tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post1965938994154719401..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: The Effect Of Heavy FreightClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-28182761209835233862017-10-06T10:48:19.900-07:002017-10-06T10:48:19.900-07:00About light freight — it's not feasible on the...About light freight — it's not feasible on the North American continent. All freight cars have be compatible. It's impossible for a few customers on the SF Peninsula to buy a few "light", European-style cars because just about all cars are part of the North American Freight Car Pool. The way it works is when a customer orders a car to load, the nearest empty freight car is sent. Therefore, converting to "light freight" would require replacing every single car in the North American Pool (and there are hundreds of thousands of cars; the process would take decades). And about the JT42C, it is illegal to use in the United States because it doesn't meet US Crashworthiness standards (it's designed for England.) Also, EMD quit making it last year. If you want to talk about these things, you should know what you're talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19282213869000499222013-02-05T12:50:12.281-08:002013-02-05T12:50:12.281-08:00The two tracks in the foreground are definitely no...The two tracks in the foreground are definitely not at Shinkansen standard. The track next to the retaining wall in the background may be a Shinkansen route; it's obviously of a much higher engineering spec. The nearest two are probably a suburban service route from which a chemical factory is served. <br />Anandakoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15397105362372268883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-74865536190438100612013-01-31T14:59:11.048-08:002013-01-31T14:59:11.048-08:00I recognize that a 1% maximum grade is optimal if ...I recognize that a 1% maximum grade is optimal if one is designing a freight-compatible railway from scratch, but if we're talking about only a handful of trains per night, wouldn't it be possible to build with steeper grades and use operating techniques frequently applied in mountain railroading? Plenty of heavy freight main lines reach grades of 2% (http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/grades.htm), never mind the 4.7% grade on the infamous Saluda Pass. Surely the cost of additional locomotives and fuel consumption would be more than made up by the savings in terms of concrete and community impact on the peninsula corridor.Jonathanhttp://transitfutures.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57770745755058967342009-08-26T09:59:43.800-07:002009-08-26T09:59:43.800-07:00@ Arthur Dent,
Would you clarify something for m...@ Arthur Dent, <br /><br />Would you clarify something for me? First you said:<br /><br /><i>2. Tunnel the passenger/commuter service underground.</i><br /><br />Then you said:<br /><br /><i>UPRR's restrictions would continue to apply since they’d continue to share tracks above ground.</i><br /><br />If both HSR and Caltrain are tunneled as you state in your previous comment, with whom is UPRR sharing the tracks? <br /><br /><br />The notion that HSR is going to pay for the tunnel because the Peninsula communities are special snowflakes and want it isn't going to get far. When BART was going through Berkeley, it was Berkeley that demanded the tunnel, and they came up with the money by taxing themselves with a bond measure. I don't see this situation playing out any differently.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44619675595611259012009-08-26T09:17:54.594-07:002009-08-26T09:17:54.594-07:00@Bianca --
1) Pay for it the same way the rest of...@Bianca -- <br />1) Pay for it the same way the rest of the project is paid for. Isn't it odd that a couple real estate developers come up with the idea to sell land rights so they can develop the existing strip owned by Caltrain, and suddenly everyone thinks that's the only way a tunnel can be paid for? If a tunnel is what's appropriate for all involved (as I pointed out, HSR is only one stakeholder) then they're obligated to build it that way - and pay for it as a normal part of the project.<br /><br />I don’t see anyone suggesting that Rod Diridon’s neighborhood be handed the bill for the tunnel that’s proposed through his Santa Clara neighborhood.<br /><br />2) <i>Without Caltrain sharing the tracks, what would prevent UPRR from using them 24 hours a day?</i><br /><br />UPRR's restrictions would continue to apply since they’d continue to share tracks above ground.<br /><br />The tangible benefit is that the bulk of the future track service (passenger/commuter trains) will be routed underground, leaving only the hard-to-engineer and infrequent freight service above ground.Arthur Denthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16780821836930957657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18144850412528005992009-08-25T13:17:03.615-07:002009-08-25T13:17:03.615-07:00Arthur Dent,
That sounds reasonable, but I have ...Arthur Dent, <br /><br />That sounds reasonable, but I have a few questions: <br /><br />1) how does the tunnel for commuter and HSR get paid for, if the air rights over the ROW are not available for development? <br /><br />2) If freight is the sole user of the ROW at grade, would it still be limited to overnight use, or would UPRR have the right to run freight trains all day and all night? Without Caltrain sharing the tracks, what would prevent UPRR from using them 24 hours a day? Having freight at grade, day and night, seems to conflict with maintaining "community livability along the corridor."<br /><br />In that scenario, a very large amount of money has been spent for a tunnel, without any tangible benefit to the surrounding communities.Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660718116529125977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-64947442917791064142009-08-25T12:35:58.978-07:002009-08-25T12:35:58.978-07:00Let me get this straight.
1. Freight requires a lo...Let me get this straight.<br />1. Freight requires a longer length of elevated track for crossings than HSR or Caltrain.<br />2. Freight has more burdensome construction requirements when underground.<br />3. Freight traffic is infrequent along the Caltrain ROW.<br />4. Freight does not require grade separations.<br /><br />A practical solution is to:<br />1. Leave freight above ground ‘as is’. Use existing overpasses, underpasses and at-grade crossings.<br />2. Tunnel the passenger/commuter service underground.<br /><br />This is a compromise which addresses multiple stakeholders (one of the major issues that’s screwing up the Peninsula is that stakeholders are not willing to acknowledge each other’s existence and legitimate points of view). The stakeholder positions are:<br />1. Maintain community livability along the corridor (includes shopping, working, traveling through, etc.)<br />2. Ability to provide freight service.<br />3. Add new HSR service.<br /><br />For those who insist on using the N-word, note that the first two stakeholders are already in existence. IOW, they were here first. A genuine willingness to look at the situation from another’s perspective would greatly improve the project’s prospects.Arthur Denthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16780821836930957657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-2022240159117539472009-08-24T06:36:07.679-07:002009-08-24T06:36:07.679-07:00So, what is the collection of customers?
North of...So, what is the collection of customers?<br /><br />North of Redwood City, that is.<br /><br />Granite Rock seems to be the "heaviest" customer. Can their aggregates traffic be served by barge instead? They seem very close to the shore.<br /><br />The Port of San Francisco is a ridiculosity. Can they be relocated to somewhere else in the Bay? :-)neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81138664851276385152009-08-22T14:23:45.499-07:002009-08-22T14:23:45.499-07:00@ BruceMcF -
if any tracks are limited to 1% grad...@ BruceMcF -<br /><br />if any tracks are limited to 1% gradient and infrequent elevation changes, they might as well all be.<br /><br />The key issue is that grade separations are more difficult to implement wherever tracks ascend or descend. A 25 foot elevation change at 1% gradient requires a run length of 2500 feet.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-32262959359564254992009-08-19T13:17:55.901-07:002009-08-19T13:17:55.901-07:00flowmotion said...
"@ mike - Apologies, that ...flowmotion said...<br />"<i>@ mike - Apologies, that was a general comment.<br /><br />The tone of the comments here seem to imply that one could pacify Pennisula NIMBYS by with "less obtrusive" construction that isn't freight compatible.<br /><br />IMO, this is incorrect because the locals aren't reacting to any specific engineering proposals (CAHSR has none), while it only creates other very formidable political problems beyond what was expected.</i>"<br /><br />The question is not whether a particular design will pacify NIMBY's, but whether a particular design will undermine the ability of NIMBY's to mobilize support and act as an effective obstacle to successfully upgrading the corridor for HSR and higher speed, higher frequency, electric Caltrain services.<br /><br />It would be silly for an HSR supporter to get wed to a particular option when there are a range of options that gets the job done.<br /><br />Option 1: Slow tracks accommodate 1% (1:100) gradiant, 30 tonne axle load mainline freight traffic. Fast tracks could have a 2.5% (1:40) or 3% (1:33) gradient, and need only accomodate 17 tonne axle loads, but they would not normally have a separate elevation, so that would only be useful in presenting a softer "face" for viaducts in the FSSF configuration.<br /><br />Option 2: Both slow and fast tracks are 17 tonne axle load, 3% (1:33) gradient lines, so only freight that can mimic passenger trains can have access.<br /><br />Option 3: Slow tracks are 22.5 tonne axle load, 2.5% (1:40) gradient lines, fast tracks are 17 tonne axle load, 3% (1:33) gradient lines, so with electric locomotives, single stacked container freight and 3/4 loaded hopper cars could go through, but, eg, triple high car carriers would be out.<br /><br />Obviously, underground stations and diesel freight do not mix, so option 1 rules out underground stations, while options 2 and 3 are compatible with underground stations, if someone comes up with the incremental cost.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-17703995339273695692009-08-18T22:43:36.357-07:002009-08-18T22:43:36.357-07:00@ flowmotion -
CHSRA has stated that nothing has ...@ flowmotion -<br /><br />CHSRA has stated that nothing has been decided in the peninsula or for that matter, any other segment. They have to say that to comply with the CEQA process.<br /><br />However, they did base their cost estimates on a first cut spelling out specific implementation details: zoom in on the peninsula section of CHSRA's Google <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/google-map/" rel="nofollow">map</a> of the route and the <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080529174757_CalTrain%20Corridor.pdf" rel="nofollow">Caltrain corridor portion</a> of <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library/Default.aspx?ItemID=8073" rel="nofollow">Appendix 2-D</a> of the Final Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS. It's dated 05-04-07 and was online long before the election.<br /><br />Now, even a casual look at these documents will reveal that they are preliminary. Indeed, in some cases, they call for 3.5% gradients (too steep for freight), retained fill embankments on top of road underpasses (too heavy) and other questionable tidbits. Therefore, the first cut for rough cost estimates should not be considered a blueprint for actual construction. We're not in the final engineering phase of the project yet.<br /><br />The technical and financial viability of any alternative concepts studied in the context of project-level EIR/EIS will be de facto evaluated against this baseline.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-14688423559485568092009-08-17T22:49:13.753-07:002009-08-17T22:49:13.753-07:00@ mike - Apologies, that was a general comment.
...@ mike - Apologies, that was a general comment. <br /><br />The tone of the comments here seem to imply that one could pacify Pennisula NIMBYS by with "less obtrusive" construction that isn't freight compatible.<br /><br />IMO, this is incorrect because the locals aren't reacting to any specific engineering proposals (CAHSR has none), while it only creates other very formidable political problems beyond what was expected.flowmotionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29420449758465550332009-08-17T12:18:53.496-07:002009-08-17T12:18:53.496-07:00FRA rules currently point blank prevent running HS...<i>FRA rules currently point blank prevent running HSR trains on the same tracks as heavy freight trains.</i><br /><br />...except on tracks where PTC/ATS guarantees time separation.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-11299247723071668822009-08-16T22:08:30.113-07:002009-08-16T22:08:30.113-07:00SJ-Fremont is an integral part of the Altamont Cor...<i>SJ-Fremont is an integral part of the Altamont Corridor Project, i.e. the separate overlay. I was simply trying to giving you some context. The assurances of constructability you refer to are a decade old. Even then, engineers referred to the I-880 section as "extremely challenging".</i><br /><br><br />@Rafael: True HSR service SJ-Oak (through Fremont) was part of the Central Valley-Bay Area EIR/EIS. That study was completed in 2008 -- not "a decade ago". The East Bay has more population than either SF or South Bay, so clearly any difficulties in the Oak-SJ segment will catastrophically affect the EIR/EIS ridership analysis.<br /><br />So if you believe there to be a fatal flaw in CHSRA analysis, then by all means call up Stuart Flashman, or city attorneys for Menlo Park and Atherton. No doubt they will find your info quite useful in their lawsuit challenging the accuracy of EIR/EIS.bikeridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71729929604946446702009-08-16T18:46:06.048-07:002009-08-16T18:46:06.048-07:00Bottom line is that the idea of removing freight d...<i>Bottom line is that the idea of removing freight doesn't solve any political problems</i><br /><br />Did anyone claim that it did? You're nominally responding to me, but your response seems to be orthogonal to anything in my post. Maybe you're trying to respond to someone else here, but it certainly isn't clear.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-3281822438691853612009-08-16T18:21:45.450-07:002009-08-16T18:21:45.450-07:00@ Alon Levy -
FRA rules currently point blank pre...@ Alon Levy -<br /><br />FRA rules currently point blank prevent running HSR trains on the same tracks as heavy freight trains. Besides, afaik UPRR still runs something like 25 freight trains a day through Altamont, so they're not going to sell trackage rights for operations based on anything that isn't FRA-compliant.<br /><br />A dedicated HSR alignment via Altamont <i>in addition to</i> one via Pacheco would be prohibitively expensive at this point.<br /><br />Perhaps in addition to ACE, Amtrak CC could be upgraded to 110mph north of Benicia with some bypass tracks and, its route changed to enable an intermodal transfer at either Union City or Fremont Warm Springs BART. There's already a shuttle bus between SF and Emeryville.<br /><br />@ bikerider -<br /><br />SJ-Fremont is an integral part of the Altamont Corridor Project, i.e. the separate overlay. I was simply trying to giving you some context.<br /><br />The assurances of constructability you refer to are a decade old. Even then, engineers referred to the I-880 section as "extremely challenging".<br /><br />In particular, Santa Clara county voters yet again endorsed the BART extension down to Santa Clara and the once-available medians of hwy 262 (a city street) and I-880 have been asphalted over.<br /><br />An partially alternate alignment past the SJC terminals and across to I-880 via aerials over Trimble was considered as well. Independently, the Bay Rail Alliance's proposal for <a href="http://www.bayrailalliance.org/caltrain_metro_east" rel="nofollow">Caltrain Metro East</a> to Union City <a href="http://www.bayrailalliance.org/files/images/2-Milpitas.gif" rel="nofollow">suggests</a> using UPRR's Milpitas line instead of I-880, but the section between 101 and Niles is still used for freight.<br /><br />To date, UPRR has not shown any willingness to sell air rights above any of its ROWs to enable the construction of grade-separated passenger-only tracks for non-compliant rolling stock, citing concerns about liability. Note that CHSRA's latest plans for LA-Anaheim do include a 5+ mile aerial section above a BNSF yard, but that's a different company. I don't know if VTA would permit stacking HSR tracks above BART in the WPML.<br /><br />Even if air rights above someone else's tracks or city streets could be secured between I-880/Trimble and Niles, there's still the issue of the Hayward fault that runs parallel and right next to that section. It's considered California's second most dangerous fault right now, after the southern San Andreas.<br /><br />Delaying the whole HSR project twice without preserving that particular ROW for it means dedicated HSR tracks between SJ Diridon and Niles are not longer feasible IMHO. Trains can't fly and freeway corridors aren't a terribly realistic option unless there's an available median.<br /><br />If you think I'm wrong and there still is a viable ROW for bullet trains between SJD and Niles that doesn't involve tunneling, by all means let's hear it. Believe me, I've looked - just in case CHSRA can't secure a ROW down to Gilroy.<br /><br />HSR and UPRR just don't mix as well as HSR and BNSF.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-76168628139673376062009-08-16T17:19:28.991-07:002009-08-16T17:19:28.991-07:00@Rafael: Which segment are we talking about, SJ-Fr...@Rafael: Which segment are we talking about, SJ-Fremont or Fremont-Merced? Make up your mind.<br /><br />SJ-Fremont is a no-brainer. It is part of the official HSR plan (SJ-Oak), and also a matter of State Law (AB 3034, Sec(2), Par (C)). Quenten Kopp and Rod Diridon have given their personal assurance that the World's Best Consultants have deemed this route feasible, so obviously we have no reason to doubt them.<br /><br />As for Fremont-Merced, you know full well that the weasel words "Altamont overlay" came much later in the process. There is *nothing* in the Central Valley-Bay Area EIS that found a HSR Altamont route to be infeasible. And as far as UP is concerned (bringing this back to the issue of heavy freight), Altamont has far fewer impacts on UP operations.bikeridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-28319743088850048812009-08-16T16:27:13.421-07:002009-08-16T16:27:13.421-07:00Ugh. Why doesn't California investigate going ...Ugh. Why doesn't California investigate going the TGV route, electrifying the Altamont corridor and upgraind its signaling so that it can run HSR trainsets on it?Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6232382303935942002009-08-16T16:05:40.432-07:002009-08-16T16:05:40.432-07:00@ bikerider -
we're getting a bit off the top...@ bikerider -<br /><br />we're getting a bit off the topic of freight in the peninsula here, but what you are referring to is part of the "high speed commuter overlay" which is not part of the core network and therefore unfunded.<br /><br />The status of the Altamont Corridor Project is documented <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library/default.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />NO specific alignment was selected as of May, scoping is still ongoing.<br /><br />I suspect this will quickly morph into an effort to improve frequency, punctuality and line haul time for ACE, with a new Modesto-Oakland service.<br /><br />Intermodal transfers to BART may become possible in Livermore (all trains) and in Union City (Modesto-Oakland trains only). Intermodal transfers to Amtrak CC could remain possible in Fremont Centerville (Stockton-SJ trains only).<br /><br />With parking limited at SJ Diridon and Tamien and constraints on double-tracking the Alviso line, a subset of trains could perhaps use the alternate Milpitas line, with a BART intermodal at Fremont Warm Springs.<br /><br />AECOM, the outfit CHSRA hired for EIR/EIS consulting on the corridor, will figure out soon enough that there just isn't enough ridership potential or money to build a fully grade separated solution or even a radically different alignment.<br /><br />This is a candidate for incremental tinkering up to "emerging HSR" at up to 110mph in the CV and more like 79-90mph west of Altamont. Think trackage on UPRR tracks and upgrades to sections of UPRR ROW, FRA-compliant diesel equipment (possibly fuel-sipping DMUs), retained grade separations with quiet zones (liability issues permitting) and priority for passenger trains.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5829575598773711492009-08-16T13:53:50.472-07:002009-08-16T13:53:50.472-07:00Unfortunately, thanks to the BART extension, there...<i>Unfortunately, thanks to the BART extension, there is now no obvious way to run HSR tracks between Union City and San Jose Diridon via Milpitas.</i><br /><br><br />@Rafael: Then perhaps you better warn the CHSRA about this fatal flaw in their plans. They've already selected a SJ-Fremont HSR corridor and even done considerable environmental work studying it.bikeridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72642898972470874022009-08-16T11:46:18.545-07:002009-08-16T11:46:18.545-07:00@ bikerider -
CORRECTION: Altamont-via-Dumbarton ...@ bikerider -<br /><br />CORRECTION: Altamont-via-Dumbarton has another major drawback in that it forces the starter line to split, reducing service frequency to both SF and SJ. Especially early on, high train frequency is essential for building ridership for the new system. Having the option of stopping any given train in both SF and SJ ensures high seat capacity utilization into the CV and down to SoCal.<br /><br />Unfortunately, thanks to the BART extension, there is now no obvious way to run HSR tracks between Union City and San Jose Diridon via Milpitas. Since San Jose will never in a million years accept being cut out of the HSR network altogether, that implies splitting the line at the Redwood City wye.<br /><br />Ergo, anyone who casually advocates "Altamont" (via Dumbarton) in the belief that it would keeping HSR out of Silicon Valley should perhaps reflect on the constructability of that approach, especially that of the connection south to San Jose Diridon.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-49955951857022726092009-08-16T11:25:36.137-07:002009-08-16T11:25:36.137-07:00@ bikerider -
keeping freight at grade would mean...@ bikerider -<br /><br />keeping freight at grade would mean retaining grade crossings incl. signaling, gates, bells etc. However, the majority would not have to be closed more than a couple of times a day. Perhaps more importantly, turnouts to existing freight spurs would not need to be modified.<br /><br />The space next to the remaining freight track could be converted into a bike path, cp. SMART up in Sonoma county.<br /><br />Three elevated tracks on a wide aerial with two rows of columns may be good enough for HSR + Caltrain if the timetable is fully integrated and the switches long enough to be used at 125mph.<br /><br />As Clem has pointed out before, three tracks would be easier to implement than two in places where the ROW is narrow, e.g. San Mateo. Operationally, four tracks at the same grade is preferable, even if an additional freight-only track remains at grade.<br /><br />However, your idea of 1 at-grade + 3 elevated tracks has absolutely zip to do with Altamont vs. Pacheco.<br /><br />Getting HSR across the bay at Dumbarton would require a new tall bridge, perhaps hugging the eastbound lanes of the existing road bridge before switching to the available median in the eastern approach (impact on toll booth). In Union City, a subway tunnel would be required under Decoto, with a station next to BART. This would connect to an S-shaped bored tunnel across to Pleasanton.<br /><br />The UPRR right of way between Newark and Niles is not available. The eastern approach to the old rail bridge lies within the boundary of the Don Edward National Wildlife Refuge.<br /><br />The cost of the new bridge plus the tunnels would make Altamont-via-Dumbarton at least expensive than Pacheco. At the very least, the Manteca-Merced section of phase II would be shifted into phase I of the project. Altamont-via-Dumbarton would also do nothing to grade separate Caltrain south of Redwood City and, be subject to just as much NIMBY opposition as the Pacheco route.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-25031338835601258422009-08-15T19:28:51.876-07:002009-08-15T19:28:51.876-07:00The alternatives are (a) to spend hundreds of mill...<i>The alternatives are (a) to spend hundreds of millions extra on the grade separations just so the Port of SF, Granite Rock and a handful others can stay in business without subsidies or (b) paying off UPRR and its customers in the context of abandonment proceedings.</i><br /><br><br />Or (c) : implement the Altamont alternative, which requires just 3 tracks to accommodate HSR+Caltrain. The 4th (pre-existing) track can be left "as-is" (at-grade) to be used by freight and legacy operators.bikeridernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-3514654810973330502009-08-15T18:40:26.955-07:002009-08-15T18:40:26.955-07:00@ Clem -
since you're the one who brought up ...@ Clem -<br /><br />since you're the one who brought up the "foreign" idea of light freight for the SF peninsula, is it off-topic to discuss why that model is common in Europe and Japan but rare in the US?<br /><br />No-one's going to operate light freight just between SF and SJ, it has to make financial sense to ship less than full rail cars out of the Bay Area. Either the value of the goods is high enough to support a hike in the cost of moving them or, John Q. Public subsidizes the arrangement to keep trucks off the freeways and reduce the cost of upgrading the Caltrain corridor.<br /><br />The alternatives are (a) to spend hundreds of millions extra on the grade separations just so the Port of SF, Granite Rock and a handful others can stay in business without subsidies or (b) paying off UPRR and its customers in the context of abandonment proceedings.<br /> <br />In the latter case, rather than shift bulk goods from rail to road, most of that particular industrial activity would simply disappear from the peninsula altogether. It theory, it might be replaced by other industrial activity compatible with light freight, creating new jobs and tax revenue for cities.<br /><br />In practice, replacement would not happen without a political commitment to support the emergence of such industry via soft loans etc. That goes against the grain in California, especially as long a there is no shortage of private investment in knowledge-based businesses like software development and biotech. Those, however, require special skillsets that laborers in heavy industry do not have. For them, an end to heavy freight rail in the SF peninsula could mean looking for work in the East Bay or moving out of the area altogether.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87871142252253734242009-08-15T18:20:04.332-07:002009-08-15T18:20:04.332-07:00@ Alon Levy -
"There are very few major infr...@ Alon Levy -<br /><br />"There are very few major infrastructure projects geared toward improving freight rail in Europe [...]"<br /><br />Not true. In fact, the majority of the EU's continental-scale TEN-T framework of <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/maps/maps_en.htm" rel="nofollow">30 priority axes</a> for upgrading transportation infrastructure is geared toward rail and the majority of that toward shifting medium-to-long distance freight from road to rail.<br /><br />The individual projects are financed primarily by the member states, so progress has been uneven. However, it is happening, here's just a few big projects designed - among other objectives - to boost freight rail:<br /><br />France/Italy: Mont d'Ambin basis tunnel<br />France/Spain: Perpignan-Figuearas, Basque Y<br />Austria/Italy: Brenner basis tunnel<br />Austria: Lainzer tunnel, Wienerwald tunnel, Koralm tunnel<br />Germany/Denmark: Fehmarn Belt bridge<br />Spain: Pajares base tunnel<br />France: Belledonne tunnel, Grande Chartreuse tunnel<br /><br />These come on top of the St. Gotthard and Loetschberg basis tunnels in Switzerland that you mentioned and some major freight-cum-passenger rail projects that were completed fairly recently, e.g. the Channel Tunnel, the Oresund fixed link (Sweden/Denmark), upgrades to the West Coast main line in the UK, the Betuwelijn (Netherlands/Germany) etc.<br /><br />In addition, there are plenty of new public works in earlier stages of development, e.g. Rail Baltica from Warsaw (Poland) to Tallinn (Estonia), a tunnel from there to Helsinki, a base tunnel through the center of the Pyrenees etc.<br /><br />Driving all this is the liberalization of the European rail grid. By 2010, member states must have segregated ownership of rail infrastructure and train operations, previously bastions of nationalized monopolies. The idea is to encourage cross-border electric freight rail traffic and competition, because the EU logistics sector is overexposed to the risk of high oil prices.<br /><br />Btw, it's true that many rail lines in Western Europe are limited to 22.5 tonnes axle load, but that's not an issue for light/medium rail freight looking to compete or integrate with trucking. Line haul time is typically more important for rail freight than lowest cost per ton.<br /><br />The business model for freight rail is simply different on each side of the Atlantic. Of late, European operators have found it more difficult to make money than their US counterparts. However, given the regulatory changes and fresh investment in infrastructure, that will hopefully change over the next decade. Note that US operators were in a hole in the 80s, prompting a wave of mergers and the sale/abandonment of many legacy lines and spurs - especially out west.<br /><br />Of course, there are exceptions like short lines for ore and coal trains. Those are profitable all over the world.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.com