California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

I'm not sure if CAHSR is unnecessary. I think it's more that it's poorly conceived and executed. "Higher" speed may have been a better choice along with a different routing?

Equipment providers narrowed: HSR.CA.GOV

NEWS RELEASE: High-Speed Rail Authority Releases Shortlist of Potential Suppliers for Electrified High-Speed Trains in California

January 5, 2024

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – On the heels of the nearly $3.1 billion historic federal investment for California’s high-speed rail project, which includes funding for new electric trains, the California High-Speed Rail Authority today released its shortlist of qualified bidders for its high-speed trainsets. The identification of the shortlisted teams is an important step toward the release of the Request for Proposals and procurement of state-of-the-art electrified high-speed trainsets capable of operating at speeds up to 220 mph.

The shortlist includes two teams:

Alstom Transportation Inc.
Siemens Mobility Inc.

“These world-class vendors ensure that we are procuring the latest generation of high-speed trains,” said Authority CEO Brian Kelly. “With this recent federal grant, we are able to move forward with this major step on the project, purchasing trains capable of speeds of more than 220 mph to move passengers here in California in a way that transforms the passenger rail experience.”

On Aug. 24, 2023, the Authority’s Board of Directors approved the release of a Request for Qualifications for the trainsets and related services contract. This contract will comply with the Buy America Act, and this procurement will result in a supply-maintain contract for the provision of trainsets, a driving simulator, and related services. The Authority anticipates releasing the Request for Proposals in the coming months, followed by award of a contract later this year.

The Trainset and Related Services contract will be funded in part by the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (Fed-State National) Program grant the Authority received in December 2023. The scope of work for the contract is anticipated to include:

The design, manufacture, storage (prior to conditional acceptance), integration, testing and commissioning of the trainsets;
Maintenance of each trainset for 30 years and provision of all spares (i.e., interchangeable parts of a trainset) for such trainsets;
The provision, testing, commissioning, maintenance, and update of the driving simulator;
Development and provision of design criteria to inform interfaces with the facilities, track, systems, and stations;
Participating in the testing and commissioning of the facilities, track, systems, and stations;
The development and provision of information as required to support the certification and subsequent commissioning of the trainsets; and
The operation and maintenance of the trainset maintenance-related equipment installed in the Heavy Maintenance Facility, Light Maintenance Facility and Trainset Certification Facility (to be built by others).
Since the start of construction, the Authority has created more than 12,000 construction jobs, a majority going to residents from the Central Valley. On average, nearly 1,500 workers are dispatched to a high-speed rail construction site daily. The Authority has begun work to extend the 119 miles under construction to 171 miles of future electrified high-speed rail from Merced to Bakersfield.

There are more than 25 active construction sites in California’s Central Valley, with the Authority having also environmentally cleared 422 miles of the high-speed rail program from the Bay Area to the Los Angeles Basin.

For more information on construction, visit: https://buildhsr.com/External Link

The following link contains recent video, animations, photography, press center resources and latest renderings: https://hsra.app.box.com/s/vyvjv9hckwl1 ... q8External Link

These files are all available for free use, courtesy of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

lensovet wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:07 pm I mean, Gateway has already received over 11B in funding from the federal government and in fact got 3.8 of that this past November. And is that really the poster child for effective projects in this country? Something like 20B dollars to reconstruct about 3 miles of existing infrastructure?

No it is more like the mileage from NYP to Newark station including CP Draw -at draw bridge at Newark. That includes expense of rebuilding present tunnel bores.

west point wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 12:23 am

lensovet wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:07 pm I mean, Gateway has already received over 11B in funding from the federal government and in fact got 3.8 of that this past November. And is that really the poster child for effective projects in this country? Something like 20B dollars to reconstruct about 3 miles of existing infrastructure?

No it is more like the mileage from NYP to Newark station including CP Draw -at draw bridge at Newark. That includes expense of rebuilding present tunnel bores.

Nope, Gateway funding at this point in time covers exactly three projects: Portal North, a new tunnel under the Hudson (including the construction of a tunnel box at Hudson Yards and West Side Yard), and rehab of the existing tunnel. It's actually less than 3 miles.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 12:05 pm I'm not sure if CAHSR is unnecessary. I think it's more that it's poorly conceived and executed. "Higher" speed may have been a better choice along with a different routing?

What other routing exactly?

Going along the coast is a non-starter due to the mountains and curves. Going through Pachecho Pass bypasses San Jose, which is insane. Higher speed would make no sense, this route is drivable in 5 hours, if you want rail to be competitive, it has to be significantly faster than that for people to give up the freedom of being able to drive at their destination, as neither end of the line is particularly renowned for being a mass transit wonderland.

I thimk they should have built the missing link first , L.a- Bakersfield.

David Benton wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 2:42 am I thimk they should have built the missing link first , L.a- Bakersfield.

That link is also the most expensive, goes through the most seismically active area, and entails the most complex engineering and construction of this entire project. Would also be completely non-competitive with driving due to the curves involved.

I take it none of the commenters here have ever lived in California?

If CAHSR had done this first segment to south to Palmdale instead of Bakersfield, they would have had connections to regional / commuter rail into the SF and LA metro regions at both ends of the initial segment. And depending on how they had done it, Amtrak California could have operated LA-to-SF or LA-to-Sacramento higher speed rail services over CAHSR's trackage while CAHSR builds out enough to run its own services. (I think the Palmdale-to-LA route used by Metrolink is owned by Metrolink).

I can see both political and engineering merits to the initial operating segment of CAHSR not extending into the LA or SF metro areas; politically because it can be shown to benefit someone other than those two metro areas, engineering because its between two mountain ranges that need to be crossed to get to those metro areas.

I haven't lived in California, but I do travel to areas outside Palmdale frequently for business, and my brother lives in LA. While the Metrolink is not time competitive with driving when all things are going great on the highways, it is way less stressful, and way less variable (I've driven LAX-Palmdale in just over an hour to just under 3 on the same route with the variability totally chalked up to an accident here, a lane closing there, rush hour vs not, some twerp driving 40 in a 70 in the middle-left lane...).

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 3:35 am ...
I take it none of the commenters here have ever lived in California?

I lived in Monterey for a year, and remember driving to both Fresno and LA once. Not fun. Can't recall the routes. So not a lot of experience. I just thought there might be a better routing, or better options.

Well , I'e walked the Techapachi loop route, which not many can claim to , but you don't need to live in a palce to see the problems etc. Especially with Google streetview etc today.
With a good portion of the route that has been built on viaduct, construction costs are probably not that much higher in mountainous areas.
California is part of the ring of fire with Japan (and N.Z) , so shares technology in quake mitigation techniques. Japan has alot more to offer , but N.Z has experience from the 7.2 Kaikoura earthquake. The tunnels held up surprisingly well, none were abandoned , and a few need minor repairs .

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 5:33 am If CAHSR had done this first segment to south to Palmdale instead of Bakersfield, they would have had connections to regional / commuter rail into the SF and LA metro regions at both ends of the initial segment. And depending on how they had done it, Amtrak California could have operated LA-to-SF or LA-to-Sacramento higher speed rail services over CAHSR's trackage while CAHSR builds out enough to run its own services. (I think the Palmdale-to-LA route used by Metrolink is owned by Metrolink).

Running diesels through tunnels in remote mountains in a region prone to wildfires, what could go wrong.

Also not sure how a connection from Bakersfield to Palmdale creates a connection to SF. You do realize there's no route from SF to the Central Valley, right?

I can see both political and engineering merits to the initial operating segment of CAHSR not extending into the LA or SF metro areas; politically because it can be shown to benefit someone other than those two metro areas, engineering because its between two mountain ranges that need to be crossed to get to those metro areas.

The environmental clearance for the Bakersfield to Palmdale section wasn't even complete until 2021. This had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the fact that the HSR money had a time limit and CAHSR needed something that was ready to submit before that time limit ran out. If you can believe it, this project was getting money from the 2009 (!!!) ARRA. Funding was allocated in 2010 with the stipulation that it be spent to build a segment in the Central Valley by the DOT.

I haven't lived in California, but I do travel to areas outside Palmdale frequently for business, and my brother lives in LA. While the Metrolink is not time competitive with driving when all things are going great on the highways, it is way less stressful, and way less variable (I've driven LAX-Palmdale in just over an hour to just under 3 on the same route with the variability totally chalked up to an accident here, a lane closing there, rush hour vs not, some twerp driving 40 in a 70 in the middle-left lane...).

I see you're from VA. California is not like the northeast, end of story. The fact that you've traveled there frequently for business and yet have never taken the train should be a good indicator of that. No one who travels to NYC for business rents a car. No one who travels to LA for business takes the train.

What I find interesting is the Palmdale -burbank section, which is virtually all in tunnel.
Why not just make it a straight line between the 2 points? Some mention of avoiding potential high pressure underground water, and having access to spoil disposal points, but I would have thought the extra tunnel length would cost more than dealing with those problems.

lensovet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 1:07 am

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 5:33 am If CAHSR had done this first segment to south to Palmdale instead of Bakersfield, they would have had connections to regional / commuter rail into the SF and LA metro regions at both ends of the initial segment. And depending on how they had done it, Amtrak California could have operated LA-to-SF or LA-to-Sacramento higher speed rail services over CAHSR's trackage while CAHSR builds out enough to run its own services. (I think the Palmdale-to-LA route used by Metrolink is owned by Metrolink).

Running diesels through tunnels in remote mountains in a region prone to wildfires, what could go wrong.

Nothing that couldn't go wrong with electrification either. As far as I can tell, it's electrical equipment failures are as responsible for wildfires in the area as anything else.

lensovet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 1:07 am Also not sure how a connection from Bakersfield to Palmdale creates a connection to SF. You do realize there's no route from SF to the Central Valley, right?

The ACE Valley Link project to extend ACE to Merced is expected to be open by 2030, which would provide an SF-area commuter/regional rail connection to the CAHSR initial operating segment. (And since San Jose has a larger population than the city of SF, that's a more important part of the SF area to reach).

lensovet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 1:07 am

I haven't lived in California, but I do travel to areas outside Palmdale frequently for business, and my brother lives in LA. While the Metrolink is not time competitive with driving when all things are going great on the highways, it is way less stressful, and way less variable (I've driven LAX-Palmdale in just over an hour to just under 3 on the same route with the variability totally chalked up to an accident here, a lane closing there, rush hour vs not, some twerp driving 40 in a 70 in the middle-left lane...).

I see you're from VA. California is not like the northeast, end of story. The fact that you've traveled there frequently for business and yet have never taken the train should be a good indicator of that. No one who travels to NYC for business rents a car. No one who travels to LA for business takes the train.

Kind of, if business takes me to offices in the City of LA, I've used public transit (and have even been explicitly not authorized to expense a car), but when it takes me up to remote installations in the high desert (i.e. places 50 miles outside Palmdale (the closest hotel) where the security gate is still 30 miles from the work site), I am required to have a car in the same way that business travel to a Manhattan office building for PANYNJ differs from business travel to a facility in Port Elizabeth.

I can say that having been a truck driver (straight, not semi) in the DC and NYC areas, driving in NYC was (pre-pandemic, post 9/11) way better in NYC than in DC or anywhere in between those cities.

David Benton wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:47 am What I find interesting is the Palmdale -burbank section, which is virtually all in tunnel.
Why not just make it a straight line between the 2 points? Some mention of avoiding potential high pressure underground water, and having access to spoil disposal points, but I would have thought the extra tunnel length would cost more than dealing with those problems.

A lot of times, there is no feasible engineering solution for the geology. You go where the geology forces you to g. This kind of goes to lenosovet's point about commenters not really knowing California.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 6:45 am

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 3:35 am ...
I take it none of the commenters here have ever lived in California?

I lived in Monterey for a year, and remember driving to both Fresno and LA once. Not fun. Can't recall the routes. So not a lot of experience. I just thought there might be a better routing, or better options.

The bolded part is exactly the point. And really, somebody doesn't need to have lived in California to apply some common sense. There is no direct route. And while there is a somewhat shorter route once the trains are in the Valley, it would miss population centers not called Los Angeles or San Francisco. There are millions of people in the Valley, to build a system that excluded them, despite the trains being only 50 miles from the cities, would be a huge mistake, without a significant benefit to route completion.

HenryAlan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:51 pm

David Benton wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:47 am What I find interesting is the Palmdale -burbank section, which is virtually all in tunnel.
Why not just make it a straight line between the 2 points? Some mention of avoiding potential high pressure underground water, and having access to spoil disposal points, but I would have thought the extra tunnel length would cost more than dealing with those problems.

A lot of times, there is no feasible engineering solution for the geology. You go where the geology forces you to g. This kind of goes to lenosovet's point about commenters not really knowing California.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 6:45 am

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2024 3:35 am ...
I take it none of the commenters here have ever lived in California?

I lived in Monterey for a year, and remember driving to both Fresno and LA once. Not fun. Can't recall the routes. So not a lot of experience. I just thought there might be a better routing, or better options.

The bolded part is exactly the point. And really, somebody doesn't need to have lived in California to apply some common sense. There is no direct route. And while there is a somewhat shorter route once the trains are in the Valley, it would miss population centers not called Los Angeles or San Francisco. There are millions of people in the Valley, to build a system that excluded them, despite the trains being only 50 miles from the cities, would be a huge mistake, without a significant benefit to route completion.

Maybe . Though it would seem to me Engineers in California would have little experience in building long rail tunnels. It looks to me like they've started off looking at ground routes , then realized they need to put them under ground. There are several mentions of wildlife and other surface features. what do they matter if there is a tunnel deep underneath them ?
most other long tunnels I've seen , straight as an arrow.