Bakersfield - Los Angeles hsr.

I believe the routing is Bakersfield - tehapachi - Mojave - Palm springs - los Angeles . i was wondering what would be possible if the florida stimulus money went to Califionia . As far as using the hsr alignment to fill get a service up and running asap . as far as i can see , bridging this rail gap would provide the most benefit for the amount of money avaliable .
hopefully ,
- buying land to provide the row from Bakersfield to Mojave .
- laying a non electrified single track over this section to HSR standard .
- provide necessary improvements to exisitng rail Mojave - Los Angeles to allow passenger service .
the idea would be to allow existing san Jouqian services to be exetended to Los Angleles over the single track hsr alignment , whilst still allowing this section to be used as a test bed for hsr , and to be used as part of the hsr in the future .

This is an idea that makes too much sense to implement.

But, I have a feeling that it would cost nearly as much to put in a single, non-electrified track along this routing as it would to install the full system between Orlando and Tampa. Between those two cities, there's a flat, wide right-of-way already owned by the state in most of its entirety. In California, the route is rugged and crosses either one wide (I-5 Grapevine route) or two more narrow (Tehachapi/Palmdale route) mountain ranges, as well as several fault lines.

It is a nice idea, since the LA-Bakersfield segment is currently handled only by bus. But the current proposed route runs parallel to state route 14 between Palmdale and San Fernando. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Propo ... anner.aspx
I don't believe that the environmental assessment is complete on this segment, and while electric multiple units can handle steeper grades, the route poses some challenges as you can see in this picture.

David Benton wrote:I believe the routing is Bakersfield - tehapachi - Mojave - Palm springs - los Angeles . i was wondering what would be possible if the florida stimulus money went to Califionia . As far as using the hsr alignment to fill get a service up and running asap . as far as i can see , bridging this rail gap would provide the most benefit for the amount of money avaliable .
hopefully ,
- buying land to provide the row from Bakersfield to Mojave .
- laying a non electrified single track over this section to HSR standard .
- provide necessary improvements to exisitng rail Mojave - Los Angeles to allow passenger service .
the idea would be to allow existing san Jouqian services to be exetended to Los Angleles over the single track hsr alignment , whilst still allowing this section to be used as a test bed for hsr , and to be used as part of the hsr in the future .

The problem with building a "single HSR" track from Bakersfield to Palmdale is that this is through the Tehachapi mountains with a considerable elevation rise. The goal is a true HSR corridor through the mountains, not another seriously twisty slow freight train route through the hills.

To get an idea of what is involved, check the Alternative Analysis documents at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/lib_B ... mdale.aspx. Page 12 of the Board Meeting Agenda Item 9 viewgraph presentation has a side view of the elevation and terrain the Tehachapi subsection has to go through. Page 99 (of the PDF file) of the staff report has a table summarizing the alternate alignments through the 40 mile Tehachapi subsection with total tunnel lengths ranging from 10.7 to 16 miles, elevated tracks (this will be very tall elevated tracks in some places) ranging from 5.1 to 10.9 miles and an average slope of 2.5% or 2.65%.

I have only skimmed some of the other sections, but I would venture that the 40 miles Tehachapi subsection with 10 to 16 miles of tunneling is going to be the most expensive 40 mile section of the CA HSR system to build, other than possibly some of the sections from San Jose- San Fran and in LA which get expensive because of dealing with existing infrastructure and trying to make many stakeholders happy. There is a lot of more preliminary route selection and engineering work to do on the Bakersfield to Palmdale section before final engineering and then construction can begin.

The sooner they can get started on final engineering and construction for the Bakersfield to Palmdale section the better because it will take many years to bore out the tunnels and build elevated bridges. if they can get a interim HSR corridor running from Fresno (and points north) to Bakersfield to LA Union Station, it will fill in a huge gap in passenger rail service in CA. Also, Desert Express may have a built a Palmdale to Las Vegas electrified service by then and we may see a LA to Las Vegas HSR service (via switching to a connecting train in Palmdale) running before the LA to San Francisco service. But the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to the San Fernando valley section are going to cost serious bucks to build. Much more than the $2.4 billion Florida is throwing back.

I see that Mr. Figgatt is better informed on this subject than I am. I also see that there's a new alternatives analysis between Palmdale and Los Angeles dated March 3, 2011. It looks like I now have some enjoyable reading for the weekend.

afigatt wrote:

if they can get a interim HSR corridor running from Fresno (and points north) to Bakersfield to LA Union Station, it will fill in a huge gap in passenger rail service in CA.

We concur .... at least, as far as the first half of the project is concerned. Getting something in place between Bakersfield and points north at least as far as Stockton (which badly needs economic prodding) ought to be relatively easy, and Bakersfield makes a natural starting point for a spur to Las Vegas.

But getting that service "over the hump" and into the Los Angeles basin is going to be a challenge, and in ways other than engineering alone.

But if there is an unturned ace in this game, it is that people familiar with both the operating and marketing constraints there know that Californians are, if nothing else, adaptable. The concept of Amtrak's San Joaquin{/i] service dates back at keast to the end of World War II, when objections fromTehachapi "landlord" Southern Pacific forced Santa Fe to develop a network of feeder buses built around a Bakersfield hub. The impression made by that service was sufficiently positive that Amtrak was able to revive the servuce despite a hiatus in the early 1970's.

California is the only market with the numbers, the diversity of population, and ultimately, the recognition of the unworkability of contiinued expansion of the "auto-centric" culture to generate both enough capital and enough resolve to allow an approach for which the private sector has (justifiable) suspicion, to take root,

thank for all the informative replies . things such as gradients are hard to ascertain from satellite pictures . though i actually walked form tehapachi town about 1/2 down to Bakersfield back in the eighties .
My reasoning is based on people having to change form train to bus now . perhaps even a demo line form Bakersfield to the foot hills , or just to tehapachi itself , would be a good start . it would depend how willing UP is to allow other parts of the route to host passenger trains . i assume the loop itself is the choke point .

David Benton wrote:thank for all the informative replies . things such as gradients are hard to ascertain from satellite pictures . though i actually walked form tehapachi town about 1/2 down to Bakersfield back in the eighties .
My reasoning is based on people having to change form train to bus now . perhaps even a demo line form Bakersfield to the foot hills , or just to tehapachi itself , would be a good start . it would depend how willing UP is to allow other parts of the route to host passenger trains . i assume the loop itself is the choke point .

I think it is the entire segment through the mountains from Tehachapi to the valley that is the choke point. In Google Earth, there is an option in the Layers box to highlight the railroad tracks with a overlaid black line. You can activate it by checking the More->Transportation->Rail box. Start in Tehachapi, CA, zoom out, and see just how winding the UP tracks going NW to the valley. You can see the loop in the trace for the UP route. There are plans and projects in the works to double track much or all of the route through the mountains, although the upgrade plans have talked about for decades according to a quick google search. But even if the entire route was double tracked and the freight railroads were amendable to several trains a day passenger service through the mountains, the route would extremely slow for passenger service.

The better solution is to build a new dedicated passenger rail route with a lot of tunnels through the Tehachapi range. I would hope they would design the tunnels and route to allow current Amtrak bi-level trains to use the route. The tunnels will likely be designed for electric locomotives only because of the steep grade and to keep cost down on the ventilation systems. I can see where they have the premium express HSR service at 200-220 mph from LA to Bakersfield and points north. But then have a local 110-125 mph extension of the San Joaquin service that uses an electric locomotive between LA and Bakersfield with more local stops, then switches to a diesel loco in Bakersfield and makes local stops to Sacramento. Whether that concept is in the plans at all, not a clue.

afigatt wrote:

I think it is the entire segment through the mountains from Tehachapi to the valley that is the choke point.

No argument there; and even a "solution" like doublle-tracking won't address the congestion issue for conventional freight traffic due to the excessive curcvature and, possibly, topographic obstacles. Yhat's why Espee wouldn't allow additional pssenger traffic over "the Loop" back in the Fifties, and Union Pacific won't today.

The better solution is to build a new dedicated passenger rail route with a lot of tunnels through the Tehachapi range. I would hope they would design the tunnels and route to allow current Amtrak bi-level trains to use the route. The tunnels will likely be designed for electric locomotives only because of the steep grade and to keep cost down on the ventilation systems.

Another case of putting the cart before the horse, I'm afraid. If you can get the easiest (and fastest) 250-300 miles of track in place in flat country, the rest can wait until the speed advantage of the HSR option is clearly demonstrable, particulary if Metrolink and BART can be extended and/or upgraded. The public's reluctance to transfer between carriers should be overcome, if the revival of the San Joaquins' feeder-bus network is a relable indicator.

Perhaps the most interesting possibility in the mix is the prospect that UP could be invited to participate in the development of a paralell tunnel under Tehachapi (shared trackage would simply be far too great an invitation to tempt fate) at the same time.

Seems like a bad idea to me. It won't save much money, because most of the expensive stuff will still have to be built.

It would be better to truncate the HSR line somewhere outside of LA. One could then use a Metrolink-like shuttle train to connect to it. Using the CHSRA's estimates and Metrolink's schedules, here are the travel times for various transfer points:

Palmdale -- 31m -- 1h 55m -- 2h 26m
Sylmar -- 45m -- 30m -- 1h 15m
Burbank -- 49m -- 16m -- 1h 5m
LA -- 54m -- 0 -- 54m

Metrolink makes several stops along the way, and the Sylmar - Palmdale part seems very slow. Even then, it may be hard to shave off much time, because LA - Palmdale is 62 mi, and LA - Sylmar about 30 mi. WIth the help of Caltrain's schedules,

So one ought to shoot for Sylmar.

Looking at the opposite end, Fresno is about 150 mi by road from San Jose, and Merced not much closer.

Fresno -- 0 -- 3h -- 3h
Gilroy -- 39m -- 50m -- 1h 29m
San Jose -- 51m -- 0 -- 51m

So one ought to shoot for Gilroy also.

CAHSR trip planner
Metrolink :: Schedules
caltrain.com
Google Maps