 |
Re: Fine to plan 4 1st class decades from now, but a fix in the next year or two would allow hourly service that's good enough. Walk before running-Yep, I completely agree with that as a short term solution....
Author: BOB2
Date: 02-20-2024 - 08:41
Steve Edwards Nicks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any tunnels are a decade away at best. With a
> black swan triggered debt bombs correction likely
> in between that will push that out more decades.
> Fix the current corridor now while we still have
> some money. Go back to the original goal of
> reliable hourly service with some modest time
> gains and call that good enough for the moment.
> They've made good progress double tracking most of
> the corridor. A few remaining gaps are not a huge
> deal. Europe has many examples of that. Can be
> scheduled around. Fix now what is affordable, plan
> for a later expensive future.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 2010 timetable shows southbounds slowing from
> 60 mph to 45 for the Serra curve, then 90 for 3.4
> miles to San Clemente station at milepost 203.7.
> The slowest section is 40 mph 203.7 to 206.3, then
> 70 mph to County Line 207.4, 60 to 208.7, 70 to
> 209.0 San Onofre then 90 mph south of there. It
> would be reasonable to argue for the necessary ROW
> improvements to return to these speeds, if that
> section really is down to all 30 mph. There is
> already room to add a second track Serra to San
> Clemente. That would reduce the single track gap
> and reduce the time padding needed for scheduling
> over such an unnecessarily long section of single
> track.
>
> How exactly are these cliffs dissolved by coastal
> wave action when only a very rare storm will have
> wave heights reaching over the riprap and track
> ROW? If that is truly a concern, and not just an
> argument technique, then elevate the tracks 10 to
> 12' on a toughened sea wall. Not just a ballasted
> earthen berm, but hardened concrete walls
> protected by a base of riprap. A seawall that
> would protect both the railroad and slopes from
> wave action while protecting from displacement by
> minor landslides. With a second wall next to the
> cliffs like the emergency wall as a first buffer
> to slow debris flow. Shotcrete and terrace walls
> as high up as necessary. Raised tracks would allow
> pedestrian tunnels below so the trespassing issue
> goes away if fencing also installed along the top.
> So track speeds could be raised to probably a
> minimum of 60 mph.
>
> The rain and underground water induced landslide
> is the real risk. And less of an issue Serra-San
> Clemente since there is a highway in between the
> slopes and the tracks. If not a slide wall on the
> hill side of the road, place a 6' wall between the
> road and the tracks. With the added benefit of
> preventing vehicle intrusions onto the tracks.
>
> The biggest landslide risk to trains is in the
> less than 4 miles between San Clemente and County
> Line where the cliffs are next to the tracks. Less
> than 4 miles to engineer a solution of walls,
> terraces, shotcrete, along with a raised rail line
> and fortified seawall. Seawalls can cause beach
> erosion, but we've learned design techniques where
> they can be engineered with proper placements of
> rip rap and jetties to preserve beaches in many
> cases. Situational.
>
> If elevating on a seawall, there is no reason not
> to also double track this section. After the
> already existing planned other double tracking
> projects are complete that would leave just 2
> single track segments for the entire corridor. A
> less than half mile purely foofoo section at SJC
> station and less than 2 miles atop the fragile Del
> Mar bluffs (that can also be engineered to
> stabilization, politics being the only real
> impediment.) SJC could be double tracked by
> constructing a center platform south of Del Obispo
> St, another parking garage in part of an existing
> parking lot and convert an existing business into
> a small new station building. Bank branches are
> disappearing, Remove the old platform and there
> is room for 2 tracks without taking any of the
> historic properties.
>
> So now we would be down to a single section of
> less than 2 miles for the entire corridor. Reduced
> schedule padding for meets and the higher
> variances of multiple and long single track
> segments. Reduced running times for higher speeds
> San Clemente to San Onofre. That should be good
> for at least 5 minutes shaved off schedules.
> Allowing for clock faced schedules and better
> reliability. Improved safety with a fully
> protected ROW from pedestrians along this stretch.
The running time is 26 minutes, not much 90 mph. anywhere...
But I do agree that we should do much of what you propose, short term at San Clemente.
It's too bad that sensible projects like the DT extension from Serra was "stopped cold" by what were about 20 local Nimby's, rling up the mobs with lies, who many to scare OCTA's staff into cowering quivering terror. It's too bad that we are just completing a small handful of LOSSAN north project that were first planned over 25 years ago. Time flies in life and this now almost "geological" time scale of inaction in modernizing LOSSAN is longer working... The proof of which is that no trains" will be operating again, today...."
The true level of long range plannng that we have failed to do for LOSSAN since the demise of American High Speed Rail in 1983 has been a catastrophe, which has left us in the present situation.
How about we think about new options, like giving Brightline a 50 year franchise on LOSSAN, and they raise the $12 billion or so necessary, to fully bring LOSSAN up to first world rail passenger standards that would carry those 100,000 daily riders that American High Speed Rail identified, who could/would potentially be daily users of a truly first world level of rail service in a corridor like LOSSAN?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any tunnels are a decade away at best. With a
> black swan triggered debt bombs correction likely
> in between that will push that out more decades.
> Fix the current corridor now while we still have
> some money. Go back to the original goal of
> reliable hourly service with some modest time
> gains and call that good enough for the moment.
> They've made good progress double tracking most of
> the corridor. A few remaining gaps are not a huge
> deal. Europe has many examples of that. Can be
> scheduled around. Fix now what is affordable, plan
> for a later expensive future.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 2010 timetable shows southbounds slowing from
> 60 mph to 45 for the Serra curve, then 90 for 3.4
> miles to San Clemente station at milepost 203.7.
> The slowest section is 40 mph 203.7 to 206.3, then
> 70 mph to County Line 207.4, 60 to 208.7, 70 to
> 209.0 San Onofre then 90 mph south of there. It
> would be reasonable to argue for the necessary ROW
> improvements to return to these speeds, if that
> section really is down to all 30 mph. There is
> already room to add a second track Serra to San
> Clemente. That would reduce the single track gap
> and reduce the time padding needed for scheduling
> over such an unnecessarily long section of single
> track.
>
> How exactly are these cliffs dissolved by coastal
> wave action when only a very rare storm will have
> wave heights reaching over the riprap and track
> ROW? If that is truly a concern, and not just an
> argument technique, then elevate the tracks 10 to
> 12' on a toughened sea wall. Not just a ballasted
> earthen berm, but hardened concrete walls
> protected by a base of riprap. A seawall that
> would protect both the railroad and slopes from
> wave action while protecting from displacement by
> minor landslides. With a second wall next to the
> cliffs like the emergency wall as a first buffer
> to slow debris flow. Shotcrete and terrace walls
> as high up as necessary. Raised tracks would allow
> pedestrian tunnels below so the trespassing issue
> goes away if fencing also installed along the top.
> So track speeds could be raised to probably a
> minimum of 60 mph.
>
> The rain and underground water induced landslide
> is the real risk. And less of an issue Serra-San
> Clemente since there is a highway in between the
> slopes and the tracks. If not a slide wall on the
> hill side of the road, place a 6' wall between the
> road and the tracks. With the added benefit of
> preventing vehicle intrusions onto the tracks.
>
> The biggest landslide risk to trains is in the
> less than 4 miles between San Clemente and County
> Line where the cliffs are next to the tracks. Less
> than 4 miles to engineer a solution of walls,
> terraces, shotcrete, along with a raised rail line
> and fortified seawall. Seawalls can cause beach
> erosion, but we've learned design techniques where
> they can be engineered with proper placements of
> rip rap and jetties to preserve beaches in many
> cases. Situational.
>
> If elevating on a seawall, there is no reason not
> to also double track this section. After the
> already existing planned other double tracking
> projects are complete that would leave just 2
> single track segments for the entire corridor. A
> less than half mile purely foofoo section at SJC
> station and less than 2 miles atop the fragile Del
> Mar bluffs (that can also be engineered to
> stabilization, politics being the only real
> impediment.) SJC could be double tracked by
> constructing a center platform south of Del Obispo
> St, another parking garage in part of an existing
> parking lot and convert an existing business into
> a small new station building. Bank branches are
> disappearing, Remove the old platform and there
> is room for 2 tracks without taking any of the
> historic properties.
>
> So now we would be down to a single section of
> less than 2 miles for the entire corridor. Reduced
> schedule padding for meets and the higher
> variances of multiple and long single track
> segments. Reduced running times for higher speeds
> San Clemente to San Onofre. That should be good
> for at least 5 minutes shaved off schedules.
> Allowing for clock faced schedules and better
> reliability. Improved safety with a fully
> protected ROW from pedestrians along this stretch.
The running time is 26 minutes, not much 90 mph. anywhere...
But I do agree that we should do much of what you propose, short term at San Clemente.
It's too bad that sensible projects like the DT extension from Serra was "stopped cold" by what were about 20 local Nimby's, rling up the mobs with lies, who many to scare OCTA's staff into cowering quivering terror. It's too bad that we are just completing a small handful of LOSSAN north project that were first planned over 25 years ago. Time flies in life and this now almost "geological" time scale of inaction in modernizing LOSSAN is longer working... The proof of which is that no trains" will be operating again, today...."
The true level of long range plannng that we have failed to do for LOSSAN since the demise of American High Speed Rail in 1983 has been a catastrophe, which has left us in the present situation.
How about we think about new options, like giving Brightline a 50 year franchise on LOSSAN, and they raise the $12 billion or so necessary, to fully bring LOSSAN up to first world rail passenger standards that would carry those 100,000 daily riders that American High Speed Rail identified, who could/would potentially be daily users of a truly first world level of rail service in a corridor like LOSSAN?
