San Joaquin

[colobok]

Why doesn't San Joaquin go all the way to LA? It's only 2 hours more, but it could connect LA and Bay area.

Also - what is the scenery along the route?

 

[gswager]

Tehachapi route which is located between Bakersfield and LAX is very congested and time consuming, too.

There are several posters on this forum have witnessed on detoured route of Coast Starlight. There may be one more detoured trip next month or so because UP is planning to replace a bridge near Santa Barbara.

 

[Guest_George Harris_*]

Why doesn't San Joaquin go all the way to LA? It's only 2 hours more, but it could connect LA and Bay area.Also - what is the scenery along the route?

It may be two hours by road, but it is not by rail. It is 170 miles by rail and the best time ever scheduled was over 5 hours. I believe that when scheduled passenger service ended the schedule was around 6 hours or more.

0 Los Angeles

11 Burbank

32 Saugus

69 Palmdale

77 Landcaster - 2h25m best time from LA

102 Mohave

122 Tehachapi (The Loop)

148 Caliente

170 Bakersfield - 5h09m best time from LA

 

[sechs]

We need a second route through the mountains -- and not just for passenger service.

It still isn't clear to me how the high-speed rail is supposed to get through. They won't be using the Tehachapi Loop, however

 

[Guest_George Harris_*]

The Calif HS will approximately parallel the ex SP line, but straighter and steeper.

Check this out

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm

 

[WhoozOn1st]

what is the scenery along the route?

I was aboard the Tehachapi detour.

A pictorial account: Coast Starlight Tehachapi Detour

EDIT: Two detours that day, and I was northbound on Train 14. Meet with southbound 11 was at Caliente.

 

[GAT]

San Joaquin scenery, IMHO, is attractive but not spectacular. Leaving EMY, you follow the Delta shores, which are beautiful in the sunlight. Sit on the left side. Once in the Central Valley, it's a beeline through farms, almond orchards and vineyards (raisins) through Fresno and into Bakersfield. It's a double-decker, so you get a good sight angle on the landscape.

The cars have cafe-style tables, each with an electrical outlet. There's a cafe car for MW'd hot dogs, h'burgers, and sandwiches, and there's beer and wine as well as the usual drinks. The whole trip is about six hours if no delays, and there's a Holiday Inn within walking distance of the B'fld Amtrak starion if you want to stay over and return the next day. You can also do the RT in one day, I believe. Not a bad way to spend a day accumulating points on your AGR card.

 

[sechs]

The Calif HS will approximately parallel the ex SP line, but straighter and steeper.
Check this out

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm

Actually, they're following the BNSF line (what little difference this makes).

When I looked on the website yesterday, I could not any information on how they were getting through the mountains beyond "a tunnel near Mojave." Perhaps you've seen something that I missed?

 

[gswager]

The Calif HS will approximately parallel the ex SP line, but straighter and steeper.
Check this out

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm

Actually, they're following the BNSF line (what little difference this makes).

When I looked on the website yesterday, I could not any information on how they were getting through the mountains beyond "a tunnel near Mojave." Perhaps you've seen something that I missed?

Maybe it follows Metrolink's Antelope Valley Line (Palmdale)? You'll need a tunnel somewhere between Bakersfield and Lancaster to avoid the loop which greatly reduced the HSR speed.

Probably will build a dedicated passenger line right next to BNSF line.

 

[George Harris_*]

North of Bakersfield the Ca HSR follows the BNSF

South of Bakersfield, it follows the UP and then Metrolink, ex SP.

Between Bakersfield and Mojave, BNSF had trackage rights on the UP. Beyond Mojave BNSF heads east and UP heads south. South of Palmdale, the SP sold the line to Metrolink.

The HSR line will not be right of way to right of way to these tracks for much of the distance as it will be much straighter. I think there will be multiple tunnels in this section. It will be steeper than the current line through Tahachapi.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm

Following links from there a bit, I came to the Implementation Plan

A couple of reactions / questions:

1) Why do they want to set fares higher than automobile travel? Shouldn't the idea be to get people out of their automobiles and onto the trains? They also mention market rate parking. Aren't they going to lose a lot of passengers who will decide that taking the highway will save them both on travel costs and parking?

2) Page 20 has an illustration of the proposed Transbay station. Why so many levels? Is it going to be served by several different types of train services? I haven't come across a really good description of what's on each level; the Wikipedia article certainly doesn't seem to explain it.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

1) Why do they want to set fares higher than automobile travel? Shouldn't the idea be to get people out of their automobiles and onto the trains? They also mention market rate parking. Aren't they going to lose a lot of passengers who will decide that taking the highway will save them both on travel costs and parking?

This page, on the other hand, claims

What’s more, the proposed high-speed train system will provide lower passenger costs than for travel by automobile or air for the same city-to-city markets.

 

[Steve4031]

The tunnels under the pass would be no big deal. This is done in Europe all of the time. Switzerland has much higher mountains, and they are building 30 mile tunnels to speed passenger trains under the Alps. The shared right of way is common in Europe too. This is done in Germany and in the Netherlands and Belgium.

 

[sechs]

1) Why do they want to set fares higher than automobile travel? Shouldn't the idea be to get people out of their automobiles and onto the trains? They also mention market rate parking. Aren't they going to lose a lot of passengers who will decide that taking the highway will save them both on travel costs and parking?
2) Page 20 has an illustration of the proposed Transbay station. Why so many levels? Is it going to be served by several different types of train services? I haven't come across a really good description of what's on each level; the Wikipedia article certainly doesn't seem to explain it.

1. Comparable automobile trips take longer. See the table on page 13. The train is really competing with air travel. Most airports don't offer cheap parking, either.

2. The Transbay Terminal currently serves buses from four different transit agencies. As I understand it, the lower levels of the new terminal would serve Caltrain and intercity rail. The ground and mezzanine levels would be retail and office space. The third level would accommodate bus bays for the transit agencies, as well as Greyhound. The roof will be a public park. This presentation gives a really good idea of the winning layout:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/upl...iBoards-All.pdf

 

[sechs]

The tunnels under the pass would be no big deal. This is done in Europe all of the time. Switzerland has much higher mountains, and they are building 30 mile tunnels to speed passenger trains under the Alps.

Also realise that we run six-lane superhigways through our mountains. If Switzerland could do that, they might not need the 30-mile tunnels....

 

[Jazma]

What will happen to the San Joaquins after high speed rail is launched? (I realize its many years off still.) Is the plan to offer the San Joaquins as a slower, but lower cost, alternative to the High Speed rail? It obviously serves more stops than the high speed proposed routes.

Also, isn't there a movement to restore the train connection from Bakersfield to LA going on now?

 

[gswager]

What will happen to the San Joaquins after high speed rail is launched? (I realize its many years off still.) Is the plan to offer the San Joaquins as a slower, but lower cost, alternative to the High Speed rail? It obviously serves more stops than the high speed proposed routes.

I think it will continue as a regional with multi-stops while the HSR will use express with fewer stops at major transportation center, just like in the NE corridor.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

What will happen to the San Joaquins after high speed rail is launched? (I realize its many years off still.) Is the plan to offer the San Joaquins as a slower, but lower cost, alternative to the High Speed rail? It obviously serves more stops than the high speed proposed routes.

I think it will continue as a regional with multi-stops while the HSR will use express with fewer stops at major transportation center, just like in the NE corridor.

Does the San Joaquins run along the same general route that the high speed rail will be built on, or are there places where the two routes will diverge by 5-10 miles or more?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

1. Comparable automobile trips take longer. See the table on page 13. The train is really competing with air travel. Most airports don't offer cheap parking, either.

There are certainly plenty of people who will do whatever ``saves money'', even if it takes longer.

But the person who takes the automobile is probably putting more dollars of wear on the highway than they would be on putting dollars of wear on the rails (or possibly even wear on the rails plus wear on the trainset), their carbon footprint is greater, even if the train is powered 50% by coal, and the person taking the automobile is using up oil. That oil consumption is bad both because it drives up the price for people to don't have an alternative so readily available (think of all the people in Alaska, for example), and because it increases our trade deficit.

IIRC, George Harris was predicting that they will initially fail to order enough trainsets, so it probably makes a lot of sense for it to initially cost more than driving, but once they've ordered enough trainsets, they ought to try to get the price down to the point where people can save money by taking the train even if they have to rent a car at their destination. (Possibly some of that should be accomplished where a passenger who is renting a car gets a discount on rail fare that mostly offsets the cost of the rental car, and hopefully parking costs at their destination will provide the incentive to use mass transit at the destination.)

 

[Neil_M]

The tunnels under the pass would be no big deal. This is done in Europe all of the time. Switzerland has much higher mountains, and they are building 30 mile tunnels to speed passenger trains under the Alps.

Also realise that we run six-lane superhigways through our mountains. If Switzerland could do that, they might not need the 30-mile tunnels....

They were clever enough not to be suckered into worshipping the motor vehicle.

There was a referendum on the new tunnels and it was voted in because it improved the nation's infrastructure, speeded up journey times to Italy and allowed more trucks to be taken off the roads and put on 'rolling roads' thus keeping thousands of truck journeys per day off the Alpine roads. Seems a good idea to me.

 

[montereyan]

1) Why do they want to set fares higher than automobile travel? Shouldn't the idea be to get people out of their automobiles and onto the trains? They also mention market rate parking. Aren't they going to lose a lot of passengers who will decide that taking the highway will save them both on travel costs and parking?

You have to consider that by 2018 when the system is up and running gas prices will not be where they are at today - even if the 30% annual increase in price we've experienced since 2002 isn't sustained, most analysts assume gas will be significantly above $5/gal by that time. Combined with the significant time savings of HSR trains vs. driving and the fares make sense. They likely won't discourage HSR travel.

2) Page 20 has an illustration of the proposed Transbay station. Why so many levels? Is it going to be served by several different types of train services? I haven't come across a really good description of what's on each level; the Wikipedia article certainly doesn't seem to explain it.

I don't know about that image - there will likely be four levels: HSR/Caltrain below grade, then at-grade drop-off and pickup, then two levels of buses for regional services. Another level may be ticketing and shops.

 

[sechs]

The tunnels under the pass would be no big deal. This is done in Europe all of the time. Switzerland has much higher mountains, and they are building 30 mile tunnels to speed passenger trains under the Alps.

Also realise that we run six-lane superhigways through our mountains. If Switzerland could do that, they might not need the 30-mile tunnels....

They were clever enough not to be suckered into worshipping the motor vehicle.

You missed the point. Switzerland couldn't run such a road through the Alps even if they wanted to.

 

[sechs]

2) Page 20 has an illustration of the proposed Transbay station. Why so many levels? Is it going to be served by several different types of train services? I haven't come across a really good description of what's on each level; the Wikipedia article certainly doesn't seem to explain it.

I don't know about that image - there will likely be four levels: HSR/Caltrain below grade, then at-grade drop-off and pickup, then two levels of buses for regional services. Another level may be ticketing and shops.

You might want to see my answer to this question on the previous page. Unless you already did, and just copied it, leaving out the details.....

 

[Neil_M]

The tunnels under the pass would be no big deal. This is done in Europe all of the time. Switzerland has much higher mountains, and they are building 30 mile tunnels to speed passenger trains under the Alps.

Also realise that we run six-lane superhigways through our mountains. If Switzerland could do that, they might not need the 30-mile tunnels....

They were clever enough not to be suckered into worshipping the motor vehicle.

You missed the point. Switzerland couldn't run such a road through the Alps even if they wanted to.

Why not?

 

[sechs]

You think it's easy to run a little railroad tunnel through there.... you tell me how they'd do it.