Metro Calls for Preserving Palmdale Alignment
After the California High Speed Rail Authority announced it would study a Grapevine/I-5 alignment to connect Bakersfield to LA, the city of Palmdale – which had been included in the voter-approved HSR route – decided to sue to block the study. Yesterday they got some crucial political support when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to endorse a Palmdale stop:
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted unanimously Thursday to endorse a high-speed rail route between Los Angeles and Bakersfield that would go through the Antelope Valley.
The motion is aimed at persuading the California High Speed Rail Authority to stick with its original plan of locating a station in Palmdale, instead of switching to an alternate route through the Santa Clarita Valley.
County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who is vice chairman of the Metro board, said the Antelope Valley alignment would produce higher ridership than a shorter route that would run along a sparsely populated portion of the Santa Clarita Valley alongside the I-5 freeway.
“We support high-speed rail through the Antelope Valley because it makes the most economic sense,” Antonovich said.
Metro’s intervention here is significant. Even though HSR opponents somehow think it’s wrong for the CHSRA to work with local transit agencies, Metro is throwing both its analytic and its political weight behind preserving the Palmdale alignment. The CHSRA ought to make its decision based on what’s best for the long-term health of the HSR system, but it will undoubtedly be more difficult for them to abandon Palmdale in the face of Metro’s opposition to doing so.
Metro has already shown its ability to influence CHSRA decisions. In 2009 and 2010, Metro led the charge for a different approach to the LOSSAN corridor, with HSR taking up less ROW. After Metro officials got involved, the CHSRA indicated it would explore Metro’s preferred option. While the CHSRA won’t act solely because Metro asks them to, this vote will surely have some influence on the Authority’s decisions regarding a Grapevine study.
Synonymouse, Grapevine is effectively DEAD, live with It, You’ve lost.
I was on the Metrolink yesterday and I will tell you now that their sure where alot of people needing the route from Lancaster to Los Angeles and the route back going northward to Palmdale and Lancaster. It is well used. I am positive that many people would appreciate any train passenger service going further north of Lancaster. Their has not been any passenger train service going northward passed Lancaster since 1977 and not until 1994 southward with the Metrolink after the Northridge earthquake.
The California High Speed Rail is absolutely necessary for the population of the Antelope Valley area.
Spokker Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:46 am
Whether the HSR infrastructure will be useful to Antelope Valley residents depends on how it is designed. If it is HSR only, then those who *need* Metrolink, as you say, will be priced right out. If Metrolink can operate subsidized trains on the route, then I think the route to Palmdale is a good idea.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Metrolink has serious problems anyway. The DEIR for LA to SD is making wild assumption about its ability to absorb HSR using two of its lines.
Going to court because you want high speed rail—How unNIMBYlike!!!
Peter Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 9:43 am
I think they’re referred to as YIMBYs. Or maybe just as intelligent people who recognize the value that HSR will bring to their area.
of course its going to go via the antelope valley. there was never any real question.
Hmm. a palmdale post with no one arguing about palmdale…. or even altamont! I’m shocked.
Can we argue about a new thing now. You know which one hasn’t been done lately, the “which trains are best” argument ( japanese/french/german)
Or we could argue about the the livery. or the ratio of first to 2nd class seating availability and pricing.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 10:24 am
How about coastal vs inland SD route? :p
With pricing, I hope they go with a flat system like current Amtrak CA practice rather than airline yield management (with perhaps peak hour pricing on trains, just not prices varying depending on when you buy a ticket).
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:08 am
There’s a reason it’s called Phase 2…. because we first need to put Phase 1 to rest. I’m actually working on an idea for post that would use the Coastal Route instead…
political_incorrectness Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
What would the top speeds be for the Coastal route?
Joey Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Whatever you want to build it to, though evidently the faster you want to go the more tunnels you’re going to need.
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
I think CHSR should have at least a partial segment near the ocean. That should be from LA-SD.
Plenty of time to plan for that. I want tourists to see the beauty of California along the coast.
@JIM We all know its going to be Japanese build so why bring it up again?
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
We most certainly do not know that. In fact we most certainly know that it will be french.
ericmarseille Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Uh???
And what about all that “wonderful Japanese record in building earthquake-proof technology”?
I thought it was a 100% winner
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
talking strictly about which trainsets to use. I prefer agv, or tgv duplex.
Peter Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I like AGV, and the Millennium Train from Sydney for Caltrain. Then no need to worry about platform height compatibility, as they’re the same.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 6:09 am
China and Japan are financially unbeatable. They are awash with dollars and the only country where they can get rid of them efficiently is the U.S. They will propose deals that no other country can match.
France, for instance, has no dollar reserves to waste because it buys from the U.S. as much as it sells to it. The two countries buy the same sorts of products from each other:
#1: aerospace (planes and parts)
#2: pharmaceutical and health products
#3: agricultural products.
Trade in rail industry products is so small that it isn’t even listed in statistics.
The only industry that is likely to see big European investments is aerospace because Airbus has large dollar reserves to spend. My opinion is that you will see U.S-made Airbus planes before you see U.S-made European HSR.
CHSR is public-funded and no foreign-built trains will be tolerated. Building a plant for a limited number of trains is a losing operation, unless you have dollars you don’t know what to do with, which is the case for China and Japan.
If China is rejected for safety reasons, that leaves Japan as the only credible contender.
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:33 am
@ Andre Peretti
> China and Japan are financially unbeatable. They are awash with dollars and the only country where they can get rid of them efficiently is the U.S.
China, yes.(But you don’t want Chinese system in California)
Japan, no.
Remember, it is Japanese government that is supposed to be providing this construction loan, and Japanese government is the most indebted government among developed world, whose debt to GDP ratio of 200% makes the US federal government look financially sound. Plus Japan faces a $300 billion+ Tohoku reconstruction bill.
The effect of Japanese government’s inability to finance is already showing as Turkey just withdrew its nuclear power plant construction negotiation with Japan over terms of financing, meaning they will have to go back to Korea to close the deal, whose government financing interest is 2% higher but the construction cost is 30% lower than the Japanese.
> If China is rejected for safety reasons, that leaves Japan as the only credible contender.
Actually Japan has no money to spare either after the Tokohu Quake/Tsunami. Japanese bidders can still put together a private financing, but the terms won’t be as attractive as government financing.
That leaves just Korean and French as the likely winning bidders.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Japanese bonds sell at a rock-bottom interest rate, 200% debt ratio or not.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:17 am
amtrak actually doesn’t use a flat system. they use yield management. multiple fare buckets the go up as demand goes up.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:40 am
You can bet they will use yield management to maximize revenue based on demand. It fetches the most dollars each seat can get at a given time. As it gets closer to departure time, and the train fils up, the price goes up. they know people will pay. This means people who plan well, get good deals, and people who don’t pay top dollar or take a departure with a lower fare. Its pure supply and demand. I believe right now there are four single ride fares plus the 10 ride and the monthly plus the california rail pass for tourism.
SF to Frenso for instance:
DOSJ $32
BOSJ $44
AOSJ $51
YOSJ $59
UMCA $230 ( 10 one ways = $23 each way in a 45 day period)
UMMN$614 ( unlimited for all points in between city pair for a calendar month)
—–
CA PASS $159 ( statewide including nevada, 7 unlimited travel days within a 21 day period)
—-
Fares tend to be higher on fridays sundays event days etc, only because the trains fill up fuller and faster thus bumping fares up to the higher buckets more quickly but you can still get the low fare on any train if you book soon enough.
And it works exactly like life. People who are prepared and responsible tend to better than those who are not prepared. those who are flexible do better than those who are inflexible.
and at its root. supply and demand is after all the way we do it here in superamericaland!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Pick a random weekday and see what the fare is between Newark NJ and New York City. Lowest I can find is $20 and highest, $83 in first class on Acela. ( the upgrade to first class cost $26, or $6 more than the lowest fare ). It’s $2.25 on NJTransit. Or $1.75 on PATH.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
well I don’t have access to fares ( im at home) but why the large discrepancy?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Amtrak.com.. NWK-NYP.
There’s the large discrepancy so that passengers don’t ride Amtrak between New York and Newark. Or New York and Trenton. Or Trenton and Philadelphia. They’ve cut back drastically at intermediate stops like New Brunswick and Cornwells Heights. No need to serve those people because they can fill the seats with people going NY-DC or Philadelphia-Baltimore etc. They can get away with it because people have an alternative in the commuter railroads .
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
most people from back east come out here and say, “why are your fares so cheap? we pay a lot more in the northeast”
I don’t know why that is. But its true. Of course again, within cali, the state plays a large part in determining what fares are charged. Thats why I know that with hsr, the state, is going to want want they want based on what the surveys tell them the riding public wants. and thus, the push for more customer service on and off board, more, not less, baggage service ( the state has already asked us to bed the national baggage policy on no short checking, and allow it in california as a service amenity to customers, and the state is very very involved in managing, almost obsessing over food services availbility down to dictating what goes on the menus.
You can be sure they will do the same with hsr…. mandate to the operator, “you will do a,b,c and d”
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
If people that live in Palmdale want to use HSR to get to LAUS will they be taking seats of
passengers going from LAUS to SF pushing the prices to go to next price bucket because seats
are taken by those getting off at Palmdale?
StevieB Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Not every train needs to travel from Orange County to San Francisco nor stop at every station in between. Schedules can accommodate limited stops or shorter segments to satisfy demand.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
No. There won’t even be a capacity issue for a very long time. It takes years to build full ridership.
What would be more likely is that a train full of sf la fares, may increase, but may not increase, the pmd la fares. Or the shorter city pair could remain low even as the long distance city pair goes up to the next bucket. You can manage it anyway you want to maximize revenue. But generally the commuters are no going to be subject to the buckets because they will be using a discounted multiride.
There is also nothing that precludes the operator from participating in something like Rail to Rail as is done now with metrolink and amtrak in the southland. one ticket one price, either train.
This is something that could/should be done with caltrain/hsr as well.
Joey Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
The difficulty is that if you keep prices low enough for commuters, you may sacrifice a lot of revenue, as most commuter operations (even high-speed ones) do. As I recall, the Javelins (high-speed commuter operation in the UK) actually loose money, but I don’t have a detailed analysis of that.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
well thats only if there arent’ empty seats. If the seats are empty, making some money is more than making no money. If you have an seat thats 20 dollars and the commuter can’t afford it and it goes to la empty, you could have sold it for 10 dollars and made 10 dollars instead of zero dollars.
Of course you could go with a bart pricing system. distance based. sf to walnut creek is always the same price no matter what – but then you miss out on revenue buy selling seats for less than you might otherwise get. The whole reason for managing the inventory is to squeeze the most dollars out of each seat that you can get for that seat at any given time. a profit seeking operator will have no choice but to use yield management.
Personally I did not want this to be run as a for profit. Id much rather see this as statewide public transit for the good of the state and the people.
Joey Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Personally I did not want this to be run as a for profit. Id much rather see this as statewide public transit for the good of the state and the people.
So would I (though I don’t like the idea of encouraging people to live far away from where they work). Unfortunately, we will likely have a lot of private debt to pay off in addition to figuring out how we’re going to pay for Phase 2.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
true and if it makes a profit it will put the right wing arguments to rest. ( actually nothing will put those people to rest ever)
I’m all for increasing revenues with offering business and first as well. There are those who can and will, shell out a ridiculous amount of money for some perks. We are the state where hollywood lives after all. as do the young tech millionaires, and others. including a whole mess of just plain old rich folks from carmel to rancho mirage and everywhere in between.
How much would I pay for a premier class ticket from SF to LA? Up to $199. once in a while as a treat for fun. ( depending on what that includes… Id expect at least eurostar premier service including a meal, complimentary champagne ( no cheap stuff either, must be low end veuve cliquot or better – no california sparkling wine nonsense) and hot towel service or something and “at seat” entertainment system.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 11:22 am
“If people that live in Palmdale want to use HSR to get to LAUS will they be taking seats of
passengers going from LAUS to SF pushing the prices to go to next price bucket because seats
are taken by those getting off at Palmdale?”
That’s exactly why the SNCF prefers to run non-stop trains to keep them full all the way.
Example on the Paris-Marseille line: if someone books a seat from Marseille to Avignon, and no-one books it from Avignon to Paris, it’s a loss of business for the company.
DB has solved the problem by allowing standing passengers who can occupy seats while they are empty. This creates situations that the French don’t like to face: dislodging a seated passenger is always awkward. It seems to create no problems with the disciplined Germans.
Miles Bader Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 11:29 am
So if a passenger comes a long and says “excuse me, but I have a reservation for this seat (shows ticket)“, the seated passenger will refuse to move?! Eek…
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
No, but a gentleman will hesitate to unseat a lady, or a younger person an older one. That’s what I mean by “awkward” situations. The SNCF has chosen to avoid them.
It also makes trips more relaxing. You don’t have passengers constantly walking in search of an empty seat.
Peter Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
“the seated passenger will refuse to move”
That’s what the conductor is for.
jimsf Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
There will be plenty of seats. Dont even worry about it.
Anyway, currently here anyway, a reserved seat does not mean a specific seat. it just means they keeep track and don’t oversell the train for any portion of the trip so there is a seat for everyone at all times but which seat is first come first serve – one you pick one, its yours for the duration until you off board and the conductor removes your seat check thingy.
jimsf Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
speaking of seating types.. I see several here that I like for the first class section put some of those in and a big screen with ESPN and the trains will be packed.
ericmarseille Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
In France there are plenty of egoistic and “uncivic” people (it is the fashionable term these days) .
It happens once in a while that you find someone at your reserved place, and that they refuse to move ; sometimes it is understandable ; e.g, that mother with her 2 or 3 kids who didn’t manage to book a grouped configuration and who asks the people whose seats she took to swap with her, the guy who can’t stand turning his back to the road but didn’t manage to book on time a proper seat, . Most of the time it is people who do not have a specific seat because of overbooking and who simply seat where they can until the next stop, when they are finally disloged by a boarding passenger.
But I’ve seen others with very dubious excuses to take my place…I’ve never had to do more than just insist that I wanted my reserved place for peace of mind, but what if I were a skinny young lady?
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Of course they could have a BART fare system. Or they could do Zones the way caltrain does it. But neither of those maximizes revenue as well. People are paying midday prices even at peak demand time where seats could fetch more. by using buckets, smart people can still snag good fares if they plan ahead. Regular commuters buy multirides and monthlies.
Roger Christensen Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Indeed! Palmdale is solid. In addition to Metro, the Antelope Valley alignment has been endorsed by the City of Los Angeles and the LA County Board of Supervisors. That’s a big gorilla in the room.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Taiwan HSR has a fixed-price system, with discount given to unreserved seats, multi-ride tickets, and off-peak trains, also business class is offered with premium price. Regular class cars, both reserved and unreserved, are in 2+3 arrangement. Business class car, just one per train, is in 2+2 arrangement with complimentary drinks and snacks.
As for loading gauges (train width), Caltrain’s MP36 locomotives is only 15 cm, or about 6 inch, narrower than Shinkansen’s width (3.38m). Would it be worth to design CAHSR system for wider gauge, and expand Caltrain corridor to this?
Clem Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
The system is being designed to a combined loading gauge that encompasses everything out there, so the rolling stock choice will not be constrained. See Tech Memo-1.1.10 and associated drawings.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Thanks, Clem. Good to know CAHSR didn’t just go for the standard gauge for US railroad.
I guess Caltrain can buy wider trains as well?
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Just to clarify, what I meant for “fixed-price” is “fixed-price for station pairs” i.e. distance based system.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
well with buckets, its a fixed price, but there are like 4 fixed prices. based on demand. That way, again you can maximize revenue. Unfortunately voters mandated a profit so the operator wont have much choice. Unless the point to point fares are high enough to create profit. But then you lose passengers who would otherwise pay less for empty seats but still pay something.
There are two kinds of passengers, those who get the fare buckets and those who don’t
the former tend to have it together. The latter are baffled. “but the other day I only paid 32″
We spend have the day explaining that ” train tickets are like plane tickets, the pricing is based on availability – supply and demand” ( if I had a dollar for…)
I expect we’ll see all the tother usual marketing promos as well
senior discounts, disabled discounts, triple A discounts, “student advantage” membership discounts. A group desk to handle school group bookings etc.
dodgers promos and giants promos, half price kids. Senior midweek specials, Kids ride free on weekends, and on and on and on – oh, gilroy garlic festival 20 percent off promo code…lol.
The world of marketing professionals has established that these kinds of things are worth the money.
Useless Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
@ William
Shinkansen’s 2+3 seating doesn’t work in the US because the seats are too narrow for non-Japanese.
The platform gap is affected by the loading gauge, so it has to be decided early on, preferably to UIC standard of 3.1 m. This way, CAHSR doesn’t get stuck with single vendor for the rest of its life.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Commuter cars all over the US have 2+3 seating.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Actually I rode Taiwan HSR, and the seat width for 2+3 is about the same as economy seats on Airlines, but the seat pitch is certainly more generous than airline seats.
3.1m is even narrower than the current US standard, including Acela, which are about 3.25m wide.
Shinkansen trains are build by Hitachi, Nippon Sharyo, Kinki Sharyo, and Kawasaki, so they can bid the order under a single consortium (like Taiwan) or individually. Siemens has already proved that it can build wide versions of Velaro for Russia and China. Similarly, Bombardier already committed to build wide version of its new Zefiro trains for China.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
There is no reason whatsoever to cram people into these trains that are going to have plenty of excess capacity for years. The whole advantage of the train over the plane is that you don’t have to squish up next to strangers and you some room to relax and move around. Stop trying to smash us together.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Not even with cheaper tickets?
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
absolutely not, one, and two, why would it make the tickets any cheaper. Perhaps if the system reaches a point where double set duplex trains are leaving every 10 minutes packed to overflowing with 1000+ passengers and squeezing ini more seat would generate additional revenue and allow slightly lower pricing per seat…. but thats a scenario that isn’t going to happen. There will be plenty of room. I can barely handle a 737 3-3 for 55 minutes, Im sure not gonna sit like that for 3 hours for any price. Besides, california train riders are going to caltrans they don’t like it adn caltrans is going to tell the operator, don’t do that.
ericmarseille Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
+1
Fast
Cheap
Comfortable
Secure
are HSR’s perceived advantages.
In that order.
Justin H Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Biggest advantage is convenience, then comfort and speed. Riding hsr is not generally cheaper than alternatives. It would help if drivers had to pay freeway tolls, as they do in more rational systems.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
@jimsf
For me, the airline economy seat width is okay, it is the seat pitch that I have the most issue with.
Maybe 2+3 arrangement won’t be as bad as you think?
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
It will be as bad. I fit in the seats fine. Im not large. But I don’t like sitting with my arms touching the person next to me. not only that, there is just absolutely no reason to try and cram that many people into a rail car. I mean maybe 50 years from now when the population is 70 million ( and im dead and gone thank god) But for the first decade of service, Id much rather go with double decked cars to get more seats than with 2 3 seating. Americans like space. ( and they are getting larger)
bixnix Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
please, gawd, make CA HSR 2 + 2. I don’t want to be squished into a tiny seat like on the Southwest 737s.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
okay thank you!
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:01 am
@ William
> For me, the airline economy seat width is okay.
Ok for you, not for me and I am sure a lot of other people too.
Peter Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I think the solution used by the airlines is appropriate here, as well. BUY AN EXTRA SEAT!!
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Here’s the right way to do it … see?
Useless Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
@jimsf
That’s for first-class passengers who subsidize the ticket price for the rest of us.
2+2 is a must for American regular passengers who tend to be much wider than Japanese. Beside, Kawasaki is bidding with E6, which has 2+2 seating.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
( thats’s alstom AGV for saudi arabia…. paid for by our gas money no doubt. while we clunk around in gas guzzling mobiles, our gas money is buying the saudi’s a first class high speed transportation system.)
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Id pay 199 one way sf la true express for that seat.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
@Useless
where did you see that Kawasaki is bidding with E6? E6 is a mini-shinkansen that’ll run on narrow gauge converted lines. All I’ve heard is the N700-I news.
All I am saying is that, if average American can fit in Airline economy seats, certainly they can fit in Shinkansen seats.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
It’s really quite bizarre. Kawasaki wants to sell the E6, but I think the 700 is the only one that goes fast enough to satisfy Prop 1A…and the 800 is much nicer in terms of designer (and used for lower capacity routes) but they don’t want to export that technology, I guess….
Alon Levy Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Kawasaki is trying to sell the efSET to Europe. Hitachi has already sold the A-Train, which is medium-speed. JR East is bidding with the E6. JR Central proposed the N700-I for Florida.
There’s more than one Japanese rolling stock manufacturer.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 4:20 am
Did some checking around on the Saudi project, this is what I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haramain_High_Speed_Rail_Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAU-UHCwZ64&feature=player_embedded#
Something the competition is working on–and some say our rail project is extreme engineering? How expensive is this parking “solution?” I have to say I do like the portrayals of the problems of conventional parking–looks like something we can use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJcWrAcgxc0&feature=related
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:12 am
@ William
> where did you see that Kawasaki is bidding with E6?
From Japanese news.
> All I’ve heard is the N700-I news.
N700i is for Texas, not California. Japanese government divided up the US territory and gave exclusive bidding rights to each of Japanese rail companies to prevent two Japanese companies bidding on same project.
@ Risenmessiah
> It’s really quite bizarre. Kawasaki wants to sell the E6, but I think the 700 is the only one that goes fast enough to satisfy Prop 1A…and the 800 is much nicer in terms of designer (and used for lower capacity routes) but they don’t want to export that technology, I guess….
No, Nippon Saryo has no right to bid in California. Nippon Saryo can bid in Texas and Florida. Kawasaki has the exclusive bid right in California.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Shouldn’t the Japanese rethink their territorial restriction on bidding since the Florida project is dead?????
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
@ Risenmessiah Reply:
> Shouldn’t the Japanese rethink their territorial restriction on bidding since the Florida project is dead?????
Japanese understood that California HSR was going to have a mixed traffic and utilize legacy tracks, while Florida and Texas systems were brand new.
So N700i cannot be proposed to California even if the bidding restriction is removed.
quashlo Reply:
August 8th, 2011 at 10:37 am
@ Risenmessiah
> Kawasaki wants to sell the E6, but I think the 700 is the only one that goes fast enough to satisfy Prop 1A…and the 800 is much nicer in terms of designer (and used for lower capacity routes) but they don’t want to export that technology, I guess….
E6 could easily go to 360 km/h if desired, the only thing holding it at 320 km/h in Japan are the noise regulations.
As for the 800 series, the basic technology and design is the same as the 700 series, with some modifications to nose shape, placement of equipment, and of course interior design / seating configuration. If all we want is a nicely-designed 2+2 configuration, it’s pretty trivial… The latest N700 sets for the Kyūshū Shinkansen have some of the better examples of 2+2 in the Shinkansen network:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=66725925&postcount=89
@ Useless
> No, Nippon Saryo has no right to bid in California. Nippon Saryo can bid in Texas and Florida. Kawasaki has the exclusive bid right in California.
A bit of an oversimplification. Just as with most domestic rolling stock orders in Japan, there is quite a bit of cross-teaming. Sure, the bidding efforts in California are being spearheaded by JR East and Kawasaki, but both Nippon Sharyō and Hitachi are also on the team.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 8th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Thanks for clearing that up… I’m not sure what you mean about Prop 1A…isn’t 360 kph fast enough (223 mph)?
It’s not surprising thought that any country would hold back it’s best stuff for itself…we do it with defense technology all the time. Still, I think the Japanese have plenty of good advice for us…but giving us old technology….that’s another thing….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Does it come with Barbara Bain, Martin Landau and the rest of the cast of Space 1999?
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
LOL.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 8th, 2011 at 4:04 am
The Saudi high-speed trains will be built by Talgo. The Spanish consortium slashed its price by 30% at the last minute.
Useless Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
@ William
> 3.1m is even narrower than the current US standard, including Acela, which are about 3.25m wide.
Acela is 3.1 m wide, and this is actually 0.1 m wider than it is supposed to be, thus tilting is disabled in certain segments and the next-gen Acela will almost certainly be narrower to be able to tilt all the time.
> Siemens has already proved that it can build wide versions of Velaro for Russia and China.
“Wider-than-UIC” is basically a non-standard train that cost more to build unless you are buying at Chinese rate.
> Similarly, Bombardier already committed to build wide version of its new Zefiro trains for China.
That’s for China-only and isn’t UIC-compliant.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Do you have a link? The other mainline passenger equipment in the US is 3.2 meters, i.e. about the same as Scandinavia and China; go narrower than that and there’s a platform gap.
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Alon Levy
> Do you have a link?
For what? Acela width is well-known at 3.1 m.
> The other mainline passenger equipment in the US is 3.2 meters
All the bullet train models excluding Japanese are actually 3 m or less(Velaro, TGV, AGV, KTX-II, even Zefiro V300)
Peter Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:55 am
“Acela width is well-known at 3.1 m.”
You’re so full of shit. Yet further proof that you pull a good amount, if not most, of your “information” out of your ass.
Here’s a link to specs on the Acela. Took 10 seconds on the Google to counter your “well-known” fact that you were too lazy to verify.
Power car width: 3.18 m
Passenger car width: 3.16 m
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:33 am
Rounding errors in the conversion process from Imperial measurements to metric.
According to the information in your link Acela power cars are 10’5″ which is 3.175 m. Or they are 3.18 meters and 10’5.19685″.
North American cars are nominally 10’6″ Width at the door sills can vary somewhat. Width at the window sills can vary a lot. Shinkansen are nominally 11″. Which looks extraordinarily wide to Japanese and Europeans. 6 inches isn’t a whole lot. Or 152.4 mm. Or 150 mm isn’t a whole lot or 5.90551181 inches
Peter Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:49 am
My point was that they’re NOT 3.1 m, and that they’re not wide for US loading gauge, as Useless seems to be trolling on about again.
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 9:29 am
@ Peter
> My point was that they’re NOT 3.1 m,
So I am off by 0.06 m. Thanks for letting me know.
> they’re not wide for US loading gauge, as Useless seems to be trolling on about again.
The US loading gauge is 3.25 m(3.2 m effective), 0.150 m narrower than Shinkansen’s 3.4 m(3.350 m effective). Either case, UIC train sets can travel existing Caltrain and Metrolink corridors fine, while Shinkanse train sets cannot.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 9:50 am
They aren’t 3.18 either or 3.25 as William wrote.
They are nominally the same width as the wide variety of cars that operate on the NEC.
Standard North American loading gauge for passenger cars. Nominally 10’6″ and 51 inch floors.
Built to fit in the “Amtrak” loading gauge.
Depends on who is doing the measuring and where they are measuring. If I remember correctly at the door sill Acela’s are marginally narrower than Amfleets. Marginally wider at the window sill. Acelas and Amfleets aren’t the same width as the straight sided commuter cars they share track and platforms with. … they share the same tracks and platforms – they are the same width…
Joey Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Honestly though with low platforms and 15′ (4.5m) track spacing throughout I don’t think there’s actually much that would physically prevent using Shinkansen trains on either corridor.
Mostly irrelevant though, changing the width of a particular train for a particular order is somewhat trivial.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Metro North M8, which is 3.2m wide, has 2+3 seats:
http://madre-de-dios.org/gallery2/v/movement/trains/fieldtrips/03-29-11_m8_trains/M8+interior+1.jpg.html
(credit goes to the picture taker)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
as are the 2+3 LIRR cars and the 2+3 NJTransit cars and SEPTA cars….
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
dreadful.
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:19 am
@ William
Those are bench seats for a short haul. Imagine three average American males in that bench; not pretty-looking at at.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
You’re misusing the term “Bench seat.” In subway-related discussions at least, a bench seat is parallel to the direction of travel, like this.
Nathanael Reply:
August 9th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Wrong. A bench seat is contrasted to a bucket seat; a bench seat has no individual seats, just, well, a bench — so people can sprawl out or crowd together. Bucket seats have individual “scoops” to mark where each person is supposed to sit. For some reason bench seats have gone out of fashion in the US, perhaps due to rude people taking up too much space or shoving people out of the way. Cars also have bucket seat/bench seat distinctions. Usually they have bucket seats in the front and bench seats in the back. It’s rare to see bench seats in the front of a car or bucket seats in the back these days
You’re referring to the distinction between longitudinal and transverse seating. Transverse seating has people facing forwards and backwards; longitudinal has them facing sideways, and leaves more standing room.
Old-school streetcars had transverse bench seating. Modern very-busy subway routes usually have longitudinal bench seating; slightly less busy ones often have longitudinal bucket seating. Longer commuter train routes usually have transverse bucket seating. Many metro routes have a mix of transverse and longitudinal, but I’ve never seen a single train car with a mix of bench and bucket.
JBaloun Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Looks like airline seats do not go below 17in wide.
http://www.seatguru.com/charts/premium_economy.php
Simple check 5 * 17 = 4 * X
X = 21 in.
So 2×2 seating gains about almost 4 inch more seat width +/- a slightly wider aisle.
Clem Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 11:15 am
You forgot 2 inches for each armrest. 17 inches is the width of the seat bottom only.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
On the other hand the 800 Series Shinkansen has 2+2 class seating, with all reserved/assigned seats and no business class (green class):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shinkansen_800_Series_Interior-3.jpg
The catch is, 800 Series serve the Kyushu Shinkansen, a line with much lower ridership potential than Tokyo-Osaka
wu ming Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 12:44 am
taiwan HSR 3+2 seats were perfectly wide enough for my less-than-willowy american frame. a hell of a lot better than any airplane.
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:20 am
@ wu ming
> taiwan HSR 3+2 seats were perfectly wide enough for my less-than-willowy american frame.
You mean your Chinese frame.
William Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
@Useless
Please take this back. You are implying Chinese-Americans are not American.
Not wanting to start a stereotype, the Chinese-American here, given our food, is not smaller than any other ethic groups.
Eric M Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I think he was just implying the obvious, Americans are heavier than other people in the world. Plain and simple
Peter Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
No, I’m pretty sure he was being racist.
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@ William
> Not wanting to start a stereotype, the Chinese-American here, given our food, is not smaller than any other ethic groups.
Wu Ming’s assertion that he found Taiwan train(Exported Shinkansen)’s 2+3 seating to be comfortable confirms that he is a small framed individual.
If you are an American male slightly larger than the average(say 6.1 feet/220 lbs), then you are not going to find Shinkansen’s seat to be comfortable. I am not asking the California HSR train’s seats to seat comfortably for everyone, just 80% of population. And that would require a 2+2 seating arrangement and 2+3 is definitely out of question.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Sweden has 2+3 seating on the 3,450 mm wide Regina.
jimsf Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
THERES no reason or need for 2-3 seating! Stop talking about it!! omg. I mean someday the trains and schedules are maxed out and people are being denied boarding cuz the whole system is sold out ( in like star trek times from now) then we can start adding seats. how bout first we get some trains with a couple hundred folks each going down and back, in comfort, you know so they can tell their friends “wow the train is super more comfty than flying” you know, get em hooked at least first…. then pull a switcheroo in a couple/3 decades.
2/3 seats. please. stop it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
That’s a big advantage of the Nordic (also the Shinkansen) loading gauge. Your population can be spherical but still fit five across.
Elsewhere, a fair amount of thought and engineering effort goes into allowing trains to be marginally wider, and thus accommodate 2+3 seating, within the existing restrictions, often by making trains out of units less than 20m (which of course protrude less from track centre line in curves, which is the usual limit.)
eg
Bombardier RATP Z5000 (Order 40 sets now to cover SF-San Jose and Sylmar-Anaheim!)
Talgo Avril (nice diagram on p6, check it out)
Copehagen S-Tåg
etc
swing hanger Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 5:11 am
Arguments re. 2+2 vs. 2+3 are moot: any manufacturer will build an arrangement that fits the needs of the customer- seats can be easily removed and rearranged, i.e. it is not an integral part of a train design. Anyway, what is more important than seat width (except for the obese) is seat pitch- the KTX I rode last week was considerably more cramped than the 800 series shinkansen I rode in Kyushu before taking the jetfoil across the Tsushima Straits. I assume the KTX Sancheon is improved in this aspect.
William Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
@swing hanger
See my post above about 800 Series Shinkansen.
KTX I is essentially a TGV train, which has a width ~2.9m. 800 Series Shinkansen has the typical Shinkansen width, which is 3.38m, almost half a meter wider than TGV.
Given that 800 series has 2+2 through out the train, with no business class, and regular class KTXZ is also 2+2, it is not surprising that you’ll find 800 Series more spacious.
William Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
For Shinkansen trains, seat pitch is fixed at 1040mm, or about 41inch, and windows designed to align with the seats. Also, all seats can rotate, so passengers always face the direction of travel without actual turning the train around.
TGV has a seat pitch of 945mm, about 37.2inch. Seats don’t rotate, so half of the passengers always face the opposite way of travel. My speculation was that this was done to save some weight.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
TGV seats are sometimes fixed to face each other. That’s how the TGV Duplex I rode was configured, and apparently how all Eurostar coaches are configured. I would guess it provides more legroom for a fixed seat pitch…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Saves a lot on maintenance too. Complex moving parts versus simpler fixed in place parts.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
The saving is more than offset by the extra time needed to do switching moves to turn seats the right way, if it’s desirable for all seats to face forward. Amtrak turns with complex yard moves; the Shinkansen trains turn in 10-12 minutes with no extra moves, with the seats rotated with motors.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
SNCF’s bottom line is affected by Amtrak operating practices.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I can’t recall any instance of this seats must face forwards business (ie nonsense) in Europe.
I guess it’s just a cultural thing. It would be a pity if it were allowed to take root in California and further wreck whatever residual efficiencies any hypothetical modern rail equipment were hypothetically be allowed to have. (Besides, it’s safer to face backwards. And the scenery is the same coming or going.)
As for face to face seating (across a table, as opposed to airline-style knees-to-backs), these are generally regarded as desirable and keep being specified and built because groups (even groups of two) travelling together like to interact face to face.
If I had any say (ho ho ho) long distance equipment would, just like short distance equipment, be a balanced mixture of airline and face to face seating, all of it fixed. (Of course if I had any say regional trains would be 2+3 low floor boarding single level and all long distance equipment would be 2+2 low floor boarding double deck.)
Miles Bader Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Have you ever ridden a train Richard?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Dear Miles, nowhere near as many Japanese trains as you must have ridden, but far more than zero. Thanks for asking. It’s always a pleasure to provide you with information.
swing hanger Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Shinkansen seats are both manually and automatically rotable, so passengers are free to arrange them as they wish- i.e. facing forward, or face to face when in groups/families, or even facing backwards, though I have never once seen a person do this. This has been standard practice on shinkansen and limited express trains for some 4 decades. Never any broken rotating mechanisms either.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Why single deck on the regional trains Richard? Wouldn’t they be more in need of double decking for capacity?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
My admittedly limited experience (Metro-North) is that backward-facing seats induce more vertigo and nausea.
Miles Bader Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
In general, I think people just don’t like facing backwards on vehicles.
I’ve certainly ridden my share of backwards-facing seats on intercity trains, and it’s always sort of annoying — even though the scenery is “the same”, I find that I much prefer to see what’s coming in the distance than what’s gone past (this isn’t entirely arbitrary either, I think — it gives one warning about what’s coming, so, for instance, one can be prepared to look more closely when something interesting goes past, etc).
When finding a seat, there also seems to be a clear preference amongst passengers for forwards-facing seats — on non-reserved trains, when there’s a mix of both types, the forwards-facing seats fill first.
Of course people do also like “group seating”, with pairs of seats facing each other, but in that case, it just seems to be a tradeoff — the pleasure of sitting facing your friends overrides the annoyance of facing backwards (but even then, I’ve always noticed a bit of jockeying amongst one’s group for who gets the forward-facing seats…).
Clearly the Shinkansen solution seems fairly optimal from a passenger point of view.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Paulus, single-deck trains have the following advantages:
1. It’s possible to add more doors, spaced more evenly around the train. It’s the reason why double-deckers are rare in Japan: boarding and alighting is a bigger capacity issue than space on the train.
1b. For regional service, dwell time is more important than for intercity service.
2. Single-level equipment is mass produced and has a double-digit number of different vendors; bilevel EMUs have fewer vendors, and are more specialized. The KISS is an exception, but Stadler in general has very streamlined products (in the business sense, not the aerodynamic one); compare the number of FLIRTs sold with the number of Talents sold, and then compare the size of Stadler with the size of Bombardier.
2b. There do not exist bilevel high-speed EMUs, unless you count the 240 km/h E1 and E4 Series Shinkansen. There exist bilevel high-speed unpowered cars, from just one vendor, with less capacity than a single-level 2+2 Shinkansen.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
(This thread of replies seems to have gotten detached.)
Paulus, single decker regional trains for the reasons Alon stated, but also to be a bit controversialist.
At the very low level of ridership of Caltrain or Metrolink there isn’t really much requirement for stuffing lots of riders per unit length of train (the usual argument for double deckers); while on the other hand, at that same very low level of ridership, doorway and vestibule congestion isn’t a major operational limit.
People hereabouts (California, Illinois, Boston, New Jersey, etc) assume that “Commuter trains” have to be double deck because that’s all they’ve seen, or, if they go beyond that, they’re somehow convinced that only double deck trains can cope with ridership they imagine. Maybe, maybe not.
The Parisian Z5000 trains I cited are single deck with wide aisles, no constriction in inter-car movement, and no interior stairs (hence double decking) because they’re designed for very high passenger volumes and quick station stops at the very busiest stations.
I’ve no religion or especially strong opinions on this point, other than that one should be open to locally non-conventional ideas and dubious of Olde Tyme Railroader received ideas. I think it could go either way for Caltrain/Metrolink, with the only real argument for double deck regional trains coming down to having marginally fewer wheels and marginally less mass per seat.
On the other hand I (alone in the universe .. but I’ll be proven right!) am increasingly convinced (adamant!) that only double-deck, low-floor-loading high speed trains can work in California. (This belief is dictated, as so many state-wide constraints are, or will eventually be understood to be, dictated by overwhelming throughput problems at SF Transbay.)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Re forward seata: I honestly think it is cultural.
Consider that airline passenger seats face forwards, yet (aside from takeoff and landing, for the few pax in window seats, and the few of them that even look out the windows) there is absolutely no practical difference in the view, and no possible contribution to motion sickness from facing forwards rather than backwards. On the other hand there are extremely strong safely arguments to face backwards — all military transports do, and nobody values life like the military!
And yes, I’ll always choose a forward seat given the chance, but that’s because I’m a hopeless sad infrastructure foamer case (and a landscape junkie beside). Most passengers, especially the Important Businessmen we’re supposed to pander to at all times and design our entire world around, have their noses in laptops or paperwork most of the time anyway. Lastly, track doesn’t have to be as badly maintained and the train ride as bouncy as people in the US have been trained to expect. Outside the third world (and outside roller coaster rides or the mainline rail equivalent) you really shouldn’t even be able to tell the train is in motion much of the time.
Miles Bader Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
On the other hand I (alone in the universe .. but I’ll be proven right!) am increasingly convinced (adamant!) that only double-deck, low-floor-loading high speed trains can work in California
Why? My impression is that the use of duplex trains for the TGV is largely dictated by oddities of that system — a need for maximum capacity and historical compatibility with a narrow loading gauge and low platforms, etc — but double-deck trains don’t really offer that much capacity increase (maybe 20%?) and are rather a headache in general.
Joey Reply:
August 8th, 2011 at 12:25 am
A properly designed duplex trainset could probably offer more than a 20% increase in capacity.
As for why, like Richard said, it all boils down to problems at Transbay, where capacity is quite limited (this is partially to do with an incompetent design and partially to do with there being a finite amount of space). Having more passengers per train means running fewer trains, which means you’re less likely to encounter conflicts and the associated delays. Alternately, for the same number of passengers per train, you can run a shorter train, meaning that it can enter the station a lot faster (if you’ve got a 400m long train, it will be stopping very close to the end of the track, and as such must approach very slowly for safety reasons – a 200m long train has a bit more space and can approach faster). This also means that trains will clear the station throat (where all conflicts occur) faster.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 9th, 2011 at 5:49 am
Currently sitting on an MBTA train, on high-quality track rated at 150 mph, on a backward-facing seat, and I already feel slightly dizzy. And this is on straight track; it was worse a few minutes ago in Pawtucket where there was some cant deficiency.
The reason I’m facing backward is that there were more seats available that way in Providence, which tells me I’m not the only person who feels this way.
Peter Reply:
August 9th, 2011 at 6:09 am
Bombardier claims a 70% increase in capacity over single-level cars for their Bi-Level cars. They claim a 15-30% increase for the Multi-Levels.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 9th, 2011 at 6:26 am
The TGV Duplex claims a 45% increase, though for the life of me I can’t make 545/345 equal to 1.45.
(Followup to my previous comment: we’re being overtaken by Orange Line subway trains in between stops. And the automated station announcement was wrong, and the train stopped briefly in the middle of the tracks. And there’s cant excess at some curves. I want the MBTA to swap its current set of managers for the more competent people at Caltrain.)
Nathanael Reply:
August 9th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
I have previously made the somewhat comic suggestion of having double-decker trains which load on both decks and have walk-through on both decks, rather than having internal staircases. I think they might be too tall. More importantly, the stations would be ridiculously large. PB would probably like it though.
Useless Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
@ Williams
The biggest Korean passenger complaints against TGV-K was the narrow seats and this was addressed in KTX-II, whose regular seats are 21 inches wide.
wu ming Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 12:40 am
japanese trains, blue and gold livery, and both a cafe car and a snack cart. done.
I still vote for this color scheme. Silver with a stripe
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
If they are smart, they will wrap them with ads for other state enterprises: license plates, universities, state parks, Game and Fish…
If not, they should use a standard design with a white background: a collage with the Golden Gate, Yosemite, Hollywood Sign….yada…yada.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
NO NO NO ad wrapping. Ad space can be sold in the interiors and stations only.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
The trains should be silver with a red stripe a al our flag and a grizzly bear
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Yikes!! You’ll have the conservatives all over you!! Good grief, a RED stripe, a RED STAR, and a GREAT BEAR–all symbols of the U.S.S.R.!!
Ho, ho, ho, ho!!!
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
LOL thats funny. The commie train! La voie ferrée socialistes! I didn’t realize our flag had that in common. Very cool. If the OC finds out they will try to recall the flag.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“If the OC finds out they will try to recall the flag.”
Ho, ho, ho, ho! I hope they do! It’ll help make’em look like even bigger fools than they are!!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
While on the theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVdVTVR-j0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR7chibyCMQ
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
of course everyone loved the catch our smile planes.
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
We need to sell AD Space on each train…something like this. http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/4/picturethis5-1.jpg
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Disney would be willing to pony up for something like this http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pIX0Yrfc96k/THKufOUhbmI/AAAAAAAAECk/TMows_oseXU/s1600/image001+(1).jpg
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Plenty of choices here including Universal Studios
http://orkut-html.blogspot.com/2010/08/colorful-airplanes-wallpapers.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Ugh!
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I second that.
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
What, you liked the Disney Ads Jim?
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Where I come from, mice are rodents.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Mickey Mouse fans would hate my cats, one in particular who seems to like “hot meals” on occasion. And it’s not just mice, but rabbits and opossums, too; oh, my wife gets upset at seeing the occasional headless mouse, and she’s so squeamish, I can’t tell you how glad I am she did not see the legs and a blue eye from an opossum under the picnic table in my yard. . .
About that French trip coming up–any chance you’ll get to shoot some pictures and post them? Any chance you may get to check out a steam operation?
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
To do it atleast to build revenue on the first years of service and as ridership builds up
you start removing the ads? I just want this thing to get off and running…I love riding the
ICE, TGV, Thalys and AVE on my trips in Europe. I can’t wait for this one here. I wish It was
here already so I could go to that German Restaurant that is popular in SF.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
@dp I will take video on the tgv, but it will look just like all the other tgv videos on you tube
@gianny – where are you from and what german restaurant? I want them to hurry up too. I just don’t see how they can to the construction in 8 years. Doesn’t large construction take a decade or more.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Actually, I was thinking about something like this:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/455/images/MBFMSP_Spring.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51421101@N02/4772493774/
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/bbourdages/bbourdages1008/bbourdages100800084/7676692-red-grapes-on-the-vine-in-napa-valley-california.jpg
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
@tom
I prefer that advertising, even for promoting the state itself, be kept inside on large informational video displays.
Gianny Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
HONEST QUESTION…. How much would an add on the Locomotive run Annually?
To only allow 1 major add on each Locomotive. Specially tourism companies and local like APPLE, Cisco, HP, Universal, Disney, FB.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
I dont know but around here we consider advertising to be blight. They actually tried to pull that crap with the golden gate bridge of all things. An immediate stop was put to that.
Id rather pay higher fare and have a state train system I can take pride in as a californian.
I wonder how much we could get for ad space on Half Dome while we’re at it.
Gianny Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 12:49 am
@JIM…is Call Suppenküche in SF. Im from the land of Carlos Gardel!
jimsf Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
oh yeh that place is about 8 blocks from here. I haven’t tried it though. I don’t know who carlos gardel is.
Justin H Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
I’m all for Gianny’s ad space idea, mickey, san diego zoo, sf moma…but manage the thing, eg, no ads for nevada casinos on DX!
ericmarseille Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Love that postmodern look
Reminds me of one of the competitors for French HSR in the late 60s :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VvsxaaFNAs
(sigh) so much nostalgia…
Apart from PB foamies and LA-Palmdale machine pols most Californians support Tejon for hsr, because it much more direct and much shorter. That’s why I-5 is there and not in the Tehachapis. It is in your face obvious.
I suspect Van Ark recognizes this deep disconnect between CHSRA policy and public opinion in the State at large. So there is a political reconciliation as well as budgetary and operational upside to returning to Tejon.
LA is simply attempting a shakedown of the state’s taxpayers – it is flexing its muscle to force the state to pay for a local transit project. What else is new? Nice precedent – the Bay Area and BART will try it next.
It is best for this controversy to be resolved quickly, as it will determine whether this megaprojecft can be rationalized. If not, many minds will be made up for good. Positions will be set in concrete, so to speak, after that. Instead of unifying the state hsr will have exactly the opposite effect on public opinion.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Californians support Tejon for hsr
You have a reference for that?
LA is simply attempting a shakedown of the state’s taxpayers
People in Los Angeles pay state taxes.
it is flexing its muscle to force the state to pay for a local transit project.
Palmdale to San Francisco or Palmdale to Sacramento is local?
synonymouse Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
If they return to Tejon I would be against putting Prop 1A back on the ballot, as it would probably lose even with the better route, as the public has gone sour on the CHSRA. I’d like to see the link via Tejon from Bako to LA built ASAP.
But, dumbed down again to the Loopy detour, put that sucker prop right back on the ballot and deep-six this boondoggle.
Im tempted to say that with palmdale solid, the next segment should be bfd-pmd.
This would allow, one, the interim 125mph use – existing service down the valley, and allow those trains to continue to pmd. where metrolink and thruway connex would allow continued travel.
two, the city of pmd could push to get DX to plan to come all the way in which greatly add to their passenger base ( Dx) since there would be a direct connect from nor/central california. Trains could even travel at regular speed via the metrolink route.
of course on the other hand, completing pacheco would allow interim trains to come into sf directly
Im torn.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Given the initial operating segment is likely to be San Jose to Bakersfield… Pacheco is the next nail in the coffin. That’s why the NIMBYs are in overdrive. Bakersfield to Palmdale is going to be very difficult and probably will require special federal legislation to fund not only the tracks for HSR, but also an expansion of the Tehachapi Loop as a “bribe” to the UP and BNSF. Palmdale to LA is also going to be tough.
jimsf Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
well sjc-bfd would be fine too. WIth proper co ordination, it could bring train into tbt which opens in 2017. and we could get caltrain electrificed by then. so you could get 125 and 220 peninsula/valley service.
Joey Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
The difficulty is that the mountain crossings are going to involve some tunnels, which may preclude running diesel service in the interim. Even if you do, there’s little point in forcing people to transfer to Metrolink, though I’m not sure the Soledad Canyon route could handle many more trains.
Honestly, I think the best solution would have been to start with LA-Palmdale-Bakersfield (in that order) and just run electric trains from the start.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Bakersfield to LA basin is difficult, no matter the route goes through Palmdale or not.
The northern climb across Tehachapi Mountains is more of gradual rise, according the the initial route selection reports, so it present less difficulty, with either I-5 route or CA58 route. The south climb through Tejon is a steep drop, and requires a very long long (10 miles +) tunnel. The Palmdale route is longer, the the climb from LA to Palmdale is less steep and has more routing options.
The original CAHSRA assumption was, given the very few routing alternatives near I-5, it has higher risk in detail design stage (spent the money but find no good route), compare to multiple options near CA58.
synonymouse Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I believe the Quantm route tunnels thru Tejon were all quite a bit shorter than 10 miles.
Clem Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
No single tunnel longer than 6 miles, and 18 miles total tunnel length over the Grapevine. See Quantm Report.
William Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Thanks Clem. I guess I remembered the number from the 2.5%, not the 3.5% grade.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Precisely. More detailed alternatives analysis Palmdale/Sylmar found more challenges on the descent from Palmdale and constrainted alignment alternatives in the section east of Sylmar, which is why they are taking a more detailed look at Tejon to see whether the costs and project risks indeed overlap, justifying returning Tejon to the alternatives analysis.
If it was easy they would already have put through more mainline connections between the LA Basin and the San Jaoquin Valley.
jim Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
There’s also that in a funding-constrained world Sylmar-Merced looks like a wonderful Initial Operating Segment, so it’s worth taking another look at Tejon to see if it can be done in one fell swoop.
Justin H Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Long term, DX should connect at San Bernardino, which should also be served by a Phoenix-LA line and an alternate line from San Diego that would leave the main line at Riverside, pass thru S Bdno and Cajon and reconnect with the main line north of Lancaster somewhere (no Palmdale stop on that line). Ie, LA-Vegas and LA-Phoenix lines would both pass thru S Bdno, which would serve as a transfer hub. S Bdno would be as easy for DX to reach as Palmdale, and would make much more sense. If I were DX, I would put all my energy into reaching S Bdno, don’t even think about Palmdale.
Of course, if it were up to me, we would build a wall at the border and let Nevada go back to silver mining, but if there’s going to be a DX line, that’s where I would put it.
Let me try to present a different take on Tehachapi vs Tejon. Bear with me in presenting some hypothetical scenarios.
Let’s say the Tehachapi Loop line was not built ca. 1870 – a deep recession intervened like the Panic 0f 1892 or the crisis of 1907 and the funding disappeared. In other words the railroad boom of the 1870′s petered out before the Loop could be built. Interestingly I understand there is a somewhat prominent historian who has recently stated the western rr’s should never have been built or at the very least not encouraged or enabled.
Flash forward to the post WWI era, say 1920. No Tehachapi, no Tejon rr. The proposal comes up to build one; what would have been the public response? I suggest it would have been fuggegaboudit. Trucks are more mobile and versatile; we need to build more roads – pass on more railroads.
Now flash back again a decade to 1910, about the time the Santa Fe studied Tejon. Which of the two options would have been built? It would have been close but if Tehachapi had prevailed it would have been for two primary reasons. Lower grades for freight and and the option of branching off to the east in the Mojave area. Not only are both these reasons irrelevant from the pov of the CHSRA they are strongly negative. First the specious advantage of the lower grades at Tehachapi as they come at the enormous price of the Loop – even with extensive tunneling and stilts today you still have ruling gradients similar to those at Tejon. And the eastern option adds on, what, 30-40 extra route miles.
The inexcusable error here is peremptorily ruling out Tejon as not possible. It merits having every inch scrutinized before that conclusion.
Justin H Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Headline: Tehachapi route shorter, not longer.
Long term, we should expect a line from LA out thru Inland Empire and Palm Springs to Phoenix and Tucson, maybe one day connecting with the Texas and beyond thru El Paso, but at least going to Tucson. We should also expect a Cajon pass route from Riverside thru S Bdno, perhaps merging with the main line somewhere north of Lancaster, skipping Palmdale which would already be served by the main line. Eg, every third train to/from San Diego would skip the whole Ontario-Palmdale section, stopping at San Bdno for connections to the Phoenix and Las Vegas lines. This would greatly shorten the trip between anywhere north of Palmdale and anywhere east/south of Ontario, (including San Diego, Palm Springs, and Phoenix). For people traveling between these two anywhere’s — whose combined population far outnumbers that of LA/Orange co. — the Tehachapi-Cajon route would be faster than going thru Grapevine and LA. So thinking long term, it’s not just offering service to Palmdale that makes the Tehachapi route advantageous.
If the Anaheim line went to SD via the coast rather than the Inland Empire, that would change things.
Justin H Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Last line should say, “If LA were connected to SD via Anaheim and the coast rather than via the Inland Empire”.
Editing function please.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 6th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Here’s the problem with your idea:
BNSF and Union Pacific are both heavily invested in the two major passes north and east of San Bernardino. Trying to push HSR through there is a non-starter.
However, it is possible to use the coastal route for LA- SD HSR and then cut a mostly new track from SD to Yuma. There’s already an a ROW from Yuma to Phoenix and Phoenix to Tucson that could be widened to accommodate HSR. The only problem is that it’s UP’s as opposed to BNSF’s.
There’s no point extending HSR to El Paso. It’s only good for trips of 500 miles or less. There’s no point even in connecting Eugene and Sacramento.
Keep in mind though, it’s not that I want the Inland Empire or Palm Springs cut off from HSR. Rather, because Metrolink already goes to Riverside and San Bernardino, there’s a lot that can be done to serve LAUS and even some possibilities with the Alameda Corridor East. The irony is that people from Ventura are going need more time to connect (or Palos Verdes) than people from the I.E.
Justin H Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 1:08 am
Thanks, this is good to know about the passes. Does anyone have more information about this? Can’t hsr build thru these passes without getting in the way of our very efficient freight rail system? Can BNSF and UP really keep hsr from using Cajon?
As for SD-Yuma, I think connecting to Arizona via I-10 would make more sense. This is the shortest route between Phoenix and LA (not to mention Central and Northern California), and it can bring Palm Springs and S. Bdno into the hsr network. I checked the route and it looks like there would be room to build hsr on the I-10 median almost all the way between Indio and Phoenix.
Regarding El Paso, this is a long term scenario starting from the premise of having Texas hsr and LA-Tucson hsr already in place. A future generation of Texans would have to take an interest in connecting Dallas/Ft Worth with Abilene, Midland, Odessa and El Paso. The length of these trips is right in the hsr wheelhouse, with Dallas-El Paso nearing the high end of it. El Paso-Tucson would be something of a dead zone, thus served by fewer trains, but it would probably make more economic sense to build that connection than to have two hsr dead ends within 250 miles of each other. Not many people will go all the way from Texas to California, but some will, especially tourists. An El Paso-LA trip on hsr would be competitive with flying at future air prices. But the bread and butter of the line would be shorter-range passengers. Between Hakata and Tokyo on the shinkansen, the same non-reserved seat gets used by 2-4 different passengers on the same trip.
Matthew B. Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 2:32 am
I think the pass through Banning and Cabazon should be able to handle extra tracks from Riverside for a hypothetical future connection to Phoenix. The Cajon pass will be extremely expensive, and will only make financial sense if there are high capacity tracks already built immediately north and south of the pass (i.e. DesertXpress to Victorville and CAHSR from LA-SD via the Inland Empire). Consequently, DesertXpress will have to be financially viable without a rail connection to San Bernardino before one could ever be built.
I think a connection to Phoenix along I10 makes sense, but that’s after CAHSR phase 2 would be built, not to mention the conservatives in Arizona would have to decide they want to pay to build trains that socialists and illegal immigrants might take.
Justin H Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:10 am
We should tell them, you’re already building roads which socialists and immigrants use for free, you might as well build a rail which only paying passengers can use!
If they want to complain about socialism, why aren’t they complaining about all the free highways, roads and parking spaces?
Regarding immigrants, a lot of buenos compadres capitalistas from Mexico would pay good money to ride on an hsr line reaching border meccas like El Paso and San Diego.
Risenmessiah Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Groups in Arizona like the Goldwater Institute have already come out and said that rail should be reserved from freight. It is true however, that the UP abandoned a ROW from Yuma to Phoenix after an Amtrak crash in 1995 in the hamlet of Hyder. Ironically, the UP after HSR started to take off in California started to do work on the ROW to make it less tenable for the state to buy it.
You should also know that the UP doesn’t follow the I-10 between Colton and Cabazon. It actually uses the much narrower San Timeteo Canyon (which I have driven before and which would be tough to widen.) The I-10 between Indio and Chiraco Summit is not a single ROW, but two separate ones to deal with the inclines, as a result, it would be much more costly that you might imagine.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
I-10 isn’t that bad. The climb from Indio to Chiraco has one short segment with an average 4.5% slope, but the rest top at 4%, and that one segment can be avoided by going through a nearby greenfield alignment.
synonymouse Reply:
August 7th, 2011 at 11:53 am
As per statements from the CHSRA, Tejon is verily shorter for a north-south route connecting the Bay Area to LA, the destinations prescribed in Prop 1A.
Peter Reply:
August 8th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
No, really? We hadn’t noticed.
Incidentally, on the second hand Antonovich is starting to drop hopes of HSR ever being implemented, and is calling for medium speed Metrolink service instead: http://www.yoursitecontrolpanel.com/sites/site1765/site_images/Trans_Aug_2011.pdf