The route (at least the first link) won't go through Concord. The article mentions Hanford. Hanford is about 85-90 highway miles (probably 70-75 miles as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.
My mistake, it should be Corcoran.The route (at least the first link) won't go through Concord. The article mentions Hanford. Hanford is about 85-90 highway miles (probably 70-75 miles as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.In the LA Times there was this article on the objections beginning to rise from the farmers in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Concord, the route of the first link.
If a line is built connecting San Francisco and Sacramento, it might go through Concord (which is in the East Bay), though I personally doubt it.
Corcoran is about 66 road miles (probably 55-60 as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.My mistake, it should be Corcoran.
Actually it was originally announced that the section would be from Madera (north of Fresno) to Cocoran. With the additional money it was extended from Corcoran to Bakersfield.Corcoran is about 66 road miles (probably 55-60 as the crow flies) from Bakersfield.My mistake, it should be Corcoran.
It also has a state prison.
The problem with using the initial section as a public demo for the future high speed rail line is that it would take more funding to make that possible. The initial phase presently funded does not include the catenary or the high speed trainsets. So, pending additional grants, the new track will only be useful for conventional equipment running at a 110mph maximum speed.I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
Be that as it may, it would be a start. And 110 mph is undoubtedly faster than what is running now.The problem with using the initial section as a public demo for the future high speed rail line is that it would take more funding to make that possible. The initial phase presently funded does not include the catenary or the high speed trainsets. So, pending additional grants, the new track will only be useful for conventional equipment running at a 110mph maximum speed.I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
I agree that getting that portion running would be good, but it would simply be a faster portion of an established Amtrak route. In my mind, what would be a game-changer would be to get a usable segment of true high speed (>150mph) service up and running. That is why the Florida project, limited as it is, is so important. It's build-able, and it's can be up and running reasonably soon.Be that as it may, it would be a start. And 110 mph is undoubtedly faster than what is running now.The problem with using the initial section as a public demo for the future high speed rail line is that it would take more funding to make that possible. The initial phase presently funded does not include the catenary or the high speed trainsets. So, pending additional grants, the new track will only be useful for conventional equipment running at a 110mph maximum speed.I would assume that the L.A. to Bakersfield section, which will be through mountainous territory, will also be the most expensive and most difficult to construct. I'm sure the thinking is to get some flatland track laid and running, even if it's out in the middle of nowhere, to let people see how the trains operate in real-life.
Regear some of the ones they have and play with the suspensions. No new engines really necessary except as needed to meet demands for more or longer trainsJust to make the demo a little bit more impressive, they could shell out a little more money and get 10 or so 125mph capable diesels, which is quite feasible
Enter your email address to join: