California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

But in the tunnels, they would be building 150 mph tracks. Besides the bore size, the tunnels also have grades, steep enough to lower maximum speeds. And by the way, the speed reductions is for going downhill cause by braking limitations.
But in the Valley, 220 mph tracks are what they are planning to build.

The irony is that the calls for lengthy tunnel construction on the peninsula would not improve travel times much since the speed would only increase by 40mph. By comparison, the speed could increase by a full 100~mph on an aerial structure above the Caltrains tracks, but the aerial structure (or more likely some combination of aerial and surface) would have to be incredibly long - like 30 miles - in order to significantly improve the overall performance of the HSR line.

Improving the speed from 110mph to 220mph for 30 of the 35 miles between San Jose and SFO would create a time savings of roughly 10 minutes. It would, however, significantly reduce lowered gates, which after the improvement would only be motivated by Caltrains commuter trains and the occasional freight train. Also, Caltrains from Gilroy could operate on the elevated HSR tracks, speeding that service, and further reducing lowered gates.

[Busy Bee]

^When you say "elevated" do you mean the 4-track embankment that was one of the Authorities proposals for the Peninsula before the blended system (compromise) approach was adopted. I've never heard of an "aerial structure above the [Caltrain] tracks."

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^When you say "elevated" do you mean the 4-track embankment that was one of the Authorities proposals for the Peninsula before the blended system (compromise) approach was adopted. I've never heard of an "aerial structure above the [Caltrain] tracks."

^Some combination of an embankment and overpasses similar to what has been built recently near Fresno.

With the electrification of Caltrains well underway, there is a greater sunk cost that won't be recoverable if they tear up the current improvements in 10-20 years.

I'm getting back to the point I made several months ago on this thread - that the peninsula kicked and screamed about the 4-track plan because they were afraid no improvements would be made to Caltrains. It's not hard to imagine a 4-track scenario where the 2 Caltrains tracks were left as conventional diesel operation with the promise that it would be upgraded to electric and 30 years later they're still waiting for it.

[jmecklenborg]

^Also, I have ridden on a high-speed train (in France), but I haven't heard how loud one is traveling at full-speed on an embankment, so I think there is some justifiable concern over the noise level generated by 30 trains per hour (15 per direction between Caltrains and HSR). Putting the line in a trench or tunnel would largely eliminate the noise issue, but as I noted above, those options would not achieve the highest level of service possible.

Obviously, life is going to suck for anyone whose house backs up to this line after things really get underway with the Caltrains electrification. But I doubt that living even one block away will be as annoying all of the jet noise in Marina Del Ray.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I'm getting back to the point I made several months ago on this thread - that the peninsula kicked and screamed about the 4-track plan because they were afraid no improvements would be made to Caltrains. It's not hard to imagine a 4-track scenario where the 2 Caltrains tracks were left as conventional diesel operation with the promise that it would be upgraded to electric and 30 years later they're still waiting for it.

I'm not a resident of the Bay Area or California for that matter, but wasn't the nimbyism regarding the 4-track peninsula more to do with the exaggerated noise, visual and psychological impact concerns they felt the raised guideway would have rather than any suspicion that Caltrain wouldn't receive the improvements in service?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm not a resident of the Bay Area or California for that matter, but wasn't the nimbyism regarding the 4-track peninsula more to do with the exaggerated noise, visual and psychological impact concerns they felt the raised guideway would have rather than any suspicion that Caltrain wouldn't receive the improvements in service?

That's part of it, no doubt, but the design wasn't going to be 4 side-by-side tracks for 40~ miles. There were going to be spots where HSR would be elevated/depressed but Caltrains would remain at-grade in part to save money and in part because there are still active freight spurs and the light rail line in Mountain View.

Frankly I think it's going to be a bit of a S-show with the crossing gates up and down almost countless times per hour at 20-odd grade crossings. There is so much opportunity for something to go wrong. Weird stuff happens at grade crossings - not just with cars but with bicycles, pedestrians, etc.

I think we're going to see full grade separation of HSR revisited when the Transbay approach tunnel is funded and the second Transbay crossing is under study. It's not difficult to see, when scanning the line on Google Earth, that there is plenty of space for the HSR tracks in most locations to run at-grade. Where conflicts exist it'll be a lot easier, in some places, to leave Caltrains as-is and build HSR tracks on piers directly next to the existing tracks or directly above.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

That's part of it, no doubt, but the design wasn't going to be 4 side-by-side tracks for 40~ miles. There were going to be spots where HSR would be elevated/depressed but Caltrains would remain at-grade in part to save money and in part because there are still active freight spurs and the light rail line in Mountain View.

I think we're going to see full grade separation of HSR revisited when the Transbay approach tunnel is funded and the second Transbay crossing is under study. It's not difficult to see, when scanning the line on Google Earth, that there is plenty of space for the HSR tracks in most locations to run at-grade. Where conflicts exist it'll be a lot easier, in some places, to leave Caltrains as-is and build HSR tracks on piers directly next to the existing tracks or directly above.

Americans understand the bidirectional 3 or 4 track rail corridor easier because of the NEC, but the English quad track layout used to have both a fast pair of up and down tracks and a slow pair of up and down tracks, which would be very similar to having a regular sets of tracks for regular trains and a separate set of dedicated high speed tracks within the same corridor.

The operational advantage of the NEC quad track configuration is that freight industries can exist on both sides of the corridor and be serviced easily with little to no impact to fast trains on the fast tracks. The English configuration favors placing industries along the slow pair of tracks on one side of the corridor, to reach industries on the fast side of the corridor flyovers or duck-unders are needed, all adding to the expense to build and maintain the corridor. In a market where the corridor is maintained by private enterprises, flyovers and duck-unders are not preferred. In a market where government maintains the corridor, flyovers and duck-unders are just another cost for taxpayers to subsidize.

On the Peninsula, Caltrains already owns the corridor, so either quad track layout would have worked. I strongly believe the nose abatement issues were the primary reasons for the preferred alignment chosen in the EIS. As with the rest of the CHSR lines, reducing costs have not been, are not, nor will not be the primary concerns of the Authority.

[Busy Bee]

Can we put this to rest please?

Caltrain is the branded commuter railway. Caltrans is the CA government DOT that chartered the service nearly 40 years ago. There is no "Caltrains" unless you're taking a photo of 4th and King.

Yes, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

On the Peninsula, Caltrains already owns the corridor, so either quad track layout would have worked. I strongly believe the nose abatement issues were the primary reasons for the preferred alignment chosen in the EIS. As with the rest of the CHSR lines, reducing costs have not been, are not, nor will not be the primary concerns of the Authority.

I personally find the crossing gates and horn blowing to be more disruptive than the trains themselves. Grade separations would have ended both of those sounds.

Also, the sound of passing trains is very difficult to predict. For certain, speeding electric trains make plenty of noise but not the same sort of noise as diesels traveling at the same speed.

Sound from railroads has a weird way of either traveling or not traveling. A train might be more noticeable from a quarter mile away than from a block away. The horns, for sure, often travel for miles.

[Busy Bee]

CHSRA released the Final EIR for the Bakersfield to Palmdale segment. Dive in here for the minutia.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

CHSRA released the Final EIR for the Bakersfield to Palmdale segment. Dive in here for the minutia.

Thanks for the link. Looks like the track will climb 4,000~ vertical feet between Bakersfield and the mountains. Bakersfield is 400 feet above sea level and Palmdale is 2,500 feet above sea level so there will be much more climbing/descending on the Bakersfield side of the mountains.

There are charts in this link that show an alternative with a completely steady grade between Bakersfield and the crest of the ridge. The chart isn't very specific but it looks like that imagined climb would have required viaducts with 100+ foot piers. They're not going to do that, meaning the climb/descent will be a bit uneven. It might be in the report but I wasn't able to see if they plan to maintain 220mph both uphill and downhill. The highest speed might be impossible given the uneven character of the slope.

[Busy Bee]

^ Hmm. Not sure about this. Where did you see this in the doc? They are planning several spans with 100' + columns. It looks like they kept grades around 2-2.5%

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ Hmm. Not sure about this. Where did you see this in the doc? They are planning several spans with 100' + columns. It looks like they kept grades around 2-2.5%

Looking at it again, you're right - all of the alternatives have 200~ foot piers toward the bottom. It's amazing that all of these viaducts and short tunnels will be less expensive than another 10~ mile tunnel.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ Hmm. Not sure about this. Where did you see this in the doc? They are planning several spans with 100' + columns. It looks like they kept grades around 2-2.5%

At 2.5% grade, the CHSR speed limitation based upon French limitation, the maximum speed of the train would be 168 mph, and at 2% grade the max speed would be 186 mph.
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/up...TM2_1_2R00.pdf (Page 22 & 23)
So, there will be some slow down for these climbs, or should I say for there drops in elevation.

I have since had time to look at more of the drawings, and I read 2.8% grades mostly in the Tehachapi Pass. But the 168 mph speed limitation for 2.5% grades is the same for 2.8% grades, so nothing new there except the correction to the steepness of the grade.

[Busy Bee]

I just wish the Authority would have a budget, representing maybe the cost of a few houses purchased for right-of-way, to create some decent animations (not just birds-eye flyovers) showing what these sections will really look like so people like us (and others) won't have to sift through hundreds of pages of highly technical engineering drawings, all of which start to look the same after a while. I got cross-eyed last night.

One standout feature of the preferred alignment that I find perplexing and just of dubious necessity is the double crossing of SR-58 east of Edison. I fail to see why the alignment needed to do that, justifying massive and massively expensive straddle bents spanning SR-58 when they could have just remained north of the highway and south of the BNSF.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

At 2.5% grade, the CHSR speed limitation based upon French limitation, the maximum speed of the train would be 168 mph, and at 2% grade the max speed would be 186 mph.
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/up...TM2_1_2R00.pdf (Page 22 & 23)
So, there will be some slow down for these climbs, or should I say for there drops in elevation.

I rode the TGV about 15 years ago from Paris to Lyon. The train climbs the ridge that separates the northern climate from the Mediterranean climate. You pop out of a fairly short tunnel (1 mile?) and...boom, palm trees. The climb up this ridge is really impressive though...you get a sense for how incredibly powerful the train is since it coasts up the hill until it gets to the lower required speed.

[jmecklenborg]

Also, it would be interesting to know what they have in mind so far as phasing the Burbank-Palmdale tunnel segment as compared to Bakersfield-Palmdale.

I assume that this segment will have a shorter design-build-test period than the long LA approach tunnels and so should break ground 1-2 years after. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is basically no use for the big tunnels between Burbank and Palmdale without the full build-out to Anaheim, so pretty much everything needs to be under construction simultaneously. That would be a volume of construction, purchasing, accounting, and upper management far beyond what has occurred to date in the Central Valley.

[jmecklenborg]

Steven Rattner was on Obama's "Team Auto" that bailed out GM and Chrysler. Yet he opposes subsidies for Amtrak and CAHSR:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/o...gtype=Homepage

"The California fiasco illustrates how execution will be key to implementing any infrastructure projects. But the government’s record is not great. The Federal Aviation Administration has been working on “NextGen” air traffic control for more than 15 years and it is still years from completion. By shortening flight lengths, this could do more for the climate than many other ideas being batted around, save countless hours of travel time and billions of dollars."


Right, take money that is "wasted" on Amtrak and "invest" (i.e. give another subsidy to) in the airlines.

[Busy Bee]

That's some bullshit.

[jmecklenborg]

^The only real "fiasco" with CAHSR is how poorly managed the image of the project is. The public has no idea what is going and so opponents are able to shape it to their advantage. There is no face to the project.

Someone add to this list or correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much the only other ways this thing could have played out by this point given available funding would have been:

1. Build SF/LA approaches first, which would only be usable by commuter rail until the major tunnels are built.

a) Caltrains between Transbay and Gilroy
b) Metrolink between Burbank and Anaheim

2. Build Central Valley first, but along I-5, which would have no intermediate stations and terminal stations near Los Benos in the north and tiny Wheeler Ridge where I-5 levels out north of Grapevine. No future access to Las Vegas.

Obviously, had Clinton won the White House in 2016 things would be further along. We likely would have avoided Gavin's ambiguous "halt", at the very least. I think when you consider a HSR line paralleling I-5 but with zero intermediate stations and no entrance into either LA or SF you better understand the decision to serve the various small Central Valley cities, which all grew in a straight line along the old railroad.