# California Zephyr



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

Amtrak needs California Zephyr to be extended to San Francisco when the new Transbay Terminal opens in 2017. It also needs high speed trains since it is the longest line on Amtrak. It has an average speed of 47 MPH-shame! shame! shame! That is slow. So let's make a train that goes 150 MPH maximum speed on the CZ. So the extension to San Francisco involves making a tunnel called the Transbay Pass. You know that track that diverges off the current Amtrak tracks near the Bay Bridge. Well the CZ will use the track (made to three) and two will go underground into the Transbay Pass. It goes under the bay until it reaches the Transbay Terminal to connect with California High Speed Rail and Caltrain. Also there are high speed trains needed to be added to CZ. The trains will be 16 car long double decker trains and look like the E1 Shinkansen. The stations are the same and freight will operate on a separate track so they aren't hit by high speed trains. Promis you, it will make CZ one of the busiest Amtrak routes.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Nov 7, 2011)

Yea I I wish San Joaquin would also be diected in to the new Transbay Terminal.


----------



## greatcats (Nov 7, 2011)

And now for the next act in the ongoing dramatic series " Amtrak Fantasy World. " 150 mph over the Rio Grande charging down Soldier Summit.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 7, 2011)

I'll actually break this one down. On the one hand, the CHI-DEN segment could be sped up somewhat...and likely will once the PTC stuff comes into play, with top speeds on at least some segments going to 90 MPH.

Unfortunately, unless you do a _major _rerouting in Colorado (and likely some places in NV/UT) the "on the ground" situation isn't going to allow super-fast running. The DEN-Grand Junction line is terrain-limited (you do_ not_ want a train derailing on the old DRG&W main into the river or off of some of those cliffs and into canyons), so that's going to run into lower limits.

The biggest problem, though, is that you're going to be running "high speed" lines through hundreds of miles of middle-of-nowhere territory out west (Reno-SLC comes to mind), which is going to run up a _massive_ bill to serve relatively few people, and it won't be competitive with the airlines (regrettably) even if you could get an average speed of 100 MPH or more.

And this doesn't even get into issues surrounding extra tracks under San Francisco Bay. I'll agree that the idea of trains into downtown San Francisco is nice, but even back in the 50s, the California Zephyr didn't actually go into San Francisco proper.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Yea I I wish San Joaquin would also be diected in to the new Transbay Terminal.


Not bad, but Transbay Terminal will not be big enough to hold one more train. CZ, CHSR, and Caltrain is enough. So might as well the San Joaquin should continue going to Oakland.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 7, 2011)

greatcats said:


> And now for the next act in the ongoing dramatic series " Amtrak Fantasy World. " 150 mph over the Rio Grande charging down Soldier Summit.


*cracks up laughing*

What's going to be in the next episode? Any bets?


----------



## eagle628 (Nov 7, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> The stations are the same and freight will operate on a separate track so they aren't hit by high speed trains.



A project that would cost slightly more than the GDP of most small countries.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Nov 7, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> Amtrak needs California Zephyr to be extended to San Francisco when the new Transbay Terminal opens in 2017. It also needs high speed trains since it is the longest line on Amtrak. It has an average speed of 47 MPH-shame! shame! shame! That is slow. So let's make a train that goes 150 MPH maximum speed on the CZ. So the extension to San Francisco involves making a tunnel called the Transbay Pass. You know that track that diverges off the current Amtrak tracks near the Bay Bridge. Well the CZ will use the track (made to three) and two will go underground into the Transbay Pass. It goes under the bay until it reaches the Transbay Terminal to connect with California High Speed Rail and Caltrain. Also there are high speed trains needed to be added to CZ. The trains will be 16 car long double decker trains and look like the E1 Shinkansen. The stations are the same and freight will operate on a separate track so they aren't hit by high speed trains. Promis you, it will make CZ one of the busiest Amtrak routes.


1) Since when does length determine speed???

2) What is your cost estimate???

3) Why have you come up with so many other outrageous plans???

4) Have you looked at Google Maps for even a second to see if the terrain allows it???

5) Why must a brand new Transbay Terminal/Tunnel be constructed just for some long distance trains to CHICAGO??? Even if there were 150 mph running the entire way through, this service would be appealing to NOBODY!!! The people who want to get to their destination quickly fly, and the people who love being able to view scenery at a moderate pace take the train. It would still be too long of a schedule to accommodate anybody wishing to make a quick trip. Where are your reports/documents that show that there is a strong reason to connect Winnemucca to Hastings, NE with Acela-speed trains???

6) Wouldn't the costs to passengers to pay for construction costs be too outrageously high that nobody would ride it???

7) Tying back in with #1, have you not read anywhere that the best corridors for high-speed rail development do not have a distance of over 750 miles???


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

USrail21,

I have deleted your response to Johnny, we don't have too many rules around here, but name calling, insults, and telling people to "shut their mouths" are things that we don't permit. Especially from guests, we're a bit more tolerant with our members, but less so with guests.

If you wish to keep posting here I urge you head my warning!


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

johnny.menhennet said:


> USrail21 said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak needs California Zephyr to be extended to San Francisco when the new Transbay Terminal opens in 2017. It also needs high speed trains since it is the longest li
> ...


How in the world can you not know the new Transbay Terminal. It is under construction and will be finished in 2017


----------



## trainfan969 (Nov 13, 2011)

This idea might have a glimmer of hope, according to the Wikipedia entry, there are plans for the new Transbay terminal to accommodate Caltrain and have it be a stop on the CA HSR. Not sure about the other segments outside of CA.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 13, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> How in the world can you not know the new Transbay Terminal. It is under construction and will be finished in 2017


The *building* is under construction. The tunnels for the tracks to get to it are not. The building may be finished in all its developer promoted glory, but it will be completely useless as a station for Caltrain, the High Speed Railroad, Amtrak, the Napa Wine Train, the Bering Strait Express or anything else that runs on rails for a long time thereafter. Further, as located, no approach from the east (bayside that is) is possible without removing some rather large buildings or building a new set of underground platforms nearby along with tunnels to reach them.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 13, 2011)

johnny.menhennet said:


> USrail21 said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak needs California Zephyr to be extended to San Francisco when the new Transbay Terminal opens in 2017. It also needs high speed trains since it is the longest line on Amtrak. It has an average speed of 47 MPH-shame! shame! shame! That is slow. So let's make a train that goes 150 MPH maximum speed on the CZ. So the extension to San Francisco involves making a tunnel called the Transbay Pass. You know that track that diverges off the current Amtrak tracks near the Bay Bridge. Well the CZ will use the track (made to three) and two will go underground into the Transbay Pass. It goes under the bay until it reaches the Transbay Terminal to connect with California High Speed Rail and Caltrain. Also there are high speed trains needed to be added to CZ. The trains will be 16 car long double decker trains and look like the E1 Shinkansen. The stations are the same and freight will operate on a separate track so they aren't hit by high speed trains. Promis you, it will make CZ one of the busiest Amtrak routes.
> ...


My cost estimate is at least $100 billion but if we save and don't waste this money and don't delay the project, it could become reality. And any tough terrain will be no threat because we would build tunnels if necessary through the terrain. End to end is about 24-30 using the high speed trains. Plus, pretty few people would take the train from end to end. Suitable from Chicago-Omaha/Denver, Denver-SLC, SLC-Reno, Reno-California. 150 MPH is reached best between Reno and Winnemucca, Winnemucca and Elko, and Elko and SLC.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 14, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> johnny.menhennet said:
> 
> 
> > USrail21 said:
> ...


California currently estimates that it will cost them close to $100 Billion just to go from San Fran to LA with HSR and they only have one really big mountain range to cut through.

You're not getting from Chicago to LA for $100 Billion if Cali can't even get through half the state for $100B.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 14, 2011)

AlanB said:


> California currently estimates that it will cost them close to $100 Billion just to go from San Fran to LA with HSR and they only have one really big mountain range to cut through.
> 
> You're not getting from Chicago to LA for $100 Billion if Cali can't even get through half the state for $100B.


Actually, two. Pacheco Pass and Tehachapi.

Pachecho Pass has somewhere in the range of 8 miles total in tunnel. (This is a guess.)

Bakersfield-Tehachapi-Palmdale-Burbank. Probably more on the order of 15 miles in tunnels. (Again, a guess.)


----------



## AlanB (Nov 14, 2011)

George Harris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > California currently estimates that it will cost them close to $100 Billion just to go from San Fran to LA with HSR and they only have one really big mountain range to cut through.
> ...


Thank you George, I bow to your excellent knowledge and experience building rail systems. 

I suspect however that you would still agree with me, not withstanding my mistake, that if Cali can't build it's 450 or so miles of HSR for much less than $100 Billion that bringing in Chicago to Los Angeles at some 2,000 plus miles for $100 Billion is pure fantasy.


----------



## trainfan969 (Nov 14, 2011)

AlanB said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I agree with Alan. Even if you get a low bid on the project (and get all the other costs down), its gonna cost way more than 100 Billion to build a 2,000 mile HSR. Tunnels through mountains? That's gonna cost you big bucks.


----------



## jis (Nov 15, 2011)

George Harris said:


> USrail21 said:
> 
> 
> > How in the world can you not know the new Transbay Terminal. It is under construction and will be finished in 2017
> ...


Exactly! A train coming from the Richmond side (from where the CZ approaches the Bay area) has no prayer of getting to it unless it is nice and short and perhaps runs on 5'6" gauge  That too will require additional tunnels and platforms.

Only way to get to it from the current CZ route would be for it to miss Sacramento and go to Stockton and then come down the ACE route to Niles and then cross the Dumbarton Bridge to join the Peninsula Line and follow it, assuming someday the actual extension from 14th and Townsend gets built to the new edifice.  Eventually it could come on the CA HSR Sacramento Branch I suppose. But since CZ is unlikely to run with Tier III equipment, that option is pretty much out.


----------



## Gratt (Nov 15, 2011)

Sigh... words fail.

hboy: :wacko: :blink:


----------



## George Harris (Nov 15, 2011)

AlanB said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


ABSOLUTELY!!!

If anything I was trying to enforce your point. If we are building 400 miles that include about 25 miles in tunnels, along with keeping all the local pressure grops happy or at least not too violently unhappy, the chances of building 2800 miles for less than a straight multiple of that amount are nil. (20/4=7. 7 tome 100 billion = 700 million.) I would say a trillion plus. Think crossing the Appalachians, the Rockies, the Sierra, and a few other serious geographic obstacles I can't think of right now, a trillion probably would not get you there. The proportion in tunnel could easily be higher than thqat in California. Not to mention that having a top speed in excess of 250 mph, which has yet to be done anywhere, would require an extremely straight alignment. Some of the tunnels required would make the Alpine "base" tunnels look short.

Also given the likely time frame for California: I think something aroud 2030 is the current guess, a high speed transcontinental might be in service before our gradchildren die of old age.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 16, 2011)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > USrail21 said:
> ...


At the risk of a derail, why did BART break from standard gauge?


----------



## George Harris (Nov 16, 2011)

BART was built when the thought was that existing transit systems were old and obsolete and had nothing to teach the designers of the newer systems. That was particularly evident in the vehicles and train control systems. They felt no need to match any existing system on much of anything. I have heard two stories. One that the track gage came out of analysis of seismic forces with the number selected being that needed to prevent overturning due to lateral acceleration in an earthquake. The other is that in the original concept there would eventually be aline across the Golden Gate below the road deck. The gage selected was to prevent overturning of the vehicle due to a combination of wind and sway of the bridge due to wind. A third possibility was that it permitted the use of a wider vehicle. That last as a reason would have been made in ignorance of the size of the Shinkansen vehicles which are 11'-1" body width. BART vehicles are 10'-6" over the body and 10'-10 1/2" over the grab irons.


----------



## gswager (Nov 17, 2011)

That makes sense about BART. When I got in one of BART cars, it seems that it's a little too wide but never had a thought about it.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 17, 2011)

George,

Informative as always. I never knew about the plan for a Golden Gate line...but I can buy either #1 or #1 and #2 together as reasons. I could also buy #3 coming from some idiot city supervisor getting it as a bee in his bonnet, but I think #1 and #2 combined seem most likely (I can't see the seismic consideration _not_ being in there, and if they were considering a Golden Gate line, I can see the two reasons combining nicely).


----------

