tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post3888377628781068240..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Platform HeightClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5314553325143642952014-05-07T04:09:20.621-07:002014-05-07T04:09:20.621-07:00Is wheelchair conveniece that important after all?...Is wheelchair conveniece that important after all?<br /><br />99% of Americans will never have convenient access to rail infrastructure, or only if travelling by car to a station. Wheelchair-users are only a small proportion of all disabled persons. <br />It makes more sense to avoid unreasonable requirements for wheelchair access for a more extensive rail network. Most wheelchair users would probably be better off with some extra money to buy and operate a car built for their needs. Society would have to say to them: Sorry, but instead of the cars that would drive you to the station and from the station you will have to go the whole distance by car. Such as everyone else who does not live at a railway connection. <br />Other disabled persons, that cannot drive a car (e.g. blind persons) would be worse off if less passenger rail is operated due to additional requirements for wheelchair users.<br />That said, about 600 mm could be a reasonable entry (door) level for new high speed trains (suggested to be two-level) in California, and 400 mm high platforms for the respective stations platform heights would be suitable for both existing trains and the new trains.<br /><br />Another alternative would be to vary platform heigth along a platform so that wheelchair users could got to a suitable section where they could enter the train at level. Preferably at the top of the train so that traindrivers will se them and take mor care to stop the train at the appropriate position. Short foldable ramps on the train may also help. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24249746574191288492011-11-26T13:07:36.236-08:002011-11-26T13:07:36.236-08:00As the latest (2011) CAHSR Train Width Technical d...As the latest (2011) CAHSR Train Width Technical document shows, Caltrain doesn't even need to submit for waiver, just need to specify the new EMU the same width as CAHSR's trains. CAHSRA has chosen wide-body trains, i.e. Shinkansen width, that allows high-platform to coexist with plate-H freight cars without the need for gauntlet station tracks.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234802218858306443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75301222290980770492009-12-07T07:37:14.121-08:002009-12-07T07:37:14.121-08:00The european double deck EMUs have a good reason t...The european double deck EMUs have a good reason to keep lower deck's floor as low ATOR as possible - the loading gauge that permits maximum height 4650 mm ATOR. If the line in question conforms now to AAR plate H, it would make sense to have custom-built units with doors at 1150 mm. The resulting minimum required loading gauge height would be 5250 mm.djasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12048881502455652892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24916444403653295972009-11-01T22:38:29.947-08:002009-11-01T22:38:29.947-08:00muni metro uses trains with movable steps for both...muni metro uses trains with movable steps for both <a href="http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/images/SanFrancisco/MuniMetro/WPortalInterior.jpg" rel="nofollow">high platform</a> and low <a href="http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/images/SanFrancisco/MuniMetro/WPortal14th.jpg" rel="nofollow">street access</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-43288471065709639922009-10-05T19:33:17.398-07:002009-10-05T19:33:17.398-07:00I just did the (albeit crude) calculations based o...I just did the (albeit crude) calculations based on a drawing of the Millennium Train from CityRail's website. <br /><br />The Millennium Train has a door floor height of 1155.<br /><br />So does the AGV. Problem solved!<br /><br />AGV for HSR, and Millennium Train version for Caltrain.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-28084937795475383572009-10-01T16:39:59.682-07:002009-10-01T16:39:59.682-07:00@ BruceMcF -
SF-Gilroy is about 80 miles, close e...@ BruceMcF -<br /><br />SF-Gilroy is about 80 miles, close enough. Santa Clara county has strictly limited development there, though, ostensibly because Gilroy is in a 100-year flood plain. It would be easy enough to build dwellings on stilts and use the ground floor for parking.<br /><br />The real reason, of course, is that Silicon Valley wants to keep housing scarce to prop up real estate values. Hollister and San Juan Bautista are on higher ground and in San Benito county. Look for them to become bedroom communities when HSR comes to Gilroy.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34740522542787785002009-09-28T14:54:50.457-07:002009-09-28T14:54:50.457-07:00You know, if the platform height problem isn't...You know, if the platform height problem isn't resolved, it mainly affects San Jose and San Francisco.<br /><br />Regarding San Franciso, they have to fix the severe misdesigns in the Transbay Terminal before even worrying about this.<br /><br />San Jose has enough space to waste on separate Caltrain and HSR platforms.<br /><br />If necessary, the HSR could simply run all trips nonstop San Jose-San Francisco.<br /><br />It would still be intensely stupid to end up with nonstandardized platform heights. Every country in the world is trying to standardize, and standardize on level boarding.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86050126196660129172009-09-28T14:32:54.774-07:002009-09-28T14:32:54.774-07:00At least the proposed 15" regulations are not...At least the proposed 15" regulations are not "effectively already law" -- in fact, they are dead on arrival and completely obsolete.<br /><br />Why? Because Amtrak declared that 15" was a stupid height which didn't provide compatibility with Amtrak (and its 18" floor cars).neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15426300239498388802009-09-28T14:21:28.331-07:002009-09-28T14:21:28.331-07:00Rafael said...
"@ BruceMcF -
California HSR w...Rafael said...<br />"<i>@ BruceMcF -<br />California HSR won't operate as express HSR along the entire route. In the SF-SJ segment, top speeds will be just 125mph, i.e. regional HSR.</i>"<br /><br />That is, Regional HSR <i>speeds</i>, but not a Regional HSR <i>corridor</i> unless it goes somewhere further than San Jose to San Francisco.<br /><br />In terms of corridor length, Regional HSRail corridors are defined as 100 mile to 500 miles corridors, rather than 200 mile to 600 mile Express HSRail corridors.<br /><br />So, for instance, if the coastal Starlight route between San Jose and LA was upgraded to Regional HSRail status, then a San Francisco to LA corridor via San Jose and the Caltrain then Coast Starlight corridor would be Regional HSR.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-58006951929436003362009-09-28T13:41:58.679-07:002009-09-28T13:41:58.679-07:00@ BruceMcF -
California HSR won't operate as ...@ BruceMcF -<br /><br />California HSR won't operate as express HSR along the entire route. In the SF-SJ segment, top speeds will be just 125mph, i.e. regional HSR.<br /><br />For trains that run from SF to LA/Anaheim, it does make sense to implement a fare structure based on x+y*distance to discourage intra-regional passengers.<br /><br />However, on the very same tracks you can also run purely regional HSR trains. Just because <i>some</i> trains will reach 220mph in the Central Valley doesn't mean spare line capacity in the SF peninsula can't be used to operate regional trains based on equipment that maxes out at 125mph. Whether Caltrain wants to do that is a separate matter, of course.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-50450545207424685502009-09-26T11:31:20.787-07:002009-09-26T11:31:20.787-07:00Rafael said...
"@ adirondacker12800 -
I'...Rafael said...<br />"<i>@ adirondacker12800 -<br /><br />I'm not sure if you're being wilfully obtuse.</i>"<br /><br />No, he's being wilfully correct.<br /><br />"<i>Not every HSR train that sets out from SF has to run all the way to Anaheim! Which part of regional HSR from SF to Gilroy is conceptually unclear?<br /><br />As for terminology, the Obama administration considers 125mph top speed an intermediate level of HSR.</i>"<br /><br />And considers HSR a <a href="http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/Final%20FRA%20HSR%20Strat%20Plan.pdf" rel="nofollow"><i>type</i> of Intercity rail (pdf)</a>. There is no doubting from the HSR Strategic Plan that Adirondacker is correct in this regard - page 2 (sheet 8):<br /><br />"<i><b>Conventional Rail.</b> Traditional intercity passenger rail services of more than 100 miles with as little as one to as many as 7–12 daily frequencies; may or may not have strong potential for future highspeed rail service. Top speed of up to 79mph to as high as 90mph generally on shared track. Intended to provide travel options and to develop the passenger rail market for further development in the future.</i>"<br /><br />"<i><b>Emerging HSR</b>. Developing corridors of 100–500 miles, with strong potential for future HSR Regional and/or Express service. Top speeds of up to 90–110 mph on primarily shared track (eventually using positive train control technology), with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to develop the passenger rail market, and provide some relief to other modes.</i>"<br /><br />"<i><b>HSR – Regional</b>. Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers 100–500 miles apart, with some intermediate stops. Top speeds of 110–150 mph, grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared track (using positive train control technology). Intended to relieve highway and, to some extent, air capacity constraints.</i>"<br /><br />And especially for California right now, but eventually for the rest of us:<br /><br />"<i><b>HSR – Express</b>. Frequent, express service between major population centers 200–600 miles apart, with few intermediate stops. Top speeds of at least 150 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of way (with the possible exception of some shared track in terminal areas). Intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints.</i>"BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15678178900340178302009-09-23T21:42:58.563-07:002009-09-23T21:42:58.563-07:00But it might cost tens of thousands per train.
A ...<i>But it might cost tens of thousands per train.</i><br /><br />A high-speed trainset costs $50 million. Even a low-speed 16-car EMU set clocks in at $25 million. So tens of thousands of dollars per train is trivial.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63809620850013477052009-09-23T19:42:09.700-07:002009-09-23T19:42:09.700-07:00Not that I'm a huge fan of watching a couple h...<em>Not that I'm a huge fan of watching a couple hours worth of coastline through those tiny windows, but it *could* work with the equipment we have today</em><br /><br />If they pick the Shinkansen specs there'd be a gap three inches wider than the gap on high platforms on the Northeast Corridor. They'd have to screw down some extra wide thresholds. That may not work because the trap doors have to fold back into the train. Probably also need to consult an oracle or two to see if it's ADA compliant. But it might cost tens of thousands per train. And they would have to do that scary engine change from diesel to electric somewhere. When the fleet gets replaced they could spec out slightly wider cars or use the three inch wider thresholds again so the the cars are nearly indistinguishable from the ones in the rest of Amtrak's fleet...Which means no one here would consider it because it would work and would be cheap. <br /><br /><em>A trainset with, let's say 350 seats, may quite easily handle many more than 350 seated passengers during any given run from Anaheim to Downtown San Francisco</em>.<br /><br />Works that way all over the world. More specifically along the Northeast corridor Amtrak has to set fares outrageously high for short distances to discourage local travel on Amtrak. On the Peninsula they would probably be facing similar passenger flows. If a train with 350 seats leaves San Francisco with 275 long distance passengers, with 75 booked for travel between SFO and points south of San Jose, it not going to work out well if 150 passengers for San Jose and intermediate points want to board. With creaky old cars and ancient diesels slowing down for grade crossings they already are carrying close to 40,000 passengers a day. It will probably be more than 150 per HSR departure if the fare is the same. HSR being the trains that primarily run for long distances, not the fast trains that go to between San Jose and San Francisco at the same speed as other commuter lines in the rest of the world. <br /><br /><em>About the commuters "positioning themselves" for the cushy seats, that can be easily solved by having the through passengers make seat reservations. If you don't allow seat reservations on the short distances, the commuters will simply either stand for the short ride, or find any seat not reserved</em> <br /><br />How much staff will there be on the platform in San Francisco to assist with boarding? How many assistant conductors on board to enforce it? <br /><br /><em>We have to run everything just like Amtrak and NJT and MNCRR do!</em><br /><br />Or JR or SNCF or whatever they are calling the railroads in the UK this week or.... Premium services almost always come with a premium fare. Richard, even the Swiss make people pay a booking charge when they want to get on the through trains. <br /><br /><em>What if somebody gets on the WRONG TRAIN?! </em><br /><br />The kindly conductor explains to them the the red and white trains go to Hillsdale and the blue and gold ones to Gilroy, their next stop. He'll then explain that the next train back to Palo Alto is in an hour and half, the one in 20 minutes won't be stopping at Gilroy. Also will explain to get off in Palo Alto and wait for the red and white train on the other side of the platform for the local train to Hillsdale. <br /><br /><em>(Empty) comfy seats inappropriately occupied! </em><br /><br />People on the Peninsula aren't stupid. If you give them a choice between Caltrain bilevels complete with people who can't figure out MUNI and are possessed of the urge to bicycle to their destination in San Francisco, they are going to pick the long distance train with the bar car. Well some people on the Penisula aren't stupid, I'm still not convinced of the utility of a bicycle in San Francisco. The problem isn't seats that would otherwise be unoccupied. It's seats being warmed by suburbanites while long distance passengers are loitering outside the train's restrooms until the commuters get off the train.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-55043789367423274572009-09-23T17:38:59.130-07:002009-09-23T17:38:59.130-07:00Look, there's one way to do things, and the Pe...<i>Look, there's one way to do things, and the Pennsylvania Railroad worked it all out in 1930.</i><br /><br />Yes, and JNR, SNCF, and DB work the exact same way. Shinkansen trains always cost much more than low-speed trains, even on the same route, even when used by commuters. The TGV is more expensive than Corail. The ICE is more expensive than the low-speed IC even on the same route.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-68303275100798254852009-09-23T15:11:57.486-07:002009-09-23T15:11:57.486-07:00But .. but .. but!!!!
We have to run everything j...But .. but .. but!!!!<br /><br />We have to run everything just like Amtrak and NJT and MNCRR do!<br /><br />What if somebody gets on the WRONG TRAIN?! The world will end! Homeland Security must be alerted! (Empty) comfy seats inappropriately occupied! Danger danger danger!<br /><br />What if two different trains going between the same two stations cost THE SAME PRICE! Catastrophe! What is they took the same tickets! Disaster!<br /><br />Look, there's one way to do things, and the Pennsylvania Railroad worked it all out in 1930.<br /><br />God has ordained that it is an abomination for commuters to miscegenate with high speed trains. Repent!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87414862029612747662009-09-23T13:17:30.454-07:002009-09-23T13:17:30.454-07:00@ Adirondacker 12800
About the commuters "po...@ Adirondacker 12800<br /><br />About the commuters "positioning themselves" for the cushy seats, that can be easily solved by having the through passengers make seat reservations. If you don't allow seat reservations on the short distances, the commuters will simply either stand for the short ride, or find any seat not reserved.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78457448031630651592009-09-23T13:02:44.346-07:002009-09-23T13:02:44.346-07:00Amtrak California is interested in operating a Coa...<i>Amtrak California is interested in operating a Coast Daylight service from SF to LA. If Caltrain switches to high platforms between SF and SJD, that would need to run out of Emeryville instead.</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. If we stick strictly to the Surfliner/California cars, this would be true; however, the morning LA-SLO Surfliner already operates with high platform-compatible Horizon (Comet) cars. The "spare" Amfleet set is also compatible with low and high platforms.<br /><br />Not that I'm a huge fan of watching a couple hours worth of coastline through those tiny windows, but it *could* work with the equipment we have today.<br /><br /><br /><i>Btw: just because someone boarding a long-distance train in SF alights before it crosses Pacheco Pass does not mean that seat will not be occupied again by another passenger boarding further south. Trains are not planes, multiple passengers can occupy the same seat - just not at the same time.</i><br /><br />Thank you for writing this. This fact is often overlooked by, well, almost everyone, when trying to talk about passenger train ridership. A trainset with, let's say 350 seats, may quite easily handle many more than 350 seated passengers during any given run from Anaheim to Downtown San Francisco.rynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-61773372755216163152009-09-23T13:01:17.139-07:002009-09-23T13:01:17.139-07:00Which part of regional HSR from SF to Gilroy is co...<em>Which part of regional HSR from SF to Gilroy is conceptually unclear</em>?<br /><br />I understand the concept very well. I lived in New Jersey most of my life where trains have been running at 125 consistently since the late 60s. Shinkansen didn't spring full blown from the mind of a Japanese civil engineer, they had been reading the news about how the Pennsylvania Railroad had a test train that was able to get up to 175 between New Brunswick and Trenton on unmodified track.<br /><br />Just because an Arrow III goes over it's design speed to make up time between Trenton and New Brunswick doesn't make it an HSR train. Since the new equipment NJ Transit is ordering is rated for 125 I suspect they have plans to run it at 125. No one is going to call the train from NYC that terminates in Trenton, HSR, they are going to call it the Trenton Express. When it stops at all the stations they will be calling it the Trenton Local. When Amtrak uses NJTransit bilevels to run special trains to Washington DC or uses MARC trains to go to NYC everyone calls them Amtrak.<br /><br />They use the High Speed 1 tracks in the U.K. for commuter service to St. Pancras. They didn't brand it as Eurostar Regional. <br /><br /><em>It's perfectly ok for the HSR tracks to carry 4 long distance plus 4-6 regional HSR trains in the SF peninsula per hour from day <br />one. In addition, Caltrain can run 4-6 locals per hour on the standard-speed tracks</em><br /><br />Just like commuter railroads the world over. The ones painted red and white with the Caltrain logo on the side are going to be called "Caltrain expresses" or maybe "Baby Bullet" will survive. Call the one that rarely or never runs in revenue service south of San Jose HSR if you want to. On Thanksgiving Day when CAHSR uses it to run all the way to Bakersfield people will call it whatever CAHSR ends up being called, even though it's painted red and white and has Caltrain logos. <br /><br /><em>I'm not convinced baby bullets at a top speed of 79mph still make sense if you can run trains at 125mph instead</em><br /><br />F40PH locomotives have a top speed of 103 or 95 depending on who you ask. Caltrain runs them at 79 because the FRA says so, not because they can't run faster. It weighs 260,000 pounds. A P40 weighs 268,000 pounds. If they don't want to run the occasional freight train on the the line because it's "tears up the tracks" how eager are they going to be to run 100 diesel hauled Caltrain locals over the same tracks on week days? Why would they if there's going to be catenary all the way to Anaheim? <br /><br /><em>just because someone boarding a long-distance train in SF alights before it crosses Pacheco Pass does not mean that seat will not be occupied again by another passenger boarding further south</em><br /><br />I have a sneaking suspicion they expect more traffic between San Jose and San Francisco than between San Jose and points south. Otherwise they wouldn't be proposing four tracks north of San Jose and two south of San Jose. <br /><br />How many passengers will be boarding in Fresno when it's an express to LA and doesn't stop until it gets to LA? Remember that if you try to board passengers when the train is moving through the station at 190 the passengers tend to splatter all over the car. <br /><br />When there's fast service between San Jose and San Francisco many people will take the train because it's faster and you don't have to park the car in San Francisco. Far fewer will be heading south. If the fare on the long distance train is the same as the fare on a Caltrain bilevel people will arrange their trip to use the long distance train with it's cushy seats and bar car. Commuters are wily creatures, they'll position themselves to get seats. Southbound that means passengers going longer distance will end up standing to San Jose or they will be running empty seats south of San Jose. Or you can call the train painted red and white that never goes south of San Jose HSR because it only stops 7 times between San Jose and San Francisco.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-24645808804496725372009-09-23T03:48:50.574-07:002009-09-23T03:48:50.574-07:00@ adirondacker12800 -
I'm not sure if you'...@ adirondacker12800 -<br /><br />I'm not sure if you're being wilfully obtuse. Not every HSR train that sets out from SF has to run all the way to Anaheim! Which part of <i>regional</i> HSR from SF to Gilroy is conceptually unclear?<br /><br />As for terminology, the Obama administration considers 125mph top speed an intermediate level of HSR.<br /><br />It's perfectly ok for the HSR tracks to carry 4 long distance <i>plus</i> 4-6 regional HSR trains in the SF peninsula per hour from day one. In addition, Caltrain can run 4-6 locals per hour on the standard-speed tracks.<br /><br />Passengers would be able to execute cross-platform transfers between Caltrain locals and HSR trains at both PA/RWC and Millbrae.<br /><br />But perhaps the most important point is that regional HSR trains would mean commuter traffic wouldn't be constrained to two platforms at the TTC in SF even if platform height isn't harmonized.<br /><br />I'm not convinced baby bullets at a top speed of 79mph still make sense if you can run trains at 125mph instead.<br /><br />Btw: just because someone boarding a long-distance train in SF alights before it crosses Pacheco Pass does not mean that seat will not be occupied again by another passenger boarding further south. Trains are not planes, <i>multiple</i> passengers can occupy the same seat - just not at the same time.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30359178385395608922009-09-22T21:57:42.845-07:002009-09-22T21:57:42.845-07:00Not without a transfer penalty of at least FIVE MI...<em>Not without a transfer penalty of at least FIVE MINUTES! That's my whole point, and one that railfans (as opposed to commuters) don't seem to get.</em><br /><br />With two and half minute headways they could probably do it in under five but that assumes that Californians learn how to get on and off trains in reasonable amounts of time. Of course that means the locals and expresses have to share those two and half minute headways. Or a max of 24 trains an hour, probably less, much less. <br /><br />They are only thinking about one direction/transfer. Local comes into the single platform followed by an express, that's mediocre for the people who want to change from the local to the express. It sucks for the people who want to change from the express to the local, it's going to be a long while until another local comes by. It's going to be a while because you can't run high frequencies with the local and express services constrained by single platforms. Slows down the express too because switching from the express track to the local track takes time.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85745854314483522632009-09-22T17:57:24.463-07:002009-09-22T17:57:24.463-07:00if someone wanted to transfer from a Caltrain loca...<i>if someone wanted to transfer from a Caltrain local to a Caltrain baby bullet once HSR goes live, they could execute a same-platform transfer, couldn't they?</i><br /><br />Not without a transfer penalty of at least FIVE MINUTES! That's my whole point, and one that railfans (as opposed to commuters) don't seem to get.<br /><br />Or maybe I haven't explained it clearly enough.<br /><br />We need to create an opportunity for these Caltrain-to-Caltrain coordinated cross-platform transfers (two trains, same platform, same time), which reduce the transfer time penalty to less than ONE minute.<br /><br />That saves a commuter at least FOUR minutes per direction, or EIGHT minutes per workday, or 33 hours per year. The <i>perceived</i> benefit is even greater, since waiting time feels longer than it actually is.<br /><br />The transfer penalty would boil down to whatever slop is built into the schedule... which will have to go <i>way down</i>, by the way, to make trains arrive simultaneously. But rail operators all around the world operate within 30 seconds of a timetable. Yeah, it's hard, but it ain't rocket science.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72233940992388050002009-09-22T17:21:09.952-07:002009-09-22T17:21:09.952-07:00If HSR insists on having its own platforms all for...<i>If HSR insists on having its own platforms all for itself, then just keep it off the Caltrain corridor.</i><br /><br />Fine, as long as Caltrain pays for electrification and four-tracking by itself.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-14709251006037793952009-09-22T16:36:06.417-07:002009-09-22T16:36:06.417-07:00(b) people all over the world manage to take a ste...<em>(b) people all over the world manage to take a step back as through trains run through at 100mph or more</em><br /><br />But rarely if ever to do they attempt to get on or off the train that's not stopping. It's very nice to step off the local train and walk across the platform to an express or vice versa. Very few people are going get off the local to watch the express pass through without stopping while the local continues onto their destination. <br /><br /><em>(c) plenty of HSR trains in the SF peninsula, whether operated by Caltrain (regional HSR between SF adn Gilroy only) or someone else (long-distance HSR), will stop at PA/RWC and/or Millbrae</em> <br /><br />Fine call the train that makes few stops between San Francisco and San Jose, one owned and operated by Caltrain, an HSR. Most people would call it a Caltrain express. <br /><br /><em>(d) would a passenger be prepared to buy e.g. an SF-Lawrence Expressway ticket from Caltrain, board an HSR local (i.e. true bullet) and transfer to a Caltrain local in PA/RWC?</em><br /><br />Is HSR ready to run an empty seat all the way from Palo Alto to Anaheim so they can do that? It's not an option for someone who wants to get from Menlo Park to Santa Clara. Makes a lot more sense to me to have Caltrain run an express from San Francisco that makes it's first stop in Palo Alto and then runs local or some variant. The passenger in Menlo Park might have to take the local that terminates in Palo Alto and then change to the express that is running local to San Jose. Neither of them needs to be on a train that goes to Los Angeles. <br /><br /><em>There seems to be a persistent but non-sensical notion abroad that HSR tracks must only ever be used for trains down to SoCal</em><br /><br />You're the one that views them as HSR tracks. Other people see them as express tracks that serve the trains that make few stops no matter who is operating them. And since the highest speeds north of San Jose will be 125 MPH, calling them HSR tracks is a bit of a stretch.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19135539860736025652009-09-22T15:19:04.374-07:002009-09-22T15:19:04.374-07:00If the Caltrain transfer duplicates the HSR plan, ...<i> If the Caltrain transfer duplicates the HSR plan, there's no reason not to through-run HSR onto the Caltrain corridor.</i><br /><br />If HSR was to use Caltrain's electrified infrastructure, that would imply shared platforms for both Caltrain and HSR, right?? <br /><br />HSR is helping to pay for Caltrain corridor improvements, and in return Caltrain is allowing HSR to operate on its corridor. Caltrain is essentially just allowing HSR to use its upgraded infrastructure, so it is blindingly stupid to build two different platform heights for a supposedly "shared" corridor. If HSR insists on having its own platforms all for itself, then just keep it off the Caltrain corridor. Caltrain service will be severely disrupted during all the heavy construction, so it's not worth the time and bother building unique infrastructure that Caltrain can't use.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-79325458019978727992009-09-22T14:29:01.706-07:002009-09-22T14:29:01.706-07:00@ Adirondacker12800 -
(a) stay on the local until...@ Adirondacker12800 -<br /><br />(a) stay on the local until you do reach an HSR station<br /><br />(b) people all over the world manage to take a step back as through trains run through at 100mph or more<br /><br />(c) plenty of HSR trains in the SF peninsula, whether operated by Caltrain (regional HSR between SF adn Gilroy only) or someone else (long-distance HSR), will stop at PA/RWC and/or Millbrae.<br /><br />(d) would a passenger be prepared to buy e.g. an SF-Lawrence Expressway ticket from Caltrain, board an HSR local (i.e. true bullet) and transfer to a Caltrain local in PA/RWC?<br /><br />Dunno, Caltrain would need to study if preserving the baby bullet service level alongside HSR service makes sense.<br /><br />There seems to be a persistent but non-sensical notion abroad that HSR tracks must only ever be used for trains down to SoCal. For the first couple of decades at least, those tracks will have plenty of capacity for strictly regional HSR service between SF and SJ, perhaps Gilroy (if the station there has terminal as well as run-through platform tracks).Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.com