RAILforum: California High Speed Rail Discussion

This is topic California High Speed Rail Discussion in forum Amtrak at RAILforum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/11/8224.html

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

Before our discussion of California High Speed Rail affairs, how about a quick "happy 45th to Amtrak.

Amtrak here to stay; no question whatever!

Lest we forget, Amtrak is one of the few bureaucracies that simply is all about serving the public. In the Corridors, and to some degree elsewhere, it is a government program that the Middle Class can use if, and only if, they choose. Think of other agencies with which there is public contact. Do you REALLY want to be screened by TSA? Do you really want to get a "love letter" from the IRS? Uh, don't think so.

For those of us, and I think that means you are 55 or older, the "great trains", even in their twilight, we're maintained by some roads to standards that simply cannot expect to be found anywhere in commercial transportation (airlines, anyone?). They're gone and ain't coming back. But that Amtrak is there and in the Corridors represents essential public transport, and as programs go, is cheap. I think all means that it is here to stay - and more or less in its present nature and scope.

Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/1/11539966/amtrak-45-anniversary

I like the idea of incremental improvements, but where is the money?

Richard

**************************
This is completely off subject. Mr. Norman, you ask "do you really want a love letter from the IRS". Well, the answer, of course, is a definite "no". But have others, on the forum, been getting numerous fraudulent CALLS from the IRS? I seem to be getting calls from, no doubt, off shore or overseas computer callers, saying that I am undergoing suit, by the IRS, for back taxes. "Call this number back, immediately". "If you don't, you are in for lengthly prison time".

I think if they can round up people, who make such bogus calls, they could not inflict any type of torture or punishment that would be too harsh. Think of how many elderly folks might fall for the scam, and wire them credit card numbers, SS numbers, etc.

Sorry for my digressing.

Richard

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

Richard, you post much material here drawn from "alternative media", and most of which, being the admitted "media snob" I am, is invariably dismissed.

But this one I read through, and I think provides a good "layman's view" of where we are in the Amtrak era, and why there is little reason beyond the incremental improvements that can reasonably be expected.

Even when a "not likely to come our away again jolt" that the Stimulus funding provided, all too much was squandered on folly such as "studying" HSR through regions, such as Oklahoma and Kansas, that have essentially no interest in such.

The price tag of a $T to complete the CAHSR project as envisioned leaves much doubt as to how much of such will be completed. Chowchilla to Shafter does "not exactly" sound like a source of traffic potential. Fine to pick a stretch where construction costs will be less than, say, over Tehachapi or down the Peninsula, and get the bugs out of it. But too many administrations will come and go in Sacramento to have the will to complete it as planned - but wow, will they ever have their fun with a Chowchilla-Shafter boondoggle.

Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :

I think the whole Calif. High Speed Rail is a complete boondoggle. I like the idea of HSR, LA-SF-SAC, but the cost to Calif. taxpayers is enormous. In the article I posted, the CATO institute predicts up to 1 trillion to complete the project. I think that figure is quite high, but I have no doubt the final figure will be far above the $68 billion suggested by Calif. HSR. I agree, with some, that 200 billion might be more realistic. However, they are plowing right ahead with the project. After all, Gov. Brown needs a legacy!

Richard

Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :

To answer Richard's question, yes I did get a fraudulent phone call. Just for fun, I called them back. After the greeting - I'm a federal agent - I said: this sounds like a scam. A pause, and then the unexpected answer: 'yes it is, thanks for calling.'

Yes, Amtrak will limp along in its love-hate relationship with the public, and rail fans. But it could be so much better even without a massive infusion of cash.

It will be interesting to see what the new president does. Current speculation seems to be a former executive who left after tangling with Boardman but knows his stuff. Although Boardman has indicated he wants to be involved in the choice, presumably to carry on his 'legacy', it sounds like the board may go in a different direction.

Meanwhile, another trip back to Atlanta tomorrow, GBN. Hope this time I'll get a chance to see the Southeastern Ry Museum in Duluth.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Be careful callng unknown numbers back. Firstly the caller ID can be faked (legally - so that call centers can show a 1-800 number instead of a geographic land line); secondly it could be a premium rate number in the Caribbean.

Sadly I agree on CA HSR - it's a project panning out to be a disaster, in terms of completion and in cost. The "other" one to Vegas similarly so: I heard of a groundbreaking just a few miles away two years ago, and I only found out last week roughly where it was. The construction site consists of sand, desert, cactus, snakes, and spiders - but no construction equipment.

Oh well, at least the Coast Starlight is safe for a good number of years to come.

Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :

Good bit of information, Geoff. The IRS has a website where you can give them the callback number, supposedly so they can investigate. I think the number of phony "you owe the IRS back taxes" calls is probably, for the IRS, overwhelming. I got one, the other day, that would not let me cancel the call from my answering machine. The message would repeat over and over again. I finally figured out that by holding down the "delete" button (not cancel button) continuously I could finally truly delete the obnoxious message.

A friend of mine suggested that I call them back, saying, "I would be glad to give you the information you need, credit card # and Social Security #." "However, I must meet with you, in person, to give you this information". I don't think I would get any takers.

Richard

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

Having spent some time on CAHSR, I can say this. It is a truly great idea but implementation is too much affected and misdirected by politics. As to the cost: I would not give too much credence to the numbers thrown around by the anti-rail professionals. Yes, it will probably cost more than initially estimated, but ask yourself, and them if you can, how much of that extra cost is due to the unanticipated and intentional or accidental low balling of cost estimates and how much due to additional fixtures stuck on it due to manipulations of the anti-rail people, politicians actions or both. Recall that the new east part of the San Francisco Bay Bridge cost somewhere around 5 BILLION dollars, and yes, that is billion with a "b", and that after getting a pass on "buy America" so they could use Chinese steel. This giving them a bridge that has no more capacity than the one it replaced.

My only hope for the US HSR lines is that somehow Texas Central gets built as that is a line that is truly in the "niche" as to distance, traffic demand, and is in about as low construction cost location as can possibly be found in the US.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Some low quality journalism for you.

Anyway, something I hadn't picked up before was the new time for a trip from SF to LA, previously at 2h50, now at four...long...hours, only an hour less than a good run on I-5. Now, building high speed rail lines piecemeal is certainly not new - in fact is often done this way around the world. But "that's all folks" seems to be the catchphrase here. Who wants to pay roundly $100 per person for a train ride when one can take a whole family in the car for an IRS mileage total of $162?

I despair.

On a side note, why does this image show the Hyperloop concept from SF to LA going over San Francisco bay (going north from SF when LA is south), and how do they expect to fit ships underneath?!

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

The hyperloop picture: "loopy" at best. Does the certifiable idiot that was behind this drawing understand why the Golden Gate Bridge is as high as it is and has the long main span that it does? There are two main reasons either of which would be sufficient if the other did not exist: 1. Navigational clearance. and 2. Nature of channel floor and ocean waves and currents. There is a tremendous volume of ocean shipping that goes under this structure. There are strong tidal flows, massive waves at times, and a deep channel underneath. No this picture is like much of the "information" out there concerning the hyperloop. Pure fantasy.

The Calif HSR trip time: Their "4 hour" trip time is bogus. True, with the current concept which is significantly modified from the original by the politician for their own reasons and to satisfy the insatiable "environmentalists" demands, achieving 2h50m simply cannot happen, but the results will still be well under 4 hours. The major additional time consumers will be the political decision to not build 4 tracks up the peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco and along with that to limit the speed to 90 mph (but the original plan was to limit it to only 125 mph) and to use the existing alignment and probably some of the existing tracks to access LA Union Station. The SJ to SF change costs 9 minutes. Don't know what the changes elsewhere will amount to, but seriously doubt it will be to add an hour.

The drive time: If you do manage 5 hours between SF and LA, let me know when you plan to do it so I can stay off the road. Depending upon traffic, I doubt seriously that you could get under 7 to 8 hours with normal stops. Google maps say 382 miles and 5h46m, but my experience with them is that their times are based on pedal to the metal non-stop driving. In fact, to make that distance in that time is an average end to end speed of 66.24 mph. Having been on most of the roads used for that trip, all I can say is, not happening. Maybe, just maybe if you leave the end point at about 11:00pm.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Interesting combination of pessimism and optimism here, George! More below.

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
The Calif HSR trip time: Their "4 hour" trip time is bogus. True, with the current concept which is significantly modified from the original by the politician for their own reasons and to satisfy the insatiable "environmentalists" demands, achieving 2h50m simply cannot happen, but the results will still be well under 4 hours. The major additional time consumers will be the political decision to not build 4 tracks up the peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco and along with that to limit the speed to 90 mph (but the original plan was to limit it to only 125 mph) and to use the existing alignment and probably some of the existing tracks to access LA Union Station. The SJ to SF change costs 9 minutes. Don't know what the changes elsewhere will amount to, but seriously doubt it will be to add an hour.

I don't know if you're familiar with the approach to LA Union from the north but nothing goes anywhere fast out that way. The "high" speed trains will use existing tracks to some point north of the city - not entirely clear where but safe to say at least 30 miles out. No train is timed to do more than 30mph for that stretch.

Even once the tunnels or other route chosen from LA to Palmdale, it's not going to be fast. Look at the various suggestions: wiggle wiggle wiggle. Curves. Grades. I'd be surprised if they manage 75mph average safely. If the current FRA standards are maintained then the trains are going to be overweight and underpowered compared to their international counterparts.

Once in the Valley, yes, high speed that meets international definitions of high speed. Sustained 220mph? Don't hold your breath.

As for San Jose to San Francisco, don't think for a moment that journey times will be improved by much, if anything, over the current. Trying to thread an hourly* service between existing trains at a higher speed results in the need for two paths instead of one. I understand paths there are difficult to come by as it is, let alone double paths every hour.

I haven't seen any mention of signalling but I think it would be safe to say it will be unique to this part of the US, despite the availability of mature, much more advanced, and internationally adopted ERTMS technology, than the [insert choice of incompatible supplier here] version of PTC causing cost increases and increased lead time.

* - I don't know what the schedule calls for but to have a semblance of a true high speed train service you need at least hourly.

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
The drive time: If you do manage 5 hours between SF and LA, let me know when you plan to do it so I can stay off the road. Depending upon traffic, I doubt seriously that you could get under 7 to 8 hours with normal stops. Google maps say 382 miles and 5h46m, but my experience with them is that their times are based on pedal to the metal non-stop driving. In fact, to make that distance in that time is an average end to end speed of 66.24 mph. Having been on most of the roads used for that trip, all I can say is, not happening. Maybe, just maybe if you leave the end point at about 11:00pm.

I'll concede that exactly 5 hours drive time is optimistic though I did round downwards for brevity. But Google's 5h20 is certainly doable while maintaining the speed limit. I've done it in 6 hours with 2 brief stops; friends regularly drive it in under 6 hours, 1 brief stop. Obviously you wouldn't want to do it at peak periods. "Not happening" - sorry George, welcome to the real world. It happens.

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :

Mr. Mayo I think you from reading my material here, know I drive to a lot of places that others would fly. I note like you the Google drive times as well as those showing on my auto's Sat/Nav. The Sat/Nav adjusts as you go, but to Mr. Google's lead foots, I add one hour for every 600 miles, plus fuel and rest stops.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Of course there are any number of variables causing the journey time to go upwards from the roundly 5h20 Google suggests. But my point remains: it's certainly do-able without breaking any speed limits and without it being an overnight journey.

Generally I find Google to be fairly good at predicting driving times, with the exception of long stretches of traffic lights with no "riding the green wave". I used to use proprietary SatNavs (I think you're the first American I know to call them that - usually GPS) but having to update them manually, and basically being of low quality compared to Google's lane guidance and two-step instructions when turns are very close, I wondered "why bother". Four years of living on the outskirts of LA and I have some vague idea of how to avoid the worst of the traffic, most of the time.

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

Sorry Geoff. I spent six years of my life on this Calif HSR project. So I stand by what I said. Obviously the valley portion will all be good for 220 mph or better. There is a 220 mph alignment between Merced and San Jose that should withstand environmental and other nitpickers. There has been a 220 mph alignment developed between Bakersfield and fairly close to Los Angeles. Yes, it is possible to do a good high speed alignment through these mountains and avoid tunnels through most of the fault lines. The last few miles between Burbank and LA as currently schemed will be slower. How much slower depends on quite a few things. Even with the pieces that appear to be not happening, I still think 3h30m will be be easily achievable given what I know about the parts of the plan that are fairly well nailed down by now.

Also, once the major portions are built, I think the current anti-high speed screamers will be drowned out by those demanding finish the remaining portions.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

With respect George, you have been off the project for some time now and a lot has changed even in the last few months. Some of what you say doesn't even match the official HSR statements. I would also like to know what you call "high speed" in terms of "alignment through these mountains" - certainly the proposals currently standing do not lend themselves to true high speed running due to kinks at either end of a relatively short section.

I suspect the answer will lie somewhere between your optimism and my pessimism. Sometimes train companies quote headline transit times but only one train a day is actually scheduled at that time: the rest do it somewhat slower. The uninformed public, of course, only know about the shortest possible time on a good day that is widely advertised. Don't believe all the hype.

On your last statement I agree: don't forget I do actually want this to happen, just see it as being delivered a very long way from anything like what was originally proposed.

Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :

A while back, it was suggested that the northern terminus, for HSR, would be San Jose. Then Caltrains to SF. Also, the southern terminus would be Anaheim. I don't know if this is still the plan or if the original HSR route is still possible.

I am also wondering if Calif. HSR will affect some of the Calif. Amtrak routes and schedules. Calif. HSR will innervate cities and towns along the route of the San Joaquins, Pacific Surfliners, Coast Starlight, and Capitol Coorridors. Will those trains change their schedule to allow hookup with HSR? If George's figure of 3.5 hrs is in the ballpark, wouldn't passengers going from LA to Oregon or Washington want to take HSR to the Bay Area or Sacramento then board the Coast Starlight? It could cut 10 hrs off the entire trip to the northwest.

Richard

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Richard, from the ever-changing goalposts, it looks like Anaheim is off the cards for the moment. As for going CA HSR LA to SJ and then the Coast Starlight beyond, it will almost certainly shave entire minutes off your journey at this rate of backwards progress.

Given the recent release (or not - seems people may have found them before they were published) of Metrolink to the new link to Perris CA, I would suggest any altering of schedules by Metrolink or any other agency in LA to be beneficial to Angelinos or those beyond to be wishful thinking. Kow tow anyone?

Honestly, I really do hate to be this skeptical but CA HSR really is the worst rail project I've ever experienced and - while George may precede me in years of service - it is fair to say I have been involved in more than a few projects in Europe in my 22 years of service, each of which have had their own issues in terms of terrain or political barriers.

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

Geoff, if you haven't,suggest you look at:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/DRAFT_2016_Business_Plan_Service_Plan_Methodology.pdf
On page 13 of 26 is an "Example of Service Plan" that gives some tentative. It shows 3h10 SF Transbay to LA Union Station for near non-stop to 3h45m for multistop trains. While this may be a little optomistic, it is no where near 50 minutes optomistic.

While I can't play Geoff's "more than a few projects in Europe" card, I am not ignorant of how they do things. We had a considerable amount of European influence early on in Taiwan, and initially the track, equipment, etc. and operations were supposed to be European in concept. Therefore, I am well acquainted for the hows and whys in the European high speed stuff. The final decision in Taiwan was to go with a Shinkansen basis for all of above. There were political issues which those on the Euro side of things like to point to, but there were a lot of good technical reasons that this change was a very good idea.

Some of the things I think about the Ca HSR system and how it could be done better I will never put in writing, as it has been well said, do not write anything you are unwilling or unable to explain in front of a TV camera or in court, and I want no part of either of those.

Posted by DonNadeau (Member # 61606) on :

George,

Google lists driving time Union Square San Francisco to Pershing Square Los Angeles as 5 hours and 39 minutes (of course longer in rush hours).

A pit stop to gas up and to grab a sandwich could add as little as 15 minutes.

Now, if you go by my father's "Every American has the God-given right to drive five miles over the speed limit" it's a little shorter, without I believe significant danger to you on the same road.

With HSR, you have to add in HSR check in times, time to reach its stations, etc. to "high-speed" total travel time. Moreover, given the current world environment, we can't expect rail check in security to remain as lax as it is now.

Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :

A reminder: The google route is the Central Valley route.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Out of respect for George's experience, I won't say any more on my opinions - unless something new comes up in which I have knowledge, of course. [Smile]

I would hope that boarding HSR wouldn't be any different from any other train, ignoring potential TSA issues aside. I don't recall doing anything more than showing a ticket at a gate line in France, and I don't think many stations do that - certainly none of the Thalys stations had barrier checks, only on board. Eurostar is a little different as passports are required before boarding but that's not onerous.

Posted by DonNadeau (Member # 61606) on :

Yes, Google picked the I-5 route as fastest -- profoundly boring!

If drive the 101 via Santa Barbara Google says 6 hours and 59 minutes.

The best Daylight time I could find on essentially the 101 route, before SP added stops due to discontinuance of other trains, was 8 hours and 45 minutes. I would choose that any day!

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Politico

Main take-aways:
- The 119 mile middle segment "to nowhere" delayed until 2022
- Barely half the land bought for the middle segment; track and signalling undecided.
- No long-term funding source to finish the entire job
- Some job creation in the Central Valley
Much in the article was already known.

Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :

Regarding Geoff's post, above, I thought it interesting that Gavin Newsom, who many think will succeed Jerry Brown as governor, has doubts about the project. Also, from the article, likening the project to a Saturday Night Live skit.

A statement from a similar article in the LA Times:

"The delays have forced contractors leave the equipment idle, which is likely to result in multimillion-dollar claims of losses. Some outside construction experts are projecting the first 29 miles of construction alone could be as much as $400 million over budget".

Richard

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by yukon11:
Some outside construction experts are projecting the first 29 miles of construction alone could be as much as $400 million over budget".

As a percentage of the total, for California public works projects this ain't bad, in fact it is likely far better than the usual.

Some of the whines about cost overruns are from people who are doing their utmost to delay and add costs to the project. Sort of reminds me of what I once heard: It is like the kid who murders his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

Posted by Doodlebug (Member # 4564) on :

I haven’t been on this board in a quite a while, but I’m returning to post because in my current job with the Silicon Valley Business Journal, I have been assigned to cover California’s high-speed rail project since February when the new business plan announced a change in the initial operating system (IOS) to include San Jose.

Having followed news about the system for many years and poring through business plans, attending meetings and interviewing high-speed rail authority folks for the last three months, I find a great deal of what the public believes about the project and what is actually being done to be in sharp conflict. Some of the blame for this lies, I believe, in poor journalism, which ought to be about providing the public with accurate and insightful information so that public debate is fact-based.

There are very few reporters assigned to this story but many people who write about it who “parachute in” for one-off pieces. The poor journalism is exacerbated by the continuing deterioration of the journalism business itself that has reduced the newsroom staffs at papers like the San Jose Mercury News, where I once worked, by 75 percent or more. There aren’t many reporters left who can really specialize in narrow subject areas. Everyone’s a generalist and there’s a quality penalty to be paid because of it.

I’m fortunate that my editor and publisher believe high-speed rail is important enough to our publication that I can spend as much time as I have just learning about the project without always having to produce a story.

What I have learned puts me very much in overall agreement with George Harris about the project.

The project continues because the California High-Speed Rail Authority has a legal mandate to complete it. The law authorizing the system hasn’t been repealed, the lawsuits filed to stop it have so far failed and funding has not been exhausted. Unless any of those things happen, it’s the authority’s job to figure out how best to build the system and get on with it. One of the reasons nothing has stopped the project yet is that California needs more transportation options for a rapidly growing population. Highway and airport solutions are still more expensive than HSR.

The law gives the authority quite a bit of flexibility in building the system, such as deciding to build certain sections before others, but it does have benchmarks to be met such as travel times between certain city pairs that the trains must be capable of achieving, total number of stations allowed and some cities that must be served.

Here’s my take on some of the issues raised in this thread:

Chowchilla to Shafter. This is roughly the first construction segment, and contracts to build it in three “packages” have been awarded with work to be done by 2019. The authority does not intend to operate trains over that segment, however. Its latest business plan calls for the first trains to run in 2025 when the line is extended to here in San Jose for what will be the IOS. At a public workshop I attended earlier this week, the crowd was told that the authority expects to obtain an additional $2.9 billion before that date – source uncertain but including new federal money – so that the actual IOS will be San Francisco-Bakersfield. Projects show that would produce around 50% more riders and revenue than SJ-Shafter. I’m very skeptical of seeing $2.9 billion under current political conditions, but I have some ideas about possibilities for getting it that I intend to explore in future stories.

$68 billion total cost. This is for Phase I, which is San Francisco-Anaheim. It is scheduled to be in operation by 2028. Cost is the kind of number that nearly always goes up in big construction projects. But a trillion, like Cato claims, seems cynical, not a conscientious attempt to provide a more accurate cost. Phase 2, by the way, has no cost estimates but would extend a line north from Merced to Sacramento and another line east and then south from Los Angeles to San Diego.

Why would a family take the train when car travel is cheaper. Probably for the same reason families fly or take trains now. If I could count the number of people I’ve run into who want to take their grandkids to Disneyland on high-speed rail, I’d retire. They fly to Orange County from the Bay Area now. My wife and fly to Burbank to visit our son for the weekend because the drive just eats up too much time. Burbank will be an HSR stop.

Hyperloop. I hope it becomes a reality. But at present it is engineering drawings, fantastical pictures and a heck of a lot of development time and money from being an operating system that can do what HSR is already doing in several countries. Whether it would even be a competitor with high-speed rail after it becomes a reality is questionable.

Elon Musk telling California that it should cancel HSR because hyperloop will soon make it obsolete is like Orville and Wilbur telling the world to quit building roads and railroads because they’ve got plans for a flying machine that will make them irrelevant. With hindsight we know the Wright brothers had a great invention but it wasn’t that great.

”Blended service” in the Bay Area and around LA. The law requires “maximum nonstop travel times” between certain specified points, the most-often quoted city pair being SF-LA. There the law requires 2:40. Since the 2012 business plan was published (the law requires a new one every two years), “blended service,” meaning sharing conventional rail tracks with conventional trains rather than using dedicated high-speed tracks, has been the system plan. It will slow some travel times, but the question is by how much and whether that will exceed the standard voters were promised.

On the Caltrain line from San Jose to San Francisco, plans are to electrify it, straighten some curves and operate at 110 mph, the maximum legal speed without eliminating all grade crossings. Comparisons with Caltrain’s time over the route are irrelevant because Caltrain – even the Baby Bullets – stop several times. Between SF and SJ, there will be only one high-speed rail stop at Millbrae, which is the BART connection to San Francisco International Airport. All HSR trains may not stop there, however, and the added time because of blended service will be 15 minutes or less for a nonstop run.

On the Bakersfield-Los Angeles-Anaheim stretch, the alignments under consideration call for 220 mph from Bakersfield to Burbank and blended service the rest of the way. Where the authority once said the maximum tunnel length for the system would be 6 miles, now it’s looking at more than twice that in some places like the Tehachapis. That means straighter track, fewer grades, higher speeds. Again, comparisons with Metrolink from Burbank south aren’t applicable because there will be no stop between there and LAUS.

Part of the $10 billion high-speed bond – $950 million – is reserved by law for improvements to existing passenger rail in California that connects to high-speed rail. Some of that will be spent on the Caltrain improvements and some in the LA area. In addition, because construction bids in the Central Valley have come in under budget, an additional $2.1 billion has been shifted to improve the Burbank-Anaheim stretch that will eliminate some major grade crossings, among other things, to raise speeds and reduce congestion in preparation for the eventual arrival of high-speed trains.

Whether this means a train will be capable of running SF-LA in 2:40 is problematic, it seems to me. So is continuous 220 mph operation. China did that for a while but cut back after a major wreck (which I believe was related to construction quality, not speed) and the discovery that speeds above 186 mph, which is the max for most European trains, significantly raise operating costs due to wear-and-tear and energy consumption. In practice, the private operator envisioned for the system might run one LA-SF nonstop so it can post a 2:40 schedule but I expect most trains will have an intermediate stop or two and travel times for those will be longer. The law requires that all stations have four HSR tracks so the operator has maximum flexibility to schedule expresses mixed with multiple-stop trains as business conditions warrant.

Amtrak and other passenger rail connections. The law authorizing high-speed rail, as I’ve noted above, has a goal of improving rail and other mass transit connectivity everywhere high-speed rail goes. Financial help from the bond encourages that, but so does the common sense that the more destinations that Amtrak, Caltrain, ACE and Metrolink can offer through connections to high-speed rail means more passengers for them, too.

Poor journalism. Geoff linked to Wednesday’s Politico story. The writer, whom I have corresponded with, says he hasn’t paid that much attention to California high-speed rail in the last few years. As of our last communication, he stands by the story’s main thesis that an amendment to a federal grant signed Wednesday caused a new four-year delay in the initial construction segment referred to above as “Chowchilla to Shafter.”

The California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Federal Railroad Administration (which made the grant) and the chair of the California Assembly’s transportation committee, which has held hearings on the new business plan, have told me in telephone interviews that the Politico story is wrong and that there is no new delay. They said the grant amendment was necessary to align the grant specifications with the situation that already exists on the ground and which is contained in the new business plan. My stories on this are at http://bizj.us/1mkrfc and http://bizj.us/1mlcwy. The second, unfortunately, is behind a pay wall.

The current business plan, first released in February, changed the IOS date from 2022 to 2025. I have obtained the construction contract due dates from the rail authority and the last one calls for completion in 2019 (as I wrote above, no service is planned until the line is extended to San Jose).

In another story I was involved in, some transit agency officials in San Francisco thought the HSR authority cut a billion dollar commitment from high-speed rail for the new Transbay Terminal now under construction there and persuaded a reporter to write a story about it. The rail authority's denial was at the bottom of the story; clearly local officials were more credible to the writer. Following up with the high-speed rail authority, I obtained a letter and a statement from the San Francisco government authority actually building the station that said no commitment had been changed and the transit agencies eventually said they’d made a mistake.

I don’t say this to brag – I have and will make my own mistakes – but it’s almost impossible to adequately cover this enormously complex story unless you spend some time on it almost every day.

Where I’m skeptical. Several areas:
-- Lately the authority has talked about short travel times – about an hour from Fresno to San Jose instead of a three-hour drive, for example – will mean that many people who find Silicon Valley housing too expensive will move to cheaper Central Valley cities and commute. There are certainly one-hour commutes within my small (in area) county, but I have a very hard time imagining high-speed rail fares being low enough to turn it into a realistic commuter option for anyone but a high-level technology executive who, for some reason, prefers to build a bigger mansion in Madera or Fresno.

-- Funding uncertainty in the current political environment is a real problem. Many big projects have been undertaken before all funding has been secured, but there is a very viable movement to choke off funding to ensure its failure. I’m not sure how realistic the build-it-and-private-investors-will-jump-in argument is – though I think many people will ride – if it doesn’t get built all the way from SF and LA.

-- An anti-rail argument is that the San Joaquin Valley doesn’t need and will not use high-speed rail. I’ve been to too many meetings where folks there say “High-speed rail is a boondoggle, it’s too expensive, it will never work, but why can’t it stop in my town?” And the city governments in Merced, Madera, Fresno and Bakersfield want HSR very much even though legislators representing those areas in the California Legislature and Congress do not.

-- Ridership and revenue projections are always a concern. The HSR authority uses sophisticated modeling techniques for this and most of the people who pooh-pooh them really don’t offer an alternative beyond disbelief. I don’t find disbelief sufficient to discount projections. But I do wonder how much the projections account for rail transportation not being a convenient travel mode for all but a few Americans and how that affects our psyche for adopting something radically new. If this HSR system could be plopped down as a turnkey operation in a month, I think it would quickly gain passengers. But the necessity to build it a segment at a time, like the interstate highway system was, may make passenger acceptance very slow. The interstates were built for people already driving cars and wanting a drastic improvement in speed and convenience. We put up with the 40- and 100-mile gaps while the government scraped up the money to fill them in.

-- The HSR system is to be operated by private interests (or perhaps a foreign government) that will do so at a profit (the state will still own and maintain the rail infrastructure). We’re all aware of Amtrak accounting and the "profitable" Northeast Corridor. We also know about the supposed profits of HSR systems overseas. I’m very skeptical of both.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

Thanks for the detailed post. A couple of corrections and clarifications though:

quote:
Originally posted by Doodlebug:
and funding has not been exhausted

If that was in reference to my earlier posting, note that I said "No long-term funding source to finish the entire job." However, I do note that you later mention challenges getting the next lump sums.

quote:
Originally posted by Doodlebug:
On the Caltrain line from San Jose to San Francisco, plans are to electrify it, straighten some curves and operate at 110 mph, the maximum legal speed without eliminating all grade crossings. Comparisons with Caltrain’s time over the route are irrelevant because Caltrain – even the Baby Bullets – stop several times.

Not irrelevant, far from it, and most definitely a factor. More below.

quote:
Originally posted by Doodlebug:
Again, comparisons with Metrolink from Burbank south aren’t applicable because there will be no stop between there and LAUS.

Again, wrong. Blended means exactly that: you have to co-exist with the existing trains. With only two tracks for the majority of this section there is nowhere for the HSR trains to overtake and thus they are directly affected by the running time of Metrolink and other trains. Added to that, this section is relatively busy with trains often following each other on restrictive aspects (ie not "high greens") which slows them down... and the following train... and the one behind that. I have watched and studied the signalling on that section and it is also sub-optimal for today's service, let alone trying to fit HSR trains on as well: the sections are too long so headway is extended (=worse).

quote:
Originally posted by Doodlebug:
The law requires that all stations have four HSR tracks so the operator has maximum flexibility to schedule expresses mixed with multiple-stop trains as business conditions warrant.

Don't get too excited about this. Anything slowing for a station stop is likely doing it on the two-track section, not in the station loops unless they are each 10-15 miles long. Broadly speaking that means that train will take up two timetable paths slowing down, and two accelerating away again. So, for a stopper followed by a non-stop that overtakes at the station, figure on five paths being used for two trains. Add to that the dwell time for the stopper while the following express tries not to be impacted by the slowing stopper, passes the station, and then clears the following section, and that stopper has just had at least 10 minutes added to its journey time, not counting the station stop itself for boarding/disembarking.

quote:
Originally posted by Doodlebug:
We also know about the supposed profits of HSR systems overseas. I’m very skeptical of both.

Careful with the wide sweeping generalisation there. No doubt there are some which will never be profitable and others which already turn a profit. Most times when a journalist claims that a high speed line is not profitable, (s)he is only looking at the early year figures. Massive up front costs and then interest on loans will, of course, demolish any profit and many journos seize on that as a "failure". But look a little deeper into the figures and a different story emerges: the HSR is slowly breaking even. It can take a decade or more.

Also, bear in mind that many countries separate track and trains into two independent companies which actually makes it easier to determine cost allocation.

Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :

A recent article from Forbes:

https://is.gd/EWl6fE

I guess not enough people are going to the "cap and trade carbon dioxide auction".

I don't think I can afford the $77.7 thousand cost, per Calif. household, due to unfunded state liabilities. The other 49 states, all of a sudden, are becoming quite attractive.

Richard

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
From Ohio Tpk service plaza MP 100 E

Opinion Richard; Opinion

Edit the post and I'll kill this snark.Also, how about embedding those long links using url=protocol.

There are also facts in that story: I think we're old enough to read around the opinion, GBN. The fact of the matter is a major funding source is not providing anywhere near as much money as planned which has a direct impact on CAHSR.

Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :

It is opinion, for anyone to agree or disagree.

Mr. Norman: I gave it a try, but I can't figure out how to use the url protocol.

Richard

I think I did it, but in a roundabout way. I went to a URL shrink site.

By the way, will this method work for photos? I may post a few photos of my Oregon trip, coming up in Aug. I would like to not have the post elongate everything, so that both pictures and text are normal. I used to know how to do this but, of late, can't.

Richard

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by yukon11:
Mr. Norman: I gave it a try, but I can't figure out how to use the url protocol.

How to use UBB code

Put another way:

code:

[url=http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi]Text to be displayed here[/url]

Results in:
Text to be displayed here

Just don't forget the closing tag with its forward slash!

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

Hyperloop: A few thoughts on the Hyperloop concept:

To call the Hyperloop drawings “Engineering Drawings” is like what is said in some places “calling a cat a tiger”. Actually it is more extreme than that. They are hardly better than cartoons IMHO. These concepts appear to have had no acquaintanceship with normal fire safety considerations, evacuation routes, seismic considerations, right-of-way acquisition, vehicle/train capacity, etc., etc. To hope it becomes reality I regard as beyond the realm of wishful thinking.

Among other things, consideration of forces on the passengers appears to have been neglected. These are of no significance when the “passengers” are papers, etc. in pneumatic tubes, but are very real when people are involved. The “g” factors of 1.0 or greater may be acceptable when you are an astronaut going off into space, but are very significant when you are looking at all kinds of people wanting to travel in comfort. It is not even the same as being strapped into a seat into an airplane on takeoff and landing.

Now, just for giggles let’s play with a few numbers. Neither congress nor Musk can do much about the laws of physics.

First, let’s see what we get for different acceleration rates and a travel distance of 380 miles. Generally, you keep acceleration rates down to about 0.1 g, that is 3.217 ft/sec^2. (The “gravitational constant” is 32.174 ft/sec^2 = 9.80665 m/sec^2. Gravity is really not a five significant figure constant, but has minor variations over the planet’s surface, so calling it 32.2 ft/sec^2 is usually good enough unless you need more significant figures for the sake of your math.)

Now, if we assume an acceleration of 0.1 g up to 700 mph for this trip, we find that this acceleration occurs over a distance of 31.02 miles and takes 5 minutes 19 seconds. If the rest of the trip is at 700 mph, we end up with a trip time of 37 minutes 53 seconds. Sounds real impressive, doesn’t it?

HOWEVER: The chance of maintaining that acceleration all the way up is nil. Why? Because the power to achieve a constant acceleration increases as speed increases, and that is assuming a vacuum, in other words, ignoring any air resistance. In air it is much worse, as air resistance increases dramatically with speed. Basic dynamic physics: The relationship between power and force involves speed, and a constant acceleration requires a constant force. Where is this going? Power required is Force times Speed. This is why a single 3000 hp engine can switch a long freight train but you hang three on the front end of the train to get it over the line, or put another way, why you will have two engines on the front end of a 600 ton passenger train in order to maintain good speeds and two engines on the front end of a 6000 ton freight train where all you want is to make a lower speed limit with little concern for acceleration rate and up grade speed.

Now, let’s plug in some power limits: Simply put, as said, constant acceleration requires a constant force. Power required is force times speed, so to achieve the same acceleration at 100 mph requires 10 times the power it does to achieve it at 10 mph. The sketches show the Hyperloop pods as if they do not contain their own power. Does that mean a pneumatic push or is this a vacuum tube with some sort of power supplied to the pod? Let’s pretend that one of these pods weighs 5 tons and carries 20 people. I don’t see how it could be much less as this would be a traveling tin can at that weight. F=ma = 1000 pounds. (Remember, acceleration is 0.1 g, so force required is g/10.) OK, so at 10 mph you need to have only 26.7 horsepower to keep this acceleration rate. But, at 100 mph you would need 266.7 hp and at 700 mph it would be 1867 hp. Can be done, you say? Maybe, but how is the power getting there? Also, this is assuming a vacuum, so there is no consideration for air resistance.

There has been talk about a pneumatic type operation, but given the issues you would have trying to do this thing as a pneumatic tube they only way I can see this system would even be possible would be maglev. Why? Let’s talk a little about air resistance. When it comes to dealing with air resistance issues with a high speed train, the calculation is based on speed squared. This is not unsubstantiated theory, but base on observation and measurement. In other words, the air resistance at 100 mph is not 10 times that at 10 mph, but 100 times that at 10 mph, and another 4 times that at 200 mph, so 40 times that at 10 mph. If you are going to run the hyperloop as a pneumatic tube you would have the resistance due to friction between air and tube wall for whatever the total distance between fan and train. This would get high fast. Ask about the frequency of pump stations on large pipelines. That should give you a hint. I am not going to attempt to do a calculation for this one, but simply to say that to push a capsule through a tube at 700 mph would require 49 times as much energy as it would at 100 mph.

One more unrelated thought before I go away: There is no need to worry about derailment of a downhill runaway train on a 200 mph high speed railway, even on a 3.5% grade. Air resistance will keep the train from getting fast enough to go off the outside of a curve. Simply shut off the power and ride it out.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
One more unrelated thought before I go away: There is no need to worry about derailment of a downhill runaway train on a 200 mph high speed railway, even on a 3.5% grade. Air resistance will keep the train from getting fast enough to go off the outside of a curve. Simply shut off the power and ride it out.

While there is indeed a balancing point between gravity and air resistance, good luck with your assumptions when you're hurtling towards Metrolink stopped at Burbank. If you make the curve towards the converging junction first.

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
One more unrelated thought before I go away: There is no need to worry about derailment of a downhill runaway train on a 200 mph high speed railway, even on a 3.5% grade. Air resistance will keep the train from getting fast enough to go off the outside of a curve. Simply shut off the power and ride it out.
While there is indeed a balancing point between gravity and air resistance, good luck with your assumptions when you're hurtling towards Metrolink stopped at Burbank. If you make the curve towards the converging junction first.

Best look at the profile in approach to Burbank.

Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:

quote:
Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
One more unrelated thought before I go away: There is no need to worry about derailment of a downhill runaway train on a 200 mph high speed railway, even on a 3.5% grade. Air resistance will keep the train from getting fast enough to go off the outside of a curve. Simply shut off the power and ride it out.
While there is indeed a balancing point between gravity and air resistance, good luck with your assumptions when you're hurtling towards Metrolink stopped at Burbank. If you make the curve towards the converging junction first.
Best look at the profile in approach to Burbank.

I suppose you're also a fully paid up member of the flat earth society. Your comments on CAHSR have been borderline ignorant and now utterly stupid. I shut myself up earlier even though I knew you clearly did not understand certain aspects of the project. Not that everybody understands everything but most have the common sense not to try to make statements that are demonstrably nonsensical.

By the way, have a look at a map. You might learn something about curvature. Everybody else can look at this if they are unfamiliar with the area. This is not an up-to-date map but I doubt even San Andreas could straighten up those final bends to join the conventional rail in the Burbank area, whatever the final alignment ends up being.

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:

quote:
Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
One more unrelated thought before I go away: There is no need to worry about derailment of a downhill runaway train on a 200 mph high speed railway, even on a 3.5% grade. Air resistance will keep the train from getting fast enough to go off the outside of a curve. Simply shut off the power and ride it out.
While there is indeed a balancing point between gravity and air resistance, good luck with your assumptions when you're hurtling towards Metrolink stopped at Burbank. If you make the curve towards the converging junction first.
Best look at the profile in approach to Burbank.
I suppose you're also a fully paid up member of the flat earth society. Your comments on CAHSR have been borderline ignorant and now utterly stupid. I shut myself up earlier even though I knew you clearly did not understand certain aspects of the project. Not that everybody understands everything but most have the common sense not to try to make statements that are demonstrably nonsensical.

By the way, have a look at a map. You might learn something about curvature. Everybody else can look at this if they are unfamiliar with the area. This is not an up-to-date map but I doubt even San Andreas could straighten up those final bends to join the conventional rail in the Burbank area, whatever the final alignment ends up being.

Geoff: I debated whether to even dignify your insulting statements with a response. I would hardly consider them appropriate to a person who is supposed to be a technical professional.

I am hardly ignorant of the details of a system of which I have spent 7 years of my life. I hesitate to brag, but if you look up the alignment standards for CAHSR, the name on it as author is mine. The curves you see in advance of the last curve into Burbank are all good for 220 mph. I am not sure at the moment what the last gyration has for the last curve into Burbank, but I am certain it is 180 mph or above except for the curve beyond Burbank Airport station on a few of the last alternatives given on the anti-HSR site you linked. That radius curve is only on some of the more recent alternatives. Even for that one the speed may not be dangerously excessive as it is approached by a long tunnel, and air resistance is considerably higher in tunnels which should be obvious.

I stand by my statements concerning air resistance limiting speed sufficient to prevent speed caused derailment on high speed lines. Something like the lower speed curve just beyond Burbank Airport station would be outside that definition. When I get the opportunity I will provide some numbers based on real equipment and real grades.