# Reality of CHSR



## johnny.menhennet (Aug 23, 2012)

So when I had a layover in Union Station between Metrolinks on Monday, I picked up my favorite newspaper, California Rail News. The front story is always almost on the CHSR topic, and almost completely shows hatred toward the CHSR board, as they should. It had a few facts from SB 1029 that most people accidentally looked over.

It took less than 48 hours from the time it was drafted until when the bill was passed. Almost no one actually read it first of all.

The starting segment is now Merced-Fresno, rather than Bakersfield-Fresno. The CRN says this is because some political figure switched districts between Bakersfield and Merced, and he is being made happy.

The CHSRA is planning on spending 600 million on shops in Chowchilla, and they admitted that having them be in the Central Valley would be much less efficient than either SF or LA.

It was said that the route to Palmdale has finally been explained, and that XpressWest and CHSRA have been working hand in hand this entire time. Remember, there has still not been any funding allocated to the link over Tehachapi, and the board is essentially planning on completing that segment last (I guess that this could be inferred as a good thing, because if there is still no money north of Palmdale, it is possible in the future to still have the true CHSR split at Santa Clarita).

Most shocking of all, CRN says that all of the authority's jumpiness and all of the constant route and cost changing has been on purpose. By never keeping their facts straight, it allows them to confuse people to the point where they can omit things and have them not noticed. In this case, there is never even a real operable segment in the 8 billion they're spending on the bill. It does not allocate any money for either signaling or electrification, so I guess it can't even really move. Even if they find money to pay for the signaling, there is no practical way of reaching more than 125. This is super shady.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 23, 2012)

This is still one big mess. Whoever's wasting our taypayers' money on this better stop. You could go over 125 mph with a turbine train, but they are inefficient when not at full power and not going to happen. The best way right now would be to dump CAHSR and switch to a upgraded San Joaquin Line or maybe Coast Line. We would get much more out of that for less money then this ----.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 23, 2012)

I've really not been following the CHSR (California Highly Suspect Rail) fiasco lately. Sounds like nothing has really changed. The 'experts' continue to highball to nowhere while the project dies a slow, expensive, agonizing death. A death which will likely poison the possibility of government supported true HSR for years to come. hboy:


----------



## Anderson (Aug 24, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> This is still one big mess. Whoever's wasting our taypayers' money on this better stop. You could go over 125 mph with a turbine train, but they are inefficient when not at full power and not going to happen. The best way right now would be to dump CAHSR and switch to a upgraded San Joaquin Line or maybe Coast Line. We would get much more out of that for less money then this ----.



Well, even a new line through the valley on an improved alignment wouldn't be the worst issue in the world...part of the problem, though, is that there's no way to get funding to the big project that _really_ needs doing, namely a LA-Valley connection.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> So when I had a layover in Union Station between Metrolinks on Monday, I picked up my favorite newspaper, California Rail News. The front story is always almost on the CHSR topic, and almost completely shows hatred toward the CHSR board, as they should. It had a few facts from SB 1029 that most people accidentally looked over.


Appears more that they show hatred toward the concept of the project rather than an exposition of facts. Their objective appears to be to try to kill it, and they seem to have decided one of the best methods is to insist that whatever the HSR board decides is wrong. I ahve seen a number of tehse papers, and they all have one major theme: "Kill the HSR." We really don't care what they propose, it is wrong in our eyes.



> It took less than 48 hours from the time it was drafted until when the bill was passed. Almost no one actually read it first of all.


Know nothing about the reality or unreality of this claim, but the "nobody read it" seems highly unlikely. If nothing else, all politicians look into everything with an eye for "what is in it for me?"



> The starting segment is now Merced-Fresno, rather than Bakersfield-Fresno. The CRN says this is because some political figure switched districts between Bakersfield and Merced, and he is being made happy.


Did they name that political figure?

The reality was that when it was nominally Fresno to Bakersfield, it was always from a point north of Fresno to Bakersfield. So far as I know the proposed north end of the initial work has not changed. The section has just been divided into more manageable chunks, with from slightly north of Fresno to slightly south of Fresno being the first piece of the first section.



> The CHSRA is planning on spending 600 million on shops in Chowchilla, and they admitted that having them be in the Central Valley would be much less efficient than either SF or LA.


Who admitted? Generally a more or less mid route shop is the norm as it is far easier to get the land in an appropriately sized and shaped piece at some distance from a major urban blob like either the SF area or the LA area. If you were to look at the Taiwan high speed rail, the main shop is 100 miles south of Taipei, in other words approximately halfway down the line to the south end. Yes, there is also a shop at the south end, but again is based on land availability and is intended for major work.



> It was said that the route to Palmdale has finally been explained, and that XpressWest and CHSRA have been working hand in hand this entire time. Remember, there has still not been any funding allocated to the link over Tehachapi, and the board is essentially planning on completing that segment last (I guess that this could be inferred as a good thing, because if there is still no money north of Palmdale, it is possible in the future to still have the true CHSR split at Santa Clarita).


A source for this piece of apparent fiction would be nice to have. There are numerous issues with the "Grapevine" route that those opposed to Tehachapi-Palmdale blithely ignore, one being a major fault crossing in tunnel. Also would be interesting to see any statement from the board that they have decided to leave getting from Bakersfield to the LA basin to last.



> Most shocking of all, CRN says that all of the authority's jumpiness and all of the constant route and cost changing has been on purpose. By never keeping their facts straight, it allows them to confuse people to the point where they can omit things and have them not noticed. In this case, there is never even a real operable segment in the 8 billion they're spending on the bill. It does not allocate any money for either signaling or electrification, so I guess it can't even really move. Even if they find money to pay for the signaling, there is no practical way of reaching more than 125. This is super shady.


And the basis for this is? Maybe the FRA requirement for "independent utility" which means if the politicians succeed in killing of the rest of the project what is built can be used, and that would mean by diesels which the current Amtrak diesels are geared for no more than 125 mph. If that really happens it would only be the piece right around Fresno which would be far less than 8 billion, and which also has had rebuilding 2 miles of highway 99 hung onto it by the politicians.

There is a lot of analysis of alternatives due to pressures from various politicians and pressure groups, who then turn around and complain about the efforts spent studying alternatives when the studies these same people demanded are done.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 24, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > This is still one big mess. Whoever's wasting our taypayers' money on this better stop. You could go over 125 mph with a turbine train, but they are inefficient when not at full power and not going to happen. The best way right now would be to dump CAHSR and switch to a upgraded San Joaquin Line or maybe Coast Line. We would get much more out of that for less money then this ----.
> ...


I guess the most efficient way to do this without going for the Coast Line would be to build a new line LAX-BFD then switch to the current San Joaquin Line, which can be further upgraded in the Central Valley.

Run P42DCs at 110 mph before possibly upgrading to an American-style HST then electrification.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 24, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


Right now the normal bus schedule LA to Bakersfield is 3 hours. In a no traffic condition it can be done in about 2 hours. Any new Bakersfield to Palmdale to LA that can get the run time to anything much under the 3 hours should see a huge increase in the San Joaquin ridership because the bus leg would be no more. Teh aprt that must be built is bakersfield to Palmdale, as that line is extremely crooked and overwhelmed with freight. Palmdale to LA could be make reasonable with some upgrades that would require little in the way of additional land.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 24, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Well, and as I understand it, upgrades to the Antelope Valley Line seem to be brewing because of the needs of Metrolink anyway, if nothing else. Moreover, adding a Palmdale stop (and probably one in Burbank as well, though I could see the presence of two stations confusing people) couldn't help but help Amtrak services.

I'd be hard-pressed to see Amtrak _not_ stop anywhere south of BFD until LAX, and the population density seems such that you'd get decent ridership. Not only that, but I suspect that having such a service would consolidate nicely with the Metrolink plans to add midday service, potentially killing two birds with one stone and a step-up charge.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 24, 2012)

Anderson said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


Looking at maps of the area, I see that Lancaster, Palmdale, and Santa Clarita are potentially good stops. A contour map shows that the the segment from Plamdale to Mojave is nearly totally flat, so that segment could also be upgraded. Biggest problem seems to be Mojave to Bakersfield.

The old SP San Joaquin Daylight used to run on that route, don't know why it's now closed to pax traffic.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 24, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Looking at maps of the area, I see that Lancaster, Palmdale, and Santa Clarita are potentially good stops. A contour map shows that the the segment from Plamdale to Mojave is nearly totally flat, so that segment could also be upgraded. Biggest problem seems to be Mojave to Bakersfield.
> the old SP San Joaquin Daylight used to run on that route, don't know why it's now closed to pax traffic.


If anyone came along with an open checkbook and said we are going to couplete the double track the line throughout and triple track the grade to Tehachapi, I think it would be open to passenger traffk. However, it would still be really slow. For a practical passenger train time, a new line the complete distance on the Tehachapi grade would be an absolute necessity.


----------

