CAHSR: Now Single Track

So this popped in the Los Angeles Times today

High-speed rail to run on a single track in Central Valley as overall cost rises

Brief, fair use quote

By RALPH VARTABEDIAN

The first phase of the California bullet train — a 171-mile link in the Central Valley — will be reduced to a single track as its estimated cost has risen by $2 billion, according to a revised business plan for the project released Tuesday.

There are no words to describe the overwhelming amount of anger, disappointment and confusion of having a single-tracked high speed line...

I´ve heard of a few minor ¨high speed¨ lines in Japan being single tracked, but never a major main line like this...

CAHSR is the poster charge for state agency mismanagement. Brian Kelly should be fired.

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am CAHSR is the poster charge for state agency mismanagement. Brian Kelly should be fired.

And also for "let's just have the contractors do everything , as we've little in house knowledge and they wouldn't rip us off, right?"

Penny wise pound foolish.
Can you imagine the additional costs that will be needed to drop ties and rail once service is ongoing?.. The additional labor costs due to inefficiencies of waiting for track time, delays to operating trains. Additionally cat support poles will need to be installed to outside on the single track sections to allow for the future dropping of rail and ties to uninstalled 2nd main track.
It may be some kind of rail installation train can be that can ring both rail and ties such as seen in Europe.
As well the installation of crossovers at CP will need much coordination to prevent shutdown of service for installations..
Will signal bungalows be set up for future 2 main tracks or not.? The list just gets longer and longer.

Looking this over, I would like to point out that Phase I, or the initial operating portion of this route, is the Central Valley portion of the whole route. This means that the entirety of the route (or phase I at least) will be single tracked...

Yep, one track doesn't cut the costs in half... bridges and station platforms will still need to be doubled from the start. Signaling will have to be built out with stubs, and utility feeds will have to be designed/built to future state.

At best I'd guess they save $500M off the current budget and will spend over $1B to finish it out later...

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am CAHSR is the poster charge for state agency mismanagement. Brian Kelly should be fired.

fwiw, the contractor in Fresno seems to share my opinion that this has nothing to do with the agency, or the contractor, and everything to do with property acquisition, which you can imagine is blocked by the very same people claiming that the rail line is a boondoggle.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... gry-letter

The Ariqat letter notes that less than 50% of the 31-mile construction segment under Tutor Perini’s contract has been completed. The original contract anticipated completion by 2017.

The letter notes that the firm has completed 14 bridges, viaducts and other structures and has begun work on six more. But it has not even begun work on 32 structures, mainly because the state has not provided the land.

don't expect UP to be helping matters either…

The Ariqat letter spends considerable time detailing the problems of working with Union Pacific, whose tracks parallel the bullet train route through much of Fresno. It alleges that the railroad has made “preferential and unreasonable demands” in reviewing and approving work plans for sites adjacent to its property.

If construction interferes with UPs operations, they have every right to say pound sand.

And if the authority or the contractor want to use rail to move construction materials, UP has every right to charge the tariff rate.

And if the authority needs temporary sidings, UP has every right to charge cost plus profit to install and remove them.

Full disclosure: Long IRA position in UNP.

This is what happens when you start building something you do not have all the money needed to build it secured. Single tracking is not the only insult CHSR is giving everyone. They are required by law to turn an operating profit. So, along with single tracking, and needing an additional $500 million to complete the initial operating segment, they now want the regional agency subsidizing Amtrak California in the valley to lease used HSR trains temporarily to get out from under that legal requirement. They also want an extension from the FRA to spend their federal grants, which was authorized as part of the 2008-2009 stimulus bill with a hard 10 year deadline set in the bill. Nobody else got an extension from the FRA, but CHSR thinks they should because they are so incompetent to spend it all within the 10 years deadline.
Maybe, with the money they had secured, they should have built a shorter initial operating segment, like just between Fresno and Bakersfield - or two shorter operating segments, like San Jose to San Francisco up north, and Los Angeles to Anaheim down south?
The Governor and the Legislature needs to fire those on the board and hire new board members, presto. This project has been over promising and under delivering since day 1. So sad!

Found a counterpoint; the CAHSR will indeed have 2 tracks, not one:

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/02/11/ ... let-train/

A quote taken from the blog post:

Against that reality, the Los Angeles Times’s now-freelance reporter on the HSR beat, Ralph Vartabedian, continues to frame the project as basically D.O.A., writing Wednesday that the construction authority will build “…a single track in [the] Central Valley” rather than the planned two tracks on the Bakersfield-to-Merced route.

That statement isn’t just out of sync with recent news: it’s patently false.

“We absolutely intend to build two tracks,” said Boris Lipkin, a director on the project.

As with most of Vartabedian’s anti-rail propaganda, the one-track claim parallels a shard of truth–just enough to make it seem plausible to the uninitiated. On page 44 of the recently released business plan, it says that as part of its bidding process the authority wants contractors to look at completing one of the two planned parallel tracks before the other, so they can run some trains before both are finished.

Here is the core of the actual statement in its original bureaucratese:

Key to this proof-of-concept and initial operations are passing tracks for trains operating interim service. In addition, track elements necessary for ultimate expanded dual track operation would be constructed, thus minimizing future service interruptions and costs. This will allow the Authority to phase track implementation throughout the Central Valley in a way that meets cash flow and funding availability.

As seen in the photos below and above, everything the authority is building is more than wide enough for two tracks. Furthermore, the new business plan was written before the outcome of the 2020 election was determined in the Senate. So it was just sensible to explore all possible contingencies to get some trains running as soon as possible–and some ticket revenue flowing–if anti-rail Republicans held onto power. “It’s not the ultimate vision, we will certainly need two tracks,” said Lipkin.

GojiMet86 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:51 pm Here is the core of the actual statement in its original bureaucratese:
Key to this proof-of-concept and initial operations are passing tracks for trains operating interim service. In addition, track elements necessary for ultimate expanded dual track operation would be constructed, thus minimizing future service interruptions and costs. This will allow the Authority to phase track implementation throughout the Central Valley in a way that meets cash flow and funding availability.
“It’s not the ultimate vision, we will certainly need two tracks,” said Lipkin.

A. Passing tracks are not needed on a double track line.
B. Track elements necessary for ultimate expanded dual track operations would not be needed on a double track line.
C. Minimizing future service interruptions installing the second track would not be needed if built initially for dual tracks.

Everything in points A, B, &C suggest an initial single track operations. So the newsman was correct. The one not telling the truth was the spokesperson for the CHSR Authority - in their own words.

Initial operations and ultimate operations are two different things! The newsman was talking about initial operations, the CHSR spokesperson was sweeping initial operations under a rug and talking about ultimate operations if and when additional grants and funding was found.

Additionally, leased used HSR trainsets running at 40 mph lower maximum speeds would not be needed if the dual tracks were built initially. They could just go and buy or lease new train sets that could operate at the maximum track design speed.

A two track line doesn’t mean two isolated tracks with no signaling. You need crossovers for redundancy and emergency usage. Those crossovers just start out life as passing sidings.

Also the original article as I read it implied that the only two track segments would be at stations. That appears to be false, as passing sidings would be installed.

Finally, no plan has even been committed to. The authority simply asked contractors to include two options in their bids.

GojiMet86 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:51 pm
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/02/11/ ... let-train/

A quote taken from the blog post:

“We absolutely intend to build two tracks,” said Boris Lipkin, a director on the project.

<cynical>Such a definitive word, INTEND.</cynical>

lensovet wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:48 am Finally, no plan has even been committed to. The authority simply asked contractors to include two options in their bids.

Asking and looking at options in their bids is the first act of "value" engineering, delivering less than promised. If they fully "intend" to build a double track mainline for initial operations, they would not be asking and looking at single track options.