San Jose Done Right

Map of VTA's BART extension

San Jose is the tenth largest city in the U.S. (by population), with more people than San Francisco; the city achieves this statistical feat by encompassing 180 square miles.  Such a large and populous city surely deserves top-notch rail transit.  BART is widely viewed as top-notch rail transit, which is why the city and VTA (Santa Clara County's transportation authority) have made extending BART through San Jose their very top priority.

Actual expenditures from VTA
Measure A (2000) sales tax, 2015

So overwhelming is the priority for BART that VTA re-programmed the revenue from a half-cent transit sales tax (Measure A) passed back in 2000 primarily to the BART extension, breaking a promise made to voters that a significant portion would fund Caltrain electrification.  The actual expenditures through 2015 are shown in the diagram at left; money spent on the BART extension is shown in blue, and money spent on Caltrain in red.

As can be readily observed, the Measure A money is nearly gone, and the BART tunnel through San Jose is not even started.  That's why another half-cent transportation sales tax Measure B was passed in Santa Clara County in November 2016 to raise a further $6 billion through the year 2047.  Exactly like 2000 Measure A, 2016 Measure B promises lots of funding for Caltrain, an ample 16% slice that includes grade separations ($700M) and capacity improvements ($314M).  The small print, however, allows the VTA board to re-program the funding as it sees fit, adapting spending to "unforeseen" circumstances such as, perish the thought, an over-budget BART extension.

With San Jose and VTA suffering from a severe case of BART tunnel vision, it's important to take a more holistic view of what it means to provide the residents and workers of San Jose with a top-notch rail transit network.

San Jose Pan-Galactic Inter-Dimensional Station

San Jose planners will insist that creating a network is their highest priority, and to that effect, their Diridon Station Area Plan seeks to establish a new "Grand Central of the West," as described in Section 2.5 of the plan:

San José Diridon Station will be the best connected transportation hub on the West Coast with the convergence of virtually every mode of public transportation. Activity will increase dramatically with the addition of high speed rail and the extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Diridon station, combined with significant growth by current intercity rail, commuter rail, light rail and bus operators. These new services and growth in demand will create the need for a significant expansion of the existing station. 

This ambitious station development plan rests on two fundamental but unstated assumptions:

1. Caltrain, ACE and Amtrak will continue to operate Diridon station as a terminus, where out of service trains are parked for extended layover periods, wasting valuable platform space as train storage.
    
2. As a result, high-speed rail will not fit within the ground-level footprint of the station, and will most likely require an entirely new elevated facility built over the existing station.

Ridership assumptions for Diridon

These two assumptions are firmly rooted in the ambitious plans of numerous rail transit agencies that prefer to avoid stepping on each other's toes.  Each agency specifies its future needs, San Jose consultants unquestioningly tally up the numbers (see figure at right), and end up prescribing a framework that demands a massive station complex to support a nearly ten-fold increase in ridership over the next twenty years.

Caltrain and high-speed rail consultants have conducted a sophisticated simulation study known as an "operational conflict analysis" that predicted an intolerable traffic jam, with peak-hour delays of nearly an hour.

The Diridon Station Area Plan and the Caltrain / HSR operational analyses are flawed for having failed to examine and question the assumptions on which they are built.  Yes, the station has enormous potential to become a thriving transportation hub, but that is precisely what makes it a very bad place to park out of service trains. Parking or laying over trains at a station platform is the railroad equivalent of parking an empty truck in the middle of a bustling loading zone, and then concluding that the loading zone fails to function adequately and must be expanded.

Trains need to hustle in and hustle out without occupying enormously valuable platform tracks. As will become clear, the simple practice of not parking trains in the worst place to park trains enables a far more efficient and affordable at-grade station configuration for San Jose that provides the same great network effect and transportation benefits for the heart of Silicon Valley, saving enormous sums that can be re-invested to achieve a much better outcome for riders and taxpayers.

Here's San Jose done right:

1) Extend Caltrain through San Jose

Falling short: census data for the Caltrain corridor in San Jose,
overlaid with Caltrain service levels for April 2017.

Viewed as a line on a map, Caltrain already runs through San Jose and beyond, with Gilroy service having started back in 1992. San Jose Diridon station (served by 92 trains/weekday) isn't a natural terminus; south of it, there are three additional stops located within San Jose city limits: Tamien (dropping from 40 to 34 trains/weekday in April 2017), Capitol (6 trains/weekday) and Blossom Hill (6 trains/weekday). Service between Diridon and Tamien is timetabled at 7 minutes, which makes for an average speed of 15 mph, and average speeds south of there hover around 30 mph. The abysmal service south of Diridon station lacks two important attributes of top-notch rail transit: speed and frequency. That's why it's fair to say that despite that line on the map, Caltrain has yet to be extended through San Jose. It's time to do it properly.

One challenge is jurisdictional, with Union Pacific owning the tracks south of milepost 52 and VTA currently holding the rights for only ten daily round trips. However, UPRR does not make intensive use of these tracks, and as a profit-making enterprise would likely be receptive to an outright transfer of ownership while retaining trackage rights to continue operating its Coast Subdivision freight service as before. This would simply extend the existing arrangement between CP Coast (milepost 44.7) and CP Lick (milepost 51.6), where the Caltrain owns the right of way and dispatches the track, southwards to CP Coyote (milepost 59.9).

Another challenge is institutional, with VTA having a vested interest in making commuters use the Santa Teresa branch of its light rail network. The Caltrain San Jose extension would parallel this line, possibly cannibalizing some of its ridership.

Built-up areas shown in black on a map
by the DLR Earth Observation Center
(Global Urban Footprint).  Tamien,
Capitol and Blossom Hill are shown
disconnected, as they are today.

Demographically, the southern half of San Jose is a rich but poorly tapped source of commuter ridership, with dense residential neighborhoods surrounding the corridor. More than 100,000 people live within two miles of the Tamien and Capitol stops, and 75,000 people live within two miles of the Blossom Hill stop. Census data argues strongly for locating the Caltrain terminus at Blossom Hill, with an electrified train storage yard / layover facility in this large vacant space [UPDATE: that large vacant space seems to be spoken for, so look for other unbuilt spaces in map at left], a far better place to park out of service trains than in the middle of San Jose Diridon. ACE and Amtrak trains could be turned at the existing Tamien layover facility.

Turning all Caltrain service at Blossom Hill would improve service for hundreds of thousands of San Jose residents and workers, at some increase in capital cost (to electrify) and operating cost (12 minute longer runs). On the other hand, it would greatly reduce Caltrain's requirement for tracks and platforms at Diridon station. Caltrain would operate through the San Jose Diridon station much like it does at the Palo Alto University Avenue station, using just two tracks and two platform faces. If that seems hard to imagine, remember that Palo Alto has almost 60% more ridership than San Jose Diridon; any perceived need for all those tracks and platforms at Diridon, and the profoundly mistaken notion of a "South Terminal", arises from existing jurisdictional boundaries and Caltrain's unhealthy habit of parking trains in the worst possible place to park trains.

2) Build high-speed rail at grade.

Thousands of cubic yards of concrete,
zero marginal transportation benefit

With Caltrain's San Jose footprint shrunk to just two platform faces, and with HSR's recent decision to shrink platform length to just 800 feet, it becomes feasible to operate the San Jose HSR service entirely within the existing at-grade footprint of the station, without the need for expensive new elevated or tunneled infrastructure. Two of the existing platforms are already over 1200 feet long and could be converted for HSR use. Just as in San Francisco Transbay, these platforms could be shared with Caltrain, taking advantage of Caltrain's new dual-boarding-height trains and leading to even more efficient utilization of the existing station footprint.

Operationally, HSR would have to quit the same nasty habit of parking trains in the worst possible place to park trains.  Trains would have to layover somewhere north of Diridon, or continue onto the peninsula rail corridor.  There is no operational need for longer station dwell times than two or three minutes within the Diridon complex: get in, board and/or alight passengers, and most promptly and importantly, get out. Go layover somewhere else than the bustling city center.

Building everything at-grade would save about a billion dollars (by foregoing about $250M for elevated approach tracks, $500M for the elevated Diridon station complex itself, and $500M for the "iconic" but entirely avoidable viaduct to cross the 87/280 freeway interchange to the south). An added benefit of the at-grade approach to San Jose is higher speeds and lower trip times. The extremely tight 1000-foot curve radius that connects Diridon to an "iconic" viaduct saps the 'H' out of HSR by limiting trains to just 50 mph, while the existing curve through the Gardner neighborhood could be grade separated and operated at 65 mph.

Rather than cower in the shadow of a new "iconic" bridge proclaiming loudly that they are just a flyover neighborhood, residents of San Jose's Gardner district would gain a grade separation at Virginia Street, improving neighborhood access that has been so brutally cut off by the I-280 and SR-87 freeways, and eliminating the sound of railroad horns--even freight train horns.

3) End the BART extension at Diridon/Arena

As planned by VTA, the BART to San Jose Phase II project doesn't just take BART to San Jose, but takes BART beyond the San Jose Diridon/Arena station, veering north to parallel the Caltrain / HSR corridor for a redundant 2.5 miles, ending in Santa Clara.  While this configuration might have made sense long ago when BART harbored ambitions to "ring the Bay" by linking Millbrae and Santa Clara, the present state of affairs argues for a different solution.

From a transportation perspective, it makes no sense to spend ~$1.5 billion of scarce transit dollars (pro-rated from the $6 billion cost of the entire Phase II project) on a 9000-foot tunnel leading to a huge Santa Clara station complex just to provide a third way to ride between San Jose Diridon and Santa Clara, two locations already well-linked by Caltrain and VTA's 522 express bus.

BART maintenance yard at Las Plumas
Avenue in San Jose, an alternative
that was withdrawn in EIR process

The main argument against truncating the BART extension revolves around a new 69-acre maintenance facility planned at Newhall Yard in Santa Clara. BART argues that Santa Clara and downtown San Jose are too far away from the nearest existing maintenance and storage facility, BART's main Hayward Maintenance Complex, to be operated efficiently. The HMC is about 21 miles from Santa Clara, requiring long non-revenue runs to stage trains to/from the end of the San Jose extension.  While this is admittedly an operationally inefficient arrangement, BART appears to have no qualms operating Phase I (to Berryessa) out of the HMC, over a distance of 14 miles. Cutting back the 2.5 miles from Diridon/Arena to Santa Clara would place the end of the line less than 19 miles from HMC, not so much further from the HMC than Berryessa already is. The HMC itself is undergoing a major expansion, with storage space for an additional 250 BART cars environmentally cleared based on a purpose and need statement that invokes servicing the BART to San Jose extension. Even then, if the HMC Phase II expansion were to prove insufficient and if maintenance and storage demands were truly that dire, a small portion of the $1.5 billion cost avoidance of truncating Santa Clara could be reinvested to provide a new BART maintenance shop at Las Plumas Avenue, an alternative that was considered during the environmental process. Trains could also be stored overnight at Diridon/Arena, to avoid long non-revenue runs at the start and end of the day. The bottom line: the argument that a Newhall shop is a non-negotiable, vital component of the BART to Silicon Valley project is technically unfounded and rests on a stay-the-course-at-all-costs logic that fails to appreciate the opportunity costs of blowing $1.5 billion on a train parking lot.

Another argument against truncating the BART extension concerns a planned airport people mover that would link Santa Clara to the SJC terminals, tunneling under the runways. Using a small portion of the $1.5 billion savings of ending BART at Diridon/Arena, the people mover could run straight to Diridon station, without the need for tunneling under the runways, and connect not just with Caltrain and BART but directly with high-speed rail--seamlessly merging the airport and the train station.

4) Use Newhall Yard for HSR

As it turns out, there is a better use for Newhall Yard than BART storage and maintenance, namely, HSR storage and maintenance.

As previously mentioned, long non-revenue runs to stage trains to/from their terminus are operationally inefficient, but BART can get by because nobody else uses their tracks. If the HSR storage and maintenance yard were to be located in Brisbane, these non-revenue runs would consume scarce and valuable operating slots on the extremely constrained peninsula corridor "blended system," further compromising service quality for all rail passengers.

A better plan is to have only a small storage / layover yard in Brisbane, with a larger facility perfectly located just north of San Jose Diridon at Newhall Yard, which would allow a portion of the HSR service to originate / terminate in San Jose without gumming up the peninsula rail corridor. Recall the blended system will be limited to 4 trains per hour per direction unless long stretches of the peninsula corridor are expanded to four tracks, an idea that faces twin obstacles of funding and community opposition.

Organisation vor Elektronik vor Beton

In Germanic countries, there is a guiding principle in rail system design known as Organisation vor Elektronik vor Beton, or roughly, organization before systems before concrete. It gives the order of priorities for quickly and affordably increasing train traffic: first you re-plan your operations, and if that doesn't cut it you improve your technology, for example by using shorter signal blocks, and only as a last resort do you pour concrete.

What is about to happen in San Jose is the exact opposite: legions of consultants primarily from a civil engineering background are (surprise!) recommending a concrete-intensive solution to a problem that is ill-posed because it hasn't first been attacked from the standpoint of re-planning train operations. The entire edifice is built on the nasty habit of parking trains in the worst possible place you could think of to park trains.

The planners and engineers working on the future of the Diridon Station area need to be sent back to the drawing board with new operating assumptions:

1. Turn all Caltrains at Blossom Hill, operating San Jose Diridon as just another intermediate stop
2. Turn all legacy diesel trains (ACE, Amtrak) at Tamien, away from the bustle
3. Turn all high-speed trains originating or terminating in San Jose at Newhall Yard

Thinking of San Jose as a terminal is misleading. The litmus test is really simple: if your timetable, operating plan or simulation has any train spending more than two minutes dwelling at a platform in the San Jose Diridon station, then it is probably flawed. Don't turn trains at the choke point of your system, so that we don't spend billions on fancy train parking with zero value to the traveling public and negative value to the taxpayer.

The Bay Area can ill afford transit mega-projects of low utility, such as the redundant BART segment beyond Diridon/Arena to Santa Clara, the giant HSR station in the sky, or more downtown train parking. The cost is outrageous, and the opportunity cost is shameful.

EMU Draft RFP

Caltrain recently published their Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Request for Proposals (RFP) in draft form, to obtain feedback from potential proposers prior to the formal issue of this document in August 2015.  Here are some initial impressions:

What's Pleasantly Surprising:

• Level boarding is a serious consideration throughout the RFP.  Caltrain appears to recognize the importance of this issue: it's the Next Big Thing after electrification, and cannot wait until the next round of vehicle replacement in the 2050s.  The RFP shows that Caltrain is starting to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
• Platform sharing and full blending with high-speed rail is firmly on the agenda with "Option B," a dual boarding height train that enables an eventual transition to level boarding at 48 - 51" height.  This solution has been described and advocated on this blog as the best one available given the constraints of the problem.  Most people who reject this solution ultimately take issue with one of the constraints, but once you accept these constraints, "Option B" starts to make more sense.  Proposers are asked in the draft RFP to further evaluate its feasibility and cost impact.
• In section 3.3.3, future capability for level boarding is described as ADA-compliant with a 3-inch maximum horizontal gap and a 5/8-inch maximum height mismatch.  Section 4.2.3 specifies a pneumatic leveling suspension to meet the vertical tolerance. It looks like Caltrain  is going the extra inch after all, which is commendable.
• The vehicle static envelope in Appendix C is a full 3.4 meters wide, enabling the use of extra-wide trains, wider than the conventional AAR plates.  While Caltrain doesn't seem keen on 3+2 seating (something about the "middle seat" situation), extra width that takes full advantage of the static envelope is good for all uses besides seating.  Let's hope the proposers aren't timid about this.
• While it isn't immediately obvious from looking at the raw numbers, the run times required in section 2.3.6.2 are fairly aggressive and will require some sporty power-to-weight ratios.  This high level of acceleration and braking performance is good for the blended system and will ensure that the most can be made of shared tracks.
• In section 6.4.10.4, door controls are required to be installed in the driving cab, offering the possibility of consolidating and automating a task currently performed by conductors.
• In section 14.4, an automatic station announcement system is specified to automate a task currently performed by conductors.  This isn't exactly surprising for a modern train, but Caltrain and its labor practices sometimes seem stuck back in the 20th century.
• In section 14.9, the trains are required to be pre-wired (if not yet equipped) for passenger Wi-Fi.  For a rail system that serves Silicon Valley, that's overdue by easily a decade.
• No trap doors!  That always seemed like a horrible way to achieve level boarding.

What's Disappointing:

• The RFP is highly prescriptive.  The cost of preparing such a voluminous requirements specification, and then to formally verify such a large number of requirements, will easily run into the millions of dollars.  So much for off-the-shelf procurement.
• In section 2, no allowance is made for articulated trains (e.g. Bombardier Omneo) or for trains with mixed bi-level and single level arrangements (e.g. Siemens Desiro HC).  The desired EMU is prescribed as a set of traditional bilevel cars each about 85 feet long.  A better approach would be to define a minimum passenger capacity per unit length, leaving more room for creative and unconventional interior layouts.
• Still no detailed thought appears to have gone into how to transition to level boarding under "Option A".  The height of 24 or 25 inches is intended to match Caltrain's existing Bombardier bilevel cars, which is a bit mystifying since there is no feasible transition to level boarding using these cars.  Section 3.3.3 basically asks for proposers to figure it out for Caltrain: "Heights below 24 inches will be considered for future level boarding if the Contractor can demonstrate conclusively that the height is advantageous for JPB’s envisioned service and compatible during the transition to that envisioned service."
• Section 12 requires all doors of the train to open at every stop, as they do today.  To reduce wear and tear on the door mechanisms, modern vehicles often come equipped with interior and exterior push buttons for passengers to initiate door opening.  Instead of opening the doors by default, the crew-operated door control station should de-inhibit the doors to be opened only as requested by passengers at each individual door.
• Section 2 envisions that trains would be lengthened from 6 cars (~150 m) to 8 cars (~200 m) at some future date.  This is far too timid a capacity expansion.  A more flexible and future-proof approach would be to order more 150 m trains and double them up-- after the necessary platform extensions are constructed at stations with the highest ridership.

What's Weird:

• Section 2 requires shorter 6-car trains to have their performance de-rated (by software) to the same performance as a longer 8-car train.
• Section 23.2.2 requires the delivery of 200 (two hundred!) 1/50th scale models of each car type for "internal and external distribution"... That's some serious schwag!

What's Missing:

• "Option B" with dual boarding levels requires level boarding at 48 to 51 inches ATOR but fails to describe the basic platform interface dimensions, including height above rail, offset from track center, and tolerances thereon.  Proposers are unlikely to be able to design against such a critical interface when it hasn't even been defined.  This data should be agreed upon with the California HSR Authority, after some technical decision making that may have to occur sooner than they would like.
• In section 3.3.3, Caltrain requires that "the entire platform interface system must also be usable during the transition from the current platform height to the level boarding platform height," a stealth requirement that makes "Option A" trains at least as mechanically complex as the "Option B" trains, by requiring boarding capability at two different heights (8-inch legacy and 25 inches with ADA-compliant level boarding).  A requirement of such great importance and design impact ought to be made more explicit, saying what it actually means and using the word "shall".
• The door control system (section 12) envisions 100% manual operation of the doors by train crews.  This may not properly address the challenge of operating during a platform height transition, when each individual platform may need to be raised in successive construction phases to avoid closing the station or doubling the construction footprint for temporary platforms.  With manual door operation, the risk of human error resulting in opening a door at the wrong platform height will likely be unacceptable, particularly to regulators such as the CPUC.  It may be warranted, at the cost of some additional complexity, to require a platform sensing system that automatically inhibits door opening when the incorrect height is sensed, preventing crew errors and potential passenger injury.

Please use the comment section to add your own review of this document.

Find Out Your Pole Placement

Plan showing where electrification poles
will be placed in the vicinity of the
historic El Palo Alto redwood
(see RFP Volume 3 page 1193)

Caltrain has spent over $15 million on its electrification project so far, primarily for environmental clearance and preparations for procurement.  In late February, we found out where a lot of this money went: the Request For Proposals (RFP) for the electrification project was released.

This RFP is an incredibly prescriptive document that tells prospective bidders precisely what the project should look like, down to the last bolt.  Volume 3 of the RFP (download the 2840 page, 214 MB PDF file) includes layout plans of the overhead electrification system that dictate the exact placement of every single pole foundation.  The prospective contractor is admonished that pole locations cannot be changed without first submitting a formal design variance request to Caltrain.

This procurement is being carried out as a "Design-Build" where the winning bidder will be tasked with "designing" the project, which in this case will amount to a connect-the-dots exercise to duplicate Caltrain's highly prescriptive preliminary engineering drawings into final construction-ready drawings.  What little room is left for creativity and efficiency is stifled by an onerous variance process that requires the "designer" to submit extensive paperwork to Caltrain for approval of the slightest change to the design prescribed in the contract.  One can easily imagine how the goal of Design-Build contracting, namely to reduce risk and cost by consolidating decision-making under a single entity, would be lost under the hyper-prescriptive approach that Caltrain has chosen.

The thousands of pages of the RFP highlight the cozy symbiotic relationship that exists between government agencies, their in-house consultants, and private contractors.  Without an ounce of nefarious intent on the part of any of its participants, this self-reinforcing triangle, hardly unique to Caltrain, brings together hollowed-out government agencies with rubber-stamp boards run by politicians, permanent in-house consultants whose primary motivation is to justify their existence through highly prescriptive decisions that increase scope at their whim, a profit-hungry coterie of construction companies ticking all the boxes for shareholders and labor interests, and a byzantine system of contracting regulations and reporting requirements, quite ironically intended to prevent taxpayers from being defrauded.  The results of this firmly-entrenched Transportation Industrial Complex are projects that deliver less and cost more, typically three times the going rate in other first-world countries where government agencies are centralized, smart, and employ an experienced staff of technocrats whose first interest lies in serving the public with better transit at lower cost.  What can be done about this system?  Not a whole lot.  It is the logical byproduct of our decentralized system of government and of our free markets, pursuing their respective enlightened self-interests.  These self-interests include neither low cost to the taxpayer nor excellent transit service to the user.

The recently-completed modernization of Auckland, New Zealand's commuter rail network, of quite similar technical scope, is an instructive benchmark against which to evaluate Caltrain's modernization efforts.

The Canyonero of Signals

The San Bruno grade separation, a $155 million project that does nothing for the average Caltrain rider, is nearing completion.  If you wondered where some of that money went, here you go.

The Canyonero of signals is surely this brawny Made in U.S.A. signal gantry mounted on top of the San Bruno grade separation.  The gantry (probably a standard two-track gantry, to save money!) was too wide to be mounted in this location, so two cantilevered concrete platforms, seismically worthy, were built on each side to support the gantry and keep out any terrorists.  [UPDATE: check out the engineering drawing!]  If that wasn't enough, this signal gantry needed its signal house (probably a standard 8'x8' signal house, to save money!) perched on top of the opulent platform as well, with classy electrical conduits slung underneath and a dedicated ADA-compliant staircase allowing maintenance personnel ready access.  Maybe they were trying to save some parking spaces by suspending everything, but the entire area had to be fenced in for security.

East side, showing cantilever platform

West side, with signal house on cantilever platform

Under-hanging conduits connecting the signal heads to the relay shelter

If you asked the engineers who designed this, they could no doubt bend your ear about why it ended up this way and how numerous standards and requirements conspired to force exactly this solution.  That doesn't remove the simple fact that it's wrong.  It isn't simple, elegant, efficient, or thrifty; it fails to satisfy basic ideals that all engineering has aspired to since time immemorial.  The ridiculous, over-wrought outcome of rigid paint-by-numbers adherence to prescriptive requirements and standards would be comical if it weren't such a waste of the scarce taxpayer dollars available for rail projects.  (Or even that sub-category of rail projects solely benefiting automobile traffic flow.)  It's a basic signal gantry, for crying out loud.

Oh, and the new speed limit at the San Bruno curve, the #1 worst curve on the entire peninsula?  65 mph, up from 60 mph before.  It could have been 100 mph if this project had been conceived intelligently.

The concrete has been poured, and this installation shall now and forever stand as a monument to our Transit Industrial Complex, as it embarks on far more challenging endeavors such as electrification, level boarding, the downtown extension, and maybe some day high-speed rail.  The symbolism is hard to avoid.

High Voltage Rule Making

25,000-volt alternating current overhead electrification, the worldwide standard for powering modern passenger trains as now planned for Caltrain and the statewide high-speed rail system, currently does not exist anywhere in California. Nor do any regulations exist to ensure its safe and reliable implementation. That's why the California High-Speed Rail Authority and its consultants have successfully petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission for a new regulatory framework to enable the use of 25 kV technology in California.

In concert with the CPUC, a committee of HSR technocrats has developed a proposed General Order to regulate important topics such as:

• Performance requirements
• Clearances and protection against electric shock
• Grounding and bonding
• Strength requirements
• Safe working practices
• Incident reporting

The rule-making proceeding can be found under CPUC docket number R1303009.  The proposed draft regulatory document (2.3 MB PDF, known as a "General Order" or GO) can be found under CPUC petition docket number P1210011.  A close reading of this proposed GO reveals two fundamental flaws that seem to have entirely escaped the authors:

1. The draft GO proposes to regulate 25 kV overhead electrification specifically for the operation of high speed trains.  The authors commit a fundamental category error by treating 25 kV electrification as a technology that is unique to 200+ mph high-speed rail, which is flat out wrong.  25 kV electrification is a world-wide standard technology used for powering any type of train, from commuter to freight to intercity to high-speed rail.  Examples abound, even within the United States, and could someday find their way to California--let's say for example, the San Francisco peninsula.  California regulations should not preclude any of these other applications just because they were authored by and for the HSR project.  The GO should regulate 25 kV AC electrification as a general category for powering electric railroads, and treat the specific application to high-speed rail as a sub-category.  The draft document should be entirely re-structured, with HSR relegated to a chapter that covers only those special regulations that pertain solely to high-speed operations.
    
2. The draft document does not read like a concise regulatory document, and instead includes numerous pages of technical guidelines and best practices quoted nearly verbatim from the CHSRA's own technical specifications.  Much of the draft is descriptive material that speaks of the HSR system in the future tense.  The authors seem to have made no effort to separate descriptive material and run-of-the-mill engineering requirements from the key regulatory (safety) requirements, and the result is an unorganized mess of a kitchen sink that reads as if a committee of technocrats had authored it.  Which they apparently did.

You might think that someone close to the matter would say something about these obvious flaws, but all that Caltrain could muster as a response (under P12100011) is this:

Based on our prior coordination with the CHSRA and discussions with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff, the following is our understanding:

• The CHSRA Petition and proposed GO broadly describes the statewide high-speed rail system to include "shared use corridors"; 

• The reference to "shared use corridors" would include the Caltrain corridor, which is in the SF to SJ segment of the CHSRA blended statewide system; 

• The GO would potentially be applicable to the Caltrain electrification project, to be led by the PCJPB; and 

• The Caltrain electrification project will require specific regulatory consideration of the effect of 25 kV ac power lines upon signal predictors for at-grade crossings, which may require JPB to seek its own GO or to request an amendment to the GO being proposed by CHSRA. 

In other words, Caltrain politely requests to be considered as part of the HSR system so that whatever (really, whatever!) regulations of 25 kV electrification, as drafted by the CHSRA and its consultants, can "potentially" become applicable to Caltrain's own electrification project.  They couldn't get any more passive than this.

It is becoming clear that our rail agencies and state regulators are falling all over themselves in their incompetence to craft a logical regulatory framework around a mature world-standard technology.

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-0.0a	Memo	Design Terms and Acronyms - Decoder ring for alphabet soup and project lingo, to promote consistency and coordination among design teams.	2008-09-05
TM-0.1	Memo	15 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-0.2	Memo	Tech Memo Review Protocol	2008-Q4
TM-0.3	Memo	Basis 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-0.3	Memo	Basis of Design Policy	2009-Q2
TM-0.4	Memo	Project Development Process	2007-Q4
TM-0.5	Memo	Coordination 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-0.6	Memo	Risk Register Development Protocol - Common standard for project risk identification, assessment, analysis, management /mitigation, and review.	2010-03-01
TM-0.7	Memo	Design 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-0.8	Memo	Programmatic Cost Update Methodology	2008-Q3
TM-0.9	Memo	Draft RPA Protocol	2010-Q3
General Design - Infrastructure
TM-1.1.0	Memo	Design 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-1.1.1	Memo	Codes, 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-1.1.2	Memo	Design 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-1.1.4	Memo	Engineering 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-1.1.5	Memo	CADD 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-1.1.6	Memo	Alignment 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-1.1.7	Memo	Shared Use Corridor HST Criteria - Caltrain Corridor	2010-Q2
TM-1.1.8	Memo	Demarcation 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-1.1.8	Map	Subdivision Milepost Map - Shows subdivision names and milepost numbering superimposed on a geographical map.	2008-04-09
TM-1.1.8A	Drawing	Systemwide Track Schematic - Schematic track map of the entire California HSR system, including mileposts, stations, crossovers, subdivision names, etc.	2010-03-08
TM-1.1.9	Memo	Flooding and Drainage	2010-Q2
TM-1.1.10	Memo	High-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-1.1.10	Drawing	High-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-1.1.16	Memo	Shared Use Corridor HST Criteria	2008-Q1
TM-1.1.18	Memo	Design 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-1.1.19	Memo	Capital 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-1.1.21	Memo	Typical 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-1.1.21	Drawing	Typical 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-1.1.22	Memo	Capital Cost Estimating Methodology for 30 Percent Design	2010-Q3
Track Alignment
TM-2.1.2	Memo	Alignment 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-2.1.3	Memo	Turnouts and Station Tracks - Turnout, crossover, and station connection track geometries, including review of foreign practice.	2009-06-29
TM-2.1.3	Drawing	Turnouts and Station Track Schematics - Turnout, crossover, and station connection track geometry requirements.	2010-04-09
TM-2.1.3	Drawing	Typical 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-2.1.5	Memo	Track Design	2010-Q1
TM-2.1.6	Memo	Ballast-less Track	2009-Q4
TM-2.1.7	Memo	Intrusion 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-2.1.8	Memo	Turnouts 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-2.2.2	Memo	Station 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-2.2.3	Memo	Station 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-2.2.4	Memo	Station 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-2.2.4	Drawing	Station Platform Geometric Design - Cross sections of a generic mid-line station configuration, either at-grade or elevated	2010-06-04
TM-2.2.4	Drawing	Station Platform Geometric Design - Drawings of a generic mid-line station configuration, 6000 feet long with 1300 ft platforms.	2009-07-29
Bridge Design
TM-2.3.1	Memo	Aesthetic Guidelines for High-Speed Aerial Structures	2009-Q2
TM-2.3.2	Memo	Structure 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-2.3.3	Memo	Design 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-2.3.3	Drawing	Design Guidelines for Aerial Structures - Cross-sections of two-track aerial structures, including sizing of support columns.	2009-07-07
Tunnel Design
TM-2.4.2	Memo	Basic 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-2.4.2	Drawing	Basic 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-2.4.5	Memo	High-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-2.4.5A	Drawing	Single Track Mined Tunnel Cross Section - Cross section drawing of a typical mined tunnel. Shows design features, but no dimensions.	2010-06-30
TM-2.4.6	Memo	High-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-2.4.8	Memo	Service 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-2.5.1	Memo	Structural 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-2.6.3	Memo	Hydrology	2009-Q4
TM-2.6.4	Memo	Floodplain	2009-Q3
TM-2.6.5	Memo	Hydraulics 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-2.6.7	Memo	Earthwork 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
Utilities
TM-2.7.4	Memo	Utility 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-2.8.1	Memo	Safety and Security	2009-Q3
Geotechnical Studies
TM-2.9.1	Memo	Geotechnical Investigation Guidelines - Standardized methodology, terminology and procedures for sub-surface geotechnical site characterization, including exploration and field and laboratory testing.	2009-05-22
TM-2.9.2	Memo	Geotechnical 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-2.9.3	Memo	Geologic 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-2.9.4	Memo	Preliminary Active Fault Locations and Design Considerations	2009-Q3
TM-2.9.5	Memo	Preliminary Design Earthquake Guidelines for 30 Percent Design	2010-Q1
TM-2.9.6	Memo	Interim 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-2.9.7	Memo	Acceleration Response Spectra for Final Design	2010-Q4
TM-2.9.9	Memo	Final Earthquake Ground Motions for Final Design	2010-Q4
TM-2.9.10	Memo	Geotechnical 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-2.10.1	Memo	Seismic Performance Criteria and Design Basis	2009-Q2
TM-2.10.2	Memo	Technical Advisory Panel Work Plan	2009-Q2
TM-2.10.3	Memo	Technical Advisory Panel Summary	2010-Q2
TM-2.10.4	Memo	Interim 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-2.10.5	Memo	15% 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-2.10.6	Memo	Fault 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-2.10.7	Memo	Final Seismic Design Criteria (30 Percent and Final Design)	2010-Q3
TM-2.10.8	Memo	Structures Type Selection Development Procedures	2010-Q3
TM-2.10.9	Memo	Final Fault Crossing Design Criteria and Guidance	2010-Q4
TM-2.10.10	Memo	Track-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-2.10.11	Memo	Passenger Comfort Design Criteria for Structures	2010-Q4
Traction Power - General
TM-3.1.1.1	Memo	Traction 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-3.1.1.3	Memo	Traction 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-3.1.1.3	Memo	Traction 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-3.1.1.5	Memo	Overhead Contact System and Negative Feeder Feeds	2009-Q2
Traction Power - System Analysis
TM-3.1.3.1	Memo	Initial Segment Traction Power System Analysis	2008-Q4
TM-3.1.3.2	Memo	Full System Traction Power System Analysis	2009-Q3
Traction Power - Facilities
TM-3.1.5.3	Memo	Utility 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-3.1.5.3	Drawing	Utility 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-3.2.1	Memo	Overhead 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-3.2.1	Drawing	Overhead 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-3.2.2	Memo	Overhead 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-3.2.3	Memo	Pantograph 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-3.2.3	Drawing	Pantograph 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-3.2.5	Memo	OCS Electrical Requirements	2009-Q2
TM-3.2.6	Memo	Grounding, 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-3.2.6	Drawing	Grounding, Bonding and Protection From Electrical Shock - Schematics of grounding and bonding for elevated structures, tunnels, station platforms and overhead bridges.	2010-06-11
TM-3.2.7	Memo	OCS Mechanical Requirements	2009-Q2
Train Control
TM-3.3.1	Memo	Automatic 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-3.3.1	Drawing	Automatic 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-3.3.2	Memo	Automatic 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-3.3.2	Drawing	Automatic 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-3.3.3	Memo	Automatic 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-3.3.4	Drawing	Ground 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-3.3.4	Memo	Ground 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-3.3.11	Memo	Measurement 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
Communications
TM-3.4.1	Memo	Communications System Topology	2009-Q4
TM-3.4.2	Memo	Communications 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-3.4.2	Drawing	Communications Systems Site Requirements - Drawings of communications facility layouts (already included in corresponding tech memo)	2010-07-08
TM-3.4.3	Memo	Network Management System	2010-Q1
TM-3.4.4	Memo	Communications Backbone Technology and Protocols	2010-Q2
TM-3.4.10	Memo	Electromagnetic Compatibility Design Criteria	2009-Q2
TM-3.4.12	Memo	SCADA Requirements for Traction Electrification System	2010-Q1
Operations
TM-4.1	Memo	LA - 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. A	Appendix	Appendix A Network Schematics - Track network schematics showing how the various LOSSAN alternatives are configured.	2008-07-21
TM-4.1 Appx. B1	Appendix	Appendix 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. B2	Appendix	Appendix B Stringlines - Continued from previous file (Appendix B is split into two files)	2008-07-21
TM-4.1.1	Memo	Justification 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-4.2	Memo	Phase 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-4.3	Memo	Full 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. A1	Appendix	Appendix A1 Full Build Stopping Patterns - Stopping patterns for the full-build system including San Diego and Sacramento.	2009-01-12
TM-4.3 Appx. A3	Appendix	Appendix 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. A4	Appendix	Appendix A4 Full Build Equipment Cycles - Spreadsheet dump of daily operation with trainsets allocated to each service for fleet sizing purposes.	2009-01-12
TM-4.4	Memo	Operations & Maintenance Cost Model	2009-Q3
Maintenance
TM-5.1	Memo	Terminal 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-5.1	Drawing	Terminal 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-5.2	Drawing	Maintenance 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-5.3	Memo	Maintenance 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-6.1	Memo	Selected 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-6.2	Memo	Introduction of Euro/Asian Rolling Stock to California	2009-Q3
TM-6.3	Memo	Trainset 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-7.2	Memo	FRA Criteria Applicability	2009-Q2
TM-7.3	Memo	International 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-7.4	Memo	Hazard Identification and Mitigation	2009-Q3
TM-7.5	Memo	FRA System Overview	2009-Q4
TM-7.6	Memo	Product Safety Plan Outline	2009-Q2
TM-7.7	Memo	RSPP Safety Plan Outline	2009-Q2