27 replies to this topic

[Anderson]

A question with this situation: Is there any examination of a "cheap" option for at least getting a through train running through the Valley on the San Joaquin route in place? IIRC, Techiapi is already at capacity and then some, so is there some way that a "high speed conventional" route (i.e. 90-125 MPH) could be done for less? It wouldn't have the same appeal, but between higher gas prices, the time savings off of the Central Valley line with the current segment, and allowing a through train, you might be able to seriously close losses simply on traffic being forced over.

The "cheap" option would be to build a straighter and steeper passenger only line between Bakersfield and at least Palmdale. Just getting rid of the need to transfer to a bus at Bakersfield would almost certainly double, and probably triple or more the ridership on the San Joaquin trains even if it did not shorten the end to end times at all. However, the current railroad alignment is as crooked and slow as it is because there is no such thing as a cheap option between Bakersfield and LA.

That's...basically what I was thinking. Actually, is there any other way out of the valley (either a current or former alignment) that could work in that vein?

Early in the HSR project there was a study, which I think is public, that had Bakersfield as one point and downtown Los Angeles as the other. It boiled down to:
1. Generally follow I-5
2. Generally follow the current railroad line Bakersfield-Tehachapi-Palmdale-LA.

Both line require extensive tunneling and quite a bit of bridge work. Neither will be cheap. There are also several fault line crossings on either route. The current railroad line is very crooked and therefore slow. It is also heavily congested with freight trains between Bakersfield and Palmdale, particularly up the Tehachapi grade. A fast passenger route would hve steeper grades and lots of tunnel in order to get a line that has curves large enough for high speeds.

I can't believe I'm asking this, but how would the scenery be on that route?

[Alice]

I can't believe I'm asking this, but how would the scenery be on that route?

Tehachapi is incredible. Occasionally excursions take the route, and the Starlight detoured there a few times. Here is one of Whooz's ground-view videos: Tehachapi Excursion

[Anderson]

Yeah...I think I'm in favor of putting a rail line through one of those routes. Honestly, even if it was constrained to lower-speed running for a fair section of the route (and let's be honest, does anyone expect to see a train cracking 200 MPH through those mountains in this world? Not that it wouldn't be one hell of a sight, but the terrain seems to put more practical limits on running speeds), I agree that an alignment through those mountains on either route would be a good move.

[George Harris]

Yeah...I think I'm in favor of putting a rail line through one of those routes. Honestly, even if it was constrained to lower-speed running for a fair section of the route (and let's be honest, does anyone expect to see a train cracking 200 MPH through those mountains in this world?

Yes

[Anderson]

Yeah...I think I'm in favor of putting a rail line through one of those routes. Honestly, even if it was constrained to lower-speed running for a fair section of the route (and let's be honest, does anyone expect to see a train cracking 200 MPH through those mountains in this world?

Yes

Really? (No, that's a serious question) Even with some of the better plans out there, you tend to get mountain ranges, river crossings, and urban areas where trains have to slow down because rivers, etc. don't necessarily follow high-speed alignments. For example, IIRC the bullet trains out in Japan mainly stuck to either coastal plains or to convenient valleys and so forth for the most part (rather than trying to blast through mountains). Some of the other lines are "just" upgrades of existing lines rather than full new alignments. I know you can shave off some "bad corners" with a bit of dynamite, but how much are they seriously looking at putting into getting a train running over 200 MPH over the mountains themselves?

[leemell]

Yeah...I think I'm in favor of putting a rail line through one of those routes. Honestly, even if it was constrained to lower-speed running for a fair section of the route (and let's be honest, does anyone expect to see a train cracking 200 MPH through those mountains in this world?

Yes

Really? (No, that's a serious question) Even with some of the better plans out there, you tend to get mountain ranges, river crossings, and urban areas where trains have to slow down because rivers, etc. don't necessarily follow high-speed alignments. For example, IIRC the bullet trains out in Japan mainly stuck to either coastal plains or to convenient valleys and so forth for the most part (rather than trying to blast through mountains). Some of the other lines are "just" upgrades of existing lines rather than full new alignments. I know you can shave off some "bad corners" with a bit of dynamite, but how much are they seriously looking at putting into getting a train running over 200 MPH over the mountains themselves?

Check it out for yourself : CA HSR route Map

[Anderson]

I pulled up the map and I pulled up a Google Maps satellite map of the region. Color me a bit dubious, but I suspect that even with nice tilting trains, you're either going to sink way too much money into that section blowing holes in mountains or you're going to have a more crooked line than that map would indicate (even if you stick to the SR14 alignment, those curves seem to be just a hair too tight to blow through at full speed).

Of course, with that said, it looks like it's only 30 or 40 miles of slower running in there, and even the worst curves in there could probably be managed at somewhere between 79 and 125 MPH.