California High Speed Rail Thread

[Busy Bee]

Whats with the blip towards the beginning of the video showing new rail and concrete ties?? Thats got to be for a bnsf shoefly or something right?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

There is still SO much to do to even get phase 1 open, which basically connects nowhere to nowhere. How do we have so little to show for this project that's been underway for so 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 long?

They're looking at 21-22 years between the passage of Prop 1A and the opening of the IOS. I assume that it'll take 4 years to manufacture the first group of trains (I seem to recall that they plan to order 16 trains) and then likely 2 years to test and train the crews. So they'll have to place the orders for the trains by about 2023, so after that happens then they'll let the contracts to lay the track and build the electric system.

[Busy Bee]

HS2 will pretty much have a similar timeline from legal passage to completion. I dont know why so many people think CHSR is so unusual in this regard. Compared to China? Sure. But thats not how the western democratic world works. Cut them some slack... Things are just getting good.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

HS2 will pretty much have a similar timeline from legal passage to completion. I dont know why so many people think CHSR is so unusual in this regard. Compared to China? Sure. But thats not how the western democratic world works. Cut them some slack... Things are just getting good.

The part of the equation that couldn't be foreseen back in 2008, or even as recently as 2015, are the monstrous California budget surpluses that have occurred back-to-back-to-back since 2018. Prudently, the initial surpluses were used to shore up the state pension fund. Irrationally, Newsom wants to give the 2021 surpluses back to citizens in the form of no-strings-attached checks in a year when ordinary citizens have gotten one stimulus check after another.

The state now has so much cash it doesn't know what to do with it, yet maintains the dog and pony show with regards to funding major capital improvements like public transportation and CAHSR. The state quite literally has the cash coming in to pay cash in real time to complete CAHSR Phase 1 in the next 10 years. I wouldn't suggest doing so - since the feds usually match state/local dollars, but the fact is that HSR's funding crisis isn't for a lack of available dollars.

[edale]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

They're looking at 21-22 years between the passage of Prop 1A and the opening of the IOS. I assume that it'll take 4 years to manufacture the first group of trains (I seem to recall that they plan to order 16 trains) and then likely 2 years to test and train the crews. So they'll have to place the orders for the trains by about 2023, so after that happens then they'll let the contracts to lay the track and build the electric system.

This is just to go from not-quite-Bakersfield to Merced, right? 20 years to build a train through farms and Fresno. Absurd.

It's pointless to compare the US timetables for projects to those of China, but it's also totally fair to note that 20 years to build 120 miles of high speed rail that goes essentially nowhere useful is patently ridiculous and unacceptable.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

This is just to go from not-quite-Bakersfield to Merced, right? 20 years to build a train through farms and Fresno. Absurd.

Correct, plus electrification of Caltrains between SF and San Jose. Also, many UP grade crossings have been eliminated.

Another issue that hasn't been given much attention is that the IOS doesn't include the Bakersfield-Palmdale link through the Tehachapi Pass. This prevents a high-frequency one-seat diesel service between the East Bay and LA Union.

A one-seat diesel service between the East Bay (ACE) and Bakersfield is possible. An idea to build one track on the new HSR line was introduced 1-2 years ago. This would enable a service similar to Brightline in Florida. There would be no electrical system cost, reduced rail cost, and no fencing.

The problem with doing that is that the service would probably have to be cut for 1-2 years to transition over to electric HSR since there would be a lengthy testing and training period. Alternatively, the line could be built out as an electric railway, and duel-mode locomotives could provide a one-seat ride between the East Bay and Bakersfield. This service could probably be retained if the Pacheco Pass Tunnel is built but not the LA approach tunnels, since there would be plenty of track capacity.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by JManc

I'm surprised no stop closer to Mojave since that's where the space port is.

Building spaceports in the middle of nowhere is, and always has been, an incontrovertibly asinine idea. As of right now, the price of getting to and from an isolated spaceport is negligible in comparison to the price of spaceflight, but that will not always be the case. When the space economy really takes off, launches will be commonplace near major cities. No company will tolerate having to ship their materials and products to and from random locations in the desert, none of which are even directly served by rail lines. And when space mining and manufacturing companies can fly in and out of cities, the tourism industries wont tolerate random desert ports either.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

HS2 will pretty much have a similar timeline from legal passage to completion. I dont know why so many people think CHSR is so unusual in this regard. Compared to China? Sure. But thats not how the western democratic world works. Cut them some slack... Things are just getting good.

Really? HSR 2 Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2
Timeline:
2009 Labour government proposes HSR2
2010 Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition opens public consultation
2012 Secretary of State for Transport HS2 would go ahead in two phases
2017 High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Act 2017 authorising the construction of Phase 1
2017 Phase 2a High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) bill, seeking the power to construct Phase 2 as far as Crewe and make decisions on the remainder of the Phase 2b route, was introduced in 2017.
2020
The main stages of construction officially began on 4 September 2020
2021 Phase 2a received royal assent in 2021.

Planned Completion Dates:
Phase 1 target date: 2029–2033
Phase 2a target date: 2029–2033
Phase 2b target date: 2035
2035 - 2929 = 15 years
2033 - 2020 = 13 years
2029 - 2020 = 9 years
2029 - 2009 = 20 years
Legal passage date was 2017, therefore 2029 - 2017 = 12 years

Whether or not Network Rail will complete the construction on time and on budget is unknown.

Meanwhile, here is the CHSR Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
Timeline:
1996 California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was established
2008 Proposition 1A passes approving the issuance of $9 billion in bonds
2010 Federal government grants CHSR $6.25 Billion
2010 The Authority Board of Directors voted to begin construction on the first section of the system from Madera to Fresno.
2012 California legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown approved construction of the high-speed system
2015 Fresno hosted a groundbreaking ceremony to mark the commencement of sustained construction activities.
2019 Parts of the project not already under construction were postponed for a number of reasons

Planned Completion Dates
2029 (Central Valley Segment) otherwise known as the initial operation segment.
No completion date listed in the Wiki article for the entire system.

2029 - 2015 = 14 years
2029 - 1996 - 33 years

What even should be used for the legal passage date, when the CHSR Authority was formed, when Proposition 1A passed, or when the Legislature approved construction?
2029 - 1996 = 33 years (CHSR Authority established)
2029 - 2008 = 21 years (Proposition 1A passed)
2029 - 2012 = 17 years (Legislature approves construction of IOS)


Please do not suggest that HSR2 is advancing as slowly as CHSR.

[Busy Bee]

1996? Are you seriously suggesting that is the starting year? Get outta here with that. Thats bad faith and you know it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

1996? Are you seriously suggesting that is the starting year? Get outta here with that. Thats bad faith and you know it.

I included other dates as well. You can choose the one you prefer best.
Never-the-less, the CHSR Authority was established in 1996 with the purpose to study, design, build, and operate CHSR trains....
Per the Wiki article linked earlier,
"The CAHSRA was established by an act of the California State Legislature and tasked with presenting a high-speed rail plan to the voters. This plan, Proposition 1A, was approved by voters in 2008 after the presentation and was assigned a $9 billion bond to begin construction on the initial leg of the network."

Note, the CAHSRA was not tasked with presenting higher frequency intercity passenger rail plan. They were tasked with presenting a HSR plan that voters would approve. The results of all their studies were predetermined to be in favor of HSR. They have been blind political activists ever since.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Alternatively, the line could be built out as an electric railway, and duel-mode locomotives could provide a one-seat ride between the East Bay and Bakersfield. This service could probably be retained if the Pacheco Pass Tunnel is built but not the LA approach tunnels, since there would be plenty of track capacity.

I know I argued otherwise in an earlier post, but I'm not sure this works. The new mountain crossings are designed with relatively steep grades to minimize tunneling or open cuts, but the grades require the light/distributed weight and high adhesion/braking power of EMU trainsets. I don't think a loco-hauled train, even with electric power, will cut it.

There's also the issue that the lightweight trains optimized for the new HSL won't be FRA-compliant to mix with freight on the legacy tracks into the Bay Area or LA basin. However, it's possible that they could run heavyweight trains on the HSL and simply avoid the new mountain crossings. That allows Bakersfield-Oakland or Bakersfield-SJ via the existing Altamont Pass line that ACE uses.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

Note, the CAHSRA was not tasked with presenting higher frequency intercity passenger rail plan.

So you're suggesting more diesel passenger trains traveling at a max 79mph on the existing Union Pacific mainline's Class 4 tracks? On new tracks paralleling the UP? On an all-new rail corridor paralleling I-5 (possibly Class 6, enabling 125mph)? You need to be specific.

We see tons of classic concern trolling with CAHSR. It's too big. It's too small. There was too much planning. There wasn't enough. Why does it go to this small city and not that small city?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I know I argued otherwise in an earlier post, but I'm not sure this works. The new mountain crossings are designed with relatively steep grades to minimize tunneling or open cuts, but the grades require the light/distributed weight and high adhesion/braking power of EMU trainsets. I don't think a loco-hauled train, even with electric power, will cut it.

I imagine that they could safely operate locomotive-powered trains of either type at a lower speed on the climbs/descents, but that would defeat some of the time advantage of the new line as compared to the existing lines.

I'm not advocating for any of this. I think that they need to go all-in from the get-go with high speed trains. If they screw around with compromises then opponents will be able to start all sorts of rumors. They'll make up stuff like the curves are too sharp for high speed trains.

[nito]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but the longer construction time for CHSR relative to HS2 (Phase 1) is curious when you consider that HS2 involves 51km of dual-bore tunnel and significant station works in the centre of London and Birmingham.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by nito

Not to add fuel to the fire, but the longer construction time for CHSR relative to HS2 (Phase 1) is curious when you consider that HS2 involves 51km of dual-bore tunnel and significant station works in the centre of London and Birmingham.

The combined length of the two major CAHSR tunnels will total roughly 30 miles, so a similar length.

The approach tunnel to Transbay Terminal will be about 2 miles long but will a project of similar complexity to any in London.

Newsom kept his job so my thought is that he and the legislature could easily fund this project without bringing out the HSR boo-birds. Same with construction of HSR between San Jose and Gilroy - it could be used by electrified Caltrains right away.

[Busy Bee]

Not to mention COMPLETELY different geology and challenges, but hey "details shmetails".

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Not to mention COMPLETELY different geology and challenges, but hey "details shmetails".

Also, my guess is that there is no state/federal funding relationship in English railroading as exists here in the United States. There are EU grants to local transit projects in Europe but I'm not sure about intercity high speed rail.

As I have mentioned previously, California has enjoyed gigantic budget surpluses for several years but the state can't shower the high speed rail project with cash because any California governor is vulnerable to recall efforts triggered by obstructionists. Further, any state dollar goes much further with a federal match, so no state can really go at it alone without attracting a ton of criticism for not applying for federal grants and federal matching.

Meanwhile - I've seen this where I live - obstructionists sometimes apply for preposterous low-scoring federal matches as favors to donors. These projects have no chance at winning federal dollars but a politician gets to illustrate to potential future donors that he does favors. These stunts also deflect free federal money from the pet (and possibly meritorious) projects of opponents.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

California has enjoyed gigantic budget surpluses for several years but the state can't shower the high speed rail project with cash because any California governor is vulnerable to recall efforts triggered by obstructionists.

Jerry Brown was probably the strongest proponent of HSR who will ever occupy the Governor's office--he boosted it in spite of all objections and obstacles--and nobody tried to recall him. I don't think any governor needs to worry about a recall on that basis alone.

[jbermingham123]

It is curious that the English-speaking world 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 at high speed rail.

Among the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, the UK's rail 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 the least. However, when one considers that England has the same population density as the Japanese Island of Honshu, and –were it an independent state– would be the second densest country in Europe (nearly tied with the Netherlands, twice as dense as Germany and Italy, 3 times as dense as France, and 5 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 times as dense as Spain), and fifth-densest in the world, then its lack of high speed rail is glaring.

If i had to guess an explanation, i think English common law must have something to do with it

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

It is curious that the English-speaking world 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 at high speed rail.

Among the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, the UK's rail 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 the least. However, when one considers that England has the same population density as the Japanese Island of Honshu, and –were it an independent state– would be the second densest country in Europe (nearly tied with the Netherlands, twice as dense as Germany and Italy, 3 times as dense as France, and 5 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 times as dense as Spain), and fifth-densest in the world, then its lack of high speed rail is glaring.

If i had to guess an explanation, i think English common law must have something to do with it

DISTANCE has something to do with it. The US, Canada and Australia are countries where distances are measured in thousands of miles and people are just accustomed to flying. Even where high speed rail trips might take only a few hours, most people think of intercity travel in terms of flying time, not rail travel time. And the fact that rail gets you city center to city center, which seems like one of its greatest advantages (or does if you'v ever driven to LAX or SFO at rush hour), for people most of whom live in far-flung suburbs that doesn't seem much of an advantage either.

I think the best argument in California to convince the mostly unconvinced residents of the vast Central Valley is that HSR would make getting to and from a major airport so much easier for them.