@runnerdude29.bsky.social
As for double tracking, the main objective of electrifying the AV Line as an interim CAHSR route would be to get their trains into LA as inexpensively as possible, meaning no changes to the track infrastructure beyond what LACMTA already plans on doing.
December 23, 2025 at 10:03 PM
As for double tracking, the main objective of electrifying the AV Line as an interim CAHSR route would be to get their trains into LA as inexpensively as possible, meaning no changes to the track infrastructure beyond what LACMTA already plans on doing.
And SCRRA has so far been hostile toward electrification, wanting instead to pursue hydrogen. Based on Caltrain’s success with electric trains, the writing is on the wall and pressure will (hopefully) increase on Metrolink to finally start going electric too.
December 23, 2025 at 10:01 PM
And SCRRA has so far been hostile toward electrification, wanting instead to pursue hydrogen. Based on Caltrain’s success with electric trains, the writing is on the wall and pressure will (hopefully) increase on Metrolink to finally start going electric too.
Awesome to see.
Has CHSRA along with SCRRA (Metrolink)/LACMTA ever explored the feasibility of electrifying the existing AV Line between Palmdale and LA as an interim route for CAHSR trains? That way they can begin direct SF-LA service by 2040, rather than rely on transfers.
Has CHSRA along with SCRRA (Metrolink)/LACMTA ever explored the feasibility of electrifying the existing AV Line between Palmdale and LA as an interim route for CAHSR trains? That way they can begin direct SF-LA service by 2040, rather than rely on transfers.
December 23, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Awesome to see.
Has CHSRA along with SCRRA (Metrolink)/LACMTA ever explored the feasibility of electrifying the existing AV Line between Palmdale and LA as an interim route for CAHSR trains? That way they can begin direct SF-LA service by 2040, rather than rely on transfers.
Has CHSRA along with SCRRA (Metrolink)/LACMTA ever explored the feasibility of electrifying the existing AV Line between Palmdale and LA as an interim route for CAHSR trains? That way they can begin direct SF-LA service by 2040, rather than rely on transfers.
An overnight train could work well, getting on at one end at 9 or 10pm at night and waking up at 7 or 8am the next morning at the other end.
July 17, 2025 at 6:43 PM
An overnight train could work well, getting on at one end at 9 or 10pm at night and waking up at 7 or 8am the next morning at the other end.
The Daylight did the LA-SF run in about 9 1/2 hours. The current Coast Starlight takes about 12 hours. The drive on 101 between LA and SF takes about 7 1/2 hours. So a train able to get within a 1/2 hour or so of the drive time, and with enough convenience and frequency, could be very competitive.
July 17, 2025 at 5:55 PM
The Daylight did the LA-SF run in about 9 1/2 hours. The current Coast Starlight takes about 12 hours. The drive on 101 between LA and SF takes about 7 1/2 hours. So a train able to get within a 1/2 hour or so of the drive time, and with enough convenience and frequency, could be very competitive.
It’d have been great if back in say the 1980s or 90s the state bought the entire Surf/Coast Line from SD to SF/Sacramento, electrified and upgraded it for frequent passenger trains that could compete with driving, then built HSR via the CV in the late 2000s/2010s as capacity maxed out on that route.
July 17, 2025 at 5:46 PM
It’d have been great if back in say the 1980s or 90s the state bought the entire Surf/Coast Line from SD to SF/Sacramento, electrified and upgraded it for frequent passenger trains that could compete with driving, then built HSR via the CV in the late 2000s/2010s as capacity maxed out on that route.
How fast is the Pueblo test track though? And how much would it cost to upgrade it to 242 mph? Regardless, trains need to test where they’re going to run. That’s why the new Acelas are testing on the NEC, and why Caltrain tested its EMUs between SF and San Jose, despite both having tested in Pueblo.
July 17, 2025 at 5:42 PM
How fast is the Pueblo test track though? And how much would it cost to upgrade it to 242 mph? Regardless, trains need to test where they’re going to run. That’s why the new Acelas are testing on the NEC, and why Caltrain tested its EMUs between SF and San Jose, despite both having tested in Pueblo.
Upgrading and electrifying the Surfliner should be an absolute must, following at least the Del Mar tunnel realignment and possibly after realigning Miramar and San Clemente. I’d do it incrementally, starting with LA-Laguna Niguel (Metrolink), SD-Oceanside (Coaster), then finally LN-Oceanside.
July 17, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Upgrading and electrifying the Surfliner should be an absolute must, following at least the Del Mar tunnel realignment and possibly after realigning Miramar and San Clemente. I’d do it incrementally, starting with LA-Laguna Niguel (Metrolink), SD-Oceanside (Coaster), then finally LN-Oceanside.
Well like I said, CHSRA had considered LA-SD as one of a few initial routes, but went with the Central Valley for a number of reasons, including mainly the federal funding requirement. How would you feel about LA-SD if you lived in the Bay Area, or if the IOS had been SF-Fresno if you’re in SoCal?
July 17, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Well like I said, CHSRA had considered LA-SD as one of a few initial routes, but went with the Central Valley for a number of reasons, including mainly the federal funding requirement. How would you feel about LA-SD if you lived in the Bay Area, or if the IOS had been SF-Fresno if you’re in SoCal?
Maybe so, but it’s something that needs to happen regardless. The project needs more funding and the private sector is a potential place to get some, and Choudri has experience working with them. They need assurance they’ll get an ROI, which the state can provide with its own secure funding source.
July 17, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Maybe so, but it’s something that needs to happen regardless. The project needs more funding and the private sector is a potential place to get some, and Choudri has experience working with them. They need assurance they’ll get an ROI, which the state can provide with its own secure funding source.
I would not disagree. Ironically it was apparently local Republicans that pushed getting HSR to start in the Central Valley, to help boost the economy there after the 2008 recession. The CV also provides the most realistic place to properly test the trains on the tracks they’ll use.
July 17, 2025 at 4:52 PM
I would not disagree. Ironically it was apparently local Republicans that pushed getting HSR to start in the Central Valley, to help boost the economy there after the 2008 recession. The CV also provides the most realistic place to properly test the trains on the tracks they’ll use.
There seems to be interest based on the recent ARPA meeting in SF. Choudri’s argument is the state needs to provide a secured funding source to give private investors confidence, since the volatile funding is what’s allegedly kept them away so far.
July 17, 2025 at 4:50 PM
There seems to be interest based on the recent ARPA meeting in SF. Choudri’s argument is the state needs to provide a secured funding source to give private investors confidence, since the volatile funding is what’s allegedly kept them away so far.
That wouldn’t have passed. Same with if it only connected NorCal. This is a statewide project that both ends of the state had to approve, as did the middle. And with all the challenges in the CV so far, trying to get through the mountains and urban areas of SoCal would’ve been much more challenging.
July 17, 2025 at 4:47 PM
That wouldn’t have passed. Same with if it only connected NorCal. This is a statewide project that both ends of the state had to approve, as did the middle. And with all the challenges in the CV so far, trying to get through the mountains and urban areas of SoCal would’ve been much more challenging.
But they need to be tested on the actual tracks they’ll run on too. Plus Pueblo doesn’t allow 250 mph speeds like the Central Valley will. The trains will test at up to 242 mph for 220 mph top speed in revenue operations.
July 17, 2025 at 4:44 PM
But they need to be tested on the actual tracks they’ll run on too. Plus Pueblo doesn’t allow 250 mph speeds like the Central Valley will. The trains will test at up to 242 mph for 220 mph top speed in revenue operations.
Both Gilroy (really San Jose) and Palmdale are must reach places. Gilroy gets them to the shared Caltrain tracks to SF, and Palmdale connects them with Metrolink for the all-rail SF-LA journey. CEO Ian Choudri is pushing for state and private funding to reach both by potentially 2039.
July 17, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Both Gilroy (really San Jose) and Palmdale are must reach places. Gilroy gets them to the shared Caltrain tracks to SF, and Palmdale connects them with Metrolink for the all-rail SF-LA journey. CEO Ian Choudri is pushing for state and private funding to reach both by potentially 2039.
Starting with an initial segment in the middle allows them to expand out to the cities, and provides them a place to test the trains at top speed and run an initial service that connects to other transit to SF and LA. They were also required to start in the Central Valley to receive federal funding.
July 17, 2025 at 4:40 PM
Starting with an initial segment in the middle allows them to expand out to the cities, and provides them a place to test the trains at top speed and run an initial service that connects to other transit to SF and LA. They were also required to start in the Central Valley to receive federal funding.
Former CEO Brian Kelly has explained this. CHSRA looked at several initial routes, including SD-LA, but were required to start in the Central Valley in order to receive federal funding. LA-SD is also a much more challenging route than the Central Valley, nor as fast a route for train testing.
July 17, 2025 at 4:38 PM
Former CEO Brian Kelly has explained this. CHSRA looked at several initial routes, including SD-LA, but were required to start in the Central Valley in order to receive federal funding. LA-SD is also a much more challenging route than the Central Valley, nor as fast a route for train testing.
Well right now the focus is just on finishing up the Central Valley. If the plan all along had been going to either SF or LA first, and then the other, which would be first? Originally it had been Merced-LA, but then it became Bakersfield-SF. Basically changing based on funding opportunities.
July 17, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Well right now the focus is just on finishing up the Central Valley. If the plan all along had been going to either SF or LA first, and then the other, which would be first? Originally it had been Merced-LA, but then it became Bakersfield-SF. Basically changing based on funding opportunities.
Push to get cap & trade extended to 2045 with the $1B/year minimum for CAHSR. Use that to attract private investors to help complete the Merced-Bakersfield IOS by 2033 and start construction to SF and LA by 2030. The Feds can’t be relied on. This is a state project, and needs to be funded as such.
July 17, 2025 at 7:37 AM
Push to get cap & trade extended to 2045 with the $1B/year minimum for CAHSR. Use that to attract private investors to help complete the Merced-Bakersfield IOS by 2033 and start construction to SF and LA by 2030. The Feds can’t be relied on. This is a state project, and needs to be funded as such.
California needs to step up its funding commitment even more, and that starts with extending C&T through 2045 with the $1B min/year for HSR so the IOS is completed by 2033, as well as starting construction towards SF and LA by 2030 with the help of the private sector.
July 17, 2025 at 7:33 AM
California needs to step up its funding commitment even more, and that starts with extending C&T through 2045 with the $1B min/year for HSR so the IOS is completed by 2033, as well as starting construction towards SF and LA by 2030 with the help of the private sector.
California for all its flaws has a lot of good going for it too, and that’s reflected in its leadership. Sure they could do more but I’d rather California chart its own path forward and not follow the backwards examples of states like Florida and Texas.
May 30, 2025 at 6:27 PM
California for all its flaws has a lot of good going for it too, and that’s reflected in its leadership. Sure they could do more but I’d rather California chart its own path forward and not follow the backwards examples of states like Florida and Texas.
If that’s all you have to say then whatever bud. Newsom is far from perfect but I’d rather have him as governor than some MAGA nut.
May 30, 2025 at 6:24 PM
If that’s all you have to say then whatever bud. Newsom is far from perfect but I’d rather have him as governor than some MAGA nut.
This is worth reading about Newsom and his possible presidential bid, and what his actions mean for him, California, and the Democratic Party.
slate.com/news-and-pol...
mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
slate.com/news-and-pol...
mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
Gavin Newsom Can’t Run Away From His Biggest Liability
Why the California Democrat is fraternizing with right-wingers.
slate.com
May 30, 2025 at 4:54 PM
This is worth reading about Newsom and his possible presidential bid, and what his actions mean for him, California, and the Democratic Party.
slate.com/news-and-pol...
mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
slate.com/news-and-pol...
mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
Is there more he could do? Absolutely. Are there things he maybe shouldn’t have done? Definitely. His recent actions signal he’s trying hard to appeal to centrists nationally for a 2028 presidential run, even at the cost of his own state and party voters. I have mixed feelings about him doing that.
May 30, 2025 at 4:47 PM
Is there more he could do? Absolutely. Are there things he maybe shouldn’t have done? Definitely. His recent actions signal he’s trying hard to appeal to centrists nationally for a 2028 presidential run, even at the cost of his own state and party voters. I have mixed feelings about him doing that.