JR East Remains Interested In Building California HSR
One of the less noticed parts of the infamous LA Times article about the SNCF suggestion to bypass the population centers of the Central Valley was this short tidbit that JR Central, one of the operators of the Shinkansen bullet trains in Japan, had also dropped out of the bidding to build and/or operate high speed rail in California:
Under the authority’s management, cost and ridership estimates have fluctuated wildly. The project’s ability to lure private investors remains uncertain, the route through the eastern Central Valley has ignited a legal war with the agricultural industry and some experienced operators, such as the Central Japan Railway Co., have lost interest in the project.
The Japanese firm, which runs the famous Shinkansen bullet train, turned its attention elsewhere when the authority decided to save money by sharing track in major urban areas with freight and passenger trains.
We’ve already looked at the flaws in the SNCF proposal and used that to push back against the LA Times’ argument that the rejection of SNCF’s proposal was a sign of problems with the HSR project. We can also do the same to this claim about Japanese interest in California HSR.
JR Central, cited above, is only one of the six operators of the Shinkansen trains. In 1987 the Japanese government privatized Japan Railways, creating six regional companies to operate trains (including the Shinkansen). JR Central may not be interested, given that urban track sharing is not part of their operating philosophy. But neighboring JR East, whose services include the Tokyo area, are still very interested in California high speed rail:
A consortium that includes East Japan Railway Co. will emphasize the excellent safety record and reliability of the shinkansen network as it seeks to take part in California’s planned high-speed rail system, JR East Chairman Satoshi Seino said.
Seino made the remark Wednesday in Philadelphia on the sidelines of a world congress on high-speed railways after California’s state assembly approved initial construction costs for the rail system.
“Japan stands a good chance of winning the order by emphasizing the Japanese shinkansen network’s early recovery from the (March 2011) Great East Japan Earthquake, its on-time services and low accident rates,” Seino said.
Those remarks, coming last Wednesday, are further evidence that many HSR experts and builders see the California system as quite viable and sensible, despite what the LA Times’ Ralph Vartabedian thinks.
Seino also suggested that we shouldn’t be counting out SNCF just yet:
Seino also called for stronger support from the Japanese government to better compete with France and other rivals.
My guess is that SNCF is still going to be a very interested party in building California high speed rail, along with Spain’s RENFE as well as other potential builders and/or operators. With the state legislature showing continued political support for the project, that will help encourage private investors and other countries to have confidence that the project will indeed happen, in turn getting them to increase their level of interest and commitment to participating in it.
The GAO in 20120
joe Reply:
July 15th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
For Smith and TRANSDEF
cut and paste this URL in your browser.
http://www.gao.gov/search?q=high+speed+rail
We should see what JR East’s offer is, especially how it compares to the most contentious parts of SNCF’s offer: the construction cost, the alignment change, and the PPP model.
VBobier Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:20 am
I looked at the file rfei_31857500.pdf that is from SNCF that is marked “CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY – DO NOT DISCLOSE OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT”, some said this was the CHSRA’s doing, clearly it is not, the SNCF wanted this kept quiet, big mistake, in any case I’ve liked what I’ve seen in the pdf file, it does not contain as far as I can tell any spurs or horses, the pdf should have not been made secret by them, it only allows FUD to be made by anti-HSR types(Luddites), I would welcome a bid with money to back up a bid from the SNCF, from JR East and whomever represents the South Koreans HST effort, plus any involvement by Spain(Renfi), Italy or Germany(ICE) as long as they also bring oodles of money to the table and that includes Government Money too, no money, no deal…
Alon Levy Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:10 am
That’s the ’09 proposal that was posted on The Transport Politic. SNCF America effectively disowned that proposal, saying that it was never meant to be circulated beyond the FRA and that it predates the formation of SNCF America.
thatbruce Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
So we can view SNCF’s 2009 proposal (rfei_31857500, east valley), and can also read SNCF America’s “You’re doing it wrong” presentation from 2010 (Reducing Financial Risks of California HSR, October 2010) which proposed a closer integration between an eventual operator and the design process. What I don’t think we’ve seen is a copy of this proposal from SNCF (America) that explicitly says ‘I-5′. Without that, its comparing rumors against rumors.
(or is that ‘Business as Usual’? ;) )
VBobier Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Exactly. Still I wouldn’t count the SNCF out, not as long as they think there is money to be made on HSR in California & especially since JR East is there and could take the whole enchilada from the SNCF if they can secure the money needed. Still I’d like to see the SNCF come in with their 2009 plan or at least a modified version of it.
It’s hard for private companies to support a major statewide project unless and until the state itself supports it. That was in doubt until last week. I agree we may see a number of new potential partners and offers in the months to come.
I doubt there have been any substantial talks recently between CAHSR and JR East. JR East is a Japanese corporation that operates transit systems in Japan with almost no experience doing any business outside of Japan let alone the U.S. I would be very surprised if they had either a) the communication avenues, b) the necessary international focused staff, c) enough information, or even d) an understanding of the U.S. transit funding situation (i.e. riskiness of the project) to even make an offer.
My guess is the comment by the Japanese spokesman about “being more competitive” with France is a general comment that his company should look to seek more international opportunities more like SNCF.
As someone who lived in Japan for 2 years and thoroughly enjoyed the Shinkansen network and think it is operated brilliantly, I would love for JR East to operate CAHSR. That being said, the lack of knowledge of the California transit system and the transit funding situation in the U.S. coupled with the Japanese generally being risk averse don’t point to a deal (or even an offer) in the short-term (3-5 years). More likely seems to be a deal to operate much closer to the date of the start of operation. Would love to be proved otherwise.
quashlo Reply:
July 15th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
I think you are forgetting the other firms in the consortium, all of whom have expertise outside of Japan:
Kawasaki Heavy Industries
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Nippon Sharyō
Hitachi
Mitsubishi Corporation
Sumitomo Corporation
As for JR East, they provided technical support to China (together with Kawasaki) as part of supplying them with the CRH2. Anyways, the comment about “being competitive” is just an appeal to the Japanese government to help boost their offer (i.e., state loan), nothing more, nothing less.
nobody_important Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 12:52 am
Yes, the vast majority of rolling stock in the US is made by Japanese companies.
Stephen Smith Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 1:04 am
Do any of those companies do anything besides make rolling stock? That’s an entirely different business than building a railroad.
Peter Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:24 am
Yes, they pretty much all do. For example, Kawasaki Heavy Industries is heavily involved in building tunnel boring machines. Sumitomo has experience constructing rail systems (they listed a light rail system in Manila as an example on their website. And, unless I’m mistaken (anyone with more knowledge on JR-East please correct me), JR-East does a lot of its own construction work.
swing hanger Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:57 am
As Peter says. For example, Hitachi, being a conglomerate, has its hand in many different aspects of railway design and operation:
http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/index.html
As for JR East, it has its own subsidiaries involved in signal systems/train control, including the ATACS system (equivalent to ETCS Level 3, but with control of grade crossings), as well as earthquake resistant viaduct design, construction techniques (slide work over a railway and down, or SWORD), and roadbed/trackwork design (Japanese language):
http://www.jreast.co.jp/newtech/index.html
They also do station and retail/office/hotel design:
http://www.jred.co.jp/works.htm
Peter Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:10 am
And JR East’s parent company is and has been heavily involved in rail construction…
Alon Levy Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:35 am
It’s not JR East’s parent company. It’s a separate government-owned company; JR East is fully privatized now.
Peter Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
I stand corrected. I was hoping you’d chime in if necessary.
Peter Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Grasping at straws, are we?
William Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 1:33 am
…and JR West and JR Kyushu provided technical support and training for Taiwan HSR…
What we should note is that JR companies are allowed to operate other business besides railroads, such as Hotels, Bus lines, etc… which we should consider allowing future CAHSR operating company to do the same to maximize profitability.
swing hanger Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 8:06 am
Apparently Taiwan HSR is also asking JR Central for support regarding train control systems and maintenance.
ZStern Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:53 am
Thanks for the info. That sounds more like it – those companies would definitely be interested in winning contracts to build this thing. Any non-construction contract with JR East still seems to be pie-in-the-sky at this point.
My understanding is that with Denis Douté, the head of SNCF America and the progenitor of the infamous SNCF plan, dead, Julien Dehornoy is running the show at SNCF now, but he is not as experienced as Denis was (despite the attacks on him from CHSRA, which seem particularly slimey given that he isn’t alive to defend himself, my understanding is that he had been working on promoting SNCF for US HSR projects for a while, and was very knowledgeable). And then there’s this from the OC Register in April, before SNCF’s proposal was made public (but after it was rebuffed by the Authority):
I’m also curious about JR East’s actual presence in the US and knowledge about the project. SNCF America’s Denis Douté and Julien Dehornoy have been very active in California these past few years, had a sizeable team of engineers, and brought investment bank reps in to talk to the CHSRA about SNCF America’s proposal and willingness to fund it. Has JR East done any of this? (If you know the answer, please email me at smithsj@gmail.com! Confidentiality guaranteed!)
James Reply:
July 15th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Doubt JR E has done any of the specified above, though I find it hardly relevant that SNCF did do some behind the scenes work with regard to CA (and conversely, that JR, RENFE, ICE, etc did not done any such prelim eng work). The SNCF debacle is likely a thing of the past unless they are willing to speak up about it or unless a clearer picture can be confidently presented to the public. I think most parties now (CHSRA, SNCF) recognize that the best path forward is just to move on with the bidding process and see who is most fit to serve California.
MarkB Reply:
July 15th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
What’s wrong with posting clarifying information here?
MarkB Reply:
July 15th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
If you know the answer, please email me at notsmithsj@gmail.com! Confidentiality guaranteed!)
Stephen Smith Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 1:00 am
Believe it or not, some people prefer not to leak industrial secrets in the comment sections of blogs.
MarkB Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
If they’re that industrial, what makes you so important that someone would want to divulge to you?
Stephen Jacob Smith Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Because half a dozen people in the past week already have!
Stephen Smith Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Because it’s happened about a half dozen times in the past two weeks?
joe Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
And you tattle-tale about how many confidential emails you received on the comments section of a blog.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
2012+5 = 2017
2012+10 = 2022
So the “prospect for business” would be either when the ISC is completed or when the IOS is completed.
Sorry: Julien Dehornoy is running the show at SNCF *America now
This post hardly seems complete without a link to the Japan California High Speed Rail Consortium, which includes JR East as well as all the technology heavies.
BrianR Reply:
July 15th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
hopefully with time the JR East / Japan California High Speed Rail Consortium will add more substance to their website confirming they understand the specific constraints of the CA project. As of now it looks like a pretty much boilerplate presentation of “this is what we’ve done in Japan and we will do the same in California”. It would be interesting to see what their conclusions would be if they did the same detailed analysis as SNCF.
CAHSRA would, frankly, be foolish not to seriously consider JR East and the Japan California High Speed Rail Consortium as their top choice for building, supplying, and operating this system. Japan is the only country that has built HSR with earthquake protection in mind and had their infrastructure survive not just minor tremors but a 9.0 without any fatalities (or even injuries). They are also the only nation to have operated HSR safely for as long as they have, at the volume they have, without any passenger fatalities. The Japanese manufacturing companies that would be involved in CAHSR are mostly already present in the US, including Kawasaki and Sumitomo, and have over 20 years experience building cars here in America. And if you were to include Kinki Sharyo, which just won the contract to build new light-rail cars for LA Metro and will be constructing a new factory right here in Southern California, you have a very strong Japanese presence on the ground.
Furthermore, as was reported on this very blog, Japan sponsored several HSR seminars in Los Angeles in the spring of last year (which I attended), and representatives at that conference said the Japanese government was already prepared to extend loans for up to half of the (then-listed) project costs, contingent of course on Japanese companies winning the contract. Kawasaki had a major presence at the seminar and made a strong case for their technology, and JR East (along with their partners) were busy touting their experience. While I’m disappointed to learn JR Central has lost interest (they too made a strong case at the conference), JR East remains just as good of a choice. I’ve been to Japan twice, including once for a 3-month study abroad program back in 2010, and I used JR East trains almost every day. They clearly know what they are doing and have a track record that’s world-class. I don’t think it particularly matters that they haven’t done as many international projects as their competitors: they want to do this one, and based on the conference which they took part in and the information they presented at that time, are knowledgeable about our requirements and needs. What JR East and their partners really need to do is sponsor another conference to showcase their disaster response experience and abilities as related to the March 11, 2011 earthquake. When you consider how JR East handled a crisis no other HSR system in the world has had to endure without any major incidents or injuries, the choice from a safety point of view (as well as, I would argue, an overall quality point of view) should be extremely obvious.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
This Consortium sounds pretty strong-willed. PB’s massive egos and infinite NIH syndrome would be in instant conflict.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Better go with the compliant and suppliant Bombardier, who obviously knows what palms to grease.
@Robert
Right now only 4 of the 6 JR companies (excluding JR Freight) operates Shinkansen, but by 2015 JR Hokkaido will join this rank as Hokkaido Shinkansen phase 1 opens.
CAHSRA’s initial proposal to have dedicate HSR tracks for the Bay Area and LA did fit JR Central’s ideal, and from a HSR central point of view it did make sense. I do think dedicate HSR tracks will be needed in the future if we were to maximize frequency and simplify operations between CAHSR and Caltrain.
What is needed is a refresher on status of CHSRA toward the ICS! What is status of RFP? Is ICS split into a smaller set of projects? Stations? mainline? What is the deadline for a shovel to hit the ground?
Please please PLEASE allow JR East to build California’s High speed rail ! I really think that they should be the ones creating it. Just look at their system and then compare it to SNCF’s? Even the passenger service is way better! (No offence)
Ok so this is the most detail I’ve seen so far on how the HSR funds would be used in SoCal. Apparently they will build the Union Station run-thru tracks, straighten tracks and build grade separations on the AV Metrolink line, provide some funds for the Regional Connector thru downtown, and spend some additional funds on LOSSAN between LA-SD:
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/07/16/33294/high-speed-rail-funds-speed-improvements-local-tra/
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 9:50 am
This is what is actually good about the new approach. Instead of building a stand alone, isolated system that will take twice as long to complete and put into service…and with no coordination or improvement to local and feeder transit, the new plan allows service to begin sooner, incrementally while at the same time improvements to regional tracks will be done in steps moving toward eventual high speed operation and at the same time, local agencies get money to improve feeder transit which helps counter the bogus “what do you do when you get there” criticism.
It looks like there is some common sense in sacramento after all.
Of course critics who are either being disingenuous in their analysis, or who are too stupid to grasp what’s going on, will say “but this doesn’t meet travel times.” Failing or pretending not to understand that none of what’s being done keeps high spped rail from working as planned eventually upon full build but, while this allows some through service to begin in the meantime ( which fulfills the independent utility mandate.
This is good news overall.
And the majority of californians do not care, but in fact are annoyed by wealthy privileged nimbys blocking projects and most californians don’t even have crotchety crusty old central valley farmers on their radar.
Minor correction: There are six regional JR companies, but only four operate Shinkansen: JR East, JR Central, JR West, and JR Kyushu. JR Shikoku and JR Hokkaido have no Shinkansen lines, although extension of the Tohoku Shinkansen to Hokkaido is a perennial proposal, and the Seikan Tunnel was built to Shinkansen loading gauge.
While waiting full the full route to be built out to 220 standards, in the meantime with caltrain upgrades and lossan upgrades – if you were to electrify losson – you could run a high speed trains set from san francisco to san diego at 125mph-220mph-125mph-90mph – with a single seat ride. Not a bad start.
If everyone could grow up and drop the “its not my way so its wrong” attitude that persists in bog circles, railroad circles, and political circles, long enough to use common sense and compromise…(which is what transportation “experts” and politicians are suppose to do for us by the way, and instead get on board and get moving with some outside the box ideas, the people of california would wind up with a nice, clean, comfortable, fast, fully expandable upgradable statewide rail system. god forbid!
I can tell you that ordinary folks and passengers on the ground understand this. Cuz i ask them. But there are too many egos involved at the top. And that does a disservice to the taxpayers and riding public.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Raise taxes at your political peril:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre86f0r9-us-france-hollande/
Jerry’s taxes may go down to defeat and force a “reset”.
I suggest opposition to the CHSRA is quietly growing despite putative political victories. Vartabedian’s articles are part of the bandwagon. Bookends and blends exact a political price. The perception of bait and switch grows stronger, even being echoed by stalwarts like Kopp.
The ever-present wild card is PB, which absolutely brooks no dissent or outside input. SNCF was the only first-tier bidder to look at Tehachapi Stilt-A-SkyRail on the ground. Wait until the others get a load of the true boondoggle magnitude of this scheme. The smart ones will bid high and insists on triple-thick legal boilerplate in the contracts to protect themselves from any litigation stemming from failures or disappointments due to bad politics, bad policy and bad planning.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:03 am
with every one of your posts, all you do is string together the same meaningless words.
VBobier Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
With Cyno, if it wasn’t PB, It would be SNCF or JRE or somebody else, He’s like a doubleheaded coin toss, predictable…
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:08 am
What the blended approach including beekend upgrades does is, get a system built concurrently and operating much sooner rather than wait for a full separate build out of a stand alone system to spring forth. You are one of the critics of the full blown stand alone stilt a rail overbuilt system. Now that the plan makes more sense, you still continue to rant.
We get that you are against high speed rail and that you are just here to bad mouth the project but your tin foil hat ranting about things that no on gives a shit about are tiresome.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Both the bookends and blend certainly have merit but the financing is sheer trickery. This is not at all what voters endorsed in Prop 1A and does constitute a genuine bait and switch. That’s why a no vote is now necessary on pretty much everything now. The very antithesis of WYSIWYG.
Jerry’s “Treasure of Tehachapi”: We don’t need no stinkin’ Prop 1A!
“its not my way so its wrong” That’s rich- #1 practioner of that is PB. They refuse to study in your face alternatives in an utter dereliction of their professional responsibility. They themselves have set and insisted on the partisan take no prisoners tone.
jimsf Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
You’re not making any sense. The current route IS the route that MAKES SENSE.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
The only route that might break even, with airline non-pilot wages, is the one identified by SNCF. All the rest of the potential bidders understand this as well but will take California’s money. But they should be advised to not underbid and insist on legal protection from any liability due to dysfunction or shortcomings caused by braindead planning.
Tony D. Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Syno is the last person who should be championing what voters endorsed in Prop. 1A. Thanks Jim for putting Syno in his place.
For those wanting to see what is going on in the Kings Co. et.al. lawsuit against the Authority and others, the Amended complaint has finlly been posted to the Court’s webiste:
Go to:
https://services.saccourt.com/PublicDMS/Search.aspx
and fill in with Case #:
34-2011-00113919
Tony D. Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Who care’s what’s going on in Kings Co.! In the grand scheme of things: irrelevant.
thatbruce Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
@Tony D.:
If precedent is set, very relevant.
Section 9 (p4-5) of the amended complaint is focusing on the current CV section being built in at least two phases, first to the Federal ‘independent utility’ constraints of track first, and a second later phase adding in the electrification etc suitable for running electrified HSR trains. Although Prop 1A gives, in my opinion, sufficient leeway to do this phased approach over a single segment, the plaintiffs allege that Prop 1a does not permit the building of a “partial” usable segment; nor does it permit a “phased approach”, that is, building first a 130 mile conventional rail system, with a HSR system to follow at a later time (italics quoted from the complaint).
If a Judge sides with the plaintiffs on this point, none of the Prop 1A funding for any ‘usable segment’ can be released unless all funding for ROW, structures, track, electrification, signaling and station(s) has been identified and conditionally committed, and EIRs for same have been successfully completed. This leaves the CHSRA committed to the precarious balancing-act of keeping non-Prop1A funding sources on-track (sic) while the inevitable EIR litigation plays itself out. If a Judge sides with the CHSRA’s interpretation of Prop1A to allow phased construction, the CHSRA has more leeway in lining up funding possibilities, and has more opportunities to get something built which in turn can serve as physical proof that the CHSRA and the state are serious about this HSR thing.
It also would mean that when future Federal Funding comes along, it will need to have Prop1A-compatible strings attached, something the Feds might not be willing to play along with.
Tony d. Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Lot of “if’s” there Bruce. The stars would need to align for opponents in Kings Co. To outright kill HSR. Not happening!
Derek Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
From the amended complaint:
thatbruce Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
@Derek:
I also like #14:
Claiming in one section (#9) that the HSR system is to be built in segments, and then alleging that an interim solution, to wit, changing trains when you reach the end of a series of completed ‘usable segments’ and continuing your journey on non-HSR trains is somehow illegal is inconsistent with your own complaint.
( Actually Prop1A gives a list of corridors where passengers don’t have to change trains to get to any other station within that corridor, but does not provide any assurance that passengers can get a one-seat ride between any two stations on the CHSR system if they’re not on the same corridor. )
Peter Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Yeah, the plaintiffs are both overthinking as well as misinterpreting Prop 1A. And, as you pointed out, they contradict themselves.
Tony d. Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Peter nailed it! In plain speak: they’re reaching!
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
With Jerry’s prostrate machine judiciary they haven’t a chance.
Derek Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
The plaintiffs appear to believe that it’s illegal for any segment to remain partially complete for longer than some unspecified period of time, and/or that any partially complete segment be used for any purpose before construction is complete.
peninsula Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
No, they appear to believe that Prop 1A says that full funding for a usable segment be identified, and that the funding plan shows that a usable segment can be completed with identified funding, before prop 1A bonds can be released for that usable segment.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
I guess they either believe or they hope that they can convince a judge that the word “partial”in the definition of a usable segment applies to the length of a section but does not apply to the various components of the system that makes up a corridor.
Or perhaps they believe that if they can say “we really tried”, they will be off the hook with local opponents. In which case it may be safest to include any crazy claim that is given credibility in the right wing blogostan.
If “partial” applies to the components that make up a corridor as well as to the length of the corridor, then they would have to show that the works that are funded are incompatible with the terms of Prop1a, rather than showing that the partial corridor being funded does not support the type of train specified for the completed system until after the balance of components have been provided.
It turns out to be a key term not 100% pinned down by the definitions given. Pragmatically its bullshit to expect that any rail corridor consisting of “at least two stations” would be electrified from the outset, but what matters is whether they can convince a judge to go along with that reading of Prop1a.
Three outcomes to look out for are, (1) they get thrown out of court completely, (2) they win a total victory and (3) they lose their complaint on the grounds that incompatibility with the terms of Prop1a needed to be proven, and they failed to prove it.
(3) would give hope for NIMBY’s in Bakersfield.
peninsula Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Where is the word ‘partial’ in the definition of usable segment? I see the word “completed”, “suitable and Ready”, but I don’t see the word “partial’. In fact the word components is used to describe the whole SYSTEM, but the word COMPONENT is not used in either “Corridor” nor in “Usable Segment”. (And no one is suggesting they have to build the whole SYSTEM with full funding identified – just a complete usable segment.)
Its clearly a monumental gymnastic to try to say that they are allowed to bring a funding plan that completes a “partial” or a “component” of a usable segment. AB3034 is crystal clear on this point. It just simply does not say that.
Here are the definitions:
(d) “High-speed train” means a passenger train capable of sustained revenue operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour where conditions permit those speeds.
(e) “High-speed train system” means a system with high-speed trains and includes, but is not limited to, the following components: right-of-way, track, power system, rolling stock, stations, and associated facilities.
(f) “Corridor”means a portion of the high-speed train system as described in Section 2704.04.
(g) “Usable segment” means a portion of a corridor that includes at least two stations.
And here are the requirements for the funding plan:
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be
completed as proposed in the plan.
(H) The corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and
ready for high-speed train operation.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Everything about PB’s staggering trek thru the boonies is a “monumental gymnastic”.
J. Wong Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
You complain about the use of the term “partial” but nowhere in the prop is a use of the term “complete”.
peninsula Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:06 am
see G above.
joe Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:20 am
(G) Construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in the plan.
Not “complete”
Not “must be completed”
“can be completed … as proposed”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:21 am
…there will be a station at both ends of the line in the Central Valley.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
A portion of a corridor is a partial corridor.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Usable segment means whatever Jerrichard say it means.
Same as what rubberstamp means.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
…reduce their argument to the absurd and everything tracks, signals, trains, passengers, has to erupt simultaneously from the bosom of the Earth at the same instant to be eligible for funding. A judge isn’t going to see it that way.
Peter Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
I was going to spend some time analyzing the Amended Complaint, but, beyond spotting a number of glaring bullshit causes of action (fourth and fifth causes of action stand out most impressively), I’ve lost interest. I’ll just wait for the Answer to come out.
John Nachtigall Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Even if it gets turned down it is a pretty good summary of all the ways the current plan does not meet the original intent of 1a. There is a lot more than just the IOS argument. They hit the travel time argument also.
But my favorite is the time to build the system. They originally promised 2020 and are not even getting close. A clear miss, who knows if the judge will let them slide. But the longer you sue them the more they miss it. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Overall I think they have a lot of valid arguments about how the current plan does not makeover the requirements of the original law
Peter Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Yeah, with that right there you prove you have no idea about how a court is likely to view the complaint (or interpret Prop 1A). The cause of action on time to build the system is one of the weakest legal arguments in the complaint.
John Nachtigall Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:33 am
I did not say it was the best legal argument, I said it was my favorite. It shows a commitment, if you are going to nitpick…then nitpick it all. They are obviously throwing everything at the wall to see if anything resonates with the judge.
The best arguments (in my opinion) are the funding of the IOS and the travel time. The IOS requirement is not as absurd as everyone keeps making it. Basically you have to have all the money to build a a segment to run HSR. Not that it all “springs forth” instantly, just that it is all funded. Originally there were no ICS plans, it is a construct because the costs became so high.
The travel time requirement could be a runner, however, because the authority is doing such a poor job they can’t even produce a memo that says it will make it. It continues to astound me they can’t pay someone to sign that it will make the travel times under the proposed plan. I would have thought someone would pimp themselves out for that by now.
Peter Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:49 am
IOS funding is the only somewhat reasonable argument that everything will turn on.
Travel time argument is going to be hard to make legally speaking if you look at some of the other travel time “requirements”. The Authority can easily make a convincing argument that the 2:40 non-stop time is a rough goal, especially when looked at in the context of the rest of that subsection.
For example, what the hell does “Inland Empire-Los Angeles: 30 minutes” mean? From where in the Inland Empire? To where in Los Angeles (hint: it’s not necessarily LAUS, because LAUS is specifically listed in the same subsection, but then not listed again)? And if this number is obviously a general target, then the Authority can convincingly argue that all the travel time requirements are general targets.
Further, the simple fact that all the travel time numbers are obviously rounded to the nearest ten minutes can also be easily used to argue that these “requirements” are not.
Peter Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Ah, crap, italics fail.
John Nachtigall Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Just like I can argue that they were specifically included in the law to prevent spending on a non-high speed rail system and wasting the money.
That is the argument that will win it for travel times. They were specifically included to prevent what is happening now which is a bastarization of the system into a non-high speed rail compromise. I would argue that goes to the heart of the law, that the money is supposed to be used on high speed rail.
And I missed you explanation why the IOS argument should lose. the text of the law is quite clear, the intent is clear. What is the argument why you don’t have to fund (not build but fund) a usable section all at once?
We will see who wins this, i think the lawsuit has more merit then supporter of HSR give it credit for.
Peter Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 11:41 am
I didn’t give an explanation why the IOS argument will lose. All I said was that the IOS argument was the only one that matters. Everything else is a sideshow.
Making a legal argument that the plaintiffs will lose on the IOS funding issue would take up more time than I’m willing to spend on this. That’s for the AG’s office to have fun with. Expect their demurrer shortly.
JR East’s Tohoku Shinkansen has 31 km of section (Tokyo to Omiya) with 110km/h restriction. This is because of agreement between rail operator and local gorverment after settled down for noise concern.
They also build commuter train along the Shinkansen line in this section, which benefit to local residents.
Ironically, commuter train generated more noise than HSR. Because HSR train is much quieter than older commuter EMU. Commuter train runs longer operating hours than HSR.
Clem Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
That’s why we thought it would be smart to mix commuter trains and high-speed rail for 80 km, instead of 31 km. It seems to work great in Japan.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
I thought the nefarious plans of the concrete pouring ever evil PB was to not mix intercity and suburban trains for 80 km….
jonathan Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
“What’s good for PB is good for California”
William Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
@Clem
I believe between Tokyo and Omiya the communter line and the Shinkansen are parallel to each other, but no track sharing.
Some ROW is also reserved to build another pair of Shinkansen tracks in this section to cope with increased traffic following the opening of Hokkaidō Shinkansen and Hokuriku Shinkansen.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
You’re right – there’s no track sharing; the gauges are different, for one. There’s corridor-sharing. More precisely, because of local opposition to Shinkansen construction, JNR agreed to built as mitigation a commuter line along the same route, which became the Second Tohoku Line and fed into the Yamanote Freight Line to become the Saikyo Line (the first Tohoku Line instead feeds into Ueno, and soon to be Tokyo).
Neil Shea Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Clem, you know that we thought it would be smart to serve the largest city in Northern California on the mainline — and to exit the very built-up, environmentally sensitive region via the most established corridor. We also know that it will be possible to revisit the addition of dedicated tracks when the need is demonstrated.
BrianR Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
I agree. That’s why I think it would be wise for Caltrain and CAHSRA to provide as much leeway as possible to allow for a future 4-track ROW at least from SF to RWC (Altamont option) or SF to SJ (Pacheco option).
I know anyone proposing the virtues of 4-track ROW’s gets painted as a neanderthal; however there is no denying the flexibility it offers. Sometimes redundancy is a good thing. I’ve seen the delicate balancing act analysis of how you can get away with limited lengths of passing tracks on the peninsula. Except when that approach runs into problems it’s blamed on the fact that the length of the shared HSR / commuter ROW is “too long”. Maybe 4-tracks really is the best solution in this specific scenario.
I’ve heard people say HSR should use the HWY 101 to get to SF so we don’t have this “excessively long” shared ROW. That still totals 4 tracks except separated miles apart with no shared capacity benefits. At least with 4-track ROW’s we can get 2 railways in 1 and if it makes some people feel better they can pretend they are not parallel.
BrianR Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
there is always a “first” for everything. Someday in the future that “world’s longest shared HSR / Commuter ROW figure” might make for an interesting wikipedia entry. Primarily of interest to transportation planners and rail fans; less so for the majority of people using either system. “Just another curious fun-fact!” I know I am being overly optimistic here.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 6:40 am
Boston to Richmond will be the longest one someday.
Michael Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
I remember the good old days before the CTRL, or HS1, from the Chunnel to London. The Eurostar would fly from Brussels to the Chunnel, buzz through the Chunnel, and then, if it was even a tad late, get stuck in traffic on the legacy lines leading into Waterloo. My worst experience was after CTRL 1 was open, so we did fly across part of England, but then when we got off the HSR, we were start and stop all the rest of the way to Waterloo. And that was with four tracks!
It just points to how very important leeway in the schedule is if one expects to mix long-distance and commuter. Even the fantasy of running a new Daylight from LA-SF could find that long distance train mixed up behind a Caltrain local from Gilroy to SF. (That’s why if there’s a Daylight, it should find its way to Emeryville, and maybe Sacramento, not SF.)
What about Siemens?
http://www.mobility.siemens.com/usa/en/pub/home.htm
When it comes to rolling stock, I think they have as good a chance of securing contracts as any Japanses company.
swing hanger Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Certainly, as well as Bombardier, Hyundai Rotem, and (maybe)CAF. It’s still very early in the process. But JR East sees SNCF/Alstom as its biggest rival.
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
My guess would be a company already involved with other of PB’s many hands in the pot. So if they stupidly underbid on an hsr contract they can make it up by scheisting BART on another job underway. Hope these suppliers understand they will be dealing with ward healers and apparatchiks so seamy and slippery they make Rizzo of Bell look like St. Francis.
jonathan Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
“ward healers”???
synonymouse Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
smarter “Blago’s”
VBobier Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 2:02 am
Oh let Me guess all Democrats are corrupt and Repugnicans are virtuous?
Bah Humbug…
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Not at all – Bloomberg is right up there with the Daleys, Blagos, Villas, Willie Browns.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Yeah, like billionaires can be bribed.
synonymouse Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Of course tycoons can be plied, accessed by “good will”, fixes, favors, power plays, etc. There are many forms of “consideration” and compensation along with money.
Ward healing forms part of the learning curve getting to be a billionaire.
Billionaires got bodacious egos – look at Trump, Ellison etc. Flattery might work better on them than money. Corps got big egos too – PB, Tejon Ranch Co., for instance.
BruceMcF Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
I think he meant ward heelers. I doubt he meant people who heal wards of the state.
Useless Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:08 am
@ What about Siemens?
> What about Siemens?
No German state construction loan.
Given the scope of the funding involved, a winning bid must come with a state(as in a sovereign country) construction financing package. The problem with European bids is that they come with no state financing package and are unlikely to be selected.
No great profoundness or conclusions, no accounting for the real costs of roads or car subsidies, no legal opinions–just some inspiring photos to help keep our eyes on the real prize, on a line that looks a lot like what you would see in California:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/402762/
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=402691&nseq=8
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=399642&nseq=27
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=399074&nseq=36
I believe this may be one of the diesel-electric-electric Talgo sets (i.e., a set that can run on wires or on its own power plant, like a New Haven FL-9):
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=377393&nseq=0
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Some more photos–SNCF:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=369572&nseq=112
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=368055&nseq=122
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=353187&nseq=168
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=375611&nseq=93#remarks
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=385350&nseq=52
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Where modern high-speed rail started nearly half a century ago–with a strong dollop of American technology–Japan:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=275708&nseq=0
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=260273&nseq=49
Somehow this photo has the “feel” of a location in the Northeast:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=212430&nseq=154
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=275704&nseq=41
Electrification, nose-suspended traction motors, MU controls, CTC, PTC with coded track circuits–all things invented here, but not used here for our travel benefit. Doggone it, I don’t want to be like Spain, France, Germany, or Japan–I want what we invented to work for us, to make OUR country better!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=275703&nseq=1
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Electrification, nose-suspended traction motors, MU controls, CTC, PTC..
Some of us have that… but then the Northeast isn’t Real America except during the photo ops on Sept. 11th.
jonathan Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
@ D. P. Lubic: as far as I know, you’re spouting nonsense.
Electrification was NOT invented in the US. First electric locomoitve was battery-powered, in 1837, in Aberdeen. The first practical electric locomotive was built by von Siemens (as in, Siemens AG) in .. 881.
Care to quote a reference for the first US electric railway or tramway? I _think_ that awas 1888; was that the first nose-hung motor?
As for nose-suspended: are you talking about axle-hung or frame-hung? Axle-hung nose-suspended may well have been a US may have been a US invention; I don’t know off–hand. But those are *so* 1980s: too much unsprung weight. Surely the GG-1 was not the first quill-drive, bogue-suspeneded locomotive? There were known alternative to the Buchli drive
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
You’re right, I should have checked better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
The axle-hung nose suspended motor is American, and dates from Frank Sprague’s 1888 trolley line in Richmond, Va.; that was the first really successful line in America. There had been others prior to this, but they suffered all manner of problems, ranging from having a motor on the platform with the operator driving an axle with chains (think of the hazards and reliability problems with that set up), to poor current collection technology.
Sprague also invented the MU control and many other things. He is officially considered the inventor of the trolley pole in modern form, using an elegant and familiar spring mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Julian_Sprague
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_pole
It’s hard to imagine how primitive some of this electric gear was early on. One variation of current collection for trams had a tiny four-wheeled car running on two suspended pipes hung above the track. Connection to the car was by a cable. The little “troller” car had a tendency to derail and fall to the roof of the tram below. I don’t know how this system handled switches.
First heavy main line electrification was the Howard Street Tunnel line on the B&O, 1895. Current collection was originally by a type of third rail suspended above the track, with a shoe mounted in a pantograph that ran inside this hollow rail. The pantograph could lean left or right to follow this slotted rail, which was hung between double tracks. Corrosion caused by locomotive smoke and, I suspect, general complications and wear issues lead to its early replacement by a third-rail system. This electric tunnel operation continued until the diesel era.
Quill drives do go back a long way; I don’t know the first use of them, but they date to the early days of electric operation.
Some other early electric references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Daft
http://www.cable-car-guy.com/html/ccmanbl2.html#daft
Daft’s design used the rails to supply current, like two-rail systems in HO scale! You can imagine the problems with that. . .but then, someone had to figure such things out. . .
Charles van de Poele was another pioneer in electric railway work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Van_Depoele
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lCZgAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents/US515308?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false
In any event, a main point to note is that this country did a great deal with electric traction, train control, braking systems, and so on (disc brakes for rail service were from Budd, about 1940), with technology that was dependable and robust. The famous GG1s of the Pennsylvania lasted over 40 years in service, and were still running at 90 mph at the end. The Milwaukee electric zone still had some original motors from 1915 in service when the wires came down in the early 1970s. The New York Central had some electric locomotives in service at Grand Central that were in their 80s when retired; Iowa Traction uses 1920s vintage trolley freight locomotives today.
This country also had a very impressive passenger rail network–and both of us want that back, with modern improvements!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Darn, you put too many links in a post, and it has to be moderated. In any event, while we wait for my “mea culpa” to appear, here is some other early electric railroad material:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~dickbolt/OldTrolleyPhotos.html
http://www.railroadinfo.com/features/eot/evolution.html
http://www.railroadinfo.com/features/eot/early.html
http://www.darbyhistory.com/oct-Troller.html
http://www.trolleybus.co.uk/history1.htm
swing hanger Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:43 am
Regarding motors: jonathan is correct, nose hung traction motors have high unsprung weight and are thus outdated and unsuitable for high speed- in Japan they are only used on older trams. The original shinkansen 0 series used motors with a Westinghouse-Natal (WN) final drive, which uses a flexible gear coupling and the motor itself is mounted on the bogie frame. Interestingly, there are no references to the drive from non-Japanese sources, despite being a Westinghouse product , or rather of their Natal Co. Ltd. subsidiary (South African?). The WN drive is still a common drive in Japanese rolling stock, along with the hollow shaft parallel cardan drive, pioneered by the Swiss firm Brown Boveri.
Andy M. Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 8:32 am
The US was not first with electric traction, but the US was the first to adopt and implement it on a large scale, effectively taking concepts that were still all rather experimental and jittery and making them fit for mass production and deployment. Think of the pioneering work of people like Sprague. Before him electric streetcars would somehow rumble along if there were sufficient mechanics in attendance, and he made them competitive, productive and genuinely useful. Think of the vast interurban systems such as the Pacific Electric that emerged and that were once the envy of the world and which others tried in vain to emulate. The US led the world right up until the PCC streetcar and the diesel streamliners of the 1930s, and then fell behind very quickly as nobody was prepared to invest in that industry any more and was only interested in roads and cars.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
The US wasn’t a big early adopter of mainline electrification, though. I think for intercity lines that was Switzerland.
They spend so much time turning it down, when they haven’t rode a true high speed rail system!!! Amtrak won’t be able to handle the next 20 years of the northeast population and hello has anybody ever sudjested a cross country high speed rail? Has any of congress took the california zephyr?! It takes FOREVER!! GREYHOUND is faster but with a million more transfers. If we can’t spend billions on highways why not rail? Amtrak is GOV’T OWNED!!! They shoud be getting lots of money!! Our infrastucture is failing slowly (wmata metrorail derrailments in the last 4 years). Chicago CTA, Philadelphia Septa,BOSTONS MBTA (it needs it more than ANYBODY!!!), Atlanta Marta, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, New York MTA, and Amtrak Long distance routes. I’m hoping the democrats take the house back over because republicans (not all) are not providing money for public transit projects. Here’s just MY opinion of what projects absolutely need to be built….. 1. BART DOWN GEARY and south to daly city. This would provide and express option for those who live on 19th and sunset, and SFSU students anything in between and westward would be muni. 2. MORE MONEY FOR THE CENTRAL SUBWAY EXTENDING IT TO NORTH BEACH!!! Simply having tail tracks out of the tunnel would not please the residents of nearby construction over the next couple years. 3. A NORTHERN EXTENTION OF BARTS RICHMOND LINE!!! Perhaps the most neglected line of bart (ex. Daly city to SFO-MILBRAE, E-BART ON THE PITTSBURGH-BAY POINT LINE TO ANTIOCH, CREATION OF THE DUBLIN-PLESANTON LINE FROM BAY FAIR STATION, AND THEE MORE RECENT WARM SPRINGS & BERRYESSA EXTENTIONS (which SHOULD include a stop in irvington since its more developed than warm springs)). An extention to herculeas and/or vallejo could add many new thousands of riders with an in-fill station in albany. 4. IN-FILL BART STATIONS. Infill stations the opprotunity to ring in more assengers like the successful embarcaderro station (the busiest station on the system) here’s a list of stations…. San Antonio (between fruitvale and lake merrit) Irvington (between warm springs and fremont) Downtown Milpitas (between warm springs and great mall) SJSU (between alum rock and -civic center) 30th street (between glen park and 24th street) Jack london square ( immediately south of 12th street) with option for 2nd transbay terminal. A stop between macarthur and ashby And a possible stop between fruitvale and colliseum, san leandro and bayfair, a local train stop between 16th and 24th street if bart chooses to do express service. 5. DOWNTOWN RAIL EXTENTION OR (DTX)!!!. Let’s get real nobody wants to keep getting of at 4th and king when you have a awesome new multimodal. Transit center shining oh so bright. This should have been INCLUDED in the revised business plan. 6. MORE MONEY FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL!!!! We upcoming generations (yes I’m only 18) can use this for JOBS, TRIPSS, AND ECT!!!! 7. A DOWNTOWN LIVERMORE BART!!! Whatever NYMBIS or however u spell it are they obviously have cars where-as bpeople who live downtown have to take a UNRELIABLE bus system to the HIGHWAY were barrt will be. Now theirs nothing wrong with the i-580 route which could still be used as an express obtion to vasco road but let’s face it the highway does not run through downtown. 8. TRANSBAY TERMINAL BART STATION. Once the terminal opens public transit will all want to flock to the major hub and what more than to have a second transbay tube leading to the transbay terminal an northwest to geary street. 9. MUNI METRO SIGNALLING UPGRADES. Muni needs tracks to be replaced in and out of the subway. The N-judah, L-Taraval, K-ingleside, J-church, and M-ocean view needs new tracks and fewer stops with hightened platforms (similar to the T-third corridor. Signalling upgrades to prevent collisions (such as the west portal collision) and within the next 10-5 years new rail vehicles so the T-third can run 2-car trains as well as the K & the J trains. 10. A NEW BART LINE TO SOUTHWEST SAN JOSE!!!! It wold benefit passengers with only VTA buusses!!!!
wu ming Reply:
July 16th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
i like your enthusiasm, but you need to lay off the all caps and multiple exclamation marks, and put in some paragraph breaks if you want anyone to read this.
Neil Shea Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 12:36 am
Word
voting4rail Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 9:46 am
well I did but the website totally formated it this way
There’s an interesting article in Trains magazine that basically recalls how Talgo got itself ugly burns from over-enthusiastically investing in the US market, only to find itself at the thin edge of a political back-stabbing. That might mean other high-speed train manufacturers will be more wary and demand more guarantees before they commit (which translates into higher overall costs). Don’t expect any manufacturer to jump in and offer to build HSR with their own money and no guarantees. Nobody is that suicidal any more.
joe Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 7:31 am
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/quinn-courts-spanish-train-builder-for-wisconsin-plant/article_a56c938a-ca22-11e1-9bbb-001a4bcf887a.html
o Gov. Pat Quinn traveled an estimated 8,000 miles last week to [Spain] continue courting a train manufacturer looking to move out of Wisconsin.
o A key factor will be whether the company wins new contracts to build additional train cars.
o An initial round of new equipment being manufactured for Illinois’ high speed link calls for double-decker passenger cars, which Talgo doesn’t make.
0 Until there’s a new order for equipment, we can’t really commit to moving to another state,” “We would be very happy to consider Illinois. We’d love to move to Illinois. We know that Governor Quinn is pro-rail. We’re still hopeful, [Talgo spokesperson ]Friend said.
Andy M. Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Talgo does have a double-deck design up its sleeve.
See here:
http://vaunut.org/kuvasivu/22510
Andy M. Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 8:39 am
It would appear they even have a patent for it
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6945176.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Found the patent drawings:
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6945176.html
http://www.patentgenius.com/image/6945176-2.html
http://www.patentgenius.com/image/6945176-3.html
http://www.patentgenius.com/image/6945176-4.html
BrianR Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
I believe these are the only double deck cars able to provide double level vestibules with connections between cars on both the upper and lower levels. I assume the Russian Talgo’s are broad gauge. I wonder if the design could be adapted to standard gauge and meet continental European loading clearances.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
That (Talgo 22) was a truly interesting concept.
Unfortunately for Talgo (an interesting and innovative company, in Finland as in Spain), it won neither Zürich’s nor Helsinki’s suburban tends, and appears to be dead.
That would be Gov Walker.
http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2012/04/Wisconsin%20terminates%20Talgo%20maintenance%20contract.aspx
MADISON, Wis. – Citing insufficient appropriated funds from the state legislature, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has sent Spanish manufacturer Talgo, Inc., a notice that cancels the maintenance agreement for the two trainsets the state purchased, Trains News Wire has learned. The move sets in motion a scenario in which testing and the Federal Railroad Administration certification process of the trainsets that the company assembled at a once-vacant automobile plant for Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha service will continue, but the equipment could then be mothballed or sold for operation elsewhere.
http://www.wuwm.com/programs/lake_effect/lake_effect_segment.php?segmentid=9258
Officials with the Spanish firm Talgo, which has been building rail cars at a Milwaukee plant, say the cancelation of a planned maintenance base in Wisconsin to service the new cars effectively amounts to a breach of its contract with the state.
Nora Friend is the Vice President of Public Affairs and Business Development for Talgo. She spoke with Lake Effect’s Dan Harmon about the developments in the company’s relationship with Wisconsin, and the future of its operations here. She said the company would like to avoid legal action, and hopes the upgrades to the Hiawatha line will get back on track.
We contacted the state Department of Transportation several times requesting an interview or a statement, but they did not provide one in time for broadcast. If one becomes available to us, we will air it on a later show.
voting4rail Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
What idiots they ask for it then turn em away.
joe Reply:
July 17th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
I agree – Gov Walker even boasted that WI was better for business and that IL based corporations should relocate to WI. The advantage being WI cutting taxes and services while IL raised taxes to keep services. Since then the data show IL has fared better with job creation than WI.
Talgo, IMHO, will eventually have to sue WI for breach of contract – they are not there yet.