# DesertXpress inks deal to add train link from Victorville to Palmdale



## CHamilton

DesertXpress inks deal to add train link from Victorville to Palmdale, making travel to L.A. possible



> A seamless high-speed rail system linking Las Vegas with downtown Los Angeles is the goal adopted today by representatives of DesertXpress and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority.
> 
> DesertXpress Enterprises already is trying to build a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Victorville, Calif. A new agreement signed today makes possible a second leg, linking Victorville to Palmdale, Calif., and eventually Los Angeles.
> 
> DesertXpress and MTA representatives signed documents that open the door to the Las Vegas-Los Angeles route. The agreement includes a strategy to plan and build a 50-mile high-speed line between Victorville and Palmdale, which would initially connect to Metrolink tracks and eventually be the connection point to California’s planned high-speed rail system.


----------



## leemell

CHamilton said:


> DesertXpress inks deal to add train link from Victorville to Palmdale, making travel to L.A. possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A seamless high-speed rail system linking Las Vegas with downtown Los Angeles is the goal adopted today by representatives of DesertXpress and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority.
> 
> DesertXpress Enterprises already is trying to build a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Victorville, Calif. A new agreement signed today makes possible a second leg, linking Victorville to Palmdale, Calif., and eventually Los Angeles.
> 
> DesertXpress and MTA representatives signed documents that open the door to the Las Vegas-Los Angeles route. The agreement includes a strategy to plan and build a 50-mile high-speed line between Victorville and Palmdale, which would initially connect to Metrolink tracks and eventually be the connection point to California's planned high-speed rail system.
Click to expand...

Well that will certainly move the FRA in the direction of approving the Desertxpress loan, due soon.


----------



## Anderson

Thank God they got something together there. Otherwise, this was going to be a wreck...not that Palmdale is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not bad. Also, Palmdale is on one of the LA Metrolink lines, so if you can rework Metrolink's schedule a bit, there might be room for a regular cross-platform transfer here. The other option available might be to simply electrify the Palmdale-LAX line.

However, a coin dropped in my mind, and I'd like to raise a question: If DX extends their line from Palmdale to LAX, is there a way that CAHSR could piggyback on that (or that the two could share costs for the necessary line through the mountains)? This comes up because while I know there's a range of mountains between Bakersfield and Palmdale, it at least looks (well, to me) like such a project might save some money through shared operations.

Edit: Looks like DX has decided, at least for now, to go with the cross-platform option.

Also, though I can't tell because of the zoom on the map on that page...is DX going to have some sort of stop at Barstow, or was there just sloppy map work?


----------



## johnny.menhennet

No stop at Barstow. Only Victorville, Vegas, and then extension to Palmdale afterward The Barstow stop you see listed is the SWC stop that overlaps at the same point. There is no way whatsoever that the Metrolink line will be electrified anytime soon. The line takes 2 hours, and 1 and 1/2 on the express run. It is actually a long distance, and the # of freights each day heading toward Tehachapi make this overwhelming. There are SO many grade crossings in the Valley so it would require significant amounts of grade separation. I don't know, but I still don't see this as that much of an improvement.

Edit for more info


----------



## Anderson

johnny.menhennet said:


> No stop at Barstow. Only Victorville, Vegas, and then extension to Palmdale afterward The Barstow stop you see listed is the SWC stop that overlaps at the same point. There is no way whatsoever that the Metrolink line will be electrified anytime soon. The line takes 2 hours, and 1 and 1/2 on the express run. It is actually a long distance, and the # of freights each day heading toward Tehachapi make this overwhelming. There are SO many grade crossings in the Valley so it would require significant amounts of grade separation. I don't know, but I still don't see this as that much of an improvement.
> 
> Edit for more info


It's a shame, really...even adding the 90 minutes of an express run at current standards and 40 minutes for the Palmdale-Victorville connection (assuming about 50 miles, this might even be a bit slow if the RoW is straight enough, but I'm also assuming a moderately long stop at Victorville, you'd still beat driving time by about an hour (90+40=130+80=210 minutes, or 3:30; driving time on Gmaps registers as 4:22, or 262 minutes)...and of course, that driving time naturally assumes that you don't get stuck in traffic in the LA area.

I asked the question because even at current operating speeds (slow though they might be), the value of the one-seat ride is hard to underestimate. Pulling the Antelope Valley timetable, I get the following:

Antelope Valley

200 (Normal): 1:46/106 minutes; 8 intermediate stops

202 (Normal): 1:51/111 minutes; 8 intermediate stops

204 (Normal): 1:57/117 minutes; 8 intermediate stops

282 (Express): 1:33/93 minutes; 3 intermediate stops

206 (Normal): 1:51/111 minutes; 8 intermediate stops

208 (Normal): 1:51/111 minutes; 8 intermediate stops

Cutting 5 stops saves 18-24 minutes. This comes to 4:30-6:00 per stop. Assuming 5 minutes per stop (a decent average), cutting the remaining three stops for a DX train would save 15 more minutes (on the low end, 13 minutes; on the high end, 18 minutes). Pulling the overall time down to 3:15 is _definitely_ a sellable proposition IMHO, and you might be able to slice another 5 minutes off on some running assumptions between Palmdale and Victorville (or, potentially, cutting one of those stops on a few trains).

Also...if you can't get Palmdale-Victorville electrified, are there any decent dual-modes that could run at 150 MPH under electric mode?


----------



## George Harris

Anderson said:


> Cutting 5 stops saves 18-24 minutes. This comes to 4:30-6:00 per stop. Assuming 5 minutes per stop (a decent average), cutting the remaining three stops for a DX train would save 15 more minutes (on the low end, 13 minutes; on the high end, 18 minutes). Pulling the overall time down to 3:15 is _definitely_ a sellable proposition IMHO, and you might be able to slice another 5 minutes off on some running assumptions between Palmdale and Victorville (or, potentially, cutting one of those stops on a few trains).
> Also...if you can't get Palmdale-Victorville electrified, are there any decent dual-modes that could run at 150 MPH under electric mode?


Depending upon power to weigth ratio, normally it takes right at 3 minutes plus dwell time for a stop down from and back up to 79 mph. Most of LA to Palmdale is not that fast, so the time consumed per stop would be less.


----------



## Anderson

George Harris said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting 5 stops saves 18-24 minutes. This comes to 4:30-6:00 per stop. Assuming 5 minutes per stop (a decent average), cutting the remaining three stops for a DX train would save 15 more minutes (on the low end, 13 minutes; on the high end, 18 minutes). Pulling the overall time down to 3:15 is _definitely_ a sellable proposition IMHO, and you might be able to slice another 5 minutes off on some running assumptions between Palmdale and Victorville (or, potentially, cutting one of those stops on a few trains).
> Also...if you can't get Palmdale-Victorville electrified, are there any decent dual-modes that could run at 150 MPH under electric mode?
> 
> 
> 
> Depending upon power to weigth ratio, normally it takes right at 3 minutes plus dwell time for a stop down from and back up to 79 mph. Most of LA to Palmdale is not that fast, so the time consumed per stop would be less.
Click to expand...

True, but I believe that the Palmdale-LAX timetables also include a good deal of dwell time because of the nature of commuter trains (particularly the expresses, which at the remaining stops are presumably going to be boarding or alighting 100+ people at a time).

Edit: And it looks like the long-term plans seek to run the line down the Antelope Valley Line and ultimately to San Diego. How that's going to be made to work at full speed is beyond me based on what has been said. Still, based on the talk, it might well be possible to run a near-straight full speed link from Victorville to Palmdale, which will count for something (maybe an average speed of 100 MPH on that leg?).

Also, does anybody have any more information on the "Southwest Network" that DX mentions on their site is supposed to grow into?


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> The other option available might be to simply electrify the Palmdale-LAX line.


From the first story posted by Charlie:



> The Metrolink lines south of Palmdale would need to be electrified with double and triple tracks. Rail experts say the existing lines are capable of accommodating trains that travel up to 50 mph, but the goal would be to have trains that could reach 150 mph.





Anderson said:


> However, a coin dropped in my mind, and I'd like to raise a question: If DX extends their line from Palmdale to LAX, is there a way that CAHSR could piggyback on that (or that the two could share costs for the necessary line through the mountains)? This comes up because while I know there's a range of mountains between Bakersfield and Palmdale, it at least looks (well, to me) like such a project might save some money through shared operations.


Again from the first story:



> The agreement includes a strategy to plan and build a 50-mile high-speed line between Victorville and Palmdale, which would initially connect to Metrolink tracks and eventually be the connection point to California’s planned high-speed rail system


----------



## Anderson

Alan,

I got to that...but I also got told "not happening" in this thread. Mind you, simply using dual modes (or even hooking a diesel to the front of the DX trainset) and running at 50 MPH Palmdale-LAX would be a stopgap option...it wouldn't be great, of course, but if the math I ran holds up reasonably well, it would still allow a 3:15-3:30 LA-Vegas run that could be slowly brought down with signal, etc. work. Even if it were only for 2-3 years while something was finished on the Antelope Valley Line, it would definitely be better than nothing...and assuming that DX actually works out and turns a profit, I would be very surprised if their projections wouldn't suggest enough of a performance improvement to start "going in" with CA on some of the improvements (even if it's just signaling to get the speed limit up to 79 MPH where curves permit).

In this vein, I'm also wondering if there are any plans to link the "Southern California Station" in Victorville to anything other than Palmdale and Vegas at some point.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson,

There is a difference between Metrolink going electric vs. allowing wires to be built over their tracks for the DX.

By the way to answer your other question, the NJT dual mode locos have a top speed of 125 MPH and I believe that max speed is only when operating in electric mode. I don't believe that in diesel mode that it can move that fast.

AFAIK, these are the only dual mode engines in the world currently that can run off of catenary.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> Anderson,
> 
> There is a difference between Metrolink going electric vs. allowing wires to be built over their tracks for the DX.
> 
> By the way to answer your other question, the NJT dual mode locos have a top speed of 125 MPH and I believe that max speed is only when operating in electric mode. I don't believe that in diesel mode that it can move that fast.
> 
> AFAIK, these are the only dual mode engines in the world currently that can run off of catenary.


True...and I think the latter is more likely than the former (which is a pity, given the apparent advantages of electrics over diesels in passenger service, but also understandable given the costs involved).

I actually didn't know that NJT ran that fast...I seem to recall that it was only MARC that actually ran up to 125 in commuter service (which made them the fastest commuter operation in the world in terms of top speed). Thanks for the bit on the dual modes, though...which would seem to leave us with either "loco swapping" (no pun intended) of some sort or a cross-platform transfer, perhaps alongside a spare Metrolink frequency.

Edit: Just another thought, but what's the present size of the LA-Vegas travel market? I know it's listed somewhere, but I'm trying to get a feel for what DX can hope to "mine"...in particular, I'm trying to compare it to BOS-NYP (where the Acela has 40-ish percent air/rail market share, though I know the limits of the comparison because of lousy public transit in SoCal and in Vegas at the present).

While we're on this...am I imagining things, or did DX initially plan to run faster than 150 MPH and back down*? Or am I just throwing numbers from that maglev project (which _was_ somewhat faster) in here by mistake?

*And if they did so, does this imply a rolling stock shift, say to Acela-style cars?


----------



## AlanB

I didn't say that NJT ran at 125 MPH, I said the new locos have a top speed of 125 MPH. I don't think that NJT has yet had its multi-level cars certified for 125 MPH operation on the NEC, although Jishnu would know for sure and may well correct me.

Can't help you with the rest of your questions, sorry.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson,
> 
> There is a difference between Metrolink going electric vs. allowing wires to be built over their tracks for the DX.
> 
> By the way to answer your other question, the NJT dual mode locos have a top speed of 125 MPH and I believe that max speed is only when operating in electric mode. I don't believe that in diesel mode that it can move that fast.
> 
> AFAIK, these are the only dual mode engines in the world currently that can run off of catenary.
> 
> 
> 
> True...and I think the latter is more likely than the former (which is a pity, given the apparent advantages of electrics over diesels in passenger service, but also understandable given the costs involved).
> 
> I actually didn't know that NJT ran that fast...I seem to recall that it was only MARC that actually ran up to 125 in commuter service (which made them the fastest commuter operation in the world in terms of top speed). Thanks for the bit on the dual modes, though...which would seem to leave us with either "loco swapping" (no pun intended) of some sort or a cross-platform transfer, perhaps alongside a spare Metrolink frequency.
> 
> Edit: Just another thought, but what's the present size of the LA-Vegas travel market? I know it's listed somewhere, but I'm trying to get a feel for what DX can hope to "mine"...in particular, I'm trying to compare it to BOS-NYP (where the Acela has 40-ish percent air/rail market share, though I know the limits of the comparison because of lousy public transit in SoCal and in Vegas at the present).
> 
> While we're on this...am I imagining things, or did DX initially plan to run faster than 150 MPH and back down*? Or am I just throwing numbers from that maglev project (which _was_ somewhat faster) in here by mistake?
> 
> *And if they did so, does this imply a rolling stock shift, say to Acela-style cars?
Click to expand...

The SoCal-Vegas market is HUGE! I would even venture to say size of or maybe larger of NYC-Boston, when you ignore intermediate points. Currently, there are two ways to get there. Drive on the 15, which is only 4 lanes to the 395, 3 to Barstow, and 2 the entire rest of the way to Vegas. The there is flying. If you look at the the number of fliers to Las Vegas from the SoCal airports, it is a large amount. These figures are from March 2011 - Feb 2012, unless otherwise noted.

From LAX: 1.147 million

From San Diego: 415,000

From OC: 221,000

From Long Beach:	172,000 (just on JetBlue alone)

From Burbank: 355,000 (June 10 - May 11)

From Ontario: 210,000 (taken Nov 10 - Oct 11)

When I was on a road trip coming back from Utah 4 or so years ago, it was crazy. July 4th was a Friday, and we were coming back the 6th, a Sunday. You would not believe the craziness on the 15 coming back. The entire way back to San Bernardino-ish, it was stop-and-go with the top speed the entire time we reached was 50/ There are a few occasional truck lanes, but only a few miles and very inadequate. Actually . the route is screaming for fast rail more than a NorCal-SoCal in many ways. The only problem is Cajon. Even if you could achieve 4 hour service from LA, that would be a great improvement and a great draw to people. The problem is sprawl. There would definitely need to be a stop in the San Fernando Valley, taking at least 5 minutes off the time, because it would have to slow down from and speed up from higher speeds. You would need one in Santa Clarita as well. There are 4 million people in the Inland Empire, whose drive is already under 4 or 5 hours on a really good day depending on where you live. The people from San Diego are not going to drive 2 hours to LA to get on a 4 hour train, when the drive is already less than 6 hours on a good day. There goes another 3 million. Most Orange County people currently all cram on to the 91 and then to the 15 to get up, and the trafficky drive to LA would be a turn-off. There goes at least 2 million. The eastern end of LA County is also not going to drive into LA. Take off 1.5-2 million more. All together, you get almost 11 million of SoCal's 17 who the train would not be worth it to. It would mostly only work for people in Los Angeles County anywhere west of the 57, and maybe some northern Orange Countyers west of the 5. With a Santa Clarita and a Valley stop, you may be able to appeal to many Ventura County residents.

Anyways, the SoCal-Vegas market is HUGE, and still growing. It may not be that way for long, seeing as Lake Mead only needs to go down another 30 feet until Vegas' drinking straws and sole source of water rise above the water line. Vegas is setting itself up to be the biggest ghost town the world has seen, but in the now, it is a huge destination, with millions going out there every year from SoCal. Of Vegas' 40 million tourists, I would place between 7 and 12 million from SoCal.

I think you are correct that they in the earlier planning stages, they did initially plan for a higher speed, probably the 220 like the CHSR system.

I also believe you're correct on the MARC speed, which can reach 125. Too bad Metro-North weren't easier to deal with and would run some trains at this speed, or even allow Amtrak to break 100 here.


----------



## leemell

johnny.menhennet said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson,
> 
> I think you are correct that they in the earlier planning stages, they did initially plan for a higher speed, probably the 220 like the CHSR system.
> 
> I also believe you're correct on the MARC speed, which can reach 125. Too bad Metro-North weren't easier to deal with and would run some trains at this speed, or even allow Amtrak to break 100 here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

DX did indeed plan for 220 MTUs, but cut it back when they started seriously going for EIRs and FRA approval.Their first plans called for 150, then when CAHSR got serious they moved it up to 220. Later they went back to 150.


----------



## Anderson

Well, at least if there's one advantage about Cajon (at least, I _think_ it's Cajon) at the moment traffic-wise, it is the presence of an 8-lane freeway through the pass (which was surreal to drive through one day...you have no idea how strange it is to see "National Forest" signs on the one hand and be in a massive freeway on the other). In an ideal world, there would be some serious talk about extending the I-15 RoW work through there, but I see probable speed limitations because of the curves.

Palmdale makes sense for SoCal, but if CAHSR comes together it also makes sense for the Bay Area...again, you wouldn't get to the massive 90% market takeover that the Acela has WAS-NYP, but with a good link, DX could probably take 1/3 or so.

By the way, I'm just wondering...seeing as DX is a single line, does anyone want to take a ballpark swing at the ridership DX would need to simply cover operating expenses? This comes up because...well, I may be overly skeptical, but $89/RT (or basically $45/seat) is what they're boasting for probable prices. That is...somewhere around 1/3 what the Acela generates, and I know that those operating expenses will face a decent amount of debt service ($40 million in interest per billion lent, assuming a 4% interest rate).

As to the train situation from the southern ends of the region, I'm wondering about yet another possibility: If DX can get their line into LAX, how effective would the Surfliners be as a feeder line? I don't see a long Metrolink ride as a workable substitute here, but (assuming that they are a bit more comfortable, plus the presence of OBS) to what extent would the Surfliners serve as a good traffic driver and/or benefit from such a link?

Edit: Ok, assuming an $8bn loan at 4%, and assuming an average ticket cost of $45/seat, DX would need to sell 7.1 million tickets per year (or host close to 3.6 million round trips per year) to cover the $320m in loan interest. Put another way, they'd need to be running 10,000 round trips/20,000 one-ways per day just to cover the interest. I can't speak to operating expenses, but that right there requires filling about 50 400-seat trains per day (25 in each direction) at the purported ticket prices just to cover interest.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> ...you have no idea how strange it is to see "National Forest" signs on the one hand and be in a massive freeway on the other).


Sure I do!

Every time I drive up I-87 to the Lake Placid area or to Montreal I see such a sign while driving on an Interstate Highway. And for most of my life there were at least 2 trips a year to the Lake Placid area.


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> Well, at least if there's one advantage about Cajon (at least, I _think_ it's Cajon) at the moment traffic-wise, it is the presence of an 8-lane freeway through the pass (which was surreal to drive through one day...you have no idea how strange it is to see "National Forest" signs on the one hand and be in a massive freeway on the other). In an ideal world, there would be some serious talk about extending the I-15 RoW work through there, but I see probable speed limitations because of the curves.


I've been lead to believe that with the number of tracks and lanes of freeway already in the Cajon Pass there is scarcely any room for another ROW, plus the curves and gradient are almost forbidding.


----------



## CHamilton

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...you have no idea how strange it is to see "National Forest" signs on the one hand and be in a massive freeway on the other).
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do!
> 
> Every time I drive up I-87 to the Lake Placid area or to Montreal I see such a sign while driving on an Interstate Highway. And for most of my life there were at least 2 trips a year to the Lake Placid area.
Click to expand...

In case anyone wasn't clear about how scenic I-87 was, this sign made sure we knew.







I saw this a lot in my days of living in VT. Is the sign still there?


----------



## AlanB

CHamilton said:


> I saw this a lot in my days of living in VT. Is the sign still there?


Last I knew, yes. But it has been about a year now since I last went up that highway.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> Well, at least if there's one advantage about Cajon (at least, I _think_ it's Cajon) at the moment traffic-wise, it is the presence of an 8-lane freeway through the pass (which was surreal to drive through one day...you have no idea how strange it is to see "National Forest" signs on the one hand and be in a massive freeway on the other). In an ideal world, there would be some serious talk about extending the I-15 RoW work through there, but I see probable speed limitations because of the curves.
> 
> Palmdale makes sense for SoCal, but if CAHSR comes together it also makes sense for the Bay Area...again, you wouldn't get to the massive 90% market takeover that the Acela has WAS-NYP, but with a good link, DX could probably take 1/3 or so.
> 
> By the way, I'm just wondering...seeing as DX is a single line, does anyone want to take a ballpark swing at the ridership DX would need to simply cover operating expenses? This comes up because...well, I may be overly skeptical, but $89/RT (or basically $45/seat) is what they're boasting for probable prices. That is...somewhere around 1/3 what the Acela generates, and I know that those operating expenses will face a decent amount of debt service ($40 million in interest per billion lent, assuming a 4% interest rate).
> 
> As to the train situation from the southern ends of the region, I'm wondering about yet another possibility: If DX can get their line into LAX, how effective would the Surfliners be as a feeder line? I don't see a long Metrolink ride as a workable substitute here, but (assuming that they are a bit more comfortable, plus the presence of OBS) to what extent would the Surfliners serve as a good traffic driver and/or benefit from such a link?
> 
> Edit: Ok, assuming an $8bn loan at 4%, and assuming an average ticket cost of $45/seat, DX would need to sell 7.1 million tickets per year (or host close to 3.6 million round trips per year) to cover the $320m in loan interest. Put another way, they'd need to be running 10,000 round trips/20,000 one-ways per day just to cover the interest. I can't speak to operating expenses, but that right there requires filling about 50 400-seat trains per day (25 in each direction) at the purported ticket prices just to cover interest.


With a quick speed, a stop in Victorville, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, the San Fernando Valley, and Downtown LA, I could realistically see about 2 -2.5 million a year, assuming many frequencies as well. Not so sure about the Surfliners, but marketed correctly and continued reliability and incremental speed improvements, it could work for some. I would not give it a bonus of more than 1/4 million in added ridership to the DXpress. When you look at a map, the route actually would be somewhat backtracking to get to LA from Fullerton.

Also, you get used to driving through nature reserves and open spaces on huge freeways. Just south of me, an intersection called The Merge has 23 lanes at the widest point, while right alongside a lagoon. There are multiple lagoons crossed by 12, 10, and 8 lane freeways (just the 5, really). All of our freeways out of SoCal go through forests in mountain passes. Tejon, Cajon, Soledad, and more. 

With the DXpress going through Cajon, it would not be the curves that would hurt it. Compared to freeways and passes over the rest of SoCal, the turns are wide and sweeping, never very sharp. What would be the problems are the grades on the freeway RoW, reaching 6%. Electric trains could handle 3%, but I don't think 6 would be ok.


----------



## George Harris

johnny.menhennet said:


> With the DXpress going through Cajon, it would not be the curves that would hurt it. Compared to freeways and passes over the rest of SoCal, the turns are wide and sweeping, never very sharp. What would be the problems are the grades on the freeway RoW, reaching 6%. Electric trains could handle 3%, but I don't think 6 would be ok.


It is an issue of power to weight ratio, proportion of powered axle, adhesion, and gearing. Light rail vehicles run on 6% grades in numerous places. Portions of the Southwest Chief route around Raton are at 3.5% or thereabouts. Saluda, at about 4.7%, was short ard required a couple of pages of rules, but steam hauled, and later diesel hauled freight and passenger trains both ran on it.

Yes, if you know you will have 6% grades, you can make the trains that can handle it.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

George Harris said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the DXpress going through Cajon, it would not be the curves that would hurt it. Compared to freeways and passes over the rest of SoCal, the turns are wide and sweeping, never very sharp. What would be the problems are the grades on the freeway RoW, reaching 6%. Electric trains could handle 3%, but I don't think 6 would be ok.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an issue of power to weight ratio, proportion of powered axle, adhesion, and gearing. Light rail vehicles run on 6% grades in numerous places. Portions of the Southwest Chief route around Raton are at 3.5% or thereabouts. *Saluda*, at about 4.7%, was short ard required a couple of pages of rules, but steam hauled, and later diesel hauled freight and passenger trains both ran on it.
> 
> Yes, if you know you will have 6% grades, you can make the trains that can handle it.
Click to expand...

Salida, as in Tennessee Pass?

yes I know that there are trains that CAN go at steep grades, but probably not at a speed faster than that of the freeway traffic next to it. At that point, you might as well just use the railroad RoW with between a 2.2 and a 3%, depending on where you are.


----------



## Anderson

Thinking about this, the only real problem with using the existing RoW is that DX would need "thou shalt not delay" slot privileges in a lot of slots (I'm thinking at /least/ one per hour).

I know what you're saying about those curves...in spite of traffic going a speed well in excess of the posted limit, it was a really smooth ride...it was just surreal being in that sort of traffic flow in the middle of a forest, like the Almighty had decided to play a prank on some freeway engineers or something. Of course, I also found myself wondering why there were no tolls out there given the sheer mass of traffic running through there (and the amount of obvious work going on).

With that said, a section of 50/60/70 MPH running isn't the end of the world.

On the other hand, if DX (or CAHSR) could run a high-speed express of some sort within the valley (say, a San Bernadino-Ontario-Los Angeles express at one end of a longer-distance line), the short-haul business there plus the added longer-distance traffic might make it worthwhile (I'm just _trying _to imagine what offering a guaranteed 40/45-minute ride into downtown would do). Then again, depending on the speeds and whatnot, if DX allows ticketing Palmdale-LAX and the travel time somehow drops to under an hour on the train (I'm not sure if you could find a way to squeeze another 15-20 minutes out of the trip with signaling upgrades and whatnot south of Santa Clarita), I could see some early southbound trains coming into Palmdale half-empty and leaving packed.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> Thinking about this, the only real problem with using the existing RoW is that DX would need "thou shalt not delay" slot privileges in a lot of slots (I'm thinking at /least/ one per hour).
> 
> I know what you're saying about those curves...in spite of traffic going a speed well in excess of the posted limit, it was a really smooth ride...it was just surreal being in that sort of traffic flow in the middle of a forest, like the Almighty had decided to play a prank on some freeway engineers or something. Of course, I also found myself wondering why there were no tolls out there given the sheer mass of traffic running through there (and the amount of obvious work going on).
> 
> With that said, a section of 50/60/70 MPH running isn't the end of the world.
> 
> On the other hand, if DX (or CAHSR) could run a high-speed express of some sort within the valley (say, a San Bernadino-Ontario-Los Angeles express at one end of a longer-distance line), the short-haul business there plus the added longer-distance traffic might make it worthwhile (I'm just _trying _to imagine what offering a guaranteed 40/45-minute ride into downtown would do). Then again, depending on the speeds and whatnot, if DX allows ticketing Palmdale-LAX and the travel time somehow drops to under an hour on the train (I'm not sure if you could find a way to squeeze another 15-20 minutes out of the trip with signaling upgrades and whatnot south of Santa Clarita), I could see some early southbound trains coming into Palmdale half-empty and leaving packed.


In order:

Agreed that some # of guaranteed slots per day with a no delay clause would be needed. However, unless Cajon can get to 5 tracks, more than the current 4, this is unlikely. In a few years though, i could see there being a huge amount of freed slots on Cajon, and on the Transcon in general. Once the Panama Canal expansion is complete in 2014, the East Coast will benefit HUGE. A s**t-ton of container traffic will be diverted away from LA/Long Beach and there should be spots available. Even currently on Metrolink, the expresses will get you San Bernardino-LA in 1 hour exact, so with some 90 or 110 mph trackage and even more limited stops, you could get a 45 minute time to Union Station. Even with the 55 minute (no padding) time it takes from Victorville to San Bernardino, adding 45 minutes would only give you 1 hour 40 minutes more from Victorville, easily making this appealing, and not requiring any major work in Cajon.

SoCal really doesn't have tolls. There is one freeway a private company built a few years ago in San Diego and charges a toll for, and there are 4 by a different private company in OC. The San Diego one has traffic far below predicted estimates, because here where we are SOOO dependent on cars, we are willing to spend just 3 minutes more on the road than spend $3. The closest we have to public toll roads are on the 91 in OC/Riverside and the 15 here in San Diego. These are our HOT lanes that allow buses and carpoolers to ride for free but any single drivers to use them for a fee during rush hour. It is not uncommon to have complete traffic jams in the middle of nowhere here too. In the middle of the Central valley, on the time around Thanksgiving and Christmas. As I mentioned the 15 is jammed in the desert with no town for 50 miles on any major holiday weekend. You get the same feeling as Cajon when you go over Tejon into the Central Valley, but it is amplified for me, because at least going through Cajon, there are far-flung suburbs that await you, but in Tejon, it's just farms afterward. Despite the amount of work that may have been going on when you were there, I guarantee that there is not much more, as the budget has been slashed across the board. While Jerry Brown continues to promote high-speed rail, there are cuts coming to transit agencies all over, and road transit is faring worse. If we initiated any kind of tolls on our pothole-ridden roads, there would be revolts of epic proportions. It would not make people switch to trains, it would just make everyone angry and would clog the surface streets. It is a bad idea. You East Coast people are well-off with large metropolitan areas and comparatively less traffic. On the East Coast, I was amazed at how few cars there were on the parallel 95 in Connecticut and no traffic whatsoever going through the Holland Tunnel. You guys had tolls before cars even really mattered, so you're used to it.

Agreed that some 50/60/70 mph running isn't the end of the world, on current Cajon speeds, that is impossible.

You're definitely right that a higher-speed commuter operation to Palmdale would be a hit. The market is big, as the 14 is only 3 lanes and super crowded. I think the price would be prohibitive though, as they would not want to offer a fare of under $15 each way, which is what the commuters would desire.


----------



## AlanB

johnny.menhennet said:


> You East Coast people are well-off with large metropolitan areas and comparatively less traffic. On the East Coast, I was amazed at how few cars there were on the parallel 95 in Connecticut and no traffic whatsoever going through the Holland Tunnel. You guys had tolls before cars even really mattered, so you're used to it.


You were just there at the wrong times/days. Those places can get very, very busy.


----------



## Anderson

What _are_ the current Cajon running speed limits? I've never actually been told what the limits are.

As to the fares on that route, I could see lower fares happening if you had a lot of seats opening up at Victorville. However, Metrolink charges over $12 for Palmdale-LAUS, so I would expect that DX (or a truly fast commuter operation) could probably force that up quite a bit with faster times (i.e. fast enough that driving will often not be competitive even if the flow is good).


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> What _are_ the current Cajon running speed limits? I've never actually been told what the limits are.
> 
> As to the fares on that route, I could see lower fares happening if you had a lot of seats opening up at Victorville. However, Metrolink charges over $12 for Palmdale-LAUS, so I would expect that DX (or a truly fast commuter operation) could probably force that up quite a bit with faster times (i.e. fast enough that driving will often not be competitive even if the flow is good).


Yeah, I suppose that you could still get tons of ridership LA-Palmdale at $20, but probably not a lot of regular commuters. $40 per day is steep. The Cajon limits vary per track and grade. I know that generally, the 3% grade track is used for the downhill trains, and I've heard that the freights run about 20 but the Chief gets up to 30. The other two BNSF tracks are right around 20-25, both going up - generally. I neither know nor really care about the UP Palmdale Cutoff track, since its really not important.


----------



## Anderson

johnny.menhennet said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What _are_ the current Cajon running speed limits? I've never actually been told what the limits are.
> 
> As to the fares on that route, I could see lower fares happening if you had a lot of seats opening up at Victorville. However, Metrolink charges over $12 for Palmdale-LAUS, so I would expect that DX (or a truly fast commuter operation) could probably force that up quite a bit with faster times (i.e. fast enough that driving will often not be competitive even if the flow is good).
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I suppose that you could still get tons of ridership LA-Palmdale at $20, but probably not a lot of regular commuters. $40 per day is steep. The Cajon limits vary per track and grade. I know that generally, the 3% grade track is used for the downhill trains, and I've heard that the freights run about 20 but the Chief gets up to 30. The other two BNSF tracks are right around 20-25, both going up - generally. I neither know nor really care about the UP Palmdale Cutoff track, since its really not important.
Click to expand...

I think you could get more than you think for commuters. Yes, there is a limit,, but look at what the MTA can pull for the longer-range commuters in New York and Connecticut. Mind you, some of this is gas price-dependent, but I'm inclined to think that shaving 30+ minutes off of a daily commute could command a decent premium, especially for your wealthier residents. If anything, I think that's likely to be the biggest hurdle: A commuter system that _does_ aim to serve the upper end of the market isn't exactly going to be a big issue for your local populist politicians.


----------



## George Harris

johnny.menhennet said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Saluda*, at about 4.7%, was short ard required a couple of pages of rules, but steam hauled, and later diesel hauled freight and passenger trains both ran on it.
> 
> Yes, if you know you will have 6% grades, you can make the trains that can handle it.
> 
> 
> 
> Salida, as in Tennessee Pass?
> 
> yes I know that there are trains that CAN go at steep grades, but probably not at a speed faster than that of the freeway traffic next to it. At that point, you might as well just use the railroad RoW with between a 2.2 and a 3%, depending on where you are.
Click to expand...

Nope. *"Saluda"*, as in climbing the Blue Ridge in western North Carolina between Asheville NC and Spartanburg SC on the Norfolk Southern, formerly Southern Railway, The portion with the grade is now out of service, but not abandoned, and it appears that NS has no plan to abandon it.

Speed on steep grades: We get around to a power to weight ratio as previously said. True, even the high speed sets do not have sufficient power to maintain 180 mph plus on a 3% grade, but they will definitely be far above normal highway speed.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What _are_ the current Cajon running speed limits? I've never actually been told what the limits are.
> 
> As to the fares on that route, I could see lower fares happening if you had a lot of seats opening up at Victorville. However, Metrolink charges over $12 for Palmdale-LAUS, so I would expect that DX (or a truly fast commuter operation) could probably force that up quite a bit with faster times (i.e. fast enough that driving will often not be competitive even if the flow is good).
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I suppose that you could still get tons of ridership LA-Palmdale at $20, but probably not a lot of regular commuters. $40 per day is steep. The Cajon limits vary per track and grade. I know that generally, the 3% grade track is used for the downhill trains, and I've heard that the freights run about 20 but the Chief gets up to 30. The other two BNSF tracks are right around 20-25, both going up - generally. I neither know nor really care about the UP Palmdale Cutoff track, since its really not important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you could get more than you think for commuters. Yes, there is a limit,, but look at what the MTA can pull for the longer-range commuters in New York and Connecticut. Mind you, some of this is gas price-dependent, but I'm inclined to think that shaving 30+ minutes off of a daily commute could command a decent premium, *especially for your wealthier residents*. If anything, I think that's likely to be the biggest hurdle: A commuter system that _does_ aim to serve the upper end of the market isn't exactly going to be a big issue for your local populist politicians.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha nobody who has money lives in Palmdale!!!









Sorry to anyone who this may offend, but Palmdale is gross.

But in all seriousness Anderson you are right. A national study showed that residents of the city of Palmdale have the longest average commute to work each day: 80 miles each way. This is incredible, and there definitely is a market.

George: They could maybe go pretty fast, but here in SoCal we go pretty fast. In the rural areas its completely common for the flow of traffic to be at 85, and often quicker. That's one of my biggest peeves about going to NorCal to visit my grandparents up there. Not only do the people there drive the speed limit, they drive UNDER it!


----------



## Anderson

Johnny,

You've got me wondering just what sort of premium fast commuter services could draw over "regular" services. I don't mean cases where you knock ten minutes off of a run by eliminating some stops in the middle...I'm thinking of that combined with faster running and the like to actually get commute times competitive with driving.

To pull a couple of examples:

-Fredericksburg-WAUS VRE times run between 1:24 (train 300, the super-early express) and 1:37 (train 302). Amtrak runs between 1:31 (train 94) and 1:15 (train 86). Driving time on Google Maps is 1:09 station-to-station. Net slowdown is between 15 minutes on the low end and 28 minutes on the high end.

-Riverside-LAUS Metrolink times run 1:23. Driving time is :59. Net slowdown is 24 minutes.

-WAUS-Baltimore Camden. Driving time: 56 minutes, either BWI Parkway or I-95. MARC times run from 1:04 (843, a morning express) to 1:19 (847). I'd argue that at the low end, the times are competitive...but the 1:13-1:19 trains are really stretching that competitiveness.

Of course, a sad irony underlies all of this: If you suddenly dropped all of those times sharply, there is _every_ chance that the commuter lines involved would basically "crash" because of demand. Try to hand the VRE another 10,000 passengers and they're going to need the cars to put them on (probably solvable in such a situation, though right now they're bumping up against capacity problems) and where to put the extra 5-10k parking spaces (_not_ easily solved; right now, 7 of 13 stations have parking utilization of over 90%, and two of those are using overflow spaces). The only way to manage such a surge would be to hike prices to "run off" riders until capacity could be brought up.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> Try to hand the VRE another 10,000 passengers and they're going to need the cars to put them on (probably solvable in such a situation, though right now they're bumping up against capacity problems) and where to put the extra 5-10k parking spaces (_not_ easily solved; right now, 7 of 13 stations have parking utilization of over 90%, and two of those are using overflow spaces). The only way to manage such a surge would be to hike prices to "run off" riders until capacity could be brought up.


Actually VRE's biggest capacity issues are neither parking or getting extra rail cars. Their biggest issues are getting more tracks in the yards at DC to park the trains on during the midday and/or getting CSX to agree to allow for reverse peak service so that instead of storing cars during the day in DC, they can make additional runs or be stored in other yards outside of DC.


----------



## afigg

AlanB said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You East Coast people are well-off with large metropolitan areas and comparatively less traffic. On the East Coast, I was amazed at how few cars there were on the parallel 95 in Connecticut and no traffic whatsoever going through the Holland Tunnel. You guys had tolls before cars even really mattered, so you're used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> You were just there at the wrong times/days. Those places can get very, very busy.
Click to expand...

Yea. I-95 in CT not busy? No traffic in Holland tunnel? Someone needs more data points or samples on east coast driving and congestion. :lol:


----------



## afigg

leemell said:


> DX did indeed plan for 220 MTUs, but cut it back when they started seriously going for EIRs and FRA approval.Their first plans called for 150, then when CAHSR got serious they moved it up to 220. Later they went back to 150.


My expectation is that once Amtrak gets approval to run the Acelas at 160 mph, XpressWest (their new name) will move to increase their stated max speed to 160 mph. Above that, such as speeds up to 186 mph (300 kph), may increase track construction & design and power consumption costs to more than they want to pay. With no stops between Vegas and Victorville and a new ROW built from scratch, the average speed should be close to the max speed. With so few station stops, less of a need for a 186 or faster max speed to make up for the stops.


----------



## afigg

DesertXpress has changed their name to XpressWest. Looks like they are leaving their options open to extending their system beyond a Victorville/Palmdale to Las Vegas line. Their map now has arrow lines extending from Vegas towards Salt Lake City and Phoenix.

Edit: added comment - the timing of the announcement of the agreement with Metrolink along with the name change leads me to figure that there have been behind the scenes discussions between DX, now XW?, and the FRA & LaHood. With the Metrolink and CA agreement in place, the FRA may be announcing the grant of the RRIF loan in the near future. To minimize the short term howls of protest and caterwauling from the Republicans, the announcement could be made on a Thursday afternoon or a Friday when the House is not in session. Prior to a holiday week would not be unusual for more controversial annoucements.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> DesertXpress has changed their name to XpressWest. Looks like they are leaving their options open to extending their system beyond a Victorville/Palmdale to Las Vegas line. Their map now has arrow lines extending from Vegas towards Salt Lake City and Phoenix.


Brand new name as of today. Wow.

A line going from Las Vegas to Phoenix is going to have a hell of a crossing of the Colorado. And now they're shooting for _Denver_ as well...

http://desertxpress.com/network.php

Something looks crazy to me here. LA-Vegas is a viable rail market, and I actually think Phoenix/Tuscon-LA (even via Vegas) might be viable. But Denver-Salt Lake-Vegas-Los Angeles? Neither Denver nor Salt Lake have the pre-existing rail markets, and I _really_ don't see Denver-Salt Lake as being a massive enough travel market to support a 5-6 hour HSR line. A line on the Front Range? Sure, I could see that (see my earlier post about higher-speed commuter systems), but not this (at least, not in the next decade).

My only guess, given the length of the run and whatnot, is that they're looking at something like an overnight HSR service out of Denver as part of this. The other jam I see is the sheer cost here...if they use all new RoW, I could see this easily making a run on $100 billion. Yeah, somebody is getting _way_ ahead of themselves.

Alan: True...I've been wondering why they haven't been adding cars to some of their trains, given that several of the trains are beyond capacity as-is. Storage space has been an issue (I know they're trying to get another ten cars' worth of space near Union Station). And completely beyond me is why the 306/307 consist and 304/309 consist haven't either been exchanged or swapped a car (since the former has spare capacity while the latter is well over capacity). The same goes with swapping 310/311 and 308/305...but in general, the Fredericksburg Line just seems swamped. The worst part of all of this is that it _looks_ like that with some extra rolling stock (even without more frequencies), the line could get to 70% of operating expenses.


----------



## leemell

afigg said:


> DesertXpress has changed their name to XpressWest. Looks like they are leaving their options open to extending their system beyond a Victorville/Palmdale to Las Vegas line. Their map now has arrow lines extending from Vegas towards Salt Lake City and Phoenix.
> 
> Edit: added comment - the timing of the announcement of the agreement with Metrolink along with the name change leads me to figure that there have been behind the scenes discussions between DX, now XW?, and the FRA & LaHood. With the Metrolink and CA agreement in place, the FRA may be announcing the grant of the RRIF loan in the near future. To minimize the short term howls of protest and caterwauling from the Republicans, the announcement could be made on a Thursday afternoon or a Friday when the House is not in session. Prior to a holiday week would not be unusual for more controversial annoucements.


That fits my expectations of DC, I've watched federal financial politics for more more than 30 years and I agree with this. It may not happen, but, the pattern fits exactly.

Edit: The other likely alternative is that the decision will be withheld until after the November elections.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

leemell said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> DesertXpress has changed their name to XpressWest. Looks like they are leaving their options open to extending their system beyond a Victorville/Palmdale to Las Vegas line. Their map now has arrow lines extending from Vegas towards Salt Lake City and Phoenix.
> 
> Edit: added comment - the timing of the announcement of the agreement with Metrolink along with the name change leads me to figure that there have been behind the scenes discussions between DX, now XW?, and the FRA & LaHood. With the Metrolink and CA agreement in place, the FRA may be announcing the grant of the RRIF loan in the near future. To minimize the short term howls of protest and caterwauling from the Republicans, the announcement could be made on a Thursday afternoon or a Friday when the House is not in session. Prior to a holiday week would not be unusual for more controversial annoucements.
> 
> 
> 
> That fits my expectations of DC, I've watched federal financial politics for more more than 30 years and I agree with this. It may not happen, but, the pattern fits exactly.
Click to expand...

Yep. With this and the FEC, the times they are achangin'.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Brand new name as of today. Wow.
> 
> A line going from Las Vegas to Phoenix is going to have a hell of a crossing of the Colorado. And now they're shooting for _Denver_ as well...
> 
> http://desertxpress.com/network.php
> 
> Something looks crazy to me here. LA-Vegas is a viable rail market, and I actually think Phoenix/Tuscon-LA (even via Vegas) might be viable. But Denver-Salt Lake-Vegas-Los Angeles? Neither Denver nor Salt Lake have the pre-existing rail markets, and I _really_ don't see Denver-Salt Lake as being a massive enough travel market to support a 5-6 hour HSR line. A line on the Front Range? Sure, I could see that (see my earlier post about higher-speed commuter systems), but not this (at least, not in the next decade).
> 
> My only guess, given the length of the run and whatnot, is that they're looking at something like an overnight HSR service out of Denver as part of this. The other jam I see is the sheer cost here...if they use all new RoW, I could see this easily making a run on $100 billion. Yeah, somebody is getting _way_ ahead of themselves.


Las Vegas to Phoenix could be under 300 miles. From Vegas, to Henderson NV, Boulder City?, then Kingman, then state route 93 to Phoenix. Then along I-10 to Tucson. Big enough population with fair amount of traffic to Vegas, so it could be viable. Could create a triangle with a LA-Riverside to Phoenix HSR line which would have a shared HSR station and line through Phoenix to Tucson.

Las Vegas to Salt Lake City and Denver is a serious stretch. I get ~430 miles along I-15 from Vegas to SLC. How many people in SLC travel to Vegas for conventions and the casinos? I'm sure there are some Mormons who secretly go to Vegas to gamble and party, but enough to justify a 430 mile HSR line? Doubtful.

Denver is building an extensive commuter and transit rail system which will make it a viable major anchor city for expanded intercity passenger rail routes. And Colorado has been studying building a HSR system along the Front Range and up into the mountains to as far as Grand Junction CO because of the traffic load on I-70. If Colorado were to build a HSR line from Denver to Grand Junction, then a HSR line to SLC or along I-70 to I-15 to Vegas could be a possibility. But I get ~760 driving miles from Vegas to Denver along I-15 and I-70. Over that terrain? Major, major bucks. A HSR line could happen along that route, but not until after we have 1000s of miles of electrified HSR corridors elsewhere.

I think XpressWest is putting lines to SLC and Denver on the map to score political points with Utah and Colorado politicians and the public. Not a viable prospect in the next several decades.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Personally, I hate the name XpressWest. The line will never reach further than the SoCal-Vegas market. Notice how the above link shows the map with the lines being highlighted in different colors. Did anybody else notice that the section was highlighted first LA-San Diego, then LA-Palmdale, then Victorville-Vegas, with Victorville-Palmdale coming last? I found it weird that the Palmdale connection was coming to fruition far after the other segments.

Anyway, Anderson is right that there is a huge demand for SoCal-Phoenix/Tucson travel. The market is very large, and while not as important as a line to Vegas, the area population is 2.5 x more than Vegas' once Tucson is included. I've actually always wondered why the Arizona government has not pursued the active development of a corridor system between those cities. The demand is also large, as evidenced by the hourly air shuttles linking them and the growing traffic. I know that the state government is anti-rail, but I'm surprised that even in a red state such as itself, the citizens have not demanded more. It was a miracle to even get the light rail line in PHX. I think that the line through Vegas to Phoenix would suffice, because you would probably still get a time similar to that of a driving time, but maybe more. From Solana Beach, the quickest time Google Maps will give you is 6 hours 5 minutes, although we know that we can do it with two stops in 5:20. From LA to Phoenix, they give 6:03. The distance from Vegas to Phoenix is actually pretty significant, so I'm not sure what time it would take via Phoenix. In a ll honesty, it would be much smarter to have a triangle with the two legs out of LA first than have the connection from Vegas to Phoenix, the demand isn't as large yet. The driving time Vegas-Phoenix is listed as 5:27. As much as I want to believe it possible, I don't think an 11 hour driving time if going in that triangle could match the 5 1/2 made by the direct driving. To say it more clearly, I don't think a train that goes along a route that takes 11 hours to drive will go as fast as the direct 5 1/2 hour route.

There is no demand at all for any high-speed service to Utah, coming from ANY direction. Denver does have a demand, but it is to the south, towards the cities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and probably more so to Albuquerque than Salt Lake. As was said, this is probably for political reasons. I just was lookign around a few days ago due to the activity of this topic and I saw something called the Western High Speed Rail Alliance and the plans looked very similar. Not much change at all.


----------



## Anderson

The problem I see is that Vegas-SLC-Denver is a set of rather modest travel markets that are very spread out. They all plug into LA nicely, but the times involved there are /really/ long. Assuming an average operating speed of 120 MPH (something that I doubt is technically feasible over parts of the terrain in question), I think Denver-LAX is still an overnight trip or a very long day trip.

Taking a guess, though, in my mind I actually saw such a train following the old "City of Los Angeles" routing, more or less (that is, running up into Wyoming and then down into the Salt Lake area that way). I would prefer, in many ways, the other proposed routing (i.e. I-15/I-70 instead of I-15/I-80/I-25), but the mountains are an issue there. If CO were on board and there were enough traffic on the Denver-Grand Junction section, the plan might end up being "build that segment and we'll link this thing later". Frankly, this makes sense...especially since while "flyover country" west of Denver is one of those places where I can see arguments against big passenger rail investments, an endpoint at Denver opens up all sorts of possibilities, both along the Front Range and further east. I won't lie...when they listed Denver, one of my first thoughts was "Are these guys going to /seriously/ shoot for Chicago?"

I'm still wondering what is going on here (i.e. the possibility of a couple of unconnected HSR lines going in, with connections on the map to try and sell things that _might_ be added in at a later date seems plausible enough)...but I know there's support in CO for HSR, and I specifically recall one of the questions that came up during the HSR hearings a while back was one of CO's senators complaining about there being no HSR corridor in CO.

=================================

As to AZ, one of the big things that is really throwing a spanner in the works to any anti-rail sentiments is that, to a decent extent, the project is federal/private sector. Not that the state DoTs are out of the loop entirely, but it reduces their room to obstruct, and a profitable LA-LV train wanting to expand operations into AZ is going to induce all sorts of rhetorical tangles. If the state isn't having to pony up cash, that removes one big objection.

Looking at the LV-Phoenix routing, Vegas-Henderson-Boulder City slams into the Colorado River problem. If the cost was somehow packed into the same range as the Hoover Dam Bypass project cost, that wouldn't be too bad (and let's face it...I don't think there's anyone on here who /wouldn't/ want to see a rail bridge next to that), and US-93 is just about as close to a dream for a rail line (it is low, flat, and straight from Kingman north until you hit the mountains along the Colorado River).

With that said, I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense (simplified maps aside) to run the line down by US-95 and then cross at Needles or Bullhead City. Going any further south than that for the crossing, you should probably just split things at Barstow and get as close to I-10 as you can and use that RoW.

Just a final thought for this post: There is something of a grand irony about the interstate rights-of-way, which played a major role in passenger rail falling apart in the late 50s and 60s, now being turned to host HSR lines.


----------



## GG-1

Anderson said:


> The SoCal-Vegas market is HUGE! I would even venture to say size of or maybe larger of NYC-Boston, when you ignore intermediate points. Currently, there are two ways to get there. Drive on the 15, which is only 4 lanes to the 395, 3 to Barstow, and 2 the entire rest of the way to Vegas. The there is flying. If you look at the the number of fliers to Las Vegas from the SoCal airports, it is a large amount. These figures are from March 2011 - Feb 2012, unless otherwise noted.
> 
> From LAX: 1.147 million
> 
> From San Diego: 415,000
> 
> From OC: 221,000
> 
> From Long Beach:	172,000 (just on JetBlue alone)
> 
> From Burbank: 355,000 (June 10 - May 11)
> 
> From Ontario: 210,000 (taken Nov 10 - Oct 11)


Aloha

Yesturday the morning news were reporting that 110K people would be on I-15 returning to the LA aera following the EDC Concert at the LV Motor Speedway.. the were estimating the drive time to be 10 hours. Coming back from my daughters house after Christmas was 9 hours 15 minutes.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

GG-1 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SoCal-Vegas market is HUGE! I would even venture to say size of or maybe larger of NYC-Boston, when you ignore intermediate points. Currently, there are two ways to get there. Drive on the 15, which is only 4 lanes to the 395, 3 to Barstow, and 2 the entire rest of the way to Vegas. The there is flying. If you look at the the number of fliers to Las Vegas from the SoCal airports, it is a large amount. These figures are from March 2011 - Feb 2012, unless otherwise noted.
> 
> From LAX: 1.147 million
> 
> From San Diego: 415,000
> 
> From OC: 221,000
> 
> From Long Beach:	172,000 (just on JetBlue alone)
> 
> From Burbank: 355,000 (June 10 - May 11)
> 
> From Ontario: 210,000 (taken Nov 10 - Oct 11)
> 
> 
> 
> Aloha
> 
> Yesturday the morning news were reporting that 110K people would be on I-15 returning to the LA aera following the EDC Concert at the LV Motor Speedway.. the were estimating the drive time to be 10 hours. Coming back from my daughters house after Christmas was 9 hours 15 minutes.
Click to expand...

See I'm not crazy!!! This is actually a common occurrence. While I had not heard of the Electric Daisy Carnival being that big a problem, I can easily see how it would be now that I think about it. When it was in LA, the thing was crazy. I imagine that even though the venue switch is new, it's still just as popular with the young crowd.


----------



## George Harris

for those seriously interested in this project, go here: www.fra.gov/rpd/freight/1703.shtml

I have no idea why "freight" is in the link.

After this page opens, scroll down and you will find links to a number of files giving all kinds of information about this thing. File sizes vary from one to two megabites up between 20 and 65 megabites for the drawing files.


----------



## GG-1

George Harris said:


> for those seriously interested in this project, go here: www.fra.gov/rpd/freight/1703.shtml
> 
> I have no idea why "freight" is in the link.
> 
> After this page opens, scroll down and you will find links to a number of files giving all kinds of information about this thing. File sizes vary from one to two megabites up between 20 and 65 megabites for the drawing files.


Aloha George

Link is not working.


----------



## George Harris

GG-1 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> for those seriously interested in this project, go here: www.fra.gov/rpd/freight/1703.shtml
> 
> I have no idea why "freight" is in the link.
> 
> After this page opens, scroll down and you will find links to a number of files giving all kinds of information about this thing. File sizes vary from one to two megabites up between 20 and 65 megabites for the drawing files.
> 
> 
> 
> Aloha George
> 
> Link is not working.
Click to expand...

Have no idea why. Tried it and it did not work for me either. However, when I entered the same www.fra, etc. into google it was the first thing that popped up and that was what was at the top.

If all else fails, search FRA DesertXpress - Las Vegas to Victorville and it should be in the first few items.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

I got it to work. The link is wrong. HERE is the correct link http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/freight/1703.shtml

the first part is www.fra.dot.gov not www.fra.gov.


----------



## GG-1

amtrakwolverine said:


> I got it to work. The link is wrong. HERE is the correct link http://www.fra.dot.g...ight/1703.shtml
> 
> the first part is www.fra.dot.gov not www.fra.gov.


Mahalo for the fix.


----------



## George Harris

GG-1 said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got it to work. The link is wrong. HERE is the correct link http://www.fra.dot.g...ight/1703.shtml
> 
> the first part is www.fra.dot.gov not www.fra.gov.
> 
> 
> 
> Mahalo for the fix.
Click to expand...

helps when somebody does it that does not in some sort of mindless typing think "dot" for department of transportation = "." Hello brain, is anybody home?


----------



## Donctor

johnny.menhennet said:


> You East Coast people are well-off with large metropolitan areas and comparatively less traffic. On the East Coast, I was amazed at how few cars there were on the parallel 95 in Connecticut and no traffic whatsoever going through the Holland Tunnel.


What? Were you visiting during the "hurricane"?

Maybe you didn't see any traffic because you died of boredom waiting to get _in_ the damn tunnel.


----------



## afigg

Saw the link to this najor update news story about XpressWest on the California High Speed Rail blog titled "Partner outlines vision for high-speed rail system".

Tony Marnell claims that they have raised the $1.5 billion in private funding commitments and have been undergoing extensive review of the loan by the FRA in the past 3 months. My read is that the purpose of this interview and other news stories I've seen in recent weeks about the XpressWest RRIF loan application is that the announcement of the RRIF loan will be made soon. Perhaps very soon. They are getting their side of the story out to the press and public before the flak that will occur in the anti-rail press when the loan is granted.

Lots of other news in the article:

-The plan is for a max speed of 190 mph. Trains will be capable of 220 mph, but will stay at lower speeds to save on power consumption costs.

-Discusses how he expects Palmdale to become a critical transportation link location.

-The Victorville location is expected to draw heavily from the Inland Empire region for the customer base.

-Discusses plans for service to Phoenix, Salt Lake City, even Denver.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

afigg said:


> Saw the link to this najor update news story about XpressWest on the California High Speed Rail blog titled "Partner outlines vision for high-speed rail system".
> 
> Tony Marnell claims that they have raised the $1.5 billion in private funding commitments and have been undergoing extensive review of the loan by the FRA in the past 3 months. My read is that the purpose of this interview and other news stories I've seen in recent weeks about the XpressWest RRIF loan application is that the announcement of the RRIF loan will be made soon. Perhaps very soon. They are getting their side of the story out to the press and public before the flak that will occur in the anti-rail press when the loan is granted.
> 
> Lots of other news in the article:
> 
> -The plan is for a max speed of 190 mph. Trains will be capable of 220 mph, but will stay at lower speeds to save on power consumption costs.
> 
> -Discusses how he expects Palmdale to become a critical transportation link location.
> 
> -The Victorville location is expected to draw heavily from the Inland Empire region for the customer base.
> 
> -Discusses plans for service to Phoenix, Salt Lake City, even Denver.


Interesting article. A few thoughts:

> I enjoyed his 'political dance' with the current political climate in the US.

> Denver... Hmmm. From what he is saying (Go over mountain passes w/ HSR, not through them in tunnels) Raton Pass could have HSR in its future if XW were to ever try to go to Denver from either Phoenix or Vegas.

> Basing the jobs in Vegas makes a lot of sense (politically and economically) given the current state of the Vegas economy.


----------



## alanh

I still dunno about the Phoenix idea. There's some pretty rugged terrain between Phoenix and Kingman, and around Hoover Dam. Going via Needles would save some work, but you'd still need to do a lot of earthmoving/tunneling.


----------



## Anderson

Just out of curiosity, I poked around DX/XW's website again this evening, and I found this:

http://www.xpresswest.com/expansion.html

At least in the short term, they're now _expressly_ indicating an intended transfer to/from Metrolink at Palmdale until CAHSR gets up and going (and in fact, they're playing up Metrolink connectivity as well). This actually brings up some interesting questions:

1) Are there any plans to "bulk up" Metrolink services along the Antelope Valley Line in conjunction with this? Right now, service on the line is _very_ commuter-oriented (only two afternoon trains into LA on weekdays), and there's no Sunday service, so I'd guess that _something_ would need to get bulked up less a train full of returning vacationers find themselves in Palmdale without a ride home.

2) The Metrolink station has "only" 586 spaces. Considering the number that are likely taken by commuters (and comparing Washington Union Station's roughly 2500 spaces), I _highly_ doubt that the current parking is going to be sufficient for both Metrolink and a train to Las Vegas. Are there going to be plans to expand the parking facilities (or acquire a dedicated lot/garage for the Vegas service)?

3) Likewise, is there any word on station facilities? Again, a station that looks roughly on par with Glenview, IL or Williamsburg, VA does _not_ seem like a good candidate to run a bunch of passengers through for a high-speed service.


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> Just out of curiosity, I poked around DX/XW's website again this evening, and I found this:
> 
> http://www.xpresswes.../expansion.html
> 
> At least in the short term, they're now _expressly_ indicating an intended transfer to/from Metrolink at Palmdale until CAHSR gets up and going (and in fact, they're playing up Metrolink connectivity as well). This actually brings up some interesting questions:
> 
> 1) Are there any plans to "bulk up" Metrolink services along the Antelope Valley Line in conjunction with this? Right now, service on the line is _very_ commuter-oriented (only two afternoon trains into LA on weekdays), and there's no Sunday service, so I'd guess that _something_ would need to get bulked up less a train full of returning vacationers find themselves in Palmdale without a ride home.
> 
> 2) The Metrolink station has "only" 586 spaces. Considering the number that are likely taken by commuters (and comparing Washington Union Station's roughly 2500 spaces), I _highly_ doubt that the current parking is going to be sufficient for both Metrolink and a train to Las Vegas. Are there going to be plans to expand the parking facilities (or acquire a dedicated lot/garage for the Vegas service)?
> 
> 3) Likewise, is there any word on station facilities? Again, a station that looks roughly on par with Glenview, IL or Williamsburg, VA does _not_ seem like a good candidate to run a bunch of passengers through for a high-speed service.


First, the Metrolink board has approved a plan to greatly improve the SFV to Antelope valley rail lines with a goal of increasing speeds. Money for this comes from the CAHSR approved project bonds. Second, I would expect most of the passengers to come from the SFV and the rest of northern LA city, not needing parking there. With all of this, and the Board Presidents implied remarks, I would expect a major increase in number of weekend runs.

BTW, Antonivich (the board president) has also kicked around electrification.


----------



## George Harris

leemell said:


> First, the Metrolink board has approved a plan to greatly improve the SFV to Antelope valley rail lines with a goal of increasing speeds. Money for this comes from the CAHSR approved project bonds. Second, I would expect most of the passengers to come from the SFV and the rest of northern LA city, not needing parking there. With all of this, and the Board Presidents implied remarks, I would expect a major increase in number of weekend runs.
> BTW, Antonivich (the board president) has also kicked around electrification.


Search out discussion on the "Bay to Basin" concept for the HSR.


----------



## Anderson

All of that is very good to hear (particularly the reduced trip times, since I suspect 2 hrs on Metrolink would hurt ridership on that segment). I see what you're saying about parking; I'd expect _some_ additional parking to be needed, or alternatively some spaces to be changed over to long-term parking (for folks who just don't want to spend two hours on a commuter train coming and going, or who live in the area), but I agree that a ramp-up on Metrolink would cut back the needs on this front.

Also worth thinking about: If it succeeds, I think this is only the second case in the US where you've got two intercity lines being linked by a commuter rail line (the other being in Boston).

Edit: Bay to Basin is becoming a mess since there's no funding in place for a Bakersfield-LA (or even Bakersfield-Palmdale/Lancaster) link. That likely accounts for the upgrades to the Antelope Valley line (_especially_ electrification), but I still don't see where that link is coming from at this point.


----------

