California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Volks, lest we get too excited about a possible completion of the CAHSR project, note that there is a "very strong possibility" incumbent Gov. Newsom will be removed from office by the pending recall initiative. In order for Gov. Newsom to stay in office, he must attain a majority, i.e. 50% + 1, of the votes. Otherwise the runner up accedes to the office, even if that candidate has less votes.

The likely runner up, a Fox/Newsmax/One America/Trump disciple will surely scrub the project in its entirety.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:56 pm Volks, lest we get too excited about a possible completion of the CAHSR project, note that there is a "very strong possibility" incumbent Gov. Newsom will be removed from office by the pending recall initiative. ...

Or so it seemed last month. But it looks like Gov. Newsom will stay in office with a comfortable margin of vote, meaning that the CAHSR system has dodged that bullet.


Doing some more travel-time analysis, I turn to the planned Las Vegas line. Victorville - LV is 187 mi and 2h 57m by car. (2.95 h). By 150-mph train, it will be 1.25 hours (1h 15m).

This Las Vegas line would be connected to the CAHSR system with a Palmdale-Victorville connection: 52.8 mi, 1h 2m by car, 0.35 h (21m) by train.

Could anyone out there give a synopsis on Cal High speed rail 's current goals? After it builds the first segment in the valley, will it run high speed trains there, and will they continue onto the Cal Train electrification project ? Don't know much about it but I know it has gone through major modifications, and I'm hoping somebody can sum up what to expect when those two electrification projects are finished. Thank you!

pbj123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:15 pm Could anyone out there give a synopsis on Cal High speed rail 's current goals? After it builds the first segment in the valley, will it run high speed trains there, and will they continue onto the Cal Train electrification project ? Don't know much about it but I know it has gone through major modifications, and I'm hoping somebody can sum up what to expect when those two electrification projects are finished. Thank you!

To be honest with you, nobody knows the answer to your question because it depends upon what they fund to build next.
There is a 90 mile gap between the HSR line being built in the Valley and the Caltrain electrification on the Peninsula. A DEIS has been completed for this 90 mile gap section, Federal funding could not occur before the FEIS has been completed and a full funding agreement is approved by the FRA. The FEIS is scheduled for completion in 2022, next year. Who knows "when" this 90 mile gap will be funded and built?

The CHSR Authority has broken down the CHSR system into at least 10 sections, and their status:
San Francisco to San Jose (Phase 1) DEIS published
San Jose to Merced (Phase 1) DEIS published
Merced to Fresno (Phase 1) Under Construction
Fresno to Bakersfield (Phase 1) Under Construction
Bakersfield to Palmdale (Phase 1) FEIS published
Palmdale to Burbank (Phase 1) Scoping underway, Alternate Analysis published
Burbank to Los Angeles (Phase 1) Scoping underway, Alternate Analysis published
Merced to Sacramento (Phase 2) No official actions taken to date
Los Angeles to Anaheim (Phase 2) Scoping underway, Alternate Analysis published
Los Angeles to San Diego (Phase 2) No official actions taken to date

I would also like to note that the Caltrain electrification process underway is for Caltrain, the DEIS for CHSR has been published but the FEIS process is still underway. There will be additional improvements necessary to the Caltrain route before CHSR trains will be able to run on it.

Thanks! Shall we call the distance between Caltrain and Cal High Speed Rail. the Darien Gap ?

The big question is how are the various links be run once the first HSR portion of the route is completely operational ? Just some possibilities would be considering whether train sets are also certified or not.
1. couple an ALC at end of electrification to pull train on to final station( SFO & LAX ? ) .
2. Modify ALC gearing to match max HSR speed and run thru using diesel on non CAT territory. Might not be able to obtain the 220 MPH speed.
3. Allow Amtrak Trains to operate on the new alignment with its diesel consists probably ALCs with max speeds of 125.
4. Amtrak operate with AS-64 under CAT and connect Diesels at CAT end. Or run thru with idle diesels.
5. Probably other possibilities
Suspect #1 more likely even though the 10 - 15 minute connection times would be an impediment.

EDIT. Another question would be . Would Amtrak be allowed on rail as soon as track is operational and before the HSR train sets are certified to run on those same tracks. Bakersfield - Sacramento times would certainly be reduced.

San Joaquins Train | Amtrak - runs along the under-construction part of the CAHSR route between Merced and Bakersfield, though with more stations.

Merced - Madera - Fresno - (Hanford) - Corcoran - (Wasco) - Bakersfield

() - SJ-only

Yes I have read somewhere that the plan is to allow for faster Amtrak service in the valley as soon as that’s possible. As far as more complicated service patterns – nothing has been proposed.

My expectation would be electrified service between San Jose and Bakersfield.

Consulting San Joaquins - Wikipedia and California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia I find:

The San Joaquins have three stations between Fresno and Bakersfield: Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco.

The CAHSR system will have only one station there: Kings–Tulare Regional Station - Wikipedia - Kings/Tulare - California High Speed Rail

It is a little east of where SR-43 and SR-198 intersect, and it is near where Lacey Blvd. meets SR-198. I will use 7400 Lacey Blvd. as a reference point.

To Hanford: 4 mi, to Visalia: 19 mi, to Corcoran: 17 mi, to Wasco: 56 mi

Trying Bakersfield instead for Wasco, I find 28 mi.

Cross Valley Corridor - Wikipedia - a proposed rail line that would connect with the Kings-Tulare Regional Station.

I must say that I find it hard to see much prospect for it, though it could be run with DMU rolling stock. Populations of towns along its route, from west to east:

Huron: 7 K, Lemoore 25 K, Hanford: 54 K, Goshen 3 K, Visalia 141 K, Farmersville 11 K, Exeter 10 K, Lindsay 12 K, Strathmore 3 K, Porterville 64 K

The cities with omitted stations: Corcoran: 25 K, Wasco 26 K.

Looking at other populations, I find:

• San Francisco Bay Area (SF - Oakland - SJ): 7.76 M, Gilroy 59 K
• Sacramento 2.397 M, Stockton 726 K, Modesto 514 K, Merced 79 K, Madera 61 K, Fresno 1.009 M
• Bakersfield 909 K, Palmdale 153 K (Palmdale-Lancaster 513 K), Los Angeles 13.2 M
• Inland Empire 4.225 M, San Diego 3.299 M

I decided to address the question of why Phase 2 of he system won't go north of Sacramento. I looked at the San Joaquin schedule from amtrak.com and looked at the Amtrak bus that goes north of Sacramento.

Marysville 12 K, Oroville 48 K, Chico 221 K, Red Bluff 14 K, Redding 90 K

Not much.

LA Times reports more delays and more cost overruns.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cost-overrun ... 53240.html
"Cost overruns hit California bullet train again amid a new financial crunch
The costs are being driven by changes in designs submitted in the original contracts, delays in moving underground utilities and long-standing problems buying all of the land along the right of way.
Rail authority Chief Executive Brian Kelly declined to discuss the size of the cost increases, but said they are growing due to erroneous past decisions. Kelly, who became CEO in January 2018, said he had fully expected some of the additional construction expenses, because not all of the designs were completed when contracts were previously issued.
Whether change orders can be controlled is problematic. At its September meeting, the board adopted a new "change order control committee," which would increase internal scrutiny and improve documentation, though it may not reduce their volume. Kelly said he did not think the committee could have prevented any of the past change orders if it had existed years ago.
The board has limited ability to intervene. Board members are not provided with proposed change orders or their proposed amounts before the staff approves them, according to two former board members."

I personally do not think it is wise for change orders and their increase costs are not being approved by the Board, but by the staff not politically responsible to build the railroad on time and on budget. Hence, why past and future costs increases will continue to happen - no one is responsible with the financing spigot.

flip side: shouldn't professionals be the ones determining what makes sense to change vs. the board? not sure what the qualifications are for sitting on it.

Change control boards are usually little more than window dressing. It's the appearance of control if the changes are already approved by staff.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

California’s high-speed rail project still needs to purchase hundreds of pieces of land
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-h ... 00618.html
The state began its efforts in 2013 to buy the property it needs for construction of the rail route through the Valley, but the progress has been painfully slow and has created corresponding delays in construction because contractors cannot build on land that the state does not yet own.
As contractors hired to design and build the 119-mile stretch of the rail line in Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties tweak their plans, the number of property parcels needed for the construction work tends to ebb and flow. Of the 2,267 pieces of property identified as needed as of late October, 1,999 had been purchased or acquired and made available to contractors.
Daniel Horgan, who serves as program administrator for the rail project under a contract with consultant WSP US, reported to the state rail authority’s board on Thursday that 268 parcels of land – almost 12% of the total – was yet to be secured and delivered to builders.
Horgan said the authority and its real-estate team have, in recent months, been averaging close to 30 parcels per month finalized and turned over to contractors. “Progress has been good, and momentum will continue to be good,” he told the rail board’s finance committee.

Some math follows = 268 / 30 = 8.933 months

Great job CHSR, not!