I do not understand the logic in constructing a heavy maintenance base anywhere with the Central Valley of California or do I understand why the very first phase of actual construction of Very High Speed Rail should start in this said region.
When I look at a drawing of the purposed California High Speed Rail System or Network, I not that it has a stem with four branches. Because of this configuration, there is only one place to put a Primary Heavy Maintenance Base and this is at the southernmost terminus (the San Diego, California Area). By placing the facility here, it becomes possible to directly channel trains into maintenance without engaging in non-revenue train operation over very long distances which ultimately leads to millions of dollars spent on electrical power consumption, extended employee, work hours, unnecessary ware and tare on train equipment, increase scheduling concerns and unnecessary general administrative activities on a yearly basis.
Becuse it would be extremely difficult to build a primary maintenance base in the San Diego region due to such issues as zoning requirements, dense residential and commercial development extending all the way to the Mexican border, I find it proper to place said base within the confines of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area…namely, alongside the Los Angeles River north and/or south of Union Station.
Actual construction of CHSR should start at its southernmost end without consideration being given to the location of the primary maintenance base, command control and the primary electrical power station, and extend to Los Angeles, California. However, it would be wise to extend this first phase of construction to Bakersfield, California. This section of electrified high speed rail-line incorporates all the complexities in this particular from of construction including elevating, tunneling, trenching (absolutely no at grade construction), and sound proofing in populated areas. Once construction is co
The same reason that the first interstate roads were built in the boonies first. Quicker preliminary work and ROW acquisition. The Maintenance base can receive O & D local trains that will almost eliminate the need for ferry trips. I know of several citys that did not get Interstate roads for 20 - 30 years!
Another reason is that once trains are acquired they will need testing and de bugging before revenue operations. An example of not enough de-bugging is MN’s M-8 problems that has postponed service on the New Haven line indefinitely. The test track at Pueblo is not long enough to test the trains on substained HSR operation.
I wonder if in the Cali proposal the considered upgrading the coast route to 110 mph rail vs true high speed rail with a dedicated ROW - from LA to San Diego that would be bar none the fastest way to travel. From LA to SF airplanes would still beat you but you could beat cars - so perhaps you could draw in the driving crowd, especially if the train split in the south of the bay area with one section going to downtown SF and the other going to oakland. Freight traffic on the coast line is very light so that wouldn’t be a concern, not to mention it would be cheaper than a dedicated ROW and hence would be built faster, because who knows how long it will take to get the dedicated ROW built. Again, just an idea, and wondering if anyone considered it.
Airplanes will still beat you - if you are traveling from the security side of the departure gate to the incoming passenger lobby at the destination airport. OTOH, if you have to travel to the airport, then go through security, and then take a taxi or pick up a rental car…
Close to half a century ago Japan’s first Shinkansen route killed Tokyo-Osaka as a major airline moneymaker. The train didn’t beat the gate-to-gate time, even in those pre-jet times. It DID beat the downtown-to-downtown time - and most business is conducted downtown, not at outlying airports.
Note, too, that Japan conducted years of tests on the first, `Bullet,’ Shinkansen trains - and built the first permanent right-of-way in the least-populated area along the route.
Thank you for your attention to detail…all is not perfect.[:)]
My intent was to give the reader a better understanding of some of the complexities associated in building a Very High Speed Rail System or Network, and the need to do so in two distinct phases with the first phase costing less than thirty billion dollars and fully operational within seven to nine years. We must move forward with this project! Because of this need, I do not believe that those who are in key positions of authority have the financial means nor the will to undertake a project of this magnitude.
I do not accept the notion that the construction of the Nation Highway Defense System offers a model of how to build high speed rail, and no Nation is taking such a approach.
I am sure that such Nations as Russia, China, Turkey, Germany and France would agree with my non-professional opinion on this particular matter.
I fully appreciated the knowledge displayed on this blog. However, my primary concern is the understanding of such knowledge so that wisdom will rule the day…and wisdom is devoid of self-serving interest and is able to lead the United States into the twenty-first century rather than back to the Stone Age.
Still a huge waste of taxpayer money… $1,000,000,000.00 for consultants, hundreds of thousands for the Commissioners, the pensions – of course operated by more overpaid state employees… Take $500M to upgrade the Coast…, and a run through @ LAUPT… Let the Chinese do it – it will provide jobs for their Engineers, factory workers, steel mills, MofW workers …
The reason that the HSR line goes through the Central Valley rather than up the coast is because that is where most of the population between LA and SF is at. One past Santa Barbara, the biggest city along the coast is SLO (about 100, 000) or Salinas, as opposed to Fresno (about 500,00 to 600,000)
Instead of trying to build a complete system from city center to city center, perhaps the French approach could lower some expenses. The TGV uses the existing rail system in urban areas where building a separate right-of-way would be cost-prohibitive.
You would think… but we are all tied up in a tangle of regulation and compartmentalized development where it would take a big dose of common sense and pride swallowing to get there.
The FRA says: If trains are to share ROW with conventional trains, then they have to be built like tanks, or MAYBE, we’ll allow temporal separation, otherwise can’t share ROW.
The equipment developers say: If you want really fast trains, they need to be light. (or at least not very fast - see Acela) We will sell you either
The frt RRs say: More of the same up to 90 mph, we’ll talk. Anything else - you better come with specifics…and money.
The moneybag holders say: We don’t care which, just show us the justificaton
The designers and builders say: We don’t care either, just tell us what you want and give us the work.
So, rather than there being a real leader in this endeavor who tries to figure out what’s in the long term best interest of the responsible parties, everyone just looks around, shrugs their shoulders and then deals with the other parties as if their positions are set in stone.
Are there practical alternatives to the FRA construction standards? Nobody’s talking about them.
Are there practical limits to separation by equipment type? Would it be so dangerous if the CA HSR trains shared track in terminal areas with commuter trains and a limited number of freight train at reduced speed? Nobody’s talking about it.
Has anybody put a dollar value on any of these “verboten” combinations? Would the Feds give you money to study the
Living in California and having traveled on trains throughout the world I have lost interest in the proposed system in California. Why because I think there is a better approach to addressing California’s unique situation and that is Mag Lev.
A Mag-Lev system is capable of 350 mph which would more than make it competitive with flying. Expensive yes, but best of all it can climb steeper grades than steel rail on steel rail and requires far less maintenance on the system than rail and conventional trains would require. It would make the world sit up and take notice and best of all we already own the right of way. The system can be built above already existing freeways and I guarantee people going 65 mph down HWY 99 and have a maglev train pass overhead at 350 mph it will certainly get there attention not to mntion traveling down the penisula above the stop and go traffic on 101. . It will require more power than a conventional HSR system but more power is already needed in California.
I’ve ridden the Shanghai to Pudong Airport maglev and it is wonderful. But did you realize it cost $1.33 bil. for a 19 mile track in flat country from 2001 to opening in 2004? It runs at a top speed of 268 mph, although it set a record of 311 mph.
CHSR system is projected to cost 45 Billion so is Mag-Lev really so unreasonable in California especially if it can be constructed using the ROW above the highways we already own. I have ridden Mag-Lev in Germany and came away a believer. The Japanese are building a Mag-lev that bores through mountains and crosses some very unfreindly landscape and that has not stopped progress.
The proposed line from Munich to the airport was canceled due to high costs. The conclusion of most is that for only slightly more speed than the best TGV’s, there are much higher costs to build. The Maryland Transportation Authority put costs for a Baltimore-Washington line at $125 million per mile, more than double the cost of the Cal HSR. Who do you think is going to provide that sort of funding?
Not even across Kansas would you be able to install a 350 mph maglev line that could handle the vertical and horizontal grades of an Intestate highway. It would feel like riding a roller coaster.
Maglev require a roadbed with electromagnets embedded in it. Far, far more expensive than hanging catenary…
According to the AP, the projected cost of the California Bullet Train has jumped to $77 billion before financing charges. And the opening date has been pushed back to 2033. I suspect many of the folks who participate in these forums will be pushing up daisies by then.
According to Brian Kelly, the new California High-Speed Rail Authority executive, how the project will be paid for is uncertain. Really? Who would have guessed?
Except for the period of time before we knew who won, it would be fun to start a pool on the eventual cost of this project. Myself, I’d take “high end” meaning an amount higher than anyone in the pool guessed.
Having ridden the Mag-lev line from Shanghai Pudong to the Pudong Airport I know the maintenance costs are high (according to personnel and also articles as to why the Chinese decided to not build a Mag-lev line to Hangzhou). From having ridden the faster ICEs (HSR) in
California’s High-Speed Rail Authority unveiled the draft of an updated business plan last week. It’s the first major plan from the authority since its new CEO, Brian Kelly, took over in January. The new baseline cost estimate is $77 billion, with the first segment operable in 2029 and full completion in 2033. Although construction is already underway, the project faces challenges today as a result of choices made years ago. The new plan presents lessons learned based on these experiences, with different suggested actions for the future.
California high-speed rail must be built, in spite of these challenges, because the outcome will be worth it. This one high-speed line is th
“When people experience the difference between 79 mph on old track and 220 mph on the new high-speed line, they’ll be clamoring for the remaining segments, like Bakersfield to L.A., to be finished as soon as possible.”
No doubt! I suspect, however, that they will not be clamoring to pay the full cost of the 220 mph ride. In the best American tradition they will look to the taxpayers to subsidize their high speed train ride.