 |
| A montage of what a Caltrain EMU might look like, before platforms are raised. Based on a photo by Yevgeny Gromov |
Several changes were made to this document after the draft RFP was circulated for industry review. The single most remarkable change is that level boarding and platform sharing with high-speed rail is now a firm requirement, instead of an option suggested by stakeholders. These are the words from section 2.2.1.1:
CHSRA trains will run over the same alignment and stop at some of the same stations as JPB trains. The bi-level EMU must therefore have the same interface with the infrastructure as the future High Speed Rail cars, including clearance envelope, and platform boarding height.This is not only an endorsement of level boarding. It is an endorsement of complete integration with high-speed rail including not just shared tracks but also shared stations. It is a major step forward for riders and taxpayers, because it will increase the speed, efficiency and usability of Caltrain at the same time as it makes high-speed rail more affordable. It will help bring to California what Europeans take for granted.
JPB plans to raise platform heights to approximately 50.5-50.75” ATOR (to interface with a vehicle threshold height of 51” ATOR), initially at San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Jose stations. Other station platforms on the JPB system may ultimately be raised to the same level.
The New Platform Interface
Section 3.3.3 of the RFP details Caltrain's new high platform interface:
- Platform height: 50.5 - 50.75 inches
- Platform side clearance: 72 inches from track center line
- Maximum boarding gap: < 1.5 inches horizontally, < 5/8 inches vertically
Dual Height Doors
The new EMUs will have two sets of doors, not just as an option but as a non-negotiable requirement. The RFP describes the configuration in section 12:
Each vehicle shall have eight door openings, four on each side of the vehicle, directly across from each other. One set of four shall be located just inboard of the trucks and the other four above the trucks. The set located inboard of the trucks (the low level set) shall be compatible with JPB's existing platform height and existing mini-highs. The set located above the trucks (the high level set) shall be compatible with JPB's future high level platforms.A large number of bikes (at an 8:1 ratio of seats to bikes) will be stored on the lower level of two cars per train. They will access the high doors using wheel ramps built into the stairs between the lower bike level and mid level vestibule of the train.
While this is a rather unique configuration, no other train operator worldwide has had to plan for a system-wide platform height transition of more than four feet of vertical change. For such a large height transition, it makes perfect sense to use the vehicles as a tool to enable the flexible and independent reconfiguration of each individual platform, without imposing system-wide construction schedule or funding constraints. It is an unusual but quite logical solution to an unusual problem.
The upper set of doors, which will provide level boarding at new high platforms, will feature retractable door threshold extenders, to bridge the gap between the train and the platform. These are described in section 12.2.12 of the RFP.
Looking Ahead to a Well-Blended System
Caltrain has come a long way on the issue of level boarding and blending with high-speed rail. A key architectural decision has now been made that will ensure the future success of the blended system. In the 2020s, Caltrain passengers of all abilities won't give a second thought to the seamless experience of boarding a train, and will take for granted the brevity and punctuality of station stops. Meanwhile, a few train nerds will photograph the platform interface.
In the meantime, three cheers for compatibility!
Posts
No other train operator worldwide has had to plan for a system-wide platform height transition of more than four feet of vertical change.
ReplyDeleteThat's correct. No other train operator would do that. If TSI standard had been followed, then the transition would be mere inches.
Other things in the doc:
1. Sec 3.3.4, basically requires that internal wheelchair lift be used. That is in addition to the mini-highs and bridge plates that will be used during a decades-long transition period.
2. I don't see how the bike ramp thingy is supposed to work. I saw (first-hand) how BART struggled to do bike ramps in its stations. The ADA and other regulations make it basically impossible. If the ramp is too narrow, the handlebars hit the wall or railing. Make the ramp wide enough, and the steps become an ADA violation (tripping hazard). And BART had nice wide stairwell to work with, which won't be the case inside the train.
I am a bit baffled when a claim that a bike ramp violates ADA is advanced in the same breath as the idea that HSR should adopt TSI platform standards.
DeleteThe European TSI standard is in practice incompatible with the ADA, at least where HSR is concerned. Following the TSI standard would constitute a far greater ADA violation than a mere bike ramp that leads to an area that is by definition useless to a person of reduced mobility... think about it, when was the last time a PRM needed to bring a bicycle on board?
Look at all the latest European high-speed EMUs: not a single one features level boarding, for PRM or anyone else. Their compromise is to have steps. Multiple steps. They are allowed by the TSI, but not by the ADA. That's why our compromise is to have high platforms.
Clem,
DeleteI don't understand your comment that TSI-compliant HSR isn't ADA compliant.
Perhaps you meant that using high-floor HSR on TSI-compliant platforms violates ADA? I disagree. The first rule of ADA compliance is to provide maximum feasible convenience. The dual-height door scheme requires more use of wheelchair lifts. And in terms of what the letter of the law says, different-height rolling stock is permitted in cases where new trains are mixed with a legacy commuter system.
The issue BART ran into with the bike ramp is that a blind person feels a handrail is there, and assumes there will be stairs (not knowing there is a ramp sticking out from the wall). The fact that the blind person might have no reason to go down to the bike area is irrelevant. Someone who is new to the trains might not know about the layout, or know that is the bike section. Perhaps Caltrain can get around that problem by building just a ramp with no stairs?
Perhaps you meant that using high-floor HSR on TSI-compliant platforms violates ADA?
DeleteThat's precisely what I mean. 49 CFR 38.175 is crystal clear about the maximum difference between the high-speed train car floor and the platform: no more than 5/8 inch.
dual-height door scheme requires more use of wheelchair lifts.
How so? Consider boarding and alighting platform heights.
Low-Low: 2 bridge plates
Low-High: 1 bridge plate, 1 interior lift
High-High: none
I would assume that the bike "ramps" are merely a channel on the side of the stair steps for the wheels that allow the bicycle to be pushed up or guided down between levels. BART has started to institute these on its own stairs notably at 24th & Mission.
DeleteBART had did an experimental stair-channel installation at 24th/Mission and Ashby stations. The trial was unsuccessful, which is why they aren't at any other stations.
DeleteLow-High: 1 bridge plate, 1 interior lift
DeleteAnd that's your problem right there. If TTT were built to TSI-spec, then the interior lift isn't needed. TTT is the most popular destination, and you've added an extra lift.
If any TTT platforms were built to TSI spec they could not be used by HSR. That's a far, far bigger problem right there.
DeleteThere's been a stair channel for bikes at all (? I think) entrances to Berkeley BART for years.
Delete@ Clem
DeleteThe Talgo Avril & 350 have level boarding at 760mm.
This is a solution if you cannot clearly see the the other possibilities and incorporate best practices.
Why were the stair channels at 24th/Mission and Ashby stations considered unsuccessful? I regularly use the one at 16th/Mission, and it works perfectly well.
DeleteThe issue is that the ramp was too close to the wall and railing. For some bikes that isn't a problem, but for mountain bikes and bikes with panniers, there is not enough clearance. I don't know about the Mission, but I rarely see anyone use the ramps in the Berkeley stations.
DeleteYou don't see anyone using the bike ramps at the Berkeley stations, yet we know that bike access to Ashby, Downtown Berkeley, and North Berkeley is at 12%, 10%, and 8% respectively (2008 Station Profile Study). They don't all use the elevators, and they don't all leave them at street level, so how else do they get their bikes into the station? Aside from using the ramps, I'm sure a lot of the fitter cyclists just carry their bikes, which they could also do on the Caltrain internal steps.
DeleteYou don't hold the bike vertically when you use one of these things, you angle the bike so that the wheel is in the gutter but the handlebars are close to your chest. That keeps the widest part of the bike away from the wall and the railing. If you have a wide bike due to paniers etc you can simply increase the angle so that wide part is further away from the wall.
For reference, here is the 16th/Mission bike ramp: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/66/6e/34/666e34b336680c87609ff900084375b9.jpg
The shallow slope on the wall side of the ramp is to facilitate such angling.
The transition between levels on Caltrain will likely be three steps tall (~8 inches each). Worst case, you can pick up a bike and carry it for that distance. I would worry more about wheelchair users, who can't just pick up their wheelchair and carry it up the steps.
Doesn't a platform side clearance of "72 inches (6 feet) from track center line" make for a huge gap to fill?
ReplyDeleteIf platform faces are 6 feet from track center, wouldn't you at least need 11-foot, 9-inch wide trains to achieve the 1.5-inch maximum horizontal gap size?
Maybe it's not so bad. A perfectly centered 10'6" wide train (66" from track centers) would only require a 4.5-inch gap-fillers ... but a 10-foot wide train would require hefty 10.5-inch gap-fillers.
This also implies HSRA and Caltrain are planning to get an exemption from (or change to) CPUC's GO-26D.
Oops, I goofed.
DeleteA centered 10'6"-wide train (63" from track centers) would actually require 7.5-inch gap fillers.
The static envelope has been slimmed down to a maximum vehicle width of 10' 8", presumably to avoid overhanging an 8" platform. The gap fillers will extend about 6".
DeleteYes, GO-26D will have to be waived.
Overhanging the existing 8'' platform should not be an issue. Caltrain can just install a wider warning area on the platform edge. The original 3.4m clearance would be much better for Caltrain and CHSR.
DeleteThis is terrible... Why 50 inches?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all HSR shouldn’t dictate platform height for Caltrain. BTW, HSR appears to also be dictating limiting Caltrain to 6 trains per hour and 4 HSR trains per hour which will constrain peak hour capacity.
Why can’t HSR use 25 inches?
In the discussions that I heard at Caltrain meetings, there are some newer high speed designs that are at 25 inches. How do we know that when HSR gets here there won’t be a “proven” design at 25 inches?
Storing bikes on the lower level and using some kind of wheel ramp to access the high level doors will most likely lead to longer dwell times than with the current gallery cars.
How will this affect freight?
How will this affect conventional rail, Amtrak, excursions, historic steam, Circus Train, etc?
50" is the Federal Standard for HSR (I believe it's set that way by whatever regulator deals with disability/access issues, not by the FRA or STB.) As a public body, CalTrain has to adhere to that standard. There may be lee-way for private operators, but I note All Aboard Florida is also going with that standard - I don't know if they're doing so for legal reasons, or just practicality (other trains in Florida are low level boarding so it's not for compatibility with them...)
DeleteI think it's a horrible compromise to have multilevel boarding, though at the same time I can understand that the alternative - which presumably means installing new track* and platforms at the existing stations to serve the new EMUs - is probably cost prohibitive at this time.
* new track because the reason for low level platforms to start with is that they don't get in the way of wide freight trains. Thus stations that use high level platforms need to find some way for freight trains to pass through the station while staying away from the platforms, which in practice means additional tracks.
I am not aware of any 50" Federal standard. FRA only requires level boarding, but doesn't say at what height. And that is only for new systems -- the rules are vague for legacy lines such as Caltrain.
DeleteThere are a couple of European HST designs at 30" (not 25"). One of them is fast enough but isn't an EMU. The other one is an EMU but isn't fast enough. It's slim pickings, compared to the vast array of high-floor HSTs such as AGV, Zefiro, Velaro, and all Asian designs. 50" is a no brainer for HSR even before the ADA high-platform mandate is considered.
DeleteWe decided to blend. This is what blending actually means.
Conventional rail will be disallowed on the corridor, just like horse-drawn carriages are disallowed on freeways.
A lot of people dislike the solution, I get that. But the true object of their dislike is usually one of the constraints of the problem, not the solution itself. You're a great example: you don't like that 25" HSTs don't exist. It's OK to dislike this fact, but it's still a fact.
@Drunk: see 49 CFR 38.175. It says "high platforms". Are you parsing the meaning of the word 'high'?
DeleteI honestly thought I'd read somewhere that the 50" height was a Federal standard, but I defer to Drunk Engineer here as (a) I can't find anything that backs that up and (b) DE knows a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do.
DeleteI know it is only 2 trains per night (one down, one up), but half a dozen GPs are based at South San Francisco to service freight on the corridor, which sounds like a significant amount (but what do I know, I admit). I don't think they'll ultimately ban conventional rail.
DeleteJ. Wong
It could be tracked to the decision to have single-level high sped trains. At the moment, there are no single level low-floor high speed trains on the market. The closest is the "Giruno" by Stadler for SBB to be used on international services, mainly through the Gotthard Base Tunnel. This train is kind of a "Flirt on steroids", and is set mainly for 55 cm platform heights; there are, however, a few doors set at 76 cm, in order to allow level boarding in Germany and Italy. Internally, those 20 cm are handled with ramps.
DeleteIf a bi-level high speed train design had ben chosen, low floor entrances would have been the logical choice, as one can find in the various TGV-2N designs.
@Paul Harrison, at 72'' off center of tracks, the platform edge will meet even the STRACNET side clearence requirements, nevermind the narrow AAR Plate F requirements. So the 50'' platform, as specified in the EMU RFP, will have side clearance that allow frieight to continue to operate on Caltrain corridor.
Deletehttp://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/03/freight-on-peninsula.html
I am all for compatibility, which is why I don’t like the idea of BART…
DeleteHowever it is hypocritical to claim we need compatibility and yet “disallow” conventional rail on the corridor. It would be shortsighted and irresponsible to cut San Francisco/peninsula from conventional rail. You might as well turn it over BART… How ghastly!!!
Comparing this to horse drawn carriages is an apples to oranges argument.
We all know the difficulty with bikes and the gallery cars. The 50 inch platforms move this problem inside the cars which would be even more constrained.
I guess its ok for HSR to constrain Caltrain capacity to 6 trains per hour?
It's baffling that you object to Caltrain making compromises in order to obtain compatibility with HSR, and instead think that Caltrain should be focused on compatibility with "Amtrak, excursions, historic steam, Circus Train, etc", when HSR service will run far more trains and move far more passengers than any of the other services you list ever will.
DeleteThere's startling amounts of handwaving about heights. 1200mm (48") is the normal high-platform height in the US, with 1100mm being used in Japan and Russia... but I suppose 50" is good enough for government work.
DeleteThe railway cars themselves vary somewhat in interior height (as high as 1300mm) but when possible are being standardized at the platform height because it's easier to replace the cars than to change hundreds of platforms by a couple of inches.
Actually, BART is a good analogy. Just aa BART (deliberately?) chose a track guage incompatible with conventional rail, CHSRA has (deliberately?) chosen a platform height incompatible with every train station west of the Mississippi. 50 years from now, planners might want to extend HSR service to a place like Davis, or San Diego, or Portland and will run into the same compatibility problems as Caltrain.
DeleteTo be fair, 760 mm TSI is also incompatible with every platform West of the Mississippi, unless the trains have moveable steps, like this.
DeleteAt the time that BART was planned, there was talk of running it over Golden Gate bridge. There were concerns that wind could be an issue for the trains, so they picked a wider gauge for increased stability. The rest is history. Had running to Marin across the bridge actually happened, the wide gauge wouldn't be so objectionable as it is today.
DeleteYes, that old GG Bridge wind chestnut frequently gets trotted out in connection with BART's track gauge.
DeleteI doubt GG Bridge service would in any way ameliorate complaints about BART's track gauge today.
If on the truly very rare occasion winds are high enough to make standard gauge BART unsafe, you wouldn't risk running broad gauge BART either.
@Nathanael
DeleteNote that the shinkansen uses 1250mm platforms.
Surely you just keep your conventional height platform at 4th and King for conventional rail
DeleteWhat conventional rail? If you're talking about the Coast Daylight, it has no place on the Peninsula. The mix of Caltrain locals, limiteds, and HSR will leave very little room in the schedule, and trains that are lucky to arrive within an hour of their scheduled time cannot be accommodated.
Delete@Jeff Carter
Delete>However it is hypocritical to claim we need compatibility and yet “disallow” conventional rail on the corridor.
Conventional rail is allowed, just at night. Which is why Caltrain is not a 24/7 service, from 10pm-4am Union Pacific has the right to run trains. It would be impossible to disconnect Caltrain from the rest of the US's rail network when UP has trackage rights and would be able to get the STB involved. There *is* conventional rail on the corridor and always will be, but it'll be "temporally" separated to night hours. As for federal Amtrak, we will never ever see service on the Peninsula unless a heavy rail tube is built from Oakland to SF. The logistics/geography simply do not allow for it any other way.
@Drunk Engineer
If I remember correctly, that is partially why ACE is consolidating into CADOT (Amtrak California). CADOT is probably wrestling with this issue as we speak. In my opinion, it's not inconceivable that nu-ACE would use the same units as Caltrain (assuming their line is electrified as well during Phase II). Thus, CADOT would, over time, just use the same units as Caltrain as they phase out their fleets (which, given that they were built in '91, means they'll be replaced around 2030-50). I'm making a lot of assumptions here obviously, so if anyone has evidence that I am wrong I'd be happy to hear it.
@Aarond: UP can and does regularly run trains in between Caltrain trains ... midday and early evenings (well before 10 pm).
DeleteWhile temporal separation was previously planned, FRA regulations will allow mixed traffic with alternate-compliant rolling stock.
DeleteAlso, as a point of order, UPRR loses money on the peninsula operations and couldn't care less about continued freight operations here. The freight customers (PFRUG) are the ones who would put up a fuss about abandonment.
I'm very happy with these news. While it's frustrating how long it takes to arrive at this (logical) solution, it's never-the-less good that we arrived there before anything was built.
ReplyDeleteOne item is a little unclear... Given that not all stations will have high platforms from the onset, does that mean that there'll effectively still only be ONE ADA car just like today? Otherwise, if user enters a non-ADA car at high-platform station, they need to plan on going to another high-platform station where they can disembark. Caltrain could simplify that only permit wheelchairs in a single car that stops at the mini-high locations.
One of the reason for choosing EMU over Locomotive haul is cheaper procurement cost of "off the shelf EMU". Dual door height is "Very Special EMU" which is similar to "FRA-EMU".
ReplyDeleteCan Caltrain convert platform height at the same of electrification? They can buy EMU off the shelf 50" floor height. This will be significant cost reduction in procurement (+conversion) cost and dissolve ADA/Bicycle issues.
We all understand that platform conversion cannot be done at the same time. So, electrification will be section by section with few month apart. It will delay electrification especially San Jose terminal side. It will also require transfer between diesel to EMU in the middle of point. I hope Caltrain management to consider this option and benefit.
However, I believe to remember reading that the dual level doors do not have such a big impact on the price. And at least one of the potential manufacturers has very good experience with customization and "very special" vehicles; that manufacturer makes one single unit if needed, and still at a reasonable price, whereas other manufacturers don't even bid if you don't want 50 or so units…
DeleteI believe Caltrain should use single level EMU like BART, and raise the platform at the same time of electrification. Single level EMU solve the issue of ADA and bike against stirs.
DeleteI also suggest Caltrain to consider 3-door car instead of 2-door. BART is introducing 3-door car for dwell time challenges. Electrified Caltrain will have similar profile as BART and they have to handle much larger volume of ridership more efficiently.
Single level EMUs require longer platforms to provide the same capacity, and there is no reasonable platform height transition strategy that doesn't require (a) a lot more money up front to rebuild all the platforms, (b) more environmental clearances for reconfiguration of historic stations, and (c) an extended service shut-down since the new trains can't serve old platforms.
DeleteThe bilevel EMU with dual height boarding does something very important: it decouples electrification and fleet replacement from platform re-construction for level boarding. They can be done separately as money and time allows in each community along the rail corridor.
If we learned one thing from the 2009 / 2010 HSR efforts, it's that "big bang" projects that change everything everywhere all at once simply can't work. Modernization has to be a step by step process.
I'm not so sure we can conclude "i>"big bang" projects that change everything everywhere all at once simply can't work".
DeleteI would sooner say we learned that compared to something less ambitious (such as incremental), "big bang" projects are significantly more difficult to pull off politically, technically, logistically and financially. And that HSRA/Caltrain were woefully unprepared and inept on all of those fronts.
Clem, Single level EMU have less seating capacity but can be offset by providing more frequent trains. This is good for customer and attract more ridership. Imagine Caltrain provide local, limited and express each every 15 min (12 train/h) or every 10 min. (18 train/h)
Delete"big bang projects that change everything everywhere all at once simply can't work"
DeleteRight...can't work:
RHINE-Ruhr Transport Authority (VRR) has published a tender notice in the Official Journal of the European Union for a contract to supply and maintain at least 36 EMUs for the region's S-Bahn network. According to the tender, 29 trains will be required for the launch of the new Rhine-Ruhr S-Bahn timetable in December 2019 and the entire fleet must be in service by 2021. With plans to lower platform heights at most stations on the S-Bahn network, the new trains will also need to have an entry floor height of 76cm.:
They also raised some platforms that had been used by trams. For some crazy reason, they did it all without dual-height railcars -- perhaps it is because they carry only 130 million annual passengers on 11 lines.
And they have no implementation plan to move all platforms to 760mm. And they currently operate a mix of trains with different platform heights and floor heights. It's not a "big bang" approach, far from it.
DeleteNowhere else in the world are PRM accessibility laws as stringent as in the US under the ADA.
I think high level platforms are the right way to go, but Caltrain should just bite the bullet and convert all the platforms at once and be done with it. It won't be THAT much more expensive and once you're done, you're done with oddball equipment.
DeleteNo need to convert all the platform height at the same time. (this is impossible!). Just do section by section, like SF-Milbrae, Milbrae-Hilsdale, Hilsdale-Palo Alto, Palo Alto-Sunnyvale, Sunnyvale-Tamien. At the same time, those station should be re-built for 4-tracks with two island platform for providing local-express transfer point.
DeleteCaltrain should consider raise the platform height to 50 inch even before the electrification. Gallery car can be convert to 50" floor height by covering the steps. Caltrain also demonstrated Cab-Coach-Locomototive-Coach-Cab configuration.
DeleteSo, platform can be partially (2 or 3 cars long) converted to 50" first with G(Gallery)Cab- GCoach - Locomotive -B(Bombardia)coach - Bcab configuration. Then, fully convert to 50" after the electrification. During the conversion, all EMU need to operate short consist but run twice the frequency to offset the capacity.
Gallery cars have a floor height of 45".
Delete@Drunk Engineer:
DeleteNope, those projects NEVER work. In Nuernberg, Germany (where I live), the S-Bahn network expanded a few years ago. Two old lines merged into one (S2), the other old line (S1) was extended to more than three times its original length and two new lines (S3+S4) were established. Of course, new EMU trainsets were bought, too, but their entry floor height was lower than that of the old trains and they were too long for the old platforms
Today, the system looks as follows:
The S2 line still uses the old trains since all platforms are incompatible with the new trains. All old platforms served by the S1 line need to be lowered&extended because this line uses the new rolling stock. The S2 and S3 lines share tracks for a few miles, but the S3 trains don't stop at the stations because these are only compatible with the old trainsets used for the S2.
This is what happens when everything is changed without careful planning...
And shit also happens in Europe...
And Caltrain planners work FAR FAR FAR better than the DB assholes who "planned" the new S-Bahn network
Das Gras auf der anderen Seite... and all that
DeleteAs I understand it, DB not only expanded the S-bahn network and built new stations, but are also doing a whole new HSR connection to Berlin. Yeah, what a bunch of assholes those DB planners -- if the worst that can be said about the project is that older rolling stock is being temporarily used on some of the suburban lines, that hardly seems like a big drawback. Especially when that old rolling stock is still light years ahead of anything Caltrain is using.
DeletePeter: there is very much an implementation plan for 760mm platforms. The German Federal government is funding conversion for smaller stations (<1000 passengers), with a target date of 2018. According to press releases, the VRR has converted 3/4 of platforms, and has another $400 million Euros of station projects in the pipeline. Meanwhile in California: none of our commuter/intercity stations have level-boarding, and at the rate Caltrain is going they won't be done until the next milennium.
"meanwhile in California"
DeleteWhich has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they're struggling for funding. Unlike in Germany, the federal government here is into cutting funding for services for women and the poor, and less into infrastructure improvements that make life better for everyone.
"EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they're struggling for funding"
DeleteStop the bullshit.
Caltrain has had the money to rebuilt nearly every single platform up and down the line to heights they KNEW were incompatible with EVERY type of level boarding.
Caltrain has had the money to spend $250 million (officially, more like $325 to $375 million given the immense amount of stuff shifted onto other contracts) on simple resignalling of a 50 mile line.
Caltrain has the money to spend 50% above the going rate for what should be simple standard mainline electrification of 50 route miles.
Lack of money isn't the problem, and never has been. Caltrain is swimming in cash. Caltrain's contractors are laughing all the way to the bank, in fact all the way to the moon.
I'm missing the connection between being forced to invent CBOSS and women's services, and between 20 years of not even planning for level boarding and care for the indigent.
Having basic levels of social consciousness shouldn't require that you have a lobotomy and start defending transit-industrial crony capitalism while bleating about the Koch Brothers, but there sure seems a depressing level of correlation.
Cool beans, so the only reason someone might disagree with your assessment is because they've had a lobotomy? Your life must be very empty to have to resort to insults on the internet.
DeleteAside from figurative lobotomies, what specifc disagreements do you have with Richard's assessment?
DeleteOther than pointing out that PTC is hard, and that Caltrain simply got in over its head with CBOSS, none. Also, we don't KNOW how much electrification is going to cost, the bids could easily come in well under Caltrain's estimates.
DeleteYes, PTC is hard. So is building a good car. That's why you buy that sort of thing from people that have figured it out already.
DeleteWhat business does Caltrain have using (blowing) OUR money on re-inventing the wheel vs. doing something worthwhile like raising platforms, etc.?
Starting in the late 1990's, Caltrain got a huge amount of funding to purchase new railcars and rebuild many of the stations/platforms. It was very much a "big bang" type project, complete with weekend shutdowns that went on for two fucking years, just for some track/signal work.
DeleteWhat we got out of that was dozens of Gallery car junkheaps, and more 8" platforms. They could have (and should have) coordinated the railcar order and platform rebuilds to provide level-platform boarding.
So no, lack of money has nothing to do with it. The fact that they have since gone on to waste money on CBOSS is just icing on the cake.
Caltrain have unutilized asset of SF terminal lands and should be use for cost of electrification. There are 12 tracks of station just for 5 train/h. (Each track utilize once every 2.5 hours)
DeleteAs we know, BART terminal (Fremont and Richmond) have only 2 tracks but handles 8 train/h turn-around plus some coupling/decoupling.
I suggest SF terminal to shrink 2~3 tracks but with wider platform. Rest of space should be sold for redevelopment and those money to pay the electrification.
Train storage will be Bayshore 4-track section, Milbrae platform 5s and/or Redwood junction.
Caltrain does not own the 4th and Townsend yard, Catellus does. Caltrain only has air rights from 0 to 30 feet.
Delete@Mark, got a reference for that? It would be interesting to see.
DeleteMark is correct. Bare bones confirmation DTX FEIR Vol 1 Section 1.4.4
Delete"Mission Bay is a 300-acre site located south and west of Pacific Bell Park (San Francisco Giants’ baseball stadium) and bounded by Townsend, Mariposa, and Seventh Streets, and China Basin that is being developed by Catellus Development Corporation. [...]
"The JPB has a permanent surface easement on property within the Mission Bay project area that is currently used for railroad purposes."
I just want to thank Clem for all the effort he put in to make this happen. It's often not easy to get the people in charge to listen, but Clem has made a persistent effort, making presentations, posts, and verbal arguments about why shared platforms with HSR are not only necessary but feasible. We all know that transportation planning in the USA is very messy, but if we had more people like Clem around then I have no doubt that it would be better.
ReplyDeleteIt's complex in California. In the rest of the country the small operators just order up some of the stuff the big operators use. Or refurbish the stuff the big operators don't want anymore. Or scavenge parts from the stuff the big operators don't want any more. Even west of the Sierra Nevada like Caltrans did when they scored some old Comarrows
DeleteThe rest of the country seems content to let long dwell times and non ADA-compliance persist into the 22nd century.
DeleteAt least the rest of the country is making progress, slow progress, on changing that. Not discussing it endlessly. Even in the places with the scary electrification. And freight trains. And freight trains and electrification.
DeleteWell, apparently California is done discussing it because a solution has been reached. And how fast exactly are eastern railroads installing high platforms? From what I've seen they might be getting a couple done every year.
Deleteif it's been decided why are there long discussions in this post about platforms and waivers and lifts and ramps and how the refrigerator cars are going to be iced?
DeleteA couple a year is a couple a year more than California manages.
CalTrain is already somewhat accessible and intends to maintain full accessibility during the transition. Trap doors aren't really compatible with that.
Delete@Joey: thanks. But the credit goes to Caltrain. I just have a small soap box on the internet.
Delete@Adirondacker: why are their long discussions? Because it's so easy to type stuff and press 'Publish'. You often point out that people still argue about things that the Pennsylvania Railroad did or didn't do a century ago. And that's all good.
Here's random question. If future Caltrain EMU locals will be doing the SF-SJ run in about the same time as the current diesel Baby Bullets, then what's the point of continuing the Baby Bullets?
ReplyDeleteThe last time a schedule was published the fastest skip-stop CalTrain had planned after electrification was 10 minutes slower than the current Baby Bullet.
DeleteBecause an electric baby bullet will be faster as well, attracting more patronage, though it will not gain as much time as the electric locals. The train to kill would be the confusing array of skip-stop limiteds
DeleteHere's another way to look at it. Given that today's Baby Bullets are already standing room only, you don't want to convert them to locals. I'd anticipate that baby bullets will continue. They are also much cheaper to operate since carrying more people longer distances over shorter time means higher revenue per hour. As much as I hate slowing down the running time, I can see them merging the Type A and Type B patterns into a single stopping pattern. Then again, between the added stops and construction, the SB 332 is now nearly 5 mins slower than 7 years ago.
DeleteSo Caltrain can have fully electric rail by 2021 but GO Transit here in Ontario can't? This is just a crappy state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteIt's all politics. Caltrain has been planning this since 1991. Then CAHSR came along in 2008, and gave them an opportunity to actually do it. More importantly, the areas Caltrain serves finally ran out of developable space so many of the cities on the route are now urbanizing. Caltrain holds all the cards for CAHSR, they have the only route into SF.
Delete