 |
Re: "A true long-term solution" to do what exactly? Maintain the minimum status quo, or have a first world intercity rail passenger corridor between LA and SD?
Author: BOB2
Date: 02-19-2024 - 18:37
John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Edward Nicks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's what emergency funds pay for: just
> getting
> > it open again. A true long-term solution for
> that
> > line, as at Del Mar, requires that a new
> railroad
> > be build inland someplace, like along I-5. That
> > would cost billion$ not million$. Intermediate,
> > they could build actual retaining walls and
> make
> > it kind of like Dawlish, but the Coastal
> > Commission, the State Park (much of the San
> > Clemente beach is a state park), and lots of
> > private landowners would have an interest in
> that
> > bit of "uglification" so I wouldn't expect much
> of
> > that to be done.
> >
> > A true long term solution for the beach run is
> to
> > stabilize the bluffs and strengthen the sea
> > berm/wall. For Del Mar to stabilize the base.
> No
> > 10 times more expensive inland tunnels are
> > required.
> >
> > Walls, terracing, shotcrete, and appropriate
> > drainage work. As do various methods of sea
> walls
> > and rip rap. They are applicable here. You are
> > correct that the snobs and purists must be
> > overcome. But affordable engineering is
> > available.
> >
> > San Diego sea level rise in the last 100 years
> has
> > been 6 inches. Alarmist 'scientists' predict a
> 3
> > to 6 foot rise in the next 100 years. Which is
> > bunk. Their earlier predictions have been far
> > higher than the actual results ended up being,
> > whether temps or sea level. It's almost as if
> they
> > continue to get grant money if their studies
> > predict what the Dem narrative wants.
> >
> > If they will put the stop gap emergency walls
> up
> > for 2 miles of the San Clemente section it will
> > solve things enough to keep running 99% of the
> > time. Only a few areas where a landslide might
> > overwhelm it. Then slap a 30 mph head end only
> > visual restriction and call it a day.
>
> I agree with this assessment. Even if a section
> was elevated on a causeway and allowed the slides
> or ocean waves to pass under it would be quicker
> and less expensive than tunneling.
LMAO....
I love these money saving solutions by folks who think we can just run at a 30 mph. slow order when these cliff's disolve in rain or coastal wave action. The current single tracked 1887 segment through San Clemente is only 30 mph. now.
I agree going under I-5 through the same bad geology is a bad option, although with enought money a double tracked "higher speed" bypass could be built, reducing travel times. It would be approximately the same running distance as the current mileage from LA to SD.
The current single tracked 30 mph line from the end of double track at the Toll Road IC via San Juan Capistrano and San Clement to San Onofre currently takes over 25 minutes of running time without meets to cover about 13 miles.
The American High Speed Rail Corporation proposed to bypass San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente in 1980 to go via the shorter "hypotenuse" of the "right triangle" formed by going via San Jaun and San Clemente with an inland routing that cut out over 4 miles of distance, and could cover that distance ata proposed maximum 140 mph. in about 4 minutes. Of course the goal of AHSRC was to build a "profitable" IC high speed rail project that could carry the estimated 100,000 daily trips in the LA SD market, with a half hourly service, and a 90 minute non-stop travel time.
The same issues apply at Del Mar, where we are not double trackig the 25 mph. 1883 California Soutern mainline in front of the rick folks homes any time soon, and where the bypass saves around 9 minutes in running time on a double tracked 110 mph. (shared with freight/or even having one track dedicated passenger "exclusive" that could have a track speed of 125-140 mph. as it is completely secured (in a tumel)and fully grade separated.
If the goal is to have a first world rail system on LOSSAN, which would have the greatest public benefit, or even be profitable, where it could have the potential to generate many time the ridership, with more frequent, more reliable, and much faster services, then those kidn operational factors matter.
Are we plannign for the future, and the most beneficial outcomes for the money? Or, are we planning for the past, only doing the "minumum" necessary fro keeping the 1887 single tracked mainline running at 30 mph.?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Edward Nicks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's what emergency funds pay for: just
> getting
> > it open again. A true long-term solution for
> that
> > line, as at Del Mar, requires that a new
> railroad
> > be build inland someplace, like along I-5. That
> > would cost billion$ not million$. Intermediate,
> > they could build actual retaining walls and
> make
> > it kind of like Dawlish, but the Coastal
> > Commission, the State Park (much of the San
> > Clemente beach is a state park), and lots of
> > private landowners would have an interest in
> that
> > bit of "uglification" so I wouldn't expect much
> of
> > that to be done.
> >
> > A true long term solution for the beach run is
> to
> > stabilize the bluffs and strengthen the sea
> > berm/wall. For Del Mar to stabilize the base.
> No
> > 10 times more expensive inland tunnels are
> > required.
> >
> > Walls, terracing, shotcrete, and appropriate
> > drainage work. As do various methods of sea
> walls
> > and rip rap. They are applicable here. You are
> > correct that the snobs and purists must be
> > overcome. But affordable engineering is
> > available.
> >
> > San Diego sea level rise in the last 100 years
> has
> > been 6 inches. Alarmist 'scientists' predict a
> 3
> > to 6 foot rise in the next 100 years. Which is
> > bunk. Their earlier predictions have been far
> > higher than the actual results ended up being,
> > whether temps or sea level. It's almost as if
> they
> > continue to get grant money if their studies
> > predict what the Dem narrative wants.
> >
> > If they will put the stop gap emergency walls
> up
> > for 2 miles of the San Clemente section it will
> > solve things enough to keep running 99% of the
> > time. Only a few areas where a landslide might
> > overwhelm it. Then slap a 30 mph head end only
> > visual restriction and call it a day.
>
> I agree with this assessment. Even if a section
> was elevated on a causeway and allowed the slides
> or ocean waves to pass under it would be quicker
> and less expensive than tunneling.
LMAO....
I love these money saving solutions by folks who think we can just run at a 30 mph. slow order when these cliff's disolve in rain or coastal wave action. The current single tracked 1887 segment through San Clemente is only 30 mph. now.
I agree going under I-5 through the same bad geology is a bad option, although with enought money a double tracked "higher speed" bypass could be built, reducing travel times. It would be approximately the same running distance as the current mileage from LA to SD.
The current single tracked 30 mph line from the end of double track at the Toll Road IC via San Juan Capistrano and San Clement to San Onofre currently takes over 25 minutes of running time without meets to cover about 13 miles.
The American High Speed Rail Corporation proposed to bypass San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente in 1980 to go via the shorter "hypotenuse" of the "right triangle" formed by going via San Jaun and San Clemente with an inland routing that cut out over 4 miles of distance, and could cover that distance ata proposed maximum 140 mph. in about 4 minutes. Of course the goal of AHSRC was to build a "profitable" IC high speed rail project that could carry the estimated 100,000 daily trips in the LA SD market, with a half hourly service, and a 90 minute non-stop travel time.
The same issues apply at Del Mar, where we are not double trackig the 25 mph. 1883 California Soutern mainline in front of the rick folks homes any time soon, and where the bypass saves around 9 minutes in running time on a double tracked 110 mph. (shared with freight/or even having one track dedicated passenger "exclusive" that could have a track speed of 125-140 mph. as it is completely secured (in a tumel)and fully grade separated.
If the goal is to have a first world rail system on LOSSAN, which would have the greatest public benefit, or even be profitable, where it could have the potential to generate many time the ridership, with more frequent, more reliable, and much faster services, then those kidn operational factors matter.
Are we plannign for the future, and the most beneficial outcomes for the money? Or, are we planning for the past, only doing the "minumum" necessary fro keeping the 1887 single tracked mainline running at 30 mph.?
