tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post2997137555974595981..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Focus on: BurlingameClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36152310626078251382015-11-16T10:46:31.734-08:002015-11-16T10:46:31.734-08:00Hey, here's an idea: In return for berms with ...Hey, here's an idea: In return for berms with added bridges (w/o roads through them, just pedestrian), Burlingame could ask for landscaped parkway for the ROW that is not part of the berm. Maybe even some riparian restoration for the creeks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15846294348570024926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24410397958135720632010-03-17T21:15:30.945-07:002010-03-17T21:15:30.945-07:00Gina is an idiot. Sure, spend another tidy sum of ...Gina is an idiot. Sure, spend another tidy sum of money gold plating an already gold plated station. And for what, so highly speculative overseas-financed condos and hotel space can have more breathing room. There is no market for your vision. Get real. All the other recent projects on El Camino Real are still largely vacant (and over scaled). Criminal. Keep it at-grade. <br /><br />The Millbrae high speed rail subway platform is sure going to be a lonely and creepy place. But don't worry, those trains will never arrive. About $1.5 billion in rail funding doesn't go that far these days in Northern California. It is all part of the show. Gina is just part of their plan. <br /><br />Any tunnel area has been marked for death as it relates to Caltrain improvements. They'll run out of money and things will remain the same in those sections. There may even be a few incomplete tunnel sections. Don't believe me, go to 2nd Avenue in NYC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-31473595901170634902010-03-17T16:11:00.767-07:002010-03-17T16:11:00.767-07:00Richard, what do you expect? Pringle is going for ...Richard, what do you expect? Pringle is going for tunnels, so Kopp and Diridon have to match him. Otherwise there would be more spending on HSR in SoCal than in NorCal, and we can't let that happen.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7957012715574327572010-03-17T10:45:50.229-07:002010-03-17T10:45:50.229-07:00If anybody ever retained the merest molecule of do...If anybody ever retained the merest molecule of doubt that the Caltrain-sponsored Saint Doty-lead "Peninsula Rail Program" could ever be about anything other than making construction contractors very, very, very rich and completely screwing up regional peninsula transit service forever, <a href="http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=127071" rel="nofollow">behold</a>: <br /><br /><br />"<i>Draft alternatives from the rail authority indicate the tracks will have to buried at the Millbrae Caltrain station due to constraints of the surrounding properties, Papan said. The rail authority, however, has not officially released its Draft Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco-to-San Jose stretch of track. That document is due to be released April 8</i>.<br /><br />"<i>The Millbrae Avenue overpass and BART station will prevent an elevated track and plans are drawn up for a huge underground high-speed rail station that Millbrae will one day host. The land around the current Caltrain station has been set aside by the city for major redevelopment</i>.<br /><br /><br />America's finest transportation professionals at work, for you. Their first go around at Millbrae only wasted $2 billion dollars and set back the cause of public transportation in the Bay Area 25 years. This time they're going for gold!Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63475102255760756492010-03-15T16:48:14.440-07:002010-03-15T16:48:14.440-07:00You don't need a waiver to run two different t...You don't need a waiver to run two different types of non-FRA-compliant trains on the same tracks. The single-track TBT bottleneck is a product of other factors.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81099419131731898502010-03-15T15:22:53.184-07:002010-03-15T15:22:53.184-07:00Because they don't need to?
Then they're ...<i>Because they don't need to?</i><br /><br />Then they're bound to single track to TBT and not exploiting synergies elsewhere.<br /><br /><i>Requiring anything of UPRR (such as removing their muddy work boots before treading on the pristine new hardwood floors of the peninsula corridor) is apparently a non-starter...</i><br /><br />Because PCJB is afraid that it would be unreasonable, unjust or unfair to UPRR?djasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12048881502455652892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86469516316376047022010-03-13T20:07:24.417-08:002010-03-13T20:07:24.417-08:00As a Burlingame resident I hope that the hysterics...As a Burlingame resident I hope that the hysterics stemming from some super entitled baby boomers do not prevent our city from getting improvements sooner as opposed to never. The tunnel position of the so-called City does not represent the will of the people. It's more mischief from Jerry Deal, GOP factions west of El Camino and some of the auto dealers that are becoming less economically relevant each year due to factors beyond anyone's control. <br /><br />We need to improve Caltrain so it is more accessible to the community (station restoration) and safer to cross. Tunnels are a classic "Waiting for Godot" swindle. We need to separate the tracks we have from the roads, get rid of the horns and bells and create better east-west access between Broadway and Oak Grove. <br /><br />Specifically, the Broadway crossing is dangerous, even with the improvements. There have been several accidents over the years. Would you send your loved ones through there on weekdays during commute hours? How many more accidents have to occur so we can posture ourselves for zero improvements or tunnel construction hell? That's the real danger, not fast trains which will likely never show up given how much money is actually available in the bank. <br /><br />Hysterics are not going to make it safer, only practical solutions such as a mini-high elevated structure that is architecturally thoughtful, particularly near Burlingame Avenue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19901275723116533852010-03-13T13:17:54.969-08:002010-03-13T13:17:54.969-08:00To spell it out, the point being that the technica...To spell it out, the point being that the technical means to keep FRA stream train trains on the Caltrain line from hitting each other (and lining up their doors nicely with the station platforms) could have been in place <i>in advance of</i> the transition period in which the stream trains need to avoid whacking the UIC trains, and, incredibly enough, be <i>exactly the same mechanism</i> (but ... Unique Local Conditions!) by which the UIC trains would be discouraged from destroying each other after this big surprising shocking who ever could have possibly seen it coming "fleet transition" thingy.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-84134534853882249582010-03-13T13:06:12.009-08:002010-03-13T13:06:12.009-08:00"The thorniest issue is mixing FRA-compliant ..."<i>The thorniest issue is mixing FRA-compliant passenger trains with UIC-compliant passenger trains, which is an unavoidable consequence of the fleet renewal.</i>"<br /><br />Here's an idea, one circulated oh, about a decade ago:<br /><br />It was blindingly obvious to anybody with a brain and eyes in his head that a catastrophic (politically, if not necessarily in terms of life lost) olde tyme commuter railroading accident would happen sometime. "Not if, but when", as they say. It was also blindingly obvious that a multi-vendor, more-than-good-enough positive train control system was becoming available. (It was also blindingly obvious that spending over a hundred million dollars on guaranteed never to be level boarding platforms at 8 inches above top of rail was a disaster for taxpayer finances and the future and image of the system.)<br /><br />So the clever idea was to <i>get ahead of</i> the obvious and coming crackdown, have an implementation -- or at the very least an advanced and detailed ("shovel ready!") implementation plan in place, and be in position to control the process and have it head in a positive, realistic, cost-effective and beneficial direction. Same deal with the platform-vehicle interface. Pretty simple, right? And a straightforward political sale also, what with the Not Killing People lobby and the Disabled lobby both on your side, yes?<br /><br />Or one could chose instead to follow the course that Caltrain's world class engineering team has followed, of their own free will.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6385624884536895862010-03-13T12:26:43.120-08:002010-03-13T12:26:43.120-08:00The thorniest issue is mixing FRA-compliant passen...<em>The thorniest issue is mixing FRA-compliant passenger trains with UIC-compliant passenger trains, which is an unavoidable consequence of the fleet renewal.</em><br /><br />It's not unavoidable, it's a matter of when you spend money replacing the fleet.<br />Decide on a switchover date. While the switchover is occurring only run new equipment on the express tracks. Run old equipment on the local tracks. Spatial separation works as well as temporal separation. Do this before HSR starts to run revenue service. When HSR opens for revenue service have the whole fleet replaced. Sell or give the old stuff to Metrolink and let them get a few tons of baling wire and bubble gum to keep it on the tracks in LA.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-54347433426204546792010-03-13T11:24:23.611-08:002010-03-13T11:24:23.611-08:00but they don't pursue mixed traffic of its UIC...<i>but they don't pursue mixed traffic of its UIC-compliant trains with UIC-compliant HS trains.</i><br /><br />Because they don't need to?<br /><br /><i>why is running Caltrain UIC-compatible EMUs next to freights all right</i><br /><br />It isn't. That's why they have a curfew with freight operating only between midnight and 5 AM.<br /><br />The thorniest issue is mixing FRA-compliant <i>passenger</i> trains with UIC-compliant passenger trains, which is an unavoidable consequence of the fleet renewal.<br /><br />Requiring anything of UPRR (such as removing their muddy work boots before treading on the pristine new hardwood floors of the peninsula corridor) is apparently a non-starter... hence all the craziness with freight-compatible CBOSS, viaducts over little used freight sidings, and 100% segregated operation of Caltrain and HSR. The tail will continue to wag the dog, egged on by <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/08/another-lawsuit-brewing.html" rel="nofollow">misguided neighbors</a> who will bring down upon themselves a far worse outcome.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45605546151374679442010-03-13T04:14:43.685-08:002010-03-13T04:14:43.685-08:00@Martin: that depends on severity of impact and AG...@Martin: that depends on severity of impact and AGV construction. When the damage is confined to crush elements, <br />train should be able to come back to service within few weeks. If the frame gets damaged, its much different story though. <br /><br />@others:<br />One thing strikes me: Caltrain struggles to get permission to run its UIC-compliant EMUs with FRA-compliant "steam trains", but they don't pursue mixed traffic of its UIC-compliant trains with UIC-compliant HS trains. The same goes for running passenger and freights on adjacent tracks - why is running Caltrain UIC-compatible EMUs next to freights all right but running HS UIC-compatible traint next to freights is non starter?<br /><br />It seems to me that most efficient way to mixed traffic is to make freight trains compatible with both Caltrains and HS trains in kind of "let the mountain come to Mohammed" approach:<br />- limit train weight so they're no heavier than FRA-compatible Caltrains<br />- do a transfer inspection prior to admitting wagons to Caltrain tracks<br />- allow transport of goods prone to toppling (e.g. double stack containers if the clearances are raised) only after previous agreement<br />- require the freight locos and cars to be euqipped with those L-beam derailment guards developed after 2004 Shinkansen derailment to keep trains on their track and upright even if they run over earthquake epicenter<br />- require locos to be equipped with ETCS OBU so the trains can be stopped by earthquake detection systemdejvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-89434507896547148782010-03-12T19:16:50.921-08:002010-03-12T19:16:50.921-08:00Note there would be no HSR meets at all on the pen...Note there would be no HSR meets <i>at all</i> on the peninsula during freight curfew hours... between midnight and 5 AM there would be no southbound HSR service on the peninsula; only a few northbound HSR services might terminate at SF after midnight.<br /><br />That means only one track is required for HSR service during freight service hours.<br /><br />Another minor consideration: the no FRA / HSR on adjacent tracks rule should only apply to HSR trains that carry passengers. Non-revenue HSR moves (e.g. SF - <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/09/focus-on-brisbane.html" rel="nofollow">Brisbane yard</a>) should not be restricted at all.<br /><br />Regardless, the prognosis for FSSF is not good. Timetable-fu is so much less fun than pouring train-size Jersey barriers all along the corridor, and Caltrain shows no ambition of providing both speedy <i>and</i> frequent service.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40801676197621179832010-03-12T18:43:44.262-08:002010-03-12T18:43:44.262-08:00I love it Richard, so what objections could HSRA o...I love it Richard, so what objections could HSRA or the Peninsula Rail Program's (chief visionary) Doty have against that? What could they possibly not like about it?Reality Checknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-10679375123925517672010-03-12T18:20:22.363-08:002010-03-12T18:20:22.363-08:00Drifting way off topic, as ever...
Re: "Curf...Drifting way off topic, as ever...<br /><br />Re: "<i>Curfew HSR for six hours, restrict Heavy Rail freight to those six hours ...</i>"<br /><br />Assuming -- completely counter-factually, against all economic reality -- that there were any case for running any freight on the Caltrain corridor...<br /><br />Assuming FSSF track arrangement on the corridor -- the only possible configuration that would be considered by anybody with any rudimentary engineering skill...<br /><br />Assuming imaginary freight "industry" all on the eastern side, i.e. connected to the northbound fast track...<br /><br />Then...<br /><br />Restrict freight to that easternmost track. Prohibit non-freight traffic from running on any part of this track while freight is present. In effect, there are 3 pure UIC tracks, and one track which is sometimes pure UIC and sometimes pure FRA, but never mixed, depending on the time of day and phase of the moon.<br /><br />Curfew freight to 11pm-4am or whatever (Generous, given <i>effectively zero</i> traffic!)<br /><br />Caltrain is not going to be running more than 4tph after 11pm, and almost certainly only local trains (no express overtakes). HSR is certainly not going to be running more than 2tph.<br /><br />Observation: <i>This can be done on 3 tracks without breaking a sweat.</i><br /><br />It can be done with both direction HS trains operating mostly on the westernmost (southbound fast) track, with brief excursions of SB HS trains onto the SB slow track where meets occur (we can arrange for at most two NB-SB HS meets in the shared corridor).<br /><br />Or it can be done with the NB HS train operating on the NB slow track and the NB Caltrain local ducking over to the SB local track between SB locals when it is scheduled to be overtaken by a NB HS.<br /><br />Just a little simple timetable-fu is needed to make either way work.<br /><br />Outcome: freight, with no possible justification, gets an entire track to itself, while trains with non-zero economic value can still run a useful and hour-appropriate level of service.<br /><br />If any track is out of service, shared corridor (never shared track) FRA-UIC operation doesn't happen that night. Big deal. If the northbound fast track is out of service, FRA doesn't operate that night.<br /><br />Simpler yet (and the only even remotely rational plan): no FRA budget-busting junk on the public's high value passenger corridor, period.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85390803587260872232010-03-12T15:55:44.172-08:002010-03-12T15:55:44.172-08:00It would be even simpler if the FRA realized that ...It would be even simpler if the FRA realized that compliant trains are no safer than modern trains and aligned its regulations with UIC standards.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-14299533771845835462010-03-12T14:59:55.656-08:002010-03-12T14:59:55.656-08:00"and if you're mixing FRA traffic then yo..."and if you're mixing FRA traffic then you need some sort of barrier in between."<br /><br />Only if incompatible traffic is running on the corridor at the same time on adjacent track.<br /><br />Curfew HSR for six hours, restrict Heavy Rail freight to those six hours. Part of Caltrain's passenger stock is FRA-compliant, within a specification envelope that has gained exemption for running alongside the HSR at 125mph.<br /><br />Result: no traffic is passing on adjacent track that is not allowed to pass on adjacent track.<br /><br />It would be simpler if the FRA established three compliance classes - existing heavy, rapid rail allows to mix with heavy rail at appropriate speed, high speed rail allowed to mix with rapid rail at appropriate speed ... but even in the "management by exception" exemption system, its certainly not impossible.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205598164034939972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-52976103588742387452010-03-11T01:03:20.913-08:002010-03-11T01:03:20.913-08:00This is either uninformed statement or outright FU...<i>This is either uninformed statement or outright FUD. AGVs are developed to the same TSI-crashworthiness standards as EMUs that Caltrain evaluated, so one can expect that AGVs would be actually much safer during grade-crossing accidents.</i><br /><br />You're right. I think i was unclear in my original post that I was referring to the repair costs to the trainset from such a collision. If a crumple-zone in a Crash Energy Management EMU collapses after hitting a truck, isn't such damage pretty much un-repairable. Since EMU's are likely to be married-pairs (or more), then two crashes will take out two trainsets for a few months and cost millions in repairs. <br /><br />Anyway, back to burlingame.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-74887649414718230392010-03-09T14:47:08.408-08:002010-03-09T14:47:08.408-08:00@Andy Even if you are using poles, there is no re...@Andy Even if you are using poles, there is no reason to put in 3 of them. You'd be more likely to set them like S-Pole-F-F-Pole-S, <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2008/12/headspans-and-poles-oh-my.html" rel="nofollow">as Clem demonstrates</a> (or, sadly, as F-Pole-F-S-Pole-S). Again, the 53' CHSRA Anaheim AA cross-section does include catenary.<br /><br />I'll grant you that you might approach 70' if you do poles instead of headspans, but there is certainly no need for anything close to 85'.<br /><br />As for the crash barrier, AFAIK that is not an explicit FRA requirement. Rather, it is something that is being insisted upon by the freight railroads as a condition for sharing ROW (liability protection). It would be up to JPB/CHSRA to decide whether the <b>extremely</b> low level of daytime freight traffic on the Peninsula warrants installing 50 miles of crash barriers.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48119156128738163142010-03-09T12:47:08.212-08:002010-03-09T12:47:08.212-08:00"If you're not using headspans, then you ..."<i>If you're not using headspans, then you need at least one more pole</i>"<br /><br />Or you need to put the poles between two of the tracks, which is where I got my 80-foot number from.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56723002973093653202010-03-09T12:42:54.452-08:002010-03-09T12:42:54.452-08:00@Mike
I said: "If you're using headspans...@Mike<br /><br />I said: "If you're using headspans, maybe".<br /><br />If you're not using headspans, then you need at least one more pole, and if you're mixing FRA traffic then you need some sort of barrier in between.<br /><br />We're not talking about what they <i>could</i> squeeze it down into, we're talking about what they would, in a non-space constrained area like burlingame, be <i>likely</i> to propose. I think 85-ish feet is much more likely, especially if they do indeed go with a FFSS/SSFF scenario and need to put a wall between the tracks to make the FRA happy.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-46351126423106673822010-03-09T11:58:26.527-08:002010-03-09T11:58:26.527-08:00@AndyDuncan
No need to resort to Photoshop or com...@AndyDuncan<br /><br />No need to resort to Photoshop or combining two 2-track elevated structures. Check out the 3-track elevated structure on p. 16 of the <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090701142140_AppendixC.pdf" rel="nofollow">Anaheim AA</a>.<br /><br />Total width is 53'. If you add 15' for a fourth track and then subtract 2*1.5' for 15' spacing instead of 16.5' spacing, you get 65'.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-23546887982909024522010-03-08T22:56:21.621-08:002010-03-08T22:56:21.621-08:00PS Four tracks are almost certainly necessary thro...PS Four tracks are almost certainly necessary through Burlingame under pretty much any <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/Caltrain-Timetabling/Hillsdale-200704/Hillsdale.html" rel="nofollow">useful</a> -- and by "useful" I mean useful both to airline passengers flying at ground level to or from SoCal <i>and to local communities who would get better regional train service</i> -- scenario.<br /><br />It's not as if not improving the line anywhere is a useful option: the issue is whether the benefits to towns like Burlingame (far better Caltrain service, no dangerous grade crossings, easier east-west travel, no blaring horns) outweigh the construction period hassles and the fired-up fears that if anything ever changes it will be for the worse. (Note: not an unreasonable fear given the patheticly awful route out "friends" at Caltrain are bulldozing away at.)<br /><br />Overall, "four tracks everywhere, just because" is a <a href="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/Caltrain-Timetabling/Hillsdale-200704/Hillsdale.pdf" rel="nofollow">totally unnecessary and unreasonable expense</a>, one whose primary purpose is contractor profit, anywhere north of Bayshore into SF or from Redwood City to Santa Clara. And three tracks are almost certainly sufficient, if slightly sub-optimal, between <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/07/focus-on-san-mateo.html" rel="nofollow">Burlingame and Hillsdale</a>.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72717163631033663922010-03-08T22:44:04.212-08:002010-03-08T22:44:04.212-08:00"Is four tracks really necessary for the enti..."<i>Is four tracks really necessary for the entire peninsula?</i>"<br /><br />Wrong question!<br /><br />The question whose answer is "yes" is "are four tracks the most expensive thing to build?" The facts (eg 9 nigh speed trains per direction per hour!) are fabricated as necessary to justify the desired outcome, just like the facts (68,000 riders per day!) were fabricated by the same cast of criminals to justify the outcome of the BART line to Millbrae.<br /><br />To answer your question: no ... but nobody who determines what happens cares about that question.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18490462954818411662010-03-08T22:03:43.810-08:002010-03-08T22:03:43.810-08:00Hi, I'm new here and I just had a quick questi...Hi, I'm new here and I just had a quick question. Is four tracks really necessary for the entire peninsula? It seems like they could cut the number of tracks down to three, especially in ROW constrained areas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com