which require narrower station spacing, it may run into conflicts with HSR. Those conflicts can be mitigated (for example, by slowing HSR down to commuter train speeds south of LAUS), but they’re there.
If the FRA won’t relent, then no, there’s no point in running shared freight/passenger tracks. But there’s a chance the FRA will relent. Amtrak’s making noises about running lightweight, noncompliant (but still not off-the-shelf) trainsets once the PTC mandate goes into effect. If it’s acceptable in California, HSR could arrange the tracks out of LAUS in an FSSF or SFFS pattern, and run passenger trains partly on the freight tracks to allow easier overtakes. It’s not necessary at the current frequencies or even twice the current frequencies, but it’s worth planning for in case LA wants to create a high-frequency Sylmar-LA-Anaheim spine.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Dear Alon,
I think you owe it to yourself to look at a map (and to be perfectly forthright about all this, that is where most of my information comes from.)
A “high-frequency Sylmar-LA-Anaheim spine” involves a grand present day total of 8 intermediate stops, on e of which is LA Union Station, and 4 of which are on the LA-Anaheim segment which is pretty much being redefined (and this is a good thing!) as a shared use (good if “shared” means shared HS and regional express, bad if “shared” means FRA Hell) intermediate-speed (not 350kmh) corridor as we speak. The number of stations is small, the distances between stations are comparatively long.
On the LA-Anaheim segment, CHSRA, even at its most deluded over-the-top traffic “projection” level, is talking a maximum of 5tph, all of which make an intermediate stop at Norwalk. (There may also be a number of dead-head runs to and from the Anaheim service yard, but not many if the operation is done competently: if you’re paying for the crew and the power, you ought to be in service and getting whatever marginal revenue you can, even if it is local commuters using Metrolink passes.)
On this segment the top speed (circa 160kmh, and that only briefly) differential between intercity (“High Speed”) and regional (“commuter”) trains would be circa 0kmh (by design of service and rolling stock), and the average speed differential will be small because of only 3 extra stops, and the location of most of the stops near speed restricted curves (Commerce 150kmh; Norwalk 100kmh; Buena Park 100kmh; Fullerton 80kmh) meaning little loss of mainline capacity due to breaking/acceleration to and from the stops, and because of level boarding (by design.)
Under these conditions, running 6tph (10 minute headway, show-and-go, outstandingly good) 4-stop shuttle service “commuter trains” in addition to the 1-stop 5tph (more like 2-3tph in reality) “high speed” trains is perfectly feasible, and not just in the abstract but in operation in numerous locations around the world.
The biggest issue is likely to be non-revenue moves from terminating trains at Anaheim into the HS servicing yard via flat junctions outside the Anaheim station, but even that is manageable with care at the traffic levels we’re talking here. (Note mainline movements approaching Anaheim are restricted to <90kmh by civil curve restrictions, regardless of braking for the terminal station, so threading across the throat against oncoming traffic isn’t impossibly hard.)
So your objection comes down to LAUS-Glendale-Burbank-Sun Valley-Sylmar…
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 2:23 pm
(BTW I miscounted above: CHSRA “projection” is max 4tph LAUS-Anaheim. (p16 et seq).)
So your objection comes down to LAUS-Glendale-Burbank-Sun Valley-Sylmar…
It looks like CHSRA’s consultants are imagining 7tph peak on this stretch, 4 of them stopping at Sylmar and Burbank.
But with much higher line speeds, it’s much more of a challenge to try to squeeze in stoppers, especially if (per the LA-Palmdale AA drawings) they’re considering adding 3 stops, none of which is the existing Sun Valley station, between Burbank and Sylmar.)
Something has to give north of Burbank: either lower regional (non-HSR) service frequency (max circa 2-3tph) or added tracks for the lower-speed trains. (With no stops LAUS-Burbank, it isn’t much of a stretch to extend 4+tph regional shuttles on the shared pair of HSR tracks.) I mused at one time that “stealing” FRA track ROW and giving it over to the modern passenger trains might be one way to add capacity.
And here I reach a point where I have no clue on the geography and demography, and no idea what an appropriate long-term level of service might be, so I have nothing to suggest.
Joey Reply:
July 21st, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Repurposing unused freight ROW for passenger trains? Blasphemy!
Err, which of these ROWs are owned by UPRR and which by Metrolink?
Alon Levy Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:58 am
Yes, my objection is LAUS-Sylmar. South of LAUS the ROW is narrow enough at places that nothing but shared-track is remotely feasible.
Between Burbank and Sylmar, I’m not sure how much freight traffic there is. All I can find from track maps is that it’s owned by SCRRA and hosts some UP freight but not BNSF. I believe that it’s not a major through-traffic corridor, with most UP freight trains going over Cajon, but don’t quote me on that.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:02 am
All said and done, I can’t see any possible reason not to operate Orange-Anaheim-LAUS-Burbank “commuter rail” using only non-FRA, HSR-platform-compatible equipment.
What is desirable or possible north of Burbank I can’t suggest. (Do note that Metrolink already turns back quite a number of trains at this point anyway.) And note that having non-FRA shuttles run LAUS-Burbank-(…further?…) doesn’t preclude running slower FRA commuter trains on the parallel freight tracks: one might imagine scenarios in which, say, half the Ventura County line trains run through to LAUS on FRA tracks and others turn back at Burbank with a direct connection to a fast non-FRA shuttle train.
Making the stretch Orange-Anaheim-Fullerton 100% non-FRA (no “mixed traffic” but more importantly no mixed regulations and multiple, cost-multiplying, complexity-multiplying signalling systems) doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, from a position of fairly deep local ignorance.
BTW here’s an idea for almost completely avoiding “mixed traffic” that somebody should be aggressively pursuing: When the FRA-to-20thCentury ratio is very small (Caltrain, Anaheim “narrows”), instead of trying to deal with duelling PTC systems, manage the common track to be in one of two mutually exclusive states
(a) ETCS only, non-FRA only trains; or
(b) “dark territory”: a single block that can only be occupied by at most one FRA train.
At entry to the block (where a turnout joins exclusive FRA to the non-FRA shared track) a physical barrier — crossover aligned to prevent entry, or a derail — prevents FRA entry if the track is in state (a) ETCS mode, while a (virtual) absolute signal prevents entry of all ETCS trains if it is in state (b).
Changing between state (a) and (b) can only be allowed if it is proven that no trains of any type occupy the shared segment.
While in state (b) FRA mode, the segment of track completely disappears right off the map from the point of view of ETCS trains: setting any route or operating any crossover that would connect this “non-existent” piece of track (think of it as having been physically pulled up) would be prevented by simple, non-hybridised interlocking.
Advantage: no hybrid signalling of any type. The shared “block” needs only ETCS signalling internally, together with a simple binary occupied/not-occupied train detection (track circuit or entry/exit axle counters) to enable the (a)<->(b) state transition. No FRA (UPRR PTC, CBOSS, BNSF PTC, whatever) signals of any type within the block! FRA absolute signals and physical narriers outside the block, in pure-FRA-land, prevent mixed traffic.
Note that this solution is explicitly allowed by the FRA PTC requirements.
Why isn’t somebody doing it?
So for Anaheim “narrows”: if it is really necessary for freight or Amtrak to use this segment, arrange for just one track (the northern/eastern, normally northbound) to be ETCS/FRA swithable, and just for the narrows where three tracks won’t fit. Either side there would be 3 tracks, one exclusive FRA, 2 exclusive ETCS.
So for Caltrain: if it is really necessary to allow freight (it isn’t): arrange for the easternmost track (normally northbound fast track) to be ETCS/FRA switchable, for the entire line Santa Clara to South San Francisco. One big block. Switching to FRA-land only happens late at night, when there is zero outbound HSR traffic from SF and when off-peak Caltrain traffic can easily be fit on the remaining 1,2 or 3 tracks which are always pure-ETCS.
thatbruce Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Maybe my memory is going, but what was the justification for 6 HSR platforms at LAUS vs 4?
Re modifications to the Gold line, hopefully they don’t shut it down in order to make them, as that would have adverse effects on the ridership.
Spokker Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
If we can shut down a park we can shut down the Gold Line!
Haha just kidding screw that park. I’ve been there and I love it but for Christ’s sake I’m sick of these LA park and river people.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
CHSRA’s consultant mafia really really really likes parking trains idle and out of service for long periods on the most expensive and constrained real estate (= city main stations).
If a train arrives, dwells for 4 minutes, and continues one can pretty reliably run 16+ trains per direction per hour with 4 platform tracks (two islands.) On the other hand, if a train arrives, sits around for 20+ minutes, while its capital cost depreciates and its crew is paid to do f-all, before continuing on its merry way, you’ll be lucky to “squeeze” 4 trains per direction per hour out of exactly the same infrastructure.
Being stupid isn’t cheap.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“Being stupid isn’t cheap.”
So, you state they’re a consultant “mafia”, which implies they’re designing things this way to make more money for themselves. Which would be smart on their behalf.
Then you state they’re stupid. Which is it?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
There’s no incentive for anybody involved anywhere in the process to lower infrastructure costs through less unintelligent operating practices or less other-worldly ridership projections. Excess is its own reward.
Bad (“stupid”) public policy outcomes are very often the result of deliberate and non-stupid manipulation by private parties. In this case and others. Here and elsewhere. News at 11. Please stop playing the fool.
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Sometimes it’s fun to bait you. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
synonymouse Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
What is equally bad as “deliberate and non-stupid manipulation by private parties” is when functionaries in a veto position just sit and back, wink and let it happen. Those who wink become known as “slick”.
thatbruce Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
If platform heights wasn’t an issue, this would be much easier.
LA Union Station was never built for trains to run through and the entrance which is on the north side is at the end of a very curved route. The straightest route north would be through Los Angeles State Historic Park which is described as a temporary 13 acre park on the 32 acre site. Alternate tunnel alignments would curve around the park.
The cut and cover tunnel through the park would be restored at the end of construction but the curves on the alternate tunnel alignments would slow the high speed trains for the life of the line. It seems that if you are going to pay to build a tunnel then you should build to maximize long term benefits. There may be room in the large undeveloped area of the park to temporarily provide green space during construction if this alignment is selected.
It seems bizarre that while other communities are begging and playing hardball for tunnels cut-and-cover or deep bore, that in LA there are complaints about having a tunnel.
This Los Angeles Historic Park I assume refers to either or both the old “cornfields” and Taylor Yard. Both formerly abandoned railyards. LA has lots of examples of cut and cover tunnels that were done with little trouble or inconvenience. The Blue Line under Flower St. The Gold Line in Pasadena sliced delicately in between historic buildings effortlessly.
“Park poor” downtown LA loses nothing.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 11:22 am
The ignorant are in love with the idea of stinky, slow, useless, noisely trains disappearing, somehow, magically, overnight.
In all honesty one can’t blame them: Caltrain has done less than nothing to sell them the prospect of anything better, and doing the minimal work to discover just what a rail corridor trenching operation looks like and for how many years it looks that way and how desirable other well-integrated other outcomes might have been is, well, work.
The only bizarre thing in this is that some people that LA neighbourhood did do that work and are asking what’s in it for them. Weird, huh? (I guess that makes them NIMBYs, BANANAs, OBSTRUCTIONISTs and HSR-DENIALISTs, per cahsrblog.com, just like people who do want trenches.)
For my part: I know nothing of the region, I’m not about to do the fieldwork, and so I’m not going to express any opinion on alignments or constructability.
StevieB Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The park is what was once the railyard known as The Cornfield north of Union Station. Along the west side the Gold Line light rail currently blocks pedestrian access. The east side is light industrial with the 450 unit William Mead Homes Housing Projects plopped in the middle within walking distance of the park. What is now the park is called temporary with plans for buildings, landscaping, and connecting channel to the Los Angeles river if funded.
At this rate, they may as well have chosen to run the trains down the PCH from the Sunset District to
Redondo Beach.
There’s going to be very little debate over this tunnel in L.A. – it has something for all the stakeholders. CHSRA got it right. Let’s not mistake some misinformed speakers for the general consensus.
StevieB Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
The biggest obstacle to going under the park instead of around it is the designation Historical park where the state believes there are buried objects of historic significance.
Kenb Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
The buried objects found are relics from LA’s first train station. I belive it was built in 1870, and was in service till 1888. A train going through there now keeps with the historical theme.
Spokker Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
So if the park is going to be dug up anyway, who cares?
Dig up all the historical crap and let’s be done with it.
Gilroy, the next NIMBY hot spot?
http://www.ksbw.com/news/24321834/detail.html
Peter Reply:
July 20th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
“But in Gilroy, residents said they have not seen any proven benefits for south Santa Clara County residents.”
Well, DUH!! The project has not yet been built. Of course they haven’t actually “seen” any “proven” benefits yet.
“We would need to build as many as 6,600 parking spaces in a garage.”
By the time the project links San Jose and Merced, there should be rail service again between Salinas, Monterey, and San Jose. There won’t be a need for a 6,600 car parking garage. That WOULD be insane.
Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!