Saturday Open Thread: 300 years of fossil fuel in 300 minutes

Mar 19th, 2011 | Posted by
Leave a comment

Anyone attend the RailPAC/NARP Steel Wheels in California event today in Los Angeles? If so, add your report here!

Tags: ,
  1. Spokker
    Mar 19th, 2011 at 15:31
    #1

    “Anyone attend the RailPAC/NARP Steel Wheels in California event today in Los Angeles? If so, add your report here!”

    I was there for the first half. Not a lot of new information, but there was an interesting presentation and a real dud. I posted the dud in the previous thread. Hilarious stuff about a gold train.

    There was some consultant guy with a presentation about what it takes to forge relationships between freight railroads and passenger rail. Basically, give Union Pacific everything it wants. You approach a freight railroad with capital and a plan to help maintain the tracks and freights will be more receptive. He focused on the Capital Corridor and explained how over the years, building a better relationship with Union Pacific has resulted in a higher quality right of way, better on-time performance and higher ridership.

    The same speaker also summed up his experience with the Florida high speed rail project, calling the decision to end it purely an ideological one. He said that private investors are not going to bother with high speed rail in Florida again, even if they try again for a 5th time. Alstom and others, who spent millions already, feel burned by the state.

    He also outlined his goal to improve Pacific Surfliner service. There are talks of commuter service between Montalvo and Goleta, hitting Santa Barbara of course.

    The Amtrak speaker had two items of note. In May they will be running a train between Palm Springs and LA to see what service on that route might look like. Also, Amtrak is in negotiations with Union Pacific to start a daily Sunset Limited. Union Pacific wants an exorbitant sum to allow a daily Sunset, which Amtrak refuses to pay. They have reached a confidentiality agreement to share data, and a consultant will be hired to assess how much it should cost to get a daily Sunset Limited going.

    The Metrolink presentation was pretty much about things they have announced recently. PTC, express service, safety, new cars, etc. Fenton said he thinks the Union Station run-through tracks should be one of the highest priority projects. He also said Metrolink will not be raising fares this year, all the while expanding service.

    Spokker Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    The conference is very much about FRA dinosaur trains. They don’t seem that interested in electrifying corridors. In fact, Fenton talked about purchasing greener Tier V or something diesel locomotives in the future, so I doubt electrification is on his mind. It’s probably not even doable with the current economic climate. I doubt they will try to ever get funding for such a thing.

    BruceMcF Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Its a network effect ~ the length required to make it a slam dunk benefit would stretch or break the financing capacity of what are, after all, not tremendously large and very capital intensive enterprises.

    If pursued by the Federal government on the basis of interest subsidies for the capital cost, with the original capital cost recouped from user and access fees, and with the publicly-owned infrastructure gaining the same property tax advantages as public road infrastructure, it is a much more viable financial proposition.

    Spokker Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    I understand.

    But I just wonder how much electrified track we could build with the money we are using to pay to bomb Libya.

    BruceMcF Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    To get a serious transcontinental network along these lines (ani-gif) up and running, I figure would take a $2.5b/yr interest subsidy to a line development banks (or two or four line development banks if somebody thought it would put too much power in one development bank).

    Building at full commercial urgency would require two or three times that.

    Easily funded by reversing the existing 1980′s “drill baby drill” oil production subsidies to the most profitable companies on the face of the planet. Or if it could be snuck into a DOD emergency appropriation under “NORTHCOM Logistical Support”.

    ant6n Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Don’t really need that much track electrified. In particular those transcontinental railroads don’t need electrification any time soon. Think hubs around NEC, West Coast, Chicago… would probably much cheaper.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    According to BNSF’s analysis, it makes more economic sense to electrify nearly the whole network, simply to avoid engine changes, which eat time, money, and manpower. The exceptions are branch lines with “captive fleets” of locomotives where the engine changes are already happening.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Bruce, based on what criteria did you choose those lines and not others? For example, why does your steel interstate map include the Sunset Corridor and not the Southern Transcon?

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    His full proposal is to electrify anything that is a STRACNET line, more or less. That would be much more complex than what can be represented in a small GIF.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    I know the full proposal. But the Southern Transcon is part of STRACNET; the question is why electrify parts of the network but not others. To be honest, I’d have expected it to be the other way – i.e. the Southern Transcon but not necessarily the Sunset route – since the Southern Transcon is double-tracked, i.e. higher-capacity.

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:12 am

    Not enough to matter, Besides Gadhafi is NUTS, He clearly needs to be stopped, I agree It would be nice If We could reason with Him, But no one in the area likes Him, Not even the Arab League, So $100 Million or so isn’t going to go very far, AWACS planes off shore, In flight refueling, Drones and Tomahawk Cruise Missiles is what We’re providing, Other nations are providing the manned Fighter/Bomber Aircraft(France, UK, Denmark, UAE, Jordan, Qatar). There are hints that US Air Force aircraft(A-10′s?) might be deployed against the armed forces loyal to the mad(means Crazy, Not angry) Duk, Er Gadhafi(No one knows how to spell His name and No one trusts what He says either), If the armed forces loyal to Gadhafi do not go back to their garrisons, This is all sanctioned by the UN and more importantly by the Arab League.

    When told that Gadhafi was claiming women and children had been killed in the coalition air strikes, (Adm)Mullen told CNN that the targets were selected carefully, adding: “I’ve seen no reports of significant civilian casualties.” On other networks, he said he was unaware of any civilian casualties so far.

    The above quote is from the CNN link below.

    Mullen: No-fly zone effectively in place in Libya

    ant6n Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    One way to deal with freight trains: buy ‘em. Keep the tracks, sell back the rest.

    VBobier Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    More like Buy the Tracks and Right of Way, Lease them back to the private Railroads as the land grants should not be allowed to exist forever and ever. The US Government hires private contractors to do all needed safety maintenance, needed track/infrastructure upgrades(Like electrification and elevated/banked curves for HSR/Passenger Trains instead of flat curves as now exists) & needed track/infrastructure expansion(expansion ordered by the Railroads, But not to conflict with HSR/Passenger service), All this under a New version/repurposed FRA… To help the USA get back to work by providing needed jobs to those that can do the work.

    ant6n Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Well, assuming that they railroads would actually sell the tracks. Which they might not, given that that’s their main resource – even if it’s also their main expense. But at least as long as they own it, they can use it as a monopoly of sorts. So buying the whole caboodle and re-privatizing what you don’t need might be easier. ;-)

    VBobier Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    There’s always Eminent Domain and paying for the tracks and land the Fair Market Value to the Railroads.

    Peter Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    For that you’d have to convince Congress that the freight rr’s don’t need protection from eminent domain any longer.

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:21 am

    What I meant was that, Taking away the power that RR’s were granted, Which is the power of Eminent Domain, Not protection from It, I would withdraw some protection, But only where It conflicted with State of local HSR/Passenger rail needs, So that stubborn RR’s like the UPRR would get the message and cooperate with State/Local Officials better, In other words, Leverage.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Might be cheaper to buy the railroad stock instead of buying the railroad’s assets piecemeal.
    For instance Union Pacific, all the outstanding shares, in nice round numbers are worth 50 billion.

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:15 am

    That’s something that I’d not thought of, Thanks. Just enough to control them and then do the deed from within, Then after the changes are done, Sell off the stock.

    ant6n Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Yes, that’s the point. Also, the UP should still be worth a lot without the tracks – especially if open access to its former infrastructure is guaranteed. They’d continue their business as usual, basically, but instead of maintenance they would now pay track fees.

    And for the government it’d be a better way to subsidize – you subsidize track construction and maintenance, effectively making the track fees less than the former maintenance costs. This subsidy would then benefit any rail operator, because there’d be open access on the tracks. So you subsidize an industry rather than individual companies.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 10:45 am

    UP has no interest in the subsidies going to the industry and not to favored company. It and BNSF are fighting to prevent CP and CN from building a second line to the Powder River Basin – it’d force them to be more competitive.

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    @ Alon: Go CP and CN! The Utterly Pathetic RR needs some competition, Besides the BNSF that is.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Mind you, purchasing the entire outstanding stock, or even half of it, would undoubtedly require paying a premium over the current price — as you start buying up stock you start restricting supply.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    The government would be buying it. They could suspend trading. Offer ten percent over best price in the past year and eligibility to in the IPO of the operating company for people who have an emotional attachment to railroad stock.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    …and never gonna happen because the tea baggers would go into orbit about how it’s Communist.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Ten percent over would be plenty enough of a premium to get it on the “open market”. I think I’m agreeing with you.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Berkshire Hathaway paid a premium of close to one third over market price – $100 per share when the market price was $76.

    ant6n Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Aren’t there more subtle ways to destroy the industry? Or at least, make it suffer so that the railroads just want to get rid of those tracks?

    How about starting some special property taxes on the tracks? This tax could then be used for rail subsidies or something.

    Paulus Magnus Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Why don’t we just not bother with this nonsense of trying to kill the freight railroads or nationalizing the rails?

    ant6n Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    The idea is that open access on rails would create actual competition on rails, which could bring down prices and thus result in more freight moved on rails. At the same time, it would give the public the ability to enable more effective passenger rail system, also based on competition.

    VBobier Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    I’d just acquire the mainlines, locomotive/car maintenance facilities and any yards, No short lines, stubs or branches, Let the railroads keep those. Start with the Class 1 Railroads, I’d also withdraw Eminent Domain powers from the Railroads too, Start on Electrification for Freight & Passenger trains, In other words real reform, All in the name of National Security, So that the Railroads would not be buying Diesel Fuel anymore. Mandate that conversion to Electric locos by Freight RR’s happen after the US Mainlines are all equipped with Centenary. Require that EMD, Bombadier(formerly Alco), GE & Others compete in the USA to make Power Efficient High Horsepower Freight Locomotives for the Freight RR’s, That are streamlined and can serve on all US rails. And require that after 12 years once an effective Electric Locomotive has been designed, built and tested by said Locomotive Makers, That all New Diesel-Electric Locomotive production be phased out and that 13 years after that(for a total of 25 years), That all RR’s use only Electric Locomotives, Except on RR owned rail lines, Where old Diesel-Electrics can be used until they can’t used anymore, Then they’d either be scrapped of given to a RR Museum that will accept them.

    ant6n Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:45 am

    It’s probably best to let the market decide on Diesel vs Electro locomotives. Diesel locomotive freight hauling is pretty efficient, compared to high way trucks. And has, overall, much less of an environmental impact than road freight.

    Oncer rail infrastructure offers caternary on tracks, the freight railroads would probably switch to electric themselves where it makes sense, because now those operations could be cheaper than former diesel locs (the main cost of electrification is caternary construction and maintenance, locomotive maintenance is actually less).

    A government mandated electro locomotive built in America seems like a bad idea – sure it might generate some jobs here, but it would be more expensive and less efficient. Forcing private companies into this sort of protectionism might be a way to make rail freight much more expensive, which in turn might hurt it compared to road freight. So you’d need to subsidize the industry to make it competitive – at which point you’ve forced the industry to be ineffective in order to create jobs here, and then subsidize it to offset that inefficiency.

    Better to spend that money to generate jobs more efficiently.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 am

    The best diesel locomotives for hauling heavy freight are already made in America, by GE and EMD. The European locos are optimized for hauling passenger trains and light freight trains at higher speeds. If the US starts to electrify its freight network then it’s more likely that the new locos will be electric versions of the Evolution than off-the-shelf Primas and EuroSprinters, which are as inappropriate for heavy freight as the Genesis is for passenger trains.

    thatbruce Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:20 am

    I’m always amused at the ‘electrification requires new locomotives’ argument. The ‘old’ locomotives are still perfectly servicable, and the only thing lacking is the current collection system to feed the existing electric motors on them. With most diesel-electric locomotives able to operate in multi-unit configurations, including the distribution of power amongst units for a trivial amount of work, the piecemeal approach would be start including converted fully-electric locomotives (or non-powered power-collection vehicles) in the multi-engine consists for long-distance operation.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Its much much cheaper to just run them as diesels under the wires. Newer locomotives have resale value, you’d be converting a valuable locomotive if you used a newer one. Older locomotives are …..old. It’s not worth it to spend money on them.

    bleh Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Eurosprinter, built for 4000t trains (to be precise the requirement was that if *half the traction fails* it could still haul a 2000t train up a 1.5% grade. European couplers aren’t really suited for 4000t but there’s no reason you couldn’t change the coupler.)

    http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:EG3103_Padborg.jpg

    8800hp, 132t

    bleh Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    btw. that was just an example that even EuroSprinters can be adapted for (relatively) heavy freight.

    Bombardier has designed a massive locomotive (actually two in a fixed formation) for the Swedes. China recently bought 500 of those (actually a close cousin)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    the main cost of electrification is caternary construction and maintenance, locomotive maintenance is actually less
    Fuel cost can be less. I can’t find the study now but I seem to remember that BNSF calculated that electrification makes sense if diesel remains higher than $4 a gallon.

    Better to spend that money to generate jobs more efficiently.
    What Alon said and they’d be replacing thousands of locomotives. It’s expensive to ship locomotives across oceans. Much cheaper to build them near the delivery point, which in the case of a locomotive factory in North America, is at the plant gate.

    ant6n Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    I was just saying that it would be unnecessary to _mandate_ electro-loc production in the US. Especially if the state owned the tracks and installed overhead using the public’s money. It would happen without interference in the market. You basically give more reasons for that ;-)

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Well the idea was to phase in a requirement for New Locomotives to be Electric and do this over a 25 Year span of time, This time period could be expanded for a few more years of course(Like 5 to 10 years), So as to not put a lot of strain on the Railroads and on the Locomotive makers, GE and EMD could make Electric locos out of their existing designs of course, As the traction motors and dynamic braking are already in place. The main idea is to get the US off of Fossil Fuels for Transportation of goods, As that would help by an unknown amount since more expensive oil cracking methods are used to get more and more Diesel and Gasoline out of the raw crude oil, This would result in less demand for oil by the USA.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    I can’t find the study now but I seem to remember that BNSF calculated that electrification makes sense if diesel remains higher than $4 a gallon.

    I believe BNSF only published the summary, and they were deliberately cagey about the exact fuel price which would make electrification worthwhile for them — more than “about” $4 a gallon for extended periods. The rest of the study was kept confidential so as to have an advantage over their competitors.

    The other published takeaway from that study was that it only made sense to electrify if they electrified pretty nearly the entire system.

    Hopefully they’ll “take the plunge” soon — diesel prices aren’t going down and the time to start building is while metal is cheap, namely during the recession.

    AlanF Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    The cost of electrification for the entire BNSF main routes would be so great, that they would need to get federal support to help cover the capital cost. A US govt backed low interest long term loan might be sufficient. The Obama administration would likely be in support, but the Republicans would be a harder sell. However, if there is one man who could go to a bitterly divided Congress and persuade them to put up the loans in the interest of the national economy and reducing dependency on oil imports in a prolonged (post peak) oil crisis, Warren Buffet would be that guy.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Stop saying “reducing dependency on oil imports.” Freight rail oil consumption is trivial; much better to shift ton-miles from trucking and cars to freight trains and transit than to worry about every single drop of oil.

    Paulus Magnus Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Capacity improvements along the lines and better intermodal terminals are what will cause that switch, not electrification anyhow.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Actually, I’m not sure you’re right, AlanF.

    The actual route electrification per se isn’t as expensive as one would think. Look at the previous UK government’s plan to have an automated “electrification train” planting poles and stringing wire, much like the automated track renewal trains. Develop a couple of these and start them running across the network, and your main costs are materials, which are quite manageable right now.

    The cost of new locomotives shouldn’t be that bad as they could be brought in on a regular replacement schedule, and the diesels could be sold to less-forward-thinking railroads. The cost of electrifying yards is a serious issue (and can’t be automated); the hard-to-pin-down cost of retraining is also a major issue.

    But the big costs which would make it a hard thing to fund are, as usual, civil engineering. Tunnels need to be deepened and bridges raised in order to accomodate catenary over doublestacks, and *that* turns out to be the really expensive part. If there were some way to get federal funding just for those specific projects then BNSF might be more likely to be able to fund the mainline electrification on its own. I’m sure BNSF’s study includes a complete list of the clearance chokepoints, but that’s confidential information.

    It is probably within BNSF’s ability to fund — otherwise they wouldn’t have studied it. And now that they have the luxury of thinking long-term, thanks to Buffett’s ownership, if it makes them a profit over the 50-year horizon, they can fund it even if it costs them for a decade.

    BruceMcF Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    I wonder how much it would cost to get a train through Phoenix?

    Hypothetically, that is, if Arizona were to be hit by an unchecked plague of sanity.

    AlanF Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Looking at the maps, it is around 320 miles from Riverside to Phoenix on I-10, figuring that is the logical connection point got a line to Phoenix. This is though mostly open desert, so land acquisition costs should be reasonable, even more so if they can use the I-10 ROW much of the way. Question is whether all of the route could be accomplished above ground or would tunnels be needed for any of it? Would $40 million / mile be a reasonable guess estimate? $12 to $14 billion, maybe? Or is that on the high side given the open country nature of the route?

    Figure a station in Palm Springs – which in itself would be a major stop, one or two in Phoenix. This is almost an ideal route and distance for a 220 mph HSR corridor, not many stops in between with long runs at near top speeds – for one of the busiest air corridors in the US. Once the CA HSR system is built, an extension to Phoenix and then to Tuscon is going to eventually happen.

    There was a $500K grant in the FY10 HSIPR awards to CA, NV, AZ for advanced planning of an integrated HSR network in the SW. Critical for Arizona, because that provides funding for the transportation planners in AZ to go to meetings and start discussions & long term planning with their counterparts in the other states. Get the long term planning and first stage studies underway while waiting for Arizona to have a saner Governor and for McCain to retire.

    Risenmessiah Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Here’s the thing about an extension to Arizona:

    It actually makes more sense to extend the Desert Express line south through Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego and then route to the east, connecting through Yuma, then Phoenix, and finally Tucson. Of course, I’m aware of the “strategy” being employed by Parsons for the CHSR Los Angeles to San Diego segment. Honestly, though, I think it’s a mistake to try and make the dog leg through San Bernardino when Metrolink is already exploring express trains to the Inland Empire.

    Still, Arizona for its part is already exploring using an abandoned ROW previously used by the Sunset Limited that stretched from Wellton, Arizona to Phoenix. The problem is that Union Pacific owns it and it suddenly improving it after leaving it more or less rot after an Amtrak derailment in 1993. Even so, Arizona’s constitution limits how many general obligation bonds the State can issue at around $250,000, so a Prop 1A proposal wouldn’t work.

    That means the CHSRA will have to be pretty far along (2020 or so) before things will get serious in Arizona. So, Jan Brewer and John McCain won’t have much if any impact on what happens.

    Joey Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Yuma is rather out of the way, and it’s population is under 100k with not much around it to boot. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to detour HSR there.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 12:09 am

    Going due east from Indio, via I-10 more or less, there’s not much population. Blythe has under 13k. Not big enough for a station. It’s mountainous along much of that route. Going from Indio to Yuma you are building railroad across very flat land. Where there’s a city with 100k and a metro area approaching 200k. Yuma to Phoenix does have some mountains but it’s relatively flat. Guesstimating the difference in mileage using Google driving directions it’s only 75 miles out of the way. Might be cheaper to build 75 miles of railroad across flatter land and as a bonus you add a 200k metro.

    Risenmessiah Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Right, but you also have to realize that there’s no benefit to connect Indio to Phoenix or even San Bernardino. The value is in connecting Orange County, San Diego, and downtown LA. So if you are going to ford the Colorado at Yuma it makes sense to cut a path to SD than go back to through the I-10.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 10:55 am

    The I-10 route isn’t very mountainous; the existing grades should be gentle enough for HSR, if not for heavy freight.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Interstate grades except in extraordinary circumstances are gentle enough for electric trains to go up. A cursory look at I-10 doesn’t look like this would be a problem but trains that go up a grade have to come down the grade on the return trip. That has to be considered.
    Interstate curves in mountains frequently aren’t gentle enough for high speed trains.
    Straightening a few of curves out with tunnels and viaducts gets expensive. Cutting 75 miles saves 20-30 minutes, a guesstimate of what using I-10 saves, may not be worth it. It may be worth it , there would be 75 miles less track to maintain. 75 miles less electricity used. 75 miles less wear on the train. 20 minute shorter trip would have higher demand.
    Beyond my pay grade to figure all of that out. I’m just saying that it’s much flatter via Yuma than over I-10, something to be considered, with a very expensive planning document someday.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    I-10 has the advantage of being grade-separated, with a wide median for tracks to go in.

    The elevation profile on Google Earth suggests the grades are a complete non-issue, except for the climb from the Coachella Valley to Cactus City, which involves 515 meters of elevation gain in 16 kilometers. That last part should be doable with a greenfield alignment a few km north of I-10, which would distribute the same elevation gain equally, over a slightly longer distance.

    Paulus Magnus Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    The problem with the coastal route, such as is followed by the Surfliner, is that improvements to HSR level along it would die a horrible death of NIMBY and Coastal Commission. That was the fate of earlier attempts if I remember correctly. That being said, upgrading the line south from Irvine to 90-110mph with overhead and running some commuter writ large trains and OC-SD express trains would make sense.

    Risenmessiah Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 7:54 am

    Well you have to remember that once HSR becomes a reality, the political pressures will recede a little bit. However, I think what you would have to do is not use the existing ROW all the way down the coast, but instead build a new ROW that avoids the track right on the Coast in Orange County. Sure, right now those NIMBYs would try and kill it, but give it time.

    Alan F Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Electrified HSR can handle considerably steeper grades than freight trains. Why follow a way out of the way train route that was laid down over a century ago due to the technology limits of the time? You would also bypass the growing populations of the Inland Empire and the Coachella valley. The 2010 Census provided a rather startling population count of 2.19 million for Riverside County.

    A line to Phoenix connecting to the CA HSR route somewhere around Riverside or San Bernardino provides a direct route to Phoenix for the greater LA area and access through LA for people traveling from Bakersfield & Fresno via HSR to Phoenix. Your route would have them travel all the way south to San Diego and then west along the border. The CA HSR website gives the projected travel time from LA Union Station to Riverside as 33 minutes. If the HSR train from there with several stops at Palm Springs and Palm Desert or Indio and over some steeper grades can maintain an average speed of 160 mph from Riverside to Phoenix, that would put Phoenix roughly around 2.5 hours from LA. Which would be fast enough to take a commanding share of the air-rail travel market between LA and Phoenix. You would also likely get heavy ridership from LA stations to Palm Springs and the Coachella valley on weekends.

    A critical question is whether the median strip of I-10 in the Coachella valley and along the way to Phoenix is wide enough and suitable (in terms of grades and curves) for use as a HSR corridor for much of the route to Phoenix. If several hundred miles of the median strip of I-10 without having to rebuild I-10 can be used for a HSR corridor to Phoenix, then the cost of building a HSR connection to Phoenix goes way down. The first step is a very preliminary engineering look at the alternatives for a CA HSR to Phoenix HSR route. But it would also not be surprising to see Palm Springs and the other communities out in the desert start to push for a HSR stub line to them if the Inland Empire HSR corridor gets closer to construction while Arizona is off stewing in their own politics.

    Risenmessiah Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Here’s the thing. As much as synonymouse loves to criticize routing HSR through Palmdale to appease developers, the current decision to loop HSR through the Inland Empire is an even bigger mistake.

    First, there’s not enough water.

    Second, as the DEIR shows, LA to SD is going to be expensive no matter which way you go.

    Third, Arizona has much more in common with San Diego and Orange County than it does Los Angeles. Almost as many people fly annually from Phoenix to John Wayne and SAN than LAX.

    Fourth, the current ROW UP uses is through the narrow San Timeteo Canyon. They are well aware of the value of this chokepoint and aren’t going to help HSR find a way out.

    Fifth, you want a train that Arizona riders can take one seat all the way to Vegas because it’s much harder to reach Vegas from Phoenix than LA.

    Sixth, there’s already Metrolink to connect distant communities.

    Finally, Arizona’s electorate is going to change immensely by the time we get to Phase 2.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 11:05 am

    There are other reasons to focus on LA-Phoenix and not SD-Phoenix than the total size of the air market:

    1. The connecting transit at LAUS is better than in Orange and San Diego Counties, which means trains would get a higher mode share.
    2. Orange and San Diego Counties have glacial population growth; the Inland Empire is still growing, despite the housing bust.
    3. Metrolink has to be modernized sometime, and this includes LA-Ontario; once that is done, connecting to Phoenix isn’t hard.

    I agree that the correct way to build CAHSR is to do LA-SD through Orange County and put the Inland Empire on a spur, instead of the other way around, but the Inland Empire has to be included – it’s too big not to.

    Risenmessiah Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Mode share? Ha…that’s a good one.

    My original comment upthread was that the Arizona extension (if it happens) has to be designed in concert with the decisions about Phase 2. I personally found PB’s DEIR for Phase 2 really disappointing and not up to professional standards. But that’s my opinion only.

    You are conflating different things here. Most Arizonans do not do business in L.A. It’s not the same sort of synergy that exists between SF and L.A. Most of your Arizona to California travel is either for leisure or to raise money for construction projects. And it’s true that people go back to see their relatives if they live there. A HSR line that takes you from central Phoenix to Disneyland, Newport Beach or Mission Bay is far more valuable than one that takes you past Palm Springs, San Bernardino, and El Monte.

    Secondly, you are making my point. If there is a modernization attempt for Metrolink (politically like making water go up hill) then nearly the entire L.A. area could connect to HSR very quickly and you would lose the inherent delays associated with the dog leg. Meanwhile you wouldn’t encourage the sort of irresponsible housing construction seen in the I.E. by connecting directly on the HSR. Irresponsible, because as I said earlier, there’s not enough water.

    Also, it’s important to note that your problems are just beginning east of Ontario. There’s the Colton Crossing to navigate, San Timeteo Canyon, and the Tribes.

    Plus, there are going to be plenty of places in L.A. left off the ROW like Apple Valley and Ventura County that have just as much population as the proposed sections of IE HSR. What’s not there, is the big reservoirs of water that make it a developer’s dream.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    If Metrolink is modernized, it’s going to make LAUS easier to get to, much more so than any Orange County destination. We’re talking electrification, run-through tracks, and lighter trains, not a comprehensive Tokyo-grade network connecting everywhere to everywhere.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    You can get from central Phoenix to Disneyland, Newport Beach or Mission Bay by going through Palm Springs, San Bernardino, and El Monte.

    Risenmessiah Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Right now, Metrolink already has the ability to connect San Bernardino to Irvine in 90 minutes. Unless HSR cuts that time in half, there’s relatively little to entice passengers to connect in Los Angeles to head south. If you want to maximize one-seat rides, you won’t do it that way.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Using HSR, you’d connect at LAUS. Why would you connect at San Bernardino?

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 9:57 am

    “, if Arizona were to be hit by an unchecked plague of sanity.”
    I love this line, Bruce.

    James M. in Irvine Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Would this test train be stopping in Palm Springs? Leaving Friday and returning Sunday would be a great weekend without fighting the traffic! Even taking it round-trip on Saturday would be a cool sightseeing railfan day! Any info would be appreciated,

    Jim

    AlanF Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    The test service will reportedly run over the May 7 to 9th weekend. Very brief news article at http://www.kpsplocal2.com/Content/Headlines/story/mothers-day-amtrak-train-service-los-angeles/axXiE3HjP0uc3YwSFzQe7A.cspx. Question is whether this is a route that Amtrak California would look to start a new corridor service over once the new HSIPR funded rolling stock arrives and if they have the money for it.

    Andy M. Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 6:16 am

    “The same speaker also summed up his experience with the Florida high speed rail project, calling the decision to end it purely an ideological one. He said that private investors are not going to bother with high speed rail in Florida again, even if they try again for a 5th time. Alstom and others, who spent millions already, feel burned by the state.”

    I was thinking the same. This is extremely damaging to the credibility of HSR in the US and it will force potential suppliers and partners to become much more wary and to factor these risks into their estimates which wil drive up prices for everybody else.

  2. nobody important
    Mar 19th, 2011 at 17:48
    #2

    I don’t know if anyone’s seen this already but CHSRA has ads on YouTube.
    http://i53.tinypic.com/2lvfk95.jpg

    political_incorrectness Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    Yup, it is spyware that is doing that. The ads are going wherever I go.

    Alex M. Reply:
    March 19th, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    I wouldn’t call that spyware yet, third-party cookies aren’t usually considered spyware.

  3. D. P. Lubic
    Mar 19th, 2011 at 18:43
    #3

    This may be a better link:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/CAHighSpeedRail

    Haven’t seen all of this yet (have to run!), but the short film, “It’s Electric.” is notable to me for including some discussion of peak oil:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/CAHighSpeedRail#p/a/f/2/FgF8ldAJlSA

    Have fun

  4. Eric M
    Mar 19th, 2011 at 20:16
    #4

    Now we all know definitively that Nadia and her friends are high speed rail activists. From the horses mouth.

    wu ming Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 12:00 am

    i’ve noticed that pattern in davis as well, people move in from out of town and immediately start working on “preserving our small town way of life.” the people who grew up there tend to be a bit more relaxed about it.

    YesonHSR Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:42 am

    The original owners that bought those homes 50 and 60 years ago knew what they were getting into… a busy railroad in their backyard at the time.. lots of freight trains compared to today at all hours, Americans are ultrasensitive anymore… they would not be able to hack it if they could be transported back in time! There’s a fine line between an obstructionist and activist

  5. Loren Petrich
    Mar 19th, 2011 at 20:57
    #5

    As to that video that our host linked to, it would have been nice to show the sources of fossil fuels.

    Coal is mostly the remains of forests and bogs and the like, mostly from the late Paleozoic. Rivers deposited sediment over them, and they got heated and squeezed, carbonizing them. After the Paleozoic? I’ve seen serious speculation that termites emerged from cockroachlike insects about then, and that termites kept coal from forming by eating up the dead trees.

    Oil is the remains of dead algae that dropped to the seafloor and escaped decomposition. This was more common during warmer times, like late Jurassic – Cretaceous – early Cenozoic, and would become especially common during Anoxic Events, when the Earth would suffer bouts of especially bad global warming.

    Showing these formation modes would have made for some nice visuals.

    But not only are we consuming fossil-fuel resources about a million times faster than their rate of formation, we are living off of resources that formed under circumstances rather different from the present.

    YesonHSR Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:51 am

    A full worldwide all-out effort needs to be applied to try and actually produce workable fusion power.. And all this stuff would go away… Im sure the sleazy oil Reason foundation and the rest of the mouthpieces would come up with some reason why we should not spend that kind of money

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 10:34 am

    That may take 100′s of years, So far progress has been slow.

    There’s a joke in physics that asserts that the time until commercial fusion power generation becomes viable is 15 years – and has been since 1940.

    Nuclear Fusion Power

    Actually there is some radiation produced from Fusion, Although not as much I think as Fission makes, So shielding is needed no matter what, Also cooling is still needed too as the temps are able to exceed melting points for our technological level from what I read in the past. So while they may be at a breakeven point for putting energy in or maybe slightly above or just below It.

    ITER is the next step in this process. It is expected to operate at several times higher than breakeven, but it’s not possible for this design to actually generate electricity. It’s just a proof-of concept. Here’s hoping it works spectacularly well!

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Oh and of course since Nuclear Fusion is a Foreign idea, Like HSR It will be fought by Nimbys and the usual types(Republicans and Tea-Party types) I’d think, To try and keep It out, As the Koch brothers would not like It at all.

    I can hear It now: “Fusion Power is UnAmerican and is a threat to our Children & our Country” or something like that.

    Andre Peretti Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Although it’s located in France ITER is international and US scientists are part of it.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Commercial fusion power is very easy — we have a giant fusion reactor located six light minutes away, IIRC. All we need to do is catch the energy radiating off of it.

    Yes, of course I’m referring to solar power.

    Paulus Magnus Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Which is rather expensive and requires having a good climate for it, with a rather low capacity factor. Fission’s a rather better solution until we can get commercial fusion online. Blythe, for instance, will cost about as much as a new Generation III+ AP1000 reactor (even with inflated American nuclear costs), with the same nameplate capacity. It will provide, however, only about 2200 GWh/yr, less than a third of what the reactor would give.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 11:28 am

    as somebody else has pointed out commercial fusion power is only 15 years away. It’s been 15 years away since 1940. They can power the maglev trains with it. Those have been 10 years away since 1960. On the other hand don’t needs as much train as we are building because we can just use our self driving cars. Those have been 15 years away since 1940 also.

    Alon Levy Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    And electric cars, which have been 15 years away since about 1890.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Cheap electric cars which can travel 300 miles between charges are 15 years away since 1890. An electric car that can get you to and from work with a few errands isn’t difficult. Still on the expensive side.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 9:59 am

    The horrendously ironic thing is that massive fossil fuel burning appears to be creating the conditions (hothouse world with massive animal die-offs!) which will create fossil fuels for future species in a million years time…

  6. No Fortunate Son
    Mar 19th, 2011 at 23:19
    #6

    I posed this question a while’s back, but did not find anyone able to answer.

    If CA receives, say, $2B of Florida’s turned down $2.4B, what additional work could be completed. Would that be enough to build an operable rail segment from Bakersfield to Fresno?

    I presume no action would be taken to electrify the corridor at the time.

    I’m just curious how much additional money CA needs to complete Fresno to Bakersfield? And what the $2B (plus matching bond monies?) could buy?

    VBobier Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:28 am

    I would think that to make the Bakersfield to Fresno segment a viable test track, It would need Catenary, So yes electrification would have to be done, Otherwise how are the HSR trains going to move so that they can be tested? Be pushed or pulled by a Diesel-Electric locomotive? Ridiculous…

    Peter Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    They’re not going to electrify or buy high speed rolling stock until they can link the CV with either San Jose or LA.

    Nathanael Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 10:01 am

    They would need electrification for the tunnels through the Tehachapis. Electric-only tunnels can be longer, smaller, and simpler than tunnels which must exhaust diesel fumes and bring in fresh air.

    They can, of course, do something simplistically traditional like attaching electric engines at the stations at either end of that segment. For an interim measure.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:
    March 21st, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Lease some ALP-45DPs from NJTransit.

    Alan F Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    It is very unlikely that CA will get $2 billion of the returned Florida HSR money. Too many states want some of the money to go to the NEC and there are other projects that could make good use of an additional $100 million or two. There would also be political backlash (even more than so far) if CA HSR were to get even a larger share of the $10.5 billion of HSIPR funding available to date.

    My best guess is that CA gets maybe roughly a 1/3, the NEC and Amtrak another 3rd, and the other corridors – Chi-Detroit, Ch-St Louis, Cascades, NC & VA for the Southeast HSR, NY state, CT for New Haven-Springfield MA, PA for Keystone East, maybe Maine for the Downeaster if they apply – split the remaining 3rd. We will have to wait until early April to find out who applied for what. Then, what, late April, May? for the re-allocation announcements.

    The question is what can CA HSR do with another $600 to $800 million of federal funding, if they do a 50% match? If they can keep the costs down, enough to build Merced to Bakersfield? Or a electrified HSR corridor from the maintenance yard near or south of Merced to Bakersfield?

    YesonHSR Reply:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    We are going to get 1.3 billion..half ARRA the rest 2010 HSR funding that has a 20@ match..it will go to build the leg north to Merced and complete a first segment..then SF and LA with fight it out as how get the first HSR service

Comments are closed.