Assemblymember Henry Perea on Keeping HSR Jobs in California
Over at the California Labor Federation blog, Fresno Assemblymember Henry Perea writes about his bill AB 16 that would push the California High Speed Rail Authority to buy Californian as much as possible:
I introduced Assembly Bill 16, High Speed Rail Jobs, with the goal of keeping HSR funds in California. This bill will require the High Speed Rail Authority to make every effort to purchase rolling stock and related equipment that is made in California, with the ultimate goal of putting folks back to work.
Foreign companies are already clamoring for a chance to get involved with California’s HSR project. Firms in China, France, Spain and Japan have expressed interest in building trains for California’s HSR project. It is my goal to make sure that Californian’s benefit from the jobs created by HSR.
This is an important bill. One of the purposes behind building HSR is near-term economic stimulus, as well as providing the basis for long-term economic growth. The stimulus comes not just from building tracks in California, but also from building trainsets here as well.
California is well positioned to become a global leader in HSR production. Siemens already has a light rail factory near Sacramento that serves the entire Western Hemisphere. They like being in Sacramento and have shown interest in expanding that operation to include HSR trainsets. Alstom has a facility on Mare Island that is working on rolling stock, and could also be converted to building HSR trainsets without much difficulty.
Talgo was looking at building trains in Wisconsin, before Governor Scott Walker foolishly killed that state’s HSR project. But HSR will return to that state, and many others, in the coming years as the teabagger reaction fades. California needs to move quickly to establish itself as a leader in HSR manufacturing – now is the time to fill that niche so that when HSR orders start pouring in later this decade and next, it’s Californians who are building those trains.
This would be amazing if economically feasible. However I feel California will drive up the cost of manufacturing so high they won’t be able to make a profit.
What we really need to do is start an HSR education program, (UC Merced anyone) That can work on developing American Talent, so all these high paying HSR jobs don’t have to go outside the US.
Risenmessiah Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:54 am
I agree with the second part of your comment.
What will get manufacturers to locate here is investment by universities and other producers of human capital.
There is a great discussion to be had about incentives for high speed rail industry in the state…but this bill isn’t one of them. It is trying to subsidize it without spending money, and that doesn’t work. It’s going to cost the state in one way or another. This is bad news for the Authority, and shouldn’t be pursued because the definition of “manufactured” is always tenuous.
Still, it’s a great discussion to have and the bill is a good starting point.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:48 am
You want an education program for HSR jobs? It’s called “vocational education” You don’t need a freaking UC school for that, just a trade school or a community college.
joe Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 11:31 am
Assembling HSR yes, high quality vo-tech training – -something the US needs to emphasize.
But to create a core-capability in CA, HSR manufacturing would need intellectual support.
UC could create a “Center for HSR” drawing on faculty from various dept (Civil, Electrical and Mechanical – along with Environmental Sci and Comp Sci; control and planning/scheduling).
It would an area of application and emphasis with teaching and research examples.
Here’s an example and there are others. The skills and talent are already in CA.
joe Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 11:01 am
CA’s non-competitiveness in manufacturing is a conservative fallacy to drive wages and dismantle environmental protection.
There is going to be a market for HSR in the US and makes sense for CA to leverage it’s early investment in HSR to foster CA based manufacturing.
It’s typical industrial policy and the reverse of what Boeing was asked to do with the 787 – outsource the construction of parts to win contracts from foreign owned airlines.
Krugman’s 1991 paper:
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:01 pm
California has a severely high cost of living, a lack of affordable land near the major urban centers, and a rather high price of electricity. We are not competitive when it comes to attracting manufacturing businesses here.
joe Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
CA is competitive for skilled manufacturing jobs.
Krugman’s paper indicates there are positives factors consider – those are where CA is strong including access to markets, infrastructure and educated workforce and strength in other precision industries like energy, biomedical and aerospace.
HSR will connect the Coast to the CV and I think that will help the manufacturing sector by allowing easy access to the HQ and R&D at the coast to manufacturing in the CV.
By your metrics: Wyoming has lower cost of living, affordable land and low cost electricity. Montana too. What are they missing?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:07 pm
California keeps losing manufacturing jobs while other states gain in them. Now, to me, that indicates that we are non-competitive.
A sufficiently large and dense population base to make it worthwhile to invest there.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
California keeps losing manufacturing jobs while other states gain in them.
That may have been true in 1980. Which states are gaining manufacturing these days?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
You’re misunderstanding Krugman’s point about increasing returns. Under a regime of increasing returns, for example the US around 1900, manufacturing is located in regions of high demand, but is then exported to the rest of the world; workers are mobile and move to the job-rich core, while transportation costs are low enough that it’s feasible to export goods on a large scale. Obviously, mobility is low on an international level, but transportation costs are low as well; under an increasing returns regime, trains would be made where there’s very high demand, i.e. Europe and Japan, and then exported to the US. California is not a high-demand region for rolling stock, which means it would not get plants without heavy protectionism.
TomW Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:01 am
[citation needed]
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:45 am
all the experienced workers living in the low cost parts of the Northeast are just going to rush to high priced California for jobs that pay the same or less…..
Last October Siemens landed a six-year, $466 million contract from Amtrak, which is buying 70 new electric locomotives for its Northeast intercity passenger rail services. (The Amtrak Cities Sprinter.) Siemens says the contract will create 200 jobs at its manufacturing plant in Sacramento.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Sigh. It costs the government about $54,000 plus benefits to pay a pure math postdoc. Instead, it pays $2.3 million a pop for people making special locomotives who probably have about the same gross pay as the postdoc.
Andy M. Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:19 am
US companies and inventors invented almost everything connected to electric trains and transit. Names auch as Sprague are synonymous with innovation in electric traction and there was a time that almost any electric train anywhere in the world was either imported from the USA, built under licence from the USA or was a cheap and low quality rip-off of a semi-misunderstood US design.
Our dear and cherished friends in the oil lobby destroyed all that to the point that said companies were not even able to serve the domestic market and people like Siemens had to come in and bring back to the USA and commence manufacturing in the USA many technologies and concepts that had been invented here in the first place. Today the same oil lobby is spreading poison to thwart and stunt any belated re-birth of rail industry.
Even if the technological gap ca be bridged and the know-how amassed and a manufacturing industry brought into being, can that industry survive in a political environment that is biassed against it and still ready to poison it at every opportunity. Would you be prepared to put your money into such an industry?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 4:17 am
Agreed. How do we level the playing field?
Peter Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:18 am
We’re not going to get a robust US passenger rail manufacturing industry until we get a robust passenger rail system running. To do that, we need a reliable federal funding commitment, and regulatory reform.
We have seen a “new” railcar manufacturer (Rader –> Colorado –> US Railcar) attempt to bring a DMU to the US market. It was hobbled by the fact that it had to comply with the FRA dinosaur regulations, as well as by the fact that the government insufficiently supports rail systems, for either construction or operation. Those are the two largest obstacles.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:42 am
CRC was hobbled by the fact that it was a joke product. Here we are in the 21st century with modern CAD methods, and this was how they did design and manufacturing.
TomW Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:04 am
“This 1:1 scale job was intended mainly to prove one point: that the headroom would be sufficient at the top of the stairs.”
You should be able to tell that from CAD or even printed blueprints… you are sadly right.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:55 am
You can’t move real people through CAD drawings. Responsible engineers will make actual 1:1 models occasionally. It’s much cheaper to rip apart some 2x4s and plywood than it is to rip apart steel that’s been welded together.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:16 pm
There is a difference between a full scale mockup as a sort of design prototype and “We can’t be buggered to figure out if there’s enough headroom on a blueprint.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:51 am
And hobbled by the mismanagement and embezzlement that was going on.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:40 am
The oil industry didn’t do any such nonsense. Dieselization beat out electrification for most of the steam railroads for good reasons (remarkably cheaper than trying to string wires everywhere and get new locomotives), early electrification was often at what were inconvenient voltages in the future, a piss poor business decision by the Milwaukee Road, and as I understand things Amtrak’s actions and fees played a major role in Conrail’s decision to deelectrify.
Honestly, the way the phrase “oil lobby” is thrown around here, you would think we were talking about Masons.
Andy M. Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:07 am
Good, then the problem is already solved.
So what was this thread all about again?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:25 am
they didn’t convert the steam locomotives to diesel they went out and bought new ones just like they would have had to do if they electrified. In general electric locomotives are cheaper because they are more or less a diesel locomotive without the diesel engine, fuel tank and generator. Cheaper to maintain – less parts after all – and easier on the tracks because they are lighter. Stringing the wires is what kills it off. Takes decades to recover the investment.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:36 am
I didn’t say that they converted the steam engines to diesel. My point was that electrification and dieselization both required new locomotives, but electrification also required stringing quite a bit of additional wire, which was too expensive to justify electric over diesels at the time.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:01 pm
You implied that dieselization didn’t involve any new locomotives.
Electric railroads are cheaper to run than diesel railroads. Both are much cheaper to run than steam railroads. Stringing the wire doesn’t make sense when you are projecting the next quarter’s budget. It does if you are projecting the budget for the next few decades. Private companies don’t budget that far in the future.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Perhaps I should have italicized the word and prior to new locomotives, but I certainly didn’t mean to imply it and I would have thought that the general knowledge of those commenting here would have made my meaning obvious.
Electric railroads are not, ipso faco, cheaper to run than diesel railroads. It is dependent upon the cost of both electricity and diesel. Furthermore, if it is so many years down the road that electricity recovers its capital costs, as a private business, you are almost certainly better off using the money saved and putting it to work in the meanwhile (you are, I hope, familiar with the term opportunity cost?). A gallon of diesel provides about 15 kilowatt-hours of locomotion (after accounting for efficiency, 40KWh(t) total). If diesel is $1.10 per gallon (1994 cost for an example), electricity must be less than 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour in order to be cheaper (unless I’ve horridly bungled the math; actual CA industrial electricity costs were 8 cents per kilowatt-hour). Furthermore, diesel can have some operational advantages over electric, such as in dealing with adverse weather. Storms repeatedly shut down entire lines of electric trains due to problems with overhead catenary, but it takes a great deal more effort to do so with an entire line of diesel locomotives.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
They’ve been running electric railroads for over a century. The accountants have crawled all over it. They are cheaper to run than equivalent dieselized lines.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:12 pm
One would imagine that the railroads would never have voluntarily deelectrified then, except that so many of them did. Keep in mind that you are also ignoring the opportunity cost. You’ll have to show that the benefits of electrification were better than simply going diesel and investing the money saved.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 pm
The only one in that did on a big scale was the Milwaukee Road and they were cooking the books.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:30 pm
If you are going to say opportunity cost needs to be included, then I say with diessels, the cost of externalities should be factored into a decision.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Conrail and Norfolk & Western also, and Milwaukee wasn’t cooking the books, they had a mistaken entry. Most of the other electric railroads were small, so of course they wouldn’t be on a big scale.
As long as you’re willing to toss in the externalities for the electrical generation, generally coal.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Competing against heavily subsidized road freight running almost entirely on untaxed right of way, operating unsubsidized freight on taxed right of way, its obvious why American freight railroads focused on the part of the freight market where they still had a competitive advantage despite the biased competitive playing field. That focus meant getting cost per ton down, even at the expense of freight transit and reliable time of delivery.
Provide the electric supply with publicly owned ~ and therefore free of property tax ~ infrastructure charging a user fee, and just subsidize the interest expense, and freight railroads would certainly make use of it, paying off the original capital cost.
Include infrastructure supporting high reliability, rapid freight and they would be in a position to recapture a major share of the far more valuable time sensitive and delivery reliability sensitive long distance freight markets that the subsidies to the road system handed to grossly energy inefficient long haul trucking.
Jerry Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
So can anyone say, “hybrid”?
Electric wires only where necessary. Torque, Tunnels, Terrain.
Let the bean counters work on that one.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:48 am
The world’s leading locomotive manufacturers and car manufacturers are in the US. They make freight equipment.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Yep, and for passenger equipment, they’re substandard products: high axle loads, high center of gravity, 50% more weight than a European locomotive, fuel consumption optimized for hauling very long freight trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
The weight isn’t that bad when you compare it lbs/hp or kg/kW. Which is why Evolutions sell like hotcakes. Which sent me off to Wikipedia and PL42ACs:
The PL42AC is a Prima class diesel-electric 4-axle locomotive built by Alstom, EMD and Vossloh España for New Jersey Transit. The locomotive is based on the GE Genesis series. …..It has an Intelligent Display Unit (IDU) based on Bombardier Transportation technology…
But it’s made in ‘Murica isn’t it?
Compare if you want to, it’s all neatly arranged in one article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Prima_diesel_locomotives
There aren’t any “American” companies making passenger cars anymore. I think Budd was the last one.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Sure, let’s compare. The regular Prima weighs 90 metric tons. The Genesis and the American version of the Prima weigh 130 metric tons, which means they demolish the tracks they run on, are less fuel efficient, and can’t even run at the same speed on equal-quality track.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 4:55 pm
The American version produces 3132 kW and the European version produces 2237 kW. without breaking out the calculator 2237/3132ths is close to 90/130ths.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Right… which is why I’m complaining about high axle load and low fuel efficiency rather than low acceleration.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Diesel engines that can turn 3000 kW generators are going to be heavier than diesel engines tha can turn 2000kW generators. 3000 kW generators are going heavier than 2000kW generators. 9500 liter fuel tanks are going to be heavier than 6000 liter fuel tanks. 9500 liters of fuel is going to weigh more than 6000 liters of fuel. Isn’t it shocking that a locomotive that is produces roughly50% more power weighs 50% more….
Peter Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Wouldn’t the American freight locomotives also be pulling longer/heavier trains, too, necessitating higher power?
Alon Levy Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:32 am
@Peter: of course. My point is that GE and EMD’s products are great freight locos but mediocre passenger locos. Passenger trains in the US are not longer than in Europe, and on the corridor lines they’re frequently shorter.
Peter Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 5:41 am
Right. I wonder what would needed to be done for GE or EMD to produce a better passenger loco.
Andy M. Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 7:11 am
If they built more of them and more often they would accumulate experience pretty soon. Amtrak orders are so few and far between that any learnings tend to be lost and forgotten (or the people have left or moved on) by the time the next big order comes in.
Max Wyss Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:58 am
To Peter: the tracive force is rather proportional to the weight of the engine. At low speeds, the power output of the prime mover does not matter that much, so, the USAn 130 ton, 4-axle locomotive has the same tractive force as the European 130 ton 6-axle locomotive (in fact, Vossloh España sells such a vehicle, and it appears to be quite successful in Spain, used by several operators).
Things start to differ where the power rating becomes important, and that’s the speed up to which the full tractive force can be applied. The lower the power rating, the lower that speed will be. The characteristic graph for a locomotive is the v/t diagram; up to that point, the tractive force is constant. At higher speeds beyond that point, the graph becomes hyperbolic, “ending” at the maximum speed the unit is designed for.
With a diesel engine, the power is simply limited (you can not squeeze more out of the diesel motor than it is designed for). Electric locomotives can be overloaded for short time; the limiting factor is the temperature in the armatures.
To another comment: what would be needed for EMD or GE to build better passenger locos? Well, not inventing the wheel, but acquiring the truck designs from Bombardier or Siemens. Traxx are available for speeds up to 200 km/h; Eurosprinters (aka Taurus) up to 230 km/h (also note that a Taurus holds the world speed record for locomotives at around 380 km/h).
The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is holding a hearing right now about the proposal to privatize Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service.
Legislative Hearing on the committee print, “Competition for Intercity Passenger Rail in America”
2167 Rayburn House Office Building
June 22, 2011
http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1314
Briefing Memo
This hearing of the Full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is scheduled to begin at 11:00 a.m. and will be webcast live.
Witness Testimonies
Panel 1
The Honorable Joseph Boardman
Richard Geddes
Anne Stubbs
William Millar
Thomas Hart
Edward Wytkind
Nice as the idea may be, but even if CA becomes the sole location of HSR trainset manufacturers for North America (doubtful given the costs of living and the high price of electricity), I can’t see it providing all that many in the way of jobs.
OT: An article in the New York Times that reports on how the HSR is making China more competitive than the U.S. and Europe.
J. Wong Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 11:19 am
How can you believe that it is in the best interest of the U.S. and California to cancel the HSR project? Canceling it will put us (the U.S.) so far behind that we’ll never catch up.
Andy M. Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 11:55 am
How can HSR be making China more competitive than Europe?
The Chinese may have the world’s biggest HSR system in terms of absolute route length, but when you look at that relative to the size and population of China, and in terms of network density they’re still way way behind. So far they’re only connecting the really major megacities. How many smaller cities the size of Marseille or Lyon or Stuttgart are there in China whose names we have never heard and which aren’t getting HSR?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Note that one of the major advantages of HSR in China is that it removes passenger trains from the regular network, freeing up space for increased freight traffic. That’s not an advantage that HSR can produce here in the United States.
MGimbel Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Actually, the LA-Anaheim section (being a possible shared-track configuration) could help free up space for additional freight traffic between Hobart Yard and Fullerton Junction.
Andy M. Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:53 am
umm, why exactly?
One of the main reasons we keep on hearing that new passenger corridors cannot be created, or that trains like the Sunset Limited cannot run daily, or that all sorts of other rail improvements cannot happen is that the freight railroads claim they don’t have the capacity, or if they have it they won’t share it.
So if we are to see a reniassance of passenger trains to lessen the hurt of rising fuel prices, it’s going to have to be largely based on new lines. Okay, China wants to lessen conventional passenger trains, the USA will want to less air and road traffic, but in both cases it’s about the conventional railroads being needed for freight and HSR therefore being the alternative.
Useless Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:37 pm
So you missed China’s latest high speed rail scandal.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/06/22/business-as-china-high-speed-railway_8528705.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/lies-chinese-trains-arent-as-fast-as-you-think-2011-6
The retired chief engineer of China’s railway ministry confessed that China’s high speed rail is all fake in a long interview.
1. Beijing-Shanghai HSR corridor should have been rated a 300 km/hr corridor, not a 350 km/hr corridor.
2. Chinese trains aren’t designed to run at 350 km/hr. Foreigners(Kawasaki and Siemens) who sold China the bullet trains spelled 300 km/hr as the speed limit on the contract, but the Chinese operators ignored the speed limit and drove them to 350 km/hr anyway.
3. Many problems with existing corridors. Namely Beijing-Tianjin corridor tracks are sinking.
4. China’s train manufacturing ability improved much, but not the R&D skills which still don’t exist.
5. China’s “indigenous” bullet train models still heavily depend on imported core parts.
6. There are many accidents and troubles that were covered up and never reported to public.
7. China’s Railway Ministry faked claims about the performance of tracks and train sets by the order of previous corrupt Railway Minister(The dude who took $125 million bribes), who had to have something to brag about during his tenure.
There were separate reports about safety problems of Beijing-Shanghai corridor ruled unsafe a month ago, but I didn’t bother to post it here.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
See ~ even badly built HSR makes China more competitive. Imagine how well the US could do if it could work out how to build even mediocre quality HSR corridors.
As popular it sounds, one must be aware that building a new production plant for a small number of units is pretty costly, and it will have to be paid for. This means that a train will cost more per unit than if it were built at an existing plant, and delivery times would be longer as well. Also, any new production plant has a “learning curve” which affects quality.
So, this “buy local” initiative may backfire. In almost any case, it will make California pay more per unit, and I have doubts that the additional tax income will outweight it.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:37 pm
California is planning on buying an absurdly large number of units, I believe the number CAHSRA was forecasting was nearly 400, which would make it worthwhile to build it here, especially if it was also used for other North American sales. Depending on how value engineering affects the business plan, of course, that number may (hopefully) change.
MGimbel Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I’d think it wiould be up to the future operator to decide how many trainsets will be necessary, not the Authority.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Other North American sales can be imported, or done at existing plants in Upstate New York, Yonkers, Vermont, and Nebraska. 400 is not a large number of units for a 20-year project; New York City Transit has 6,400 cars each lasting about 40 years.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
They can slip it in between the R182s and the M12s
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:17 pm
1. LA05:00 — SF08:30 — LA12:00 — SF15:30 — LA19:00 — SF22:30
2. LA06:00 — SF09:30 — LA13:00 — SF16:30 — LA20:00 — SF23:30
3. LA07:00 — SF10:30 — LA14:00 — SF17:30 — LA21:00 — SF24:30
4. LA08:00 — SF11:30 — LA15:00 — SF18:30 — LA22:00
5. SF05:30 — LA09:00 — SF12:30 — LA16:00 — SF19:30 — LA23:00
6. SF06:30 — LA10:00 — SF13:30 — LA17:00 — SF20:30 — LA24:00
7. SF07:30 — LA11:00 — SF14:30 — LA18:00 — SF21:30 — LA25:00
Double that number if you prefer inhabit in the real world.
Then come back a decade later if/when you need more. Still off by a factor of 10!
Q: In which consultant’s interest could it possibly be in to grossly overstate ridership and revenue and capital “needs”? (A: All of them.)
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:41 pm
In CAHSRA’s defense, my memory mixed up the number of daily trains with the number of train sets required. Page 21 says 107 train sets for 339 trains per day with a total purchase of 212 200m equivalent train sets. That doesn’t actually make things any better of course. Even with the supposition of 2035, I can’t possibly see how that many trains could ever be justified.
Peter Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:45 pm
They probably justify that many trains with the ridiculous turn-around-times. The longer the trains sit there and idle, the more trains are needed to maintain the schedule.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:56 pm
The six trains per hour between LA-SF during off-peak travel probably also massively increases the number of trains required.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Also the 40 minute dwell times do not help the case much. They could easily order less. If there were anywhere to locate a high-speed train factory, it would be outside of California in the Northeast, probably upstate New York. The Northeastern states are needing new rolling stock and the makers have a huge backlog between the commuter agencies and Amtrak. However, if it is cheaper to expand the Siemens facility in CA then ship it over the freight lines, then it might not be an issue.
BruceMcF Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
If and when the FRA issues regulations that permit shorter turn around times, a report based on optimistic assumptions regarding those regulations would be subject to justified attack.
But they also justify those trains since they have a complex station skipper schedule that fell out of a ridership optimizing modeling exercise.
A notional schedule that requires more trains would seem to err on the conservative side, as far as EIR/EIS requirements go, but if planning for the construction of the fleet, the conservative side would be a simpler hierarchical schedule of all-stoppers, expresses and limited expresses which would likely entail fewer total services, and to have a planning horizon closer than the EIR/EIS mandated horizon.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:50 pm
If and when the FRA issues regulations that permit shorter turn around times
I have a feeling that the FRA doesn’t specify time intervals, just a series of tests that need to be done. The Keystone trains pull into 30th Street and then push out, they do it in ten minutes on at least one train.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:10 am
I’ve seen commuter trains turn in 5 minutes at outer ends of lines, at New Haven and if I remember right also Worcester. (The same operators take far longer to turn trains at the city ends, and then cry for capacity improvements.) If that can be done on intercity trains then it’s not a huge deal; best practice is 3 minutes. On the other hand, 10 is pretty bad.
On the other hand, CAHSR’s long proposed turnaround times have little to do with FRA requirements. The FRA doesn’t mandate cleaning schedules and egress/access times, which are the limiting factors to turnaround times in Japan.
Max Wyss Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 2:08 am
FWIW, the Deutsche Bahn reverses ICEs in Frankfurt Hbf routinely within 4 to 5 minutes. The operation rules do however allow for simplified tests, because a) the ICEs are self-contained units, and b) the “main” tests have been done not a long time earlier. This essentially means that a “full” brake test is not necessary. It also means that the engineer for the departing leg has to wait at the right place, to take over the train.
End stop turn around (which includes some cleaning of the train, rewatering, and stocking up supplies for the bar/restaurant car) done in something like 20 minutes is well acceptable.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 6:55 am
Dear Max, do you know any more about about this? (SBB needing sub-3 minute ETCS turnbacks at ZH HB) “… die Japaner diese Eingaben mit einem Chip in 1,5 Minuten bewältigen. Die Aufträge zur «Nachrüstung» der SBB seien erteilt.”
It’s all done with Magic Chips!
Peter Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 7:09 am
Does anyone know whether DB does light cleaning on its long-distance ICEs while they’re in transit? Would that be a good way to cut turnaround times at TBT?
Andy M. Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 7:09 am
Richard, yes, one big time waster is that before a train can leave, various infos must be entered into the train computer so that the train know what route it is on and the correct info shows up on the displays, but also so the signalling systems correctly identify the train etc. This can take several minutes and so the proposal is to pre-programm this onto a key of some sort.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:28 am
Peter, pretty much everybody does in-service light cleaning on trains that have extended runs and turnover many passengers at larger stations. It’s common on DB Fernverkehr.
The problem with Transbay isn’t just bad train operations. It’s that the worst possible train operations (minimal flexibility, minimal speed, minimal capacity, maximum cost) are being set into concrete at at cost to the public of Four Billion US Dollars. Thank you, Parsons Transportation Group! That $47 million and counting you’ve scammed for “design” (so far!) will really pay off big time — the final cost to the public of your “professional” “services” and “expertise” in rail engineering will be several hundred times as much. World Class! How do they even manage to find these sorts of people?
Peter Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 8:48 am
That’s what I thought. I haven’t been on an ICE in many years, though I’ve been on a number of DB Fernverkehr trains in the meantime.
And yes, I agree with you that TBT’s design sucks.
Max Wyss Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:12 pm
To Richard: Thanks for pointing out to that article. Note that it has been written in 2008. What is stated there is that with ETCS, entering the important data for the train can not be done reasonably within less than 4 minutes; with the current signalling system, it can be done in 3. I don’t know whether the “stick” information has been introduced in the meantime; I haven’t read about it, but that does not mean anything.
On the other hand, the bi-level issue to be able to run a bit faster around curves seems to have come closer to reality. About a year ago, the SBB ordered bi-level trains from Bombardier, and part of that order is the development of a system which keeps the carbody perpendicular to the track, no matter of the speed.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Richard, 400 makes perfect sense as the total number of cars.
Max Wyss Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Based on that pattern, and assuming that a train may be run by one or two units, (two for “peak”, one for “off-peak”, we need about 12 units. For an integral 30 minute interval, we need another 12 or so units, etc.
Just as a comparision, In 2007, SNCF ordered 55 units to be deployed for the Rhin-Rhône HSL services (which does, however, not only include this single line, but a whole rather widespread network, connecting cities like Frankfurt and Barcelona (or even Madrid). The first units are now delivered, and will start regular operation this December.
This also gives a bit of an overview of the time scales we talk…
VBobier Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Sounds like You’d rather have only one or two HSR trains run per day. I’d leave It up to whomever operates HSR trains instead, Not to so called armchair engineers.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Right, because obviously opposition to an absurdly high number of trains means I want an absurdly low number of them. Gosh, you saw right through me.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Putting your very expensive railroad equipment on a RORO ship for a month isn’t cheap either.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Cheaper than the alternatives.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Which is why New York City subway cars are assembled in exotic far off Yonkers
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
NYC purchases and operates what is properly referred to as “a metric fuckton” of subway cars. CAHSRA will not be operating that many train sets.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
PATH imports theirs from exotic far off Yonkers too. The PA5 fleet is about the size of what California will be initially ordering. Which got wedged in between NYC subway cars and NYC commuter cars. They can wedge the order for the California cars in between the order for MARC cars and WMATA cars. Or CTA cars and Metra cars.
The parts for the cars come into the assembly plant from all over the world. The slight labor premium for assembling them in North America, if one exists, has to be more than the cost of shipping a fully assembled car across an ocean. Shipping things across oceans takes a long time which eats up interest costs.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:22 pm
First, what Paulus said: once there’s a reason to have a huge plant in Yonkers, it makes sense to use it for smaller orders.
And second, Kawasaki outsourced much of the manufacturing to Brazil. And in the 1980s it did all of the manufacturing in Japan and shipped the R62s from Kobe.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:51 pm
And Bombardier built the R62As in Barre Vermont.
Siemens has accountants with very sharp pencils. They can do things like see how much it’s going to cost them to ship parts from all over the world to Germany and then ship completed cars across an ocean and a continent versus shipping the parts to Hornell, Yonkers, Barre or many other places that already build and rebuild cars and then shipping the cars across a continent versus building a plant in California that can turn out cars for California’s HSR and then turn out cars for Metrolink an then turn out cars for GO Transit and cars for Metro de la Ciudad de México and sneak in something for the MBTA and SLE. It’s not as simple as “just ship them in from Germany”
High speed trains Designed and Manufactured In California? What could possibly go wrong? It’s a no-brainer!
Some things to think about for, oh, how about a microsecond or two:
1. You’ve issued $20+ billion worth of bonds to pay civil and systems engineers to build your spanky new High Speed Rail Choo Choo Set. Unfortunately, you’ve also contracted with a Buy American shell corporation “manufacturer” to construct your “American” “high speed” trains, to a PBQD specification, all measured in in-Gaaaaahrrrd-we-trust Amuuuuurrrrican inches and pounds.
What exactly happens in the three years (minimum) of delay between the time when the tracks are ready and when the all Amurrrrican “high speed” trains are first able to complete a reduced-speed trip without breakdown?
What is the annual interest on $20 billion?
2. Start up high speed service will be at most one train an hour, and will likely remain at that level for at least a couple years. With 7 hour round trips and an extremely generous 19 hour span of service you’re looking at theoretical minimum fleet size of seven whole trains … say a grand total of 10 to 12, maximum, with reserves and scope for peak reinforcement. (See: any other HS startup on the planet.)
What possible economic justification can there be to “design” and “manufacture” such a microscopic order in a globally unique fashion? An “assembly line” of this magnitude amounts to piece work. Once again, welcome to the 19th century — the natural state of Ammmmmuuurrrican passenger railroading.
3. The civil and systems works will, as is only rational, be completed in phases, with sections of the line completed well before access is available — even at reduced speed — to the system’s major passenger draw stations in Los Angeles and San Francisco. As phases are completed, there are several alternatives:
(3a) Leave the tracks and systems rusting away. (What’s the annual interest on tens of billions of earth dollars again?)
(3b) Squander hundreds of millions of dollars buying exotic, faster-than-anything-in-service-anywhere-in-the-world, magic Ammmuurrrrrrrican high speed trains that are put into service serving either LA- or – commuter traffic, or which are put into service serving the incredibly demanding and time-sensitive and heavily patronised Bakersfield-Fresno “market”.
By the time the track that might serve as justification for having purchased these exotic wonder-trains is available for service, they will have been depreciating for years (what’s the annual interest on hundreds of millions a year again?), they will be technically obsolete, and they will be a quarter to perhaps even half way through their life-cycle … all without having turned a wheel in the fastest-in-the-universe service for which they were designed.
(3c) Run Amtrak trains. Oh dear God. In any case, equivalent to case (3a) “Leave the tracks and systems rusting away”.
(3d) Buy a small (see point 2) fleet of service-appropriate “inter-regional” (aka “longer distance commuter”) type trains, at a massive discount from the cost of exotic 350+kmh wonder-trains. This is a pretty standard product category with plenty of options and competitive pricing … if you choose to buy an “open market”. (For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, the provision of these “open markets” is a fine rationale for destabilizing/invading/staging assassinations … elsewhere.)
Total fleet requirements will again be in the low double digit numbers of short trains. See points 1 AND 2 for the likelihood of an rent-seeking US shell corporation “designing” or “manufacturing” such equipment and delivering it for revenue service without a delay measured in many years.
So, under any of these scenarios, what has “Buy American” gained?
Well, double (likely more than double) the cost of the small rolling stock fleet, for starters. That’s cost paid by Californian and US taxpayers — in effect, a direct welfare payment to rent-seeking corporate insiders who can game the political system to exclude competition.
Next, ruin of the spanky high-tech “no it’s NOT Amtrak Goddamnit how many times do we have to run ads saying so?” image of California High Speed Rail. There’s the direct revenue loss (try all-American “high speed” service once, experience made-in-America breakdowns and delays, fly for the next 10 years, no question.) But worse is the political effect on a construction project which is guaranteed to have return repeatedly to beg for more public cash handouts, not just to cover “unexpected” (nudge nudge wink wink) delays and cost overruns, but just to complete the system promised. You may be able to pull the wool over their eyes once with Prop 1A, but nobody is going to vote again for something that has been proven to be a boondoggle, and whose failure they can see with their own eyes. In short, start-up success — with limited scale of service goals, but impeccable quality of service requirements — is the only option.
And of course, the 800lb (that would be 362.873896kg) gorilla is the SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS OF ADDITIONAL DEBT SERVICE that are incurred because private capital project contractors utterly divorced from operations and with zero financial skin in the game are so very very very good at spending public cash very rapidly up-front while failing to come within a hundred miles (160.9344 km) of budget or delivery schedule.
High speed trains Designed and Manufactured In California? What could possibly go wrong? It’s a no-brainer!
joe Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
US based Boeing move the manufacturing of parts of their new 787 aircraft abroad to gain sales by foreign airlines and governments.
Only a flaming selfish asshole would be so sarcastic about a reciprocal economic policy to maintain US jobs and building a native capability for HSR.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Buy American does neither. I’m eventually going to get around to writing a full post about it, but you build native capability by acquiring patents, encouraging domestic engineering, clean-room copying existing designs, and subsidizing research and development. The Koreans didn’t get their own trains by inviting Alstom to open plants in Korea; they did it by doing tech transfer and then developing their own equipment from the ground up over a period of 13 years.
joe Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Buy American is a slogan – I don’t support that naive description.
This is reasonable:
This is an incentive to have the manufacturing located in the CA.
The 787 as an example, Boeing isn’t asking it’s foreign subcontractors to acquire IP – the deal is to spread the manufacturing capability not boot strap from 0.0. The sub-contractor works with Boeing.
The downside for the US with the Boeing deal is that, foreign manufacturers are being taught/gaining experience with critical aircraft components and integration that they currently lack. That’s why they pushed Boeing into the deal – to improve their domestic base where they are weak.
Since we have sophisticated engineering processes and design skills in the US, and in CA, the manufacturing requirement could foster a domestic capability – domestic as in critical mass of jobs and skill co-located in CA that leverage the existing strengths of the State.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:02 pm
The description is exactly Buy Californian.
Boeing is not trying to spread manufacturing capability. It’s trying to maximize its profits, and this involves locating some manufacturing in certain countries with state-owned airlines in order to be able to bribe those governments into buying Boeing and not Airbus. It’s pure makework, rather than development. The difference is that Boeing is doing it much more intensively than is proposed for California, which will use rolling stock that’s already been designed and tested abroad.
joe Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Boeing moved manufacturing to countries that it wanted to sell the aircraft. It’s increasing the capability of these foreign counties and that concern is widely documented. It’s not just make work- Building a hybrid metal composite aircraft is not make work. The project management and manufacturing processes are atypical and part of the unique capability Boeing is sharing.
As for profits, it is more expensive and less profitable to build the 787 in different localities and with subcontractors but it is a requirement to close the sale.
Boeing is the harder example, HSR the easier.
I don’t consider HSR hard and not as complex as aerospace or biotech but the work can be done here and build a domestic capability with parts suppliers – jobs and skills in CA. The proximity to the SV and other high tech industries and universities can build a critical mass beyond assembling HSR vehicles. If not, we still have the manufactruing.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:13 am
It’s not a requirement for Boeing – it was done before any sales were made, in order to influence the decision about whether to buy the 787 or its Airbus competitor.
“We still have the manufacturing” means nothing. We’re talking about a few hundred jobs producing equipment whose total cost is in the hundreds of millions; most of the money is in design and engineering, and this California won’t get, and is in no position to demand. Again, look at how the Koreans got their own HSR manufacturing base.
Eric M Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
So what, do nothing as the typical American mentality has come to and wait for a fairy with pixie dust to bring us HSR in California?
Something tells me you were deeply involved with transit, but had a bad falling out. Now you are just bitter at anything transit, good or bad. This can been seen not just on this blog, but other websites on the net involving transit. Constructive criticism is okay, down right negativity and bad attitude doesn’t get you very far.
It used to be the other way around where we were the ones that taught the Germans, French, Japanese, and Koreans how to make everything, but now we have to ask them for advice. Sad that we have to ask other countries on their expertise on how to build fast trains but it’s better than nothing.
Hopefully CA will see this as an opportunity to start becoming a business friendly-state again to attract said foreign companies to build factories here. We need to jump start manufacturing not only in America, but in CA as well. No more of this “let’s make everyone work at Wal-Mart and Starbucks” service-job mentality that plagues America today.
And in other news, Alstom is already developing the AGV II to travel at 250 mph.
Peter Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Shouldn’t they be out developing an AGV Duplex model? As in, a train that SNCF, their primary customer, might be interested in?
Miles Bader Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:22 pm
I imagine Alstom is also thinking about other markets too though — nobody wants to remain beholden to a single customer — and duplex trains seem much less popular elsewhere (really, they seem mostly a hack to handle various constraints imposed on the TGV for historical reasons).
Andre Peretti Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 7:55 pm
According to French industrial weekly “Usine nouvelle” that’s what they are now working at. The AGV-2 will have a duplex variant specially built for the SNCF. There will be a locomotive, but shorter and lighter than on TGVs to improve weight/passenger ratio. The SNCF doesn’t want distributed traction because it is too costly to maintain and makes no sense for trains which never change speed.
What does “made” really mean? Assembled? How many components of a train-set have to be added in a California factory to fulfill the terms of this legislation? Windows? Luggage racks? USB ports on tables? Paint? Nothing complex is made in a single place any more. How much of the car you drive was “made” in the USA? This is about as toothless piece of legislation as I’ve ever seen.
We have yet to see that perennial requirement that the contractor has to use “minority sub-contractors” to fulfill the law! I think it’s about time we made a stand – only wines “made in California” can be served on these darn trains! That way we can get those pesky farmers to give up the land!
Miles Bader Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Well of course he means “enough to get some political capital out of this thing” (e.g., ship assembled trains from overseas, have american workers attach seat-back doilies and “Made in USA” label).
Just like all the other “american-content laws”…
BruceMcF Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 7:30 pm
It means
How substantial is substantial? No idea.
Alon Levy Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:16 am
Neither do most people involved in this; trade agreements and protectionist rules are both very byzantine. Jagdish Bhagwati has a dreary example of how it was unclear whether Honda’s Canadian-made cars obeyed “50% locally sourced” rules, depending on how it was computed.
joe Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Cars stickers label content sourcing including engine and transmission.
I imagine a bid to ship assembled train cars to CA and add a USA label would fail against a bid by Siemens to build cars in an expanded factory in Sacramento.
trentbridge Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:13 pm
If the mostly-assembled train cars came from Illinois or Wisconsin, they’d have made in the USA labels. And what if Siemens imported wheels and brakes from China but assembled the finished product in Sacramento? Which is better? Can you take Federal dollars and discriminate against other states? I wouldn’t think so.
Andy M. Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:34 am
yep, so called IKEA flatpack trains that can be assembled with an absolute minumum of skills by a small number of poorly paid workers. It fools the dumber parts of government into thinking there is local manufacturing but its net effect is virtually zero.
Joey Reply:
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:26 am
Sometimes negative, as extra costs are frequently incurred. In one case, traincars were built overseas, disassembled, shipped here, and then reassembled just to fit sourcing requirements.
A Buy California policy is so bad that Alan Lowenthal ought to have written the bill. It would unnecessarily sandbag high-speed rail with high costs and wasted economic capacity.
California should not adopt a Buy California policy, because most of the money spent on creating a Buy California job doesn’t actually go into take-home pay. It goes into the capital of setting up a factory and overhead, plus the profits to the manufacturer that can be redeployed anywhere.
The intent of the bill is to “chase smokestacks” — or factories that will either produce the trains themselves or their major components. California’s costs are too high for those factories to be established here, and if they are built here the companies will likely choose the Bay Area, Sacramento or SoCal, all of which have robust logistics networks. The Central Valley would be at a market disadvantage because all goods will have to pass either north or south.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 26th, 2011 at 1:20 am
after shipping the raw materials half way around the world, manufacturing the parts and then shipping them half way around the world trucking them from the port a few hundred miles to a factory in the Central Valley is going to be insurmountable? The Central Valley has an extensive network of logistics. It’s how California carrots, lettuce, almonds…. end up on tables in Boston, New York, Montreal, Chicago, Denver…..