I do not understand the logic in constructing a heavy maintenance base anywhere with the Central Valley of California or do I understand why the very first phase of actual construction of Very High Speed Rail should start in this said region.
When I look at a drawing of the purposed California High Speed Rail System or Network, I not that it has a stem with four branches. Because of this configuration, there is only one place to put a Primary Heavy Maintenance Base and this is at the southernmost terminus (the San Diego, California Area). By placing the facility here, it becomes possible to directly channel trains into maintenance without engaging in non-revenue train operation over very long distances which ultimately leads to millions of dollars spent on electrical power consumption, extended employee, work hours, unnecessary ware and tare on train equipment, increase scheduling concerns and unnecessary general administrative activities on a yearly basis.
Becuse it would be extremely difficult to build a primary maintenance base in the San Diego region due to such issues as zoning requirements, dense residential and commercial development extending all the way to the Mexican border, I find it proper to place said base within the confines of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area...namely, alongside the Los Angeles River north and/or south of Union Station.
Actual construction of CHSR should start at its southernmost end without consideration being given to the location of the primary maintenance base, command control and the primary electrical power station, and extend to Los Angeles, California. However, it would be wise to extend this first phase of construction to Bakersfield, California. This section of electrified high speed rail-line incorporates all the complexities in this particular from of construction including elevating, tunneling, trenching (absolutely no at grade construction), and sound proofing in populated areas. Once construction is completed, it would be possible to dispatch high speed trains between Los Angeles and San Diego ever ten minutes if that were to ever become necessary, but realistically, it would be logical to dispath not-stop express trains between the said cities once each half hour during certain portions of the twenty-four hour day with local service as may be required. This Starter System or First Phase on Actual Construction REPRESENTS A WORKING SYSTEM of approximately two hundred and sixty-eight miles of Very High Speed Electrified Rail Transport that if fully capable of providing sufficient proof of the value and on-going benefits of high speed rail in moving both people and good in a cost affective manner while generating millions in indirect economic and social benefits.
I believe that is reasonable for me to conclude that thirty-five million dollars per mile is possible especially when portions of the system is constructed on a established row such as the medium of an interstate highway, but when I look at such things as tunneling, trenching, elevating and sometime, hostile land acquisitions, the cost quickly escalates to an average of fifty million dollars per mile of construction and can go as high as seventy million dollar per mile of actual construction.
When reviewing all major aspects of the CHSR project, and from a personal and non-professional perspective, the terrain features, the population centers and farmlands clearly indicate that the cost of construct is set somewhat high due to over sixty miles of tunneling, trenching and no allowances to any portion of the system to be placed at-grade. When crossing agricultural land and in otherwise desolate places, the System must be constructed on twenty-six foot pillars (columns), so that irrigation and animal migration is not interfered with. The only reason this particular system is saved from the seventy million dollar figure is the fact there are not extremely expensive legalisms to contend with throughout the whole, and being spared some very complex tunneling, especially under developed area aside from the tunneling already mentioned. However, in the case of the Los Angeles to San Diego portion of the System, the construction cost should not exceed sixty million per mile or a total cost of $9,780,000,000.00. This is the estimated cost of actual construction of railway right-of-way, electrification, advanced train control and Command Center but it does not include the cost of rolling stock (the actual train-sets), the primary maintenance base and test track, passenger terminals, power station (coal-fired electric generating power plant), and legalisms which should add an additional eight billion dollars to the total bill making this STARTER SYSTEM a $19,780,000,000.00 PROJECT or if extended to Bakersfield the final figure should be around $26,780,000,000.00.
John B. Porter
Mr. Porter is the first person I have seen whose total post count is zero after his post! Can you say "software bug"?
The same reason that the first interstate roads were built in the boonies first. Quicker preliminary work and ROW acquisition. The Maintenance base can receive O & D local trains that will almost eliminate the need for ferry trips. I know of several citys that did not get Interstate roads for 20 - 30 years!
Another reason is that once trains are acquired they will need testing and de bugging before revenue operations. An example of not enough de-bugging is MN's M-8 problems that has postponed service on the New Haven line indefinitely. The test track at Pueblo is not long enough to test the trains on substained HSR operation.
I wonder if in the Cali proposal the considered upgrading the coast route to 110 mph rail vs true high speed rail with a dedicated ROW - from LA to San Diego that would be bar none the fastest way to travel. From LA to SF airplanes would still beat you but you could beat cars - so perhaps you could draw in the driving crowd, especially if the train split in the south of the bay area with one section going to downtown SF and the other going to oakland. Freight traffic on the coast line is very light so that wouldn't be a concern, not to mention it would be cheaper than a dedicated ROW and hence would be built faster, because who knows how long it will take to get the dedicated ROW built. Again, just an idea, and wondering if anyone considered it.
Sawtooth500 I wonder if in the Cali proposal the considered upgrading the coast route to 110 mph rail vs true high speed rail with a dedicated ROW - from LA to San Diego that would be bar none the fastest way to travel. From LA to SF airplanes would still beat you but you could beat cars - so perhaps you could draw in the driving crowd, especially if the train split in the south of the bay area with one section going to downtown SF and the other going to oakland. Freight traffic on the coast line is very light so that wouldn't be a concern, not to mention it would be cheaper than a dedicated ROW and hence would be built faster, because who knows how long it will take to get the dedicated ROW built. Again, just an idea, and wondering if anyone considered it.
Airplanes will still beat you - if you are traveling from the security side of the departure gate to the incoming passenger lobby at the destination airport. OTOH, if you have to travel to the airport, then go through security, and then take a taxi or pick up a rental car...
Close to half a century ago Japan's first Shinkansen route killed Tokyo-Osaka as a major airline moneymaker. The train didn't beat the gate-to-gate time, even in those pre-jet times. It DID beat the downtown-to-downtown time - and most business is conducted downtown, not at outlying airports.
Note, too, that Japan conducted years of tests on the first, `Bullet,' Shinkansen trains - and built the first permanent right-of-way in the least-populated area along the route.
Chuck (Who was living in Tokyo in 1964)
Thank you for your attention to detail...all is not perfect.
My intent was to give the reader a better understanding of some of the complexities associated in building a Very High Speed Rail System or Network, and the need to do so in two distinct phases with the first phase costing less than thirty billion dollars and fully operational within seven to nine years. We must move forward with this project! Because of this need, I do not believe that those who are in key positions of authority have the financial means nor the will to undertake a project of this magnitude.
I do not accept the notion that the construction of the Nation Highway Defense System offers a model of how to build high speed rail, and no Nation is taking such a approach.
I am sure that such Nations as Russia, China, Turkey, Germany and France would agree with my non-professional opinion on this particular matter.
I fully appreciated the knowledge displayed on this blog. However, my primary concern is the understanding of such knowledge so that wisdom will rule the day...and wisdom is devoid of self-serving interest and is able to lead the United States into the twenty-first century rather than back to the Stone Age.
Still a huge waste of taxpayer money... $1,000,000,000.00 for consultants, hundreds of thousands for the Commissioners, the pensions -- of course operated by more overpaid state employees... Take $500M to upgrade the Coast..., and a run through @ LAUPT... Let the Chinese do it -- it will provide jobs for their Engineers, factory workers, steel mills, MofW workers ...
The reason that the HSR line goes through the Central Valley rather than up the coast is because that is where most of the population between LA and SF is at. One past Santa Barbara, the biggest city along the coast is SLO (about 100, 000) or Salinas, as opposed to Fresno (about 500,00 to 600,000)
Instead of trying to build a complete system from city center to city center, perhaps the French approach could lower some expenses. The TGV uses the existing rail system in urban areas where building a separate right-of-way would be cost-prohibitive.
CSSHEGEWISCH Instead of trying to build a complete system from city center to city center, perhaps the French approach could lower some expenses. The TGV uses the existing rail system in urban areas where building a separate right-of-way would be cost-prohibitive.
You would think..... but we are all tied up in a tangle of regulation and compartmentalized development where it would take a big dose of common sense and pride swallowing to get there.
The FRA says: If trains are to share ROW with conventional trains, then they have to be built like tanks, or MAYBE, we'll allow temporal separation, otherwise can't share ROW.
The equipment developers say: If you want really fast trains, they need to be light. (or at least not very fast - see Acela) We will sell you either
The frt RRs say: More of the same up to 90 mph, we'll talk. Anything else - you better come with specifics....and money.
The moneybag holders say: We don't care which, just show us the justificaton
The designers and builders say: We don't care either, just tell us what you want and give us the work.
So, rather than there being a real leader in this endeavor who tries to figure out what's in the long term best interest of the responsible parties, everyone just looks around, shrugs their shoulders and then deals with the other parties as if their positions are set in stone.
Are there practical alternatives to the FRA construction standards? Nobody's talking about them.
Are there practical limits to separation by equipment type? Would it be so dangerous if the CA HSR trains shared track in terminal areas with commuter trains and a limited number of freight train at reduced speed? Nobody's talking about it.
Has anybody put a dollar value on any of these "verboten" combinations? Would the Feds give you money to study the benefits of violating their policies?
Unfortunately, the logical leader in this endeavor is the Fed DOT - they would have to dictate policy for the FRA to implement. Unfortunately, the leader there doesn't seem to want to take it up.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Living in California and having traveled on trains throughout the world I have lost interest in the proposed system in California. Why because I think there is a better approach to addressing California's unique situation and that is Mag Lev.
A Mag-Lev system is capable of 350 mph which would more than make it competitive with flying. Expensive yes, but best of all it can climb steeper grades than steel rail on steel rail and requires far less maintenance on the system than rail and conventional trains would require. It would make the world sit up and take notice and best of all we already own the right of way. The system can be built above already existing freeways and I guarantee people going 65 mph down HWY 99 and have a maglev train pass overhead at 350 mph it will certainly get there attention not to mntion traveling down the penisula above the stop and go traffic on 101. . It will require more power than a conventional HSR system but more power is already needed in California.
I've ridden the Shanghai to Pudong Airport maglev and it is wonderful. But did you realize it cost $1.33 bil. for a 19 mile track in flat country from 2001 to opening in 2004? It runs at a top speed of 268 mph, although it set a record of 311 mph.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I've ridden the Shanghai to Pudong Airport maglev and it is wonderful. But did you realize it cost $1.33 bil. for a 19 mile track in flat country from 2001 to opening in 2004? It runs at a top speed of 268 mph, although it set a record of 311 mph.
The proposed line from Munich to the airport was canceled due to high costs. The conclusion of most is that for only slightly more speed than the best TGV's, there are much higher costs to build. The Maryland Transportation Authority put costs for a Baltimore-Washington line at $125 million per mile, more than double the cost of the Cal HSR. Who do you think is going to provide that sort of funding?
passengerfan Living in California and having traveled on trains throughout the world I have lost interest in the proposed system in California. Why because I think there is a better approach to addressing California's unique situation and that is Mag Lev. A Mag-Lev system is capable of 350 mph which would more than make it competitive with flying. Expensive yes, but best of all it can climb steeper grades than steel rail on steel rail and requires far less maintenance on the system than rail and conventional trains would require. It would make the world sit up and take notice and best of all we already own the right of way. The system can be built above already existing freeways and I guarantee people going 65 mph down HWY 99 and have a maglev train pass overhead at 350 mph it will certainly get there attention not to mntion traveling down the penisula above the stop and go traffic on 101. . It will require more power than a conventional HSR system but more power is already needed in California.
Not even across Kansas would you be able to install a 350 mph maglev line that could handle the vertical and horizontal grades of an Intestate highway. It would feel like riding a roller coaster.
Maglev require a roadbed with electromagnets embedded in it. Far, far more expensive than hanging catenary...
According to the AP, the projected cost of the California Bullet Train has jumped to $77 billion before financing charges. And the opening date has been pushed back to 2033. I suspect many of the folks who participate in these forums will be pushing up daisies by then.
According to Brian Kelly, the new California High-Speed Rail Authority executive, how the project will be paid for is uncertain. Really? Who would have guessed?
Here is a link to the article: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/california-bullet-train-costs-soar-to-77-billion-opening-delayed.html
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1 According to the AP, the projected cost of the California Bullet Train has jumped to $77 billion before financing charges. And the opening date has been pushed back to 2033. I suspect many of the folks who participate in these forums will be pushing up daisies by then.
Except for the period of time before we knew who won, it would be fun to start a pool on the eventual cost of this project. Myself, I'd take "high end" meaning an amount higher than anyone in the pool guessed.
oltmannd passengerfan Living in California and having traveled on trains throughout the world I have lost interest in the proposed system in California. Why because I think there is a better approach to addressing California's unique situation and that is Mag Lev. A Mag-Lev system is capable of 350 mph which would more than make it competitive with flying. Expensive yes, but best of all it can climb steeper grades than steel rail on steel rail and requires far less maintenance on the system than rail and conventional trains would require. It would make the world sit up and take notice and best of all we already own the right of way. The system can be built above already existing freeways and I guarantee people going 65 mph down HWY 99 and have a maglev train pass overhead at 350 mph it will certainly get there attention not to mntion traveling down the penisula above the stop and go traffic on 101. . It will require more power than a conventional HSR system but more power is already needed in California. Not even across Kansas would you be able to install a 350 mph maglev line that could handle the vertical and horizontal grades of an Intestate highway. It would feel like riding a roller coaster. Maglev require a roadbed with electromagnets embedded in it. Far, far more expensive than hanging catenary...
Having ridden the Mag-lev line from Shanghai Pudong to the Pudong Airport I know the maintenance costs are high (according to personnel and also articles as to why the Chinese decided to not build a Mag-lev line to Hangzhou). From having ridden the faster ICEs (HSR) in Germany, especially the Frankfurt Airport to Koeln-Messe line paralleling the Autobahn, I know that a train moving at 290kmh (180mph) catches most drivers' attention, even if they are going 125mph.
[from MHSRA Newsletter]
California’s High-Speed Rail Authority unveiled the draft of an updated business plan last week. It’s the first major plan from the authority since its new CEO, Brian Kelly, took over in January. The new baseline cost estimate is $77 billion, with the first segment operable in 2029 and full completion in 2033. Although construction is already underway, the project faces challenges today as a result of choices made years ago. The new plan presents lessons learned based on these experiences, with different suggested actions for the future.
California high-speed rail must be built, in spite of these challenges, because the outcome will be worth it. This one high-speed line is the unifying link in a statewide network with many branches and destinations.
When you look at the effect this one high-speed line has on the whole network, it’s clear that the service will radically transform the state and its economy. Journeys to and from places all around California will be so much faster and easier that daily train ridership will grow from 110,000 (today) to 1.3 million (in 2040). That’s the equivalent of 3,000 jumbo jets full of passengers every single day. That works out to 92 million additional daily passenger miles by train, 88 million of which will be diverted from highways.
The new business plan prioritizes construction of segments that will allow improved service sooner on what’s finished first. The Central Valley portion, under construction now, will allow faster trains on the current San Joaquin corridor from Bakersfield to Sacramento. The next segment will link the Central Valley to an improved and electrified CalTrain corridor, creating a seamless line from San Francisco to Bakersfield.
When people experience the difference between 79 mph on old track and 220 mph on the new high-speed line, they’ll be clamoring for the remaining segments, like Bakersfield to L.A., to be finished as soon as possible.
The High-Speed Rail Authority is also coordinating closely with connecting services like CalTrain and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) to develop service plans and identify infrastructure upgrades that benefit both commuter and high-speed service. ACE runs from Livermore and Stockton to San Jose, where it connects with CalTrain. ACE is planning to upgrade and extend its service south from Stockton to Merced, where it would connect with the new high-speed tracks.
ACE is planning its new route to be compatible with high-speed rail, opening up more destinations for fast, long-distance trains, and offering them a route into the Bay Area before the dedicated high-speed corridor through the Pacheco Pass and Gilroy is finished.
California isn’t the first to used a phased approach to build high-speed rail. They’re following proven practices from around the world, and the phased approach is a smart way to leverage completed construction to secure support and financing for continuing work.
"When people experience the difference between 79 mph on old track and 220 mph on the new high-speed line, they’ll be clamoring for the remaining segments, like Bakersfield to L.A., to be finished as soon as possible."
No doubt! I suspect, however, that they will not be clamoring to pay the full cost of the 220 mph ride. In the best American tradition they will look to the taxpayers to subsidize their high speed train ride.
Nobody will want to pay the full cost. As you say, the modern american tradition is NOT friendly to such high public works costs regardless of the benefits. It's funny, the fundamental problem that C-HSR has is the same problem it has in housing. Well heeled low density suburbanites who have their wealth tied up in housing that was built with no long term vision. That's why land acquisition is causing such a problem. You need to condemn housing and it will adjust the mix of housing which may drive down value at least in the short term.
Also, to the mention of $500 Million to upgrade the coast line...I'd like to see a cost breakdown on that please. I DOUBT the Coast line can be upgraded for 110MPH at that price tag. And as noted, it would still miss many of the mid sized Ca metros. Let Coast Starlight and Surfliner keep those routes.
$500 million might be enough to finish the double tracking where feasible on the Srf Line along with some improvements. The biggest bottleneck on the line is the stretch through San Clementedue due to no room to place a second track and speed restrictions from all the pedestrians (and too frequent tresspassers) along that stretch. Another slow spot is the climb over Miramar hill. Both of these projects would cost well over $1 billion, with the San Clemente project being the more expensie of the two.
IMBO ("B" stands for bombastic), getting consistent 110 MPH speeds on the Surf Line would bring in a lot more benefit than 220MPH in the Central Valley. For one thing, this would allow for dramatically improved Coaster and Metrolink service in addition to Amtrak service on the LOSSAN corridor.
I'm feeling a little pessimistic about the California HSR. They are building from Fresno to Bakersfield right now, correct? It doesn't hit either of the major population centers they were aiming for, instead it'll go nowhere to nowhere. Also, they still haven't a clue how they will get over Tehachapi Pass into L.A. or Pacheco Pass (maybe Altamont? They still don't know). I really hope to see the HSR completed in a reasonable amount of time and money, but the chances seem low.
Matthew Cheng
Come check out my Youtube channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSlaF4fvDX1brq6YOeODLPw
Upgrading the Coast Line to 110 would cost hugely. In making such suggestions people forget (if they're Californians or just don't know if they're not) the geography. There are mountains, Santa Susannas, that would require very long twin tunnels to get out of LA. Another long tunnel would be needed to get through the mountains near San Luis Obisbo, where the horseshoe curve is (I think called La Cuesta grade). There is also a serioiusly hilly section south of San Jose. Finally, having ridden the line between LA and Santa Barbara, there are miles and miles of seriously curving track, especially noticable if you are riding in the last car and can see the track out the back.
To make that line serious transportation to the Bay Area, you would need a new, double track railroad using some parts of the existing right-of-way. Its a fine trip to Santa Barbar, because its only a 100 miles. But the 400 mile trip to San Francisco (actually Oakland) takes more than 11 hours, largely because of the problems with the route I just described. Raising the speed limit on the relatively straight sections from 70 to 110 would not help a whole lot. And if you are going to build a new railroad, go ahead and do it right, make it a truely high speed line.
So far as LOSAN to San Diego, its not going to be a fast high density line unless it is fully double tracked, and the slow parts, espcially Miramar and San Clemente are fixed and the alignment moved off the beach. Keep in mind that originally the High Speed Rail lines was to follow that route, but locals didn't want such a thing in their backyards, and so that route became politically impossible. Keep in mind also that despite the much of the line below Fullerton is posted for 90 mph, the line is hilly enough that the trains have trouble accellarating up to that speed, so they don't run at that speed very long. The same would be true if track speed were raised to 110. That problem can only be solved with significantly more horsepower or electrification (one objection the locals had to running the High Speed Rail project through their backyards was the overhead wires messing up their views). Of course, there is no doubt that LOSAN and the Surfline overall serve a useful purpose, and improvement to this successful line are worthwhile. But there is just so much you can do when the allignment is such an handicap.
Folks in the midwest where its more flat and existing lines are often pretty straight already probably don't appreciate the limitations of California geography.
I apologize for the spelling mistakes in my post. It 1:30 a.m.
erikem IMBO ("B" stands for bombastic), getting consistent 110 MPH speeds on the Surf Line would bring in a lot more benefit than 220MPH in the Central Valley. For one thing, this would allow for dramatically improved Coaster and Metrolink service in addition to Amtrak service on the LOSSAN corridor.
As well those higher speds would allow for more seats and trains with the same present equipment.
blue streak 1 erikem IMBO ("B" stands for bombastic), getting consistent 110 MPH speeds on the Surf Line would bring in a lot more benefit than 220MPH in the Central Valley. For one thing, this would allow for dramatically improved Coaster and Metrolink service in addition to Amtrak service on the LOSSAN corridor. As well those higher speds would allow for more seats and trains with the same present equipment.
At the risk of being a bit off topic, I have ridden trains in Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, UK, and USA. I have ridden over nearly every mile of Amtrak's system.
The ride that I enjoy most is LAX to San Diego on the Surf Line. My first ride on the line was in 1958, when the Sante Fe operated the trains, and I was headed to Camp Pendleton. My last ride was February 28th of this year. I'll be returning to California in June for more of the Surf Line.
It would have been cheaper to flood the Central Valley and use Hydrofoil boats. Just look at some of the benefits to this idea all the increased taxes from the new lakefront property. California's recurring drought issue solved. Eliminate a lot of the deadbeats that want to build in a rural area that really can't afford California real estate on the coast. Create a new and large sport fishing industry. Possibly fix the Salton Sea issue.
J. Bishop Its a fine trip to Santa Barbara, because it's only 100 miles. But the 400 mile trip to San Francisco (actually Oakland) takes more than 11 hours, largely because of the problems with the route I just described.
The correct answer to this, and it has both a reasonably short initiation time for 'full' train technology and then an incremental path for progressive improvement (both valuable for real-world projects) is to use proper active tilt on relatively lightweight equipment. Even the British APT-P was agile at reasonable speed on comparable, if not worse, curvature. This would all remain effective HrSR after the true high-speed line is built, and I have never heard a serious high-speed LA to SF proposal that did not run up the Central Valley and where possible use a true high-speed train's ability to surmount very high peak grades when suitably-spiraled vertical curves are engineered in.
Count me in in the hydrofoil project. I already have drawings for converting some of the boats you'll need. Of course it will require a convenient 'construction accident' to avoid much of that useless EIS and entrenched-interest business, but that worked for the Salton Sea, would have worked for the recent dam near-failure, and remains an arrow in the quiver of the sorts of California companies who would bid on the, er, improvement construction and subsequent real-estate PUDs around the new linear hydrological transportation feature...
Pity April is still so many days away.
https://www.midwesthsr.org/california-high-speed-rail-network-everything?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8d1e874e-819f-4394-b832-1452cdbf147b
It's the entire network that matters, as LA-SF is just a portion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.