California High Speed Rail Thread

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by electricron

Grade separated crossings cost $10 to $20 Million each.

Yes, to install them individually on an existing rail line. However, if you're building an elevated viaduct for a new rail line built from scratch, the cost per crossing is much less than that (ignoring land acquisition).

Out in rural areas where the tracks are at grade, any roads will either be closed off or elevated over the tracks, and here your cost estimate is valid. But since the trains will presumably be going full-speed in rural areas, it's not safe to build grade crossings - it's out of the question.

[Gordo]

Anybody who watches the show "Mad Men" and follows this thread should like this video:

• Video Link

It was made by the two actors, who are both adamant HSR supporters.

More info about it can be found here: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/7e1...-men-on-trains

[zilfondel]

^ Very awesome. Hope it goes viral.

[Beta_Magellan]

Never saw the show and I thought it was awesome.

Seriously, I wonder what an alternate universe America where we did Shinkansen-type innovations on the NEC and Midwest in the late 1960’s and ’70’s would look like…after all, I’ve read that Shinkansen built on pre-1960 (maybe even steam era?) American 100-mph technology.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

Never saw the show and I thought it was awesome.

Seriously, I wonder what an alternate universe America where we did Shinkansen-type innovations on the NEC and Midwest in the late 1960’s and ’70’s would look like…after all, I’ve read that Shinkansen built on pre-1960 (maybe even steam era?) American 100-mph technology.

The original Shinkansen trains had maximum speeds of 130 mph (210 km/hr) just slightly faster than Metroliners on the NEC.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_Series_Shinkansen

I believe the straighter corridor allowed the Shinkansen to maintain maximum speeds significantly longer than even the faster Acela trains on the NEC. I believe there's still significant gains that can be achieved on the NEC if we invest wisely on it. I'm not so sure a brand new corridor paralleling the NEC will be a wise investment.

[JDRCRASH]

It's official: Ontario and Barstow don't want the DesertXpress.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/d...rain-high.html

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

It's official: Ontario and Barstow don't want the DesertXpress.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/d...rain-high.html

This has fail written on all sides.
(a) Barstow passing a resolution against DX is as silly and ineffectual as Frisco passing a resolution against UP. As long as DX has control of its easement the municipalities can stew all they want, but they're not really in control of land use within the granted easement. Philly, interestingly enough, had a similar problem with the B&O ca. 1900. CSX (B&O's corporate successor) still runs on those tracks.
(b) It does not seem like DX has made any effort to placate Barstow. Why would it be so hard to just plunk down a station there? It doesn't look like even that attempt has been made. Instead DX is plowing ahead bullishly with its own plan come hell or high water.
(c) Why the **** is maglev still in the discussion? And what the **** does a municipality have to do with passing a resolution opposing one, and supporting the other, when both proposals are (ostensibly) private-market driven?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

This has fail written on all sides.
(a) Barstow passing a resolution against DX is as silly and ineffectual as Frisco passing a resolution against UP. As long as DX has control of its easement the municipalities can stew all they want, but they're not really in control of land use within the granted easement. Philly, interestingly enough, had a similar problem with the B&O ca. 1900. CSX (B&O's corporate successor) still runs on those tracks.

Yeah, but if public assistance is present, then municipalities will likely have a say.

(b) It does not seem like DX has made any effort to placate Barstow. Why would it be so hard to just plunk down a station there? It doesn't look like even that attempt has been made. Instead DX is plowing ahead bullishly with its own plan come hell or high water.

This is why not having SOME government involvement in the rail industry is a mistake. It's likely that DX has skipped Barstow to avoid costs. But it shouldn't be that expensive, since nothing fancy is required. A couple large platforms should be all that's necessary.

(c) Why the **** is maglev still in the discussion?

Why SHOULDN'T Maglev be in the discussion? Because of it's cost?

And what the **** does a municipality have to do with passing a resolution opposing one, and supporting the other, when both proposals are (ostensibly) private-market driven?

Much of it IS private-market driven, but it's becoming more and more clear that both are going to need federal assistance (though let's be honest, we all knew that going into this debate).

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Yeah, but if public assistance is present, then municipalities will likely have a say.

To a degree, but I-10 creates an already-established transportation easement. I do not believe RR loan monies are doled out with any municipal input, either.

This is why not having SOME government involvement in the rail industry is a mistake. It's likely that DX has skipped Barstow to avoid costs. But it shouldn't be that expensive, since nothing fancy is required. A couple large platforms should be all that's necessary.

Agreed. Add on a small ticket office. The RR is supposed to be built at a higher speed ceiling than what the Reginas can handle, so why not offer a few local stops for them when they sell slots to faster trains?

Why SHOULDN'T Maglev be in the discussion? Because of it's cost?

No, it's because no government enterprise (municipality, administration, office, etc.) has any business promoting any one technology at the expense of any other. That would be a completely unfair, unenforceable, and unconstitutional taking. In other words, this bill wouldn't get through a court trial.

I did not mean that it should be ignored--I meant that Barstow cannot (or at least should not) be blatantly preferring one mode over another, especially if they are not paying, or securing funding for, either mode. It is akin to NIMBYism on a large scale--"if we can't have an Urban Outfitters/Target/Starbucks/name chain here here, NOTHING should be built!"

Much of it IS private-market driven, but it's becoming more and more clear that both are going to need federal assistance (though let's be honest, we all knew that going into this debate).

As did the Interstates. As did the airports. As did the original freight railroads. When was the last time there was large infrastructure investment done completely by private enterprise? Canals?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

To a degree, but I-10 creates an already-established transportation easement. I do not believe RR loan monies are doled out with any municipal input, either.

So there's no community meetings or anything like that?

Agreed. Add on a small ticket office. The RR is supposed to be built at a higher speed ceiling than what the Reginas can handle, so why not offer a few local stops for them when they sell slots to faster trains?

The most stops it seems right now for DX, other than LV and Victorville, would be ones in Primm/Ivanpah and Barstow. Same for the Maglev plan (in the High Desert section).

No, it's because no government enterprise (municipality, administration, office, etc.) has any business promoting any one technology at the expense of any other. That would be a completely unfair, unenforceable, and unconstitutional taking. In other words, this bill wouldn't get through a court trial.

I did not mean that it should be ignored--I meant that Barstow cannot (or at least should not) be blatantly preferring one mode over another, especially if they are not paying, or securing funding for, either mode. It is akin to NIMBYism on a large scale--"if we can't have an Urban Outfitters/Target/Starbucks/name chain here here, NOTHING should be built!"

I see. So it might be more likely that they'll complain about something else about the project and use that as a platform for their ultimate goal of stopping the project?

By the way, are MTA's across the country city departments, or are they independent organizations?

As did the Interstates. As did the airports. As did the original freight railroads. When was the last time there was large infrastructure investment done completely by private enterprise? Canals?

Oh, I know that. I just thought that when you mentioned "private-market driven", you INDICATED that it was going to be paid off with zero government funds; which, like I said, is impossible.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

So there's no community meetings or anything like that?

Not that I know of...it seems more like a mortgage, get your paperwork in order, get a loan.

The most stops it seems right now for DX, other than LV and Victorville, would be ones in Primm/Ivanpah and Barstow. Same for the Maglev plan (in the High Desert section).

So the ideal compromise is to offer these stations...

I see. So it might be more likely that they'll complain about something else about the project and use that as a platform for their ultimate goal of stopping the project?

Probably. Even so this is a project they would have to attempt to stop via litigation, and frankly given the current Supreme Court's attitude--and you know this would get all the way there--it would be an extremely difficult case to sell. DX's is stronger. Even so, dragging it on means DX would need to spend an eye-popping amount on court feeds (as would Barstow).

By the way, are MTA's across the country city departments, or are they independent organizations?

Semi-independent organizations, mostly...I could be wrong, however. The ones I am familiar with in the Northeast are quite autonomous, however.

Oh, I know that. I just thought that when you mentioned "private-market driven", you INDICATED that it was going to be paid off with zero government funds; which, like I said, is impossible.

Yep. We agree it will get government funding. The channels said funding goes through changes, however, requirements for funding. Grants are more stringent than loans; some avenues require community input; others don't. One of the few documents all can agree on is the EIS.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by electricron

The original Shinkansen trains had maximum speeds of 130 mph (210 km/hr) just slightly faster than Metroliners on the NEC.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_Series_Shinkansen

I believe the straighter corridor allowed the Shinkansen to maintain maximum speeds significantly longer than even the faster Acela trains on the NEC. I believe there's still significant gains that can be achieved on the NEC if we invest wisely on it. I'm not so sure a brand new corridor paralleling the NEC will be a wise investment.

It was also a train without level crossings.

The original Shinkansen was on dedicated rail and had a maximum track curvature of 1500m 2500m (just under 1mi.)

edit: Correction: 2500m.

[Beta_Magellan]

^^^I’ve seen the occasional call to use the N700 on a new NEC for this reason—the original Shinkansen is, by now, almost a legacy system, and the N700 was designed to reach 300 km/h on this older track (tilting trains, very quick acceleration). I’m not sure if it’s as competitive in California, though—it’s a whole new system there and should be built to a 350 km/h standard (I’m not even sure if there are any 350 km/h Shinkansen).

I’ve heard that there was some sort of big announcement with proposals for building and operating the system came out, specifically mentioning Alstom and Virgin as being among the potential bidders. Does anyone have a link for this?

[Beta_Magellan]

Ah, here’s what I was mentioning—from California’s HSR Authority:

Press Release
Private Sector Expresses Tremendous Interest in California’s High-Speed Train Project


SACRAMENTO – More than 1,100 expressions of interest flooded into the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s offices in Sacramento prior to a Wednesday deadline – from businesses ranging from self-employed entrepreneurs and small businesses to multinational corporations and large construction firms. The submissions were in response to a “Request for Expressions of Interest” issued by the Authority in February, asking that the private sector put in writing their desire to help develop California’s high-speed rail project.

In the responses, companies addressed the design, construction, operation and funding aspects of both the initial construction segment in California’s Central Valley and the overall first phase of the statewide project stretching from the Los Angeles basin to the Bay Area. The responses will help guide the next stages of the formal procurement process and the packaging of future bids.

“The size of this response sends a clear signal that the private sector sees great opportunity in California’s high-speed rail project, the first of its kind in the nation,” said Roelof van Ark, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. “True high-speed rail systems are profitable, competitive and spur near-term job creation and long-term economic growth.”

High-speed rail operators around the globe responded to the Authority’s call, as did dozens of major construction and engineering firms, and hundreds of small businesses.

The Authority is currently reviewing and compiling responses with the intention of posting a list of respondents on California High-Speed Rail Authority Web site next week and to post the response documents within the coming weeks. From responses reviewed thus far, it is clear that the private sector is eager to participate in developing California’s project:

“We look forward to being a participant in and working with the California High-Speed Rail Authority in making this project the first very high-speed success story in the US.”
-Guillaume Mehlman, President, ALSTOM Transportation Inc.

“We are prepared to immediately partner with the Authority in developing an implementation approach that builds on current passenger rail transportation successes such as the Capital Corridor and San Joaquin Services, just to name a few.”
-Albrecht P. Engel, Amtrak

“This prospect is tremendously exciting in that it links the major cities of California in a visionary and market changing way. This is an opportunity to which VRG is prepared to commit substantial resources to, in order to assist the Authority in achieving its objectives. We believe that California is a market very well suited to High Speed Rail.”
-Virgin Rail Group

“We are excited for the opportunity to participate on such a monumental project.”
-Bill Trombley, Director of Preconstruction Services, Skanska USA Civil West California District

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is developing an 800-mile high-speed train system that will operate at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour, connecting the state’s major urban centers, including the Bay Area, Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego. The first phase of the project, San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim, is projected to cost $43 billion. Initial infrastructure construction will begin in the Central Valley, the backbone of the system, in 2012. The project is being funded through a voter-approved state bond, federal funding awards and public-private partnerships.

Respondents will be invited to an industry forum the Authority is hosting in Los Angeles on April 12, 2011, to learn more about the next steps in the procurement process and the results of the request for expressions of interest. Credentialed press will also be invited.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

^^^I’ve seen the occasional call to use the N700 on a new NEC for this reason—the original Shinkansen is, by now, almost a legacy system, and the N700 was designed to reach 300 km/h on this older track (tilting trains, very quick acceleration). I’m not sure if it’s as competitive in California, though—it’s a whole new system there and should be built to a 350 km/h standard (I’m not even sure if there are any 350 km/h Shinkansen).

The original 0-series Shinkansen were retired last year. These were the ones that looked like a bullet. There were trainsets that were donated to museums around the world. There are sets in England and in Japanese railway museums, if I'm not mistaken.

The N700 (Nozomi Service) actually maxes out at 270km/h on the original Tokaido portion of the Shinkansen. This is the portion between Tokyo and Osaka that was originally designed for a max speed of 200km/h. It has a minimum track radius of 2500m. I believe that these trains are some of the quickest to accelerate as well. A often-overlooked important fact when you are running in highly populated areas.

On a newer portion of Shinkansen, the Sanyo Shinkansen that runs between Osaka and Kyushu they run trains at 300km/h. It has a typical 4000m track radius. It can potentially run much faster in the future.

The newest line, the Hayabusa service on the Tohoku Shinkansen will run at 320km/h. These are the newest E5 series. I'm not sure the track radius, but that line was planned to run at 360km/h. They just couldn't get the train quiet enough at that speed.

To put this in perspective, China's new 350km/h lines typically have a minimum 7000m track radius. California is planning, I believe, for 6500m.

As alluded to before, part of the reason that trains don't run as fast in Japan is the tunnel boom effect and the number of tunnels that are close to populated areas. Japan has the strictest noise pollution laws (for trains at least) in the world. This combined with the inefficiency at higher speeds and the number of tunnels made faster speeds impractical. Remember, these trains are running every day, all day, sometimes at frequencies of every 6 minutes on some lines.

Japanese companies are one of the parties that are interested in the High speed contract for California.

In my opinion, their experience with earthquakes and their strong desire to export the technology make them one of the better candidates for the California System.

As for the North-east corridor, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to consider the N700 series, although I'm sure there will be excellent competition for that sector.

Personally, I'd love to see German, Canadian or French technology in the NEC and Japanese technology in the West. The US should try to get a mixture of technology, just as China has done.

[202_Cyclist]

High-speed rail: First phase could run to Merced after all


Authority plan to apply for money Florida rejected would expand construction project's 'backbone.'

By KEITH A. JONES
Merced Sun
3/28/2011

"High-speed rail may come to Merced sooner than expected, as the California High Speed Rail Authority will announce today it's asking for $1.2 billion in funding that was rejected by Florida.

If the request is approved, it would mean the first phase of track will run from Merced to Bakersfield. Also, instead of building a station just in downtown Fresno, stations will be built in Merced and Bakersfield. The authority is also looking at building a station in Tulare County.

"This is very good news for Merced," said Mayor Bill Spriggs on Sunday afternoon. "The City Council has always supported high-speed rail. We were disappointed when the Corcoran-to-Borden route was announced."

"If we get a portion of Florida's money, we'll able to complete the entire backbone of the project," Jeff Barker, deputy director of the rail authority, told the Sun-Star Friday..."

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/03...ase-could.html

[fflint]

A backbone from Bakersfield to Merced would be a real turning point for passenger rail in California. Even in the worst case scenario in which the new separated trackage ends up serving conventional passenger rail, it would still speed up both Amtrak and freight trains significantly.

[JDRCRASH]

Yeah, but won't this section be just track? No actual HSR service?

If so, then why not use the money, not for the Fresno-Merced extension, but instead to start HSR service between Fresno and Bakersfield?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

any other states about to reject funds?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

any other states about to reject funds?

How many have rejected funds so far? Is it just Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida?