Paul Milenkovic The second thing is that there is a (small) portion of the passenger advocacy community who are perhaps believers but heretical believers. When people hold to strongly held beliefs, I guess in some sense being a heretic, not believing in the correct way, is viewed worse than not believing or being even interested at all.
The second thing is that there is a (small) portion of the passenger advocacy community who are perhaps believers but heretical believers. When people hold to strongly held beliefs, I guess in some sense being a heretic, not believing in the correct way, is viewed worse than not believing or being even interested at all.
Okay, another offensive post directed at those of us who believe in passenger train expansion as a public good. I will ignore most of your 15-paragraphs and just focus on this one, which seems to equate those who favor passenger train expansion to the members of religious cults, while you are logical, rational and dispassionate. In fact, YOUR posts REEK of fanaticism, of not being able to accept that not everyone agrees with you. My view, and those of other supporters of increased passenger train service here, on the other hand, are not out of line with the opinions of mainstream economists such as Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz, that rail passenger transportation is a public good and should be supported as such.
Wow, Paul! I simply drew attention to the subtle political (or ideological) aspect of sam1's post and the latter warrants a 15 paragraph thesis in defense? I believe the Law of Parsimony may be relevant here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Just as a note, I think it was earlier in this thread or perhaps a different thread, the initial goal is to link the first section built into existing BNSF track and use it to improve the existing San Joaquin service.
The San Joaquins have the least ridership of the 3 state sponsored Amtrak Ca routes, but they are well used and this link in will improve that service immensely possibly even creating a viable route down to LA from Sacramento (using a Bus from Bakersfield).
This is a 125MPH service that will get noticed. This plan turns HSR to nowhere into something that might make more sense. It gets the service off the freight tracks, increases speeds and it connects to Sacramento and the Bay are making it viable. It also has connections to tourist destinations like Yosemite.
This is actually a very astute move by the California HSR group. Assuming they can get approval to do it.
DwightBranch Paul Milenkovic: The second thing is that there is a (small) portion of the passenger advocacy community who are perhaps believers but heretical believers. When people hold to strongly held beliefs, I guess in some sense being a heretic, not believing in the correct way, is viewed worse than not believing or being even interested at all. Okay, another offensive post directed at those of us who believe in passenger train expansion as a public good. I will ignore most of your 15-paragraphs and just focus on this one, which seems to equate those who favor passenger train expansion to the members of religious cults, while you are logical, rational and dispassionate. In fact, YOUR posts REEK of fanaticism, of not being able to accept that not everyone agrees with you. My view, and those of other supporters of increased passenger train service here, on the other hand, are not out of line with the opinions of mainstream economists such as Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz, that rail passenger transportation is a public good and should be supported as such.
Paul Milenkovic: The second thing is that there is a (small) portion of the passenger advocacy community who are perhaps believers but heretical believers. When people hold to strongly held beliefs, I guess in some sense being a heretic, not believing in the correct way, is viewed worse than not believing or being even interested at all.
As one academic scholar to another academic scholar, if I get this thread locked out for explaining myself or defending my positions, so be it.
Offensive post? The "heretics" are people like me along with a small number of others on this forum who are not going along with the mainstream passenger advocacy position, and who are critical of some aspects of public funding of passenger trains while supporting other aspects. The term heresy is widely used as one of those analogy terms regarding disagreements about policy concerns and has nothing to do with anyone around here being in a religious cult. Also, how you are supposed to know that "heretics" refers to me, I go on to explain that those of us who are heretics think of ourselves as reformers, where "us" in most discourse is inclusive of the author as is the standard in most academic circles.
Having an academic career, I am accustomed to the spirited discussions that take place in faculty meetings not to mention the anonymous peer review process in the publication of scholarly writing. Yes, I am directing back personal criticism, and if the moderators take issue with it, it is their forum, and even the legendary David P. Morgan "pulled the plug" on The Professional Iconoclast after a long run, but I am not using a four letter word, as was directed at me on other thread when I dared offer evidence questioning the supposition that 200+ MPH HSR was widespread.
Yes, I indeed view myself as logical and rational, but I am far from dispassionate when it comes to passenger trains. My great grandfather Viktor Heim was a civil engineer who contributed to the Hungarian State Railway in his native Croatia, my father Veljko Milenkovic was a research engineer who contributed the design of the constant-velocity shaft coupling on the roller test stand at the US DOT test facility in Pueblo, Colorado, a test stand that was part of a 1960's U.S. initiative to develop HSR, and who developed a comprehensive theory of the critical speeds of HSR rolling stock (the maximum speed before dangerous wheel "hunting" sets in, which was a a focus of enabling research in the Japan Shinkansen along with considerable theoretical work in England as part of the Advanced Passenger Train Project), and who held a number of patents relating to the GATX RRollway plan for a high-speed rail borne automobile passenger ferry.
Most of us in academic careers have some kind of "paper trail" that anyone can pin down using scholarly research bibliographic search engines. That is how I determine the validity of anyone asserting to have a scholarly career as a scholar's writings are rapidly accessible by computer these days. As for my own minor contribution to railroad technology to date, a person with emeritus standing at any major academic institution can probably access the ASME journals, where a technical article relating to the United Aircraft TurboTrain appears in the Correspondence Articles section of the February 2011 issue of the Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics.
I am indeed passionate about passenger trains as I surmise are the other "heretics" around here, who have been called out for not agreeing with the consensus opinions. I am indeed passionate about trains, and I am pleading that we need another model for passenger advocacy than simply demanding that all passenger trains in all forms receive all public money that they require. That model has left us stalled at Amtrak carrying .1 percent of all passenger miles, and you can rationalize that contribution all you want, but we have been stuck in neutral since the inception of Amtrak.
My constructive proposal? Take cost effectiveness in converting the passenger rail subsidy dollar into consideration, to serve as many people as we can, to build up the constituency of passenger trains and obtain higher levels of funding in the future. I am derisively called a "bean counter" for suggesting this, but just because something gets public money doesn't mean it doesn't need to spend money wisely. Those of us who are serious passenger train enthusiasts are in a unique position to contribute an independent perspective on how to get the most out of the resources on hand.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
YoHo1975, after the valley section is built, the CA HSR plan will move on to their highest priority, closing the passenger rail gap between Bakersfield and Palmdale. The line over the Tehachapis will be steeper than the freight line and will be operated entirely with HSR equipment from the outset. But it will be years before its a one seat ride from "Bay to Basin".
Paul: Heresy? Strongly held beliefs? Why the need to use such divisive metaphors? If you have beliefs that differed from your group in Madison, fine, but don't assume the situation here must be analogous to those fractious factions. You seem to devote much of your talents to replaying the scripts of what sounds like a rather unproductive strategy adopted there, although given Gov. Walker's victory on a campaign promising to end WI rail, perhaps irrelevant. I believe a number of us have a variety of ideas about the future of US passenger rail service that are not mutually exclusive. I believe it would be far more productive to try to find some common ground than to continue these endless discussions of HSR vs modest speeds, LD vs corridor services and any other dichotomies. You might be surprised.
schlimm Paul: Heresy? Strongly held beliefs? Why the need to use such divisive metaphors?
Paul: Heresy? Strongly held beliefs? Why the need to use such divisive metaphors?
I comment that persons in the advocacy community have strongly held beliefs regarding the necessity of providing undivided support for passenger train projects, and I observe that my views are regarded as heretical and diluting of that message, to the extent that I was urged to refrain from commenting and go comment over at some Libertarian anti-train groups. And I am accused of making remarks that are offensive by one, as divisive by another?
MidlandMike YoHo1975, after the valley section is built, the CA HSR plan will move on to their highest priority, closing the passenger rail gap between Bakersfield and Palmdale. The line over the Tehachapis will be steeper than the freight line and will be operated entirely with HSR equipment from the outset. But it will be years before its a one seat ride from "Bay to Basin".
I understand that, but when the valley section is completed, it will improve the existing San Joaquin service and make the current 2 seat train/bus ride more compelling.
This makes the choice of where they started far more compelling.
It makes sense that they then move to close the gap over the tehachapis, because that's the section with no current service.
Were any bonds offered to do this?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Paul: "I believe a number of us have a variety of ideas about the future of US passenger rail service that are not mutually exclusive. I believe it would be far more productive to try to find some common ground than to continue these endless discussions of HSR vs modest speeds, LD vs corridor services and any other dichotomies. You might be surprised. "
Why no comment on the above? I believe you have a lot of constructive ideas. Perhaps the past, especially with the Madison group has clouded the topic. But as a fellow academic, you know how we thrash out differing views. My point is that we should all try to move forward in conceptualizing an adequate or better passenger service where it is feasible, regardless of our political ideologies (perhaps check those at the door!).
schlimm Paul: "I believe a number of us have a variety of ideas about the future of US passenger rail service that are not mutually exclusive. I believe it would be far more productive to try to find some common ground than to continue these endless discussions of HSR vs modest speeds, LD vs corridor services and any other dichotomies. You might be surprised. " Why no comment on the above? I believe you have a lot of constructive ideas. Perhaps the past, especially with the Madison group has clouded the topic. But as a fellow academic, you know how we thrash out differing views. My point is that we should all try to move forward in conceptualizing an adequate or better passenger service where it is feasible, regardless of our political ideologies (perhaps check those at the door!).
My constructive proposal? Take cost effectiveness in converting the passenger rail subsidy dollar into consideration, to serve as many people as we can, to build up the constituency of passenger trains and obtain higher levels of funding in the future. I am derisively called a "bean counter" for suggesting this, but just because something gets public money doesn't mean it doesn't need to spend money wisely. Those of us who are serious passenger train enthusiasts are in a unique position to contribute an independent perspective on how to get the most out of the resources on hand."
This is not common ground? This is not a constructive suggestion?
Recent posts on this thread suggest that the CA HSR authority is now taking seriously the idea of a staged build out together with some way of linking to the conventional Amtrak California Capitol Corridor route (Dual-mode locomotive? Locomotive "change in New Haven" type operation? Cross-platform transfer?) along with 125 MPH operation to gain experience.
These ideas were advanced right here on this Forum by myself and others, and they were met with the strong suggestion to "go somewhere else."
The various dichotomies represent engineering as well as policy tradeoffs; the discussion of these tradeoffs continue because the problems are real, and the discussions are important as evidenced by the CA HSR Authority giving the tradeoffs serious consideration.
I don't think they're planning for dual mode, I think they're just going to use the same or upgraded diesel trainsets and put up the electrical when more of the system is built out. Also, it's the San Joaquins service, not the Capital Corridor.
If that was considered a heretical view by some, then I'm a heretic.
To me, getting the new track laid down is the hardest part even for the valley track, so anything that helps get that accomplished is a win.
I myself have not read any posts suggesting such a compromise is unreasonable. But then, I can only put up with the bickering on this board for so long before I have to take a break.
YoHo1975 I don't think they're planning for dual mode, I think they're just going to use the same or upgraded diesel trainsets and put up the electrical when more of the system is built out. Also, it's the San Joaquins service, not the Capital Corridor. ...
...
Somewhere in the plan they say that they will not mix the 2 modes at the same time on HSR track. I wonder how much time there will be between when track and signals are in and when they will have cat and be ready for HSR tests. It might not be long enough to change San Joaquin timetables to reflect speed ups.
Well, I would presume, and of course this depends on all sorts of on the ground issues, that the CAT will go up and be turned on and tests will begin during off hours while existing service continues during operating hours and that that won't change until the last possible second. I'd assume if there HAD to be a time when the route was completely down, they could return the service to BNSF.
I'd have to believe though that by the time they're looking at turning on the lights, that they have enough of a system in place that the San Joaquin timetables will have little relevance.
YoHo1975 I don't think they're planning for dual mode, I think they're just going to use the same or upgraded diesel trainsets and put up the electrical when more of the system is built out. Also, it's the San Joaquins service, not the Capital Corridor. If that was considered a heretical view by some, then I'm a heretic. To me, getting the new track laid down is the hardest part even for the valley track, so anything that helps get that accomplished is a win. I myself have not read any posts suggesting such a compromise is unreasonable. But then, I can only put up with the bickering on this board for so long before I have to take a break.
I am opposed to mixing HSR with conventional trainsets (especially freight) for two reasons: 1) as I spelled out here, it means that the HSR trainsets must withstand 800k lb. buff force in a collision per FRA regulations, so that the trainsets will be overbuilt a la cochon (the term French engineers secretly use for Acela, meaning "the pig") and custom built rather than the lightweight off the shelf trainsets possible if HSR has a dedicated right of way; and 2) depending on the timing of the build, there is too much chance of misallocating funds away from HSR to transportation projects normally part of the state budget. So the commuter trains are built up at the end points, the money is gone and yet the true HSR hasn't been built yet, they give up and we don't have HSR. I think that is why opponents are complaining about the first section being built in the valley, it takes away a chance to stop the plan later, before the HSR track is built, with a change in leadership in both/either CA or the US.
DwightBranch YoHo1975: I don't think they're planning for dual mode, I think they're just going to use the same or upgraded diesel trainsets and put up the electrical when more of the system is built out. Also, it's the San Joaquins service, not the Capital Corridor. If that was considered a heretical view by some, then I'm a heretic. To me, getting the new track laid down is the hardest part even for the valley track, so anything that helps get that accomplished is a win. I myself have not read any posts suggesting such a compromise is unreasonable. But then, I can only put up with the bickering on this board for so long before I have to take a break. I am opposed to mixing HSR with conventional trainsets (especially freight) for two reasons: 1) as I spelled out here, it means that the HSR trainsets must withstand 800k lb. buff force in a collision per FRA regulations, so that the trainsets will be overbuilt a la cochon (the term French engineers secretly use for Acela, meaning "the pig") and custom built rather than the lightweight off the shelf trainsets possible if HSR has a dedicated right of way; and 2) depending on the timing of the build, there is too much chance of misallocating funds away from HSR to transportation projects normally part of the state budget. So the commuter trains are built up at the end points, the money is gone and yet the true HSR hasn't been built yet, they give up and we don't have HSR. I think that is why opponents are complaining about the first section being built in the valley, it takes away a chance to stop the plan later, before the HSR track is built, with a change in leadership in both/either CA or the US.
YoHo1975: I don't think they're planning for dual mode, I think they're just going to use the same or upgraded diesel trainsets and put up the electrical when more of the system is built out. Also, it's the San Joaquins service, not the Capital Corridor. If that was considered a heretical view by some, then I'm a heretic. To me, getting the new track laid down is the hardest part even for the valley track, so anything that helps get that accomplished is a win. I myself have not read any posts suggesting such a compromise is unreasonable. But then, I can only put up with the bickering on this board for so long before I have to take a break.
That's a legitimate concern, but not relevant to the quoted post which specifies only how the valley section will be utilized prior to introduction of true HSR. Of course, during the time period where the line is just hosting an upgraded San Joaquin service, it will be subject to FRA buff force rules, because the trainsets will move on to the BNSF and SP lines at the end of new track. That is not a service that will ever be HSR. That is an intermediary service so the track is being used and incremental upgrades in schedules can occur.
If we're discussing the aspect of this related to CalTrain and presumably in the future, Metrolink/LA Basin, then sure, that's an issue.
Presumably one of the advantages up electrifying Caltrain is that it would encourage a change over to FRA exempted equipment.
One might hope that there would be a window at night where freight could move on the line similar to how the Oceanside to Escondido Sprinter service works down in San Diego.
The other possibility is that it encourages a change such that San Jose becomes a multimodal hub and HSR never makes it up the peninsula.
You could make the argument that HSR LA to Silicon valley is 90% of what you wanted anyway. San Jose after all is a bigger metro than SF and getting to Diridon from the rest of the valley is fairly quick and quite painless. If you start with that, you've won your biggest battle in the Bay area. LA Basin is harder all around, but it was going to be harder no matter what.
YoHo1975 That's a legitimate concern, but not relevant to the quoted post which specifies only how the valley section will be utilized prior to introduction of true HSR. Of course, during the time period where the line is just hosting an upgraded San Joaquin service, it will be subject to FRA buff force rules, because the trainsets will move on to the BNSF and SP lines at the end of new track. That is not a service that will ever be HSR. That is an intermediary service so the track is being used and incremental upgrades in schedules can occur.
One concern I would have with being able to "break it in" with conventional trains would be that the line would need to be capable of handling the weight of diesel locomotives for that to be possible, whereas if it is only used for TGV style trainsets the bridges could be a lot lighter and cheaper to build. It would be a plus in the short term but perhaps not worth it in the long term (I am not an engineer so am just speculating).
I would think Earthquake requirements would trump weight limits as far as costs for bridges and other land improvements goes.
Paul Milenkovic This is not common ground? This is not a constructive suggestion? Recent posts on this thread suggest that the CA HSR authority is now taking seriously the idea of a staged build out together with some way of linking to the conventional Amtrak California Capitol Corridor route (Dual-mode locomotive? Locomotive "change in New Haven" type operation? Cross-platform transfer?) along with 125 MPH operation to gain experience. These ideas were advanced right here on this Forum by myself and others, and they were met with the strong suggestion to "go somewhere else." The various dichotomies represent engineering as well as policy tradeoffs; the discussion of these tradeoffs continue because the problems are real, and the discussions are important as evidenced by the CA HSR Authority giving the tradeoffs serious consideration.
Those sound like some good ideas, with a separation of the HSR track from shared (with freight) track because of the buffer/weight issue. perhaps at some point PTC (or its tweaked final version) will permit shared occupancy with conventional equipment, as currently in Germany and elsewhere.
The plan in the LA Basin is a dedicated HSR line parallel to the commuter line into LA Union Sta. There will also be a couple of intermediate shared stations. Apparently the only blended system in the LA area will be the extension to Anaheim.
Which makes sense. The transit time between LA union and Anaheim station on the BNSF is something like 40 minutes for the Surfliner. Presumably an express non-stop could do it in less.
I'm also assuming this is a cross platform transfer.
The original estimated cost of the California High Speed Rail Project (CHSRP) was $32 billion. Eventually, due to adjustments, the estimate reached nearly $98 billion before the projects promoters realized that the estimated construction costs, together with the ridership projections, travel times, operating costs, etc. were out of control. Now, as I understand it, the construction cost projections have been pulled back to $68 billion before debt service costs. Depending on the financial arrangements, the construction costs, including financing, could be as high as $120 billion.
Pulling back the construction costs means that the end point to end point running times will be longer than originally estimated due to lowered infrastructure capacities. What are the new estimated running times from Los Angeles to San Francisco? Moreover, why would a business person opt for a train when he or she could fly from LAX or one of the other area airports to SFO in approximately one hour and fifteen minutes. The current Southwest Airlines fares range from $78 for a web only fare to $206 for a walk-up business select fare.
True, people have to get to the airport. Southwest operates from four airports in the LA basin and serves three airports in the bay area. Accordingly, most people could probably get to one of the four airports pretty quickly. It is equally true that people would have to get to the railroad station. Whether the time to get to the station, expect for those people who live downtown or near downtown, is less than the time to get to the airport would depend on the starting point.
Quick, frequent, dependable, and economical rail service from points 200 miles or thereabouts from LAX, SFO, Sacramento, etc. make sense and, given the right dynamics, could cover its operating costs. Moreover, if all modes of transport were placed on a level playing field, i.e. no non-recoverably subsidies, as I have advocated, the rail service could be hoisted by private enterprise, providing the operators could deploy modern management, technical, and employee relations practices.
Notice that I am not saying that there should be no rail service. My argument is that moderate speed rail service from the points noted in the previous paragraph make sense. But a train from LAX to SFO does not make a lot of sense, even if it only takes twice as long to cover the distance as a jet airplane.
Sam,
This brings up a bit of a sore point for me with the HSR plan. Other than the LAUPT to Anaheim link, there is nothing for the LOSSAN corridor following I-5. There was a proposal for an I-15 corridor line to connect San Diego with the HSR, with some significant construction challenges from Riverside to Mareno Valley (about 5 miles) and from Temecula to the Mira Mesa area of San Diego, with the biggest challenge between hwy 76 and hwy78. The topography in these cases isn't as bad as the line over the Tehachapi's, but the I-15 corridor is a lot more built up.
It's particularly galling when Caltrain gets money allocated for electrification and the all the LOSSAN corridor gets is some money for a dozen or so miles of double track.
Switching sides for a moment... Southwest does provide good service between LA/SD and the Bay Aera/Sacto (very much as PSA did prior to the US Air acquisition). It doesn't provide service to the San Joaquin valley and the frequency of service between some of the is substantially less than what would be provided by HSR. Also note that it takes longer to fly Southwest from LA to the Bay area than it did to fly PSA over the same route back in the 1970's.
- Erik
Agree with Erik with regards LOSSAN.
Those same arguments could be made NY-DC. I'll grant you NYC is very much not car friendly. LA however does have significant public transit that runs into LA Union which does not run to LAX or John Wayne.
As was pointed out, the key is the Central Valley communities which are quite large and underserved.
YoHo1975 I would think Earthquake requirements would trump weight limits as far as costs for bridges and other land improvements goes.
I'd suspect as much myself.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.