Passenger Trains > CA HSR not quite dead yet...

The reporters jumped the gun...

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-bullet-train-explanation-20190215-story.html

P;ease, please drive a stake into this thing.

There is nothing wrong with an improved and faster rail link between the Bay Area and the LA area. It could be done for a lot less money if lower speeds could be accepted. Two things are needed:  a tunnel thru the Tehachapis (the biggest cost) and beefed-up existing rail alignments that existing conventional trains could travel over at 120 mph. Not 285 mph. If these two things could be accomplished then travelers could be in SF or LA maybe 6 hours after departing. I am hoping that out of this can come a Higher Speed Rail system (as opposed to the High Speed Rail System that has been envisioned to this point).

So, don't drive a stake in it. Find ways to improve it. I'm hoping that Newsom is thinking along these lines.

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

Except it would be challenged in court since it's not even close to what voters approved with Prop 1A. We should have started with a realistic higher speed conventional rail to begin with but that's not sexy enough to put on a ballot.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except it would be challenged in court since it's
> not even close to what voters approved with Prop
> 1A. We should have started with a realistic higher
> speed conventional rail to begin with but that's
> not sexy enough to put on a ballot.

The Italian high speed rail got started that way.  build a new section, and cut it into the old line at both ends. Build another section, repeat, etc.  At the end of the process you have two partly parallel lines, with the capability of re-routes when needed

Winnemucca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing wrong with an improved and faster
> rail link between the Bay Area and the LA area. It
> could be done for a lot less money if lower speeds
> could be accepted. Two things are needed:  a
> tunnel thru the Tehachapis (the biggest cost) and
> beefed-up existing rail alignments that existing
> conventional trains could travel over at 120 mph.
> Not 285 mph. If these two things could be
> accomplished then travelers could be in SF or LA
> maybe 6 hours after departing. I am hoping that
> out of this can come a Higher Speed Rail system
> (as opposed to the High Speed Rail System that has
> been envisioned to this point).
>
> So, don't drive a stake in it. Find ways to
> improve it. I'm hoping that Newsom is thinking
> along these lines.
The real problem is a 125 mph alignment still means a 4 hour trip, compared to about 3 hours flying (1.5 hours in the air). The idea behind the full HSR alignment was to replace flying, not just cars.

if an hsr system will NOT compete with the airlines between lax-sfo (i.e., 3 hrs), why spend over $70 BILLION to construct and then subsidize the operation?

give the voters the option of spending $20 BILLION on improving current conventional passenger trains and adding new routes/equipment............

66

Winnemucca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two things are needed:  a
> tunnel thru the Tehachapis (the biggest cost)

A 22 mile tunnel between Caliente and Cameron would have a 2% grade. In Switzerland, the Loetschberg Tunnel is of similar length, cost four American Gigabucks, and was built in eight years.

and
> beefed-up existing rail alignments that existing
> conventional trains could travel over at 120 mph.

...more or less. That's where the work of balancing cost against travel time, not speed, comes in.

> I am hoping that
> out of this can come a Higher Speed Rail system

...with local and express service

> (as opposed to the High Speed Rail System that has
> been envisioned to this point).

Yes!

TAW

Tis but a scratch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs&t=70s

Freeways have always been built in sections and people always complain abotu the cost, etc. Read about the building of the Overland Route, which had some real shenanigans.
For example, Truckee was named after a very generous Member of Congress...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

I seriuosly doubt tunnelling thrugh the Tehachipis is a good idea because of the threat of earthquakes, how come they still haven't tunneled under Mirimar Hill!

The Swiss would figure out how to deal with earthquakes, 2% grades, safety concerns, freight trains, etc.    Hire them.

A 22 mile tunnel in Switzerland is good exercise for them..........

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seriuosly doubt tunnelling thrugh the Tehachipis
> is a good idea because of the threat of
> earthquakes, how come they still haven't tunneled
> under Mirimar Hill!


There are many tunnels on the existing UP (ex-SP) route over Tehachapi Pass.

"High Speed" passenger service from the Central Valley to Los Angeles via Tehachapi Pass is circuitous aka lengthy aka slower. See: A map.

Shortest route is via Tejon Pass, with long tunnel(s). "HSR" could do it, if HSR was happening. But it's not.

So discussing routing is moot.

bretton88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem is a 125 mph alignment still
> means a 4 hour trip, compared to about 3 hours
> flying (1.5 hours in the air). The idea behind the
> full HSR alignment was to replace flying, not just
> cars.

That was the heart of the problem from the beginning. When the distance involved was on the upper boundary of where HSR could competed with air, it was the wrong market to go after at the start. They should have focused on shorter markets while they built toward that goal of competing with air between southern and northern California..

Problem now is that it will take a lot of money to build additional connections into the existing routes. One might talk about finishing to Bakersfield, but you would still lose big money on the operation, plus a lot more capital expense. I think most will lose heart now about dumping any more funds into the pit.

Just my non-Californian opinion, of course.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/19 16:04 by ts1457.

So, is the SP Coast Line still for sale?

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ProAmtrak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I seriuosly doubt tunnelling thrugh the
> Tehachipis
> > is a good idea because of the threat of
> > earthquakes, how come they still haven't
> tunneled
> > under Mirimar Hill!
>
>
> There are many tunnels on the existing UP (ex-SP)
> route over Tehachapi Pass.
>
> "High Speed" passenger service from the Central
> Valley to Los Angeles via Tehachapi Pass is
> circuitous aka lengthy aka slower. See: A map.
>
> Shortest route is via Tejon Pass, with long
> tunnel(s). "HSR" could do it, if HSR was
> happening. But it's not.
>
> So discussing routing is moot.

Duna, I know that neck of the woods front and back, I railfanned that area to know that, thing is having a very long tunnel is not a good idea!

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seriuosly doubt tunnelling thrugh the Tehachipis
> is a good idea because of the threat of
> earthquakes, how come they still haven't tunneled
> under Mirimar Hill!

what about BART?  they are in the HEART of earthquake country between oak-sfo and they do it...............

66

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duna, I know that neck of the woods front and
> back, I railfanned that area to know that, thing
> is having a very long tunnel is not a good idea!

??? because you will not be able to see the trains ???

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just my non-Californian opinion, of course.

I'm OK with your non-Californian opinion.

People are still obsessed with travel time minutae. Just as useless as bench racing when car enthusiasts compare published stats for performance cars. Take the cars to the race track (or not-so-legal street racing) then we're talking.

I've already posted time comparisons between Shinkansen and air travel in Japan, for a ~400 mile corridor. Air has about 30 minute advantage, but many Japanese choose the Shinkansen for convenience. Shinkansen covers significantly more city pairs while the airplane covers the only the endpoints.

But people in Japan stll fly. Competition isn't the only thing that matters, except to bench racers who are obseseed in game theory fantasy.

As pointed out countless times here on TO, if people rely on the car to go to an HSR station, they might as well continue driving to the airport. HSR is the end result of having an extensive public transit network (buses, non-HSR trains, light rail, subways). THAT is where Japan has the advantage on Shinkansen convenience. No need to drive unless you WANT to, not HAVE to.

We aren't ready for HSR, because the transit networks for San Jose, Merced, Modesto, Fresno, and most of SoCal are still inadequate. Only San Francisco has a decent public transit network where people don't need a car to get around, but let's not forget the people complaining about SF MUNI's service problems.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/19 21:08 by cchan006.

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what about BART?  they are in the HEART of
> earthquake country between oak-sfo and they do
> it...............

Yes, but BART doesn't cross the San Andreas Fault anywhere on the system. In the past, "earthquake issues" regarding the CA HSR was specific to the San Andreas Fault, but in the heat of the discussions, we've forgotten about that.

If CA HSR was doing their job, they should find a way to "solve" or minimize the earthquake issues, so I agree with you that this shouldn't be a show stopper.