High Speed Rail Authority Official Looks at Conventional Right-of-Way to Get to Los Angeles from Palmdale
Yesterday I attended the joint meeting of RailPac and NARP at the Los Angeles Metro headquarters building at Union Station. The day of presentations included updates from Metrolink’s CEO on future plans including express service to start in May and PTC implementation. Californians for High Speed Rail’s Daniel Krause talked about their vision for seeing HSR implemented in California and Friend for Expo Transit and the Sierra Club’s Darrel Clarke discussed lessons from grass roots organizing for light rail in Los Angeles.
NARP Chairman Bob Stewart updated the group on national efforts for passenger rail and HSR, affirming as one of the organization’s goal’s as seeing a true HSR system established in the US in the next several years. Gene Skoropowski gave an excellent presentation. Known to many of us as the managing director of the Capital Corridor, he is now a consultant at HNTB working on the LOSSAN corridor. He gave a very good presentation on the success of the Capital Corridor working with Union Pacific, updates on trying to rationalize service on the Surfliner corridor and establishing commuter service to Santa Barbara. Remarking on the Florida Governor’s rejection of federal HSR funding (despite the guarentees potential builders made for the project’s financing), Skoropowski said that Alstom and other contractors feel thoroughly burned by Florida, a state that was once on target to have America’s first true HSR
The High Speed Rail Authority’s Project Manager Hans Van Winkle gave a very good update on the project. A former Army Corps of Engineers Major General and senior manager at Parsons Brinckerhoff, he opened by grabbing the latest edition of the California Rail News, a harsh critic of the Authority and addressed their cover story attacking the current first segment through the Central Valley. He showed a very well developed skill dealing with stakeholders no doubt developed from his years of dealing with big projects managed by the Army and other large organizations. He gave a general update of the project’s state and next steps forward to get to the Bay Area and the LA basin.
Most interesting, he expressed the staff’s current thinking that they may try to reach Los Angeles from Palmdale on the conventional railroad right-of-way to get service from LA to San Francisco on a quicker timeframe, without of course abandoning the goal of true HSR from LA to SF. I think that some of this is a reaction to the pushback from the gold plating and initial phasing being pushed in 2009 for the short LA to Anaheim segment. Full HSR build out for this 30 mile segment hardly seemed a good use of limited funds. The authority has seriously backed off LA to Anaheim for now, delaying decisions on it until 2012.
One possibility for a one seat ride would be a true HSR ROW from Merced to Palmdale, using the conventional row to the East Bay and Los Angeles while the Pacheco and SR-14 high speed ROWs are being built. This incremental approach would probably be more in line with the way most European HSR systems were (and are being) developed. The lack of mainline electrification and the ownership structure of the conventional railroad in this country compared to Europe is an obvious but not insurmountable difference.
I think that the Authority, given the year-to-year funding of HSR from Congress, is doing a good job of keeping all options open for the system. I think a one-seat ride from LA to SF, even with some conventional ROW running, would be a smashing success from day one. Given the strong financial interest expressed from private groups just the other day, there is room for optimism. Obama’s push for a five year plan for HSR is also another good sign despite the dysfunction shown by the House of Representatives’ current majority.
“Purely political” rejection of hsr in Florida is perfect nonsense. Everything in life has some political take but there remains a very substantial non-political hangup with hsr: it is going to require subsidies in the US. Just look around to BART and Amtrak to verify this inevitability. These are going to be government-run union operations and they cannot pay for the MOW let alone not run an operating deficit. They would have to be privately-owned and operated, non-union and virtually driverless to make money. This is likely even true for a maglev that would be directly time-competitive with airlines.
For broke states to worry about coming up with subsidies for hsr is not a paranoia or nervous nellie. That would be kvetching and hand-wringing about crossing Tejon all the while you are planning to deploy 7 mile tunnels and extensive aerials in the seismic Tehachapis.
Which brings up Palmdale to LA. Forget Palmdale – who made Palmdale center of the universe? Some sleazy proto-Bell influence peddlers out of LA? The vein of corruption running thru the corpse of the Golden State is beginning to come out – the SF Chron today is running items detailing half a million dollar payouts to state employees and Lehman Bros.-Gold in Sacks level graft and corruption in Calpers.
And just who decided to leave out Oakland and Sacramento out of the hsr scheme? They are vastly more important than either Fresno or Bakersfield, not to mention wretched Palmdale.
The only reason PB is even considering any modifications to their dogmatic scheme of holy war with the UP is that the political, ie. funding, prospective is getting really dicey. Even with a patronage machine total propaganda offensive the June tax prop(assuming there is one) may not pass. There would have to ensue the storied “agonizing reappraisal” of the hsr scheme.
If PB-CHSRA wants to talk compromise let them take up the TRAC Tejon plan.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Yes, just look at Amtrak: not even Amtrak can run a not really Express HSR system into an operating deficit.
It is a good thing that the absurdity of trying to draw an analogy between the Orlando / Tampa Express HSR system and BART was made up front, so people could realize that there is no reality filter in place when syno gets up on his favorite soapbox. If facts don’t support the conclusion, syno’s SOP is to just make shit up.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
The analogy I was trying to draw was between BART and Amtrak and the CHSRA.
This will be a government-run operation dominated by pet unions. The Pelosi machine will never allow this to be non-union and the unions and courts will force any private operator to either cow or quit. Remember this not similar to Metrolink, where the UP owns the tracks – the State of California will own the infrastructure. It will be like SNCF or DB – and require significant subsidy. To think otherwise is to indulge in fantasy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Amtrak makes money in corridors that are competitive with driving.
Spokker Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Overall, Amtrak overs over 80% of its operating costs.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
So we can now write Amtrak out of the federal budget?
Spokker Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Yes.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I do not want to see Amtrak written out of the federal budget because we need it.
I want to see better passenger rail in California, but I do not trust PB to accomplish it. Something is dreadfully wrong when you immediately pick a fight with liberals and enviros on the Peninsula with threats of berms and aerials when other alternatives are obvious. There is some other agenda in play, probably something involving Kopp, Diridon and BART and maybe some long-standing local political intrigues we aren’t privy to.
I cannot grok the hostility to Tolmach and TRAC when his and their critiques are obvious to any one who likes trains and has been around California for a while.
Spokker Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Can we operate Nascar on the I-5 racetrack?
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
The I-5 vs. 99 controversy is a toss-up. You would have to determine whether a median ROW is possible, without too much overpass retrofit. You could theoretically save some very sizeable sums.
Bankrolling the UP for upgrades to 110 mph is one way to approach the 99 challenge.
joe Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Do not feed the troll
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Agreed with joe.
egk Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
I think both DB and SNCF are legally prohibited from taking direct subsidy for intercity rail operations.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
You think right. And the state can’t help a national company by offering it lower tolls. RFF has envisaged to have tolls paid per car, and not per train as is currently done. As TGVs are mostly duplex, they would thus have the best toll/passenger ratio. This would give the SNCF an advantage over other companies but the EU commission will probably not allow it.
If Synonymouse’s assertions about US companies are as unfounded as the ones about Europe, then I don’t understand why everybody wastes so much space answering his posts.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:51 am
The maxim “do not feed the troll” is observed in the breach.
I hadn’t heard that the EU commission won’t allow RFF to charge tolls per car. Where did you hear that?
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 7:53 pm
In fact, it was the SNCF which asked RFF to modify its tolling system. The timing was unfortunate because it coincided with the decision of DB and FS to operate high-speed trains in France. I read in L’Express that the idea is now dead. Tolls in Europe are paid per train, and it was feared this last-minute change in the French system would have been considered as an anti-competitive manoeuver by the EU commission.
It would also have worsened the currently strained relations between DB and SNCF. The French company isn’t too happy to have to compete with DB and FS on Paris-Lyon. With its 25% profit margin, it’s the SNCF’s milk cow. The other bad news is that DB intends to compete with Eurostar (now owned by SNCF).
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:36 am
I know what you analogy you were attempting to draw, I was just pointing out that its a blatantly failed attempt.
BART is local transit. Such a large share of the benefit of local transit is experienced by third parties that its impossible to run an economically efficient number of services on the back of the riders alone, with all of the other beneficiaries free riding off of their back.
OTOH, its normal for HSR to generate operating surpluses ~ nobody around the world, including Amtrak, have figured out how to mess that up. Even the HSR systems that completely messed up their capital financing have are able to generate operating surpluses.
So its possible to franchise out the operation and have the franchisee pay for the privilege, rather than having to subsidize the operation.
So the analogy with BART and with the conventional speed intercity services of Amtrak, is an obviously false one, and the only people you will convince with it are those who already agree with you and are also subject to confirmation bias.
Titus Andronicus Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
How is it more important for Oakland to be served than Fresno? Fresno has 500K people with a metro area of 1M. Oakland has 390K, and doesn’ t have a metropolitan area, because the census considers it to be a suburb of SF. Most importantly, Oakland is just a hop, skip, jump, car ride, bus ride, ferry ride, or subway ride away from the HSR terminus. You would have more trouble getting to the HSR station from the Presidio than from Oakland. Fresno on the other hand would be much further from an I-5 alignment.
And what I think is seriously underreported here is just how Fresnans have few travel alternatives to begin with. Yosemite Airport, being a regional one, is quite expensive. In Q3, 2010 their average airfare cost was $419.62 (bts.gov). Oakland’s was only $277.81. And Fresno’s are that high without even having any transcontinental service. Oakland’s has much better coverage with flights to Chicago, NYC, Washington, Honolulu, Kansas City…even Bellingham, WA.
Also, apparently you have missed the news that Sacramento is getting a downtown station. It was in the news…a couple years ago.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
I assure you the East Bay does not consider itself a satellite of San Francisco. By that reasoning you could call Sac a suburb of SF. Both of these urban areas are bigger and more consequential than Fresno. They should take precedence in an hsr system that will generate revenues that will at least partly compensate for operating expenses.
The scheme the CHSRA scabbed together is amateurish and totally lacking. TRAC would be remiss in not finding the faults that are in your face. PB should be ashamed. Too bad it lacks the cojones to call for a deeper rethink.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Stop lying.
Joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Trolling.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Lets see You’d like to see Palmdale Bypassed in favor of going from Bakersfield to Los Angeles, Possibly along the I5 Freeway? This area has a max elevation at freeway level of about 3,000′, Tejon Pass though is listed at 4,160′ in Elevation, Problem is in some parts of the pass(the Grapevine), It gets very steep and very narrow, Other areas like Gorman are wider, Oh and I looked up this info by using Google Maps(Relief-Elevation-Topographic and the Tejon Pass wiki, See My links below), Going around to the north towards Palmdale makes sense as the ruling grades look gentler than along the I5 and there are less physical obstructions in the way too, As the Grapevine has two Reservoirs nearby, One of which possibly covers up a good portion of the old road, So the old road route is out. Trains use less power if their going up a gentle grade, than a steep grade like near a freeway. Now I don’t pretend to know how much the HSR train will weigh, But It is still a Train that’s governed by the laws of Physics and those can’t be repealed or defunded. Yes I’ve been through there at least twice, No train should be there, As the Wiki says this:
Directions to Tehachapi Mountains
Tejon Pass wiki
Peter Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
But but but Richard Tolmach says …
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Quantm laid out an alignment that met the requirements and did not cross either the San Andreas or the Garlock at grade.
Different routes thru this area have been suggested by different people. Rafael, whom we don’t hear from anymore, threw out a proposal for climbing it at grade.
The salient point is that this route has the potential of being much shorter, maybe 50 miles, and now that clearly the Tehachapis are proving more difficult and expensive than projected it is time to take another serious look. It is worth it to scope out Tejon in detail – the CHSRA might get a pleasant surprise and the information is going to be needed in the future anyway as there are only 2 ways north out of LaLaland.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Other than the coastal route.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Which here and there is landslide city I think.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
You can site the Quantum study, which had enough detail in it to reveal the fatal flaws and then on the other hand claim that it hasn’t been studied enough.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
The Tejon Pass is too steep, So It’s out, Let the route planning be done by experts Synnie, At least the people at the CHSRA have something You don’t, Degrees in what You and I lack, Plus experience.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
The same einsteins who gave us BART Indian broad gauge? puh-leez
It has next to nothing to do with engineering, but has everything to do with infamous LA grabby and pushy ways. Owens Valley water scam redux.
Instead of titling the flick “Battle for LA” it should have been “Goodbye LA”
Peter Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Please point out the most recent megaproject that you designed and built.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
My engineering consultant can beat up your engineering consultant.
Both routes are feasible but Tejon is better for overall hsr viability.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Unless You have a Masters Degree in Engineering Syno and own a competing company, You ought to shut Yer trap, Cause Yer full of It.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
The people who designed BART are dead. Dead people aren’t very good designers even by PB standards.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Alas the baton of hubris, abrasiveness, and eccentricity is passed from generation to generation of all Bechtel’s dba’s.
I was musing the CHSRA should hire Gloria Allred as their spokesperson – perfect attitude matchup – snotty, supercilious, strident, entitled, conniving, unscrupulous. The epitome of every reason to hate LA and perfect for jihad with the Peninsula nimbys, as she has already demonstrated in her rumble with Mega Meg.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Ride a dome car..with syn..thats a train
Spokker Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Some dome car action!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8579276@N05/3782826730/
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Can you see that old 1950s Chevy type thing going 220 mph ..the Windows would suck out!! That’s why all the McCain rail fans at TRAC and rail fan foamer boards don’t like high speed rail… It will not have dome cars
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Hey, I’ve ridden dome cars myself–cool ride!
And this is coming from a steam fan who thinks proper passenger cars (to go with steam) are painted green, have 12 wheels, and windows that open to let in the sound (even if it also lets in smoke and cinders).
Of course, he also has to admit that domes and steam are not too compatible; that steam engine gives you smoked glass pretty quick.
The Chinese have apparently worked up something else that’s cool, though–a first-class lounge with a big glass wall right behind the motorman on one of their HSR sets. Apparently where there are trains, there are railfans who like to see the business in action, in any land!
Oh, and it seems the Chinese have a route that, at least for now, is long enough (and has portions slow enough) to require a high-speed sleeper set. . .shades of that semi-jokingly proposed 20-hour transcontinental service for here!
Found this out in the recent edition of Trains magazine, which is a high-speed special edition. Not all of it will meet the approval of the readership here, and parts are outdated due to long lead times (the Florida project was still alive, if marginally, as the magazine went to press, and the Chinese construction scandal had not yet broken), but there are still some interesting things in it.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Spokker, I noticed the video clip you have has what looks like you for the credit line. If this was so, what was the occasion of you getting to ride this dome car, and even of its presence on a train I assume doesn’t normally carry one?
Spokker Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:22 pm
I was on my way home after spending a Sunday in Los Angeles and saw this car on the Pacific Surfliner. I didn’t know they would be using it on this specific train or at all.
I asked the conductor if it was okay to sit inside and he said yes and that it was acting as just another coach car to meet high summer demand.
Spokker Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Oh wait, it was a Saturday and I was coming home from work. Looking at other photos on that same date reminded me what I was doing.
But the explanation is basically the same. It was just a regularly scheduled Surfliner.
…and the fact that the line between Palmdale and Sylmar is single-tracked doesn’t help.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
To reach Les Sables d’Olonne resort directly from Paris, some TGVs are hauled by modified diesels…
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm
This lasted from 1998 to 2008. The line is now electrified in 25kv all the way.
The French, especially families with children, don’t like transfers. If they can’t have a one-seat ride, they’d rather use their car.
Les Sables d’Olonne (settled population: 16,000) wouldn’t be a TGV terminus without the Parisians who flock there in summer. The last 50 miles are not high-speed.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
If the FRA rules problem can be addressed (sigh), none of this is gonna be an issue.
The Palmdale-LA track is owned entirely by Metrolink, who are absolutely on board with HSR. There are enough passing sidings. Commuter train frequency is low enough that it could simply be entirely replaced with the HSR trains.
It’ll just be like Eurostar was when it ran to Waterloo — running low-speed on overcrowded tracks part of the way. Hauled by diesels as Drunk Engineer points out is done in France. It’s a reasonable interim option…
…if the FRA rules on car design can be dealt with. Sigh.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Yes, I agree, It is a good temporary option that will get HSR up faster than waiting for the whole system to be built up all at once.
Me I still think that the CHSRA should be made a Department within CalTrans, As CalTrans does run Trains in Conjunction with Amtrak and CalTrans has done Mega Projects too.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
FRA might not be an issue, as putting locomotive deadweight at each end has precedent. The main issue is that the running time would be quite uncompetitive.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Corrected link.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
HSR trains run as a unit, One can not just uncouple the rest of the train from where the Engineers are located at and then couple the rest of the train up to a diesel-electric locomotive, You have to use the covered coupler in the nose of the HSR Train to couple the engine to. I’m in favor the Siemens Velaro E of course, As It seems to have the speed California needs, the coupler is behind a covered part of the nose, As I’ve seen this area open before and there was a coupler there, the nose opens like a clam shell, If this HSR train follows Japanese practice in this respect, As It’s a good way to hide a coupler for emergency coupling to a diesel-electric locomotive.
Siemens Velaro
Peter Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
I pretty sure that all HSR trains can be coupled to other trains (if they’re compatible with the HSR train’s coupler, of course).
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
True, I just thought I’d point out what’s in the wiki, The Velaro E(103) has a capacity of 404 passengers, The wiki says two trains can be coupled together for 808, Which just about rivals a 747 in capacity. I really like this train, In California Blue and Yellow It would look great streaking across
California at speed. The Quote below is from the Velaro E wiki above.
In Spain on the wiki, I’ve read that on the same line with non-express HSR with more stops would take 3h00m, The Express though would do this in 2h38m, Which is pretty darned fast and they also had their share of critics and naysayers, Not anymore I’d guess, Results speak louder than mere words.
Andy M. Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:46 pm
That’s probably a minimum requirement. They may be a high-tech coupler but it will either be backwards compatible to the standard knuckle coupler or have some other way of permitting this to be used (for example a converter peice stowed on board). If you are running a railway with incompatible couplings you’re asking for trouble. In an emergency situation anything should be able to drag or rescue anything else.
bleh Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
afaik everything outside Japan uses some version of the Scharfenberg coupler.
Peter Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Sapsan is equipped with the massive Soviet knuckle coupler. It looks pretty weird to see that coupler on the front of a Velaro when the clamshell doors are open.
Alan B Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Coupling shouldn’t be a problem. Back in the 90′s, Amtrak took a ICE train around the country on tour. It was hauled by conventional Amtrak engines.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:26 pm
If they are going to run it in the style of the French TGV on the diesel line, they need the coupling and uncoupling to be a quick and non labor intensive process at the platform.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:53 am
You wouldn’t have to run a high frequency schedule nor at transit speeds that would grab a big share of the LA Basin / Bay Area transport market to gain a substantial mode split of the San Jaoquin in both directions ~ somewhere in the 4-8 tpd frequency it seems like it ought to be breakeven.
Sure, the diesels would have to be custom to the task of meeting FRA crush strength standards, but they still might be lighter class than the Cascade if they are traction at both ends. The Spanish have roughly 125mph capable lightweight diesels.
Indeed, a trainset along those lines as the independent utility, prior to electrification, would mean they could reduce the CV HSR track viaducts to, say, 25ton/axle load from 33 ton/axle load, while also supporting incremental upgrade of the California-Amtrak paths up toward 125mph.
dfb Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Metrolink (aka SCRRA) does not actually own any right of way. Rather, the right of ways used by Metrolink are owned by the county transportation authority for each respective county. In the case of LAUS to Palmdale, that owner would be Metro (L.A. County MTA).
This distinction is important and worth making because Metro is the primary party that needs to negotiate with CHSRA. Metro does not operate a competing service, as Metrolink does, and Metro has more to gain in plans to bring HSR to Union Station. In addition, it adds complexity because CHSRA will need to negotiate with each county’s agency each time it plans to use a Metrolink right of way, rather than with just Metrolink.
A second point is that portions of the Metrolink tracks have freight easements, which may be problematic depending on the terms provided by the easement. If freight only runs at night, like they do on the Caltrain tracks, there will be few problems. However, daytime trackage rights would cause serious problems with scheduling and even jeopardize CHSRA’s ability to use the same tracks.
And why stop at LAUS or Anaheim. The incremental solutions could also be used for single seat rides from SF to San Diego via LOSSAN while other routes are built. Metrolink would love some help funding electrification. :-)
Nathanael Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:17 am
Thanks for the detail. I’m not sure about the LA-Valley freight easements, but I am pretty sure that the amount of freight running from the Valley to Palmdale is next to nothing; there’s no reason for any freight flows to go that way rather than the “long way” via San Bernadino.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Actually there is a daily unit train of aggregates from Big Rock to Sun Valley, (about 400 truckloads off 14,) and the intermodal to Portland and Seattle, time sensitive freight, saves at least an hour going that way.
For interim solutions Talgo has an FRA compliant product. As full HSR is implemented these trains could be relocated to other routes in the country and replaced by your choice from Alstom, Siemens or whoever. By that time all the builders will be on the next generation of product.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 2:58 pm
The FRA compliant Talgo is a lemon that can’t do more than 5″ cant deficiency. On a line with low superelevation, literally every inch counts. They’d do better buying an off-the-shelf Talgo 350 with 7″, let alone a Pendolino that can do 12″.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Is that on the old regs or the new ones?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Nothing to do with regs – those are for non-tilting trains. The limit for the Cascade Talgos is imposed by the locomotives, which are heavy and have high center of gravity. The FRA permits the passenger cars to do 7″ if I remember correctly, which could be bumped up to 9″ with the magical 110 mph waiver.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 am
I don’t believe there is any magical difference anymore.
There are lighter diesel locomotives. Even if they will get heavier to meet FRA regulations, they wouldn’t be either as heavy or as top heavy as the EMD F59PHI.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:49 pm
There isn’t any product that’s FRA-compliant and light enough to be safe at high cant deficiency. Zierke said this better than I can:
The magical difference is ending, you’re right, but the point is that that rule is based on passenger comfort. The limit for train safety is a different issue, and if the loco is FRA-compliant then it’s lower.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:45 pm
The intermodal to Portland and Seattle saves an hour by going on the Antelope Valley line? Seriously? How badly are they mismanaging the tracks through San Bernadino, which are supposed to be their “fast” transcontinental route?
Anyway, given UP’s attitude, I’d tell them they can put their intermodal on the Coast Line. If it’s good enough for the passenger train, it’s good enough for the intermodal…
The aggregates are obviously not time-sensitive and don’t matter.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
For clarity, by “don’t matter” I mean “can be rerouted on the longer route without severe penalty”.
Andy M. Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 3:27 am
Both ICE and TGV run on single-track lines in places, shared with other traffic. Check out the sinuous Gaubahn for example stretching from Stuttgart to Schaffhausen and crossing some pretty rough (but scenic) terrain and often slowing to 50mph or less. There will be a HSR there one day, but it very far down on the list of priorities. For now the ICEs have to contend with playing ta being conventional trains.
Dennis Lytton Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 4:31 pm
The Antelope Valley Line could be about 90% double-tracked for small fractions of the CHSRA budget (excepting that big tunnel underneath the CA-14/I-5 complex). Then PTC overlay for 110mph to 125mph service. Southbound train comes into Palmdale. Each end of the consist is capped with a diesel from an “escape” track during station dwell time. Use a tilt train. Doesn’t have to be FRA compliant since you’re going to put an FRA diesel at each end. Probably running time an hour to Union.
Next question is how north from Merced? BNSF / San Joaquin route to the East Bay or Stockton/Altamont, San Jose reversing move to SF?
Which means that the only piece of HSR ROW not funded at the moment to make the above happen is Bakersfield to Palmdale. All of this is moot if we get decent year-to-year funding from the feds and private sector.
Assuming full HSR build out from LA to SF, dieselized one seat rides following the above procedure could operate to Anaheim and San Diego (from LA) and Sac’to (from Merced) from day one.
Joey Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 7:09 pm
The existing route is far too curvy to support anything near 110 mph until you reach Sylmar.
Elizabeth Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
How many of the curves could be taken out with relatively minor route modifications?
Joey Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
The curves exist for a reason. A few could be cut off without much trouble, but a lot of it is through canyons and along rivers where there is more curved track than straight track. Fixing any of that would require a lot of tunnels and viaducts, at which point you might as well just build the HSL.
Here is another instance wherein mandates of Prop 1A are being ignored. They have to build a system that goes from LA to SF in 2: 40 — a real push wlth all segments built as HSR and now this.
Just another instance of what the project ill be, if ever built, which is a project that will need endless subsidies and will not compete well with Air or auto transportation.
a reminder: from:
http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/0111/crn0111.pdf
Wall Street Journal Editorial 12/02/2010
The Authority has presented plenty of forecasts, one
shakier than the next. It now projects that ridership will
reach 39 million passengers a year by its 10th year, down
from that projection two years ago of 94 million. The experience
of other high-speed rail systems suggests they’ll be
lucky if they get a quarter of that, and five million riders is
more likely.…
The Authority also predicted 450,000 permanent jobs;
that’s twice the size of the state government’s active work
force. Did they hire Joe Biden as their stimulus consultant?
Stanford economist Alain Enthoven, former World
Bank analyst William Grindley and financial consultant
William Warren document all of this in a study that’s been
reviewed and endorsed by more than 70 business leaders.
Their conclusion: Unless the federal government provides
$19 billion in seed money, the railway will never
achieve a positive cash flow. State taxpayers will end up
subsidizing a fantastic boondoggle, even though the authorizing
legislation prohibits subsidies.
A realistic concern is that the state will have to terminate
the project after completing the first segment because
the feds and private investors won’t pay to finish it.
Peter Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
And who wrote this enlightened piece of garbage?
political_incorrectness Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Ah yes, Sr. Richard Tolmach
Eric M Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Read the first part of the article: Says “Opinion by James R. Mills and Richard F. Tolmach”.
No need to read past that and the rest of the garbage. Richard F. Tolmach tried to get people to vote no on Prop 1A. Now he is mad the vote did not turn out the way he wanted (same as Morris Brown, who SPAMS articles without ever responding to questions about his postings) and continues his BS opinions against HSR. Don’t forget, he and his cronies are part of one of the lawsuits against the California High Speed Rail Authority.
The people voted YES and continue to voice support in polls.
joe Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Morris is off the road.
How can a car costing 0.50 per mile for the operator running on heavily subsided taxpayer roads be more competitive than rail? 300 mile trip to LA costs 150 for the vehicle and of course taxes for building and maintaining and patrolling the highways.
There is no profit from operating the FAA or airports or NTSB or DHS security. It’s all taxpayer subsidized transportation vs Morris’ demand that rail be profitable.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Because what is being compared are marginal costs, not total costs normalized across a certain number of miles, which is what the AAA numbers are. However, gas is getting to the point that the marginal cost, with the currently subsidized tickets, is about comparable on shorter trips (with only one person in the vehicle granted). The only real valid addition in such a comparison is a monetary value to time. Pure marginal cost of taking Amtrak between LA and SF (via Emeryville) is cheaper than current gas prices, but it takes so long that the time value (average is about $47/hr iirc) puts it in favor of driving.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:55 am
and because auxilliary third party subsidies, like zoning mandates for “free” parking as a taking from the property of developers, are treated as $0 cost.
Joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Monetary value to time. A transit rider has all that time to him/her self. A driver, none.
With the cell, wireless and iPad etc, a train ride is useful time. It is more useful than an airplane cattle car.
You also forget to fact in, risk of death, accidents and stress.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Morris, You and Your Nimby friends won’t get Yer way, You & others don’t have what It takes to stop HSR.
Joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:43 pm
If they do win, they’ll be choking on more cars and congestion because each peninsula city loves development within their tax boundaries.
Even if Morris can fight development, he’ll see property devalue, growth will follow infrastructure. Genetech and Stanford rallied for Caltrain and Rail for a reason.
Rail will make California competitive with the eastern corridor and increase economic growth.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Quoting the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, seriously? That’s a new low. The WSJ editorial page people have been lying nonstop since the 1980s. They used to print the corrections in their letters column (like clockwork, every single editorial turned out to have lies in it), but then they started refusing to print letters by anyone who disagreed with them (a year or so before Murdoch bought the rag).
Pravda from the Soviet period has more credibility than the WSJ editorial page ever did.
If you had any credibility left, Morris, you just threw it away by quoting those liars.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
As long as we can run it Menlo at 125MPH will be ok..I would like it to be faster just to F@ck with arrogant holes but thats not to be
I, for one, welcome the Acela West.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
But would have they built the NEC over the Tehachapis just because the UP has been there for 150 years?
This thing is just nutty – they need to engineer and cost out the best Tejon alignment the way they are doing the Detour. It is worth it – the cost would only be a fraction of the price of this most expensive segment, no matter which alignment is actually built. Without a thorough analysis of Tejon we cannot even make a fair comparison. I can’t even claim that Tejon is 50 miles shorter with accuracy because the alternatives aren’t firm. I assert that Tejon is in actuality more superior than we have even seen so far.
This scheme is borderline and does not need to be sandbagged with gratuitous detours. There just have to be people embedded at PB who know this. Que lastima.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
You’ve already been told why the Tehachapi route was chosen, and you persist in lying about it. Please go away, troll.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
The route was chosen due to the CHSRA being compromised by LA power brokering and influence peddling. Worse than Bell.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Follow my advise..Syn..remember?
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
You have no proof, Syn… Just baseless accusations without any basis in fact, Heck You couldn’t get up on a stand and preach this junk, As You’d be discredited.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
When I say a stand I mean in a Court Room with a Judge… After taking an Oath to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth, Failure to do so is Perjury.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
It is common knowledge they pressured the CHSRA to deviate to Palmdale. Welcome to the real world of scummy politix.
Nathanael Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:18 am
Syn’s still lying. Any bystanders, go read the engineering report on Tejon vs. Tehachapi, it’s still available on the CHSRA website.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:44 am
Yeah, We know Synonymouse is lying, I don’t think He can help Himself, the poor sod…
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:00 pm
So? Political pressure is proof that there is a private benefit, its neither here nor there as proof on whether there is a public benefit.
The fact is that the project risk on your preferred alignment is substantially higher than the project risk on the alignment that was selected.
Maybe you are jonesing for the excitement of a grossly irresponsible gamble with public funds, your preferred option remains a grossly irresponsible gamble with public funds. But more likely, you are just picking some aspect of what was decided as “the thing that is wrong” as your excuse to disagree.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:00 pm
He’s jonesing for the long steely train thrusting deep into the bosom of the towering mountains, electricity coursing through the tunnel, the the train erupting in a blast of air as it shoots out of the bellmouth at the exit….. that and a room.
Rick Rong Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:55 am
Actually, there are facts which provide some support to Synonymouse’s statements concerning Palmdale. Synonymouse, you should review the minutes of the July 20-21, 1999, HSRA board meeting. For anyone really interested in the subject, see if there is an audio tape available of that meeting. Whether the facts conclusively prove it one way or another is another story, but those who say “Syn’s still lying” are attacking their own credibility.
Here are some quotes from the minutes from the first day of the two-day meeting:
“Representative from Assemblyman George Runner office supports a Palmdale alignment.”
“Ann Blue, representing the LA City Council, supports the Palmdale alignment.”
“The following public officials and general public spoke in support of a Palmdale alignment:
· Mayor James Ledford, City of Palmdale
· Erica Smith, Legislative Deputy to Councilmember Gallanter City of Los Angeles.
Councilmember
· Jack Graham, LA World Airports, representing Mr. Jack Driscoll, and the Los Angeles
Board of Airport Commissioners.
· Rosa Fuquay, representing Supervisor Michael Antonovich from LA County.”
“Dan McNamara, Executive Director of California Rail Foundation. There seems to be some
confusion here on the difference between high-speed rail and commuter rail. We’ve heard this
morning that one of the only reasons to build this is a Palmdale Airport. If LA County decides to
build an airport 60 miles from its center city, then LA would be obligated to pay for that
connection to its airport.”
Here are some quotes from the second day of the meeting:
“The Grapevine alignment is a couple hundred million dollars less expensive [but] it is more expensive on a per mile basis because of the extensive tunneling involved. But, the Antelope Valley alignment is 35 miles longer than the Grapevine alignment and even though it has a lower cost per mile, it is still a higher cost overall.”[per Kip Field, PB representative.]
“The staff recommended system has 23 plus million inter-city riders per year and that is
the ridership that generates all of the revenue. If the system is diverted to Palmdale 10 to 15
minutes in travel time between Northern and Southern California will be added. As a result
high-paying travelers pay more in travel time leading to a loss of some of those riders. The
remaining travelers will pay less for the slower service.”
In the end, the HSRA decided to continue studying both alternative crossings.
synonymouse Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:08 pm
The political wheeling and dealing that led to the Palmdale deviation was perfectly legal just selfish and detrimental to the best interests of California and the hsr overall.
But now that Palmdale may not receive the benefits it fought for – at least in the interim – perhaps that might cause such an uproar the whole issue could be revisited.
My point is that PB-CHSRA suffers from a genuine credibility gap. Tehachapi vs. Tejon is nowhere near a slam dunk and less so as more is known about the difficulties and costs of Tehachapi. How many millions are we talking about to engineer out and cost out Tejon to the same degree as now is being done with Tehachapi? This controversy is not going to disappear; the CHSRA would do well to protect its backside now with a full honest comparison of the pros and cons.
Have they even considered the issue of conflict with the UP in the Tehachapis(derailments, explosions, fires) or what to do about snow. Can you put a shed on an aerial in earthquake country?
thatbruce Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
the CHSRA would do well to protect its backside now with a full honest comparison of the pros and cons.
As your bias against Tehachapi in favor of Tejon appears to be irrational in origin, the existing and any future comparison of pros and cons of each alignment is always going to be considered by you as being less than full or honest.
Have they even considered the issue of conflict with the UP in the Tehachapis
The CAHSR alignment through the Tehachapis is separate from the existing freight alignment through the Tehachapis, and hence, there is little opportunity for conflict between CAHSR and the existing freight operators. Next.
what to do about snow. Can you put a shed on an aerial in earthquake country?
Snow sheds are used to protect track from snow buildup covering the line, in areas where there is significant snowfall, or risk of (mild) avalanches crossing the ROW. Your homework is show where the existing freight alignment through the Tehachapis utilises snowsheds, and then perhaps decide whether the existing examples show a requirement for using snowsheds on the CAHSR (based on previous behavior, I doubt that you will do this little bit of research, instead resorting to trotting out the same argument at a future point).
As for snowsheds on aerials, a quick search of the internets shows a small number of snowsheds protecting transitions from tunnel to aerials, but not on the aerials themselves. This is more to do with aerials lifting the track above any risk of avalanches covering the ROW, and direct snow deposits not being deemed significant enough. This is to say, existing practice does not seem to support snowsheds on elevated track.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Viaducts can’t get banks of drift on either side, since there is nowhere for the drift to sit, so a pass with a plow the most that is required … you can get banking when a viaduct enters a tunnel, hence sometimes a snowshed.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:35 am
See ~ good thing that they continued studying both alignments to the point of determining the project risk on the Grapevine alignment that synonomouse ignores. It would be gross mismanagement of public funds to adopt an alignment with that project risk when there is another effective alignment with substantially lower project risk available.
synonymouse Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:35 am
No pain no gain. The Detour will prove thoroughly mediocre, ineffectual and unterutilized. If it could be sold to the UP I could see it. But I don’t believe the CHSRA could design it in such a way the UP could use it.
The Quantm alignment(if that is indeed the best alternative)deserves to be engineered out in detail. The information – positive or negative – will prove valuable in the future and worth the cost.
As far as the level of risk to public funds is involved the very proof of concept of the existing CHSRA scheme is much dicier than any Tejon civil works. The payroll issue is a much more serious concern vis-a-vis hsr viability.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Engineering the single alignment they found, in enough detail to identify all the risks would cost almost as much as just building it.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
No kidding. This great news if you want to visit the Central Valley from the Bay Area. I can only hope that this isn’t a figleaf but a real strategy to increase revenues enough to build the system on time.
Joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Rail will change the valley. The lower costs to and from the bay area to the central valley will encourage development. Silicon valley is expensive so Management and R&D locate there. Manufacturing elsewhere. Where? Why not along the HSR cities ?
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I follow your sentiment, but I think you are misunderstanding the proposal above.
Even using existing rights of way (CalTrain and Altamont) it will still take around 90 minutes to get from San Francisco to Manteca and the Valley. And even if there is full HSR tracks between Manteca and Palmdale, that’s still 300+ miles. At 220mph the whole way with no stops, that’s 90 minutes. And then to get from Palmdale to LA will be around 1 hour. So under the most sanguine conditions, you are still talking about a four hour trip. That’s probably not enough to get business travelers to shed air travel until it becomes much more expensive and won’t let CHSR break even.
Plus, you have to remember, most of the manufacturing in Silicon Valley left years ago for China. HSR isn’t going to compensate for cheap Chinese labor.
joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_17088059?source=rss
1) Solopower Solar Cell Co. with HQ and R&D in SV will open their manufacturing in a exeburb of liberal hell-hole & rail friendly Portland OR. http://www.solopower.com/contact-us.html. HSR would open up the Valley to SoCal and NorCal investment because it will be convenient to get to/from the worksite.
2) Rail service to the valley would compete with bus and cars so rail helps the valley. We sometimes forget that a reliable car is not a universal asset. They’ll find ridership but not the 1-2 day road warriors.
For business travelers, if it was a single seat ride, for those working multiple days at location, wireless and worktables would make rail a productive, competitive trip.
I consider my time in caltrain productive, my time behind the wheel car pooling, not.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
It will blow that shit out the water..
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:21 pm
If they do it with locos on either end and an actual HSR running Palmdale/Merced, that’s an Acela on Steroids ~ rather than lots of slow sections and a few miles at 150mph, its a lot of slow sections and lots of miles at 220mph.
No you don’t Acela seldom hits top speeds over 100mph and runs right in the middle of urban areas and past standard rail road crossings.
Having riden French TGV and German ICE, that is High Speed Rail. Frankfurt to Gent Belgium in about 45 mins. I think that’s about 90 miles…. Top speed 320km per hour (200mph).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Running right in the middle of urban areas is one of the virtues of the NEC. The few grade crossings are in Connecticut and then only in a part of Connecticut, the rest of the line is grade separated.
Matthew Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:44 am
Anthony, I agree with your point in general, just a slight correction, Frankfurt to Gent is quite a bit longer than 45 minutes, and unfortunately the track between Cologne and Liege is pretty slow at present. Maybe you meant Frankfurt and Cologne?
Spokker Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Acela is the best. FRA domination 21st century go super best time.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
I’m not going to defend the Acela, but its better-run, better-performing half, i.e. NY-DC, is entirely grade-separated, and the track construction standards are full HSR to boot.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
California is not 1933 Pennsy…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Anthony’s argument was that the NEC isn’t grade separated. Doesn’t matter when the grade crossings were eliminated, just that they no longer exist.
Interesting idea. Hopefully California gets a good chunk of the Florida money and we can actually build to at least Lancaster, maybe Palmdale. Unless that happens, you can’t hook up with Metrolink and get the rest of the way into LA. A three train (San Joaquin to Merced-CAHSR to Lancaster/Palmdale-Metrolink to LAUS), one ticket trip wouldn’t be the worst in the world. I think towing the HSR trains by diesel locomotive the rest of the way on the non-electrified parts of the route is unrealistic.
I think the first question that needs to be asked is how fast HSR can realistically do LA-Palmdale without new tunnels. Even if the line were double-tracked and electrified, it would still be curvy and have low superelevation for freight compatibility, and the low speed of freight trains climbing the grades would limit either passenger train speed or capacity. Getting tilting trains could help, but trains capable of more than about 180 mm cant deficiency are limited to 250 km/h and are expensive to maintain.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
The time savings of Tejon would help to compensate for the slowness of conventional LA-Palmdale.
And as far as that goes what would be the difference in tunneling and other major civil works in a Tejon alternative that closely paralled I-5 and proceeded to LA directly, bypassing Palmdale. These issues deserve being fully engineered.
Could it be that this suggestion on the part of PB is just getting the foot in the door of a total reconsideration of which is indeed the better and maybe even cheaper escape from LA?
If they gave the proper consideration to the alternatives I would be content with Tehachapi if they made their case the correct, in depth and convincing way. But that has not happened so far.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Still banging on about your bonkers proposal to build underground tunnels across three fault lines, with only one plausible alignment, running the risk that if anything goes wrong while doing the digging on that, every single dollar will have been wasted?
Yes, I see you are.
“If they gave the proper consideration to the alternatives I would be content with Tehachapi”
Liar. They did. I’ve read the engineering analysis. Apparently you haven’t.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
I think He wants to over the top on the Grapevine.
Peter Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:05 am
Dude, he changes what he wants or claims based on every factual counter-argument tossed his way.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:14 am
Sounds like Synny almost. Note taken. We need to corner these tunnel rats…
Alan F Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
I don’t think that is the concept. A major upgrade of the current freight corridor between Sylmar and Palmdale does not make sense if it gets replaced with a HSR corridor in a few years. My take is if they build the HSR south from Bakersfield to Palmdale, the concept is that it would connect to an Amtrak or Metrolink service option. But if the line is single tracked, is this worthwhile even on a short term basis if it can only handle a very limited number of round trip trains? Ok, maybe the trains are expanded to 10 bi-level passenger cars with a capacity of 1000+ passengers, but still, limited capacity.
The issue I see that it will take a long time to build a HSR corridor through the Tehachapi mountains with 10 to 16 miles of tunnels. Is there even a ballpark estimate on how many years it might take to build the Bakersfield to Palmdale section? By the time it is ready for HSR operation, the Palmdale to LA Union Station section could be done.
It would be interesting if the Merced to Palmdale HSR corridor was in operation, with a Desert Express Palmdale to Las Vegas service up and running, while Palmdale to LA HSR was still in construction with a slow expanded Metrolink LA-Palmdale service.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Connecting to Metrolink at current speeds and service levels is a nonstarter. If the LA-Palmdale runtime remains over 1:30, they might as well not run trains.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
It would indeed have to be improved to make it worthwhile even as an interim measure. Specifically, improved so that the runtime Bakersfield – LA was better than the current Amtrak bus (2 hrs 20 minutes). Currently Metrolink’s Lancaster-LA runtime is just short of 2 hours, which obviously would need some improvement. With Palmdale-Bakersfield built, it might not need that much improvement to be faster than the bus, however.
mike Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 3:46 pm
From the Metrolink Antelope Valley schedule you can see that a nonstop Palmdale-LAUS run would take 1hr 20 mins. That implies a Fresno-LA trip would be about 2.5 hrs.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:13 pm
So Bakersfield / LA at about 1:55. Fresno/LA at 2:25. Merced/LA at 2:50
Merced /Oakland on the San Joaquin is 3:00~3:15 so taking 3:10
Merced/Oakland 3:10, Fresno/Oakland 3:35, Bakersfield/Oakland 4:05.
Given the weaker draw on the Bay side relative to the LA side, plausibly a mix of full length and Merced/LA.
Joey Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
The two mountain crossings involved require many short tunnels (some exceptions) as opposed to a few long tunnels. Short tunnels can be constructed much faster than long tunnels.
Honestly though, if I had my way, Bakersfield-LA would be built first, since it has the potential to function on its own in terms of ridership.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Well If You were a multi-Billionaire I guess You’d do Mag-Lev, Bakersfield to LA, Is still not doable, That’s why Palmdale was inserted, Railroads either do one of two things when they have steep mountains in between one place and another, Tunnel(Expensive & Dangerous) or go around, Going around a huge obstacle is preferred to tunneling as tunneling isn’t cheap and can cost lives while being built, due to unknown & unstable geology, water, sand, soft rock, hard rock, gas pockets, fault lines, etc. But then the sky can’t crush one into paste for some future archeologist to discover. The Best route isn’t always the shortest route, the Best Route is the one that causes the least deaths and has as gentle a slope(grade) as possible.
Joey Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I was referring to Bakersfield-LA via Palmdale. Likely one side of it would be built first, but I see no decisive advantage to either.
Elizabeth Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:29 am
It is a total of about 30 miles of tunnel plus a similar amount of high aerial. One of the tunnels is 7 miles long. In one of the two alternatives for Palmdale to Sylmar a dam has to be rebuilt. There is nothing simple cheap or quick about this.
synonymouse Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:48 am
And Tejon is worse than that?
mike Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Yes much worse. If you look at the actual topography of the Tejon Pass, it becomes clear that the longest tunnel needs to exceed 20 miles of length. There is no other way – the ground around the Grapevine simply rises much faster than the maximum possible HSR grade (3.5%).
joe Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:33 pm
What if HSR asked the Mattel Corp to design a HotWheel like accelerator that would whip trains up the pass along orange plastic track?
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Get real, Mattel isn’t qualified for this, Their a Toy company and ask Yourself this, Would You let Your kids ride this? On technology that was meant only for toys? Do the words Crack, Pot and Idea have any meaning to ya? It’s plastic, Plastic burns and creates poisonous gases when It’s burned and Plastic is made from crude oil…
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
“The issue I see that it will take a long time to build a HSR corridor through the Tehachapi mountains with 10 to 16 miles of tunnels. Is there even a ballpark estimate on how many years it might take to build the Bakersfield to Palmdale section? By the time it is ready for HSR operation, the Palmdale to LA Union Station section could be done.”
There are more NIMBYs from Palmdale to Sylmar than from Palmdale to Bakersfield. I think we can safely say that the latter section will be completed more quickly. :-P
jim Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
There is, I think, at least one single track tunnel between Palmdale and LAUS. The San Joaquin route between Stockton and Oakland has, I think, at least one single track water crossing. These will severely limit capacity and/or speed. More seriously they create problems for a waiver of FRA requirements. It’s one thing for FRA to waive collision requirements where lightweight rolling stock is only likely to encounter FRA compliant passenger trains rather than freight trains (the Caltrain waiver) on double track (which sharply reduces the probability of head-on collision). It’s another thing when heavy freights will be routinely sharing the track and where there are single track segments where lightweight trains could well end up in a head-on collision with heavy freights. PTC or no PTC, heavy freights take a long time to come to a stop.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I think Palmdale-Sylmar has no freight traffic at all; if I’m mistaken, such traffic could be rerouted via San Bernadino.
thatbruce Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:58 am
The Palmdale-Sylmar track has the potential (and agreement) to carry freight if the ‘normal’ freight route (Cajon) is unavailable. No regular freights are scheduled over the full length of it.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Wrong. See my other posting.
thatbruce Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Correction gratefully accepted.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:01 pm
“There is, I think, at least one single track tunnel between Palmdale and LAUS. The San Joaquin route between Stockton and Oakland has, I think, at least one single track water crossing. These will severely limit capacity and/or speed. More seriously they create problems for a waiver of FRA requirements.”
If such a preliminary service is going to run, its going to have to run at a frequency that allows a reasonable commercial prospect of an operating surplus, which is itself a substantial limit on trains per day. Maybe more than eight, but certainly nowhere near two trains per hour.
As far as FRA compliance, it would be locomotives guarding the train in between, a la the Cascades service, with the tank locomotives protecting the Talgo carriages. Uncouple the locomotives when it hits the HSR section, couple locomotives on the other side when it gets to the last HSR station.
Republicans are opposed to anything financed or operated by the state. They have no concept of the “common good” whatsoever. You could show them that HSR would be profitable but that isn’t the issue. They hate AMTRAK , NPR, Social Security, Healthcare reform. Anything that isn’t run for a profit! On principle. It is pointless arguing technical issues about building HSR when you are talking to a group that is determined, on principle, to kill it!
It’s like discussing which hymn sheet to be sung with a bunch of atheists!
If your interested in seeing some of the opposition to what the Authority has planned for the Central valley, take 6 minutes and view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHOPzKH0kxo
From the Madera County meeting of 3/17/2011.
Nathanael Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Not interested in watching more footage of idiots.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Shut up old crow
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
crows are very intelligent
YesonHSR Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
And also loud and obnoxious…
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Crows are the coolest. But leery – they seem to be able to know you are looking at them, even thru a window. I notice they call in other crows when they get into a shouting match with other birds. Definitely not bird-brains.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:02 am
Oh is that so? Then how come the Crows(Raptor descendants) haven’t taken the planet back from mere Mammals? Cause Mammals are superior to Dinosaur descendants.
Peter Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:06 am
This thread cracks me up.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:16 am
Yeah Yer right. :) LOL
synonymouse Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:26 am
I am the bird-brain – it just dawned on me that Palmdale would be getting the most deserved screwing from the downgrade to “conventional”. It would not be getting its free gold-plated BART as promised in the infamous fix. Gotta to hand it to PB this time – they are pulling the old double-cross on Palmdale. Can’t believe I didn’t realize this right off.
Will LA be pissed off when they pick up on this too. This might blow the deal; after all no free high speed electrified urban mass transit link no deal. This is a great idea. Luv it.
From the beginning I think the problem was engineers with too much money to spend and too little supervision. Funny how a little belt tightening can produce new ideas and novel approaches.
Peter Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:32 am
Wow, to take a walk through your mind some day…
synonymouse Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:49 am
If LA gets shafted it is their own damn fault. They had the juice to stop this Borden to Corcoran triple track the Santa Fe nonsense before it got too far along. How stupid as it might be the only federal money California receives. But if the GOP kills all the hsr funding this year it might be possible later to secure some federal money destined for the most needy urban areas under the guise of mass transit.
What exactly is meant by the ‘East Bay’? The San Joaquin takes a laughable 2:38 to go from Richmond to Merced.
The only other conventional-rail option is…an Altamont route.
egk Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:56 am
No, that might set a precedent for that route and give someone ideas about serving the SECOND LARGEST intercity travel market in the state (yes, more than LA/Bay Area) with fast convenient service. All the hullabaloo over that Altamont/Pacheco alternatives, and none of the NIMBYs, for whom I have little sympathy, did the work of researching the long distance commute market. That may be the largest market for HSR in German, with which CA shares much more in terms of population distribution than than Spain or France. [The same HSR supporters who failed to understand how Tampa/Orlando could make sense probably miss why Sacto-Bay Area is an important market, too]
There needs to be a deliverable soon with the kind of money that’s been put into CAHSR already, and there are also serious engineering and safety issues with trying to tunnel through the mountains between the Central Valley and LA. Hence the idea. It’s an interesting idea if the capacity can be produced at reasonable cost. I think a four-hour or less trip from LA to San Francisco would be a tremendous success especially if it can be delivered quickly with a coherent and achievable plan of speed upgrades to 2-3 hours later. On a related note I think we will be surprised by how well four-hour service from Chicago to St. Louis does (of course, Chicago’s size, the intermediate stops and STL’s direct light rail links help), and LA-SF carries far more total intercity traffic across all modes.
egk Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Absolutely – all it needs to be is NOT SLOWER THAN DRIVING [amazing as it seems, only two Amtrak lines have this feature - Acela and DC-Lynchburg - the two clearly profitable lines] . So even 5 hours could work.
It is just my own opinion, but I think the California High Speed Rail route from Rosamond to Palmdale, is probably going to be the easiest part to build of all the route segments.
Grapevine closed again. I guess a lot of people are calling into work tomorrow as they can’t get home from their weekend trips. If only there were some other way.
VBobier Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Like I said The Grapevine’s not a good route for trains, Too steep on one end, While going around towards Palmdale gets around that section on a more gradual slope and then It’s into LA along the route for SR14 from Palmdale.
Spokker Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
That’s not what I meant.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:04 am
I know, I heard the weather report, It has snow there again, Here It just started to rain. I just used Yer post to make a point.
synonymouse Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
It is an electric passenger rail operation – it can handle gradients unthinkable for diesel freight.
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if the snowy sections of the much shorter Tejon line would be in tunnel while there would be parts of the much longer Tehachapi route that would receive snow but would not be in tunnel. I am assuming that snow would collect on aerials much as on terra firma. Might even be colder up there on hollow-core concrete.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:10 am
Here’s a quote from the High-speed rail wiki Here says at most 3.5%, This is only about 2% – 2.5% steeper.
In France, the cost of construction (which was €10 million/km (US$15.1 million/km) for LGV Est) is minimised by adopting steeper grades rather than building tunnels and viaducts. However, in mountainous Switzerland, tunnels are inevitable. Because the lines are dedicated to passengers, gradients of 3.5%, rather than the previous maximum of 1–1.5% for mixed traffic, are used.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:36 am
The following quote is from the wiki Here, The grades in the pass are still too steep for HSR, But yes Ignorance is bliss, That or laziness.
synonymouse Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:44 am
The outstanding laziness in play here was that of the PB-CHSRA who never wanted Tejon from the outset and never bothered to engineer it out in detail. It would appear they never even considered alignments which did not go to Palmdale, center of the known universe.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:36 am
You love to cite the Quantum study as proof the the Tejon is superior. That was the study that provided enough detail to eliminate the Tejon as an alternative. You can’t then argue that it needs to be studied more.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 4:55 pm
edit: “you can’t consistently” argue that it needs to be studied more.”
He/she evidently can continue arguing despite the internal contradiction in his/her position.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Of course He does, He wants It studied to death, 6-7% Grades, Even the UPRR and the BNSF aren’t crazy enough to go over Tejon pass, If You think Tejon pass is steep, I went on SR58 not too long ago, I think It’s steeper on the freeway there, SR58 does have a RR and a few tunnels through that canyon, But then I have no idea where the RR track goes after a point as It dives into another tunnel and that’s It(I don’t trust that canyon all that much, Lots of sedimentary rock and such, Nearly straight up in places here & there), But I have no idea If the BNSF owns that single track ROW or the UPRR does.
this blog needs better trolls. the current models aren’t even useful for sparring anymore.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Where’s the “Like” button on this thing?
thatbruce Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Right next to the ‘edit’ button.
I think it would be entertaining and quite productive to have a blog post devoted to Inconsequential Voices Involved in High Speed Rail Development.
I would list Reason, Cato, and Richard Tolmach.
StevieB Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:25 am
Gov. Rick Scott is guided by Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, and Heritage Foundation. These organizations are constantly called upon by the media to provide public policy opinion. Conservative politicians reference their policy statements to legitimize their actions. So I would not call them inconsequential.
VBobier Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 6:35 pm
No, Just Corporate Shills for Big Oil.
Why are they even talking about a one-seat ride on the Metrolink-HSR-Altamont corridors? What is the point of upgrading the conventional track for temporary use when those funds should go straight to the HSR track? The obvious first step will be to have cross-platform transfers at Palmdale and Merced.
Or is CSHSRA talking about running FRA-compliant trains the whole way without electrification? If that’s the case you aren’t gaining that much speed on the Fresno-Merced part of the route, and the whole idea is just dumb.
Nathanael Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:23 am
I think that the assumption is that the FRA-compliant-built-like-a-tank business will be fixed first, so that trainsets can be diesel-hauled south of Palmdale and electrically hauled north of Palmdale, making a one-seat ride technically no more difficult than a two-seat ride.
If this isn’t fixed, then indeed cross-platform transfers at Palmdale are the way to go for interim service.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 9:51 am
It’s not being built with electrification at the moment however, so you’d end up with diesels all the way through.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:14 pm
The independent utility of the first funded segment to be constructed is a federal requirement in case the project never proceeds.
This scenario is one option to consider on how to get the first HSR service onto the line, which is an option how to proceed with the project.
If they pick a operating franchise business model, they could well include the right to operate the system in the first decade that the full Stage 1 is completed as part of the sweetener for the bids to operate the preliminary system, for however long it takes until the full Stage 1 is completed.
synonymouse Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 10:38 am
I think the idea is fabulous. Diesel all the way. Now if they just build the tunnels to accommodate double-stack.
I believe the Moffatt Tunnel is 6 miles long and it operates with diesels.
Nathanael Reply:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:50 pm
That’s not quite the max length for such a tunnel, but it’s close, and it has extra ventilation.
The extra ventilation is the issue.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Note that it may be that part of the funds spent on the complementary conventional rail can come from the complementary $900m in bonding for that purpose. After all, the upgrades to the Metrolink corridor to support a local/express operation using loco-hauled HSR trains would still be usable for dedicated expresses once the dedicated HSR through to the LA Basin is finished.
And, indeed, the locomotives for those expresses would already be available.
Rod Diridon talks about High Speed Rail on Ronn Owens show RIGHT NOW on KGO radio, 810 AM in San Francisco.
http://www.kgoam810.com/article.asp?id=2101434
Special Board Meeting March 30, 2011
2. Federal Funding Application
Staff will present final design and construction project alternatives for the funding recently
made available for the Federal High‐Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program for board
discussion and approval.
From the article below and just watching the meeting in Madera last week, the Authority is going to more than have its hands full, trying to run their train through prime AG land in the Central valley.
—————
KCET: Growers Ready To Battle High-Speed Rail
http://www.kcet.org/shows/socal_connected/undertheinfluence/transportation/growers-ready-to-battle-high-speed-rail-126920110321.html
J. Wong Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 5:07 pm
“240 minutes”? Gees, they can’t even get the proposed travel time correct.
Jack Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Bwahaha, investigative journalism at it’s best.
Jack Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Good lord, I live here; there is very little opposition to HSR in the valley. These are a bunch of up-starts that know they need to start squealing now so they get paid when the train comes through. Unlinke PAMPA; The Cities of Merced, Madera, Fresno, Visalia all want HSR. We know it’s going to bring nothing but positives. Job Growth, Rapid Travel, all for a 100ft wide corridor?? Who wouldn’t jump at that.
Oh yeah old crotchey men with nothing better to do than to shout at the kids to get off their lawn!
I went to Google Maps, and I followed the existing Bakersfield – LA trackage. It’s mostly single-track with a few double-track stretches here and there, like Lancaster – Palmdale and Burbank – LA.
From Metrolink’s schedules, the best time that the Antelope Valley trains make between LA and Palmdale is about 1h 40m. However, the train has 8 stops on the way, which may make the best time about 1h 30m. A bus would likely have similar speed.
On the San Francisco end, without CV-Gilroy construction, it would take over 2 hours by bus from Merced to Gilroy and San Jose, and at least another hour to San Francisco. Much of that route would be on Pacheco Pass Hwy., SR-33/152, which is not as bad as I’d feared — it’s a nice 4-lane road. The San Joaquin trains take about 3 hours between Merced and Oakland, and they need a bus to go to SF. So it’s over 3 hours either way.
From the San Joaquin schedule, its trains and buses take about 9 hours between SF and LA.
For Merced – Palmdale HSR, that goes down to 6 hours, 1 1/2 hours on the train, 4 1/2 hours on the end connectors.
Putting in Gilroy – Chowchilla Junction pushes it down to 5 hours; putting in SJ – Gilroy shaves off 1/2 hour, and the complete system has a time of 2h 40m.
Joey Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 am
Palmdale-Lancaster is separated such that Metrolink has a dedicated track and UP has a dedicated track. There’s no connection between them at the north end.