The Evolution of the Initial Operating Segment II: Northern Exposure
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. In this installment, we discuss the role Amtrak Cascades-style rolling stock could play.
On May 10, 2011 the Legislative Analyst’s Office released an analysis of California’s High Speed Rail project. Perhaps the signature recommendation by former analyst Eric Thronson was to suggest that the Authority negotiate with the Federal Railroad Administration on the recipients of high speed rail construction grants. The LAO suggested that the Authority should ask the federal government to remove requirements that its awards only be spent in the Central Valley. The matter soon became irrelevant, with Washington categorically refusing to do so. As a result, any merit behind Thronson’s idea was ignored, and seemingly forgotten.
And that’s exactly the problem.
Less than a month earlier, the Department of Transportation had announced California would receive $100 million funding with a $25 million state match for new locomotives and “next generation, American-built railcars”. The State of Washington meanwhile was awarded through the Recovery Act $70 million dollars for eight locomotives and one new trainset. Thronson had the right idea, just the wrong program.
What staffers should have done is recommend the Legislature seek flexibility over the expenditures for Amtrak California’s rolling stock, not high speed rail.
The grant’s other recipient, Washington State, has sponsored passenger rail service for its residents since 1994. As it had no rolling stock of its own, Washington leased a Talgo trainset manufactured for the European market. As ridership increased, the state decided to order custom-built Talgo units in 1999. Today Washington owns five articulated Talgo trainsets used exclusively for its Amtrak Cascades service.
According to their state department of transportation, a Cascade train is usually comprised of two business class cars, six coach ones, and a both lounge and café cars. Baggage is stored at either end, with another locomotive hauling the weight of the train. The capacity of the each set is 250 people. Further, the Talgo articulated design allows the cars to tilt through curves, conserving precious inertia and making for a faster trip than would otherwise be possible. The cost of each set is reportedly around $30 million each.
The State of California, by contrast, uses modified Amtrak Superliner cars for all of its routes, including the San Joaquin, Pacific Surfliner, and Capitol Corridor. This is because a single Superliner can seat almost a hundred people, and the daily ridership of the Surfliner, for example, is about 3 times that of the Cascades.
The San Joaquin, however, and the Cascades are similar in that there are total of six trains each way equaling a daily ridership of around 2,500. The Cascades takes around six and a half hours to travel the 310 miles from Seattle to Eugene, Oregon. The San Joaquin meanwhile, needs just over six hours to go from 315 miles from Bakersfield to Oakland.
As I mentioned in the previous post, a proposed Bakersfield to San Jose initial operating segment meanwhile, could take as little as five and a half hours. That time includes however, a significant stretch through the Altamont pass where a train is unlike to reach high speed. The Altamont Corridor Express, a commuter service, takes nearly two hours to snake its way from San Jose to Stockton, even though the route is less than ninety miles one way.
Now it’s true that there are numerous intermediate stops on the ACE, and by appending all but one (Livermore) the Bakersfield-San Jose San Joaquin would recover some time. But would it be enough to generate the revenue that California High Speed Rail needs to fund additional construction in the Pacheco Pass and south to Los Angeles?
Using the existing rolling stock, perhaps not.
California and Washington’s locomotives are for the most part interchangeable and capable of 110mph top speeds. The advantage of the Talgos is that the articulated nature helps them absorb curves at a high speed. That doesn’t make much of a difference on flat right of ways in the Central Valley naturally. But it would have an impact in regards to travel times through the Altamont Pass. Faster travel times, as you might imagine, tend to create higher revenues.
Given that the cost of each trainset at around $30 million each, it’s pretty clear that Amtrak California can’t afford to simply dig up another $200 million or so from the Public Transportation Account. And there’s no certainty that the Authority could provide Cal Trans with Prop 1A money for that purpose.
Moreover, the use of Talgo trainsets for the initial operating segments isn’t just about speed. It’s also about preparing California’s travelling public for what true HSR travel will be like, with better amenities and more technology than most Amtrak trains currently provide. This includes innovations such as seat-back television screens, moveable headrests, and at-your-seat one-touch ordering for alcohol and food. These additions are important not just because they may make the train seem more desirable, but because each is an avenue to explore potential new revenue streams.
There’s also something to be for the psychology of rolling out new products and services in more isolated markets. Riders on the Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor will hear about the new services long before they get to try them. That will create a “buzz” that encourages passengers “to see it for themselves” and boost demand. Some will inevitable discover the inherent value of the San Joaquin and elect to return. The others, however, will tell their friends about what they experienced and how they felt. This is precisely the type of momentum that high speed rail currently lacks.
This is to say nothing of the political benefits. New trainsets provide an opportunity for the Authority and Governor to experiment with existing routes while giving the Legislature the ability to claim credit for the decision. The feds meanwhile, would get the opportunity to look open-minded and compromising, while preserving their commitment to HSR.
Nevertheless, a souped-up San Joaquins would only provide a glimpse of the Initial Operating Segment’s total potential. Such a snapshot, however, would give private investors able to invest in completing the San Jose to Fresno HSR something to work with. In the next two installments, we will focus on just that: two separate companies that would both make strong candidates in that regard.
Unfortunately, I don’t quite understand this post.
For one, I believe the current trainsets are capable of 110mph speeds, the same as the Talgos. Indeed, I remember reading that some of the federal HSR money is actually going to get the PacSurf up to 110mph in parts.
So new trains aren’t needed. And even if they were needed, even traditional non-tilting trains can hit 125mph (see northeast corridor). The mostly flat running from Bakersfield to the curves would easily make up any restrictions though the mountains.
That being said, this post seems to be about running HSR-lite service on the new HSR tracks before the system is complete.
One problem. HSR will only have 3 stations in the valley. Im pretty sure Hanford, Wasco, Corcoran, madera, etc arent willing to give up train service for the sake of HSR-lite.
And building a temporary stops for these cities is a non-starter, especially if the track is elevated.
JJJ Reply:
October 24th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Also, does anybody remember something about the HSR grant actually including funds to improve the CURRENT BNSF San Joaquin tracks? I remember something about a 90mph segment but haven’t seen a word since. I’m 100% positive on the funds for the LOSSAN corridor, but sketchy on the valley.
jim Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 4:32 am
The top speeds are set by the locomotives. Diesels are limited to 110 mph. Talgos don’t have to slow down for curves as much. On the Cascades run, a Talgo trainset saves about half an hour over a conventional trainset. Talgos would handle the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin routes better than the existing rolling stock; Surfliner, not so much.
I think, though, it’s premature to discuss how best to use the residual assets from a cancelled California HSR program. Time enough to discuss this in 2017.
Everything about this screams bait-and-switch; I’d go on a limb and characterize this as HSR denial, no better than what Morris writes. California authorized an HSR system, and the plan now is to turn it into some Amtrak-plus crap? Forget about it. A quarter-built spur from Bakersfield to the Grapevine is more useful than FRA hell; it at least stakes the claim for a future extension to the LA Basin. Amtrak California but slightly faster is going to get Amtrak California ridership but slightly higher. The San Joaquin is getting a million riders a year; the CAHSR projections say 60-117 million. The mountain begat a mouse, as they say in Hebrew.
Before talking about how awesome the FRA Talgos are, think about this for a minute. There are eight cars with seating, and 250 seats. That’s three and a half Amfleet coaches’ worth of seats. This costs $30 million, more than an 8-car 700 Series and not much less than a TGV. And for all the alleged benefits of tilting, the FRA loco keeps cant deficiency to 6″ by regulation, about half what you can get by using real tilting trains and not much more than what Amfleets are cleared for. (And besides, cant deficiency is less important on dedicated greenfield track, which allows higher cant.)
morris brown Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Anon Levy’s post is consistent with the just posted column by Thomas Elias:
Tom Elias: High-speed rail shifts to slower track
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/oct/24/tom-elias-high-speed-rail-shifts-to-slower-track/
Even the terms bait and switch are used by both authors.
Prop 1A had many conditions that are there to ensure that what is built would be a truly high-speed project. Without going back to the voters, these cannot be ignored or changed by the legislature.
From what I see, this is a ploy to keep the Authority from being shut down even though by their own recognition, they have no way of securing the needed financing to build what is required by Prop 1A.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 9:31 am
I’ve got a 404 error on that link Morris.
morris brown Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Paulus: Sorry about that. I think they changed the URL. Anyway at this time this works:
Tom Elias: High-speed rail shifts to slower track
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/oct/25/tom-elias-high-speed-rail-shifts-to-slower-track/
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
The entire premise of the article is that we’re going to end up with slower service than we would get with 220 mph trains. I’m trying to figure out what’s really new or revealing about this article. We’ve known all along that if more money doesn’t come along, we’ll simply have a high speed alignment through the CV that is used by the San Joaquins. I know that Morris and peninsula are clinging to the hope that the Legislature will pull the plug on the project because it isn’t in compliance with Prop 1A, and I’ve already made my view on the matter clear: they’re not going to pull the plug, but will take the long-term view. They want to build HSR, after all.
Tony d. Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Can we at least have one thread without this crap from Morris?!
VBobier Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Good luck on that happening…
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Sure, if we have one thread without you trying to bash people who, unlike you, post productive comments.
flowmotion Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
> California authorized an HSR system, and the plan now is to turn it into some Amtrak-plus crap?
There are a lot of people in the “Pro-HSR” community which really are envisioning more of an “Amtrak-Plus” type system.
It took me a while to figure it out, but these folks have been a constant source of misinformation about the project. They tend to project their fantasy railway plans onto the CAHSRA, which has lead to a lot of misleading claims about how it will be cheap to do X or the train will certainly follow route Y, when in reality nothing of the sort is on the table.
Jon Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
CAHSR opened a whole can of worms when they said that the San Joaquins could use the ICS in the event that nothing else was constructed. I’m sure this was only to satisfy the independent utility requirements and CAHSR have no intention of actually doing it under any likely circumstances, but now every railfan wants to see the Acela West.
Winston Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
It seems to me that if one could achieve FRA waivers to achieve safety through use of good controls and operating practices rather than massive amounts of steel then that outcome wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. If you implemented any form real form of PTC on the San Joaquins’ route then there is really no reason not to allow 125MPH operation on the straight bits of the San Joaquin route and 150MPH on the new HSRA track. Cutting the time that the San Joaquins take to get from Oakland to Bakersfield to 3 hours and Sac-Bakersfield in 2:40 or so would be a big improvement and make the train-bus combo appealing to some since its faster than driving. Of course, the real prize is 3 hour SF-LA service since that beats flying.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
To go faster than 110 all of the grade crossings have to be “hardened”. Four quadrant gates is the usual interpretation.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I thought the usual interpretation is “impenetrable barrier,” with quad gates good only up to 110 mph.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Whichever, they ain’t gonna get approval for 125 with wigwags installed by the Southern Pacific in 1028.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
…1928…
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 4:40 am
‘Whichever, they ain’t gonna get approval for 125 with wigwags installed by the Southern Pacific in 1028.’
Well, some people think trains belong back with the Middle Ages. . .
Winston Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Adding gates is not a vast expense in the grand scheme of things. And yes, the san Joaquin route would still feature some slow track west of Martinez without big spending, but this is still in realm of what is possible.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Nor should they. The US actually has relatively high limits for train speeds with grade crossings. 200 km/h grade crossings are allowed in few countries in Europe – I think just Sweden, certainly not France or Britain or Spain.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I think the theory is that all they gotta do is go out and buy some Talgos, straighten a curve here, put in a platform there and voila! people will be whisking between San Jose and Fresno in an hour and half weeks after the plan is drawn up. It ain’t gonna be that easy. It ain’t gonna be cheap either. And it all become obsolete once HSR between San Jose and Fresno is built. Last I heard that is proposed to be in place by 2020.
Joey Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 9:35 am
The current track the San Joaquin runs on is nowhere near suitable for 125mph operation. Anyway, I doubt BNSF, however cooperative they may be, would be willing to be that generous, given that it is their primary freight route through the Central Valley and mostly single-track.
swing hanger Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
The whole problem with running talgo (or any 125mph+) capable trainset on both existing track and the intitial HSR segment is that each scheduled train will be exposed to the shortcomings of running on that existing (current FRA reg.) track- non-PTC, numerous grade crossings, single track operation, roundabout routes, and sharing with super heavy freight trains (yikes!)- all big contributors to running late and the occasional smashup. The average passenger is not going to be impressed much by HSR on the initial operating segment if his train was delayed by an hour and a half due to a minor grade crossing accident somewhere in Pittsburg (or Tracy) early in the trip- he/she is still going to be 90 minutes late to LA. I would rather have dedicated HSR trainsets (the ones which will be running for their full 20~30 year lifespan in CA, not the stopgaps) on the initial segment, and a (temporary) cross-platform transfer to the talgo or california car conventional train for the run into the Bay Area. Of course this does nothing to improve the timekeeping of the talgo train, but it does insulate the HSR schedule- the connecting HSR train will consistently be on time, which also serves to generate inertia among the public/politicians- everybody will demand- “hey, the HSR is always on time, we need to build the rest of darn system ASAP!”
Peter Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
When is PTC going to come online on BNSF and UP in the CV? Do we have any date other than the 2015 deadline?
Joey Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Even if it did, that’s just one of a long list of problems.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
As far as I can tell, the people who want route changes (to Tejon and Altamont, mainly) tend to be the ones who are most adamantly anti-Amtrak. Or are you talking about different people from the ones I’m thinking of?
flowmotion Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
The people I’m thinking of tend to be the railnuts who perhaps are too bogged down in the operational details to see the forest from the trees. Don’t actually know what they think of Amtrak itself. Also don’t think it’s purely an Altamont thing either, although Altamont looks a lot more feasible if you’re conceptualizing everything as fancy passenger rail and not the SuperTrain.
Peter Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 5:32 am
You’ll find a lot of them on the altamontpress website. Anything that isn’t done the way Old Tyme Railroaders did things is automatically bad.
“the use of Talgo trainsets for the initial operating segments isn’t just about speed. It’s also about preparing California’s travelling public for what true HSR travel will be like, with better amenities and more technology than most Amtrak trains currently provide”
Running talgo on existing track is like driving a Ferrari with fuel cutoff set at 45mph- all show and no go. Like Alon says, just build a starter route/spur at true HSR standards, and run true HSR trains- anything less is just giving up.
Andy M. Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 4:38 am
Talgo technology is all about weight per passenger seat and hence fuel consumption per passenger seat or required locomotive power per passenger seat (and hence lower fixed and lower operating costs). So even leaving the advantages of tilting aside for now, a Talgo will deliver real advantages simply through better acceleration and hence shorter journey times (or alternatively the same times for lower locomotive ratings and hence lower cost).
Furthermore, Talgos are not HSR-lite but are proper HSR trains. Spain uses them as proper high-speed trains. So investing in Talgo sets would later permit a seamless transition to proper high speed (by changing to electric locomotives as on Spain’s “Pato” AVE) when this is required. This is precisely what RENFE is doing. They had Talgos decades before the first high speed line was opened and many high-speed capabale Talgos of recent build are today to be find on services not covering a single mile of high-speed corridor.
The Cascades-style solution with a locomotive on both ends is an overkill in my opinion. RENFE operates many talgos as sets with a locomotive at one end. The seats can be reversed at the end of the trip or alternatively the entire train wyed. This arrangement furthermore allows locomotives to be changed en-route when transitioning between modernised/electrified routes and traditional routes that are still diesel worked. The Mare Nostrum from Montpellier to Cartagena does this at Alicante for example. The locomotive change takes less than 5 minues.
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 5:20 am
Hell, Cascades only has ONE locomotive. The “other” is a merely a cab car with cement weights in it to meet FRA minimum weight requirements.
Joey Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 7:26 am
Talgos are not HSR-lite but are proper HSR trains. Spain uses them as proper high-speed trains
Talgo is a company that makes a lot of products. Some of them are suitable for high-speed operation and some of them aren’t. The FRA-compliant sets currently in-use on the Cascades route are suitable for up to 125 mph (i.e. not really high speed).
Andy M. Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:04 am
True, but Talgo trains are very much modular and platform based rather than parallel and independent families of designs. Quite often the difference between high-speed and non-high speed versions of the same design is that (for example) a different type of brake disk or damper is used in the lower cost version. That’s all stuff that can easily be retrofitted when the time comes to step up speeds to full HS levels. A talgo trainset is essentially “future-proof”.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Does anyone here know a single example in which a regular Talgo was retrofitted to be a high-speed Talgo? I don’t, but I wouldn’t know if one existed; all I know is that Talgo markets the Talgo 350 as a trainset, rather than as a high-speed loco attached to Talgo cars.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 12:02 am
General Electric manufactures lightbulbs and thermonuclear bombs.
Therefore the modular platform of incandescent bulbs can be weaponized with megaton yields, based on a future-proof consist.
Steve S. Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 7:01 am
…I believe this is what’s known as a “logical fallacy”. Compared to turning a lightbulb into an H-bomb, retrofitting disc brakes on a Talgo trainset to increase the maximum speed would be relatively easy.
Peter Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Well, at least if you set off a nuke you get a light for a short time.
Max Wyss Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 2:40 am
The main reason why that is is because there are no independent high speed locomotives on the market. High speed trains are built as sets, with their motive power etc.
HOWEVER, it is possible to exchange the “locomotive”. Not in a regular operation envirnoment, because there is more than a coupler and a bunch of cables to connect. But in a workshop environment, it is possible.
With the capability to operate on non-electrified lines, Renfe and Talgo went for a dual power model, where the two end cars of the train set are sacrificed for housing a (pretty high power) diesel engine/power generator unit. The electric power is then fed into the circuit of the locomotive.
Temporarily, all operators having a “loco and car set” high speed train set exchange the locomotives; so you can occasionally see TGV PSE sets with the spare “La Poste” power car.
The FS did change the locomotives of some of their high speed sets, because the original locomotives were DC only, but some stretches of the new high speed lines are electrified with AC. So, they got new dual voltage locomotives, and they were using the existing DC units with conventional train sets. So, chanigng locomotives is done; it simply has not (yet) been done with Talgo sets sold with their locomotives.
VBobier Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
If My math is right that 125mph is 58.22% faster than 79mph & It’s a positive step in the right direction.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Your math is only right in principle. In practice, there’s acceleration and deceleration time at every station, and a dwell time. On curvier lines there are also slow restrictions, but that’s not an issue in the CV.
Face plam
So is Elizabeth Alexis true colors going to finally come out in public? High-speed rail is focus of Fresno town hall meeting
“Elizabeth Alexis with Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design and Daniel Krause of Californians for High Speed Rail will join former Assemblyman Mike Villines for the town hall meeting and public debate.”
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Pass the popcorn, please.
Nadia Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:51 am
If you are coming to Fresno, please feel free to come and introduce yourself. I’ll be there too.
We’d be happy to talk to you. We’ve actually met several of the “regulars” on this blog and we’d love to meet more.
There’s really no mystery about who we are and what we stand for – but sometimes just reading snippets on the blog can make it difficult to get an accurate picture. Especially since most folks on here are polarized into one of two categories – either pro- or anti-rail.
We are in the middle – with a definite slant towards developing good sustainable rail – usually an actual conversation with us will help clear up the confusion.
We look forward to meeting you!
joe Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Q: What is the middle between Not building HSR and building HSR?
A: Delaying HSR until it dies.
Mike Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Sheesh, this is the best lineup that they can come up with to discuss a project of this magnitude? Alexis & Krause both from the Bay Area, and Villines who works for the Authority? We’re talking about (take your pick) billions of dollars of construction jobs in the San Joaquin Valley, and/or the complete nuclear destruction of the Valley’s economy and way of life. And there’s no rational local leaders on either side who can have an informative public debate?
datacruncher Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:26 am
This event is only one part of a course being taken by 200 Fresno State students. It is also the only portion of the course that allowed non-registered students to attend. Other speakers have spoken only to students registered in the course.
Supposedly the students have heard from: “For the weekly seminars, state, local, nonprofit and university experts on high-speed rail are scheduled to speak. They include Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin; Fresno County Supervisors Henry Perea and Susan B. Anderson; Reolof van Ark, the rail authority CEO; representatives of Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Visalia) and Jeff Denham (R-Merced); and Ryan Jacobsen, executive director of the Fresno County Farm Bureau.”
http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2011/09/course-on-high-speed-rail-attracts-200-students/
Wad Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
@Mike wrote: We’re talking about (take your pick) billions of dollars of construction jobs in the San Joaquin Valley, and/or the complete nuclear destruction of the Valley’s economy and way of life.
Mike, the Central Valley is not Dogpatch. No agricultural area should be able to support urban populations of 200,000 to 500,000, but that’s what the Central Valley has.
Fresno is the fifth largest city in California, Bakersfield the ninth. Add the Central Valley together and you have about 4 million residents. There are also three CSU campuses and a UC.
None of these things killed the Central Valley’s economy. Neither did the San Joaquins. Neither will high-speed rail.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
So then. A contest of beauty and brains vs … ????
OT: The Economist on America building something big (Hoover Dam – official sponsor of electricity at the upcoming Republican candidates’ debate in Las Vegas):
http://www.economist.com/node/21533393
Such an Initial Operating Segment would barely be an improvement over the existing San Joaquin service and would do nothing more than tarnish the idea of high speed rail in the minds of the public. This sort of solution should only be contemplated as a fallback if and when CAHSR fails completely and Amtrak California has to put the already constructed track to use as best as possible.
Any serious Initial Operating Segment must be high speed trains running on high speed track, bay to basin. In other words, San Jose – Sylmar or Livermore – Sylmar. At that point a) passengers are close enough to their destination that they can transfer to BART/Metrolink/CASHR coach/rental car to complete their journey, and b) the concept of HSR is proven and extending the line to downtown SF and downtown LA will become the obvious thing to do in the minds of the public.
While I get that people are excited to see the new track put into use ASAP, mixing shiny new HSR track with FRA hell should be the option of last resort.
morris brown Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:02 am
@Jon:
writes:
While I get that people are excited to see the new track put into use ASAP, mixing shiny new HSR track with FRA hell should be the option of last resort.
Shiny new HSR track, without electricity or signaling or trainsets, that’s the Authority’s plans as thus far laid out.What a waste.
Jon Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
It’s a waste if that’s all you’re going to build, not a waste if you complete the system later on. It would be nice if we had the cash on hand to build the whole thing in one go, but unfortunately life ain’t like that.
jim Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Yes. I think that Tom means ICS rather than IOS and he’s thinking about what happens if there is no further progress — no further funding, no further construction — on California HSR. What do we do then?
It needs to be emphasized that the ICS will not be completed until at least 2016, more probably 2017 (since it isn’t going to even start construction until next year and there’s a bunch of concrete needs to get poured). So we needn’t answer the question yet. If there hasn’t been any further progress by late 2014 or early 2015, then we need to start thinking about reuse of the residual assets created by CHSRA and what, if any, procurement actions will need to be taken to optimize that reuse.
But right now it’s too early.
Jon Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Maybe be meant ICS, but he says IOS throughout the post. There is no point operating anything on the ICS unless nothing else is going to be built, and as you say it’s premature to make that assumption.
Tom McNamara Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
A little bit of clarification here:
Relatively soon the Authority will have to designate an Initial Operating Segment if the business plan cannot account for the total amount of revenues needed to build the HSR system. It’s possible that Robert is right and then Democrats will gain enough political momentum to fund it. But if that doesn’t happen for any number of reason, it’s important to explore what can be done to create the system incrementally.
Although I apologize for not making it more clear, if I was the Governor, I would emphasize some of these changes in Amtrak California prior to completion of construction:
2012:
–> Begin construction of HSR system
–> Announce changes to San Joaquin service to begin in 2013 that redirect two trains a day from Oakland to San Jose via Niles Canyon
–>Acquire federal funding for Niles Canyon upgrades compatible with Altamont Corridor Project and for Talgo trainset.
2013: Roll out new Talgo cars for San Joaquin
2014: Introduce new services like en route entertainment and wireless internet.
2015: Propose codesharing and expanding the use of Talgos and Niles Canyon for the other San Joaquin trains and for some Capitol Corridor runs.
2016: Upon completion of ICS, switch San Joaquin to that right-of-way. Continue construction on other segments.
2017: Slowly increase the frequency of trains using San Joaquin and introduce other services.
2018: Complete San Jose to Fresno and begin electrification
2019: Switch from diesel to electric trains.
2020: Pilot test 220mph train between San Jose and Palmdale. Eliminate San Joaquins and offer concession to operate “Bay to Basin” service.
After: use concession revenues and passenger facility charges to expand route into downtown L.A. and San Francisco.
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I think you’re missing a step: Apply for and receive a mixed traffic waiver.
Tom McNamara Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
The idea is to run FRA compliant Talgos until San Jose to Palmdale is completely separate, then use other rolling stock.
joe Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
If you plan to run Talgo on the finished system then I suspect it’s not as easy as ordering a set without fully competing the system. i.e. One cannot simply walk into Mordor.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
I want to say I stopped reading at “FRA compliant,” but your comment was concise enough that I read all of it. Which is not to say the idea is any better.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 12:24 am
Assume for a moment the FRA has a fit of rationality and something gets approved. Where is it going to run? Does it make sense to make major investments, either rolling stock or track/signal work, in a line that’s going to obsolete in 5 or 10 years?
Alon Levy Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Oh, of course not. But in a world where the FRA has a fit of rationality, some partial service could be workable on the assumption that it could be sold to another state second-hand. The fascination with Talgos that due to the loco’s high center of mass get the same cant deficiency as a modern non-tilting train has to stop, though.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Workable but still slower than driving unless you want to upgrade track and then abandon it to freight a few years later. Slower than the bus.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I realize that ACE trains and the Capitol Corridor or San Joaguins operate on different tracks but their current schedules approximate how long the ride would take. Why would you schedule a train through Niles Canyon when there’s a faster route?
Tom McNamara Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Which is?
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Niles Canyon, by about 30 minutes (by comparing San Jose – Stockton times on ACE with a combination of times between San Jose – Oakland on CC, and Oakland – Stockton via SJ). Not sure what the schedule padding is on those, though.
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Of course, a Bakersfield – San Jose train using Niles Canyon would never stop in Stockton, that’s just the only stop where the two overlap (somewhat, at least, as ACE and Sacramento San Joaquins use to a different station than Oakland San Joaquins).
Also, ACE is detouring northward significantly on its way to Stockton (in comparison to if it wanted to go to Bakersfield), so the times would favor Niles Canyon even more.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Yep. You got it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
The bus to Fresno?
Jon Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Also- convince Corcoran and Wasco that they don’t really need their train stations anymore.
Jon Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Basically, this all seems like too much effort and expense for too little gain. What CAHSR need to do is concentrate on getting the ICS built and one of the mountain passes funded, preferably south to LA. No-one’s gonna care if they mange to make the crappy Amtrak service marginally less crappy by shaving 30 mins of SJ-Bakersfield.
Tom McNamara Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Work in government long?
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
If anyone here is a government bureaucrat, it’s the one proposing to run archaic Amtrak trains.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Look, if the feds bankroll the project to where this solution isn’t necessary…then I would proposed that route instead. I’m just suggesting more organic solutions in the event that there’s just no enough money.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
No, but he might just be a regular train user who hopes to ride HSR in the future. Kind of like me and my incessant nagging about how poorly run the MBTA is.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
The MTA has you spoilt. At least the MBTA and RIPTA run. Try taking a train between Cleveland and Akron. Or Cleveland and Youngstown. You can get to Toledo. If you don’t mind traveling in the dead of night.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
It’s not the MTA. It’s the TER PACA I aspire to. (Same ridership in the Riviera as the Providence Line, but the trains are electric and come every half an hour off-peak.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I didn’t say you aspired to the MTA, it’s just that they have you spoilt.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Meh. My experiences taking suburban lines (i.e. to New Haven) aren’t that much better. Maybe having frequent trains to Jamaica spoiled me, but that’s a different issue; LIRR trains run hourly or worse off-peak per branch.
swing hanger Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
My fear is that compromising on the initial segment will just lead to more compromises (i.e. half-assed efforts lead to half-assed results), and the way politics are today, the stopgap will just become the norm, with no further improvement. What this project needs is inertia- big projects ideally have big, competent personalities backing them (which CA lacks), so instead you have to rely on getting the best product up and running as soon as possible- and that is true, distributed traction HSR trainsets (AGV, Zephiro, Velaro, N700) running 175mph+ plus. This will be the gamechanger that will truly show everyone what HSR is about.
Jon Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 10:56 am
No, but he might just be a regular train user who hopes to ride HSR in the future.
Pretty much. I guess I’m coming from the point of view that FRA-compliant services on freight railroads are so bad that anything built new should be kept entirely separate, especially for high speed passenger only track.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
And I’m coming from the point of view that ultimately you need a dedicated HSR track and rolling stock. But since even with full funding that is years off, in the meantime you need to do something to build public expectations other than critical news stories.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Yes, and what you do to build public expectations is not run substandard equipment using substandard crews.
Remember: when SNCF didn’t have enough money to build the LGV Sud-Est, its response was not to compromise construction standards, but to build only two-thirds of the high-speed line and do the remainder of the trip on legacy track first. Of course CAHSR doesn’t even have money for two-thirds of the line, but this only means it’s more important to demonstrate the success and usefulness of HSR. That’s why I keep harping on LA-Bakersfield as the most important link, and openly propose cannibalizing the remaining 1A money on a gambit to get it done.
Jon Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
RisenMessiah: your plan would destroy public expectations. The near universal response would be “we paid how much for this???”
Alon Levy is correct to say that LA-Bakersfield is the most important link. Fresno-LA (or even Bakersfield-LA) could stand on it’s own as a true high speed line. You’d see a helluva lot of central valley folks taking weekend trips to LA for the sheer novelty of being able to do it without driving for hours on I-5, as well as LA college kids/young professionals visiting their parents back in the valley. People in LA and the CV would demand to know when they can go to SF as well, and people in SF would demand to know when they can go to LA. That’s how you build expectations.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 7:46 am
That’s simply NOT how you can accomplish something in California’s political environment.
The reason the Obama administration stressed building in the Central Valley first is two-fold:
a) it forces the cities and their advocates to get to HSR. Nancy Pelosi and John Perez (and Darrell Steinberg) will get to Fresno if it kills them. Pick one metro area over another is a good way to kill a project in California for the simple fact that in the mid-20th century Southern California did a lot of things that Northern California didn’t like based on its larger population. Now with growth tapering off, Northern California is very eager to reassert itself.
b) The engineers and builders will learn as they go. The easiest line to fix and upgrade will always be Fresno to Bakersfield. Cutting your teeth on the section that crosses the San Andreas…. (or Garlock fault) is a baptism of fire.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 8:26 am
I’m willing to accept reason a. It stinks and it may sink the entire national HSR program, but I’m not familiar enough with California politics to say it’s politically wrong.*
But reason b is a terrible way to do things; you’re just setting yourself up for repeated failures. It’s not the 1800s anymore: people don’t learn these things on the go, but rather from decades of continuous experience, good corporate culture, and engineers with years of training in best industry practice.
* Recall that the first use of the term politically correct, in the 1790s, was about factual correctness regarding politics: “it is not politically correct to assert that the Constitution says…” meant that the Constitution did not say this, not that it did but it was controversial.
Joey Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Learning as you go makes sense if there is no international precedent established (which there is). Of course, you have to take other factors (such as sucky legacy lines).
Ultimately I think we could learn a lot from Spain’s construction of the Madrid-Barcelona HSL, which has a population distribution not dissimilar to that of the CAHSR proposed route, and the Spanish problem of standard gauge vs broad gauge roughly mirrors ours of new lightweight lines vs old FRA lines. The first segment opened, Madrid-Lérida, could be roughly compared to an LA-CV or SF-CV segment. The rest of the line took some time to complete due to complications, but that didn’t stop it from being a commercial success. The Spanish cities of Zaragoza and Lérida could be roughly compared to our CV cities of Fresno and Bakersfield in their situation along the route (though they are notably more dense). Building an isolated line between the two probably wouldn’t have brought much ridership, but by including one of the end points (Madrid) in the system from the beginning, they assured that ridership was high enough to complete the line.
jim Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 10:04 am
The reason the Obama administration stressed building in the Central Valley is that’s what California offered them. There were four choices: LA-Anaheim, which was clearly peripheral, the Peninsula, where the chances of getting NEPA/CEQA done by the deadline were non-existent or the two Valley segments.
In retrospect, USDOT screwed up by asking the states to propose. If they’d actually had a plan (which, by the way, they still don’t), they could have, should have dictated how the $8B (which, again in retrospect, was clearly too little — they’re going to spend more than that replacing one highway bridge in New York) was going to be spent, instead of asking for ideas from the states.
RisenMessiah Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
This is all beginning to tilt toward the absurd here:
The Administration has a “vision” for high speed rail. The problem is that by relying on former Clinton people, the President got suckered into believing that he could split the baby and win. Triangulation, good for compasses, bad for politics….
In general, the Administration’s problem is that it comes to gunfights with a stiletto. You can be post-partisan and still be an authority figure. Obama’s problem is that he’s not an executive by breed, he’s the Anbody-But-Hilary. (One of the most seminal choices he will ever make is VP in 2012)
Independent of all this, the Administration’s strategy in California is nothing short of brilliant. Instead of tossing Nancy Pelosi a bone…he’s telling the pack to go fetch. Even if PB built the worst, most awful white elephant in the world in Fresno… the political “machines” are going to find a way to go get it. It’s just harder in situations where there has to be state-level cooperation because each state is sovereign and there are few adjacent metro areas that have as much political juice independently and together than L.A. and the Bay Area.
The overwhelming tone of the article is that the US has greatly changed since 1930. And the author really did not get much into one of the primary differences – we now live in a country dominated by regulations and lawyers.
Funny that the pundits ignore a fundamental paradox in contemporary America: the private sector has never been so chary whereas the government has never been so profligate.
Private companies are generating profits by raising prices – especially where they enjoy a semi-monopoly – and cutting jobs. http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre79o28v-us-ups/
Conversely the guvmint throws money away. The CHSRA is the gauleiter:
Tehachapi over Tejon – faster and cheaper option spurned
Neo-99 eminent domain over I-5 – faster and cheaper option spurned
Pacheco over Altamont – faster and cheaper option spurned
What separates the private and public domains is political corruption. This dichotomy is evident all over the world. The question is whether the two phenomena can co-exist over the long term.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Speaking of Tejon,
the agenda for November board meeting is out and apparently the board WON’T be talking about the Grapevine as originally planned.
jim Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 11:36 am
I assume that’s because they haven’t chosen an IOS yet. If they were to decide that San Jose-Bakersfield was the IOS then there’s no reason to spend money analyzing Tejon at this point. Similarly, if they decide that Merced-Palmdale will be the IOS, then Tejon is automatically ruled out. It’s only if the IOS is going to be Merced-Sylmar (or Merced-Santa Clarita) that it becomes necessary to decide between Tehachapi and Tejon.
One makes decisions only when forced to. Premature decision making is the curse of system building.
Jack Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Isn’t Tejon in the same situation as Altamont, IE not part of Prop 1A?
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Here is the bill: ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.html
The only section that Palmdale is mentioned in is the same one that says Altamont. I don’t see anything in the law to protect Palmdale. “Bait and switch” may be accurate but it probably won’t win an injunction. If Palmdale goes to state court, we will find out exactly how binding the commitments made to them are.
On the other hand, Anaheim managed to get to same status as LAUS and TBT in the law.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Hmmm. An interesting theory you have there.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
The only decision that was to be made was to include a full study of Tejon in the EIR work that is being don.
Peter Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Isn’t it a little early in the thread to be throwing out the Nazi comparisons?
VBobier Reply:
October 25th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Too bad, so sad. ;p
What is the estimated time savings using a Talgo train in the Altamont pass, compared to the current 2 hrs you stated for the ACE? Is it that significant?
If it is significant, then it would seem that this concept would also work well for the Antelope Valley Metrolink Line, which also snakes through a canyon for much of its route.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
It would be different for the ACE and Metrolink. ACE is owned by UP, which wouldn’t want trains going at different speeds, and keeps superelevation low. BNSF limits the Talgo to 5″ cant deficiency on the Cascades, and UP tends to be more passenger rail-hostile than BNSF. In contrast, the Antelope Valley Line is owned by Metrolink; it hosts some freight service and has a climb and sharp reverse curves, limiting superelevation, but public ownership means the limit could be a bit higher, and cant deficiency would not be limited.
That said, if there’s no limit on cant deficiency other than the capability of the rolling stock, then running FRA-Talgos is a terrible idea; applying for FRA waivers and getting even 9″ of cant deficiency, the FRA’s latest limit for trains that pass Pueblo testing, would be better.