Which Central Valley Segment Should Go First?
Now that we know one of the two Central Valley HSR segments will be built first, discussion is emerging as to which segment should receive the state and federal funding. In last week’s Modesto Bee, Merced County Supervisor John Pedrozo makes the case for Merced-Fresno based on five points:
First, the project already plans for rail stations in both Merced and Fresno, which is required by Proposition 1A. There is no plan to construct a station in Bakersfield. In fact, the Fresno-to- Bakersfield section actually ends in Shafter and doesn’t even reach Bakersfield. This is important because upon construction of the Merced-to- Fresno section, the project will have a fully functioning line between two points and will then be able to demonstrate its viability and effectiveness. This will be critical in the state’s efforts to attract private sector investment to the project.
It’s true that the Authority’s most recent plans involve building tracks south from Fresno to Shafter, about 20 miles short of Bakersfield itself. It is possible that additional funding, including private sector funding or new federal funding (whether redirected funds from Wisconsin/Ohio or FY 2011 funds) could finish the segment to Bakersfield. Still, Pedrozo makes a strong case here for Merced-Fresno.
Pedrozo’s second and third points have to do with cost:
Second, the Merced-to-Fresno segment will be less expensive. The authority estimates the total construction cost for the northern segment to be $4.3 billion, compared with $4.75 billion to reach Shafter from Fresno. With the federal funding already awarded, there is adequate funding to construct only one segment — Merced to Fresno.
Third, when the voters passed Proposition 1A, they insisted the authority give priority to segments which make the most efficient use of state bond funds. The law requires the authority to give priority to the segment using the smallest percentage of state bond funds as compared to funding from other sources. Basically, the voters wanted the authority get the biggest bang for their buck. Since the Merced to Fresno section commits the smaller amount, it makes the best use of the taxpayers’ dollars.
I’m sure that argument will be quite compelling to the Authority, as well as incoming Governor Jerry Brown and the state legislature. It’s an open question of whether it’s actually “the biggest bang for their buck,” however. The ridership study indicated that Merced would have significantly fewer riders than Bakersfield, at least in 2030. Merced County’s population of 210,000 is much smaller than Kern County’s 661,000, providing for the possibility of greater ridership on a Fresno-Bakersfield segment than on Merced-Fresno. Keep in mind that neither segment will, at this time, serve actual bullet trains, but will be used by the Amtrak California San Joaquin trains to meet the “operational independence” requirements. Faster service between Fresno and Bakersfield might produce more ridership on that segment than on Merced-Fresno.
On the other hand, as Pedrozo points out, there’s enough funding to build both a Merced and a Fresno station on the northern segment, whereas the tracks won’t even connect past Shafter to a Bakersfield station on the southern segment. It’s not clear whether new stations would entice more people to ride the San Joaquins. In any case, it would be good if further study could be done to determine which segment would produce more ridership on the San Joaquins, which in turn would address the “bang for the buck” argument.
Pedrozo’s final two points relate to jobs:
Fourth, the high-speed rail system is expected to create thousands of jobs. The work to be completed between Merced and Fresno is expected to require more hands-on labor than its southern rival. The federal stimulus funding is intended to produce real work for real people, not work for machines. In the Fresno to Shafter segment, they will largely use automated track laying equipment — equipment that requires much less labor than the elevated track and related concrete and construction work that will be taking place in Merced to Fresno. The construction of two stations, rather than just one in the southern segment, also adds to the number of new jobs that the northern section offers.
Lastly, there has been much discussion on where to place the heavy maintenance facility associated with this project. While this funding won’t pay for this facility, it will influence where it’s ultimately placed. The maintenance facility itself is anticipated to create upwards of 1,500 new jobs and thousands more in supporting businesses.
I’d like to see exactly how much difference there would be in job creation between the two segments – Pedrozo doesn’t give details, and the difference might be much smaller than he implies. Still, if partisans of the northern segment can demonstrate greater job creation than on the southern segment, it would undoubtedly bolster their case.
I’m less sure about the location of maintenance facility influencing this decision. Pedrozo is obviously a supporter of Castle Airport as the site for the maintenance facility, a site that faces stiff competition from Fresno and from Kern County. If, as is rumored, Fresno is in the lead for the maintenance facility, then the segment selection won’t affect that location decision much at all. However, a Fresno-Bakersfield selection might hurt Castle Airport’s cause.
I’m not yet ready to pick which segment should get funded, and I would like to see some counter-arguments from supporters of the Fresno-Bakersfield segment. There’s no doubt that, overall, Pedrozo’s arguments are strong, which should give incentive to supporters of the southern segment to make their own case. If and when they do (or if they already have and I’ve missed it) I’ll be sure to highlight it on this blog.
I don’t think it’s so much of an argument of which station would generate the most passengers. Given that until more sections are completed the tracks would likely be used by the San Joaquins, the ridership issue would be best resolved by asking which section would offer the best decrease in travel time. Decrease the travel time, while at the same time increasing reliability and frequency, would yield the best increases in ridership overall.
Risenmessiah Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Actually no. The Bakersfield-Fresno segment would obviously reduce travel time on the San Joaquins overall more than Merced to Fresno. But the latter would allow a million people or so in Fresno and environs to take the train to the Bay Area as quickly as they could drive and potentially even faster than driving speed to Sacramento.
Emma Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:46 am
OT but funny.
Obama’s high speed bus plan revealed: http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Also off topic, but also funny:
http://www.wiba.com/cc-common/news/videos/player.html?loc=1&pimg=&redir=yes#
Someone may have some evidence otherwise, but I don’t think there really is any actual plan to run San Joquains on the tracks.
It was a requirement to have some use for them, in case nothing else gets built.
Who would pay the maintenance costs to keep the tracks at 250 mph condition?
Peter Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I agree that there is no actual plan to run them on the tracks. But, this must be taken into consideration under Prop 1A “usable segment” and ARRA “independent utility” criteria.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
This is where things get very interesting. At the last board meeting, the Authority stated that when it comes to the state “usable segment” requirement, they plan to meet that by putting forward a bigger section, of which the ARRA segment would just be a part of it. Their position, one which we are not sure is correct, is that they just need to have a “plan” to get the rest of the money, not that they would need the money basically lined up.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
We had actually recommended that one of the criteria being the funding gap between the arra-funded project and the “usuable segment” costs. Van Ark and the Authority tried to say this didn’t matter since all they needed was a “plan.”
Peter Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Well, I hope the Authority’s lawyers are right.
Peter Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
“This is where things get very interesting.”
Agreed. Although I’m not sure if they’ll have that many problems getting at least some extra federal funding if Wisconsin and Ohio hand their funds back.
StevieB Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
With newly elected governors returning over a billion dollars in high speed rail grants it is reasonable to expect a substantial amount of the returned money to be allocated to California.
StevieB Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood made the announcement Monday night that the Obama administration plans to reallocate money designated for high-speed rail if the states granted the funds reject them. The Washington Post reports that during a three-day conference sponsored by the U.S. High Speed Rail Association (USHSR) trade group LaHood said:
Quickly is what is new here. Previous reports were the procedure of withdrawing funds and reallocating them would be drawn out. It is not clear if Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida governors will all reject rail funds although the first two made campaign promises. It is also not clear if funds already spent on rail projects will be repaid by the states to the federal government.
jimsf Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
That is awesome. I wonder how the constituents of those states are gonna feel when they see all that federal money being pulled out of their state coffers and sent west. That’ll teach em. The other 49 are gonna get just what they asked for and I couldn’t be happier. Just watch, in a few years cali will lead the way out of the recession and they are all gonna be left behind, as usual. They never learn. They just never learn.
Peter Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
So, if Wisconsin and Ohio don’t want the funds, that gives them $1.26 billion to redistribute. I’m guessing at least half of that will go to the NEC, with the remainder being split between CA and FL, with CA probably getting more than FL.
wu ming Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
especially given the way that florida teabaggers are calling for the canceling of their HSR project.
Peter Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Which is really funny given how their project nearly has 100% financing. That’s just really, REALLY dumb of them.
wu ming Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
well, from their perspective, anything that diverts traffic from roads is bad (for their oil corp. funders), and any project that makes a bunch of good unionized middle class jobs is bad, because it makes more voters for the other side.
Peter Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Meh, once sea levels rise the entire state will disappear anyway.
jimsf Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
If thats the case I’m going to run a hose from my faucet out to ocean beach and turn it on and wait!
Victor Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:47 am
If Knuckle dragging Neanderthal Teabaggers were smart, They’d be Progressives. But their not, Their just slow, Give It a bit, They may grumble some, But eventually they may evolve some and be at least semi intelligent troglodytes at least.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Not precisely ~ the Ohio grant was not a $400m block, it was a $25m final Design grant and a the $375m Build grant. Since the Design work is ongoing, and the USDoT confirmed that Ohio was not on the hook for the $25m if the Ohio Board of Control did not authorize the building of the line, it may only be $375m left when Ohio formally declines to take up the balance of the grant.
For Wisconsin, it also seems that they had a package of grants funded, and that the Governor might not send all of it back. Milwaukee’s Journal Sentinal Online reports that, $70m are common with the Hiawatha, which the incoming Governor, unlike his Republican primary opponent, promised to continue supporting (as that is a Republican Tea Party versus Republicn Business Interests fight) …
… so it may be only $1.115b handed back.
The Governor (see above link) may also not be above trying to weasel out of losing the money by trying to con … uhm, convince the USDoT into letting him shift more than just $70m into Hiawatha Line improvements.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Ahh, so he’s a hypocrite. Slow trains are good, faster trains bad? WTF?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am
More fun, courtesy of a Bruce McF link:
http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2010/11/walker-side-trackingback-tracking-on.html
What exactly is a “fully functioning line between two points?”
The first segment to be built will not be electrified. It will most certainly not have an expensive, depreciating asset such as a $3 billion fleet of sleek, shiny high-speed trains. Nor will it need a heavy maintenance facility. It will boil down to a San Joaquin express track, and that won’t demonstrate anything to potential investors that they don’t already know. That such a track would end 20 miles short of Bakersfield is utterly immaterial in terms of which exact slow diesel Amtrak service it could enhance, and by how much. Travel times would still be reduced with the tracks ending short of a destination point: witness the original LGV Sud-Est in France, which ended well short (more than 20 miles) of Paris and Lyon.
This ought to be decided by coin toss.
J. Wong Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
The demonstration to potential investors is the actual construction not any independent utility, which is a requirement of Prop 1A. You’re right that investors won’t care about running San Joaquin’s on the track. All they will care about is that it is x miles of HSR ready track (modulo electrification of course).
J. Wong Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
I meant “usable segment” from Prop 1A and “independent utility” from the ARRA. Neither of these have any relevance to investors.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 7:53 am
The opening of the nowhere-to-nowhere portion of the Paris-Lyon LGV had an enormous media impact. The first train was loaded with journalists. The SNCF clearly counted on them to disarm the opposition who claimed the TGV was “the train France doesn’t need”.
The media reports were even more positive than expected. Some were really ecstatic, and public enthusiasm followed. With the public now on their side, the SNCF knew that no-one could stop the project being completed.
Is that sort of scenario imaginable in California?
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:06 am
The Authority is very clear that they have no intention of running trains on this segment. They are not electrifying it, they are not building any kind of control center and they have explicitly stated that if they don’t go all the way to the Bay Area or LA, they will give the tracks to Amtrak to run the current diesel trains.
There will be no demo train for journalists. Just big concrete structures bifurcating Merced and Fresno.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:23 am
So what is your proposal? Build nothing?
The people of California have mandated that this system be built. The Authority is doing its best to accomplish that task, given the funding restrictions placed on them by Prop 1A and by the federal government’s slow delivery of funds.
I ask you what you propose be done to meet the stimulus funding deadlines, the “independent utility” guidelines, and the other guidelines – realizing of course that “build nothing” is not an option.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Well, if we had our druthers you would build something that had signficant independent utility and some value for money. LA – Bakersfield, Altamont Corridor jt use etc etc.
None of the options on the table meet that criteria because of decisions made long ago.
Given the current choices, you should only build mainline sections (i.e. nothing north of the wye) unless you plan to connect the CV to san jose via Altamont. You should not build the major aerials (5 miles in Merced, 12 miles in Fresno) which incur huge incremental costs because of heavier Amtrak trains according to Authority documents. There is no reason why if San Joaquins ended up using the track that they couldn’t continue to use existing Fresno tracks.
You should do grade seps if they also separate freight. etc etc.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Aren’t they still looking at at-grade alternatives for Fresno? I haven’t found where they removed those alternatives. Maybe I’m missing them.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Ahhh, even the “at-grade” alternatives are still not completely at-grade.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Of course they could run demo trains. They could bring in an ICE TD and let ‘er rip on the constructed track. It just wouldn’t be electrified.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Precisely: before its open to FRA-approved passenger traffic, run (ahem) “tests” with reporters on board and 125mph+ diesels and giving the tag quote, “and San Francisco to Los Angeles train will be 100mph faster than this”.
The Diesel version of this train was plagued with troubles, including in its tilt mechanism (the related electric tilt version seems not to have had the same troubles), but the tilt is to allow running at up to 125mph on conventional rail corridors … I’d expect the tilt could be turned off for the HSR corridor.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
According to the German entry on wikipedia, the ICE-T also has problems with its tilt mechanism, in addition to numerous other wheel-related issues.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Interesting ~ one of the English Wikipedia articles in that set is explicit that the tilt mechanism in the ICE T was not one of the (many) problems with the ICE T. Maybe an Alstom fellow contributing to the English version and a Siemens fellow contributing to the German version (the ICE T used the Pendolino mechanism, while the ICE TD uses a Siemens mechanism).
In any event, no need to use the tilt to get a ICE TD up to 125mph on an Express HSR corridor.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
The ICE-TD’s main problem is the fact that DB has to pay very high gas taxes.
For some reason, a trainset is merely 4 cars, with 195 seats. They can hook two trainsets together, but it’s still not cost-effective in Germany.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
The first demo TGV didn’t need electrified tracks. Its power was supplied by gas turbines coupled to an alternator. Its commercial speed was 156mph but it had been tested at 198mph.
1974 SNCF clip (in French)
Maybe CHSRA could borrow one of the TGV-001 power cars from the museums where they are now on display, and give reporters a run at 198mph…
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
What’s the point of running a tilting train on a line that’s dead straight?
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I never said they needed to use a tilting train. I suggested the ICE TD because DB has a number of trainsets sitting around they’ve been trying to sell forever. They’d probably love to lease one to the Authority for a while.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
That and the fact that it go 200 km/h in revenue service.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Depending on how many trailers are powered, the FLIRT could possibly do 200 km/h. I’m not sure the diesel version could do this, though.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
As can the Coradia.
Do you know who runs a diesel FLIRT? I wasn’t able to find one on Stadler’s website.
My suggestion was simply for a demo train that they could run on unelectrified tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
I know a couple of American agencies use them, unmodified – for example, NJT’s Riverline (which for all other purposes I’d rather pretend did not exist). They run on time separation waivers.
Peter Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 11:57 am
The Riverline uses the Stadler GTW, not the FLIRT.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Maybe CHSRA had no other choice but I think this plan is a major psychological error. The public doesn’t like to be kept waiting for decades with never a train in sight.
Victor Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
And that’s exactly what We need, A train like that on the Bakersfield-Fresno segment, It will say It can be done here and It is FAST, Very FAST, Good Publicity like that should be encouraged as It will show to the Voters and to Everyone else(naysayers included) what is being paid for and built, The SNCF was right and We should follow their good example, They silenced their opposition and We could do worse than to emulate what the SNCF did to sell the TGV to the French public. And Sell the Service as in to say see It is High Speed Rail, It is not noisy, It is not slow and Reporters should ride on an Electrified segment with a Prototype Train at full speed just like reporters did on the 1st SNCF TGV. Of course I’d like to see both Segments built from Merced all the way down to Bakersfield(past Shafter or whatever) which would be 3 Stations, But I’d settle for Bakersfield to Fresno segment and into Bakersfield proper instead of 20 miles short, Now that would be a segment.
I’m agnostic on which gets built first, Just happy for Fresno! Massive infrastructure spending here in the valley is just awesome. I keep expecting to wake up from this dream and find the reality being that funding has been appropriated for LA-ANA.
While I understand that the decision has been made to go with the Central Valley, it has always seemed to me that the independent utility requirement would suggest that the first thing to build is LA-Bakersfield to get the San Joaquin into LA, probably the service’s biggest weakness… No this wouldn’t be a real demonstration of the highest possible speeds, but by the same token nothing will be running diesels. Frankly, if I were to look for additional funding at this point it would be to get the Bakersfield option extended not just to Bakersfield proper but through to LA immediately.
Peter Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Interestingly, they wouldn’t have to do Fresno-Bakersfield first in order to next build Bakersfield-Palmdale. They could just route the trains out of Bakersfield and branch off to the new HSR tracks to the Tehachapis outside of Bako.
Jon Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
I believe the reason why Bakersfield-Palmdale or Palmdale-LA were not considered for the first segment was that the engineering is significantly more complex, and so those segments are much further away from being shovel-ready. Also there may be difficulties in running diesels in long tunnels designed for electric trains.
Eric Fredericks Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Exactly. That section will have the most tunnels and therefore pretty costly per mile. It was also one of the furthest behind in planning. No way they could ramp up to meet the ARRA deadlines which created the whole concept of “independent utility.” While it’s been a good thing to have Obama as President for HSR, it’s certainly altered the Authority’s original plans to say the least. Maybe if they had known this to begin with, things would have been planned differently.
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 12:57 am
I really wish they had gotten the design of LA-Bakersfield moving faster, but it is a fact that it is the most technically difficult part of the entire project. They spent a lot of time demonstrating that a Grapevine/Tejon route was impossible, too, so I suspect they really wished it was possible.
Lay as many miles of track as possible. Build Fresno-Bako first!
YESONHSR Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
YES Fresno -Bak first as its over 100miles and perfect for the test track and somewhere I have read that for the time being it will connect with the BNSF to get into the station at Bakersfield. it also includes all the work in the city of Fresno so that will involve alot of non-machine work..And know one has answered the big question..The UP railroad and their postion compared to the BNSF and the 2011 deadline ROD. I say it will be Fresno-Bakersfield
Jon Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Yeah, BNSF is the obvious choice for Fresno-Bakersfield, and UP the obvious choice for Merced-Fresno. So get started on Fresno-Bakersfield and hope some agreement can be worked out with UP before it’s time to build Merced-Fresno.
Victor Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Yes I agree Fresno-Bakersfield, Particularly If about $1 billion in grants from both Wisconsin and Ohio are returned to the Federal Government gets reallocated to California, Then the segment could go deep into Bakersfield and not just stop around Shafter or wherever, Plus have two stations. And Yes over 100 miles would be a good test track and If there were enough money It could be electrified too, Now that would be something to see, Not to mention ride.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:06 am
However, from the outside looking in, its not clear that California would actually be first in line for a majority of that $1b+ … certainly if Florida were to turn back its money, as much of that as feasible should go to California, since it would be the only Express HSR applicant left.
Victor Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Yeah I do have to agree We may not be first in line, but one can hope for the best, What else can We do? If Florida turned theirs back and We got either the Lions share or all of from the 3 Stooges(er States) I sure wouldn’t mind.
dfb Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
An agreement with UP is a pipe dream.
Victor Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:50 am
UP will need to be forced, Preferably with a Giant Crowbar, To get them to comply.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
But a length of steel pipe as a persuader is also a nice dream.
Victor Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
True, But It’s how the pipe’s applied, Teddy Roosevelt supposedly said Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick, Sounds like good advice to Me still.
Representive Mica specifically noted the Northeast corridor as the only region in the United States with enough population density to justify a rail line, but Spokesman Justin Harclerode added that he has mentioned California as a project that merited grant money. This is a welcome statement after many news reporters saw trouble for projects following an interview with the Associated Press Wednesday where Mica said he wanted to review grants already distributed by the Federal Railroad Administration.
false choice. build both segments with the extra money we get after the midwestern idiots cancel their federal rail projects.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 7:35 am
This.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What if other states get that money? There’s still Michigan, Washington/Oregon, and New York that seem likely to put their hands up if the USDoT does a quick query on who wants unfunded parts of their previous ARRA applications to be considered for additional funding.
StevieB Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Senators say California would gladly take funds for high-speed rail passed on by other states.
New York has said it wants the money but three Republican congressmen from Wisconsin have introduced a bill that would give states the option to redirect the money to the U.S. Treasury toward reducing the national debt. This bill will go nowhere but it shows the mindset of Wisconsin Republicans.
Victor Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Agreed the Wisconsin bill from the Wackos is a dead duck, Nice idea, But dead just the same.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
most of that money is californias money anyway, we are the only ones supporting all those loser states to begin with. They are lucky they get anything at all. The feds need to a. give us back all our damn money and quit askin for more, and b. pay us the billions they owe us for the cost of dealing with illegal immigration which they have dumped on us.
I’ve about had it with the other 49 and the crowd in DC. What a f*&^%ing joke.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Wisconsin Republicans from where in Wisconsin? It was Wisconsin pro-business Republicans, after all, that persuaded Walker to support continued support for the Hiawatha. And Illinois has money to put into its portion of the Hiawatha route.
No word, of course, on whether the USDoT would allow Wisconsin to shift money from the Milwaukee/Madison route to the Hiawatha or Empire Builder (as either gets Wisconsin off the hook as far as the guaranteed of $7.5m a year if required to operate the train. I tend to doubt that they would, but a lot would depend on how close to shovel ready the MRRS-designated Hiawatha corridor improvements are.
And even if they push for that, I don’t know whether it would consume the whole $810m.
StevieB Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 1:42 am
U.S. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Tom Petri and Paul Ryan on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow Wisconsin and other states to return federal high-speed rail funds to reduce the federal budget deficit. Sensenbrenner quote:
About using the money on other Wisconsin rail the governor-elect though of that.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 4:22 am
We are surrounded by incompetents who want to keep us chained in our cars and to the oil companies.
And people wonder why some of us are down on the Republicans?
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Sensenbrenner is a liar and a crook, just like Walker. He’s been trying to mislead people into believing that Wisconsin can somehow take the money and use it for roads.
We are *not* going to let them do that.
The authority is required by SHCn2704.01g to select as the first section of the CHSR system to be constructed, one of the corridors identified in SHC 2704.04 as a usuable segement of such Corridor that includes at least two high speed rail passanger stations and state law specifically requires the authority to give priority to construction of the Corridor, or usable segment that is expected to require the least amount of state bond funding as a percentage of the total construction cost.
Based on the information contained in the authoritys applications for federal grant funding and FRA responses so far it can be stated as fact that only the Merced-Fresno segment satisifies the definition of usable segment set forth in the bond language, The Merced to Fresno segment must be given priority for construction because it is expected to reqire the lowest percentage of state bond funding measured as a percentage of expected construction cost. Therefore of the two competing segments , the applicable provisions of California’s Street & Highway Code and the terms of Prop 1a require the Authority as a matter of law to select the Merced-Fresno segment as the first usable segment of the CHSR system to be constructed with state bond funding. Supervisor Pedrozo article is not only factually correct but it also follows the law.
Donk Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Bypass Merced for now. We shouldn’t build an extra foot of track until we get the route from LA-San Jose finished. Merced is a branch line in the wrong direction. Build the maintenance facility in Fresno, along the mainline route.
wu ming Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:18 am
no, merced is a branch line in the right direction. if you’re from sac, that is.
Donk Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 7:25 am
I am not discriminating against Merced and Sac. The same goes for Anaheim and SF. Get the mainline done first from LA-SJ.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:08 am
We made this exact argument at the recent board meeting. If the Authority’s stated objective is to get track from the CV to the Bay Area or to LA, you cannot build one foot north of the wye.
Clem Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Said wye is nowhere close to having been fully litigated. You could not build even one foot of the wye itself, probably…
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:45 am
But is the large triangle Chowchilla bypass considered as part of the wye?
wu ming Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
if the maintenance facility is in merced, then it’s part of a functioning system.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Your interpretation would seem to be correct. HOWEVER, the Authority is going to try and get state legislative signoff for a much bigger segment, of which Merced- Fresno or Fresno- bakersfield would only be a subset. Their logic is that the state law only requires a “plan”. Our reading is that it requires more than just a plan a la the recent business plans, but must have something behind the funding sources other than hopes and dreams.
we will see,
Risenmessiah Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
My reading of the statute confirms your legal arguments, but doesn’t give each the same weight.
For example: “usable segment” doesn’t presume it begins and ends with a station. It just has to contain two stations. So for example, you could build Fresno and Hanford with the line extending far noth and south and it would be legitimate.
The argument over the wye is much stronger, since statute says that LA to SF is the first priority, and Merced is not going to be part of that alignment.
And then, the lowest cost to California is all contingent on federal grant rules. If the Feds don’t distinguish between one acre or another then the Authority can simply figure out what’s the cheapest segment that includes Hanford to Fresno and runs up and down the CV.
The future of airport security…
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/15/california.airport.security/?hpt=Sbin
Spokker Reply:
November 15th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
The developments over these scanners and “new and improved” pat-down procedures have put me back back into the Prop 1A supporter camp. I don’t give a flying fuck how screwed up the HSR plan is, how corrupt the CHSRA is, how much it costs or whether or not its even realistic, I will never ever fly. I don’t care if I lose work because of it, I will never fly again.
Of course, if similar measures come to trains, I’ll become a telecommuting supporter and never ride again.
Matthew Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:11 am
“If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.” ha ha ha :-)
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:19 am
He should be so lucky.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:19 am
I have no doubt that we will need to fight the TSA and the Dept. of
Vaterland SicherheitHomeland Security on security procedures at HSR stations sometime in the next 10 years. In the interim, if these protests against the insane TSA procedures continue, it could be a big boost to the pro-HSR cause.jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:29 am
I dont see what the fuss is. Just walk through the damn scanner and get on with it. Americans are becoming more ridiculous every day. I don’t even want to talk to any of them any more.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:07 am
How is it ridiculous to believe that we have a right to modesty and a certain degree of personal privacy?
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Because we all know how professional the TSA “security” losers are.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Ok first fo all. The TSA people are not losers. They do what is a thankless job for mediocre pay and have to put up with thousands of members of the american traveling public everyday which trust me, is no freakin picnic ok? Second, I can’t speak for your airports but the staff at SFO is amazingly efficient and super friendly and very cool. ( cuz they are bay people thats why) That has been my experience. ( compared to the little nazis in palm springs airport especially.
“I want my flight safe. Its not a big freakin deal to walk thru the machine. No one cares to look at any of your fat naked behinds any longer than they have to anyway.
Good lord, what r u gonna do when we have another crisis or disaster and you have to eat tree bark and poop in a bucket or something.
Quit whining, take off your shoes, and stop holding up the line.
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 1:02 am
The TSA is harassing people for the purpose of…. well, it’s sure not security. :-P Theater, I guess. The individuals at the line aren’t necessarily bad people, but the entire system does zilch for security, wastes government money, *and* is designed to humilate and harass people.
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 1:04 am
If any one of the crap pieces of invasion-of-privacy introduced by the TSA actually had any benefit in preventing hijackings and plane bombings, it would be different. But they don’t, and it’s well documented that the entire system is as full of holes as swiss cheese. Want to blow up a plane, just send something as (uninspected) cargo. Want to get on without passing security, just get a job at the airport. Et cetera.
jay taylor Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:43 am
The fuss?
I am just a meat popsicle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dd_qiuWxPs
Really, the TSA is just an circus.
dave Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Next they’ll want to know the size of your underwear when you check in because of terrorists. Are you going to give them the size Jim?
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:40 am
What if I don’t wear undies?
dave Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Haha, gross.
Spokker Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
What I’m going to do is not masturbate for several days and get the aggressive pat-down and then cum in my pants and blow the TSA agent’s mind!!! I’ll be all over the news, protesting with my mighty wad.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
you get the award for horniest hsr supporter on this board.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Couldn’t find an Abbott & Costello “I’m a ba-a-a-a-d boy” clip, but I found this, could be Spokker’s theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5To3gY3Ztk
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 4:34 am
Looks like I’ll be staying on the ground. . .
http://airtravel.about.com/od/duringyourflight/a/nakedfkk.htm
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Clothing_20Optional_20Airline
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Ill give them the underwear if they want them. In fact, next time, if they have the machine, Im not going to wear any.
thatbruce Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:23 am
The machine sees all, but humans can miss some.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
And people wonder why I prefer somewhat more discreet older movies.
Actually, wasn’t there some other flick that had a gag about clothes being optional?
I think I live in the wrong time, and what’s funny about that, I’ve been told the same thing by at least two other people I know.
Nathanael Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 1:01 am
I stopped flying some time ago. If I ever have to, I’m crossing the border and flying from Canada or Mexico.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 7:03 am
People are unreal. Just walk through the damn scanner and be on your way. What is the big effin problem? What we need is a scanner for stupid.
Spokker Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Will you just walk through the scanner when it comes to BART and Amtrak?
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
if they want to put em in yes. I don’t have a problem with scanners. I don’t understand what the fuss is about. I also think they should deny people who don’t bathe or smell fresh. They should install a stupidometer for all flights to red states…. of course that would cause untold delays.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
They do have the authority to bump people who smell badly. It’s discretionary, though.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
WE do that too. Its a touchy thing to have to do. If they are drunk and smell bad, its easier cuz you can deny for being drunk. But personal hygiene…. hard to do but you have too sometimes.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Your comment about the drunks reminds me of a fellow who got put off the westbound Capitol Limited in Martinsburg, W.Va. some years back. Seems he brought along his own supply of hooch, and tanked up pretty good. Got to making himself a nuisance, and went way over the line when he propositioned a 14-year old girl. Her parents were understandably upset, as was the female conductor on the train.
The crew somehow got in contact with the police department in Martinsburg, and several cops came down to the station to meet the train. They went in, and got the guy off. The conductor and a porter went forward to the baggage car, and got the fellow’s suitcase out. All came back to the station, and the train highballed out.
The cops asked the fellow to open his suitcase and briefcase; the latter held the bottle, I think it was Royal Crown whisky. One of the cops said to the gent, “I’ll take that, please.” The man in blue took the bottle, opened the top, poured the remaining whisky on the ballast, put the cap back on, and handed the empty bottle back to the former passenger.
There were three old guys watching all this from one of the station’s porches (it’s the oldest station in use in America, and one of the oldest in use in the world, and is a former hotel). Those guys saw the whisky going on the ground, and called out, “Hey, you should have saved that for us! It’s good stuff!” Then the cops left.
Our former passenger now had some problems. Martinsburg has no intercity bus service, and he had trouble getting a cab. He also had trouble getting his cell phone to work. He was in trouble on that account as well, as his girlfriend was to be waiting for him when the train was due to arrive at some town in Ohio at something like 3 in the morning–and he couldn’t get the phone to work, and he was having trouble finding a cab. . .couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. . .ho, ho, ho, ho!
I saw all this, and no, I wasn’t one of those three old geezers!
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
yep, thats exactly how they do it. Sometimes out in the country its a stop at the next available grade crossing with the sheriff waiting. And I’ve heard stories where the conductors supposedly gave a choice, – get out in the cornfield and walk to the next town, or ride into town with the sheriff waiting. your choice. Seen punks put off for bad language in mixed company too. Generally, they try to keep a clean, tight and family friendly atmosphere on board, and of course the main job is safety so there’s little tolerance for time wasting nonsense.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I understand that way back, in the 19th century, the conductors sometimes put such fellows off without bothering to stop the train–no doubt made for some interesting bouncing bodies!
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Well my memory is a little fuzzy thinking that far back….
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Your comments about an emphasis on safe operation and a safe, family-friendly atmosphere suggest a possible marketing approach for Amtrak. How do we get the advertising-writing job?
dave Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:12 am
It’s “Big Brother” at it again. Haven’t you guys noticed that crotch bomb smuggler that took place not to long ago happens and they already either have these machines or used them but not with this much force? Then they go and point to the incident and tell you they have a right to invade your privacy for “your safety”. BS 100%. Slowly it all goes in the same direction meaning you lose your rights because of “terrorists”. It makes you think that these stories are fabricated to take away your freedom. But I guess that’s for another blog.
Anyway, I didn’t fly before and because of this, I will never fly again.
It would be great to have a long stretch built from Fresno to Bakersfield. But the shorter stretch from Fresno to Merced brings it closer to San Jose, the 3rd largest city in CA. And that means the next stretch from San Jose to Merced would finally connect San Jose to the valley.
Currently going by train from San Jose to Fresno (connecting at Emeryville) takes 5 hours 4 min. Or going from San Jose via Amtrak bus to Stockton and by train to Fresno takes 4 hours 19 min.
By High Speed Rail from San Jose to Fresno it will take 51 minutes. A savings in time of 3 hours 15 minutes.
Jack In Fresno Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 7:41 am
This right here!
We love Joe
A new report shows that high-speed rail opponent and Gov.-elect Scott Walker was the beneficiary of nearly half the money donated by road builders during the campaign…
well, surprise surprise surprise.
Just looking at the San Joaquin service times between Bakersfield – Fresno – Merced. The current track mileposts show Bak/Fre to be 111 miles and Fre/Mer to be 58 miles. The timetable shows the Bak/Fre going the 111 miles in 115 minutes, while the Fre/Mer 58 mile segment takes 58 minutes. So basically the train is averaging 60mph between the stations.
The are 3 additional stops on Bak/Fre: Wasco, Corcoran and Hanford, while the Fre/Mer segment only stops at Madera. If the tracks were to be used by the San Joaquin’s I have a couple questions:
1. Would the intermediate stops just be skipped, or would the HSR tracks somehow be connected to allow the trains to stop at the intermediate stops? If the intermediate stops are skipped, the the San Joaquin service might have their current service, then run some express trains on the HSR tracks that would skip the intermediate stops.
2. If the intermediate stops are skipped, what would be the time savings achieved by using the HSR tracks? Since the new tracks would be grade separated and not used by freight, could the Amtrak trains then run at their highest possible speed?
If that is 110mph, then the express service I mentioned would have an average speed that is ~100mph versus the current 60mph between the stations. So the Bak/Fre segment could be run in 66 minutes versus 115 saving you 49 minutes. The Fre/Mer segment could be run in 34 minutes versus 58 saving you 24 minutes. If both were in place, then the before and after travel times would be 173 minutes versus 100 minutes, basically cutting the Bakersfield to Oakland trip time from 6h10m to ~5h total.
If these two segments were the first two built, do you think that the San Joaquin’s would then use the track for their service like this, even if for just express service? Seems to make a lot of sense if the tracks will be there.
RT
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:24 am
First of all, they are not serious about running the San Joquain’s. The discussions are so preliminary no one has considered the additional maintenance costs of the tracks, which would outweight the two additional trains they would run.
Unfortunately, in order to make it technically possible to run the San Joquains, the Authority is proposing spending a couple of extra hundred million to make sure the aerial structures can support heavy Amtrak trains.
RubberToe Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:38 am
A couple hundred million to make the aerial structures strong enough? That seems pretty high, though I’m not a construction engineer. How much more than an HSR locomotive does an Amtrak locomotive weigh?
RT
Joey Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:12 am
The Amtrak California locomotives appear to be around 36t/axel, more than double the accepted limit for HSR. The coaches are closer to 17t/axel.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:30 am
I still think CA should dust off the JetTrain power cars.
Joey Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
How many of them were built?
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Ahhh, I only know of two. And I have no idea what their current status is. They may have been scrapped for all I know.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am
But of course the HSR is faster, so while overhead structures had to cope with about double the weight for 33ton/axle vs 17ton/axle, the parts engineered for impact might have a substantially smaller differential.
Still, if a 25ton/axle European style locomotive was available, that would be better, even if it had to run push-me / pull-me configuration.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:25 am
First, European freight locomotives have an axle load of 22 t, same as the Acela, not 25 t. Second, there’s nothing wrong with getting DMUs with an axle load of 15 t.
Clem Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:44 am
22500 kg is the freight axle load limit in Europe.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:47 am
I’m guessing you guys are running into the difference between “ton” and “metric ton”.
thatbruce Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
or short vs long vs tonne. Stick to a metric ton(ne), and all will be fine ;).
(2000 lbs / 907 kg , 2240 lbs / 1016 kg, 2204 lbs / 1000 kg ).
Good thing that the weight of a pound doesn’t change depending on context.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Using anything other than metric system is retarded.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
That possible confusion is why I explicitly wrote out ton, which is not in the metric nomenclature., rather than using the ambiguous abbreviation “t”.
22.5 tonnes/axle = 24.8 tons/axle, which is to say, in the capacity of track that can support 25tons/axle. An advantage of two 25 ton/axle diesel-electric locomotives in a push/pull configuration is is the prospect of qualifying the locomotives as FRA-compliant. AFAIU, the Cascades with the Talgo cars only made certification due to the locomotive on one end and the baggage car with cement blocks on the other end: a locomotive at each end would avoid the dead weight problem.
Useless Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Axle load of upto 25 ton is not a problem, since Korea’s main HSR is built to 25 ton axle load standard and Koreans would be happy to build California HSR system to 25 ton standard if required. Maybe European railway constructors could comply with this too.
But the Amtrak requirement does rule out Japanese and Chinese bids, as these countries do not have any experience with high axle load HSR tracks. Shinkansen track is restricted to 12 tons, while Chinese track is 17 tons.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
The KTX trains have an axle load of 17 metric tons, and Hyundai Rotem is building a new EMU of 13 tons.
Useless Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Yes, but the track itself is designed for 25 ton axle load, an example of overengineering.
So if California HSR authority is looking for a railway constructor with an experience in constructing high-loading HSR track, then you know whom to turn to.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
You mean the country that built Phase 1 of the KTX for $56 billion per km, about 3 times the French cost of HSR?
Useless Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 5:37 am
High building cost was affected by two things.
1. Land prices in Korea is extremely high, some of highest real estate prices in the world.
2. Rough terrain is really unsuitable for HSR, meaning the majority of track is over viaducts and tunnels.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Just like in Spain and California. Spain built Madrid-Barcelona for $15 million/km, and California plans to build Phase 1 for around $40 million/km.
But just to keep things comparable, I looked at Phase 1, not the more mountainous Phase 2.
Joey Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Sorry, miscalculation. The EMD F59PHI is closer to 30 tonnes (metric) per axel. Still way overweight though.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:00 am
This comment, in a nutshell, demonstrates the utter futility with US rail planning. Amtrak runs antiquated trains that are grossly overweight. Rather than address that fundamental problem (there are dozens of off-the-shelf DMU designs out there to choose from), hundreds of millions get wasted pouring more concrete.
thatbruce Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Look at the other side of the coin. If the CV segment ends up being the only segment being built, overspeccing the aerial structures involved so that it can be used by someone else makes sense; no-one is going to pay to get their hands on an unusable, to them, structure.
It would be an extra cost, but not a ‘couple hundred million’.
randy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Another issue with over built structures is that they tend to be substantially more bulky and thus more intrusive looking.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
On the other hand, they last longer if used at less than maximum capacity.
From the SJQ Rail Committee April 2010:
The Amtrak San Joaquins and HST
The recently funded HST service, at a minimum, will provide the expanded capacity anticipated by Caltrans 20-Year Passenger Rail System Plan. In the interim, the San Joaquins will play an important role, providing rail service for missing segments of the HST as each segment is completed, and as a feeder service for the HST.
Federal stimulus funding is anticipated for the HST test track to be built in the San Joaquin Valley to connect Merced/Fresno – “the doorstep of Yosemite and the Sierras,” with Bakersfield – “the gateway of Southern California.” Existing San Joaquin Amtrak train sets could begin operating on this test track at speeds up to 120 MPH, cutting travel times in half, and ushering in one of the first segments of the HST in California. Construction could begin in 2012.
Long term service after the HST system is completed between Bakersfield and Merced needs further study to evaluate: 1) Amtrak San Joaquins as a feeder system for highspeed rail, and 2) addition of suburban commuter stops in outlying Fresno and Bakersfield and adjacent communities/counties. In the near-term some stops along the system may need to be serviced by connector buses, until population and ridership warrant commuter/HST feeder train service. Development of connector buses and community transit centers should be coordinated with potential future commuter rail corridors that provide service from outlying communities and counties to the HST stations within the valley. Preservation and expansion of freight service along future commuter rail corridors is an important strategy to preserving potential future commuter rail corridors to the Valley’s HST stations.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Pre van Ark. The most recent applications very clearly state that San Joaquins would only use the tracks in case of a “delay”. Delay is not defined and there is nothing formal between HSR and Amtrak/ state rail.
Who at Amtrak would be right person to talk to about this?
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:06 am
What the applications say in this respect is irrelevant. If nothing else gets built, the San Joaquins would use the tracks. End of story.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Not obvious. There are substantial maintenance costs – the feds have very specific clauses in their agreement – that no one has agreed to pick up.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:07 am
no one. you won’t find anyone who either knows for sure or who will offer a definitive answer.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
that’s comforting.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Maybe talk to the SJQ Rail Committee? As in, the source of jimsf’s comment?
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I can never get answers to stuff like that cuz nobdoy knows anything. The problem that happens is, and you really don’t want to know, but the fact its 100 percent politics. There are about one zillion different agencies involved in every minor decision that has anything to do with anything and finding one person who can give you a definitive answer is impossible. No one is going to commit to something. These types of decisions require untold amounts of negotiations with multiple state, federal, union, and private entities. Every decision about every thing, goes through this sausage making process. The most difficult part of my job is keeping my head from exploding since I keep insisting on wanting to know whats going on instead of just showing up and selling tickets. I can show my new gray hairs.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
( thats why my benefits package covers therapy)
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
In fact to date, the only response Ive ever gotten from anyone at amtrak on the topic of hsr is “it’ll never happen” and/or “we’ll all be retired before that happens”
But someone somewhere must know something. I just don’t know who, or where they hide that person.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I called the Department of Rail today. They referred me to the high speed rail authority.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
told ya.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
And they’ll refer you to x, who will refer you to y…
RubberToe Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Wow Jim,
Thanks for the info! At 120mph the time savings would be even greater.
RT
BruceMcF Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Is 120mph from the maximum test speed for locomotives geared to operate at 110mph? Since 110mph was the top speed I’ve seen listed for the main locomotives used by Amtrak-California.
Jon Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I’m sure this question has been asked before, but does anyone know what is the fastest FRA-compliant trainset?
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Acela and Bombardier JetTrain. Possibly Talgo XXI, they’ve said they want to bring out an FRA-compliant version.
Jon Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Thanks. I don’t think the JetTrain or Talgo XXI are actually in operation anywhere, right? And the Acela is electric.
I guess a better question would be, what is the fastest readily available, diesel powered, FRA-compliant trainset that Amtrak could lease to use for the San Joaquins until HSR begins?
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
You are correct. The Talgo XXI was built as a demonstrator, and is now used for track testing in Spain, I believe.
Well, there are diesel locos currently in use in the U.S. that run at 110 mph. I think many of them could be pushed to 120 or 125 mph.
Jon Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
According to Jim’s press release, the current San Joaquin rolling stock can do 120mph (probably more like 110mph in reality.) So there’s not much point in Amtrak buying new equipment if their current stock is as good as it gets for diesel FRA trains.
I gotta say I had no idea those trains could do anywhere near that speed. If they were allowed to operate that fast the San Joaquin would provide an excellent service. I guess the track does make a huge difference!
dave Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
It makes all the differnce. HSR or upgraded Track I would say is more than half of what is desired for max speed. Locomotives probably second and rolling stock last.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetTrain
http://canadair.ca/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_1.jsp?menu=0
http://canadair.ca/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_2_1.jsp?menu=1_0
Continued:
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
http://canadair.ca/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_2_2.jsp?menu=1_1
http://canadair.ca/en/1_0/1_10/chrono.html
http://canadair.ca/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_3_2.jsp?menu=2_0
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Power car weight of JetTrain: 90,750 kg
That gives it an axle weight of 22.7 tons (metric). Not bad, but not exactly 17 tons, either.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Railroad equipment has long demonstrated an ability for speed, provided the track was straight enough and with good enough line and surface condition. The first reported record of 100 mph was in May of 1893, when the New York Central ran a train specifically to set a speed record (the speed record actually being set in a regular service train, with revenue passengers). This record was reportedly 112 1/2 mph, with one-off locomotive built for speed, No. 999; in altered form, this engine exists in the Science Museum in Chicago.
Around 1905 or so, the Pennsylvania Railroad supposedly set a speed record on the maiden run of the Broadway Limited. This speed record–127 mph–was supposedly something of an accident, and was never considered official; the train was late, and the engineer was making up time. The record was recorded not with stopwatches on the train, but by telegraph operators recording the train’s time as it passed stations; supposedly these times were also recorded on some sort of master clock in Chicago.
Regular running at 100 mph or better was inaugurated by the Milwaukee Road in the 1930s with its Hiawatha service. The railroad did some track reallignment, some other work, and of course some custom steam engines designed to cruise at 90 or so. The route was notable for several large speed restriction signs approaching curves, warning “Reduce to 90,” and a level crossing with another railroad at Rondout had a speed restriction of 100 mph. The trains had no official speed limit, other than that the engineers were admonished to run to time consistent with safety.
A notable test run, just before service commenced, reportedly pegged the spedomometer on the locomotive at 127 mph, and yet the speed was increasing. The top speed for these engines was never determined.
There is a book by S. Kip Farrington, “Railroading From the Head End,” published in the early 1940s, that has, spread over several pages, a reproduction of a speed recorder tape taken from a regular service Hiawatha run; it shows mile after mile of running in the 100 mph range.
All of this was with steam!
I’ll try and get some more material, including diesel material later on. Have to go for now.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
What’s the point of running an FRA-compliant train? By 2015 it won’t be necessary, making it completely obsolete. The main utility of any train California chooses to run on unelectrified HSR segments (which is itself stupid, since electrification is an order of magnitude cheaper than laying high-speed track) in the future would be running it on other unelectrified lines, such as Merced-Sac, and eventually Sac-Redding. Such a train should be as light and low-maintenance as possible, which rules out FRA-compliant trains.
Jon Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
The point of running an FRA compliant train is to comply with FRA rules, of course. If the idea of using the new HSR track for part of the San Joaquin route is going to work, you need to use FRA compliant trains, because you have to comply with FRA rules while you’re on the older parts of the track (e.g. Oakland-Merced).
When the HSR track is electrified and HSR trains purchased, the FRA compliant trains will be reused on non-electrified lines, as you say. So it makes sense to have something which can immediately be reused on existing freight lines (e.g. Redding-Sac), without waiting for dedicated track to be constructed or an FRA waiver to be obtained.
That said, I agree that there is no point purchasing or leasing new FRA compliant if the current San Joaquin equipment can do 110/120 mph down the new track.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
To what end? There’s a PTC mandate going online in 5 years. Anything FRA-compliant is going to become obsolete under any rational management then.
Jon Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
As in, by 2015 the FRA are going to require PTC on freight lines, and will then relax their collision safety requirements for rolling stock?
I wasn’t aware of that. Any details? Is this what the whole CBOSS thing is about?
RubberToe Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Jon,
Yes, when either PTC or CBOSS is implemented by 2015, the collision requirements for rolling stock will go away. The 2015 comes from new federal law as a result of the Metrolink train wreck in Chatsworth. All trains are required to have PTC by 2015. As Alon was saying, at that point you could run lighter rolling stock on the same track as the freight trains because the PTC system is supposed to insure that there are no collisions. I don’t have a link to the new law, but you could probably Google it.
RT
Clem Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 10:06 am
The collision requirements will most definitely NOT go away. Caltrain obtained their mixed traffic waiver subject to strict time separation with freight trains. The main object of this waiver, to allow self-compatibility between Caltrain’s existing freight-like locomotives and EMUs during the transition to a new fleet, is of a temporary nature. Once the diesels are largely retired, the risk is reduced. Also note that the FRA still requires that the new fleet meet or exceed the European crashworthiness standard, which is no picnic either.
PTC is another layer of active safety over the existing layer of passive safety.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 9:12 am
By 2015 the FRA demands that all railroads carrying passenger traffic or hazmat must have some PTC implementation. It hasn’t chosen a standard, but said it wants one with five years of track record; the freight railroads are still fighting the mandate, while quietly developing their own freight-centered system. CBOSS is Caltrain’s own freight-centered PTC.
If you read Amtrak’s original pitch to upgrade the NEC – the one that came before the master plan – you’ll see a reference to the PTC mandate allowing lighter rolling stock. I haven’t seen statements directly from the FRA saying that it will relax buff strength after the mandate, but such a relaxation would be consistent with past behavior: it gave Caltrain a waiver, and only demanded the Acela be buffed up after ACSES got delayed.
Jon Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Thanks for the explanation. It does beg the question though, if it’s nearly 2011 and CBOSS doesn’t even exist yet, how is it doing to have five years of track record by 2015? Just use ERTMS already.
Peter Reply:
November 17th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Or D-ATC, or even one of the ones in use in the U.S. already.
This article is effective at clarifying why the Merced to Fresno segment should be the first to be built. This segment has stations planned for both ends, in Merced and in Fresno and why not first start with the section of the 800 mile High Speed Rail system that is less expensive and would maximize any dollars spent. This segment would be centralized where as the the Merced to Sacramento, Merced to San Jose, and the Fresno to Southern California phases could branch off from this first section.
More money coming to CAHS?
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/11/16/1656120/lawmakers-seek-more-rail-money.html
Perhaps everyone should email boxer and feinsein and voice support for their efforts to secure the additional money. I’m going to now.
dianecontact
barbaracontact
just put “yes high speed rail money” or something in the topic line.
Peter Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Hit up Pelosi (or for those not from SF, your respective representative), too.
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
oh yeh I always forget about her for some reason… and she’s the one who is best at making things happen.
Remember everyone, the republicans have not actually taken over yet. That doesn’t happen for another 2 months. The dems are still running the show and have nothing to lose at this point…. push push push
jimsf Reply:
November 16th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
yep tell pelosi… you better get while the gettin’s still good, girl!
I just sent a short note like this..
Dear Senator,
If you all can grab that federal money that the other ridiculous states just gave up for high speed rail… grab it quick and bring it home. Let’s get ours done and leave the rest of the country wondering what hit them
An interesting article has come up.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704814204575507353221141616.html
Kawasaki is now going on the record that the export of Chinese CRH380A violates the license agreement they signed with Chinese and they will sue if Chinese attemps to sell CRH380A in the US. CAHSR authority also states they will examine the legality of IP issues whene considering the bids. This effectively eliminates Chinese bids in the US.
With Chinese gone, you have less favorable Japanese and Korean construction loan offers.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Maby with the Japaneses version …and it does not go 220MPH..AGV or ICE3 is what we want
swing hanger Reply:
November 19th, 2010 at 4:44 am
Wrong, the efSET is a 350kmh (220mph) design. Of course, right now it only exists as a scale model.
http://www.khi.co.jp/english/rd/news/detail/ba_c3080911_1.html