30 March 2011

News Roundup

Rubber Stamp

Mike Rosenberg pens a scathing indictment of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board that runs Caltrain, calling out the board for rubber-stamping everything that is submitted to it by Caltrain staff (including, presumably, the MOU with high-speed rail). The number of Yes votes since the last dissenting vote: 1,591. With only 9 board members, that's 176 consecutive unanimous Yes votes!

One of the dangers of having staff run the show is that an organization will pursue projects for their own sake, to perpetuate its own bureaucratic existence. Case in point: Caltrain's CBOSS train control project, where a small back-and-forth transit operation runs amok with a $230 million technology research and development project that is almost certainly doomed to development failure. Speaking of train control...

ERTMS on the Peninsula?

The CHSRA staff memo for the recent board meeting happens to tally the money currently allocated for HSR in California. One of the items is $16 million of ARRA stimulus money, previously requested as an ear-mark for CBOSS, but now described as funding the "design/implementation of the first Positive Train Control/ERTMS interface implementation on the Peninsula." Say what?

(to find out what the acronyms CBOSS and ERTMS describe, please read here.)

An optimist would note this is the first time that 'ERTMS' and 'Peninsula' are mentioned in the same sentence in official agency materials, rather than just a blog. That much is encouraging.

A pessimist would note that "interface implementation" means an interface between the existing ERTMS and Caltrain's proposed CBOSS, assuming they would co-exist. This is the worst of both worlds: not only is CBOSS 100% functionally redundant with ERTMS, i.e. it will do the exact same thing that ERTMS already does, but interfaces between multiple complex safety-critical systems are astonishingly expensive to implement successfully. If CBOSS wasn't enough of a promise of years of delay and cost blowouts, then kludging ERTMS on top of CBOSS is an absolute guarantee.

The high-speed rail project has very strongly implied that ERTMS would someday be installed on the peninsula. The recent train control technical memos (see TM-3.3.x) explicitly state that the selected technology must already exist as part of an operating system with proven experience worldwide on at least one high-speed passenger railway. That leaves exactly two solutions: (1) the ERTMS standard supported by the world's biggest names in train control, being deployed in dozens of countries worldwide, and (2) the Japanese Digital-ATC product by Hitachi, deployed in Japan and Taiwan. Wanna place bets?

Show Some Teeth, For Once!

One thing the Caltrain board of directors might consider sinking its teeth into (if it has any?) is the CBOSS fiasco-in-the-making. The correct answer, for a small fiscally-vulnerable operation like Caltrain, is to use tried and true solutions whenever they are available. When the wheel already exists (ERTMS) you don't take the risk of re-inventing the wheel (CBOSS), especially when HSR has already telegraphed its intent to deploy ERTMS and might even pay for it!

At this point, a few wrong moves like CBOSS can quite literally end Caltrain's chances of survival.

20 March 2011

Millbrae, Half a Billion Cheaper

The powers that be have determined that the Millbrae intermodal station does not have sufficient right-of-way width to accommodate four tracks of Caltrain and HSR, in addition to BART. That is why the Supplemental Alternatives Analysis from last August and the Millbrae preliminary station footprint from October consider only one solution: three tracks at grade and the fourth track sent down into a trench and covered tunnel, along the profile shown below:

This 2.5-mile trench and covered tunnel facility would dive up to 60 feet below grade, passing below the Hillcrest Blvd underpass (itself passing under the at-grade tracks) and nearby storm drains, as well as under the Mills Creek to the south. It would also pass directly under the existing Millbrae station, requiring the excavation of an underground cut-and-cover "train box" as shown in the section drawing at right. If the cost estimates are to be believed, this one-track trench and tunnel facility would cost about $500 million more than at-grade tracks.

There may be legitimate reasons why a four-track at-grade arrangement can't fit in the existing Millbrae station. But are they half billion dollar reasons? For that kind of money, you'd imagine there would be some serious pencil-sharpening going on.

Shoehorning It In

One of the very first issues covered in these pages, way back in 2008, was the amazing lack of foresight embodied in the design of the Millbrae station. The structural grid of the station mezzanine was laid out so narrowly, and so far to the west of the sprawling BART facilities, that it now precludes four tracks from being built through the Caltrain side of the station without major impacts to the structure itself and to residential areas adjacent to the west.

If the going-in assumption is that BART facilities cannot be impacted by HSR construction, no matter what the resulting cost, then we do indeed end up with the solution proposed by the CHSRA.

But we live in a world where cost matters.

That's why it's worth exploring a significantly cheaper option: converting one BART platform track (of three) for use by Caltrain and/or high-speed rail. The diagram at right shows what the Millbrae might look like under such a scenario. The structural grid is preserved, and no encroachments occur outside the right of way to the west of the station (to the top in the diagram.)

The diagram below shows the wider context of the track layout, including station approaches and tail tracks. (Warning: 2.1 MB image)

What are the pros and cons?

Impact to existing Millbrae station structure
Extensive, with cut-and-cover excavation below existing tracks and below foundations and support columns of existing mezzanine.None.
Impact to BART operations
None.Removes one BART platform track and one tail track, leaving two platform tracks and three tail tracks. This facility should be perfectly adequate, considering its similarity to other BART terminals at Pittsburg, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont.
Impact to BART tunnel box
None.Portal of BART tunnel must be modified and additional reinforcement provided to support loads from adjacent track and freight trains.
Impact to passenger convenience
Forces Caltrain passengers to use additional vertical circulation to reach underground southbound platform track. Preserves northbound cross-platform transfer between Caltrain and BART, but removes at-grade Caltrain access from west side, where TOD is planned.Removes northbound cross-platform access between Caltrain and BART, but creates two new bi-direction cross-platform transfers between Caltrain and HSR. Preserves Caltrain access from west side, where TOD is planned.
Impact to residential areas
Regulatory challenges
None.Requires Caltrain and possibly freight trains to occupy a track immediately adjacent to BART trains, with no room for a traditional separation wall. Violates CPUC GO-26D side clearances. This could realistically be mitigated by passive and active safety measures, such as a thin but strong steel crash barrier and a permanent speed restriction on that track. This PTC-enforced speed restriction would be about 20 mph for freight and 40 mph for Caltrain, with no impact to Caltrain trip times since all trains stop at Millbrae. Additionally, sensors could be provided to detect shifted loads on freight trains before they pass through the Millbrae station.
Cost to taxpayers
About $500,000,000 (for example, the entire amount of the funding shortfall for the Caltrain electrification project, if it were spent instead to dig a hole in the ground)Minimal, although some expense in the tens of millions would be incurred for modifications to BART facilities.
Profit to engineering & construction firms
A cut of $500,000,000.A cut of nothing.

Yes, there are difficult design constraints. Yes, this proposed design violates a few engineering specifications and even some regulations. Yes, it will be politically challenging to infringe on BART. But when a half billion dollars hangs in the balance, it's time to work smarter and not harder. It would be reckless and irresponsible not to explore a compromise solution, through a carefully considered combination of design exceptions, regulatory waivers, and inter-agency agreements. Taxpayers should demand it.

And if that doesn't work out, stop everything, tear down the whole station and start over from scratch with a proper track layout. The entire Millbrae Intermodal station complex, including 3,000 parking spaces, cost $75 million to build ten years ago. In today's dollars, it would be about $100 million, ONE FIFTH of the cost of the below-grade "solution".

05 March 2011

The Prescriptive Framework - Update

Last January, the grassroots group CARRD succeeded after a series of Public Records Requests in obtaining another release of key HSR technical memos that form the prescriptive framework for all the engineering design, statewide. The CHSRA probably doesn't like these memos being published because it undermines the effectiveness of the "Decide, Announce, Defend" model of mega-project engineering. This probably explains why these materials aren't, and probably won't ever be, published on the official CHSRA website... and that's precisely why they are posted here for all to see.

The new collection of technical memos builds on the previous collection (also obtained by CARRD), fleshing out various new topics as well as filling in some detail that had been redacted from the old collection--such as some very informative surveys of foreign HSR best practices. Some memos known to have been published are still missing from the list, and CARRD continues their attempts to pry these free; they are grayed out in the table below, based on a comprehensive list of memos and drawings that was published in a July 2009 Program Summary Report on pp. 53-61.

Peninsula stakeholders still eagerly await the release of Technical Memo 1.1.7, "Shared Use Corridor HST Criteria - Caltrain Corridor". Considering that the administrative draft of the peninsula EIR is 98% complete, there can be little doubt that this secretive memo already exists.

The same caveats as before are in order:
  • These documents are guidelines authored by Parsons Brinckerhoff program management staff, ensuring that early designs for each section (performed by HNTB for San Francisco - San Jose) are consistent and compatible. They are not a "design bible" for detailed 100% engineering.
  • The documents cover the entire state, which consists primarily of 220-mph very high speed, dedicated tracks. The peninsula is a different animal, with 125-mph top speeds in a shared corridor with Caltrain and freight trains, so use proper care when applying to or inferring conclusions about specific peninsula situations.
  • The documents are a snapshot in time, as of December 2010.
With that out of the way, here is the raw technical data download. For each memo, a brief summary of the content is provided.

Program Management
TM-0.0aMemoDesign Terms and Acronyms - Decoder ring for alphabet soup and project lingo, to promote consistency and coordination among design teams.2008-09-05
TM-0.1Memo15 Percent Design Scope Guidelines - Guidance for the minimum level of engineering (referred to as 15% Design) required to support the project-specific EIR/EIS process.2008-05-12
TM-0.2MemoTech Memo Review Protocol2008-Q4
TM-0.3MemoBasis of Design - Defines the major components and performance objectives of the high-speed rail system as envisioned by the CHSRA, outlining goals, requirements, and assumptions. Underpins the entire engineering effort.2007-12-20
TM-0.3MemoBasis of Design Policy2009-Q2
TM-0.4MemoProject Development Process2007-Q4
TM-0.5MemoCoordination with Caltrans - Process to be followed when HSR encroaches on Caltrans highways. Discusses the coordination between CHSRA and Caltrans to streamline the approval process.2009-12-30
TM-0.6MemoRisk Register Development Protocol - Common standard for project risk identification, assessment, analysis, management /mitigation, and review.2010-03-01
TM-0.7MemoDesign Submittal and Review Protocol - Defines how contractor teams submit their work in progress and conduct reviews with Parsons Brinckerhoff senior engineering management. Includes flow chart of the entire process, based on PB's ProjectSolve web database interface.2009-07-08
TM-0.8MemoProgrammatic Cost Update Methodology2008-Q3
TM-0.9MemoDraft RPA Protocol2010-Q3
General Design - Infrastructure
TM-1.1.0MemoDesign Criteria - Basic design parameters for preliminary alignment and infrastructure, for the overall corridor. Summarizes a few key design parameters that are extensively described in other memos.2007-03-19
TM-1.1.1MemoCodes, Regulations, Design Standards and Guidelines - System-wide applicable regulations, codes, and design standards. Defines order of precedence, conflict resolution, and protocols for obtaining variances.2009-07-10
TM-1.1.2MemoDesign Life - Minimum design life for permanent and temporary infrastructure and systems elements, defining the initial frame of reference for establishing maintenance activities and frequency.2009-06-04
TM-1.1.4MemoEngineering Survey and Mapping - Requirements for horizontal and vertical datum and control, photogrammetric mapping accuracy, depiction of man-made features and existing property information, digital terrain modelling (DTM), and engineering survey procedures aimed to support design development through the 30% Design level.2010-03-02
TM-1.1.5MemoCADD Guidelines - Guidelines for the development of Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) drawings for the preliminary design. Ensures many different contractors work to the same standards.2010-03-09
TM-1.1.6MemoAlignment Standards for Shared Use Corridors (LA - Anaheim) - Defines track alignment standards for the LOSSAN corridor where HSR operates adjacent to or within a shared right-of-way with conventional passenger railroad lines and freight railroad lines. Does not apply to Caltrain corridor, but may be very similar.2007-12-17
TM-1.1.7MemoShared Use Corridor HST Criteria - Caltrain Corridor2010-Q2
TM-1.1.8MemoDemarcation of Territorial Subdivisions and Milepost Numerics - Rationale for defining discrete sections of the project as “subdivisions” and for further refining into mile posts with designations that will enable the precise location of system resources and assets.2009-09-16
TM-1.1.8MapSubdivision Milepost Map - Shows subdivision names and milepost numbering superimposed on a geographical map.2008-04-09
TM-1.1.8ADrawingSystemwide Track Schematic - Schematic track map of the entire California HSR system, including mileposts, stations, crossovers, subdivision names, etc.2010-03-08
TM-1.1.9MemoFlooding and Drainage2010-Q2
TM-1.1.10MemoHigh-Speed Equipment Structure Gauges - Design Criteria for determination of required clearances around tracks and vehicles, based on existing high speed rail vehicles from Europe and Asia. Includes equipment outlines, static, dynamic, and structural gauges.2010-03-19
TM-1.1.10DrawingHigh-Speed Equipment Structure Gauges - Drawings of required clearances around tracks and vehicles, based on a composite vehicle outline that will accommodate any European or Asian high-speed trains.2010-04-16
TM-1.1.16MemoShared Use Corridor HST Criteria2008-Q1
TM-1.1.18MemoDesign Variance Guidelines - Procedure for identifying, preparing, requesting, and documenting a design variance (i.e. exception or deviation) from a minimum design standard, standard drawing, standard specification, adopted standard, or design guideline.2008-06-02
TM-1.1.19MemoCapital Cost Estimating Methodology for 15 Percent Design - Capital Cost Estimating Methodology (CCEM). Provides guidance for preparing and presenting estimated capital costs for the project’s 15% Design level. Describes the roles and responsibilities for preparing capital cost estimates, defines the estimating tasks, and outlines the procedures and standards to be used.2009-07-20
TM-1.1.21MemoTypical Cross Sections for15 Percent Design - Rationale for the configuration of guideway to be constructed along the high-speed train alignment, including required right-of-way for various conditions: Two Track At-Grade, Intermediate Stations, Rail-Shared Corridors, Elevated / Aerial Guideway, Trench / Retained Cut, Single Track Formations, Four Track At-Grade.2009-04-04
TM-1.1.21DrawingTypical Cross Sections for15 Percent Design - Supporting drawings for TM-1.1.21, including trench and tunnel configurations as well as vertical clearances for structures.2010-08-03
TM-1.1.22MemoCapital Cost Estimating Methodology for 30 Percent Design2010-Q3
Track Alignment
TM-2.1.2MemoAlignment Design Standards for High-Speed Train Operation - Basis of design and alignment criteria for dedicated high-speed tracks. Includes review of foreign practice and applicable regulations.2009-03-26
TM-2.1.3MemoTurnouts and Station Tracks - Turnout, crossover, and station connection track geometries, including review of foreign practice.2009-06-29
TM-2.1.3DrawingTurnouts and Station Track Schematics - Turnout, crossover, and station connection track geometry requirements.2010-04-09
TM-2.1.3DrawingTypical Interlocking Schematics - Interlocking (signaling) housing locations at stations and cross-overs. Shows total length of a station with 110 mph turnouts.2010-03-08
TM-2.1.5MemoTrack Design2010-Q1
TM-2.1.6MemoBallast-less Track2009-Q4
TM-2.1.7MemoIntrusion Protection - Basis of design for the safe separation of CHSR lines from adjacent transportation systems, including vehicle intrusion and derailment containment.2008-10-25
TM-2.1.8MemoTurnouts and Yard Tracks - Guidance for the geometric design of turnouts, crossovers, yard lead and yard tracks. Does not cover spacing, length or nature of yard tracks for specific purposes (see TM-5.x).2009-07-17
Station Design
TM-2.2.2MemoStation Program Design Guidelines - Identifies the facilities, designated spaces, design elements, and service amenities to be provided at passenger stations. Does not include platform geometries or station site design.2009-02-19
TM-2.2.3MemoStation Program Site Design Guidelines - Guidelines for site design at high-speed train passenger stations, including layout principles, sizing, access, facility design, and site infrastructure. Does not cover specific sizing or configuration of individual stations.2009-04-10
TM-2.2.4MemoStation Platform Geometric Design - Guidance for high-speed train station platform design, including operations, passenger safety, and regulatory requirements. Establishes station platform design geometry, clearance and functional elements such as drainage provisions. Reviews European and Asian practices.2010-06-30
TM-2.2.4DrawingStation Platform Geometric Design - Cross sections of a generic mid-line station configuration, either at-grade or elevated2010-06-04
TM-2.2.4DrawingStation Platform Geometric Design - Drawings of a generic mid-line station configuration, 6000 feet long with 1300 ft platforms.2009-07-29
Bridge Design
TM-2.3.1MemoAesthetic Guidelines for High-Speed Aerial Structures2009-Q2
TM-2.3.2MemoStructure Design Loads - Defines the permanent and transient load effects used in the design of bridges, aerial structures, and grade separations that directly support high-speed trains. Does not cover non-aerial structure types such as tunnels etc.2010-06-17
TM-2.3.3MemoDesign Guidelines for Aerial Structures - Guidelines for the design of aerial structures, including structural performance, functionality, safety, serviceability, economy and trackside environment. Reviews foreign practice in Europe and Asia. Explains rationale for standard aerial structures shown in drawings.2009-06-02
TM-2.3.3DrawingDesign Guidelines for Aerial Structures - Cross-sections of two-track aerial structures, including sizing of support columns.2009-07-07
Tunnel Design
TM-2.4.2MemoBasic High-Speed Train Tunnel Configuration - Establishes approximate finished dimensions for bored and cut-and-cover tunnels in which high-speed passenger trains run exclusively, for use during 15% Design. Accounts for pressure effects from high-speed operation, which results in larger cross sections.2009-07-30
TM-2.4.2DrawingBasic High-Speed Train Tunnel Configuration - Cross section drawings of a typical bored tunnel and cut-and-cover tunnel, based on the assumptions of the largest rolling stock (Shinkansen bilevel) and a configuration of two separate single-track tunnels.2009-07-30
TM-2.4.5MemoHigh-Speed Train Tunnel Structures - Basic issues related to the structural design of permanent cast-in-place concrete or sprayed concrete liners for mined rock tunnels, including design life, durability, loads and analyses.2010-07-29
TM-2.4.5ADrawingSingle Track Mined Tunnel Cross Section - Cross section drawing of a typical mined tunnel. Shows design features, but no dimensions.2010-06-30
TM-2.4.6MemoHigh-Speed Train Tunnel Portal Facilities - Portal infrastructure to be considered for tunnels used exclusively by high-speed passenger trains, including facilities for ventilation, emergency response, maintenance, noise and pressure wave mitigation, rescue, etc. Not your typical tunnel portal, more like something out of a James Bond movie.2010-06-21
TM-2.4.8MemoService and Maintenance Considerations for Tunnels - Inspection, service and maintenance activities that may be required to be performed within each high-speed train tunnel.2010-06-25
Building Structural Design
TM-2.5.1MemoStructural Design of Surface Facilities and Buildings - Guidance and requirements for the design of surface facilities and buildings that do not provide the supporting structure for high-speed trains (see TM-2.3.3), such as stations, pedestrian and road bridges, wayside structures, maintenance facilities, etc.2010-06-10
Drainage and Grading
TM-2.6.5MemoHydraulics and Hydrology Design Guidelines - Design standards for the hydrologic analysis (floods, surface runoff) and design of hydraulic facilities (culverts, channels, drainage, pumps, debris control) within the high-speed train corridor.2010-06-08
TM-2.6.7MemoEarthwork and Trackbed Design Guidelines - Guidance and requirements for earthworks, grading, earth retaining systems, and trackbed configuration to support 15% design. Reviews US and foreign practice. 2009-07-23
TM-2.7.4MemoUtility Requirements for 15% Design - Standards and procedures for the location, assessment, protection and placement of underground and overhead utilities located within and in proximity of the HSR right of way. Also defines justification criteria for utility encroachments.2008-11-20
Safety and Security
TM-2.8.1MemoSafety and Security2009-Q3
Geotechnical Studies
TM-2.9.1MemoGeotechnical Investigation Guidelines - Standardized methodology, terminology and procedures for sub-surface geotechnical site characterization, including exploration and field and laboratory testing.2009-05-22
TM-2.9.2MemoGeotechnical Reports Preparation Guidelines - Defines content and format for the geotechnical reports that will present the findings of the geotechnical investigations and analyses that are performed during preliminary and final design.2009-05-22
TM-2.9.3MemoGeologic and Seismic Hazard Analysis Guidelines - Guidance for the identification, evaluation, data analysis, and presentation of geologic and seismic hazards (fault rupture, liquefaction, landslides, karst terrain, volcanic hazards, erosion, subsidence, flooding, etc.), giving reference to existing guidance and literature.2009-06-15
TM-2.9.4MemoPreliminary Active Fault Locations and Design Considerations2009-Q3
TM-2.9.5MemoPreliminary Design Earthquake Guidelines for 30 Percent Design2010-Q1
TM-2.9.6MemoInterim Ground Motion Guidelines - Guidelines for developing interim (i.e. 30% design) ground motion criteria. Defines design earthquake levels, and seismic performance criteria including the No Collapse Level (NCL), the Safe Performance Level (SPL), and the Operating Performance Level (OPL).2010-03-04
TM-2.9.7MemoAcceleration Response Spectra for Final Design2010-Q4
TM-2.9.9MemoFinal Earthquake Ground Motions for Final Design2010-Q4
TM-2.9.10MemoGeotechnical Design Guidelines - Guidelines for geotechnical analysis and design criteria for high-speed train infrastructure facilities such as bridge and viaduct foundations, slopes, cuts, fills, embankments, retaining walls, excavation bracing, culverts, drainage, etc.2010-06-30
Seismic Studies
TM-2.10.1MemoSeismic Performance Criteria and Design Basis2009-Q2
TM-2.10.2MemoTechnical Advisory Panel Work Plan2009-Q2
TM-2.10.3MemoTechnical Advisory Panel Summary2010-Q2
TM-2.10.4MemoInterim Seismic Design Criteria - Guidance for the seismic design for high-speed train bridges and aerial structures, tunnels and underground structures, passenger stations and buildings, in consideration of the fact that the HSR alignment passes through some of the most seismically active regions of California, including crossings of major fault systems.2009-06-08
TM-2.10.5Memo15% Design Seismic Design Benchmarks - Benchmark guidelines for all structures that directly support track and running high-speed trains including bridges, aerial structures, tunnels and underground structures, passenger stations and buildings. These simple guidelines support only the 15% design level for the EIR/EIS process. TM-2.10.4 applies to later design stages.2010-03-29
TM-2.10.6MemoFault Rupture Analysis and Mitigation - Guidelines for the identification of seismic fault hazard zones near the HSR alignment, methods to determine the rupture displacement characteristics, and a variety of mitigation measures to ensure survivability.2010-06-11
TM-2.10.7MemoFinal Seismic Design Criteria (30 Percent and Final Design)2010-Q3
TM-2.10.8MemoStructures Type Selection Development Procedures2010-Q3
TM-2.10.9MemoFinal Fault Crossing Design Criteria and Guidance2010-Q4
TM-2.10.10MemoTrack-Structure Interaction - Specific requirements for high-speed track and structure interaction for aerial structures and bridges (but not tracks supported on grade), such as dynamic performance, traffic safety, rail-structure interaction, and passenger comfort.2010-06-30
TM-2.10.11MemoPassenger Comfort Design Criteria for Structures2010-Q4
Traction Power - General
TM- Power 2 x 25kV Autotransformer Electrification System - Technical rationale for selection of 25 kV overhead electrification, traction power system configuration, utility interfaces, and voltage limits.2010-03-31
TM- Power Facilities - Drawings of standardized power substations, switching, and paralleling stations to be built along the right-of-way to supply and distribute electrical traction power.2010-06-08
TM- Power Facilities General Standardization Requirements - Standardized sizing, layout and placement of the three kinds of electrical facilities used to supply and distribute traction power: substations, switching stations and paralleling stations.2010-06-10
TM- Contact System and Negative Feeder Feeds2009-Q2
Traction Power - System Analysis
TM- Segment Traction Power System Analysis2008-Q4
TM- System Traction Power System Analysis2009-Q3
Traction Power - Facilities
TM- Power Supply for Traction Power Supply System - Requirements for commercial electric power utility interface to the HSR system, including voltage ranges, redundancy, and space requirements for utility feeds.2010-06-15
TM- Power Supply for Traction Power Supply System - Drawings showing the relationship of utility high voltage power feeds to HSR system traction power substations.2010-06-11
Overhead Contact System
TM-3.2.1MemoOverhead Contact System Requirements - Review of standards and best practices to provide design criteria for the overhead contact system (OCS), the high voltage electrical wires that are strung above the tracks to supply power to trains.2009-07-14
TM-3.2.1DrawingOverhead Contact System - Drawings of standard configurations for the overhead contact system (OCS) including pole, headspan and portal arrangements, key dimensions, nomenclature of component parts, etc.2009-07-07
TM-3.2.2MemoOverhead Contact System Structural Requirements - Defines the structural loads experienced by overhead contact system components and establishes limits on deflections and failure modes, considering all environments and climate, especially wind loading.2010-06-08
TM-3.2.3MemoPantograph Clearance Envelopes - Review of European and Asian practice, and guidance for mechanical and electrical clearances around pantographs (the train-mounted devices that capture electrical power from the overhead contact system). 2009-07-17
TM-3.2.3DrawingPantograph Clearance Envelopes - Dimensioned drawings of pantograph clearance envelopes at two wire heights, with or without curve superelevation, in either open track or in tunnels.2009-07-07
TM-3.2.5MemoOCS Electrical Requirements2009-Q2
TM-3.2.6MemoGrounding, Bonding and Protection From Electrical Shock - Reviews standards and best practices to provide criteria for the traction electrification system (TES) grounding and bonding requirements and for protection against electric shock. Covers traction power systems, overhead contact system, station platforms, structures, and overhead bridge protection.2010-06-11
TM-3.2.6DrawingGrounding, Bonding and Protection From Electrical Shock - Schematics of grounding and bonding for elevated structures, tunnels, station platforms and overhead bridges.2010-06-11
TM-3.2.7MemoOCS Mechanical Requirements2009-Q2
Train Control
TM-3.3.1MemoAutomatic Train Control: Concept of System - Describes the functions of the Automatic Train Control (ATC) system including Automatic Train Protection (ATP), Automatic Train Operation (ATO), Automatic Train Supervision (ATS), and Positive Train Control (PTC). The key requirement is that the technology must already exist as part of an operating system with proven experience worldwide on at least one high speed passenger railway.2010-06-25
TM-3.3.1DrawingAutomatic Train Control: Concept of System - Block diagrams of two possible approaches to ATC: one based on the European ERTMS radio-based solution, and another on the Japanese Digital-ATC cab signal solution.2010-06-25
TM-3.3.2MemoAutomatic Train Control Site Requirements - Identifies the physical area required for train control system equipment such as enclosures and housings, wayside signals (if used), ATC communications infrastructure such as housings and antenna towers, and associated access requirements.2010-06-25
TM-3.3.2DrawingAutomatic Train Control Site Requirements - Drawings showing typical sizes for ATC wayside equipment sites at stations and interlockings, as well as typical wayside signals (dwarf, mast and bridge configurations)2010-06-25
TM-3.3.3MemoAutomatic Train Control Wayside Power Supply Options - Considers pros and cons of various available power sources for automatic train control equipment along the right-of-way, such as utility power drop, cabling from nearest HSR facility, drop-feed and step-down from overhead contact system, and solar/wind plus battery systems.2010-06-25
TM-3.3.4DrawingGround and Bonding for Train Control and Communications - Schematics for grounding and bonding of track circuits in open track, at interlockings, and at wayside signal equipment.2010-06-08
TM-3.3.4MemoGround and Bonding for Train Control and Communications - Describes the grounding and bonding interfaces and criteria required to ensure the correct operation of train control and communications systems in co-existence with high-voltage overhead traction power systems.2010-06-10
TM-3.3.11MemoMeasurement Procedure for EMI Footprint - Standard procedure for measuring the level of EMI (Electro-magnetic interference) in the vicinity of the HSR right-of-way. These measurements are necessary for development of a system-wide EMI footprint and for assessment of electro-magnetic compatibility impacts (arising from HSR as well as impacting on HSR)2010-03-31
TM-3.4.1MemoCommunications System Topology2009-Q4
TM-3.4.2MemoCommunications Systems Site Requirements - Lists the expected communications functions and components required at each type of facility (control centers, stations, traction power substations, wayside train control cabinets, tunnels, yards). Includes drawings of communication facility layouts.2010-07-01
TM-3.4.2DrawingCommunications Systems Site Requirements - Drawings of communications facility layouts (already included in corresponding tech memo)2010-07-08
TM-3.4.3MemoNetwork Management System2010-Q1
TM-3.4.4MemoCommunications Backbone Technology and Protocols2010-Q2
TM-3.4.10MemoElectromagnetic Compatibility Design Criteria2009-Q2
TM-3.4.12MemoSCADA Requirements for Traction Electrification System2010-Q1
TM-4.1MemoLA - Anaheim Concept Level Operational Feasibility Study - Concept level analysis undertaken in 2008 to estimate the number of high-speed trains that could be operated on the LOSSAN Corridor between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) and Anaheim. This study examined the feasibility of four different track configuration and operational scenarios. Events have since overtaken the conclusions of this analysis, since local agencies favor the shared-track alternative.2008-07-21
TM-4.1 Appx. AAppendixAppendix A Network Schematics - Track network schematics showing how the various LOSSAN alternatives are configured.2008-07-21
TM-4.1 Appx. B1AppendixAppendix B Stringlines - Detailed string line diagrams (showing each train's location versus time) of a typical day's service pattern under the various LOSSAN alternatives.2008-07-21
TM-4.1 Appx. B2AppendixAppendix B Stringlines - Continued from previous file (Appendix B is split into two files)2008-07-21
TM-4.1.1MemoJustification for Two-Track Station Configuration - LA to Anaheim - Extremely short memo mentions the possibility of two-track HSR-only stations in the LOSSAN corridor under the assumption of dedicated HSR tracks, an alternative that was still in favor as of 2009. Mostly overtaken by events since then.2009-07-10
TM-4.2MemoPhase 1 Service Plan - Concept level state-wide HSR service plan and hypothetical timetable that has served as the basis for ridership estimates, stopping patterns, fleet sizing, yard sizing and terminal station sizing. The service plan and ridership studies reinforce each other to justify extremely optimistic assumptions that dictate very generous sizing of HSR infrastucture. This document also includes string line diagrams and a proposed timetable. 2008-11-20
TM-4.3MemoFull Build Service Plan - Draft of concept level state-wide HSR service plan including extensions to San Diego and Sacramento, that has served as the basis for ridership estimates, stopping patterns, fleet sizing, yard sizing and terminal station sizing.2009-01-12
TM-4.3 Appx. A1AppendixAppendix A1 Full Build Stopping Patterns - Stopping patterns for the full-build system including San Diego and Sacramento.2009-01-12
TM-4.3 Appx. A3AppendixAppendix A3 Full Build Stringlines - Detailed string line diagrams (showing each train's location versus time) of a typical day's service pattern in the full-build system. Note junctions whimsically named after PB program management staff.2009-01-12
TM-4.3 Appx. A4AppendixAppendix A4 Full Build Equipment Cycles - Spreadsheet dump of daily operation with trainsets allocated to each service for fleet sizing purposes.2009-01-12
TM-4.4MemoOperations & Maintenance Cost Model2009-Q3
TM-5.1MemoTerminal and Heavy Maintenance Facility Guidelines - Preliminary guidelines for identifying locations and designing the maintenance and layup facilities for the HSR system. Includes extensive analysis of maintenance practices in France (TGV) and Japan (Shinkansen). Defines facility types, functions, layouts and sizing of maintenance facilities.2009-08-25
TM-5.1DrawingTerminal and Heavy Maintenance Facility Guidelines - Conceptual plans of the HMF (Heavy Maintenance Facility) as well as storage and maintenance yards in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Anaheim, Sacramento, San Diego, or combined LA/Anaheim. Shows track layout and facility dimensions.2009-07-22
TM-5.2DrawingMaintenance of Way Facilities - Conceptual plans for small maintenance-of-way facilities to be located at various points along the right-of-way.2009-07-23
TM-5.3MemoMaintenance Facilities Requirements Summary - Defines requirements for maintenance facility access, employee parking, and site location. Also gives sizes in acres of each planned facility. Facility functional requirements are covered in TM-5.1.2009-08-31
Rolling Stock
TM-6.1MemoSelected Train Technologies - Identifies the available range of high-speed trainsets that are or may be capable of 220 mph (350 km/h) operation. Briefly describes the characteristics of each technology that need to be taken into account in infrastructure design. Includes tractive effort diagrams to support train performance simulations.2008-05-30
TM-6.2MemoIntroduction of Euro/Asian Rolling Stock to California2009-Q3
TM-6.3MemoTrainset Configuration Analysis and Recommendation - Examines pros and cons of various HSR trainset architectures (single vs. bi-level, power units vs. distributed traction, availability from multiple vendors) and concludes that California should use single-level, high-platform, electric multiple units (EMUs).2009-09-23
Regulatory Approvals
TM-7.2MemoFRA Criteria Applicability2009-Q2
TM-7.3MemoInternational Rail Standards Comparison - Reviews and compares the various international rail standards. Describes international standards bodies, their interrelationships and how they address high-speed rail. Recommends that US regulatory framework be based on European Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSI).2009-04-27
TM-7.4MemoHazard Identification and Mitigation2009-Q3
TM-7.5MemoFRA System Overview2009-Q4
TM-7.6MemoProduct Safety Plan Outline2009-Q2
TM-7.7MemoRSPP Safety Plan Outline2009-Q2