HSR and the Governor’s Race
Earlier this week we looked at the ways in which two right-wing gubernatorial candidates in the Midwest were using opposition to high speed rail in their campaigns. Which raises the question for us Californians, who are in the midst of a campaign to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger’s replacement, of how HSR is going to play in the race between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown.
So far, it hasn’t become a major issue. I expect that to change, but it won’t play out the way it has in Wisconsin or Ohio. In those states, right-wing candidates have been portraying HSR as an unnecessary and wasteful project that diverts funds from freeways and other 20th century legacy projects.
Here in California, right-wing Republican candidate for governor Meg Whitman has indicated she thinks HSR funding should be delayed – but so far has not yet come out in opposition to the project itself:
Meg Whitman, the Republican gubernatorial candidate and former eBay CEO, said through a spokeswoman that she “believes the state cannot afford the costs associated with high-speed rail due to our current fiscal crisis.” She lives in the wealthy Peninsula town of Atherton, which is ground zero for the anti-bullet-train movement because of concerns about the tracks that would run through the community.
Whitman’s framing here is significant. She isn’t attacking the concept of high speed rail, isn’t saying it will be a flop or a boondoggle, and isn’t saying California doesn’t need it. Instead she claims that due to the fiscal crisis, we simply can’t afford even the $10 billion that voters already approved (the rest of the construction cost doesn’t come out of state funds).
She’s wrong there too – California not only can afford to pay it’s share of HSR, a view voters shared in November 2008 even after the recession had begun and after two successive years of budget deficit, but we cannot afford to NOT build it, unless we’d rather pay a lot more than $10 billion in higher fuel costs, lost jobs and income due to those costs, and tens of billions in freeway and airport expansion costs.
Whitman’s view is colored by her belief that state government is too large, even though the overall budget is at the lowest point in at least 15 years. She pledges to conduct mass layoffs of state workers and pursue privatization of other state services. Maybe that’s a good move and maybe it’s not, but it indicates Whitman is inherently hostile to public spending, not that she sees any particular problem with HSR.
That’s not to downplay the threat she might pose to the project if elected. Whitman would direct her Department of Finance to obstruct the bond sale, just as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s DOF obstructed the release of Prop 1B funds to buy new trainsets for Amtrak California.
What it does suggest is that Whitman, unlike her counterparts in Wisconsin and Ohio, is hesitant to attack HSR itself. Perhaps in the Midwest, sustainable mass transit technology is more easily demagogued as being unnecessary. Not here in California.
In fact, Californians pride themselves on innovation and leading the implementation of new technologies – or in this case, the successful application of existing technology to the California landscape.
Whitman is wary of getting on the wrong side of that belief. That’s why she is hedging on Prop 23, the initiative that would suspend the state’s global warming and carbon reduction law. Whitman supports the principle of suspending the law, but claims she is against Prop 23. That’s a hypocritical position, since her plan would have the same effect as Prop 23 and undermine the growing clean tech industry here in California. But Whitman is hedging precisely because she can read polls, and the polls show Californians like green, sustainable technology.
Jerry Brown can read polls too. And he is coming out strongly in favor of high speed rail, as seen in his jobs plan:
Accelerate planning and construction of high-speed rail in California
Like Whitman, Brown doesn’t go into detail here, but the implications are clear: Brown sees HSR as a key element of California’s economic recovery, and will not only refuse to delay HSR, but intends to accelerate its construction. How he’ll do that isn’t yet clear. But his commitment to HSR goes back 30 years, to his first stint as governor of California, when he created a high speed rail project for the state. The plan wasn’t nearly as advanced as is the current one, and it quickly fell apart after he left office, when a hostile state legislature killed it. But we can expect Brown to continue to fight for HSR, unlike Whitman.
This blog is not going to endorse a candidate for governor, and won’t tell you how to vote. I doubt any of you are single-issue voters anyway. But it is clear that Brown would be much better for HSR than Whitman. More importantly, it’s also clear that Whitman doesn’t want to make a big deal of her opposition to funding the project – after all, 76% of Californians and 77% of those surveyed in her own Assembly district still want HSR to happen.
As I explained it in the Mike Rosenberg article on the candidates and HSR, Brown has more to gain from HSR becoming a campaign issue than Whitman:
Robert Cruickshank, Californians for High-Speed Rail chairman, noted that former Palo Alto Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto, the most vocal bullet-train critic in the southern Peninsula’s 21st Assembly District race, lost to two candidates in the June Democratic primary who were more tempered on high-speed rail.
“If I’m Jerry Brown, I would strongly embrace high-speed rail in the Peninsula and the Bay Area. There’s still reason to believe that most voters there strongly support it,” Cruickshank said. “I would go up to Meg Whitman’s turf in Silicon Valley and say, ‘This is how we’re going to get California back to work.’ “
We’ll see if Brown does that. If he makes green jobs – including HSR – a campaign issue, he would likely benefit from it at Whitman’s expense.
Jerry Brown should run on his record creating CAHSR in the 1980s…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:19 am
He should also run on his record of creating the wind farms at the Altamont, Pacheco, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio passes.
Bay Area isn’t where the Governor’s race will be decided. No matter what Brown says about HSR (or anything else), Bay Area voters will blindly pull the “D” lever by 2-1 margin.
And Statewide, HSR isn’t a factor either, as Phil Angelides discovered.
wu ming Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:00 am
actually, HSR would be a brilliant angle for brown to make his case to the central valley, who tend to be against public works projects because so few of them are built to serve the central valley (water infrastructure projects being the main (and a large) exception). prop 1a passed in a lot of central valley counties, and was close in a lot of those that didn’t pass. if brown could tie in HSR to a larger campaign aimed at what should be a safe region for whitman, counties that are also suffering worse than anywhere else in the state, it could make the math harder for whitman statewide.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:17 am
My quote came in response to Mike Rosenberg’s question about whether Whitman’s position would play well on the Peninsula, and I responded accordingly. I believe my point applies statewide, especially in the Central Valley, as wu ming argued.
Should that be “the rest of the construction cost”?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:15 am
Yep. Damn iPad.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
dragon is also just as bad
Peter Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Dragon is WAYYYY worse.
The biggest issue in November will be voter turnout, especially on the Democratic side. In a recession, voters tend to blame whoever they perceive to be in power for any economic distress they may be in. In this particular election cycle, they may well be put off by the fairly extreme positions of the alternative. The risk is that many will simply choose to sit this one out.
If Jerry Brown wants to sell public works as a way to pull California out of the doldrums, he’ll be more successful if he stresses the need for accountability and value for money. Construction jobs are vital but not at any price. The value of the assets produced has to be commensurate with the money invested. The state is looking to leverage its own contribution to the starter line 3-4 times over, so both Congress and potential private investors will want to see aggressive cost control from CHSRA.
This includes intelligent joint planning with legacy rail operators in the state. Reluctantly, CHSRA has begun to accept that it will not have the luxury of building new tracks dedicated to HSR in the SF peninsula and probably not in the LA-OC segment, either. The FRA has already granted Caltrain a waiver to operate mixed traffic after it meets a set of specific conditions and, it has yet to write a “rule of special applicability” for CHSRA. The upshot is that HSR, Caltrain, Amtrak and Metrolink will need to figure out how to leverage integrated timetables and signaling upgrades deliver reduced but still worthwhile HSR capacity for a whole lot less money, while maintaining worthwhile levels of regional service. CHSRA needs to slash billions off its total budget to regain voter confidence.
In the same vein, Jerry Brown should require CHSRA to re-examine its self-imposed limit of 3.5% gradients in the mountain sections, since reducing total miles tunneled would make a significant dent in the total budget. The authority should commission feasibility studies on raising the limit to 6% at a limit speed in excess of 100%, reliable brakes for the descent and adequate zero-to-limit speed acceleration performance in the event a train has to come to a full stop on the climb. This is not quite possible with off-the-shelf technology, but at least three vendors (Siemens, Alstom and Hitachi/Kawasaki) already have products that can handle well over 3.5%. So far, only Deutsche Bahn has actually leveraged the improved traction technology by speccing a max. gradient of 4% for the Cologne-Frankfurt segment of its HSR patchwork.
As we have often discussed, tunneling under Tejon Pass would be unwise wrt earthquake safety. However, crossing it at grade would be financially attractive IFF it were technically feasible. It would also shave several minutes off the SF-LA line haul time, even if speeds between Grapevine and Tejon Pass were constrained to 100mph. CHSRA’s own analysis suggests that any ridership lost by eliminating Palmdale would be compensated for via additional trips between the CV and LA basin. In plain English: long-distance commuters would buy homes in Bakersfield instead. LA county might not like that trade-off but this is a state/federal/private project. Besides, it was LAWA’s decision to all but abandon PMD airport.
synonymouse Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 10:51 am
The public will support Tejon base tunnels because they represent an obvious major asset. It is a one time cost and you are getting something concrete(literally)instead of perennial extra maintenance and operating costs of 30 more miles of double track. It costs money to energize that 60 extra miles of wire Labor represents the single biggest outlay in transit – time saved via the Tejon tunnels translates to many hours of union scale saved.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 11:22 am
And the half a million people in and around Palmdale, when they need to get to Los Angeles or Bakersfield or places farther afield, should just take the bus.
The point of passenger railroads is passengers. The closer the railroad is to passengers the more passengers the railroad will carry.
synonymouse Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 11:42 am
Metrolink can serve Palmdale adequately.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Metrolink doesn’t go to Bakersfield and never will the freight line to Bakersfield is too congested and too slow. If you can’t get to Bakersfield you can’t get to San Francisco or Sacramento.
Spokker Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 7:38 pm
It’s two hours from LAUS to Palmdale.
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:50 am
@ adirondacker12800 -
Does California really want to encourage additional development in the High Desert? A federal judge recently cut the volume of water pumped to SoCal by 1/3 to protect an endangered species.
California City was a step too far. Ideally, it should stay that way, as should other plans to substantially expand housing in the Antelope Valley. The water to support it just isn’t there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 am
The half million people in greater Palmdale are there, they aren’t going anywhere. If you are going to restrict development in Palmdale you are going to restrict development in Tejon too.
Peter Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’re going to save any time by increasing maximum grades to 6%. The performance of the trains would be so low at that gradient that you would waste all benefits supposedly gained by shortening the distance by using Tejon. The top speed drops precipitously as you increase the gradient.
At the 2.5% continuous grade that they are looking at for some of the Antelope Valley alignments, the continuous speed for a Velaro would be around 220 km/h (page 2). The AGV is around 200 km/h (page 11).
Extrapolating from the Velaro E’s traction curve, at 4% it would be somewhere around 165 km/h. 6% does not look at all feasible for the Velaro.
At 4%, the AGV is at around 135 km/h. Extrapolating from the AGV’s traction curve, at 6%, it would probably drop to 80 km/h or worse.
You know as well as I do that if you fiddle with things to increase speeds in the climb, you’re going to sacrifice speed on the level.
Let others fiddle with the R&D for exceptional conditions. Antelope Valley is a good enough compromise for CA.
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:44 am
Sure trains would have to slow down significantly on a steep incline, but those sections are short. The trick is having one gear for speeds up to 110mph and another for speeds up to 220mph. Gearing can be mechanical or magnetic (variable pole pair count in the electric motors).
CAHSR has stated that the 34-mile detour via the Tehachapis adds 12 minutes relative to a Tejon Pass route with tunnels (and high earthquake risk). Estimated cost and total ridership came out almost the same for both. By my back-of-the-envelope calculation, Tejon Pass at grade would still be 4-6 minutes faster than the Tehachapis route. This was based on a Japanese N700i beefed up to support a top speed of 360 rather than 330km/h and equipped with switchable gears on all powered axles.
dejv Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:24 am
The only electric vehicle with multiple-speed transmission I’m aware of is a single trolleybus prototype with no stellar reliability – and that’s vehicle with single such transmission. Building a complete high-speed train around such technology is very risky enterprise and development costs could easily outweigh potential savigs and in event of failure, it would render costly new infrastructure useless.
The funny thing is that if you do accept slowing down to 110 mph – minimum radius is then at nice 11.8 * 177^2 / (200 + 130) = 1120 m = 3675 ft, allowing TSI-compatible tunnel-free and large-bridge-free alignment even in Bakersfield-Tehachapi section, tunnels would be needed only for Tehachapi-Mojave section.
synonymouse Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 am
“a good enough compromise for CA” represents the mindset that has resulted in an hsr scheme that deserves to be sent back to the voters. This is not the 21st century breakthrough we were sold. Just like the pre-election videos that featured trenches rather than aerials. Bait and switch.
The public, even of the most hardcore Reaganite and Tea-Party variety, recognizes the long-term value of signature engineering projects, like the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges and the BART transbay tube. And over time they come to be seen as fabulous bargains. The Tejon base tunnels can both be authorized and constructed if given the chance.
Peter Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Oh, you mean the “featured trenches” that were labelled where they were located? And weren’t there aerials shown in the videos for Fresno or Bakersfield?
“The Tejon base tunnels can both be authorized and constructed if given the chance.”
But not financed.
synonymouse Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Of course, they can be financed. BART never seems to have any trouble finding money, even if it has been dedicated to something else.
And since it has been observed on this site many times PB always manages to select the most expensive option, one can only suspect that the Tejon tunnels must even in the worst case scenario be not much more expensive than Tehachapi. Maybe even cheaper. And certainly much cheaper to maintain and operate. 30 miles of double track and catenary cheaper.
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 am
“BART never seems to have any trouble finding money”
Which is why BART isn’t extending all the way to Santa Clara?
What you “suspect” is pretty much irrelevant. And we all know your “worst case scenario” does not consider an earthquake in a tunnel crossing a fault line. There’s your, to use alternative analysis language, “fatal flaw”.
synonymouse Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:38 am
A BART extension to Santa Clara is strictly a political issue, which for that matter is not yet resolved. BART is not definitively out of the Southbay picture yet.
If there are any fatal flaws to be found it is with the CHSRA gerrymandered crazy-quilt route scheme. Slow and circuitous it will never turn a profit, ensuring a government-run, labor top-heavy operation, hobbled with under maintenance due to chronic operating losses.
Instead of an engineering feat like the Tejon tunnels you will get for your tax money inner city eyesore dinosaur 60′ viaducts that will be viewed as retrograde relics of 20h century brutalism from the day they open. They will be like tuning forks, especially if they use hollow core pylons, and as the slab track cooks in the Fresno sun and with flatted wheels and corrugated rails the sound of the hsr should resonate for miles. Hence sound walls plastered with edge to edge graffiti. Lovely.
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 am
I love your metaphors. Did you take writing classes? I’m serious.
synonymouse Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:51 am
I am just trying to deliver a point.
As difficulty as it may sound I really do want a functional hsr. I haven’t driven in 45 years so I am a public transit user. There may be a generational conflict here as we older folk have lived thru the transit devastation of the 40′s and 50′s are are constantly looking for a way to lock in electric rail. This may seem crazy but the only reason streetcars in Sf survived the fifties and dieselization was the tunnels. Perhaps that is why I am so strongly advocating the Tejon bores. I greatly fear the revival of the militant highway lobby, as I remember when they ruled supreme.
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:00 am
Not that I don’t enjoy fencing with you, but you don’t seem to come across as an advocate. Your comments make you look like a troll most of the time. Toning down your rhetoric on alignment choices and BART and arguing issues based on the facts instead of hyperbole would likely be a lot more effective to make your point. Notice that I’m normally the only one to respond to your comments, because it’s fun. You get ignored, otherwise.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:34 am
I really do want a functional hsr.
The major function of HSR is to carry passengers. To do that it has to go where the passengers are. Surprisingly places where passengers are, are frequently the places passengers from other places want to go. Places like Palmdale.
arguing issues based on the facts instead of hyperbole
The only thing he has to go on is hyperbole and conspiracy theories.
synonymouse Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
I wish I could foam about the details of the project but I find the current layout so troubling it is hard to get excited. Unlike the younger set I see this line as a one-shot opportunity, which if blown will not be expanded for some time. It is incumbent that it be really impressive. The Tejon tunnels would be the engineering jewel. Half-hearted and half-assed is doomed to disappoint and will only energize the Reason Foundation type critics. But even the latter will have to be impressed with the simple shock and awe of the base tunnels
Put it this way. If you were able to bring back the likes of Sunny Jim Rolph and M. M. O’Shaughnessy fronm the other side for consultation I have no doubt they would recommend Tejon over Tehachapi. I suggest that professional freight railroaders would concur as the CHSRA requires the absolute best escape from LA into the San Joaquin Valley to break away from the past and the pack. The freight rr’s would love to have a direct route but ruling gradients and derailments with hazardous materials are real issues for them.
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
You don’t have to foam about something to agree with the project’s approach, and you don’t have to spit out hyperbole, conspiracy theories or bile in order to disagree with it.
For anyone to take you seriously, though, you have to argue based on the relevant facts.
Facts relevant to Tejon vs. Antelope Valley: Serving Palmdale/Lancaster population (not negligible, over 500k), length of tunnels (shorter with Antelope Valley), tunnels across fault lines (none known for Antelope Valley, at least one for Tejon), trip time (shorter for Tejon), overall projected ridership (about the same for both), National State Parks, Forests and Recreation Areas (none for Antelope Valley, a couple for Tejon).
Facts irrelevant to Tejon vs. Antelope Valley: Existence of Tehachapi Loop, the fact that UPRR happens to follow SR-99, BART’s existence, the fact that UPRR has an already-existing line through Antelope Valley.
synonymouse Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Sorry your points don’t resonate with me.
Palmdale is off route, period. A station in the north LA Basin will attract as many riders, especially from localities to the west.
The Tejon tunnels may very well turn out to be safer than other parts of the line, as they will have been over-engineered to accommodate movement on the Garlock fault. And apparently they will require an extra access tunnel, so an extra safety feature over the Tehachapis tunnels. History has shown it is not necessary to be located on a fault or even close to experience severe seismic damage. The Tehachapi detour adds 30 route miles, all in seismic territory, of exposure to damage. The miles of trackage in base tunnel are protected from sun, rain, wind, snow, sand, lightning, and vandalism. Plus, the ambient temperature in the tunnel would be moderate. The effect of intense summer heat on hsr rail will have to be dealt with.
jimsf Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 5:30 am
half a million or more on the palmdale route, no one between slymar and grapevine.
synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 11:07 am
You are ignoring passengers from the west, like Simi Valley, Ventura and as far away as Santa Barbara.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 11:18 am
You are ignoring passengers from the west, like Simi Valley, Ventura and as far away as Santa Barbara.
So are you. I-5 doesn’t go anywhere near them. People in those places will either get on Amtrak or Metrolink and go to Burbank or drive to Sylmar.
Peter Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 11:48 am
And they would have to do so under both Tejon and Antelope Valley alignments…
synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Via airporter type buses to a major transfer station in the north LA basin.
I wonder if there is a way to get Valencia in on the hsr?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
…like Sylmar?
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:49 pm
At this point I have not read anywhere the plan to use only two tracks in San Francisco to San Jose segment. Yes they are looking at LA to Anaheim though the slower and multi-stop CalTrain it may be harder to implement here. I have read a CalTrain handout about high-speed rail that the current track configuration with electrification /signal upgrade can handle 12 trains an hour though it does not state what top speed. I agree with you that I think this is going to end up being the only way to get San Francisco without spending $6 billion
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:00 am
Sharing tracks means sacrificing line speed: regional trains will probably never run faster than 90mph in the SF peninsula or in OC. If some trains are scheduled to stop on the main line, you also lose capacity. You can minimize the loss by keeping the difference in the number of stops made by the various classes of service to a minimum and in addition, trains from each class are clustered on the timetable and you use variable stop patterns to ensure adequate hourly service frequencies at stations. The intervals won’t be regular, though: 4 trains per hour at a given station might mean e.g. 15, 19, 45 and 49 past the hour.
With modern signaling, minimum headways can be as short as 2 minutes. If you use 2.5 minutes for scheduling purposes, you get 24 slots per hour and a means to recover if a train is ever late or delayed.
EJ Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Above 4%, you’re starting to push the limits of steel wheel on steel rail adhesion (two pretty slick surfaces – one of the reasons trains are efficient), never mind the power requirements.
There are of course LRVs that can handle grades like this – it ain’t pretty and involves a lot of sand.
Seems like you’re always wanting to turn CAHSR into some sort of science project, whereas one of the most appealing aspects to it is the large amount of Other People’s Money that’s gone into perfecting the technology. Let’s just leverage what the Japanese, Spanish, Germans, and French have spent decades working on.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Trains that go up a grade eventually come down the grade. So not only to steep grades throw a lot of technical challenges into getting up the hill they throw lots of technical challenges into getting down the hill.
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:33 am
Yes, brakes are a significant issue, arguably even more important than propulsion.
However, for lightweight, self-propelled trainsets that begin their descent at a moderate speed (e.g. 100mph), the total energy that must be dissipated during a full emergency stop on a 6% slope is still just a fraction of the corresponding number for one from top speed (220mph) on level terrain.
In Germany, any line with a ruling gradient over 5% is considered a “Steilbahn”, e.g. the Hoellentalbahn in the Black Forest. Safety regulations mandate that vehicles plying such lines be equipped with at least three independent brake systems. HSR trainsets have generator mode with on-board rheostats, mechanical ceramic disk brakes plus electro-pneumatic brake shoes. The ICE3 also has eddy current brakes that can be lowered to just above the rails, but those can only be used at sufficiently high speeds. In other words, HSR technology is actually better suited to negotiating steep terrain than conventional trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
And maglev is better than steel wheel at either, doesn’t mean you want to do either when there’s a reasonable alternative.
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:21 am
“Above 4%, you’re starting to push the limits of steel wheel on steel rail adhesion”
Poppycock. In Germany, Switzerland and Austria, there are both heavy and light adhesion rail lines with ruling gradients of 5.5 to 10.5%. The Appenzeller Bahn in Switzerland is currently merging legacy adhesion and cog traction sections into a single adhesion line with a ruling gradient of 7.8%. These lines generally manage without sanding because they’re based on lightweight self-propelled vehicles, not locomotive-drawn consists. The more axles are powered, the smaller the minimum mu required to ensure reliable traction.
Btw, steel on steel isn’t really all that slippery. In normal conditions, mu is on the order of 0.35. Rain, ice and especially, wet leaves, do reduce that number significantly so planners have to be very conservative (e.g. assume no more than 0.10). Wet leaves are a significant problem in e.g. the UK and Vermont in the fall. They’re not really an issue in California.
“never mind the power requirements.”
Also poppycock. What you need for climbing up and descending down steep slopes is traction force at moderate speed. Power is force times speed. There is no need to increase rated power to increase the ruling gradient. There is a need for a shorter gearing ratio. For reliability, HSR traction systems usually feature only a fixed ratio final drive, which implies a trade-off between maximum gradient and low-speed acceleration on the flat vs. feasible top speed. For the best of both worlds, you would need highly reliable switchable transmissions. Fortunately, highly distributed transmissions would permit switching each one in turn, at zero load.
Reality Check Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
For what it’s worth, an excerpt from the Grade (slope) Wikipedia entry:
The steepest non-rack railway lines include:
13.5 % – Lisbon tram, Portugal
11.6 % – Pöstlingbergbahn, Linz, Austria
9.0 % – Ligne de Saint Gervais – Vallorcine, France
7% – Bernina Railway, Switzerland
5.6% (1 in 18) – Flåm, Norway.
5.1% – Saluda Grade, North Carolina, United States
4.0% – Cologne-Frankfurt high-speed rail line
4.0% (1 in 25) – Tarana – Oberon branch, New South Wales, Australia.
4.0% (1 in 25) – Matheran Light Railway, India [2]
3.7% (1 in 27) – Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, Heritage Line, Wirksworth, Derbyshire, UK
EJ Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:48 pm
I didn’t say it can’t be done – I just said it’s complicated. Now you’re throwing out variable gear ratios, which even you admit is totally non-standard for HSR? Why do you always want to over-complicate everything? Engineering is a far from non-zero cost.
Rafael Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 5:19 am
All I’m saying is that CHSRA should commission a feasibility study to understand the risk and cost trade-offs between an already-proven but nosebleed-expensive civil engineering and a possibly much cheaper innovative mechanical/electrical engineering alternative. The difference could be a couple of billion dollars.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 6:57 am
They been fooling around with train design for 150 years or so. I suspect there’s a reason why no one has come up with “mechanical transmission”
Clem Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 7:25 am
…of lost profit. I’m sure they’ll get right on it.
synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 11:05 am
When you look at the costs of hsr on the Peninsula the term “billions” loses its impact. How many billions could be saved with a simple collector hsr station at SFO and letting Caltrain or BART do the feeding and dispersal.
The whole focus of the hsr has turned to regional mass transit. It’s like a gold-plated quasi-BART at either end with an afterthought mediocre connector line thru the Valley. Even there the mass transit mindset is obvious with those huge BARTsy innercity viaducts.
Brian Stanke Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
synonymouse: What do you want them to build? An Amtrak San Joaquins line with single-tracking, grade crossings, and amshack stations? We have one of those. Callifornians want something a whole world better.
Look at any urban highway and you see elevates or trenches and $200 million + interchanges. Think how much land and money it would cost to rip up Caltrain and replace it with an 8-lane freeway. That and expanded SFO/OAK/SJ would replace (badly) the need for HSR. Once you look at an equivalent alternative, HSR seems downright slim and cheap. That is because it is!
Peter Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
He’s a Tolmach fanboy. So yes, that is exactly what he wants them to build.
synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Yeah, I favor the Tolmach plan but with a branch to Bakersfield and Fresno off the I-5 main. I would definitely include Sacramento in the hsr from the get-go.
I would proceed with the electrification and extension in tunnel to the TBT of Caltrain. Preferable to the proprietary-hobbled BART and wrong side of the mountain alignment.
Peter Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
So, you favor Tejon for the reason that it shortens the total amount of track by 30 miles?
A straight-line distance between I-5 and Downtown Bakersfield is around 13 miles. A spur from I-5 to Fresno would add 40 (FORTY!!!) miles. So your plan automatically adds 53 miles of double-track. You’ve now wasted your trackage “saved” by constructing Tejon. Congratulations, start over.
Also, how is HSR going to “proprietary-hobbled BART”? You’ve still never explained this without hyperbole and pulling-more-conspiracy-theories-out-of-your-ass.
HSR will share tracks and alignment with Caltrain and likely Metrolink (share track gauge, etc).
HSR will use off-the-shelf, slightly customized trainsets. EVERYONE’S trainsets are customized.
HSR will have multiple levels of service (Express, local, limited). BART only has local service.
synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I-5 is a preferable route Bakersfield to LA – that’s why 99 feeds into it.
The original early 90′s Caltrain upgrade should proceed sans the hsr, which should use the Dunbarton alignment and 101 to reach SFO.
Proprietary BART? Let me count the ways: Indian broad gauge, 3rd rail(debatable), 1000vdc operating voltage, substandard aluminum beer can cars that crinkle in the middle, dumbest of the dumb A-B car types that had to be dumped forthwith. BART reinvented the wheel and believe me there were many at the time who tried to talk them out of it, just as now with the dubious “Amshack” Palmdale detour.
Peter Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Hello? Did you even read what I wrote? Yes, BART is proprietary, I agree with everything you said about BART.
You still haven’t described how HSR is proprietary. None of the technological issues you mention apply to HSR. Alignment choices have nothing to do with the technology issues you raise.
Peter Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
And you didn’t respond to the issue of the 50+ miles of tracks added to your I-5 alignment by adding stubs to Bakersfield and Fresno.
synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I didn’t mean my comment to suggest that the hsr was in any way proprietary, only BART. Unless of course PB-Bechtel tries to pull some BART-style shenanigans. Hopefully the european ceo would cool any tendency in that direction.
Bakersfield-Fresno has to be included from the outset(like Sac)because they are major destinations and the political promise has been made. Besides you want to engineer a state of the art junction north of Tejon where the branch to Bakersfield would take off no matter what.
Sacramento way outranks Modesto, which would have to wait for the second stage alignment, which would take the 99 route past Sac to Redding.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
He still hasn’t addressed how eliminating 30 miles of track to Palmdale isn’t going to mean 50 miles of track on the stubs to Bakersfield and Fresno.
Peter Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
*Head explodes*
Again, how do you justify adding 50 miles to “your” alignment through branches to Bakersfield and Fresno, when one of the main arguments you’ve been raising for Tejon is that it saves 30 miles over Antelope Valley in terms of construction and maintenance costs?
How would your stubs to Fresno and Bakersfield work operationally? Would a local train coming from LA switch to the Bakersfield branch, stop in Bakersfield, turn around, rejoin the main line, then switch to the Fresno branch, stop in Fresno, turn around, rejoin the main line, and then continue to the Bay Area? That would add OVER ONE HUNDRED MILES of distance traveled for a local just to add Fresno and Bakersfield to your I-5 scheme. I-5 simply makes no sense if you’re adding Fresno and Bakersfield.
Don’t dodge the issue by suddenly bringing up Redding. No one at this point is talking about extending to Redding. That’s a red herring.
synonymouse Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Strictly a stub operation to Fresno for political reasons. The operation would probably lose money, but then the whole Palmdale-centric PB scheme will lose even more.
But if Bechtel does prevail in the courts with its piece of dreck hsr scheme I am thinking at least there will be one iconic piece of engineering amidst all the mediocrity and that will be that Fresno viaduct. But 60 feet is not high enough. That’s only like a smallish roller coaster. Get it higher, make sure everything is hollow core, no resiliency in the slab pads, out of round wheels and plenty of corrugation. BART’s proprietary steel-aluminum threaded-adhesive wheels are really loud and that would make a great addition. Bechtel could achieve a Brutalist statement of truly Neronian proportions. The worlds’ noisiest electric railway, upstaging BART.
I only wish the monster could be in Palmdale but Fresno will have to suffice. Foamers will come from all over the world to see and hear it.
Peter Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Ok, you still have not explained how you justify balancing subtracting 30 miles by building Tejon, and then adding 50+ miles for Fresno and Bakersfield. We’re not interested in your “vision” of how you “suspect” the aerial will be built, we’re asking how, given your “concern” with adding “unnecessary” track mileage, you think that Tejon is preferable to Antelope Valley. And we’re still waiting.
synonymouse Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 10:21 am
The branch to Bakersfield and Fresno would receive trains from LA only. Service north from Fresno towards Modesto would be via an upgraded to 110mph UP operation in the interim. In a second phase the 99 corridor as far as Redding would get its hsr. This is going to be expensive since the UP is understandably not at all interested in giving up property to the CHSRA. Also the towns along the 99 route, even in bad economic times, will inevitably become more sensitive to the downside of aerials. They will demand more expensive infrastructure.
The San Joaquin Valley is big enough to support two hsr routes, as indeed it already has a west and an eastside freight corridor. The key question concerning I-5 is whether the hsr can be deployed in the median without significant modification to overpasses. If this can be accomplished the I-5 starter would be a bargain and and display the requisite “shock and awe” to impress even the most hardcore Reaganite. We need to see the cost estimate of 300 miles of express I-5 hsr. This is where construction should proceed first, the easiest part.
Here’s an interesting question for the foamers. How does Bechtel plan to cope with rail expansion at temperatures approaching 120 degrees? In the past few days of 90 degree weather on the Peninsula Caltrain has had to slow down its trains considerably. My impression, anecdoctal of course from past trips, is that the eastside of the CV is hotter than the westside, in other words, I-5 a little cooler than 99. In particular I think that the area southeast of Bakersfield going toward the Tehachapis, along perhaps with Redding, is the hottest part of the San Joaquin Valley. Just think how nice and cool it would be in those Tejon base tunnels. No bent rail.
Peter Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 11:06 am
So, you want to build two parallel HSR routes through the Valley? And you complain about cost escalation?
Trains will have to slow for extreme temperatures anywhere, be they going along I-5 or SR-99.
Hint: You still haven’t explained why adding 50 miles for the self-admitted politically motivated branches to Fresno and Bakersfield are preferable to including them on the main line, ESPECIALLY if you can only get to Fresno from the south. That’s even dumber than Tolmach’s plan for bypassing them completely. At least that way we’d save some construction costs in the Valley.
synonymouse Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 11:32 am
You could do 99 and Tejon, but the 99 segment will be much more expensive than the I-5 exprerss route. In any event you would want to incorporate the junction trackage north of Tejon. Political considerations are such that both Fresno and Sacramento be included in the initial hsr.
Off topic, but is it possible to have a section of this website dedicated to defining acronyms related to this blog? It drives me nuts sometime trying to figure out the alphabet soup!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program…
James.
wu ming Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:52 pm
if you hit a phrase you don’t know, just post a comment asking what it means. no shame in it, i’ve done it several times when sfjim starts busting out amtrak station code acronyms out of habit.
I really hope, that Brown will accelerate the San Diego – LA Expansion. 24 million people live here, that is 2/3 of the state. It should be clear that the largest group of high-speed rail customers will live in Southern California.
At least there is party choice in this round. Come 2012, you could see the november ballot with the names of two players from a single party, and no other candidates.
James M. Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Yeah, I didn’t like that ballot initiative and voted against it. Mediocrity for everyone!
James,