tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post2962807485737725609..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Peninsula Train Control: PTC, CBOSS and ERTMSClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87976587338994551722020-08-11T06:58:10.034-07:002020-08-11T06:58:10.034-07:00Has a complete signalling system now been installe...Has a complete signalling system now been installed? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16749182183808194772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45033712081860679232015-01-15T08:50:40.172-08:002015-01-15T08:50:40.172-08:00First ETCS Level 2 signalling and telecommunicatio...First ETCS Level 2 signalling and telecommunications contract in North America:<br />https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/transportation/press-release/mexico-thales-wins-first-etcs-level-2-signalling-andAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15029380197832077902014-02-05T00:16:32.945-08:002014-02-05T00:16:32.945-08:00Great blog. Some very down-to-earth practical engi...Great blog. Some very down-to-earth practical engineering policy ideas here, I hope some cut through the politics. A comment- ETCS is not so much an "off the shelf train control system" as "off the shelf platform". The operating rules and the railway's signalling standards into which ETCS is laid are as, if not more important than the technology itself. The extent to which this is true varies depending on the level, e.g. in a Level 1 system, ETCS is little more than an ATP supervisor of the existing system. In ETCS Level 2, it could be augmenting wayside signals, or can replace them. Your fundamental detection (track circuit) configuration, interlocking, route setting etc does not necessarily change because of ETCS levels 1 or 2, though in a big investment phase it would be a good time to review these things. Really a full scale review of signalling principles (such as that in the Institution of Railway Signalling Engineers 2001 "Signalling Philosophy Review" of UK signalling principles) is an important starting point. There could be a whole host of issues with how existing signalling principles and practices impede capacity, performance etc in a new technological paradigm.<br /><br />Also re the history of full cab-signalling and Automatic Train Protection, here's a little curio for you from very close to home. Indeed from the approach to the Transbay terminal almost 70 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rhGKOLgu7Wg#t=530David Caldwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10269732630606406295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63339132095194029382011-02-16T18:16:04.328-08:002011-02-16T18:16:04.328-08:00Is it sad that Russia has the PRECISE type of PTC ...Is it sad that Russia has the PRECISE type of PTC system that the US railroads are currently struggling to develop? AND, it's compatible with Eurobalises, so it can be used in conjunction with ERTMS?<br /><br />Sigh.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5714210144106108012010-03-06T22:23:23.344-08:002010-03-06T22:23:23.344-08:00Regarding grade crossings: With ETCS 3.0.0 the dri...Regarding grade crossings: With ETCS 3.0.0 the driver's cab receives information regarding upcoming grade crossings, how they are secured and how to pass them. But it's not (yet?) a two-way communication.flingrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71695546950399053632009-11-03T21:02:51.133-08:002009-11-03T21:02:51.133-08:00Look, take it easy now. Let's express our vie...Look, take it easy now. Let's express our viewpoints without resorting to insults.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87323947241663925982009-11-03T20:37:05.658-08:002009-11-03T20:37:05.658-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-66419118952832777932009-11-03T20:11:46.003-08:002009-11-03T20:11:46.003-08:00Clem - I'm with you. It's just that when i...Clem - I'm with you. It's just that when it got into personal attacks I felt like defending myself from, well, whichever Anon who got pissed.<br /><br />Caltrain First - I don't want to get into I-5 versus SR-99. But even with I-5, which saves maybe 10 km, there's no way of doing LA-SF in under 2:40 without an average speed of about 260, which requires a top speed of 320-350. About the only way you could do LA-SF in 2:40 with a top speed of 300 would be to use the Grapevine and a new Transbay Tube, which is too expensive.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-58285444707784169752009-11-03T17:57:59.884-08:002009-11-03T17:57:59.884-08:00Hey all, maybe this isn't the best venue to re...Hey all, maybe this isn't the best venue to rehash the endless Altamont vs. Pacheco arguments?Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29900487319877092582009-11-03T17:12:31.874-08:002009-11-03T17:12:31.874-08:00Alon, a much better ROW is available in the Centra...Alon, a much better ROW is available in the Central Valley: the I-5. Then the Altamont route would be much faster than the Pacheco route. I mean, if you want to get into the fastest routes, let's actually consider the fastest and most efficient. <br /><br />It's better to have shorter routes with slower trains than needlessly long routes that require energy-hungry faster trains on capital-intensive infrastructure to make up the time penalty.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57150082539172811992009-11-03T14:56:44.554-08:002009-11-03T14:56:44.554-08:00Anon: the point of my post was to talk about top s...Anon: the point of my post was to talk about top speed, not about Altamont vs. Pacheco.<br /><br />But while we're on that subject, the 2:36 base case for LA-SF assumes that HSR will be able to use the UP right-of-way through Merced and Modesto. This is unlikely; it's much more likely HSR will need to use the BNSF right-of-way, which is further east and would take longer.<br /><br />However, I'm happy to admit that if UP decides that HSR is teh awesome, Altamont will be faster than Pacheco.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56542757012268809472009-11-03T13:07:47.313-08:002009-11-03T13:07:47.313-08:00Wrong: "Even if Altamont is ..."
Right:...Wrong: "<i>Even if Altamont is ...</i>"<br /><br />Right: "Sorry. I was wrong."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63085269870674145792009-11-03T12:36:12.444-08:002009-11-03T12:36:12.444-08:00Even if Altamont is 2 minutes faster than Pacheco,...Even if Altamont is 2 minutes faster than Pacheco, its speed comes from the fact that it gives trains more time in the Central Valley, with its 350 km/h speeds. The route is longer than Pacheco, which would make top speeds of 350 even more important for maintaining an acceptable runtime. If trains have to slow down in the CV then both Pacheco and Altamont will take longer, but for Altamont the time penalty will be much higher.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-27982814539439152532009-11-03T10:38:45.788-08:002009-11-03T10:38:45.788-08:00Altamont is faster than Pacheco
Altamont is faster...<i>Altamont is faster than Pacheco<br />Altamont is faster than Pacheco<br />Altamont is faster than Pacheco</i><br /><br />Can we stop arguing about Altamont already? The reasons it were rejected have been rehashed over and over again. That decision is not changing. Posting anonymously on every article complaining that Altamont was better is getting pathetic.<br /><br />And trust me, I'd rather it was going over Altamont too, but for purely selfish reasons in that I have family and friends in Pleasanton and Livermore, so that would make it easier for me to go see them. But from an operations and constructability standpoint, it's an inferior solution to grade separating and electrifying the existing caltrain ROW.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38580917008669254492009-11-03T08:53:37.413-08:002009-11-03T08:53:37.413-08:00Uh, no. I read the EIR. It explicitly says that th...<i>Uh, no. I read the EIR. It explicitly says that the Pacheco route is faster for LA-SF</i><br /><br />Bay Area to Central Valley Final Program EIR/EIS<br />Page 7-4 SF-LA 2:36 via Altamont<br />Page 7-48 SF-LA 2:38 via Pacheco<br /><br />Repeat three times:<br />Altamont is faster than Pacheco<br />Altamont is faster than Pacheco<br />Altamont is faster than Pacheco<br /><br /><i>they should go with ACSES-compatible signals</i><br /><br />ACSES is not a complete train control system. You would still need a cab signal system, which ACSES is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-25985143345423406432009-11-03T08:45:47.276-08:002009-11-03T08:45:47.276-08:00Well at least the auto plant failed. Now there is ...Well at least the auto plant failed. Now there is the possibility to design a good Transit-oriented neighbor there.<br /><br />I know it's Fremont, so they most likely with zone for transit-adjacent sprawl, but it is possible...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-37319416952417448762009-11-03T08:22:03.100-08:002009-11-03T08:22:03.100-08:00"The problem is that even with Pacheco (which..."The problem is that even with Pacheco (which, for all its other faults, is the fastest LA-SF option)<br /><br />No, it isn't.<br /><br />Even the EIR (with its optimistic Pacheco speed profile) says so."<br /><br />Uh, no. I read the EIR. It explicitly says that the Pacheco route is faster for LA-SF than the Altamont-and-round-San-Jose route.<br /><br />The across-the-bay route on the Dumbarton Bridge, while theoretically pretty good, is unusable, because CAHSR requires double track and the bridge is single track.... and building a wider bridge through a protected wetland -- and the Dumbarton bridge goes through an area protected by *multiple overlapping* sets of regulations -- is damn near impossible. Specifically, while putting a new bridge in on old footings or footings in the same location might pass environmental review, the new footings needed for a wider bridge would *never* pass environmental review.<br /><br />And *even if it were possible*, due to the curve-based speed restrictions on the Altamont route, it wouldn't end up being significantly better than the Pacheco route. (*For passengers* -- for freight, grade dominates rather than curves, and the Pacheco route would have sharper grades with its shallower curves.)<br /><br />I guess most people don't actually read EIRs?neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-41994882635804890362009-11-03T08:12:13.390-08:002009-11-03T08:12:13.390-08:00If ERTMS is deemed to be too expensive, complex, a...If ERTMS is deemed to be too expensive, complex, and balise-based, they should go with ACSES-compatible signals.<br /><br />It has the advantage over a custom system of being<br />(1) functioning and installed in the US, avoiding the very troublesome development curve for new safety systems;<br />(2) freight railroads already working with it, making an easier 'sell';<br />(3) two independent implementations of essentially the same system (ACSES by Amtrak, and an intercompatible system from a different vendor by NJT), making for decent pricing;<br />(4) Already handles everything which CBOSS is proposed to handle, including such weirdness as grade crossings and movable bridges.<br /><br />It is a mistake to invent a new safety system unless you really do have billions and year to blow on it (as the Europeans did when they started developing ERTMS). The choice should be between the de-facto standard NEC-and-connected-lines signals and the ERTMS signals.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7360341258342548742009-11-02T22:47:58.683-08:002009-11-02T22:47:58.683-08:00See, Alon, Southern Pacific built the first bridge...See, Alon, Southern Pacific built the first bridge crossing of the Bay in 1910 for two specific reasons. One, the Dumbarton Rail Bridge was the easiest crossing of the Bay where it is relatively narrow and shallow. Two, it improved access to San Francisco for its transcontinental traffic that crossed over Altamont Pass. Even the 19th-century private railroads once considered Pacheco Pass and rejected it. <br /><br />SF-LA times are fastest by using the Dumbarton Rail Bridge and Altamont Pass. Check it!<br /><br />It's criminal that Dumbarton Bridge is neglected as BART is extended to a failed automobile factory in Warm Springs.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-20715629742947202482009-11-02T22:00:38.848-08:002009-11-02T22:00:38.848-08:00The problem is that even with Pacheco (which, for ...<i>The problem is that even with Pacheco (which, for all its other faults, is the fastest LA-SF option)</i><br /><br />No, it isn't.<br /><br />Even the EIR (with its optimistic Pacheco speed profile) says so.Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56261834512171134662009-11-02T19:53:04.335-08:002009-11-02T19:53:04.335-08:00It's not a wet dream - new high-speed lines ar...It's not a wet dream - new high-speed lines are built to 350 all the time. Korea and Spain both plan to upgrade to 350 in the future, Japan wanted to do 360 but ran against curves and tunnel boom concerns...<br /><br />The problem is that even with Pacheco (which, for all its other faults, is the fastest LA-SF option), to do LA-SF in 2:40 the average speed needs to be 267 km/h. There are segments in the world that achieve this average speed with a top speed of 300, but they don't have long slow zones near major cities or mountain crossings.<br /><br />Now, from an environmental perspective, it'd be better to go for the Swiss solution - keep road tunnels under the mountains to a minimum, and toll the hell out of them; put all of your cities in an area compact enough to make 200 km/h a viable top speed. But since I-5 and I-80 have already been built and are toll-free, and LA and SF are not close enough for 200, that solution won't work for California. That's where the French or Japanese solution - make the trains go as fast as practically possible - comes in.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7013436705716939742009-11-02T14:57:26.501-08:002009-11-02T14:57:26.501-08:00"... 350, which is what California needs ...&..."<i>... 350, which is what California needs ...</i>"<br /><br />Off topic, but ...<br /><br />Needs, or has wet dreams about?<br /><br />Over time I think it is quite safe to predict that 320+kmh commercial speed is going to be proven to be a bit of a technical stunt.<br /><br />Technically feasible? No doubt at all.<br /><br />Fast than 300? Yep, got that one covered. Faster than Amtrak, also.<br /><br />Useful for schedule recovery? Yes, and perhaps 350 top speed will remain available for limited use indefinitely for that reason.<br /><br />Economically or environmentally sustainable as a sustained operating speed in the medium or long term? Unlikely. Not here, and not elsewhere in the world.<br /><br />And yes, I know all about how $200/barrel oil will make air travel more expensive. Preach to the choir! It will also make electricity and all the other essentially fungible energy sources, more expensive, and in the long run there are <i>severely</i> diminishing returns for the small time savings and large energy costs of 300+ speeds. It's about 100 times as cost effective to repair outright avoidable idiocies like Transbay or the San Bruno curve or operating HSR Redwood City-Santa Clara or pretending HSR is going to operate at 350 through the middle of central valley towns than it it to try to sustain the very highest speeds.<br /><br />Summary: doing stuff has costs, and doing the most expensive stuff generally can't justify the cost.<br /><br />You can bet CBOSS will support In God We Trust 350 <b>MILE</b> per hour Unique California Circumstances sppeds. Unlike cheese-eating, blue-helmeted, Euro-weenie, NIH E(the "E" stands for "excluded")TCS.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91085166133115964852009-11-02T14:02:22.864-08:002009-11-02T14:02:22.864-08:00I'm not sure what to make of the fact that Hol...I'm not sure what to make of the fact that Hollysys, a Singaporean company, has never gotten a contract in Singapore, or for that matter any other country where railways work. China, where the government ran the CRH on Beijing-Tianjin at higher speeds than are safe in order to impress foreigners, isn't a good model for California to follow.<br /><br />Besides, if the system can't do 350, which is what California needs, then it's not worth much.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-27389173941782136382009-11-02T13:01:26.318-08:002009-11-02T13:01:26.318-08:00Adding to the acronym hell is Hollysys, a Chinese ...Adding to the acronym hell is Hollysys, a Chinese company. It just <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hollysys-Automation-Announces-prnews-2467533328.html?x=0&.v=59" rel="nofollow">secured</a> SIL4 certification from for its ATP (automatic train protection) product, the core safety function of its train control system TCS which in turn is designed to work hand in glove with its Train Control Center (TCC).<br /><br />While even the <a href="http://www.hollysys.com.sg/home/index.php/railway-signaling" rel="nofollow">newest generation</a> of this proprietary solution is only certified up to 300km/h, it's probably cheaper than competing solutions from European vendors.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69742057565233845532009-10-31T15:50:41.157-07:002009-10-31T15:50:41.157-07:00I think we can go around on this indefinitely.
Ye...<i>I think we can go around on this indefinitely.</i><br /><br />Yes... and then an Anon will make a content-free comment and feel smugly clever about himself.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.com