A requirement flow diagram shows a hierarchy of requirements, things that are needed or wanted, and how they relate to each other. The way to read it is to follow along the connectors between boxes. When reading downward, the next box down answers HOW the previous box is to be achieved. When reading upward, the next box up answers WHY the next box is necessary. A simple and intuitive example is provided at right.
Next, we move on to a more complicated diagram that represents the blended system in general, including the Caltrain modernization project. The derived attributes at the ends of the requirement tree are highlighted in green. If you delete any of the green boxes, all of the boxes that depend on it above are negatively affected.
For example, if you delete level boarding, then you can't reduce station dwell times, which means you can't increase Caltrain average speeds enough to allow operating peak hour traffic, which in turn means the blended system won't work well, and HSR may need to build four tracks all the way.
For another example, if you delete train doors that work at the same height as HSR, then Caltrain can't share platforms with HSR, which means bigger stations and limited capacity at SF Transbay, so Caltrain won't be able to run all trains into the downtown core, which in turn will hurt Caltrain ridership and increase congestion on highway 101 and I-280.
(Click to expand to full size) |
Given the Trump FTA decision to indefinitely block the last piece of funding essential to fully and finally give the Caltrain electrification and EMU train-building contractors their final notice to proceed based the GOP's hatred and fear of HSR and the slightest chance it might succeed and be viewed as successful someday, it might be nice to clearly mark the 6 boxes (by my count, anyway) that fall away if HSR were to disappear. This would illustrate how essentially all of Caltrain electrification is justified and can and does stand on its own merits independent of HSR.
ReplyDeleteLet's make this exercise a lot simpler. Which boxes help BART extend down the Peninsula, and which don't -- because that will inform you as to what will get funded and what won't. Grade separations, parking garages, a BART extension to Santa Clara all help build out BART-around-the-Bay. Electrification and buying new trainsets doesn't.
DeleteCan't believe Caltrain advocates allowed themselves to get played like this again. SAD!
BART is a basket case. A modern standard gauge OC electric railway is needed to show up BART as the crap it really is.
Deletehttp://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/New-Cars-in-BARTs-Fleet-of-Future-Found-to-be-Overweight-413771743.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_BAYBrand
-synonymouse
Isn't such a high level of despair and paranoia a bit premature? When the entire Democratic congressional delegation, most state and local politicians, MTC, BAC, SVLG, etc. all support the project, it isn't a sign that BART is about to move in for the kill.
DeleteSadly BART(and tacitly MTC)are always crouching and salivating. The Peninsula would be such a large kill for BART it could chew on it for decades.
DeleteBut the real political issue is CAHSR not Caltrain electrification. Has Interior already ok'd PB's test drilling in the Angeles National Forest? If that were denied it would be very enlightening, as to who is really lling the strings, to see who screams. If most are happy with that it means the Tehachapi mountain crossing would be built slower. That a station in Tehachapi was accepted as a possibility in one of their outreach meetings could mean the 2:40 thing has been indeed quietly forgotten. I mean the courts don't care about it.
-synonymouse
Clem,
DeleteLet's just say I've seen this bad movie before and know how it turns out.
It is not at all unusual for a megaproject to have an unexpected shortfall ($600 million is relatively small compared to some blowouts). By now I would have at least expected Heminger to put up some rescue financing, or to hear of some Plan B to keep the project going. But so far it has just been crickets. That is not reassuring, though I guess we have to wait a few weeks to know for sure.
Gee, Drunk Engineer.. would a $600 million overrun on CBOSS be "relatively small compared to some blowouts"?
DeleteAmtrak, admittedly many years ago, electrified three times as many miles... for 600 million dollars... Amtrak...
DeleteMullin (our new state pro-tem) has at least acknowledged what's happened on his twitter, so my hope is that we'll see the state promise Caltrain the needed money next week before the deadline.
ReplyDeleteFor as stupid as this pissing match is, it's the perfect opportunity to fully commit funds to Prop 1A (which includes HSR and norcal unified service).
It seems like the green boxes are equivalent to the "Corridor To Do List" at the right of each page (desktop view). If so, it would hint at some topics for future articles or boxes to add to the diagram.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your writing and understand how much time it takes to make a diagram like that.
Why Trains Crash
ReplyDeleteCan new crash prevention technology help us avoid deadly train accidents?
Well worth watching: this excellent and highly informative new documentary premiered tonight on KQED TV. It will air again in the next few days on other PBS stations … check your local listings or stream it. Highly applicable to Caltrain and CBOSS (Caltrain’s ill-fated and ill-advised attempt to invent its own PTC solution), CEM (crash energy management) railcar design and HSR.
65+ CEOs and Mayors are heading to DC to lobby for electrification organized by the Silicon Valley Leadership. This is either an incredibly devious ruse designed to confuse the rest of us and help fund the airline and hospitality industry or they are working hard to save the project https://twitter.com/SVLeadershipGrp/status/835209210749034496
ReplyDeleteClem,
ReplyDeleteIs it expecting too much, to look for internal consistency in your blog posts?
On the one hand, your post some years ago critiqued the CHSRA report signed off by Frank Vacca, claiming that CHSRA could make a SF-SJ run in 30 minutes -- provided the run is in the SF-to-SJ direction, and they don';t actually _stop_ (thus defeating Prop 1A's requirement for "service time").
On the other hand, you argue -- very persuasively -- for NOT urinating-away money to build Cahill St InterGalactic Elevated HSR Station. Saving a billion dollars or so. (Yes, Virginia, using prime downtown real-estate to park trains for hours every day is a WASTE OF RESOURCES which will add BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the cost of CA HSR.)
But, eliminating the elevated Cahill St boondoggle, also eliminates the elevated approach into said Diridon-Intergalactic station. Which means the time-savings in the CHSRA run-time simulation also disappear . In other words, advocating for eliminating Cahill-St-InterGalactic means invalidating CHSRA's Feb 2013 memo.
Never mind that the Feb 2013 memo's simulation relied on Caltrain "getting out of the way" and giving HSR a clear run. As we all know, CHSRA since stipulated that, in fact, Caltrain owns dispatch-and-scheduling on Caltrain tracks; Caltrain does not have to defer to HSR.
Put all those together, and it's very clear that spending Prop 1A dollars on "CalMod" will NOT deliver a 30 minute SF/SJ service time ("service" means passengers boarding at one end and alighting at the other). That's not just a fact, it's also something you have argued yourself. AFAIK the SF/SJ service-time requirement, vs. CHSRA funding for CalMod, has not been tried in court.
So I think the real concern here isn't just the Trump administration killing FRA funding ((though that's a real worry.) Be prepared for actions with even worse consequences for CalMod.
Would the elevated structure actually save that much time? There would still be sharp curves, especially with the 280 "iconig bridge" alignment.
DeleteThat curve isn't on the all-important 30-minute clock, so it's perfectly okay. (Not!)
DeleteHi Clem,
Deletethe 280 approach might not be, but the approach to Cahill St station from northward _is_ included. hm, see your Feb 2013 post, . The blue "note elevated approach" annotation at the very right of the run-time chart; and "Oh, those pesky assumptions", #7.
If you don't consider the current location of CEMOF to be sacrosanct, it's pretty trivial to fix those curves at ground level...
DeleteCalMod - or whatever the project is called this quater -- isn't proposing to do that. So the SF-SJ service time cannot hit 30 min.
DeleteTherefore the Prop 1A funds cannot be spent on it.
Unless you deploy "alternative facts" ... :)
Any thoughts re Caltrain's termination of the CBOSS contract with lawsuits and more delays to come?
ReplyDeleteAt this point my only thought is "told you so in 2009," which isn't very constructive.
DeleteDid I miss something? When did Caltrain terminate the CBOSS contract?
DeleteI didn't see that anywhere yet. Citations please!
http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Terminates_Contract_with_Parsons_Transportation_Group__PTG_.html
DeleteBut you were prescient for sure. Keep up the good work. Your stuff is informative and timely.
ReplyDeletepartly OT, partly not: The PJPB has approved modified weekend schedules for 'upcoming capital improvement projects including PCEP [electrification]":
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, searching Caltrain's site for CBOSS yields nothing about the entirely predicatble, and predicted, of the CBOSS project. The most-recent hit for CBOSS is dated Feb 28. One has to search for (eg) "Parsons" to find the contract-termination press release.
Off topic: My copy of Railway Operation and Control, 3rd Ed, Joern Pachl, arrived a while back. I finally have time to read it.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants an excellent copy of the 2nd Edition, feel free to contact me. Otherwise I'll contact my local library.
Yowza! These agreements with UP underline what a PITA freight is for Caltrain. Ugh!
ReplyDeleteJPB Caltrain / Union Pacific Agreements
Frequently Asked Questions
Positive Train Control Interoperability
Electrification Agreement Between UP and JPB
Deal Terms Sheet Related to Transfer of Rights & Responsibilities
Settlement Agreement Related to Maintenance & Operation Charges