 |
Re: The Last SP Train #75, The Lark April 8, 1968 at LA
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 01-02-2010 - 14:12
You have a point about Cuesta Grade, and a couple of others as well. Not sure that "cliff running" track speed can't be significantly improved. Certainly, some line changing on the major grades, and some curve straightening elsewhere would help.
I did mention the limitations of increasing super-elevation and also the added stress on the outer rails caused by tilting (perhaps needing structural beefing). But I didn't specifically mention the problems presented by trains going around curves at differing speeds I felt that detail beyond the engineering scope of my article.
As to passive tilting vs pro-active tilting, I believe the 10 mph gain afforded the passive talgos is no where near enough. And while passive technologies are always more reliable than active technologies, we are not talking about safety here. All tilting trains always stay under the point of positive "turnover moment" on curves. The tilting on the Acela train is reliable enough, and is calibrated for an almost 50% increase in speed around curves, which still provides plenty on safety margin even if the tilting failed (it could have been calibrated differently).
All that said, remember that the subject of the thread branch was re-establishing a 2nd train on the Coast Line. My main point was that it would never work with Amtrak's current slower than slow schedule, with its extra three hours added in over the original; but likely would work if the extra time was taken out of the schedule.
Yes, I know that SP also lowered most curve super-elevations and track maintenance standards by 1960, to save money. All this would have to be put back where it was in 1950. But if we don't shorten this schedule, not even the train already on that route would be competitive. In short - it would be pointless!
I then went on to suggest a way to dramatically improve the competitiveness of the Coast Line, so as to take a much much larger share of the ground transportation market - ie. make it considerably faster than it ever was, without bank busting new investment in the line. However, some investment will be needed
You are right, of course, that a straight flat shot down the valley would seem much faster yet, and is probably the ultimate solution in the long range. Yet SP's best 1950 times on its valley route were 12 to 14 hours - much worse than the coast route's 9-3/4 hours. Santa Fe didn't even bother with direct train service SF to LA, using buses over the grapevine instead, as Amtrak does now.
SF to Bakersfield best times were 6.5 hours for SP and 6 hours flat for Santa Fe, 7 hours for Amtrak. Even so, this line's six often sold out round trips a day, makes my case for me. When speeds are anywhere near what they were in 1950, passenger trains do exceptionally well.
Currently, the Coast route is almost devoid of traffic interferences, having plenty of space for additional passenger trains; whereas, the two existing valley routes are choked with traffic already. Bottom line - the needed trackage down the valley does not currently exist - and involves an extremely circuitous 1870's designed detour through Palmdale - way the heck out of the way.
You do correctly suggest the best path for a future high speed rail service, would be down the valley. However, if it misses the several million people in the San Joaquin valley (the most direct path would), what is the point. -- Are only SF and LA to be served by state-wide taxation to support this. Such will never fly politically - especially when 90% of all those who voted for it find out they won't be served.
But the biggest problem is the 50 billion they expect Cal-HSR to cost. No one between California and the hinges of hell, has that kind of money - and won't have for decades. We have already exceeded taxpayers ability to pay. The FEDs ain't gonna come up with it either, having allocated only eight billion over the next several years - not to mention they are also already on the edge of the financial cliff.
Besides, the main focus of that federal 8 billion to be spread over the country, is on upgrading existing trackage to 110mph, hoping to expand the existing passenger network. And indeed, a mere 8 billion would be woefully inadequate to do anything more.
Bottom Line - HSR in this country is not going to happen anytime soon; except on an incremental basis. But those incremental improvements can't even begin to happen without a viable seed already in place and functioning, with good market share to start with.
In the mean time, as an alternative to the Coast route: if any new rail line is to be constructed soon, it needs to be the straightest shot possible Bakerfield to LA, with some capacity expansion up one of the existing valley lines. This still uses the resources we already have to their max, before building more. Either this or the Coast Line improvements will manage to provide that seed - in our lifetimes.
OPB
I did mention the limitations of increasing super-elevation and also the added stress on the outer rails caused by tilting (perhaps needing structural beefing). But I didn't specifically mention the problems presented by trains going around curves at differing speeds I felt that detail beyond the engineering scope of my article.
As to passive tilting vs pro-active tilting, I believe the 10 mph gain afforded the passive talgos is no where near enough. And while passive technologies are always more reliable than active technologies, we are not talking about safety here. All tilting trains always stay under the point of positive "turnover moment" on curves. The tilting on the Acela train is reliable enough, and is calibrated for an almost 50% increase in speed around curves, which still provides plenty on safety margin even if the tilting failed (it could have been calibrated differently).
All that said, remember that the subject of the thread branch was re-establishing a 2nd train on the Coast Line. My main point was that it would never work with Amtrak's current slower than slow schedule, with its extra three hours added in over the original; but likely would work if the extra time was taken out of the schedule.
Yes, I know that SP also lowered most curve super-elevations and track maintenance standards by 1960, to save money. All this would have to be put back where it was in 1950. But if we don't shorten this schedule, not even the train already on that route would be competitive. In short - it would be pointless!
I then went on to suggest a way to dramatically improve the competitiveness of the Coast Line, so as to take a much much larger share of the ground transportation market - ie. make it considerably faster than it ever was, without bank busting new investment in the line. However, some investment will be needed
You are right, of course, that a straight flat shot down the valley would seem much faster yet, and is probably the ultimate solution in the long range. Yet SP's best 1950 times on its valley route were 12 to 14 hours - much worse than the coast route's 9-3/4 hours. Santa Fe didn't even bother with direct train service SF to LA, using buses over the grapevine instead, as Amtrak does now.
SF to Bakersfield best times were 6.5 hours for SP and 6 hours flat for Santa Fe, 7 hours for Amtrak. Even so, this line's six often sold out round trips a day, makes my case for me. When speeds are anywhere near what they were in 1950, passenger trains do exceptionally well.
Currently, the Coast route is almost devoid of traffic interferences, having plenty of space for additional passenger trains; whereas, the two existing valley routes are choked with traffic already. Bottom line - the needed trackage down the valley does not currently exist - and involves an extremely circuitous 1870's designed detour through Palmdale - way the heck out of the way.
You do correctly suggest the best path for a future high speed rail service, would be down the valley. However, if it misses the several million people in the San Joaquin valley (the most direct path would), what is the point. -- Are only SF and LA to be served by state-wide taxation to support this. Such will never fly politically - especially when 90% of all those who voted for it find out they won't be served.
But the biggest problem is the 50 billion they expect Cal-HSR to cost. No one between California and the hinges of hell, has that kind of money - and won't have for decades. We have already exceeded taxpayers ability to pay. The FEDs ain't gonna come up with it either, having allocated only eight billion over the next several years - not to mention they are also already on the edge of the financial cliff.
Besides, the main focus of that federal 8 billion to be spread over the country, is on upgrading existing trackage to 110mph, hoping to expand the existing passenger network. And indeed, a mere 8 billion would be woefully inadequate to do anything more.
Bottom Line - HSR in this country is not going to happen anytime soon; except on an incremental basis. But those incremental improvements can't even begin to happen without a viable seed already in place and functioning, with good market share to start with.
In the mean time, as an alternative to the Coast route: if any new rail line is to be constructed soon, it needs to be the straightest shot possible Bakerfield to LA, with some capacity expansion up one of the existing valley lines. This still uses the resources we already have to their max, before building more. Either this or the Coast Line improvements will manage to provide that seed - in our lifetimes.
OPB
