From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Failure of Proposition 156
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:20:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.233948.12012@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.025229.13342@ntmtv> adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
|> >Hurry up and wait for those new stations.  As usual, CalTrans (Division
|> >of Rail) seems to be moving very slowly on these...  Fremont-Centerville
|> >station should open for service around Sept/Oct '93.
|> 
|> 	It takes over a _year_ just to build an Amshack?

The plan is to restore the historic Fremont-Centerville train station.
They will be moving it from the south to the north side of the tracks
where the platform and landscaped parking lot will be.  However, the
station can't be moved until the state releases the funds for the
architect to draw up the exact siting details and for the new foundation
to be built.  This is all just so much bureaucratic red tape...  The
project is relatively simple and wouldn't take more than a couple of
months if someone set their mind to it.


|> >Then you would have known to attend our (TRACs) annual conference
|> >last weekend in Sacramento.  This year the primary focus was high
|> >speed rail in California.  We had a couple of excellent guest speakers
|> >associated with TGV in France. ...
|> 
|> 	What went on? Any details?

Going over the details is tiresome/tedious.  Some of the subjects covered
at the all-day conference were: 156 failure analysis, a review of CA rail-
related legislation for the year, high-speed rail for California panel
discussion with the UC Berkeley study team that produced the CalSpeed
report and other experts, LA's Metrolink, upgrading CalTrain to a real
transit-level service, low-floor light rail equipment, prosepects of
passenger rail service on the Bay Area-Santa Rosa-Eureka corridor, TGV
equipment review with Andre Hut of GEC Alsthom, and high-speed rail
for California keynote speaker Denis Doute who is with TGV and is heavily
involved in the Texas effort.  Why not just join the group and see if
the next newsletter covers some of what went on?  (It usually does since
only a fraction of TRAC's membership makes it to the annual conference.)


|> TGV's would certainly be nice to have, but they would require new track
|> to run at their cruising speed.

Yes and yes.

|> The Central Valley itself is fairly easy; a high-speed line can be
|> built right next to the SP line between Bakersfield and Sacramento,
|> or the SP line itself can be taken over, with SP's trains being
|> shifted to the ATSF line.

The best plan according to the IURD CalSpeed alignment study is to
construct an entirely new right of way that would pass somewhat to
the east of Fresno and Bakersfield.  The idea would be to *avoid*
populated areas so as to keep as much of the line as possible at
high-speed (200mph) running.  The initial trunk-line would connect
San Francisco and Los Angeles roughly via San Jose, Gilroy, Pacheco
Pass, Los Banos, Fresno, Bakersfield, and then via a new mountain
crossing into the LA basin parallel to I-5.  Sacramento service
would branch off the trunk-line in the valley somewhere between
Fresno and Los Banos and would be something like $2 or $3 billion
more.


|> But new lines would have to be built to the Bay Area and the LA basin,
|> to get any worthwhile speed, and that will take a _lot_ of $'s.

Right.  According the the study, the whole project will cost $9 billion.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
From: jbrandt@hplred.HPL.HP.COM (Jobst Brandt)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:41:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Pantograph pickup width Swiss 460
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA