Railroaders' Nostalgia > Mad Dog Chronicle # 313.1

From Rollin B's comment on mdc #313

In the meantime I can give everyone one of the punch lines:  there is not now nor has there ever been room to allow CHSR to use any part of the UP right of way between Gilroy and San Jose.  The exposure to catastrophic incidents is too great and actual incidents have proved that in real life. UP has delivered the message very clearly and consistently ever since the decision was made that CHSR would run via Pacheco Pass. Of course there will be overruns while CHSR delays passing on the news to the people of California that a new right of way will have to be assembled at a cost far in excess of what is now estimated to share the UP right of way.   

UP is not being unreasonable here.  No freight railroad should take on that type of exposure.   

rdb

This is the actual truth, every word of it.  As soon as the UP became aware that the Coast Subdivision between Gilroy and San Jose was being considered as the way to serve San Jose and San Francisco this Right of Way issue was communicated to their consultants.  No worry we are told. We are just exploring alternatives.  Route decision not yet made.  Altamont Pass also under Consideration.

It is now clear to me that the HSR consultants who were working on overall cost estimates  were using several nieve, outmoded, or unreasonable planning assumptions.
1.   Existing rr right of ways could be used and a bargain price too.
2.   Underlying this assumption, that HSR could be built on 14 feet centers next to existing freight rail tracks
3.   Sufficient row for HSR already existed on the AT&SF and the SP therefore little new row would need to be purchased.
4.  Most construction would be at existing grade level with no need for expensive bridge or tunnels.

Just apply a little logic, how else could the original cost estimates be as low as they were.
no wonder they are escalating as the planners and now the design teams are confronted with the realities
of BNSF and UP current policy on Seperation-space requirements between tracks.

mdo

The California PUC has a say also on the spacing between the rails. Ask the SP about the fresno yard.

usmc1401 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The California PUC has a say also on the spacing
> between the rails. Ask the SP about the fresno
> yard.

Thi is not so much nostalgia as a painful memory.  SP instantly lost half the capacity of Fresno Yard.  It was probably appropriate, though since railroads’ own standards would not allow for those tight track center measurements in a switching yard.  

An ancient saying that I remembered through my whole career: "Prior Planning Prevents Puckups". "Think First, Act Later" is another good one to remember. Unfortunately most political people and the bottom breeding consultants would rather manipulate than tell the truth. Hyper-loop probably would cost even more. BNSF and UP seem to be acting sensibly protecting their ROW. Hope something sensible comes out of this HSR boondoggle. Japan, France, Germany, China and other countries figured out HSR, why can't the so-called technology leading USA do it. 

SuperChiefDon

I recall a discussion I had with one if the first leaders of the CHSR and I said there is no way the UP or BNSF will let this happen any way  near their. ROW and his response was essentially, “ dont  worry, once they see how well planned this is and how the people are clamoring fir it, they’ll get on board”.  (This of course was when cannabis was still illegal and unregulated in CA)😀
C

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

Oh yes sigh   the politics of CHSR,  WHAT A MINE FIELD.  A good subject for 313.2.   All. Is not as it seems!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/18 15:05 by mdo.

ATSFSuperChief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An ancient saying that I remembered through my
> whole career: "Prior Planning Prevents Puckups".
> "Think First, Act Later" is another good one to
> remember. Unfortunately most political people and
> the bottom breeding consultants would rather
> manipulate than tell the truth. Hyper-loop
> probably would cost even more. BNSF and UP seem to
> be acting sensibly protecting their ROW. Hope
> something sensible comes out of this HSR
> boondoggle. Japan, France, Germany, China and
> other countries figured out HSR, why can't the
> so-called technology leading USA do it. 
>
> SuperChiefDon

Because they're too blind and stupid to look at examples from the other countries, I'm still laughing at one of those guys claiming they won't need sbusidies and they will make a profit, can't wait to see the 1ST Fiscal Year results if it ever gets completed!

Mike and Rollin have commented from an operating perspective and they are spot on.  For more than forty-five years I have worked with operating agreements, and have discovered that most people who have not been employed in the freight railroad industry do not understand the inherent danger in railroad operations.  For the uninitiated, sharing of railroad rights of way is simplistic solution, but when an incident occurs and the claims are in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, expensive legal fights will ensue.  Even if a freight railroad were to allow a high speed rail operation to share its right of way, I question whether a liability agreement could be satisfactorily written protect the best interests of the freight railroad.  For starters, the high speed rail operation would have to indemnify the freight railroad, regardless of its negligence, from and against all claims of death, injury, and property damage.  For the sake of discussion, assuming this is possible, I could envision the California Supreme Court or the California Legislature carving out exceptions to make the freight railroad responsible for certain damages in some situations.  What is more is that in those cases when freight railroads successfully defend themselves, they will have  spent large amounts of money in the process.  As one who has been personally involved in liability disputes involving freight railroads, the best course of action is not to allow situations that may result in high expenses (or exposure) related to an incident.

Yes, freight railroads in the United States have shared railroad rights of way in certain cases, but the decisions have always been in the sole discretion of the freight railroad and they have certainly not involved high speed railroad passenger operations.

WEF   

Homework assignment while you are waiting for 313.2  go back on the passenger forum and read this post and be sure to study the chart and the track map:
San Francisco Transit Center
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/warning.php?forum_id=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fbayarea%2Farticle%2FSalesforce-Transit-Center-puzzle-When-will-the-13142498.php%3Ft%3D78f3ddf7a9

mdo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Homework assignment while you are waiting for
> 313.2  go back on the passenger forum and read
> this post and be sure to study the chart and the
> track map:
> San Francisco Transit Center
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/warning.php
> ?forum_id=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fbay
> area%2Farticle%2FSalesforce-Transit-Center-puzzle-
> When-will-the-13142498.php%3Ft%3D78f3ddf7a9

Already read this article and to me it said...Blah, Blah, Blah!
Another Boondoggle on top of a larger Boondoggle!

Mike

Ok. You can skip the quiz

2720 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mdo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Homework assignment while you are waiting for
> > 313.2  go back on the passenger forum and read
> > this post and be sure to study the chart and
> the
> > track map:
> > San Francisco Transit Center
> >
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/warning.php
>
> >
> ?forum_id=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fbay
>
> >
> area%2Farticle%2FSalesforce-Transit-Center-puzzle-
>
> > When-will-the-13142498.php%3Ft%3D78f3ddf7a9
>
> Already read this article and to me it
> said...Blah, Blah, Blah!
> Another Boondoggle on top of a larger Boondoggle!
>
> Mike

Not to be outdone, the bustling community of Salinas  just had a groundbreaking ceremony this morning  for the demolition of buildings across the street from the ATK train station for their Salinas transit center and all the trains coming here from the bay area and Sacramento—-sometime——-😀
C

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

mdo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Homework assignment while you are waiting for
> 313.2  go back on the passenger forum and read
> this post and be sure to study the chart and the
> track map:

The first obvious thing is that there was not a lot of passenger terminal experience went into it. Of course, the last text book on the subject was Passenger Terminals and Trains by Droege in 1916, reprinted by Kalmbach in 1975. Who is going to bother finding a copy of that?  (https://tinyurl.com/addall-passenger-terminals) I have (in storage somewhere) an AREA Manual from 1926ish that has a pretty good section on passenger terminal design. It's gone in the last edition that I have. There is only one double lead platform track pair. Generally not a good thing. As my B&OCT Chief put the situation to me one afternoon when I relieved him "If anybody zigs instad of zags, you're all done (it's all going to collapse-fast).

The second obvious thing is that somebody "did the simulation," looked at the summary for an acceptable Delay Per Hundred Miles, and declared it right. That's pretty much the standard method in the US.

HSR needs 40-45 minutes to turn? There are fewer passengers, for sure, but it is not high level boarding in Seattle, and I have the through Amtrak Cascades trains at Seattle scheduled for 15 minutes, incuding restocking the Bistro car. I've watched DB flip an ICE, including restocking, in 15 minutes. 45 minutes? Really?

I would obviously not be qualified to work on that project, which is why when a colleague on the project suggested it, the answer was NO!

TAW

 

While I was GM at CCT CHSRA looked at the CCT corridor on at least 3 occasions and one of the things we told them over and over was they could not impede any access to out customers or possible new customers in the sections of track that were in service. We made it clear in writing.  While a large portion of the CCT ROW is 100 feet wide there were areas that would not fit the two modes to be compatible. We made sure they knew where these were. One concession Madge to the possible use of the CCT ROW was we would not allow any new at grade road crossings between Sacramento and Stockton, any requested new crossing had to be grade separated and the grade separation would need to be over the entire CCT ROW. This did cause some local and county government folks some heartburn as the locations were on the out of service track. CHSRA and their consultants did not seem to have a real grasp on how important it was that service to our customers needed to be maintained.  UP has the right to demand the same thing and to not give up property or ROW nor allow what could be an operations that poses a safety hazard to eithers operations. BNSF has the same obligation to maintain service and ROW to protect the freight franchise.       

Here, again is a reference to the LA Times which seems to be focusing on CHSR right now. They are helping me to tell this story.

.I have always thought   Jeff Denham to be the dimmest bulb in the political chandelier but he is right-on in the assessment of the fiasco—- http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-speed-rail-hearing-20180810-story.html

Home work assignment again.  Will help you understand 313.2

I will ask again:

Would someone please be so kind as to provide me -- and us -- with a link to at least one independent travel-demand study that gives good, solid evidence that shows there is any demand at all for CA HSR? 

And would someone please be so kind as to give me -- and us -- good, solid reasons why CA HSR deseves to get 90% of the state's funds that could otherwise go to rail-transit projects that will lessen highway congestion?  

Thanks!  I await your replies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/18 13:07 by Margaret_SP_fan.

Look at the bottom of 313.2

mdo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at the bottom of 313.2

I did.  Plese see my reply.  Thank you, sir.