Amtrak California and the Initial Operating Segment
Note from Robert Cruickshank: The following is a guest post from Tom McNamara, a regular commenter on the blog, about the initial operating segment requirement in state and federal law regarding HSR funding. Future installments of this series will appear in the next few days and weeks.
THE EVOLUTION OF INTIAL OPERATING SEGMENT PART I: THE ROLE OF AMTRAK CALIFORNIA
By Tom McNamara
In this four part series, we will discuss perhaps the most sensitive decision that the California High Speed Rail Authority will make: selection and implementation of its Initial Operating Segment. The choice is beholden not only to state and federal laws, but also private participants looking to invest within the system. In the first installment, we will discuss one strategy the Authority could use. Then, we will look at three major players who could give the project a huge boost.
California High Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark confirmed at the agency’s July 2011 Board Meeting that the upcoming business plan for the project will include discussion of an “initial operating segment”. The presentation stressed that this is not the same as the “initial construction segment” which already has been selected by the Board.
Perhaps more tellingly, each proposal by the Authority included within the “initial operating segment” track that does not have funding currently. One approach would connect San Jose to Bakersfield, the other Merced to Los Angeles or Palmdale. Both have pros and cons, but both require additional funding at a time when none may be available until after the 2012 election cycle.
Although that sounds innocuous, it’s not. The fact remains that without a completed right of way between “the Bay and the Basin”, private investors may very well decide to stay away. State and federal officials would be faced with a difficult choice of delaying completion of the initial construction segment to avoid liabilities associated with an unused, and unprotected track or going forward and hoping that other funding materializes.
There is, however, another way.
Currently the California Department of Transportation’s (CALTRANS) Division of Rail pays for three intercity passenger train routes. One, the San Joaquins, has six daily departures from Bakersfield north. Four terminate in Oakland, two in Sacramento. It is the sixth most travelled line in Amtrak’s entire system, although ridership data for individual stations has not been published.
Thus, it is very possible that two of the daily trains that would terminate in Oakland could be re-routed to… San Jose. In the meantime, the Governor and Department could then switch the San Joaquins to use the new, high speed rail line upon its completion. As of now, every San Joaquin train travels between Bakersfield and Stockton and much of using the same ROW that will become high speed track. This proposal would continue that practice, and send the two San Jose bound trains south from Stockton using the Altamont Pass.
The service would be faster than the current San Joaquin service for several reasons: with FRA approval, existing Amtrak California trains can reach 110 mph on the portion of track used exclusively for high speed rail. There will be also fewer stops involved. The distance will be shorter, too. In addition, because Amtrak California is already funded from the Public Transportation Account and would not be adding service, the start up costs associated would be very small.
It is obvious that such a strategy would face plenty of resistance, both among the project’s supporters and opponents. Yet it is important to note the magnitude of problems this approach would solve.
First, the State would be creating a separate rail service that goes between San Jose and Bakersfield. Currently no such service exists. That fuels in no small part the uncertainty that planners, investors, and officials have to face when making estimates for HSR. Establishing regular passenger rail service between San Jose and Bakersfield wouldn’t be a complete remedy, but would demonstrate a baseline of ridership which could then be used in future calculations.
Next, San Jose to Bakersfield would help increase connectivity between the Central Valley and Bay Area airports. Current passengers on the San Joaquins can only transfer to BART in Richmond. From there, it takes over one hour to reach SFO, after transferring at MacArthur Station. Oakland Airport is a little better, at 35 minutes. San Jose isn’t even an option. Under the proposal, (which assumes a San Joaquin stop in Livermore and a complete BART station) Oakland Airport would become a 25 minute connection, SFO would range from between 45 minutes to an hour via Cal Train, and San Jose Airport would be about 35 minutes. This would increase revenue potentially for Amtrak California and the cities that operate the airports.
Another benefit to this approach is it delays the need for the initial construction segment to include electrification. This is because California Streets and Highways Code 2704.08 stipulates that the Authority must submit before using bond proceeds:
A report or reports, prepared by one or more financial services firms, financial consulting firms, or other consultants, independent of any parties, other than the authority, involved in funding or constructing the high-speed train system, indicating that (A) construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), (B) IF SO COMPLETED, the corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready for high-speed train operation, (C) upon completion, one or more passenger service providers can begin using the tracks or stations for passenger train service, (D) the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy, and (E) an assessment of risk and the risk mitigation strategies proposed to be employed.
Thus, Amtrak California can use the high speed rail segments until they are completed by electrification. The law though, does not prohibit explicitly passenger rail service on the track before its “completion”. That allows the Authority to delay electrification until the last possible moment while charging Amtrak California a small fee to use the “incomplete” tracks.
Lastly, sending fewer San Joaquin trains to Oakland actually helps relieve traffic congestion within the Central Valley. This is because it frees up more rail capacity bound for the Port at Oakland, and allows Union Pacific to carry more goods via railroad and less by the highway. It also helps the UP’s bottom line and increases the chance that they will more strongly advocate for high speed rail going forward.
Yet what this approach can’t promise is revenue commensurate enough to fund the Authority’s capital needs to complete the remaining segments needed to complete the “Bay to Basin” route. To accomplish that, the Authority will have to look at other partnerships. Next up, we will explore three such possibilities.
I’m always on the lookout for more guest posts. Anyone is welcome to write, provided the post follows the editorial position of the site – in support of not just HSR but the specific HSR project being developed by the California High Speed Rail Authority. Constructive criticism of that project is OK, depending on the details. If interested, email me at my last name at gmail.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:11 pm
I think maps and images add more perspective too. Wouldn’t mind more of them.
Andy M. Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 2:35 am
I second that. Especially the argument about fewer stops being a good thing is hard to follow without a map showing what stops would be losing service and what the possible consequences of that might be. It would be a very bad start for an HSR project if at first things actually got worse or service was lost for a significant number of riders.
I’m on sankpaquin 712 right now. I would like tp go 110 instead of 79
makes zense to use the infrastructure while we waot for completion. is there a mobile version of this blog
@ Tom McNamara -
First off, thank you for your guest post introducing the idea of expanding Amtrak’s San Joaquin service with a new Bakersfield-San Jose route. This would provide at least a minimal level of service for the period between now and when the HSR service opens.
However, as usual, there are major caveats here:
a) while UPRR has indicated that it could support speeds up to 110mph for passenger trains, the devil is in the details. In particular, will such trains enjoy dispatch priority over the company’s own freight trains in real-world operations? Will California taxpayers have to fund higher trackage fees for the privilege, such that trains can reliably run on time along the entire route?
b) Between Stockton and San Jose, ACE already operates a number of daily commuter trains. A new Amtrak route would cannibalize its meager ridership unless the new service were scheduled to run in the middle of the day. Is UPRR able and willing to grant additional trackage rights for reasonably fast passenger trains through the Altamont Pass at those times, considering that its own freight trains have to slow right down to negotiate the gradients?
Moreover, is there scope for passenger rail service expansion between Niles and San Jose Diridon, given that the line through the South Bay marshes already supports Amtrak Capital Corridor and cannot be dual tracked (wildlife refuge)? The alternate single track via Milpitas is technically still active but that the short section between 101 and SJ Diridon has carried very little traffic indeed since Hansen Cement in Cupertino switched from coal to natural gas. Any resumption of regular service would entail a fight with local NIMBYs.
c) Last not least, those want HSR “done right” in the Bay Area – i.e. not anywhere near their property at or above grade – would likely argue forcefully that any new Bakersfield-San Jose Amtrak SJ route would eliminate the need for true HSR for the indefinite future, regardless of how few trains per day the former could actually support.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Rafael,
What I was saying in the post is that this is one way to engage UP. Perhaps, of course, UP rejects this out of hand. But I think given the limitations you mention on the Niles portion of the track, the UP would be happy to switch traffic away from the main line to the Port of Oakland. I think that is the major cookie that the Authority offers and waits for the UP to make the next move.
Also, No northbound San Joaquin train could cannibalize ACE. The last ACE train leaves Stockton I think around 7am. I don’t think the first San Joaquin going north winds up in Stockton until around 9. As a result, you just don’t allow a Rail 2 Rail partnership and then afternoon riders will have to take ACE if they came in on ACE.
That’s helpful for HSR too, because it gives a better picture of the long haul traffic.
Chinese bullet trains collide
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/china-bullet-trains-collision
China: Bullet trains collide in Zhejiang province
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14262276
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Lightning?
Does BS come to anyones thoughts but mine?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Lightning can trash the signal system.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:11 pm
There are plenty of precedents.
You have a problem.
You involve Amktrak.
Now you have two problems.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:34 am
will you have a coniptipn if amtk ca gets the operating contract
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Hopefully.
What the author, Mr. McNamara, conveniently omits from what he has cited from Prop 1A are other restrictions on use of the bonds funds for construction. In particular the whole proposal by the Authority to build in “Initial Construction Segments”, rather than “usable segments” as required by Prop 1A is obvious.
Please note the letter I sent to the Authority on this issue, before the meeting on this issue:
link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60733076/Letter-to-Board-6-12-2011-Central-Valley-Construction-PDF
I have pointed out this requirement before; this issue was raised by both Kopp and Umberg at separate times, but it has not been addressed with a solution.
Furthermore, the author’s contention that private investors will come to the table under this plan, would be in conflict with what Peer Review member Walter Bell, the only member with true HSR experience. He stated that unless or until the Federal Government made a commitment to the project to carry through, private equity will not be available. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXoJ9lrZ4uE
It is perfectly obvious now the Feds are pulling back, rather than pushing ahead on HSR funding. Note the elimination of HSR funding for the recent fiscal years and the proposal in the upcoming 6 year transportation bill will not have funding for HSR.
The section of the Board meeting discussion of ICS construction can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMxZzWr-ORo
VBobier Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
It’s not the Feds who are pulling back, as that implies that both parties are against HSR, It’s the Luddite Grand Oil Party in Washington DC that is against HSR, that will not last forever & can’t be made so.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Indeed, Morris you are so clever.
Unfortunately, here’s the weakness in your argument. The usable segment still must be suitable for high speed rail. But 220mph is still rare, and is limited to electric systems. Now lets say that a private party came in and used the completed line with a diesel based fast train that went 220mph…would electrification be required?
I don’t think so.
Thus I think as long as the operator on the HSR system doesn’t use electric trains (which Amtrak California doesn’t) then the plan you speak of can fund usable segments without electrification. And even if they have to book it within the plan…that’s a different argument you are making. That the segment selected by the Board will cost more than what they have in terms of resources.
Max Wyss Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 4:35 am
Just FWIW, if any private company comes up with a “diesel powered train capable of running 220 mph”, they are not credible at all. Keep in mind that you need around 15 MW traction power for a typical modern high speed train weighing in the range of 500 tonnes to get up to 220 mph. Considering the auxiliary energy consumers, you end up with a raw power requirement of about 18 MW. Even if you were able to cram lightweight engines into vehicles, they would, together with the fuel, end up that heavy that they either will not reach the needed speed, or that there is no space for passengers.
Even with gas turbines, which have a higher power output per weight ratio, you will get into problems. And you still have to carry along the fuel for your 18 MW. It was no wonder that the SNCF very quickly went away from the gas turbine-powered TGV, after they noticed the consumption data of the TGV 001.
We can pretty much say that 230 km/h is about the maximum which might be kind of economically done with internal combustion. For anything beyond that speed, electric units are necessary.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
That’s good to know, although I’m not sure which manufacturers can do 220mph yet with electrics either. From what I’ve seen, it’s not common yet….
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens all have models capable of 220 mph. Spain was waiting for ETCS Level 2 to be certified on one (or some) of its routes before speeding up to 350 km/h.
Even Talgo is developing a train capable of 380 km/h, I think, the Avril.
Andy M. Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 9:51 am
“Just FWIW, if any private company comes up with a “diesel powered train capable of running 220 mph”, they are not credible at all. ”
I can work around that. Specify a super high-power high-speed diesel locomotive that attached to maybe a two car train can do 220mph and do a demonstartion run or two to prove it is actually designed for that speed. Then in regular service attach the locomotive to eight coaches of that type and run it at a more realistic speed. You have equipment that is capable of doing 220mph but you’re also sensible not to actually run at that speed but run at a speed where income can actually match expenditure. Later, when electrification time comes replace the locomotives but keep the cars.
morris brown Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
@Risnmessiah:
It is not a matter of being clever at all:
You should read Prop 1A and learn:
2704.09. The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant to this
chapter shall be designed to achieve the following characteristics:
(a) Electric trains that are capable of sustained maximum revenue operating
speeds of no less than 200 miles per hour.
Until Prop 1A is rewritten and passed by the voters, electric power must be used.
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Quick lesson in statutory interpretation: You need to actually give every word its meaning. Here, you are ignoring the meaning of the word “designed.”
The fact that something is designed for something doesn’t mean it has to be used for it.
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:39 am
And what Mr. Brown conveniently omits, is the fact that Public Utilities Code 2704.04(i), part of AB3034, states that
In other words, if the Legislature decides to issue the bonds, even if certain ports of 2704.04 are not meant, there’s nothing that can be done to prevent the issuance of the bonds and their usage to construct “noncompliant” sections of tracks!!!!! Even if they’re not “usable segments”!
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Bwah? Typing fail.
“even if certain parts of 2704.04 are not met”
This is very sad:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-state-media-say-bullet-train-derails-no-word-on-casualties/2011/07/23/gIQA7WM5UI_story.html
Chinese state media say bullet train derails, killing 11
By Associated Press, Updated: Saturday, July 23, 11:58 AM
BEIJING – At least 11 people were killed and 89 hurt Saturday when a Chinese bullet train lost power after being struck by lightning and was hit from behind by another train, knocking two of its carriages off a bridge, state media reported.
……………..
I find it hard to believe that a PTC system, when power is lost, does not first stop any conflicting traffic.
morris brown Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:49 am
Link to photo of this Chinese HSR derailment accident:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01953/chinaTrainCrash_1953881c.jpg
morris brown Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 am
Link to another photo:
http://www.seattlepi.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1144456&width=628&height=471
Spokker Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:59 am
“I find it hard to believe that a PTC system, when power is lost, does not first stop any conflicting traffic.”
Considering that we are looking at a blended system, we have no business allowing Chinese tech anywhere near our state now.
Gianny Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I’ve read that was an upgraded line? But yeah, I don’t want them to build the first US system.
Spokker Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
It was a high speed train operating on a lower speed line.
One accident alone shouldn’t do in any technology, but taken as a whole, China’s rail program is nothing to be envious of. We want to get rid of the FRA to prevent crashes, not bring in a new ways to crash trains in this country!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:45 pm
It’s a horrible wreck, but if it’s any consolation, the photos suggest to me that the real cause of fatalities was the plunge off the bridge. What I can see of the cars shows no sign of telescoping or failure from the collision itself, suggesting the buff strength is adequate.
Of course, we don’t know what the speed at time of impact was; even relatively small variations in speed will have great effects on the force of impact, which, like wind resistance, is not linear to speed, but exponential.
More important questions include the one Morris raises; why didn’t the PTC system prevent this? Was this accident simply a rear-ender, or was there something else going on?
Also, I see what looks like at least three cars off the bridge–two on the ground, next to each other, and the third standing on end. Maybe it’s the way I would count things, but the news reporting does’t look the way I would write it, at least in this regard.
Finally, the death count in one story I saw suggested the tally was up to 30 or so. As terrible as this is, we will kill over 100 people today in America in car wrecks. We need to keep a proper perspective–and we need to wish the survivors and the relatives the best under the circumstances.
Useless Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 2:16 pm
@ D. P. Lubic
> why didn’t the PTC system prevent this? Was this accident simply a rear-ender, or was there something else going on?
PTC system failed, and the CRH1B(Bombardier Regina) driver manually braked his train, but it was too late.
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 8:48 am
So, it WASN’T a CRH2, as you claimed earlier? So much for being able to troll against Shinkansen…
Useless Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
@ Peter
> So, it WASN’T a CRH2, as you claimed earlier? So much for being able to troll against Shinkansen…
CRH1B ran into a stalled CRH2E, and CRH2E’s two or three rear end cars fell off from the viaduct while CRH1B stayed on track. So this is the outcome of first UIC train vs Shinkansen crash.
Clem Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
No. CRH2 ran into stalled CRH1, and CHR2′s front four cars fell of the viaduct.
Useless Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
BTW, CRH2(Shinkansen E2) and CRH1(Regina) were wearing different painting scheme and it was easy to sell whose cars fell off the viaduct and it was clearly CRH2(Shinkansen E2)’s cars, complete with CRH2′s nose on the ground upside down.
quashlo Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
You have it wrong (what a surprise…). CRH2 was the trailing train.
They turned off the train protection system and ran the trains blind. The new Jinghu (Beijing – Shanghai) line has been having a lot of signalling-related problems, so they apparently decided it was better to disable it.
Clem Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Other way around. The E2 rear-ended the Regina. The question is indeed why the train control system failed… Reminds me of the last Washington Metro wreck, where systems that should have prevented a collision didn’t.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Chinese (?) video report, confirming Clem’s comments about 4 cars derailed off the bridge, and with an accident simulation. Looks like a caption with what little I know of the written language (specifically, the inverted “Y” figure that represents “man” or “person,” and that’s about it), the death count is 32, injured 171.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg7uswHq1_U
Important question remains–what caused the PTC failure? My speculation–same lightning strike that caused the loss of power on the first train. Still, that should have shut down everything in the effected area in a fail-safe mode. . .heck, our own ancient block signal systems do just this. . .
Justin H Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 8:39 am
The link is to a Japanese news video, though some of the text is from the original Chinese broadcast. It would be interesting to hear the Japanese angle on this, but this NHK report just repeats the facts from Xinhua and CCTV reports, except for adding that no Japanese are yet known to have been on board. They announce 6 cars derailed, 4 of which fell off the bridge, all of these from the moving train. NHK created the simulation based on the bare details given in the CCTV report. No information given that would answer DP’s question. There will no doubt be superb technical analysis on Japanese news in the next couple of days, much more thorough than we would see in the US, much less China. Some of this may end up in translation on the English-language newspaper sites; can’t find anything yet though.
Spokker Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Taken as a whole, China is nothing to be envious of. Its rise has been greatly exaggerated. I’m sick of hearing about that pathetic country.
VBobier Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Some in China like to cut corners, to make profits at any cost, failure can be deadly to the execs there, here they merely look for a new job while enjoying a Golden Parachute, someones head will roll there, probably quite literally. Yeah, I can’t be envious either, but it’s what China is stuck with for the foreseeable future.
VBobier Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Then blended has clearly shown that someone was blended when they thought up the blended idea for CA.
Useless Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 2:19 pm
@ VBobier
> Then blended has clearly shown that someone was blended when they thought up the blended idea for CA.
Blending works for UIC-spec trains. In fact, the UIC train in this accident, CRH1(Bombardier Regina) stayed intact, while Shinkansen E2 was thrown off the viaduct.
So this means no Shinkansen or Shinkansen-derivatives(Chinese) for California. UIC or better is required for California’s blended traffic system.
nobody important Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Wow, that is the dumbest conclusion to jump to ever.
Clem Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Correct. If HSR in California operates anywhere in a “blended” situation, with the occasional FRA-compliant consist or various grade crossings, then the FRA will require at least UIC crashworthiness standards. This mixed operations scenario is a certainty because of the funding constraints, which make the “big bang” construction of a 100% segregated system impossible. For evidence, look no further than Caltrain’s mixed operations waiver. The UIC requirement is condition #1 imposed by the FRA.
So yes, we will never see Japanese or Chinese style Shinkansen stock in California.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Throw away your iPad. Now.
Spokker Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Taiwan isn’t the mainland, silly.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Welcome to the Greater Taiwan Co-Prosperity Sphere.
William Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 pm
If China and Taiwan reunited under Taiwan’s system, that would be a good thing…..
Alon Levy Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:46 pm
If wishes were horses…
John Burrows Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Not yet anyway.
William Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I would suspect that someone manually override some safety features on the PTC so to stay on schedule or get rid of false alarms…
Does HSR still rely on track-circuit for train positions?
Justin H Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:43 pm
For those who missed the discussion on China in the other thread…
Surely this is not the fault of the Japanese train technology. Not a single fatality in 47 years of operation (IN JAPAN), unless you count the old man who got knocked over by the automatic door… And the Chinese are claiming they’ve improved on the Japanese trains!
Anyone with an iota of respect for intellectual property, the international trading system, and the law should firmly oppose giving the chsr contract to the Chinese train makers. If we allowed that, we might as well have state offices start using pirated software. I know we need to save money, but we cannot be an accomplice to crime.
-1 less for Chinese to build ours! Sad to hear the news!
If San Joaquin service were to end at Diridon—
I could travel from San Jose to Bakersfield in 6hr-37 min (using current combined Altamont and San Joaquin schedules)
I could travel from San Jose to Bakersfield in 5hr-57 min (Assuming a 110 mph max speed over 170 miles of track from Merced to Bakersfield would save 40 minutes). This might be a little optimistic as it assumes the initial construction segment would make it from Merced to Bakersfield.
I could travel from San Jose to LA Union Station in 8hr-27 minutes using the bus connection (not including the wait for the bus).
If this service were available, I would consider it (Riding a train at 110 mph would be a factor)—And Diridon at least won’t have to expand to accommodate the extra 2 trains each way each day.
So perhaps MAYBE we should be cautious about getting in bed with China re: building our own HSR.
But this shouldn’t mean that WE SHOULDN’T build HSR, as I can already see the regular naysayers blowing up this story.
Besides, a freak of nature caused this tragic accident; an awful lessons learned to prevent future storms from inflicting such occurrences.
Many a plane and automobile have had accidents with thousands of lives lost…I’m still driving and flying!
6 hrs SJ to Bakersfield? No way… do it right. And I don’t mean put it in a tunnel. Just don’t run 110mph Amtrak heavy trains which may tear up the track and cause problems when we do actually want to run HSR on those tracks. And don’t run those Amtrak trains on some huge circuitous route which would establish a pretty crummy “baseline” to compare against in the future.
My issue with running over the current Altamont alignment is the time it would take. Currently from SJ-Stockton, it is a two hour trip, most of that on the curvy Altamont alignment. While I do like the idea of running 110 mph on HS tracks, I would really hope that is a last resort option. Hopefully we get a better idea of the cost in the next Buisness Plan
joe Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:06 pm
What if we build dedicated track for ACE as proposed by their local US Rep?
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Could do that, but then do we put in under the Altamont Upgrade or a separate project?
First, it is nice to see people generating ideas!
The two issues we raised previously with this concept http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/the-high-speed-rail-authoritys-plan-b/ (what we called Plan B would now be Plan A) remain.
1) Does it add to cost and bulkiness of aerials to make them Amtrak heavy train compliant? The Authority in early docs said yes. We have not gotten any authoritative information from people who are normally pretty authoritative on this.
2) There is a substantial maintenance cost associated with the tracks. By the terms of the federal grant agreement, they have to be kept in original condition for 20 years. Our guesstimate was $10 million per year. Who the heck is paying this number? Does the Authority have any ability to do this? This article raises a good point in that even if Amtrak does not take the tracks, there needs to be a budget to keep tracks / structures protected.
joe Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Palo Alto has a annual budget for
I wanted to put that horrendous guess-estimate into perspective.
Also
So fiscal responsibility is optional unless Citizens Advocating Responsible Road Maintenance (CARRM) swings into action and starts questioning new construction tat will bring more traffic and overload already under supported roads of PAMPA – [Crickets chirping]
Elizabeth Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Dude,
Take it easy. We are not offering editorial comment on whether $10 mm would be deal of century or giant number. We are pointing out that someone would have to pay it and there are strict prohibitions in the bond money which mean that it is tough from a legal perspective to have the Authority pay this number. From the initial financial projections, this number would be greater than increase in revenue/ savings in trackage fees for the San Joaquins. There may be answer to this, but the answer is not to ignore the issue and pretend it doesn’t exist.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Why wouldn’t Amtrak California pay all of it?
peninsula Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Joe – you mean, fiscal irresponsibility is mandatory when HSR foamers are involved in the conversation. So, in other words, cuz things already cost more money than anyone has funds for, lets spend shitloads more. Why the hell not? Because a city cant afford to keep its streets in repairs – Which by the way don’t every go away anywhere when HSR comes along – we shouldn’t give a care in the world about adding exorbitantly more maintenance costs that no one can pay for.
Good work – did you learn that kind of math just before you graduated from second grade last year?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:50 am
The double standard raises itself again. . .money for everything, including oil subsidies and oil wars, not to mention auto subsidies that in any one year all but dwarf what we have spent on rail for 40 or more, but nothing for an alternative to those costly endeavors. . .
wu ming Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
palo alto can afford to keep its roads paved, it just doesn’t want to pay for it. neglect is not the same as being bust.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 pm
To give you a preview of my thinking, Elizabeth, I would argue that by adopting the same rolling stock as the Amtrak Cascades, probably number one could be mitigated. As for the second one… I would think using the tracks is actually better for long term maintenance than not using them at all, given that they will be exposed to the elements every day regardless….
Theres one major flaw in the San Joaquin proposal.
Where would it stop?
The San Joaquin is a local train. Wasco. Hanford. Corcoran. Madera.
HSR will never stop at these cities, but the San Joaquin provides an extremely important connection to these towns.
So how does the San Joaquin continue to provide local service on the new HSR tracks that lack local stations?
Temporary stations are expensive, and if the track is elevated….financially impossible.
The only way I can see this work is if the state continues to fund the 6-8 San Joaquin trains and ADD 4-6 “express” trains running on the new tracks.
Remember, even when HSR is 100% operational, San Joaquin will still exist, providing an essential local service that allows people to connect to HSR.
I fear the the SJ Temporary proposal is a myth that can never be implemented.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
With the exception of Hanford the daily ridership at those stations could be better served with a taxicab ride to the station that will be the HSR station. Want to build an HSR station in the general vicinity of Hanford and not go over the 24 station limit? – have Caltrain and HSR use the same platform height etc and call the mid Peninsula HSR stop a Caltrain station.
JJJ Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 pm
You dont seem to understand how public transit works.
Look at the Amtrak California train/bus network map. The goal is to serve EVERYONE (well, except Los Banos for some sad reason). It’s to provide mobility to EVERYONE not just the “haves”.
If you depend on public transit to get from Wasco to madera…guess what, you obviously cant afford a taxi ride (not that Wasco even has taxis…)
And if you think after spending $10 million to build a brand new train station in Madera this year, they’re willing to give up train service? Dream on.
All these towns KNOW how important the SJ is to their population.
Further, HSR will INCREASE ridership on the San Joaquin. Folks in Wasco going to LA wont drive to Bakersfield….theyll take the SJ and transfer to HSR.
Thats what “feeder” service is.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 12:50 am
How many riders are there in the thriving metropolis of Wasco? How many years will that level of ridership take to amortize the multimillion dollar station sidings that will be needed and the multimillion dollar station? It’s cheaper to give them bus service. If there aren’t enough of them to fill a ten passenger bus every few hours give them all free taxi rides.
Spokker Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:21 am
There were 18,044 boardings at Wasco in 2010 which comes out to about 50 boardings per day. It is ranked 51 out of 71 Amtrak California stations. No train has any business stopping in Wasco or Madera. Even Hanford can drum up a measly 500 riders per day.
J. Wong Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Actually, that’s what Amtrak would do. They already do it for San Francisco. There’s an Amtrak bus that makes stops and pick-ups in San Francisco and ferries passengers to Emeryville.
joe Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Good question – Why not run both as proposed?
I don’t see HSR replacing Amtrack service. Amtrack can focus on providing local service and probably less costly service if ticket prices mirror Eurpoe. I think both will reenforce rail travel, not split a fixed population of riders.
Amtrack should NOT be require to do full cost recovery on all runs. We used to regulate bus and air travel to support service to small towns. Popular routes covered for losses on less traveled routes. Not anymore. The big get bigger and small die off or are really expensive.
FWIW, with less than 2 weeks notice on ticket purchase I will fly with son from SFO to ORD for $285 per person round trip with taxes. Meanwhile Butte MT loses Delta air service.
jim Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
No. Once HSR is actually running revenue service between Bakersfield and Merced Amtrak California will terminate/originate San Joaquins at Merced. There is going to be a station at Hanford/Visalia. Wasco is close enough to Bakersfield, Corcoran is close enough to Hanford and Madera close enough to Fresno.
joe Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 5:47 pm
So as a resident of Corcoran you think the 20 mile taxi ride is okay.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:03 pm
As a non-resident of Corcoran why should I pay for a nearly empty train to go to Corcoran?
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:12 pm
I pay for empty trains all over the country, late night empty subway trains, empty buses, not to mention defense contracts and the rebuilding of towns in flood plains. everybody pays. we don’t get to pick and choose.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Fine then, there’s a perfectly good – and new ADA compliant train station in lovely Hadley NY that’s reasoanably colse to where I live. I want a train coming through to New York City every hour.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Who owns that station? I was looking for a photo and couldn’t find one.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:18 pm
The county owns the ROW, I would assume the county. Probably not many photographs because it was completed last year and the first scheduled trains came through today.
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:12 pm
If it were up to me youd get your train.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 pm
not one train, one once an hour so that the 4 people a month who want to take the train have lots of choices.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 8:04 am
yes one per hour 24 hours per day so long as it employed people.
JJJ Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:39 pm
1) Absolutely not. Feel free to read the San Joaquin long range plan. Terminate in Merced? Making things up is lame.
2) See my reply to adirondacker12800 above. The cities wont give up their only mass transit service, AND ridership will increase because SJ will become a feeder line.
jim Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Feel free to read the San Joaquin long range plan. Link?
Once there is HSR revenue service between Bakersfield and Merced, there will be a massive reduction in demand for conventional service south of Merced. At the same time, there will be an increase in demand for conventional service north of Merced. North of Merced the San Joaquins will be a feeder service to HSR: there will be at Merced a fast train to the south and you can reach it via the San Joaquin and transfer at Merced.
Regardless of what they may have thought when they wrote the long range plan, faced with collapse of demand south of Merced and increased demand north of Merced any sane Amtrak California management will redeploy assets. It won’t be instantaneous: it’ll take a year or so to convince them that the collapse in demand south of Merced is permanent and another year or two (perhaps even more) to make arrangements with the host railroads to increase service north of Merced. They may leave a train or two run through to Bakersfield, if only on the general principle of keeping host railroads honest. But finally management runs on the numbers.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:34 pm
This is actually part of the dearth of ridership data out there. You could still have the other San Joaquin services not going to San Jose stop at Wasco and Corcoran, and Madera. But really, the number of people taking the train from those locations hovers in the thousands per year. That could be few enough to do some sort of system whereby San Joaquins targets runs where people use those stations…..
Alon’s getting exposure:
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/23/277308/amtraks-expensive-trains/
This proposal has merit if only in opening an important discussion. At the very least it should be accepted that Amtrak is a likely operator of the California hsr. When push comes to shove and the Veolias have dropped out or been forced out.
But why not carry the idea much farther and think of the UP as the primary carrier of passenger trains on the 99 corridor proper(with real hsr on the I-5 racetrack). Why not simply ask the UP formally how many billions they would require to provide the adequate infrastructure to reliably support the level of 110mph service the CHSRA would envision. We would find out if the UP’s offer is serious and if they are prepared to take on the major rebuild and upgrade that would be necessary. Never hurts to ask.
In the end the TRAC approach remains the most sensible. Devote all the funds straightway to the Bako-LA gap as without it north-south service is impossible.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:42 pm
UP isn’t interested in passenger trains. Freight is way too lucrative. Why don’t we ask them to start carrying mail again?
Your position about the racetrack is so bizarre. Sure, it would be nice and quick for LA to Bay Area passengers…but what about the millions of people in CA that don’t live in either of those places? Keep in mind that there’s a very good reason to run HSR through Fresno and Merced…because it frees up highway traffic along I-99 that is going to become more prevalent as we ship more and more of our agricultural goods to Asia.
The TRAC alignment gets you a lot of grief because it looks like it escaped from the first Brown Administration, along with the Bullet Train between SD and LA. This isn’t 1982….
synonymouse Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:20 am
And the Palmdale deviation is something out of the Jesse Unruh playbook, ca 1960.
Well, apparently the UP has stated they would operate passenger trains at 110mph. What’wrong with calling their bluff?
This obsession with Fresno, etc. as the hsr cash cow borders on the boffo. Maybe splitting the State is the way to go; welfare programs for the Valley are self-perpetuating.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Again, you can talk down to the Central Valley all you want but it’s a crucial part of the state’s economy. Agricultural exports will continue to be a very important part of California economic profile as long as any of us are alive. Why you would jeopardize that by undercutting its infrastructure more than places like SF or LA which on a per capita basis don’t produce that many exports…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Because LA and SF produce all the tax money?
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
the whole conversation is ridiculous. Californians know that each of the “californias” has its merits and does its part to contribute to the state’s status in the world. And californians know that teh state needs to be connected. completely. Arguing about one region versus the other is irrelevant and at the end of the day real californians know that.
although ridership data for individual stations has not been published.
They publish it for every state every year.
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/CALIFORNIA10.pdf
jimsf Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Thats a nice summary. 20 years ago no one would have believed that ridership was possible in car culture, “they’ll never ride the train, ” cali.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 pm
What I’m looking for is like what I can find for BART….station by station boarding and alighting. That data is a little misleading because you can’t tell what by route which one had the most riders for a particular station….
Alon Levy Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:12 am
Sure, but the Central Valley stations are served by only one route.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Right, but you can’t tell if a boarding at Wasco alights at Oakland or Sacramento. So, perhaps the impact of doing the switch could be nothing because no one at those smaller stations ever takes it to Oakland… as an example….
For reference–the FRA Track Maintenance Manual:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_460.shtml
Item of note: the highest track speed classification, Class 9, has a maximum authorized speed of 200 mph. California’s proposed 225 mph top speed will either require a waiver or a new classification.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 23rd, 2011 at 9:41 pm
or raising the speed limit on Class 10 track to 225….
We have discussed the tragic bullet-train accident in China.—Something from China that might be a little more positive, although this could be spun to match a persons viewpoint on high speed rail:
From July 1 to July 13, the Beijing-Shanghai high speed railway carried 2,145,000 passengers, an average of 165,000 per day. This would work out to over 60 million passengers per year.
I don’t think you could compare this to California in any meaningful way—Shanghai-Beijing has a far larger population, travel on Chinese trains may be heavier in the Summer, and the Chinese Govt may have stacked the deck by keeping fares low and by forcefully persuading many passengers to take the train to make ridership statistics look good during the initial few weeks of operation.
But even so 60 million passengers per year is nearly 3 times the CaHSRA estimate for the first year of operation of the SF-Anaheim segment. Also Beijing-Shanghai at over 1,300 km is roughly 2 times as long as our line and is considerably longer than what some consider to be an optimal length for an HSR line.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Exactly what I thought (well, just before the news of the accident blew away all other considerations).
I mean, those numbers are simply maddening ; I wonder if they’re not exaggerated ?! or maybe there are a lot of small trips between two intermediary stops, on the omnibus routes?
So, with prices corresponding to between $70 and $450 between Beijing and Shanghai, say on average $100 and including a 2/3 ratio (those partial trips on omnibus trains), we have :
$100 *2/3*165,000 = 11 ml dollars a day, that is FOUR BILLION TURNOVER PER YEAR!!
If the accident isn’t too much of a disturbance, and assuming this line’s growth pattern is relatively comparable to european ones, it will cover its construction costs in less than 15 years, and CHR will be awash with cash from then on.
Thoughtful post and comments thread on Gilroy-Monterey Bay rail on Alon Levy’s blog:
http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/uncompetitive-transit/
See Alon’s map here:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203476880847786328265.0004a8b208316703bb605&msa=0&ll=36.801588,-121.786194&spn=0.721345,1.454315
Would be interested in more opinions and relevant information from this group.
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
The google maps numbers are very deceptive. 101 is frequently an absolute nightmare on this stretch, the way it’s a nightmare on most other stretches, too. This makes driving a lot less competitive than google maps makes it appear.
joe Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Alon states:Since the congestion level in this part of California is not very high, cars could always beat the train, and for many trips so could buses.
Gilroy to Monterey routinely backs-up on weekends and is fair dense during the AM commute. I did this commute a decade ago.
The section of 101 from Salinas to Aromas (south of Gilroy) is called “blood alley” due to all the accidents. The highway ends in this section and there are left turns and driveways that open onto 101. It is a very curvy section of highway.
HW 156 from 101 to HW 1 is a single lane each way road.
Alon also doesn’t know the latent demand for commuting northward exists. Trains would allow Monterey residents to work in SJ or further. Presently professionals with a spouse working in Monterey either work as underemployed or commute to comparable work in SJ/SF area and rent a room.
Hee is a link to a YouTube video of the Chinese HSR derailment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl9zFHTVmPg&feature=player_embedded
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:16 am
Again, we don’t know the speed at the time of collision, but the relatively minimal damage to the cars, and the footage of the leaning car being brought down, certainly suggests the equipment is well built (and makes the case that Alon has that the FRA is overly conservative on buff strength standards).
Of course, we still have the question of the failure of the PTC system, and despite this being a Communist country with all that censorship, I am still puzzled at the persistence for some time that only two cars were off the bridge, when almost from the beginning the number apparent was at least three, and Clem correctly observed four, just from the photos. . .does someone need glasses? That sort of thing would have to be embarrassing to the news ministry.
SF chronicle:
California’s bullet train plans’ moment of truth
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/23/MNEU1KC8S8.DTL
California’s futuristic plans for 220-mph bullet trains linking the Bay Area with Los Angeles and beyond are facing a moment of truth.
Prospects for a $19 billion federal infusion – covering more than 40 percent of a $43 billion system that would be the nation’s largest single investment in transportation infrastructure in decades – dim each day as Washington scrambles madly for trillions of dollars in savings to raise the national debt ceiling.
Coming from the Chronicle, which has been a huge supporter of the project, this is a bit of reality.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:52 am
Why, why, why does anybody in the news media give any credence, any credibility at all to anyone from the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute?
Check out the comments–seems that most of the readers understand what the reporters and editors do not.
The highway system and its oil dependency is our national Achilles heel.
If this and other rail proposals fail, this failure will be because of cowardice on the part of our so-called “leaders.” If it fails, it locks us into cars, locks us into traffic, locks us into oil dependency and vulnerability, locks us into the global oil market in which we feed radical terrorists, and locks us into oil wars.
Morris, do you want that?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 7:10 am
P.S.–This again emphasizes my previous comments about the need for a handful of paid boosters–perhaps only two or three, perhaps called public relations, perhaps called rail experts–to counter these goons, to be available to take their arguments apart for the reporters. We shouldn’t have to rely on nothing but spirited, well meaning, but resource-short volunteers and sharp-eyed readers in comments.
I do think we will get rails back eventually as the”cars are freedom, trains are evil,” or “difficult, in-between age” generation fades away, but can we really afford the delay?
Emma Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:22 am
I’m not worried about that. Looking at how poorly Republicans perform, we will probably see a landslide election next year. Knowing how Democrats are, the first thing they will do is repeal the debt ceiling and start pumping money into OUR economy. Not that of China or Europe.
Reason Foundation and Cato are a joke if you look at the donors. Here is a proposal for getting the HSR funding that we need: Get rid off oil subsidies and use those billions for public transportation. That’s $4 billion a year. Big oil is the last branch that needs any subsidies yet the GOP continues to defend this insanity.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:52 am
“Looking at how poorly Republicans perform, we will probably see a landslide election next year. . .”–Emma
Can you cite the source here? I can use some encouragement. . .
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:53 am
The republicans have always performed poorly. that doesnt stop americans from electing them.
tony d. Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Happy for you morris that a Chron article brought a smile to your face (not that it really matters).
joe Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Nothing new in the Chronicle article. It’s a recap of the same old complaints.
Walter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
I want to cry when I read a 220 mph train called “futuristic.”
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Why? I mean, where in the world do they operate at that speed today?
Eric M Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
China
Arthur Dent Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
IIRC they reduced their speeds below 200 mph a few months ago.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:18 am
Not on all lines. My understandings are that Beijing-Tianjin trains and Wuhan-Guangzhou trains still go at 350 km/h.
I don’t know. Maybe I missed something. Do we get money from Amtrak in exchange? In fact I think we should charge them extra for using the HSR section. All the years they didn’t bother a minute to even electrify California’s rail network.
That being said, I tend to favor Merced-LA. I think we really got to built the station in Los Angeles so that they can begin to design a system around HSR. Right now, I don’t even know how people are supposed to travel through LA without a car. The area is not particularly walkable and attractions are scattered.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:35 am
All the years they didn’t bother a minute to even electrify California’s rail network
huh? amtrak doesn’t own any of that property. nor the rolling stock. The tracks are owned by the up and bnsf, and the trains by the state of california. Ask the state why they didn’t insist on electrification. the answer will be the same as why amtrak wouldn’t either, there is no political support = money to do so. With limited funds, the goal is to provided as much service as possible with as little investment as possible. only under the hsr bond will there be money to electrify anything.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Even if they had the money, electrifying for trains that come through 4 times a day makes little sense.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 11:32 am
thats true ( although there are 12 daily on the san sjq, and I think 32 on ccjpa)
Emma Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I was thinking about the Pacific Surfliner. If they would electrify the section, the travelling time would be shorter which would increase ridership. Higher ridership would increase the frequency.
Waiting for more people to use Amtrak is a wrong way of thinking. Someone has to do the first step and it’s usually the rail company.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Where do you get the idea that its the rail company? How many passenger rail companies do you know of in the US that aren’t publicly subsided and that are electrified? pbilc transportation in the usis taxpayer subsided by federal state and county taxes. The cost of electrification would go to the taxpayers. There are simply limited funds apporved by taxpayers so agencies must figure out how to get the most for that amount of money and large infrastructure porjects simply aren’t in the budget ( excetp for bart apparently) I think you have a misunderstanding.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
In order for teh surfliners to be electrified, and that is a state operated train, sacramento would have to set out to electrify it and union pacific would have to agree to allow it. neither of those two things will happen. Further, even if amtrak was handed federal money to electrify it in their own budget, sacramento, and union pacific would have to agree to it. which they would not do. As we all know all too well as with hsr, government agencies, even with billions of dollars, and voter approval, and the power of eminent domain, can not simply swoop in and do what they want.
Joey Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
All of the track from LA to San Diego is publicly owned, so that’s not a problem. North of LA you have issues though – everything beyond Moorpark is owned by UP.
Joey Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Slight correction – most of the track between LA and Fullerton is owned by BNSF (I’m not sure where exactly that starts at the north end). They’re cooperative though.
thatbruce Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Excluding the Metrolink aerial over the LA River, its all BNSF between the tower and Fullerton.
Joey Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
At this point the money would better be spent on double-tracking the entire route. Electrification is secondary to that.
Detailed info on the Wenzhou collision:
http://chinageeks.org/2011/07/death-on-the-high-speed-rail/
(includes some silly rumor-mongering about burying the trains with dead bodies in them)
Nugget #1:
“The trains were apparently not in communication with each other because despite operating on the same tracks, they were administered by two different railway bureaus.”
Nugget #2: “Central Propaganda Department Notification: With regards to the Wenzhou train accident, all media must speedily report whatever information is released by the Railway Ministry. No media may send reporters to report [on the accident]. Carefully manage all newspapers, magazines, and websites. Do not connect it to information about the development of high speed rail [in China], do not do “re-thinking”-type reports [i.e., analytical reports]”
Nugget #3: “The government … states that the accident was not a result of the train’s high speed (China’s claims to have built a faster high speed train than Japan have attracted critics who have suggested that safety was sacrificed to attain this speed advantage). It also says that the cars involved were a “relatively mature design, and were not of Chinese original design.” Further reports have officials pointing out that this train was actually a joint venture with Japan.”
Now suddenly they give credit to the Japanese for providing this technology. How gracious of them. They left this out: 47 years of bullet train service in Japan, 0 fatalities.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Comments about modern signal systems from China Geeks:
S N Barnes on July 24, 2011 at 19:58
“Before High Speed rail one flew and CAAC was I recall referred to as China Airways Always Crashing.
“For high speeds and high track utilisation the move has to be towards (in)cab-signalling with rolling blocks (space in front of the train which is not geographically fixed – by signals – but moves with the trains. Interlocking – the way that old mechanical signalling used physical pins and bars to block conflicting train movements has moved through electro-mechanical (relay contacts which cannot be closed when other ones are already closed) to virtual electronic switches, relying on the highest standards of software programming and logic switching.
“It may bear some further world-wide review of how some of the new systems are developing. Just this month the UK’s virtually signalled route to the Cambrian Coast had a train pass over a level crossing where the barriers had been down but lifted BEFORE it crossed (see RAIB notice of investigation) – fortunately the conditions were such that no road traffic drove in front of the train, but it highlights the need to be meticulous in converting the robust physical interlocking of the old systems into a virtual electronic version. Yet on my computer the ‘interlocks’ frustratingly ALWAYS manage to lock me out of even the most simple actions.
“There may well be a need in such virtual systems for each vehicle blocking the line to put a signal in to the rails which can be picked up by other vehicles on the same rails, and as the signal gets stronger (closer) the presence of an obstruction overrides any information from the on-train signalling system. GSM was mentioned in some posts – was this used to transmit the cab signalling data? Signal can be very difficult to get to all parts of a long rail route through challenging terrain.”
It has been reported that a signal manufacturer in America went back to using old fashioned, sturdy, debugged, reliable relays after having a lot of bad experience with solid-state devices in the railroad environment, including in grade crossing circuits. Among other things, the huge relays railroads traditionally used are relatively lightning-resistant (and lightning resistance was part of the reason for making signal relays as large and as heavy as they are).
Could it be that old-fashioned American technology and the traditional signalling system with fixed blocks (though of course with PTC) still be the safest and best approach?
What do the Japanese and French actually use?
Even worse is this from the article itself:
“Of course, suggestions that China’s high speed trains had been copied from other countries were ludicrous, offensive, and slanderous a few days ago. Now, however, it seems that same criticism may be being accepted in order to absolve China from as much of the blame as possible.
“An alternative take on the cause of the crash is also taking shape. This afternoon, Caixin posted this report, an interview with academic Wang Mengshu in which he suggests that the crash may have been caused by a driver error:
” ‘Wang Mengshu said that in the course of driving, if a train in front stops, an automatic system should notify the train behind it via [radio] signal. “The system works so that within 6 km, if there are no cars, you can drive as usual. A light goes off if there is a train within 4 km, warning to slow down, and inside 2km there is a red light that says [the driver] should stop the train.” ”
“Wang Mengshu said that currently, due to the urgent situation of high speed rails5, the automatic system hasn’t yet been realized in high speed trains, so driving still relies primarily people, and a driver’s judgement is still a major factor in the driving of high speed trains
“Though the article implies otherwise, it seems to me that without this automatic system in place, it’s unclear what fault the drivers would have. As the trains were administered by two different Railway Bureaus, it remains unclear whether they could even communicate directly; it is also unclear what effect the loss of power might have had on the front train’s communication systems.”
A high speed line like this doesn’t normally have wayside signals; it relies entirely on the cab signals and PTC system. If that system isn’t functioning, what would the railway ministry be using to keep trains apart?
Looking at a linked site, it seems safety problems are pretty serious there, including a story about a bus fire that killed 41:
http://english.caing.com/
Clem Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
The Japanese and French use coded track circuits, but the Europeans (including the French) are now moving to a communications-based system known as ERTMS.
There are two scary scenarios emerging: (a) the line didn’t have a functional signal system that can enforce movement authorities by overriding operator error, or (b) such system was disabled and trains were operated without it.
VBobier Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
And being China, any bets if any system exists, it was disabled to save money?
Clem Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
All you need to know about Chinese attitudes toward safety can be seen in a video of four backhoes ganging up to flip a 40-ton rail car. You would never see this in the United States… OSHA would be all over it!
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
They look like a pack of dinosaurs…
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
China’s contribution to railroad safety.
As in, none…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
I suspect the NTSB would take a dim view too.
Peter Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Toddler found alive in rubble of china train crash
And THIS is why you don’t rush these kinds of things…
Spokker Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Are they literally covering this up? Haha wow.
Gianny Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
LOL…Stay Classy China.
ericmarseille Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Sorry 1 casualty for the Japanese, arguably a freak accident involving an automatic door when departing.
The French have had quite a few deadly accidents involving TGVs at crossings, on parts of routes that weren’t using high speed rail lines, but only 1 victim during high speed rail operations on proper HSR lines, and due to a bomb let by Carlos the Jackal in a TGV car.
Also note that there have been three TGV derailments, including one at 290km/h (the jacobs bogie is the true marvel of the french TGV), without casualties.
So if we count the casualties directly resulting of all Japanese and French high speed rail operations, the result is :
1 in Japan due to a freak accident
0 in France
I understand that bean-counting can look trivial at such a tragic moment, but I think it has to be reminded at a time when HSR foes will pile lie upon lie to try to destabilze its supporters.
Chinese HSR derailment: Another YouTube video:
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfcKmEF3gnY
This has some english translation from a couple of persons who were on the train.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
From the descriptions, this wreck seems to have been at relatively low speed (though obviously still high enough to be the disaster that we see); no one realized how bad it was until they got outside and saw what happened. It is also implied that the first train was just getting under way at the time of the collision. Most disturbing (from other sources)–the first delay was on the order of seven minutes! That’s a long time to not be able to notify or otherwise contact a dispatching center or the other train! Also from other sources–the PTC system was inoperable! Now, a high speed line like this doesn’t normally have wayside signals, it relies entirely on the cab signals and PTC system. If that system isn’t functioning, what would the railway ministry be using to keep trains apart?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
what would the railway ministry be using to keep trains apart?
Telephone conversations.
I’m not sure that Tom is taking full measure of the timelines involved. Suppose that funding for the next major chunk of the IOS comes in 2012 or 2013. Then, since either Bakersfield-San Jose or Merced-someplace south of Bakersfield will require considerable tunneling, revenue service on either versions of the IOS will not be possible until 2019. Lots of things can happen between 2013 and 2019.
Let me suppose, for concreteness, the IOS is actually between Merced and Palmdale, Santa Clarita or Sylmar, depending on what the geological analysis turns up between now and when tunneling starts.
Plan A: CHSRA looks for (and gets) more federal funding in 2014 or 2015 to build Merced-San Jose (or, if there are still political/legal complications over Pacheco/Altamont, further south towards LA). In this case, it is likely that the IOS will be available for revenue service only about a year or two before the larger segment.
Plan B: By 2015 it’s clear that the Feds can’t come up with the funding to get to San Jose. CHSRA looks to the private sector, issues an RFP: who wants to complete the system in return for exclusive rights to operate it for some negotiable franchise period? If there are positive responses, then the winning bidder will decide what segment gets revenue service when. The CHSRA IOS becomes irrelevant.
Plan C: No responsive proposals from the RFP. CHSRA goes back to the Feds: if you can’t fund Merced to San Jose, can you fund Merced-Modesto-Livermore to connect to BART? (this is Clem’s and Richard’s suggestion). If the Feds and the remains of the bond issue can fund that (and upgrading and electrifying the Antelope Valley line between wherever the IOS ends and LA, so that HSTs can run through), then it’s likely that Merced-Livermore will be ready more or less around the time that the CHSRA designated IOS is, so that actual initial revenue service will be between LAUS and Livermore.
Plan D: Fed bucket is really dry. Caltrans finds the money to upgrade and electrify the Antelope Valley line, so HSTs can run LAUS to Merced to guaranteed across the platform connections to San Joaquins to Oakland and Sacramento. Then the IOS really is the high speed line.
Plan E: Caltrans doesn’t have even that money. Then Amtrak California runs diesels along the Antelope Valley line, along the (unelectrified) IOS and then along the San Joaquin route north of Merced.
The Amtrak California solution is way, way down the list of backup plans to backup plans.
jim Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I’m sorry. I reread Tom’s piece and now see that he was assuming that there wouldn’t be funding for even the next chunk (either Bakersfield south or Merced-San Jose) and was trying to come up with a backup plan for that case.
On Tom’s plan, it seems to me that, since there’d have to be a reverse at Stockton, there could be another reverse at San Jose and the train continue along the Caltrain RoW to 4th and King. So it’s a Bakersfield-San Francisco Amtrak California service.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
The earliest that we will see Congress appropriate more money for HSR is after 2012. This is because the federal budget deadline is October 1…. and it will be very hard for Republicans to avoid the temptation of making Obama look bad as he runs for re-election. Also, since the budget in 2012 will cover almost all of 2013…(and there’s the issue of disbursements and obligations). It could be 2014 before we see any more federal cash.
That’s problematic because the business plan assumes that private funding won’t kick in until 2015 AND that the state will exhaust its bond proceeds by then as well.
If they should have built a section to bring in more revenue then they should have started with the SD-LA extension first.
SoCal:
-has 2/3 of California population
-the most pro-HSR cities
-good public transit
-is more attractive to tourists
-connects to DesertXpress
Palmdale – San Diego + Irvine will give you the biggest bang for the buck. We all know that officials pushed that section into the background in order to win votes from other areas in California.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I can tell you without a doubt that southern california is not more popular with tourists. They especially tell me they didn’t not care for LA , at a rate of about 100 percent. While the adore SF Monterey, and Yosemite, at the rate of about 99 percent. Which is why sf is always at the top of the conde nast polls and la never is.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
People who hate SF never get to your window to tell you, they don’t go to SF.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
HA! impossible.
Joey Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Do you have statistics to back that up?
A very disturbing new development on China’s train crash. Chinese authorities already buried the wreckage, citing the need to protect “national secret”. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/asia/25train.html In other word, Chinese government is trying to cover up the whole incident and is not interested in finding out exactly what happened, ensuring that this kind of accident will repeat in the future. Do not buy anything bullet train related product and service from the Chinese.
What clearly makes the most sense is this:
The state has already invested in a state rail and connecting thruway bus network including investment in equipment- buses and trains. The state has forged a successful partnership with union pacific and bnsf, as well as amtrak and the contractors who operate the thruway system, ( el dorado, el camino, and others) The goal, regardless of players, is an integrated system of bus and rail transit for the state’s population. THese partnerships are likely to continue in place as hsr is implemented in order that there can be the fullest integration of service, connections, ticketing and so forth. That would be best for everyone. A high speed backbone, with standard feeder overlay, covering areas not served by hsr, with the layer of thruway connections reaching the areas that are not rail ready.
hsr + regionals ( sjq surliners ccjpa + commuter (metrolink/caltrain/coaster/ACE) = a complete system.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Yes and no. HSR is going to upend the current system of rail transit in the state. However, we obviously need a complete system.
jimsf Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Its not going to upend anything.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Well you have to realize:
The current EIR is going to completely change Metrolink service if it is carried forward. The Surfliner is also going to be defunct once LA and SD are connected. The San Joaquin also won’t make it.
That said, I would put the Surfliner resources toward reinstating a “Coast Daylight” and expanding the Capitol Corridor to Reno. I think the impact to Metrolink is deleterious enough to switch the route and go only from LAUS to San Diego and skip the IE. But that’s because I’d argue it makes more sense to improve Metrolink service to the IE and make it faster than dog leg the route.
Spokker Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Explain in greater detail, because LA-North San Diego County is likely to continue to want Surfliner service to and from that region. I don’t see a Surfliner not ever serving SD, especially if it gets some upgrades.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Well, as I understand it:
The proposed HSR route between LAUS and San Diego is not going to be much faster than the limited stop Surfliner without upgrades. Therefore, if we assume that Bay Area travellers are going to prefer a one-seat ride as well as a percentage of LA to SD travellers, I don’t see how economically Surfliner is viable.
Meanwhile, putting the route down the 15 from Riverside to San Diego also isn’t a big trip generator I’m sure… I don’t think many people will get on in Riverside to go south…at least compared to Surfliner traffic….
So, hence I would propose going south through Anaheim and then drilling under San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente to reach the ROW along I-5 and then go south there until University City, burrow under that, and go down to Santa Fe Depot (none of this airport station bullshit)
Spokker Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:24 am
The Surfliner is not economically viable today.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 1:09 am
According to Amtrak fastest the Surfliner makes it is 2:40. According to the California High Speed Rail site Los Angeles to San Diego will be 1:18. Twice as fast.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 7:19 am
State is also working on getting the Surfliner below 2 hours LA-SAN.
Joey Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Wait. You’re talking about leaving the second busiest rail corridor in the nation in favor of once-a-day (very) slow trains?
And for the record, yes, I know second in the nation is still pretty pathetic, but since we’re talking relatively here…
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
No no…
Suggesting that HSR take the Surfliner route over and not build the dog leg through the IE.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Political and technical problems with that (metric crapton of tunneling in hard to tunnel places). However, 125 mph DMU’s running along the Surfliner route in connection with HSR taking the dogleg are certainly a good idea.
Spokker Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:25 am
I don’t think you want to fight NIMBYs on the beach. You’d have an easier time fighting Nazis on Omaha Beach. These people make Peninsula residents look like pushovers.
Joey Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
The most sensitive sections (San Clemente and Del Mar) would have to be tunneled anyway. Other areas might be challenging, but people couldn’t exactly claim that the catenary poles are blocking their views.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Just one issue with your assessment. The Surfliner currently serves the beach communities. Unless Metrolink is going to pick it up and most people are not going from LA-SD or Anahiem-SD, then I doubt traffic would come far down. How the trains get filled are the stops along the route.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Actually Metrolink and Coaster provide service along the entire route with Surfliner, to the point that unless it’s a holiday like Thanksgiving, there’s Rail2Rail which allows you to use a Metrolink ticket on Surfliner for that portion I think.
So even if Surfliner goes away (or just becomes SB to LA which is also a very important service that ain’t going to ever go HSR) there’s still going to be local service to feed the HSR beast.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
I am sure the desire would go down though to utilize the service because of the transfer at Oceanside though. The Surfliner provides all day service though for when Metrolink and Coaster are not running. Metrolink has a very limited schedule on the weekends and Coaster only runs every 2 hours. People who live along the beach will still be using Surfliner to go to San Diego or LA or Anahiem. You will still need the frequency. Those going strictly from LA-SD, Anahiem-LA, etc will probably ditch the Surfliner, but other than that, what about the inbetween communities? With hearing of trains being full, it means more people can enjoy the benefits. An increase of speed to bring the trip time down would definitely help even though it could be considered dual investment and a waste. Although I think the Coaster corridor needs upgrading anyways along with Fullerton-LA. Might as well upgrade it all to Class VI 110 mph? Santa Barbara probably needs priority, just that UP owns everything west of Ventura.
Joey Reply:
July 24th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Metrolink barely serves Oceanside at all.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:05 am
I understand completely. But I’m not sure what the ridership is currently.
Spokker Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 12:28 am
And people will use the Surfliner because they just plain don’t want to pay for an HSR ticket. We need different levels of service for different travelling needs. HSR isn’t one sized fits all. It’s just one component of a successful transportation network.
I want to see a more robust menu of express, limited and local trains on the LOSSAN Corridor, preferably double tracked and operating at 110 MPH where possible.
Andy M. Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 2:50 am
I won’t believe until I see it.
SNCF has been especially good at pruning out parallel services to its TGV lines. AFAIK there is now only one classic train that does Paris – Strasbourg and none that do Paris – Mulhouse for example. The old lines just see regional trains and freights. In Spain the picture is similar. Only Spain’s classic railways system never saw very intensive passenger services anyway and in most places where high-speed trains now run there is no classic train alternative any more.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 7:17 am
For those in OC, going South on the Surfliner, even at current legacy speeds, will be faster than taking HSR anyhow.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
And Paul,
That is precisely the problem. It’s going to be the biggest headache associated with Phase 2…. does a person in San Jose take HSR to Sacramento (using a dogleg through Merced) or do they take the Capitol Corridor which is slower but more direct? Does someone in Irvine take HSR or do they take the Surfliner to San Diego?
If there’s any desire to extend HSR into Nevada and Arizona, it makes much more sense I think to allow someone to go from San Diego to OC without backtracking. That’s because when I look at FAA data on Phoenix… San Diego and John Wayne are much more common destinations than Ontario.
Now, synonymouse is going to say, gee what a great argument against Palmdale…but really it’s not… Palmdale is more about the technical realities of crossing the Pacific Plate and giving more capacity to the airport there and potential Las Vegas plus….the 5 doesn’t have a ROW already….
thatbruce Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
@Risenmessiah:
Passenger counts into LA/Ontario aren’t necessarily a good indication of the numbers of people flying into the Inland Empire due the controlling body (LAWA) treating it as an overflow airport and not investing in it as much as LAWA’s prime airport, LAX.
jimsf Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
neither san joaquin nor surfuliner will be become defunct. Those are state services That the state will want to keep in place to serve the markets they serve. HSR will be run by a private for profit operator and will serve its markets and at its own prices and frequencies. According to what I have been told by reps from the state, they are one, very please with amtraks operation of state services and two, want to increase both rail service and and customer service and baggage service for the passengers in california, ( funding such things in the face of national amtrak reducing those things in other states. California actually wants to see more of everything.. yes including staffing, baggage service and food service)
jimsf Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
thats the long range plan… now what happends 30 years from now after phase two is in operation, who knows where we go from there but, 30 years from now ill be roasting poolside in palm springs so who cares.
Risenmessiah Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Well even if you were my age, I wouldn’t tell you Amtrak California is history. My guess is that long term, some sort of government corporation runs HSR in CA and stuff like BART. But real commuter rail will likely be operated by Amtrak under contract as will stuff like the Coast Daylight. The long distance trains aren’t going away either, its just the state really isn’t pay for that stuff.
I mean, get ready for trains to Mammoth Mountain, trains to Palm Springs, trains to Yosemite… Collis P. Huntington is going to be so happy….
jimsf Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
well that would be nice.
Service is back at the corridor, less than 48 hours after the accident. Chinese don’t value human lives as much as you and I do.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-07/26/content_12979874.htm
Chinese bid now given a zero chance in California.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/china-has-zero-chance-on-high-speed-train-exports-after-crash-kills-39.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Chinese are asking questions about the signals and dispatching, which is apparently a radio-based system of some kind; could this be the ERTMS system now being introduced in Europe?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-07/26/content_12979921.htm
Clem Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
CTCS (Chinese Train Control System) is a copy of ERTMS. Like ERTMS, it has several tiers of increasingly sophisticated functionality. I don’t know if this particular line was fitted with it, or if so what level of it.
Signaling equipment or processes are almost certainly to blame in this crash. This is one of those accidents that a basic signalling system should have prevented, even after multiple human errors. The question is why didn’t it? Stuff can fail, but more likely, humans can circumvent the system if it is malfunctioning and preventing trains from moving (sort of like a road traffic light flashing red in all directions, in which case drivers must use a different set of rules.) I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a case where the signaling system went down because of the thunderstorm, and dispatchers reverted to verbal orders to keep traffic moving, leaving passengers directly exposed to human error.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
More material, including a photo of a very badly damaged car from the leading train:
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/25/bombardier-falls-after-chinese-train-crash/
Additional material and a photo that reveals what looks like some telescoping of the last car in the first train; upper portion of car crushed downward for about a quarter to a third of its length, suggesting the leading car of the following train overode the anti-climber and essentially tried to climb over the las car of the leading train before falling from the bridge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/25/501364/main20082840.shtml