15-california-high-speed-rail-construction-galleryhttps://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/15-california-high-speed-rail-construction-gallery/California high speed rail construction gallery | Trains MagazineTrains magazine offers railroad news, railroad industry insight, commentary on today's freight railroads, passenger service (Amtrak), locomotive technology, railroad preservation and history, railfan opportunities (tourist railroads, fan trips), and great railroad photography.InStockUSD1.001.00news-wirenews-reviewsarticleTRN2020-11-032019-02-1526559
Crews prepare to set a rebar cage for a support pier on the Kent Avenue overpass in Kings County on Nov. 15, 2018.
Trains’ looks at construction that’s underway this winter on the now-truncated California high speed rail project, which Gov. Gavin Newsom reduced to Bakersfield to Merced earlier this week.
24 thoughts on “California high speed rail construction gallery
NEWSWIRE”
Steve Roberts
I don’t think it took 15 years to select the first continental rail route. That decision was made during the Lincoln Administration. It may have taken 15 years or more of exploration and surveying, but the period between decision and completion of the Central Pacific/Union Pacific route was much shorter.
Bakersfield to Merced. Whoopie! Even with growth in the valley, in the vast scheme of things, that’s like no place to nowhere. If California wasn’t wasting so many resources on being a sanctuary state, maybe they could afford to push that project through to major end cities, if at least incrementally. It will surely fail if it’s market is limited to Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced.
The de-obligation of not yet allocated funds; and, the claw-back of granted funds is fully justified by the actions of grantee.
The standard Federal Grants-in-aid process receives proposals for specified purposes; as recognized in specialized legislation (for such purposes). The grant typically provides partial (repeat partial); limited (repeat limited), support to the overall project. Supporting (but not supplanting) local, regional, State, and/or private resources for the whole project.
The grantee submits a detailed proposal, specifically laying out their plans (to include their funding and expenditure plans) that account for every last dollar that the project’s needs, for full beneficial operation, at the conclusion of the project. Grantees are both warned and incentivized, to comprehensively scope and budget their project plans; and, to realistically project non-Federal funding sources. As well as the technical and programmatic feasibility of what it is they are proposing to do. Lest, the grantee ends up in California’s soon to be occurring situation; of having all not-yet-obligated funds withdrawn; and, the statutory demand for granted funds, to be returned.
California’s High Speed rail project is turning out to have been grossly under estimated by the grantee in its total costs to all sequential milestone completion events; and non-Federal grant funds cannot be escalated (without limit), to cover the costs to complete the sequential milestone completion events. This has led the grantee to perform upfront descoping of the project (so that he can have some milestones; at some reduced level of effort, worked on up to form of completion).
But that descoping defaults the contractual agreement with the Federal grantor; and, in in two (2) ways. First the Federal grant is for a completed project of a specific scale, scope, and timeframe. The grantee has changed all three of these variables. Second the Federal grantor’s contribution is a specified minority portion of the project’s cost. The net result of the grantee’s down sizing and extending the project, is to make the federal grantor’s proportion of funding larger than was contractually agreed to. The California High Speed Rail Project is not; a Federal project. It is a California project; which, the Federal government is only partially supporting. Increasing the Federal government’s share (by descoping the overall project) breaches the grant agreement.
Wasn’t it just a year or two ago that a so-called high speed AMTRAK train derailed over an Interstate 5 highway bridge in Washington State. It was also on its very first run with dignitaries on board. That accident was determined to be caused by the train traveling too fast, and by inattention to its location by the engineer. I have driven under that bridge several times where the track makes an S-curve from one side of the freeway up and over to the other side. Was that a contribution factor? I am a long-time rail fan and would love to travel by train, but the cost has grown too much. How did Europe accomplish the construction of comfortable and inexpensive train travel? I was stationed in Germany with the U.S. Army 1966-67. I used the train to travel and it was affordable. This coming September I am returning to Germany with an Army buddy and we will be using the train again. We determined that traveling by train will be less expensive than renting a car.
California is great for building projects that go nowhere. There was a famous, glorious Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco that ended mid air. Merced to Bakersfield, Greyhound can’t fill 4 buses (3 on Sunday) and the San Joaquin Train can’t pick up more than a handful of passengers on several runs.. There once upon a time fantasy thoughts that UP and BNSF might kick in billions to be able to mix 60 mph freight trains with 200 mph passenger trains. Don’t forget the decade or so and billions of dollars to tunnel under Pacheco Pass. The bigger the bondockle the easier it is to sell in California. Too bad Crocker and Strobridge and their Chinese-Irish crews aren’t around, it would be running by now. I can however solve one problem for them. Nobody could figure out how to keep a 200 mph train on the tracks. The answer: Lionel Magna-Traction.
Mr. Landey: Do you recall what an elevated highway in Osaka looked like after an earthquake about 10years ago? It had the flared base you referred to but it sheared the piers close to the ground despite being more heavily constructed than the Calif. piers and heavily re-enforced with what appeared to be 2″ rebar. The concrete spalled of f the rebar which then bent over 90deg. parallel to the ground
The sight of this construction, which is still at risk of not being completed/used, reminds me of a massive line relocation of the PRR’s Panhandle Line just west of Burgettstown PA starting with the by-passing of the Dinsmore/Bertha/#4 Tunnel (completed) and the construction of a massive steel-mill slag fill to reduce curvature on the line to Hanlin Station PA (named for my great-great-grandfather). This slag fill was mostly completed in the 1950’s then left unfinished and finally removed sometime in the 1980’s; the Panhandle itself was abandoned 1995; never got to ride it. Will CA High-Speed Rail leave partially-built “monuments” like this PRR relocation or the Hampden Railroad in MA?
Just returned from a two week trip to Europe. Vacations by Rail in Norway and Sweden. Fast trip from the airport to Oslo Central Station. Later Oslo to Trondheim on a semi Acela clone. Smooth rapid service. Clean cars, friendly staff. We could only wish. One of our fellow tour mates asked about California. I told him Inwill be I eve it when I see it. Prescient
And also regarding the comments about the “good old days 150 years ago”, there was the Credit Mobilier scandal, rail robber barons fleecing and bilking the government and the people, and the construction standards that were completely crap, which resulting in basically having to rebuild the entire transcontinental over the next several years.
Notice the bridge supports with 1 pillar. 8cm not an engineer but seems risky in earthquake country.
Paul, you’re right on with all the hoops to jump through & protests its amazing any project gets done. In my area it took 8 years to complete a rail project rebuilding a 11 mile dormant line that was still owned by the RR dealing with all the town hall meetings, NIMBY’s & misinformation or flat out lying scare tactics.
Regarding the comment about the “good old days (150 years ago) it should be remembered that it took about 15 years to decide the route of the first transcontinental RR. Should it be on alignment from a slave state or a free state. They finally solved the issue with a civil war. Then it took 6 years to build it. I have been to several contentious CAHSR meetings, none of them matched the battle of Gettysburg.
It should also be remembered that most of the first transcontinental route ran through federally owned unsettled country so no time was lost having to acquire property. You started building and kept on building.
The designs are unusual but I’d like to think the engineers have taken earthquakes into account when they designed them. As far as the money goes, the governor is probably afraid that someone will take away his salary, he’d have to work for free, you’ll never find a Democrat that won’t grab all the money he or she can get their hands on. Of course, the same thing can be said of most money grubbing Republicans nowadays.
JOHN WINTER – It’s an unusual design. I’ve never seen anything like it. I’ve seen many single-pier viaducts but only with much wider piers (wider at the bottom, flared out almost to the width of the superstructure at the top) than appear from the photo. Only a qualified bridge designer with a California seismic certification attached to his P.E. could actually review the plan, but anybody (such as you) can say it looks a little weird.
You’re incorrect in your statement, the Federal money for the Caltrain electrification is an entirely separate appropriation that has nothing to do with CAHSR…research the facts yourself, I won’t do it for you.
R. V. Remember what country you live in. In China their is NO EPA, the government takes the land it wants without question, you protest about something you get run over by a tank, an their are NO NIMBY’s.
In this country you have to issue environmental impact statements; sometimes two, three, four. or more statements. Then the NIMBY’s start protesting, and file lawsuit after lawsuit. Then the government has to file for eminent if a land owner won’t sell. By the time you actually start the price is double, triple, or more that the original estimate (which was too low to begin with). Then they constantly change designs in progress which doubles the price again. A project that “SHOULD” take 4 to 6 years in construction wouldn’t get started in 8 and then take 10 to 15 to get completed.
Remember in the old days (150 years ago) they took 7-8 years to build 2000 miles of the transcontinental railroad with shovels, picks, & wheelbarrows. Now days “IF” they could get all permits, land, EPA studies, money and materials; it would probably take 40 years to build even with modern equipment such as dozers , backhoe’s, crains & track laying equipment.
You’ve got to include photos of the Caltrain electrification project. A portion of the $1.9 billion project funding is coming from High Speed Rail funds.
In the time it has taken to build just this much of the California High Speed railway China has constructed and put into service thousands of miles of HSR. Pitiable.
Steve Roberts
I don’t think it took 15 years to select the first continental rail route. That decision was made during the Lincoln Administration. It may have taken 15 years or more of exploration and surveying, but the period between decision and completion of the Central Pacific/Union Pacific route was much shorter.
Bakersfield to Merced. Whoopie! Even with growth in the valley, in the vast scheme of things, that’s like no place to nowhere. If California wasn’t wasting so many resources on being a sanctuary state, maybe they could afford to push that project through to major end cities, if at least incrementally. It will surely fail if it’s market is limited to Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced.
The de-obligation of not yet allocated funds; and, the claw-back of granted funds is fully justified by the actions of grantee.
The standard Federal Grants-in-aid process receives proposals for specified purposes; as recognized in specialized legislation (for such purposes). The grant typically provides partial (repeat partial); limited (repeat limited), support to the overall project. Supporting (but not supplanting) local, regional, State, and/or private resources for the whole project.
The grantee submits a detailed proposal, specifically laying out their plans (to include their funding and expenditure plans) that account for every last dollar that the project’s needs, for full beneficial operation, at the conclusion of the project. Grantees are both warned and incentivized, to comprehensively scope and budget their project plans; and, to realistically project non-Federal funding sources. As well as the technical and programmatic feasibility of what it is they are proposing to do. Lest, the grantee ends up in California’s soon to be occurring situation; of having all not-yet-obligated funds withdrawn; and, the statutory demand for granted funds, to be returned.
California’s High Speed rail project is turning out to have been grossly under estimated by the grantee in its total costs to all sequential milestone completion events; and non-Federal grant funds cannot be escalated (without limit), to cover the costs to complete the sequential milestone completion events. This has led the grantee to perform upfront descoping of the project (so that he can have some milestones; at some reduced level of effort, worked on up to form of completion).
But that descoping defaults the contractual agreement with the Federal grantor; and, in in two (2) ways. First the Federal grant is for a completed project of a specific scale, scope, and timeframe. The grantee has changed all three of these variables. Second the Federal grantor’s contribution is a specified minority portion of the project’s cost. The net result of the grantee’s down sizing and extending the project, is to make the federal grantor’s proportion of funding larger than was contractually agreed to. The California High Speed Rail Project is not; a Federal project. It is a California project; which, the Federal government is only partially supporting. Increasing the Federal government’s share (by descoping the overall project) breaches the grant agreement.
Wasn’t it just a year or two ago that a so-called high speed AMTRAK train derailed over an Interstate 5 highway bridge in Washington State. It was also on its very first run with dignitaries on board. That accident was determined to be caused by the train traveling too fast, and by inattention to its location by the engineer. I have driven under that bridge several times where the track makes an S-curve from one side of the freeway up and over to the other side. Was that a contribution factor?
I am a long-time rail fan and would love to travel by train, but the cost has grown too much.
How did Europe accomplish the construction of comfortable and inexpensive train travel? I was stationed in Germany with the U.S. Army 1966-67. I used the train to travel and it was affordable. This coming September I am returning to Germany with an Army buddy and we will be using the train again. We determined that traveling by train will be less expensive than renting a car.
Typical DEMOCRATIC move.
California is great for building projects that go nowhere. There was a famous, glorious Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco that ended mid air. Merced to Bakersfield, Greyhound can’t fill 4 buses (3 on Sunday) and the San Joaquin Train can’t pick up more than a handful of passengers on several runs.. There once upon a time fantasy thoughts that UP and BNSF might kick in billions to be able to mix 60 mph freight trains with 200 mph passenger trains. Don’t forget the decade or so and billions of dollars to tunnel under Pacheco Pass. The bigger the bondockle the easier it is to sell in California. Too bad Crocker and Strobridge and their Chinese-Irish crews aren’t around, it would be running by now. I can however solve one problem for them. Nobody could figure out how to keep a 200 mph train on the tracks. The answer: Lionel Magna-Traction.
Mr. Landey: Do you recall what an elevated highway in Osaka looked like after an earthquake about 10years ago? It had the flared base you referred to but it sheared the piers close to the ground despite being more heavily constructed than the Calif. piers and heavily re-enforced with what appeared to be 2″ rebar. The concrete spalled of f the rebar which then bent over 90deg. parallel to the ground
The sight of this construction, which is still at risk of not being completed/used, reminds me of a massive line relocation of the PRR’s Panhandle Line just west of Burgettstown PA starting with the by-passing of the Dinsmore/Bertha/#4 Tunnel (completed) and the construction of a massive steel-mill slag fill to reduce curvature on the line to Hanlin Station PA (named for my great-great-grandfather). This slag fill was mostly completed in the 1950’s then left unfinished and finally removed sometime in the 1980’s; the Panhandle itself was abandoned 1995; never got to ride it. Will CA High-Speed Rail leave partially-built “monuments” like this PRR relocation or the Hampden Railroad in MA?
Just returned from a two week trip to Europe.
Vacations by Rail in Norway and Sweden.
Fast trip from the airport to Oslo Central Station.
Later Oslo to Trondheim on a semi Acela clone.
Smooth rapid service. Clean cars, friendly staff.
We could only wish. One of our fellow tour mates asked about California.
I told him Inwill be
I eve it when I see it.
Prescient
Boy, oh, boy!! I just can’t wait to go from nowhere to nowhere fast!! Good ole Kalifornia–still screwing up everything their government touches!
The seismic protection is usually at the bottom and ends , where the bridge meets the ground. Basically an elastic area. https://www.engineeringnz.org/our-work/heritage/heritage-records/mangaweka-utiku-north-island-rail-deviation/
And also regarding the comments about the “good old days 150 years ago”, there was the Credit Mobilier scandal, rail robber barons fleecing and bilking the government and the people, and the construction standards that were completely crap, which resulting in basically having to rebuild the entire transcontinental over the next several years.
Notice the bridge supports with 1 pillar. 8cm not an engineer but seems risky in earthquake country.
Paul, you’re right on with all the hoops to jump through & protests its amazing any project gets done. In my area it took 8 years to complete a rail project rebuilding a 11 mile dormant line that was still owned by the RR dealing with all the town hall meetings, NIMBY’s & misinformation or flat out lying scare tactics.
Regarding the comment about the “good old days (150 years ago) it should be remembered that it took about 15 years to decide the route of the first transcontinental RR. Should it be on alignment from a slave state or a free state. They finally solved the issue with a civil war. Then it took 6 years to build it. I have been to several contentious CAHSR meetings, none of them matched the battle of Gettysburg.
It should also be remembered that most of the first transcontinental route ran through federally owned unsettled country so no time was lost having to acquire property. You started building and kept on building.
Awaiting reports from a family member travelling hi-speed rail between several cities in China.
The designs are unusual but I’d like to think the engineers have taken earthquakes into account when they designed them. As far as the money goes, the governor is probably afraid that someone will take away his salary, he’d have to work for free, you’ll never find a Democrat that won’t grab all the money he or she can get their hands on. Of course, the same thing can be said of most money grubbing Republicans nowadays.
JOHN WINTER – It’s an unusual design. I’ve never seen anything like it. I’ve seen many single-pier viaducts but only with much wider piers (wider at the bottom, flared out almost to the width of the superstructure at the top) than appear from the photo. Only a qualified bridge designer with a California seismic certification attached to his P.E. could actually review the plan, but anybody (such as you) can say it looks a little weird.
It’s glorious. May all of our above-average children grow-up to be consultants or “influencers”.
Martin Gombert,
You’re incorrect in your statement, the Federal money for the Caltrain electrification is an entirely separate appropriation that has nothing to do with CAHSR…research the facts yourself, I won’t do it for you.
R. V. Remember what country you live in. In China their is NO EPA, the government takes the land it wants without question, you protest about something you get run over by a tank, an their are NO NIMBY’s.
In this country you have to issue environmental impact statements; sometimes two, three, four. or more statements. Then the NIMBY’s start protesting, and file lawsuit after lawsuit. Then the government has to file for eminent if a land owner won’t sell. By the time you actually start the price is double, triple, or more that the original estimate (which was too low to begin with). Then they constantly change designs in progress which doubles the price again. A project that “SHOULD” take 4 to 6 years in construction wouldn’t get started in 8 and then take 10 to 15 to get completed.
Remember in the old days (150 years ago) they took 7-8 years to build 2000 miles of the transcontinental railroad with shovels, picks, & wheelbarrows. Now days “IF” they could get all permits, land, EPA studies, money and materials; it would probably take 40 years to build even with modern equipment such as dozers , backhoe’s, crains & track laying equipment.
You’ve got to include photos of the Caltrain electrification project. A portion of the $1.9 billion project funding is coming from High Speed Rail funds.
In the time it has taken to build just this much of the California High Speed railway China has constructed and put into service thousands of miles of HSR. Pitiable.
This whole California H S R fiasco surely ha to be the poster child, of how U S A is slowly, but surely, slipping in to a ” third world ‘ nation!!!