Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know for sure what the explanation is for why the corrugation would be less in locations where trains regularly brake. One reason, I suppose, is that the suspension system may not be as free to move during braking. There is also an energy transfer going on during braking between the train and the rails, which may have some effect on the wheel-rail dynamics. Whatever the reason, something must be happening during braking that reduces the corrugation.
By the way, I live in the Chicago area and the CTA rapid transit has had the same problem, although it's not as bad today as it used to be. But it was really bad when CTA used PCC 'L' cars that didn't have much sound insulation and had open windows in warm weather. CTA, at one point, touted a special rail grinding train called the Sh-h-h-hicago as a solution to this problem. It did make the track quieter. But it also showered the track and surrounding neighborhoods with red hot grinding residue that started fires, so it was quietly retired. The CTA trains were also much quieter in areas (particularly approaching stations) where trains regularly braked.
With respect to the comment suggesting that non-tapered wheels might be more susceptible to derailment than tapered wheels, that was definitely not true of the North Shore Line, which used non-tapered wheels for decades in high speed service. The very reason they used this design was to reduce the chances of derailment by reducing the severe truck hunting they were experiencing with traditional tapered wheels. Also, I don't know whether this is true, but I've been told that CTA still uses non-tapered wheels.
7j43k Paul of Covington Speaking of wheel slip-- with zero taper on the wheels you are depending solely on the flanges to keep you on the track, so would it be advantageous to have the wheels free to turn independently on the axles? This way you are not forcing the wheels to slip on the curves. I'm not sure, but I seem to remember reading that Talgo (or maybe it was somebody else) wheels are designed that way. You "can't" because the wheels are powered. They are driven by only one traction motor per axle. You would then need two motors per axle. Which is certainly possible, and maybe even a great idea. But I don't think anyone's done it. Hey. Maybe I invented it. Dibs! You would also need, I think, really good motor controllers, so as to keep the two motors appropriately matched. Ed
Paul of Covington Speaking of wheel slip-- with zero taper on the wheels you are depending solely on the flanges to keep you on the track, so would it be advantageous to have the wheels free to turn independently on the axles? This way you are not forcing the wheels to slip on the curves. I'm not sure, but I seem to remember reading that Talgo (or maybe it was somebody else) wheels are designed that way.
Speaking of wheel slip-- with zero taper on the wheels you are depending solely on the flanges to keep you on the track, so would it be advantageous to have the wheels free to turn independently on the axles? This way you are not forcing the wheels to slip on the curves. I'm not sure, but I seem to remember reading that Talgo (or maybe it was somebody else) wheels are designed that way.
You "can't" because the wheels are powered. They are driven by only one traction motor per axle. You would then need two motors per axle. Which is certainly possible, and maybe even a great idea. But I don't think anyone's done it.
Hey. Maybe I invented it.
Dibs!
You would also need, I think, really good motor controllers, so as to keep the two motors appropriately matched.
Ed
Thanks, Ed. I didn't realize that all wheels were powered. I should have thought, "subway", rather than "train". I suppose you could rig an automobile style differential, but that would add weight and complication plus a little loss to friction. Oh well.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Falcon48 Again, I'm not an engineer, so I can't give definitive answers. But let me speculate a little. I suspect that rail corrugation on transit systems like BART is primarily caused by the relatively light loading on the wheels, which leads to uneven loading as the trains run over the track at speed.
Again, I'm not an engineer, so I can't give definitive answers. But let me speculate a little.
I suspect that rail corrugation on transit systems like BART is primarily caused by the relatively light loading on the wheels, which leads to uneven loading as the trains run over the track at speed.
I don't follow your reasoning. If you're saying the problem would be solved by adding some concrete under the floor to correct for the light loading, my thought is that the suspension system was not properly designed in the first place. So it should be corrected.
Once an uneven wear pattern starts to develop, passing trains will gradually make it worse.
Fer shure!
This would explain why there seems to be less corrugation in areas where trains regularly brake. The braking would tend to put more weight on the wheels.
I don't see how. The train weighs what it weighs. There is no spare weight that somehow gets put on the wheels. You COULD argue weight transfer. That is also something that should be corrected by redesign of the suspension. There would also be a reverse weight transfer on acceleration. And that would negate your observation, I think.
However. If the problem shows less where there is regular braking, it could be because that is also where the motors are accelerating less, as in "not". Which gets me thinking of uneven torque at the railhead causing slipping. And wear. The uneven torque would most likely be caused by the motor poles, as mentioned earlier. If this is the cause, one solution is slower acceleration from a stop. Another might be using sand on acceleration, to raise the coefficient of friction. Still another might be better motor control.
I suspect that rail corrugation on transit systems like BART is primarily caused by the relatively light loading on the wheels, which leads to uneven loading as the trains run over the track at speed. Once an uneven wear pattern starts to develop, passing trains will gradually make it worse. This would explain why there seems to be less corrugation in areas where trains regularly brake. The braking would tend to put more weight on the wheels. Keep in mind that we're not talking about deep ridges or anything like that - it's more like a very shallow undulation. But steel wheels running over irregularities like this at speed will be very noisy (particularly on unballasted track).
I agree with you that, on BART, corrugation is probably not the source of most of the noise on curves. As you say, the source is probably differential wheel slip - particularly on sharp, lower speed curves where the wheel slip would be the greatest. That would be more of an issue with BART than with other transit systems with similar curvature because BART is wide gauge, so the slip would be greater on BART. That said, I seem to recall in riding BART that, not only is there curve noise or sharp curves, but also a feeling that the wheels are bumping over something. I'm just speculating, but I suspect this is due to deeper corrugation caused by repeated wheel slippage in the same spots.
So my first impression about rail corrugation was the correct one, eh.
I wonder what causes it. The spacing of the repeat should tell something. I wonder what the distance is. And also where the problem happens, and how badly. All that should be revealing and useful.
For example: perhaps it is caused by the spacing of the poles of the motors. If so, then there would be a predicatable spacing of corrugations.
There is also truck hunting caused by the non-tapered treads. This should show up on straight track. Hunting is much more difficult or impossible on curves, since the wheels are shoved outwards towards their flanges. I wonder what the predicted spacing would be with that as a cause.
I found a link to illustrations that showed BART was louder on curves:
https://www.atsconsulting.com/rail-corrugation-at-bart
They seem to think the noise is caused by corrugation. The noise is louder on curves--is the corrugation worse on curves?
To me, the problem being louder in curves would appear to be caused by differential wheel slip caused by the use of non-tapered tread. That problem should be lessened by going to tapered treads. I wonder what it will do for the straight sections.
Well, I'd sure like to know what the NAS analyzed, and what values they got for other transit systems. It may be that, on non-corrugated track segments, or on ballasted track, BART is quieter than late 19th and early 20th century steel 'L' structures. But I've ridden BART many times, and the noise on portions of BART (primarily on track on the elevated structures and in tunnels) is earsplitting - much worse than any other modern rapid transit lines I've ridden.
With respect to corrugation, rail corrugation is, in fact, a "cross rail" condition. It is a series of seemingly small irregularities across the railhead a few inches apart. You can see them (particularly on the really bad segments), but you have to know what you're looking for. Viewed from above, they usually don't look like ridges - rather they look like narrow shadows an inch or so wide across the railhead. While they are small, they set up a very loud vibration whe wheels pass over them at speed. The solution is to regularly grind the rail to restore the rail profile. This condition also develops on regular railroads and is, again, addressed by periodic grinding. I suspect that BART isn't grinding the rails regularly enough to control this problem
The wheel "taper" issue certainly would affect noise on curves and the sharper the curve is the worse it would be (primarily due to wheel slippage as mentioned by 7j43k). I suppose it could also cause more corrugation on curves as well, if the wheels are slipping in the same place all the time. But this wouldn't afffect corrugation on relatively straight track where there's no wheel slippage.
I don't know for sure the reason BART originally adopted the "non-tapered" wheel profile, but I suspect it had to do with concerns about truck "hunting" with lightweight, high speed transit equipment. At the time it was built, BART was one of the fastest (if not the fastest) rapid transit lines in the U.S. Truck hunting was a known issue on high speed electric lines since the 1920's. The North Shore Line in Chicago, in particular, had severe truck hunting issues on the high speed segments of their railroad (they discovered the problem by hanging a camera under a high speed car). They solved it by going to non-tapered wheels, which they used for the rest of their existence. Presumably, BART has now concluded that this isn't a serious issue on their system.
Falcon48 BART is VERY loud - much louder than other "modern" rapid transit lines I've used. It often gets earsplitting on the trains (actually painful), so I can only imagine what it's like for those who live near the tracks.
I'm not an engineer, but my take is that much of the noise is being caused by severe rail corrugation which is not effectively managed. It's so bad, you can actually see the corrugation ridges in many places. When you ride, notice that the noise level isn't constant, and it's always loudest in the same spots. Also, as I recall, it gets more quiet where trains regularly brake (probably because the braking changes the rail-wheel dynamics in those areas. reducing the corrugation).
When I first read this, I thought that it meant that there were regularly spaced bumps in the rail surface--that the grooves and bumps had a cross-rail axis. Further reading on the subject showed that the grooves run parallel to the rail axis.
The problem seems to be especially bad on curves, both the grooving and the noise. Apparently, BART decided to have their wheels produced with zero tread taper. What this means is that, when going around curves, the correction to wheel diameters that the taper gives does not happen. And there is consequent slippage of the wheels. This causes extra noise in the curves, and extra wear. BART, after long and careful study, has decided to change the tread taper to what most of the rest of the United States (world?) uses.
How long did it take BART to come to this conclusion? It sounds like BART has been running straight-taper wheels since the beginning, 1972. Of course, it would take a few years for the downside to develop, say 5. So, the answer would appear to be about 40 years. Looks like they were afraid of appearing impetuous and/or flighty.
[quote user="7j43k"]
Paul of Covington I keep hearing about property values going up because of HSR. This may be true near stations, but HSR stops would be very few and far between, otherwise it wouldn't be very high speed. What happens to property values near the ROW with no stations nearby?
I keep hearing about property values going up because of HSR. This may be true near stations, but HSR stops would be very few and far between, otherwise it wouldn't be very high speed. What happens to property values near the ROW with no stations nearby?
Most of the ROW will be at grade or raised up on towers. We have, locally, an existing example to study.
If your property is near overhead BART tracks, values would likely be downward. The noise of each train passing is awful. And it can be heard for a goodly distance. I don't see how anyone can sleep. Also, it's not quite the visual treat you might think; although that doesn't radiate beyond the first layer or two of residences.
But this all only applies to populated areas. And the central valley is full of farmers, and who cares about them?
Berkeley required BART to be inderground as it passes through the city. And I believe the city paid for the extra cost. Thus, aside from the added cost, I doubt values were impacted. Maybe during construction, but that's years ago. Now.
Pretty impressive for the Berkeley City Council.
Falcon48
Checking Rentjungle(dot)com reveals quite a few units offered in the $1500-1900/month range as well, many of them listed as "newly refurbished"
Hey, if somebody thinks they can skirt the system by working in a community where the average income is $119K/yr, while living in a quonset hut out in the high desert, more power to them, but why should they get a subsidized commute as well?
Everyone knows Castro Valley isn't in the East Bay. It's the gateway city to "out there". Sorta like Orinda.
I haven't seen a lot of house tear-downs in any of those places. But then, I don't GO to any of those places.
Hayward's $2157 a month. And the apartment you get is a palatial 816 sq ft. So you only have to bring in $12 an hour after witholding. What will you do with all that extra money? Oh. I know: Food.........
7j43kSo, yes, you'll save $1000 a month living in Oakland.
Have they torn down all the houses in Hayward, Union City, and Castro Valley?
Average rent for Oakland is (from online) $2624. For 697 sq ft.
For SF, $3772 (no size stated).
So, yes, you'll save $1000 a month living in Oakland.
These are not houses where you have a family. These are apartments. Guess what you pay for a house where you want to raise your children.
If we divide $2624 by 180 (working hours in one month) we get $14.58 and hour. You will have to make that AFTER witholding to just pay the rent. No utilities. No food. No car. No nuthin'.
Welcome back!
During the 3 years that I lived in the Bay area, I found rents in the east bay to be dramatically cheaper than on the peninsula,this was true for residential, commercial, and industrial. So much so that many firms that historically have been considered "San Francisco organizations" have their bay area presence in the East bay. So I don't see the more extreme examples of these "cost of living" dramas to be particularly relevant. Even if I HAD to work in the SF CBD, I would not commute 100+ miles per day, knowing there were alternatives
Convicted One Of course one of the beauties of prop 13 is that it protects corporate land owners in addition to single homesteads.
Of course one of the beauties of prop 13 is that it protects corporate land owners in addition to single homesteads.
It was poorly written. I am sure the Legislature could have done a better job, if they had bothered. Or wanted to. They didn't.
Voters wanted relief on property taxes. The Legislature didn't.
Convicted One 7j43k But this all only applies to populated areas. And the central valley is full of farmers, and who cares about them? While your "quality of living" points make perfect sense, I think that at least a portion of POC's question was an attempt to qualify that this forecast for new demand for highly valued residences along the HSR corridor, will be limited to dirt actually near a train station,...which will be a considerable distance apart.
7j43k But this all only applies to populated areas. And the central valley is full of farmers, and who cares about them?
While your "quality of living" points make perfect sense, I think that at least a portion of POC's question was an attempt to qualify that this forecast for new demand for highly valued residences along the HSR corridor, will be limited to dirt actually near a train station,...which will be a considerable distance apart.
I noticed that. But he asked about the in-between. I used BART as an example because their tower construction looks the same as the half mile of HSR structure that's already built.
I then said that the values of housing near those BART tracks were negatively affected by the sound and the visual, while potentially not being able to take advantage of the boost upwards of being near a station.
I then shifted over to HSR, and the "neighborhoods" it would go through. Much of that is farmland. At first, one could react with "and plants would care how?". But the farmers could also possibly live near the HSR trackage. And get no boost because there is no station. But also get to hear the noise. On the plus side, steers could use the towers to rub against; and a happy steer is, well, a happy steer.
And. The farm lobby does not look to me to be terribly impactful on California government these days.
Who cares about the farmers? I doubt that many who eat what the farmers produce even know that they exist.
Johnny
Of course one of the beauties of prop 13 is that it protects corporate land owners in addition to single homesteads. So these farmers along the HSR corridor could easily convert their use to high-end trailer parks and become land barons, property value locked in at 1976 valuations.
Seriously though, I wonder how many people out there might be working toward land re-zonings along the HSR corridors,... purely on spec?
7j43kBut this all only applies to populated areas. And the central valley is full of farmers, and who cares about them?
Looks like it.
I recall Danny DeVito's line in one of his movies. He kept using the term OPM. He explained that it meant "other people's money". And discussed the concept further.
7j43k. So, if YOU want to live in these newly wonderful places, you will be paying top dollar for your new house. And top dollar in property taxes, too.
So, this strategy is depenant upon a quantum shift following along the new opportunity, and not an automatic given?
Could happen,...could also not happen. At least to an extent that is guaranteed to be economically viable . I absolutely hate it when people think that it is the government's "job" to spend other people's money on them.
Convicted One 7j43k That's great. So the increased income from property taxes can go to pay for the very thing that caused that increase. And once paid off, it's all gravy. Didn't prop 13 lock in the valuation at 1976 levels, and cap the property tax at like 1%? (unless there is a change in ownership or substantial on site improvements)
7j43k That's great. So the increased income from property taxes can go to pay for the very thing that caused that increase. And once paid off, it's all gravy.
Didn't prop 13 lock in the valuation at 1976 levels, and cap the property tax at like 1%? (unless there is a change in ownership or substantial on site improvements)
Yes.
But when the HSR goes in, and living in these areas becomes more attractive (that IS the point of HSR, isn't it?), then prices for housing will go up. So, if YOU want to live in these newly wonderful places, you will be paying top dollar for your new house. And top dollar in property taxes, too.
Hence the "increased income from property taxes" I mentioned.
Or, of course, you could continue to live in your studio apartment in SF for $3500 a month. No, wait. It just went up.
It'll be great, I tell ya.
7j43kThat's great. So the increased income from property taxes can go to pay for the very thing that caused that increase. And once paid off, it's all gravy.
YoHo1975As was previously stated, if nothing else, HSR and an improved ability to move from the San Joaquin to the Silicon Valley is going to generate property tax increases at a minimum.
That's great. So the increased income from property taxes can go to pay for the very thing that caused that increase. And once paid off, it's all gravy.
It will also in fact impact cost of living in a positive way for the consumer.
It'll lower their cost of living? Great. Some of that extra money could go to higher fares for the train. Again, to pay it off.
That's a net benefit to the Federal government though the accounting is more challenging and isn't all in hard dollars.
The accounting certainly could be challenging, considering the feds don't get property taxes (the ones that increased). Because of that, perhaps the feds could cut back on the financial aid, since the state's local governments have experienced an increase in income.
The Federal Government isn't in the business of being revenue neutral much less turning a profit.
So true; so true. But there are other goverments in this country who are. And they somehow survive. Perhaps we should change the federal government to be more like them.
Else every single military item not actively in use would be sold or laid off.
By that reasoning, I should sell my tools every time I don't have any work, and buy new ones when I get some. I'm just not sure that's a good idea, for me or for the military.
Sinking money into something that provides social benefit or state level benefits that will eventually trickle back to the fed is a perfectly good use of tax dollars.
"Sinking money into..." and "...trickle back...". I do detect a difference in scale, there.
Now that I've been all negative, I'll say that I think it does make sense for governments to invest money into the future. I also believe that they should do their accounting. That means that the project really should turn a profit. Because that profit enables investing in still another project. As opposed to not. Because it's been spent.
[quote user="JPS1"]
1) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase. 2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000.
1) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase.
2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000.
What do the numbers look like after adjustment for inflation? Frequently, after adjusting for inflation, a seemingly significant gain melts away or is significantly reduced in real dollar terms.
I have no way of quantifying inflation or deflation during the period the bonds were outstanding. I recall from some other histories I've read that there were depressions in the late 1870's and early 1890's (the one starting in 1893 was particularly severe). Depressions are usually deflationary, but that doesn't account for the entire period.
Duplicate post deleted. I'm not getting along too well with my computer today.
charlie hebdo Falcon48 1) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase. 2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000. Doubtful numbers, unless the rails were overpaying or there were large late payment penaties. Plugging the numbers given ($64 million @ 6% interest 30 years) into an amortization schedule gives the following: Interest paid = $74,136,441.00 + principal ($64 mil) = Total paid back $138,136,441.00. So as most folks would know, long-term loans have a large amount of interest. That's just reality. Remember, the rails were able to use those US Treasury bonds at a lower rate than a private loan. The land grants were mutually beneficial. The point is that the UP/CP railroads would not have been built, at least not then, without appropriate government assistance. You may not like it but it is simply a historical fact. Father Abraham was quite familiar with some of Marx's writings, BTW. Falcon48 Remember, the figures I gave were for all "Pacific Railroads" that made use of the government bonds/land grants, not just UP/CP. The numbers were developed by AAR, not me. They would have had the resources to get the right numbers, and no reason to use wrong numbers. After all, even the numbers you state show that the government made lots of money from the bonds. Naturally, the difference between the original value of the bonds and the amount repaid represents interest. That's normally how lenders make money from loans and the government certainly made money from these. I never disputed that the bonds were "mutually beneficial" to both the railroads and the government. Of course they were. Otherwise they would not have been used. The railroads got funds they probably couldn't have gotten (at the time) from other sources (remember, this was in the infancy of high finance). The government got the railroads they wanted plus the return on the bonds and the transportation discounts. It was a good deal all the way around. And that was my point, The Pacific Railroad bonds (and the land grants) were in no way a massive government giveaway like the California HSR would be.
Falcon48 1) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase. 2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000.
Doubtful numbers, unless the rails were overpaying or there were large late payment penaties. Plugging the numbers given ($64 million @ 6% interest 30 years) into an amortization schedule gives the following: Interest paid = $74,136,441.00 + principal ($64 mil) = Total paid back $138,136,441.00. So as most folks would know, long-term loans have a large amount of interest. That's just reality.
Remember, the rails were able to use those US Treasury bonds at a lower rate than a private loan. The land grants were mutually beneficial. The point is that the UP/CP railroads would not have been built, at least not then, without appropriate government assistance. You may not like it but it is simply a historical fact. Father Abraham was quite familiar with some of Marx's writings, BTW.
I never disputed that the bonds were "mutually beneficial" to both the railroads and the government. Of course they were. Otherwise they would not have been used. The railroads got funds they probably couldn't have gotten (at the time) from other sources (remember, this was in the infancy of high finance). The government got the railroads they wanted plus the return on the bonds and the transportation discounts. It was a good deal all the way around. And that was my point, The Pacific Railroad bonds (and the land grants) were in no way a massive government giveaway like the California HSR would be.
Deleted due to formatting problems . Reposted below.
Falcon481) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase. 2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000.
I suspect that HSR would create additional taxable land value in the vicinity of the stations it would build. Reliable transportation generates value in the communities served. Not being in Real Estate speculation I have no numbers to add in the value assessments.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdo 7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region?
7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed
Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region?
Let's see if I can help. There's a very good document issued by the AAR in 1983 ("Railroad Land Grants - a Sharp Deal for Uncle Sam"). While AAR is, of course, a rail industry organization, the document has a lot of good information on government support of the Pacific railroads. For example:
3) The land grants totalled 131,250,000 acres, having a pre railroad value of about $126 million (per J.B. Eastman, former ICC commissioner). The government actually profited from this because the government retained alternate sections of land and sold them. Before the railroads, the government was offering land for sale at $1.50 per acre and there were few takers (understandable, since there was no viable transportation available). After the railroads were built, the goverment was able to easily sell its retained land at $2.50 an acre. In other words, the government made a direct profit from the land grants. That's because the railroads made possible by the grants increased the marketablility and value of the land the government retained
4) As part of the land grants, the recipient railroads were required to haul government freight and passenger traffic at reduced rates averaging 50%. Mail was hauled at a 20% reduction. These requirements were in effect through the two world wars, until they were repealed in 1945. The value of these rate concessions was approximately $1.25 billion.
Bottom line. The government made a ton of money from the railroad bonds purchases and the land grants it made for the Pacific railroads. These weren't in any way "subsidies" - the government got it all back many times over. Does anyone seriously believe that would be the case with the billions of dollars of government money that would be spent on the California HSR project, or whatever part of it is ever completed? Too bad we aren't as sharp in the 21st century as our predecessors were in the 19th.
Probably more than you never wanted to know.
Don't you just love looking at 19th century realities through 21st century lens?
I know. Two of my flippant blah-blah-blah comments in a row.
But, really.
Where are MM. Gilbert and Sullivan? Such opportunities!
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR ...the last thing any of the bedroom communities up and down the Peninsula need is more street crossing under the tracks, there's a reason they want to limit the number of streets that go between the West side and East sides of the cities.
...the last thing any of the bedroom communities up and down the Peninsula need is more street crossing under the tracks, there's a reason they want to limit the number of streets that go between the West side and East sides of the cities.
I swear there's a story in that. I just do:
"Would ya like to be my neighbor?"
CMStPnP I suspect they gave Illinois a waiver...
I suspect they gave Illinois a waiver...
I SO want a waiver, too. Can I have one. Pleeease.
I know I'm not a State, and all. So I wouldn't need a very big one. A few million would do.
Pleeeease!
7j43k GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Reason for not using the I5 corridor...population, or lack there of. There is not one significant city along the I5 corridor. There are however a few along the CA99 corridor including Bakersfield and Fresno, and I know of people that live in both cities that work in the S.F Bay Area. Yes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield and Fresno to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else. Interesting. The reason to turn down a free right of way is so that Bakersfield and Fresno can be bedroom communities instead of being stand-alone cities. And CHSR will be a commuter railroad. Makes sense. Since it appears no one paid attention the first time. There was one proposal to have the entire line built without any Federal assistance...except that it would have required the state to give up any potential revenue for 30 years after completion(at which time the property would then have been turned over to CA). Whom you might ask was willing to design/build/operate the system...who else but the Chinese, only we(read: Gov. Brown) didn't like the idea of China keeping all of the revenue for the first 30 years of operation. Whether it was or was not a good deal, the political fallout would be enormous. It would look like we were just another 3rd world country that couldn't pull it off ourselves. Instead of a 1st world country that couldn't. See recent announcement. As for the 200 mph trains through San Mateo, that's easy when you have grade separations and no level street crossing...which is what the CalTrain electrification calls for. Now whether or not you trust a raised right of with 200 mph trains is a different story. If you want an idea of what it would look like, just check out the section around the San Carlos and Belmont stations, that will give you an idea...yes, cities cut in half, but they're essentially that way now. I did not realize that the trackage would be raised, also. Those tracks will still carry SFO commuters. Along with the long distance trains. With their Bakersfield commuters. Shouldn't be a problem. Are they planning 4 tracks: local and express? I see the San Carlos tracks are only 8 feet above the street. Not much of a challenge for your average teenager who wants to explore the right of way. My guess is the tracks will be "Bart height". Much more of a challenge. Then there can actually be MORE streets crossing (under) the tracks. I do hope they don't also recreate the locally famous Bart-train-screech. Ed
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Reason for not using the I5 corridor...population, or lack there of. There is not one significant city along the I5 corridor. There are however a few along the CA99 corridor including Bakersfield and Fresno, and I know of people that live in both cities that work in the S.F Bay Area. Yes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield and Fresno to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else.
Reason for not using the I5 corridor...population, or lack there of. There is not one significant city along the I5 corridor. There are however a few along the CA99 corridor including Bakersfield and Fresno, and I know of people that live in both cities that work in the S.F Bay Area. Yes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield and Fresno to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else.
Interesting. The reason to turn down a free right of way is so that Bakersfield and Fresno can be bedroom communities instead of being stand-alone cities. And CHSR will be a commuter railroad.
Makes sense.
Since it appears no one paid attention the first time. There was one proposal to have the entire line built without any Federal assistance...except that it would have required the state to give up any potential revenue for 30 years after completion(at which time the property would then have been turned over to CA). Whom you might ask was willing to design/build/operate the system...who else but the Chinese, only we(read: Gov. Brown) didn't like the idea of China keeping all of the revenue for the first 30 years of operation.
Whether it was or was not a good deal, the political fallout would be enormous. It would look like we were just another 3rd world country that couldn't pull it off ourselves. Instead of a 1st world country that couldn't. See recent announcement.
As for the 200 mph trains through San Mateo, that's easy when you have grade separations and no level street crossing...which is what the CalTrain electrification calls for. Now whether or not you trust a raised right of with 200 mph trains is a different story. If you want an idea of what it would look like, just check out the section around the San Carlos and Belmont stations, that will give you an idea...yes, cities cut in half, but they're essentially that way now.
I did not realize that the trackage would be raised, also. Those tracks will still carry SFO commuters. Along with the long distance trains. With their Bakersfield commuters. Shouldn't be a problem. Are they planning 4 tracks: local and express?
I see the San Carlos tracks are only 8 feet above the street. Not much of a challenge for your average teenager who wants to explore the right of way. My guess is the tracks will be "Bart height". Much more of a challenge. Then there can actually be MORE streets crossing (under) the tracks.
I do hope they don't also recreate the locally famous Bart-train-screech.
The San Carlos station I'm pretty sure is at least 9 feet above ground level plus the fencing, and there is a street underpass right next to the station(the street was lowered at the same time the right-of-way was raised to make the height requirement). Belmont, which is the next station up towards S.F. is also raised right-of-way, the last thing any of the bedroom communities up and down the Peninsula need is more street crossing under the tracks, there's a reason they want to limit the number of streets that go between the West side and East sides of the cities.
NKP guyHowever, the hate-California crowd, in the White House, here, and elsewhere, will protest the "injustice" of it all and demand fiscal rectitude, even as Red state voters turn a blind eye to a useless trillion dollar tax cut and an unneeded and unwanted Wall.
The provision for changing the grant to a loan was written into the legislation that produced the grant in the first place by the Obama administration (specifically Ray LaHood). Trump has no clue about this and to portray it as a vindictive Trump action is ignoring the fact that legally California is now in default of the provisions of the money it was granted. So is Illinois but for some reason the FRA is ignoring the breach by Illinois at the moment and I suspect they gave Illinois a waiver due to the trainset issue and delayed PTC implementation issue.
I made this assertion repeatedly about this small print written into the grant when everyone was beotching about Governor Walker's rejection of the money. Nobody believed me then but like the hip hop song: "Whup, there it is". FRA is on solid legal ground to ask for the money back.
You can also bet both Michigan and Illinois are watching carefully what happens here. If FRA lets California off the hook both MI and IL are in a Financial Crises of sorts now......don't you think they will attempt delays or cancellations as well of what they have done so far? So FRA is in a quandry as the FRA wants to see at least one HSR project compete. Understood the CA Governor and the Media is portraying this as a tit for tat but seriously it is a very good bet Trump had no clue about this provision until someone from the FRA mentioned it after California went public with their cancellation.........then backtracked.
rdamonAs expected .. Trump seeks to recoup 'wasted' California high-speed rail funds https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47310215
Considering that California is one of those (most often Blue) states that each year gives more money to the federal government than it gets back, I'd be inclined to drop the matter and let them keep the money.
However, the hate-California crowd, in the White House, here, and elsewhere, will protest the "injustice" of it all and demand fiscal rectitude, even as Red state voters turn a blind eye to a useless trillion dollar tax cut and an unneeded and unwanted Wall.
As expected ..
Trump seeks to recoup 'wasted' California high-speed rail funds
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47310215
BLS53If the environmental movement had occurred 150 years ago, we may not have had any transportation system at all. Even the pollution of horse *** would be suspect. We'd be left with nothing but the shoe leather express.
And we would still be faced with climate change today after spending quad-trillions of taxpayer money to influence the global climate.
BaltACD If it were 150 years ago - who would have voted to build the trans-con? At what price?
If it were 150 years ago - who would have voted to build the trans-con? At what price?
If the environmental movement had occurred 150 years ago, we may not have had any transportation system at all. Even the pollution of horse *** would be suspect. We'd be left with nothing but the shoe leather express.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRYes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield -->snip<-- to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else.
That's 4 hours and at least 12 gallons of gas each way. Twice a day! I hope they are working full time.
7j43k I am looking forward to reading the reactions to this event from the citizens of Merced and Bakersfield. Where is the New York Times on this matter? Oh. They don't know where Merced or Bakersfield IS. I do. I will be passing the C(not)HSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it. Oh. I know you're wondering. Oh, c'mon. SURE you are. Why'd I add (not) in the above paragraph? That's because they're going to go from San Jose to San Francisco on a surface route. And 200 mph just MIGHT be a bit fast for all those folks who like to go around the gates. (Oh, come ON! You know who you are: a big chance to make the local news. Once.) So. Ya gotta wonder (or not): 200 mph thru San Mateo? Absolutely!! (I'm talking TRAINS, people. NOT Lamborghinis. By the way.) 200 mph Lamborghini. 200 mph Train. Tough call. Love 'em both!! Oh, yeah. I completely blew this, back before I discovered I cared. But. How come they didn't use the right-of-way of Highway 5? See. I told you. Me: asleep at the wheel. (Notice that it's a longer route following Highway 99 than Highway 5. Gets a person wondering.) (You know, that graft* that was mentioned earlier.) (By people who disapprove of such things.) *Bribes? Graft? Who can keep it straight? Ed
I am looking forward to reading the reactions to this event from the citizens of Merced and Bakersfield. Where is the New York Times on this matter?
Oh. They don't know where Merced or Bakersfield IS.
I do. I will be passing the C(not)HSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it.
Oh. I know you're wondering. Oh, c'mon. SURE you are. Why'd I add (not) in the above paragraph? That's because they're going to go from San Jose to San Francisco on a surface route. And 200 mph just MIGHT be a bit fast for all those folks who like to go around the gates.
(Oh, come ON! You know who you are: a big chance to make the local news. Once.)
So. Ya gotta wonder (or not): 200 mph thru San Mateo? Absolutely!!
(I'm talking TRAINS, people. NOT Lamborghinis. By the way.)
200 mph Lamborghini. 200 mph Train. Tough call. Love 'em both!!
Oh, yeah. I completely blew this, back before I discovered I cared. But. How come they didn't use the right-of-way of Highway 5? See. I told you. Me: asleep at the wheel. (Notice that it's a longer route following Highway 99 than Highway 5. Gets a person wondering.) (You know, that graft* that was mentioned earlier.) (By people who disapprove of such things.)
*Bribes? Graft? Who can keep it straight?
^^^ OK then.......I accept the plea of senility.
Yup. Another Freberg line. Just after:
Columbus (to Indian): "I discovered you."
Indian: "No. We discover YOU, here on beach."
Columbus: "Oh. I guess it's all in how you look at it."
And then there's:
"Perfuit of happinef? All your s's look like f's."
"Turkey? We had our mouths set on roast eagle, with all the trimmings."
"You sold Manhattan for $26 worth of junk jewelry?" "Whole island parking lot. Nothing grow there except in little square in center."
"I'm gonna name it Popeye."
Etc.
Stan WAS da man!
7j43k CMStPnP 7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Wow, did you get that watching Saturday morning cartoons? Columbus never landed in North America. Your choice is the Bahamas or Haiti, in which case I am sure neither spoke Spanish. Did I say anywhere that Columbus landed in North America? Did I, in fact, specify that he landed at any particular place? No I didn't. Ed
CMStPnP 7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Wow, did you get that watching Saturday morning cartoons? Columbus never landed in North America. Your choice is the Bahamas or Haiti, in which case I am sure neither spoke Spanish.
7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
Wow, did you get that watching Saturday morning cartoons? Columbus never landed in North America. Your choice is the Bahamas or Haiti, in which case I am sure neither spoke Spanish.
Did I say anywhere that Columbus landed in North America? Did I, in fact, specify that he landed at any particular place?
No I didn't.
Some people just love to argue.
Anyway, whatever actually happened and where is irrelevant. Columbus could not have claimed any land because when he wanted to cash a check to buy land, the Indians told him he was out of luck. The banks were all closed for Columbus day.
I remember the smell of the onion fields driving down highway 99 late in the summer.
Doesn't even appear that the State has yet awarded any contract to enter Bakersfield proper. Truly a train to nowhere!
Convicted One 7j43k I will be passing the CHSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it. Based upon your most recent passage to date, how much of this is built? Have any rails been laid, or are we talking dirt-n-foundation stage only? I was saddened to see that there is no stop planned for Chowchilla. I know a couple gals attending "Valley State" that I would have loved to visit.
7j43k I will be passing the CHSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it.
Based upon your most recent passage to date, how much of this is built? Have any rails been laid, or are we talking dirt-n-foundation stage only?
I was saddened to see that there is no stop planned for Chowchilla. I know a couple gals attending "Valley State" that I would have loved to visit.
The first two times I drove past (it's an annual thing), there was maybe a quarter mile of piers up. And hardly anyone was there, working.
The last time I went past was last June, and things were looking busy. An assortment of bridge-y and tunnel-y kinds of things. And Highway 99 was being messed with, big time--I assume CHSR related.
As I said, I'll be in the neighborhood early March; but my route isn't fully established yet. I might be bypassing the area, and using Highway 5.
It looks like the approach is to build the big things first, as it takes longer. So it's kind of tough to say how much is built, because people (I for one) generally view that as how many miles out of total mileage.
I think no rails have been laid, at all. Yes, it is still dirt and foundation. A lot of dirt. A lot of foundation. Laying track is far easier and faster, I think. And they DO need a train to run on it, which I don't think they are anywhere near getting.
You can go here:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov
and get a sense of what's happening. But keep in mind that they're filling out their own report card. But they can't photograph what doesn't exist yet.
7j43kI will be passing the CHSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it.
Based upon your most recent passage to date, how much of this is actually constructed at this time? Have any rails been laid, or are we talking dirt-n-foundation stage only?
Why is it that everyone else in this topic has no name?
Except, of course, Chuck.
And me.
Ed.
Ed and Chuck.
Or.
Chuck and Ed.
Don't mean to hog the spotlight.
Don't you think it's kind of weird that you all don't even have a fake name, let alone a real one?
CMStPnP 7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Makes sense to me. Dude. Historically, an event that never happened in North America. Comedians make lousy historians.
7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Makes sense to me. Dude.
Historically, an event that never happened in North America. Comedians make lousy historians.
See above.
I didn't mention Freberg as an historian. I can't imagine why you would think a comedian would be an historian.
I mentioned him because he is (was, sadly) an historical commentator. Which comedians frequently are.
You see. There are historians. Freberg was not one of those.
And there are historical commenators. Freberg was one of those.
You see the difference, of course.
And. No, I didn't "get that" from watching Saturday morning cartoons. If you had been watching, you would have known that. What were YOU doing?
7j43kI HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Makes sense to me. Dude.
7j43kI HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
CMStPnP How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed.
How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed.
I think the Aztecs were inland. But, I believe the Spaniards were discovered, pretty much, right away. Kind of hard to miss, when you're lying on the beach, and all (this was commonly done before capitalists arrived).
And, even if it took a couple of days, I don't see conferring on the Spaniards a special "gotcha" exception. "Hey. You dudes were three hours late. We own all of New Spain, now. Nyah, nyah."
I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
Makes sense to me. Dude.
Convicted OneThrough that logic, I guess it would be fair for me to decide that " any land not being actively defended is there for the taking"? Wonder how I would fare building a homestead in undefended Utah today? Probably not much better than Cliven Bundy did during his misadventures with free range diplomacy?
Well you have to at least be consistent in your logic. If the Native Americans extended and took unoccupied land as their own........why is it evil when settlers do the same thing? It's the same course of action by both sides.
Further one can look at the settler vs Native tribe settlement issue in other regions and continents. How long was the travel period before the Zulus were encountered? How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed. One can form conclusions about North America based on experiences on other continents even though some Native American tribes would rather us believe everything they say (not all but some and in my view some of it is just BS). There is the rub as well. Native American tribal history does not always match up with what other Native American tribes claim or have recorded nor does it match what anthropoligists uncover.
But. Once again, back to the subject.
For the past 3 years, I have driven past the construction of this thing. For the first two years, all I saw was a few concrete uprights, next to the road (Highway 99). Last time, it looked a bit busier, and a little further along.
So, all this time, I'm thinking "Is that all there is?" (my compliments to Miss Peggy Lee). Billions and billions, and all that's visible to the taxpayers driving by is some concrete pilings.
I thought it would have been real nice to see a train zooming, even for a few miles, to demonstrate money well spent.
Looks like they finally got the hint. Merced to Bakersfield. If there's going to be any enthusiasm for this project from the people paying for it, seeing a train go will help generate it.
Sorta like a train under the Christmas tree: so much better with a train on the track, which actually surrounds the tree. Don't you think?
BaltACD From the European perspective - there was no culture in the Americas by any of the people that inhabited the land prior to their arrival. From their viewpoint the Aztec's , Inca's and Native Americans had no culture or structure to their existance.
From the European perspective - there was no culture in the Americas by any of the people that inhabited the land prior to their arrival. From their viewpoint the Aztec's , Inca's and Native Americans had no culture or structure to their existance.
The Powhatans that the English met clearly had a chief, because they treated him thusly. He was The Man. Hence there was "structure".
One could argue there was no culture in the Americas if you say there is only one possible culture. And they don't have it. I suspect that view had its proponents. But some likely had "open eyes", at least in part.
That moved on to include importing Africans as slaves and the denial that they had possessed any culture.
If you minimize people's culture, you can minimize their humanity. Which can be handy if you're in the slave business.
They sure didn't get to keep much, after they were transported to their new "home". Whatever they did have was likely considered extraneous. They, on the other hand, may have felt otherwise.
From the European perspective - there was no culture in the Americas by any of the people that inhabited the land prior to their arrival. From their viewpoint the Aztec's , Inca's and Native Americans had no culture or structure to their existance. That moved on to include importing Africans as slaves and the denial that they had possessed any culture.
Convicted One 7j43k Mom said. You should give The Florentine Codex a good read. you might find it enlightening. Volume 12 is probably the best reference of the European conquest from the perspective of the indigenous people in existence,
7j43k Mom said.
You should give The Florentine Codex a good read. you might find it enlightening. Volume 12 is probably the best reference of the European conquest from the perspective of the indigenous people in existence,
Probably. I have done a slight bit of reading on the conquest, but my interests lie farther north. Perhaps it's the movies and television of my youth, or perhaps it's that it's a much more local story.
I also am less interested in larger and more complex cultures, I think.
Still another is that American culture picked up things from the local Indians. And that is with us today. Maybe I then have more affinity.
Apparently, one reason the Aztecs were less pugnacious to the new guys is because there was a belief that God would arrive on big ships and be fair (as in light skinned). Say, like the Spaniards. When I read that, it got me wondering if some of those darn Vikings journeyed a bit farther south than Canada, a few hundred years earlier: "Say, guys. We seem to be a bit lost. Do you know the way to Norway?" "Thanks for the corn. We'll be seein' ya!"
So, I guess that the "take away" from the story in the OP's post is that the Line from Merced to Bakersfield will be completed as the public's contribution to the Public/Private partnership, while tying it in to the major metropoli at either end will be the responsibility of the private "partners"?
LOL! How can the public remain so gullible? I guess this will be a real windfall for those living in Merced and working at the oil fields in Bakersfield
Convicted One 7j43k I recommend getting a copy of the above noted book. Ed I read this post before you edited it, and I have only two words for you: Aw' shucks!
7j43k I recommend getting a copy of the above noted book. Ed
I read this post before you edited it, and I have only two words for you:
Aw' shucks!
It's nice to be nice. Mom said.
7j43kAs far as the written word, I don't recall there being any written Indian languages
Sequoah developed a written Cherokee (Southern Iroquois) language around 1820.
7j43kAnd you probably should stay in academia, as it doesn't look like business is your forte.
Perhaps you should return to grade school as neither your reading comprehension nor logic are up to snuff.
7j43kI recommend getting a copy of the above noted book. Ed
Convicted One Then you have to add to that the well documented fact that both English and French combatants in pre revolutionary war America actively recruited native hostilities towards their adversaries.
Then you have to add to that the well documented fact that both English and French combatants in pre revolutionary war America actively recruited native hostilities towards their adversaries.
And you could also add that the Indians were known to manipulate those English and French combatants against other Indians. No group has a monopoly on saints or sinners. If, indeed, it be "sainting" or sinning.
I recommend getting a copy of the above noted book.
A very long time ago, I read a book called "The Indian and the White Man". It was a stunning collection of original source material. There were, indeed, Indian accounts. It's been a long time, but I do remember there was an Indian's account, as presented in a court of law. I believe there were other honest transcriptions presented.
As far as the written word, I don't recall there being any written Indian languages, but learning English and how to write it is certainly doable by a majority of people--even young Indian children compelled to learn it in school. Spanish too, for that matter.
I noted no "false notes" in the entire collection. Again, a recollection from a long time ago. But one of the few books assigned in college that impressed me enough to still remember it, a bit.
I was just inspired to buy a copy online, and look forward to rereading it.
You can find it through here:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/indian-and-the-white-man/oclc/16416075
I got mine from Amazon. Which is interesting, because when I entered the title into Amazon book title search, it didn't come up. What a loser search engine! Maybe they couldn't find New York City, either.
CMStPnP They had significant portions of no mans lands between tribes. Some tribes bordered others but not in all cases.
Through that logic, I guess it would be fair for me to decide that " any land not being actively defended is there for the taking"? Wonder how I would fare building a homestead in undefended Utah today? Probably not much better than Cliven Bundy did during his misadventures with free range diplomacy?
Anecdotal accounts that I have been able to uncover locally indicate that the natives and the settlers were able to co-exist peacefully until the Federal juggernaut would come along from time to time to remind both sides that peace was impossible. YMMV
Paul of Covington When you break up a playground fight, which kid do you listen to when they both say, "He started it!"? How many letters are there from Native Americans concerning settlers' behavior?
News like that would be of great interest and impossible to suppress along the Native American "grapevine". Even among those not previously contacted, I'm sure that the newcomer's reputation preceded them.
Paul of CovingtonHow many letters are there from Native Americans concerning settlers' behavior?
Some of their history is oral but some of it is also documented by observers not always settlers some were expeditions into Indian Country. Other parts of their history can be found via dig sites.
Convicted OneWho would be the official record keeper to have made that determination? And at what date?
Depends on who you ask but I tend to believe the settlers as a source as they dealt with the Indians at times and observed their behavior though their time is after settlement. Now there is significant Native American propaganda out there that they felt all the lands were theirs but the historical fact was and studying oral and written Native American history. They had significant portions of no mans lands between tribes. Some tribes bordered others but not in all cases. I don't think you will ever find a decent map. Maps sold by Native American Tribes do not show borders to tribal lands but that is BS. Even nomadic tribes across the world had specific areas they would not venture into and generally had a map of areas they could traverse and areas to avoid.
I know the Caddo tribe had loosely defined borders that were not respected by other tribes or in which other tribes would raid their crop stores and/or villages. Part of their history. Borders were established via agreement with some other tribes after clashes with them.
One guy that is trying to reproduce an Indian map prior to settlement has them blanketing the entire United States with no sections of nomans lands, in my view that is inaccurate and a cop out and he is doing that to keep all the remaining Native American tribes of today happy. The tribes like that depiction because it fits a lot with their narrative.
CMStPnPGo to the Library of Congress online and start reading some of the settlers letters concerning Native American behavior. There is a wealth of information there from folks that dealt with the tribes first hand on frontiers.
When you break up a playground fight, which kid do you listen to when they both say, "He started it!"?
How many letters are there from Native Americans concerning settlers' behavior?
Convicted One CMStPnP Indian Tribal land did not cover what would be the entire continental United States. Who would be the official record keeper to have made that determination? And at what date?
CMStPnP Indian Tribal land did not cover what would be the entire continental United States.
Who would be the official record keeper to have made that determination? And at what date?
No one. Hence at no date.
Do you think the facts of geography, culture and demographics only exist if there is an official record keeper?
With that view, the other side of the moon only came into existence a few decades ago.
Convicted One Who was here first?
In many cases the Settlers were. Indian Tribal land did not cover what would be the entire continental United States. Yet the Native American tribes routinely left their tribal lands to attack settlements, sometimes for sport other times to prove they were the dominant force to be reckoned with. In other cases they would dispute hunting grounds with other tribes and slaughter each other. Sometimes slaughter a party of settlers for just the crime of crossing their lands without their permission....yet the same standard would not apply to them in reverse.
Again all in the settlers letters or a good portion of it is. I think of all the tribes the Caddo were the most civil in that they attempted to protect settlers from being slaughtered by the more aggressive tribes, stayed neutral in our Civil War as well.
CMStPnP We see it constantly in the tribal Middle East........do we not?
Interesting question. Here's one for you: What do the treaty of Ghent and the Balfour declaration have in common?
CMStPnP There is a wealth of information there from folks that dealt with the tribes first hand on frontiers. It was a mixed bag, some tribes were friendly to settlers and others were just openly hostile from the get go (with no past history of betrayal) and were savages, even though it is politically incorrect to say so.
I suggest that it might be most relevant to weigh that sentiment in the same context that many here have historically twisted the "NIMBY-Railroad" conflicts? ie Who was here first?
As for the whole Native American thing with the transcontinental railroads. Lets not our thinking be influenced totally by Hollywood movies here.
Go to the Library of Congress online and start reading some of the settlers letters concerning Native American behavior. There is a wealth of information there from folks that dealt with the tribes first hand on frontiers. It was a mixed bag, some tribes were friendly to settlers and others were just openly hostile from the get go (with no past history of betrayal) and were savages, even though it is politically incorrect to say so.
Even if we had not pushed West as a country, pretty confident we still would have intervened militarily in the inter tribal wars at some point to limit the savagery that took place. I would not comprehend Liberals just sitting silent on the sidelines of tribal savagery as observers, they would have pushed hard to keep some tribes seperated from others via some kind of expeditionary force and we would have been drawn West anyways probably due to that. We see it constantly in the tribal Middle East........do we not?
Hey I am just curious here. What was the last cost figure for completion of this California HSR project? I am reading and hearing everything from $77 Billion to $100 Billion in the press. What was the last official cost estimate?
Also, if the CA Governor is proposing a new incremental approach I am all on board with that and they should have done that to begin with. Get the damn trains running on a small but useful segment first........then expand in increments. I am confused on where the final stance is on the California Governor as he has issued multiple statements so far and has even engaged in a Tweet storm with current POTUS.
If he does cancel the project completely he is in material breach of the former Obama Administration agreement. As I outlined previously with Wisconsin, these "grants" from the Federal Government flip to "loans" that have to be paid back if the project does reach operating status by a specific date. Illinois also faces this "payback" period with it's Chicago to St. Louis "grants" but somehow or another has got a temporary waiver, the clock is still ticking with Illinois though. That "payback" feature was written in by Ray LaHood (I think he was former NJ Transit head) because in the past he had seen so many rail projects never reach fruition.
NKP guy So the true costs of the Transcons were, in part, socialized and the profits were privatized,
Isn't that the very essence of "public-private partnership"? Well connected capitalists get the popcorn, while the public is left holding the bag.
NKP guy NKP guy Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism? First, we need an agreed upon definition of socialism.
NKP guy Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
First, we need an agreed upon definition of socialism.
OK. I'll go first:
(Mirriam-Webster) "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Hence Transcon = not. And Panama Canal = yes
Then we can ask if the building of the Transcons was simply a matter of crony capitalism.
Probably. Capitalists tend to know other capitalists. So it seems likely that they might want to go in together on a big, cool, money-making project. Which is kind of necessary when you're working on what was probably the biggest construction project in the world.
Or corruption: After all, I think many of us here are familiar with the Credit Mobilier scandal. Would the Transcons have been built without massive bribes?
Yup. Money attracts thieves. That doesn't mean everyone connected with the project was one. People familiar with the Credit Mobilier scandal know that it did not involve the Central Pacific. Which WAS half the project.
Bribes. Undoubtedly. That would explain why so many public officials were thrown in jail for accepting them.
The Transcons couldn't have been built and operated until the Indian tribes were defeated and dispossed of their "worthless" land, and doing that required large numbers of troops and the construction of many army forts. How much did that cost and who paid for that? Not the railroads, I warrant. So the true costs of the Transcons were, in part, socialized and the profits were privatized, a frequent occurence in a country that exalts risk-taking and free enterprise.
The goal of, how shall I say, "pacifying" the Indians started long before the Transcon. And it occurred in far more places than just along the railroad's route. So, in fact, the entire population of the United States benefited (leaving out, of course, those Indians). Why SHOULD only the Transcon railroad pay for that? It was done for the benefit of ALL (except, again, those Indians).
I suppose controlling the Indians was just another example of socialism.
I'm not sure if Chuck's going to address my question about California (not)High Speed Rail paying off their government loan in 30 years.
So I'll give it a shot:
The article says estimated cost is 77 billion dollars.
There are (about) 10,958 days in 30 years. For ease of calculation, let's round to 11,000 days.
Dividing that, we get about 2.5 million dollars a day.
Air fare today between LA and SFO is about $100. I'm gonna have to guess at the fare in 15 years, so as to get a fair average price. So I'm gonna go with $300 average fare for that 30 years.
We divide 2.5 million by 300 to get the necessary ridership.
Drumroll, please!
I get 8,333 fares per day.
Now, lest Chuck say "Easy peasy" on that number, one should remember there will be operating costs. Labor comes to mind. How many employees will the system have?
And maintenance costs. Because that infrastructure will commence "crumbling" shortly after completion.
Might have to kick that ridership up to maybe 12,000 per day. Every day.
Easy Peasy!
(Oops! Chuck is gonna KILL me on this. The Transcon guys only had to pay back their capital loans. So, quick like a bunny, I'm gonna back down to my 8,333 fares per day to pay off the 77 billion capital cost. Gotta keep it honest, folks!)
(Which is why I didn't just erase the 12,000)
samfp1943 They are also touting that the finished portion of the line from Bakersfield to Merced is just 'Phase One'. My guess is that ridership on Phase One will be a hard sell.
Ah but don't you see? Riders from endpoint to endpoint are not expected to be the bulk of the business. It's the coveted "intermediate stops" customers that this project is reaching for. Tiny burghs such as Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook depend upon projects such as this to find their place on the map.
NKP guyQuestion: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
Then we can ask if the building of the Transcons was simply a matter of crony capitalism. Or corruption: After all, I think many of us here are familiar with the Credit Mobilier scandal. Would the Transcons have been built without massive bribes?
Seems as if the 'Cal Dream' of HSR between SFO, and LA is now embroiled in another of those whip-lash head turners. See linked @
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/13/trump-demands-gavin-newsom-return-3-5-billion-for-canceled-bullet-train-newsom-its-californias-money/
"Trump Demands Gavin Newsom Return $3.5 Billion for Canceled Bullet Train;Newsom: It’s ‘California’s Money’ Now"
According to a comment elsewhere, in this Thread, so far California has alledged to have spent some $50 Billion on the current construction(?) The $3.5 Billion was allocated during the Obama Admin see at FTL:"...
Newsom added that the state had to continue the project if it wanted to keep the federal funds it had taken: “I [Ca, Gov. Gavin Newsome] am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.” "...The money was granted to California as part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus, which set aside “$8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors,” the New York Times reported at the time..."
Will this be another Federal Gov. 'Claw Back' or will it devolve into a protracted court case? I would guess that the Federal Funds have disappeared into the maw of the California Government; whom, If we are to believe some of the reports, is in a cash-strapped position?
They are also touting that the finished portion of the line from Bakersfield to Merced is just 'Phase One'. My guess is that ridership on Phase One will be a hard sell.
Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
While I have stated that the Transcontinental railroad was not socialism, it has occurred to me that there IS an example of same: The Panama Canal.
And then we have Hoover Dam. And the TVA. And......
We're awash with socialist projects. But it doesn't look like the Transcon was one of them.
Gee whiz, Chuck.
You certainly are in a tizzy.
You might want to stop sputtering long enough to consider that, if the government loans were paid back, then the net input of money from the government was zero.
And yet. That 50 million dollars was paid out to build the railroad. And all those folks got to KEEP that money. Which would be tough, if it had all been "clawed back" to pay the government.
Now think on that, Chuck.
And you probably should stay in academia, as it doesn't look like business is your forte.
But let's get back to the topic: California High Speed Rail.
Chuck. Tell us about the process for paying back the billions to build this venture in, say, 30 years. And thank you for suggesting that as a loan term--kind of appropriate, with the California connection.
7j43k charlie hebdo 7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region? Wow, so snippy! And insecure! You, sir, must be an academic. I shall have to consider using such slights when I address your assertions. I found the information here: https://westernexpansion.mrdonn.org/railroads.html It is presented at a basic level, so I trust you can handle it. Ed
Wow, so snippy! And insecure! You, sir, must be an academic.
I shall have to consider using such slights when I address your assertions.
I found the information here:
https://westernexpansion.mrdonn.org/railroads.html
It is presented at a basic level, so I trust you can handle it.
You get an F for failure to read correctly even a simple source. It says:
" How long did it take to build the transcontinental railroad, how much money did it cost, and where did the two tracks meet? It took six years for all the track to be laid. It cost $50 million dollars, which amazingly was right on budget. "
In no way does that quote say that the private contribution was $50 million, which was my point. In research, you have to have evidence for what you assert. You are simply inadequate to the task at hand. You'd better stick to whatever someone pays you to do rather than engage in silly ad hominem attacks when you are way in over your head.
NKP guy I've always had a problem with the idea that land has to be developed (by a developer who gets enriched by the process) or it's worthless.
I suppose there is a vicious cycle there too.
Land that is undeveloped customarily can't be taxed to the extent that land having improvements is taxed.
The authority having jurisdiction collects the tax.
Therefore the authority is going to be the one making the call on the "value" of said dirt.
The boss isn't always right, but he's always the boss.
7j43kMy point, exactly.
**High Five!!**
Convicted One NKP guy I've always had a problem with the idea that land has to be developed (by a developer who gets enriched by the process) or it's worthless. I'm right there with you. "Manifest Destiny" had/has severe ethical flaws. Not that big of a sacrifice for Uncle Sam to give away all that valuable land considering how he "paid" for it.
I'm right there with you. "Manifest Destiny" had/has severe ethical flaws.
Not that big of a sacrifice for Uncle Sam to give away all that valuable land considering how he "paid" for it.
My point, exactly.
charlie hebdo 7j43k 7j43k wrote the following post 18 hours ago: At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project. 1. The bonds were 30 years to maturity, not on completion of task.
7j43k 7j43k wrote the following post 18 hours ago: At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project.
1. The bonds were 30 years to maturity, not on completion of task.
The loan was paid back, I believe. It was not a gift. How will California High Speed Rail pay back THEIR "loans"?
2. How much non-governmental money?
A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars.
NKP guy 7j43k The government had a choice: no railroad and no development and a lotta land with nobody on it. Or a railroad. This implies that tens of thousands of Native Americans were nobodies, that they and their rights don't count; that to paraphrase Chief Justice Taney, no rights which whites had to respect.
7j43k The government had a choice: no railroad and no development and a lotta land with nobody on it. Or a railroad.
This implies that tens of thousands of Native Americans were nobodies, that they and their rights don't count; that to paraphrase Chief Justice Taney, no rights which whites had to respect.
I thought that was the common view at the time the transcon was built. If I was in error, I expect they would have been consulted more extensively.
I've always had a problem with the idea that land has to be developed (by a developer who gets enriched by the process) or it's worthless.
But you are here. Now. I doubt your view would be all that common in 1865.
Don't get me wrong: the Transcons were inevitable and have been a great benefit to our country.
Funny how things are inevitable after they've happened.
But they were built at a staggering cost, not just in dollars but to the people who were the first Americans. They, and we to some extent, are still paying the price for our ancestors thinking Indians were nobodies. Remember what Gen. Sherman said about them?
Yes. Quite true. And also reaping the benefits.
I agree with Dr. Hebdo: Without lavish public investment and support, free enterprise would have been unable to build the Transcons. Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
I agree with Dr. Hebdo: Without lavish public investment and support, free enterprise would have been unable to build the Transcons.
charlie hebdo 175 million acres is still a lot of land. But you feel the need to minimize that gift for some reason.
175 million acres is still a lot of land. But you feel the need to minimize that gift for some reason.
You know what I feel. You know of my needs. But you can't divine the reason. Two out of three is still very impressive.
And given the UP's bankruptcy less than 30 years before the due date on those bonds, it is not entirely clear that all was repaid. The point is, our federal government saw the wisdom of infrastructure assistance long ago. Lincoln learned about the value of land grants for the Illinois Central. It is unfortunate that we let politics/ideology get in the way of progress as a nation.
My feeling (but you already know that) is that the land grants were made based on the belief that those railroads would not be built, at least in the somewhat near future, otherwise.
Our infrastructure (transportation, power grid, etc.) is lagely old, often antiquated and even crumbling, while elsewhere in the world you will find modern infrastructures essential for future economic growth.
7j43k7j43k wrote the following post 18 hours ago: At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project.
Don't get me wrong: the Transcons were inevitable and have been a great benefit to our country. But they were built at a staggering cost, not just in dollars but to the people who were the first Americans. They, and we to some extent, are still paying the price for our ancestors thinking Indians were nobodies. Remember what Gen. Sherman said about them?
175 million acres is still a lot of land. But you feel the need to minimize that gift for some reason. And given the UP's bankruptcy less than 30 years before the due date on those bonds, it is not entirely clear that all was repaid. The point is, our federal government saw the wisdom of infrastructure assistance long ago. Lincoln learned about the value of land grants for the Illinois Central. It is unfortunate that we let politics/ideology get in the way of progress as a nation. Our infrastructure (transportation, power grid, etc.) is lagely old, often antiquated and even crumbling, while elsewhere in the world you will find modern infrastructures essential for future economic growth.
"Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars..."
Then my statement is "sorta" true. The money was a loan, not a gift. A secured loan, as it mentions above. At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project.
Now. Turning to California High Speed Rail. Does that organization have a plan to pay back all the money that IT has spent and will spend before completion? I assume that money will come from fares, deducting operating expenses and maintenance costs.
How will that work?
And why are there no private investors, as with the transcon? Isn't it a great business opportunity? Ya build a railroad that people need and want. When done, they pay fares to ride it. After paying expenses, you have a tidy profit from your investment. What's not to like?
The huge quantities of land were going to be worthless for a goodly long time. The government had a choice: no railroad and no development and a lotta land with nobody on it. Or a railroad. And development. And a lot less land. Of course, the feds STILL own vast quantities of land in the West. Much more than they gave away, I believe.
[from Wiki article] The 1862 Pacific Railroad Act authorized extensive land grants in the Western United States and the issuance of 30-year government bonds (at 6 percent) to the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad (later the Southern Pacific Railroad) companies in order to construct a continuous transcontinental railroad. Section 2 of the Act granted each Company contiguous rights of way for their rail lines as well as all public lands within 500 feet on either side of the track.
Section 3 granted an additional 10 square miles of public land for every mile of grade except where railroads ran through cities or crossed rivers. The method of apportioning these additional land grants was specified in the Act as being in the form of "five alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad, on the line thereof, and within the limits of ten miles on each side" which thus provided the companies with a total of 6,400 acres for each mile of their railroad. The U.S. Government Pacific Railroad Bonds were authorized by Section 5 to be issued to the companies at the rate of $16,000 per mile of tracked grade completed west of the designated base of the Sierras and east of the designated base of the Rockies (UPRR). Section 11 of the Act provided that the issuance of bonds "shall be treble the number per mile" (to $48,000) for tracked grade completed over and within the two mountain ranges (but limited to a total of 300 miles (480 km) at this rate), and doubled (to $32,000) per mile of completed grade laid between the two mountain ranges.
The 30-year U.S. government bonds authorized by the act would be issued and backed by the U.S. government, which would then provide the capital raised to the railroad companies upon completion of sections of the railroads in exchange for a lien on that section. The liens covered the railroads and all their fixtures, and all the loans were repaid in full and with interest by the companies as and when they became due. Section 10 of the 1864 amending Act (13 Statutes at Large, 356) additionally authorized the two companies to issue their own "First Mortgage Bonds" in total amounts up to (but not exceeding) that of the bonds issued by the United States, and that such company issued securities would have priority over the original Government Bonds.
From 1850 to 1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas,
Another article. So, in short, without governbment assistance (bonds) the UP/CP could not have been built but but was repaid for the bonds.
charlie hebdo 7j43k Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars... Another myth. Without government grants and financing, most of the TCs could not have been built except for the GN and late-comers.
7j43k Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars...
Another myth. Without government grants and financing, most of the TCs could not have been built except for the GN and late-comers.
How much money did the Feds give UP and/or CP?
7j43kSince it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars...
Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars...
...and it went across land that was mostly empty and only sort of slightly owned by Indians, who likely had little input into the decisions...
...and since the recent war to break up the Union was decided in a negative way:
I expect LOTS of people would have voted for a free trans-con. Well, "free" to those who didn't need/want to travel on it.
And I expect the same concept would hold today for California High Speed Rail, if you replaced the word "Indian" with "Republican Farmer".
Now, what the fares would be, THAT is the question.
Mr McFarlane and others: obviously there is a need for persons with expertise in finance and construction planning so please offer your services. MC and his associates have expertise in construction planning and they apparantly want nothing to do with this one.
I agree with Mr. McFarlane, that they should have taken the direct route, and tunneled under Tejon Pass and thru Grapevine. The state folded when a real estate developement objected to the route, but the alternative over Tehachapi and Saugus canyon put the price tag thru the roof.
I read the article. He's hardly "pulling the plug" at this point, just slowing down building pending some revisions and funding.
Gee - our AREMA tribe goes to tour the thing under construction and 8 days later it gets put on the shelf.
(and boy did we ever have que$tion$ ... and then there were the "floating goals", yet to be determined's and the locals siphoning off $$$ for projects they couldn't otherwise afford.)
(the failed 1928 Cincinnati Subway system now has company. This one will be a little harder to hide. )
Kinda feel like the second coming of the plague. Oh boy
CMStPnP Ahhh, so there is a limit to what even California will pay for high speed rail. I am not surprised at this and you could see it comming.... https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226151030.html
Ahhh, so there is a limit to what even California will pay for high speed rail. I am not surprised at this and you could see it comming....
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226151030.html
Actually there's only a limit to what one Governor is willing to spend...no let me correct that, one one-term Governor is willing to spend. Perhaps we should start a recall notice, he wouldn't be the first Governor recalled in this state. Also, it's not like we didn't have financing available, the states very successful Carbon Cap and Trade program would have convered construction costs for the next 7 years, then the Republicans in the state government could have tried to have the provision removed, but since Democrats have a super majority in both houses that would never have happened, so forget that idea.
The solution to getting into the LA basin would have been to tunnel under the Grapevine, heck, I'd have just hired the Swiss to do it, since they seem to know how to tunnel under mountains at relatively low cost and not take 50 years to do it(see Gotthard Base Tunnel for reference).
Furthermore, we could have had the system built and paid for without using taxpayers money...only some people complained about the Chinese building, operating and keeping the money from the system so that idea was tossed out the window.
Unless he completes the full system it isn't going to help the state any at all. Yes, the Central Valley has the world air pollution in the state, that's what happens with all that farming there. They have long commutes, because everyone that lives out there has to drive into either the Los Angeles basin or S.F. Bay Area for work...hence the reason for HSR in the first place(those intermediate travel points people talk about).
Air traffice between Nor-Cal and So-Cal is at saturation point...you can't add more flights to increase capacity and the 100 or so flights a day currently are almost always full. So there's a built in market for the end points already and you'd only need to capture 10 - 20% of that market as it is.
Highways and air travel are unsustainable in this state, we will need HSR to move the growing population between the major urban centers, and we will need sooner rather than later. Remember, the more time that goes by the more it will cost when you do get around to building it...unless we go into another recession/depression, then the cost will drop like a rock in water.
Merced to Bakersfield? Well that's just swell!!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.