tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post4755727770522469197..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Caltrain Should Use High PlatformsClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-59590824828086429872014-11-11T04:43:45.474-08:002014-11-11T04:43:45.474-08:00Of course a concurrent platform or track elevation...Of course a concurrent platform or track elevation height adjustment potential would also need to be incorporated into station designs.Jameshttp://www.riwal.com/corporate/en/rentals/elevated-platformnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-50522759476514373172013-02-20T10:34:26.504-08:002013-02-20T10:34:26.504-08:00One thing of note that's relevant in platform ...One thing of note that's relevant in platform height debate: CAHSR's technical manual specify a train with Shinkansen width, which is 3.38m or 11.1ft wide, which is 0.38m or 1.2ft wider than current Caltrain passenger cars at 3.0m or 9.9ft. Unless either CAHSR ordered 3.0m wide cars or Caltrain ordered 3.38m wide cars, bridging plate would still be needed for share use platforms.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234802218858306443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69783733622748963592013-02-13T10:26:42.950-08:002013-02-13T10:26:42.950-08:00Level boarding is always the best, as the single p...Level boarding is always the best, as the single platform height across the system.<br />But if it can't be achieved due to different platform height, automatic retractable step is the best solution. For example PESA 620M, wich shoul be able to operate both at 1000 mm platforms, as well as low platforms use two retractable steps - http://reverse.kiev.ua/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/620M-001_3it04.jpg<br /><br />But anyway it's the Caltrain who should have level boarding across the bay area, if CHSR and Caltrain can't come to agreement. French TGV have level boarding at dedicated LGV stations, but may use retractable step at legacy stations.XANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931117537443848066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-20247589764910542972013-02-12T11:58:31.779-08:002013-02-12T11:58:31.779-08:00HSR will share track between LA and Anaheim
Nope....<i>HSR will share track between LA and Anaheim</i><br /><br />Nope. Unless you mean the little bit between Fullerton and Anaheim, where I suppose it would be possible. LAUS to Fullerton is part of the BNSF Southern Transcon and handles 80+ freight trains every day. All the published plans show HSR as totally separate. Metrolink has expressed some vague interest in operating express commuter trains from Anaheim to LAUS along HSR track, but if this ever comes to fruition it would be newly purchased stock designed to whatever standard CAHSR comes up with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-60249474462189901582013-02-11T17:06:33.812-08:002013-02-11T17:06:33.812-08:00XAN, that's a huge difference.
That ICN (RABD...XAN, that's a huge difference.<br /><br />That ICN (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_RABDe_500" rel="nofollow">RABDe_500</a>) train in the photo is a single-level, high-floor (and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/1271328@N25/pool/" rel="nofollow">attractively styled</a>) 200kmh active tilter, with <a href="http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1236/20120624151023.jpg" rel="nofollow">two full sized <b>fixed</b> steps within the interior</a> (total of three steps up from standard Swiss 550mm platform to the 1120mm interior high floor. (And US ADA step riser maximum is 180mm.)<br /><br />"Gap fillers" the bridge the horizontal space between train doorways and platform edges are universal on new Swiss rolling stock, all of which is now designed for level boarding at 550mm whether single or double decker.<br /><br />They also help with the transition from old sub-standard platforms before they're brought up to 550mm level boarding, by providing an interim step onto the train.<br /><br />Stadler double-deck "KISS": <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RABe_511_Entrance.jpg" rel="nofollow">SBB RABe 511</a>, <a href="http://www.fr-strab.de/Bahnfotos/SBB/SBB_511%20009%20Zuerich%20HB.jpg" rel="nofollow">RABe 511</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/drum118/8257277354/" rel="nofollow">200kmh Westbahn KISS</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/drum118/8257283132/" rel="nofollow">Westbahn</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinladstaetter/7098209091/" rel="nofollow">Westbahn</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinladstaetter/6952146700/" rel="nofollow">Westbahn</a>.<br />Single deck "FLIRT": <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterfisk/6364171003/" rel="nofollow">NSB</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fototak/8409115972/" rel="nofollow">SBB RABe 524</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/austrianpsycho/6952812127/" rel="nofollow">BLB</a>.<br />Double deck "IC2000": <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/58708751@N00/8061081318/" rel="nofollow">IC2000</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/40826712@N00/8398702629/" rel="nofollow">IC2000</a>, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/35138806@N08/4481040171/" rel="nofollow">IC2000</a>.<br /><br />Level boarding into the lower level of double deck trains is <i>the</i> way to go.<br />The alternative in reality is <i>no double deck trains, ever</i>, in which case Caltrain and CHSRA are wasting hundreds of millions to billions on unnecessary clearance.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-48619304645812286462013-02-11T14:07:38.236-08:002013-02-11T14:07:38.236-08:00Not trap doors, but rather a RC-retractable metal ...Not trap doors, but rather a RC-retractable metal step, but the effect is quite the same.<br />I wasn't able to found a close-up of TGV, but here some 220 km\h tilting Swiss train - http://4rail.net/ch/sbb-icn-zurich-311207.jpgXANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931117537443848066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44764714946593234932013-02-11T03:48:00.220-08:002013-02-11T03:48:00.220-08:00Single-deck high level door EMU designs leave plen...Single-deck high level door EMU designs leave plenty of room for installing, maintaining, and cooling heavy-noise-prone systems near the track-way while simultaneously enhancing stability and noise suppression. Also single deck Caltrain EMUs, relatively unconstrained by stability concerns, could be readily be designed to enable low cost height adjustments in order to match any last minute CHSR platform height changes. These height adjustable design provisions might include wide-range air suspension adjustable height-set-points and/or shims added or removed at bogy-car-body support points. Of course a concurrent platform or track elevation height adjustment potential would also need to be incorporated into station designs.<br /> The range of major transit quality improvements possible by designing transit right-of-ways to accept “any train on any track” goes far beyond the inherent redundancy offered by similar platform heights for all passenger trains in order to enable continuing operations when a train is stalled. Especially in this era of strong automobile competition nearly everywhere a successful transit system must provide destination stations that are a short walk from high density commercial, transportation, and entertainment centers. Some examples would include a Downtown San Jose Market Street Subway to a Caltrain/CHSR/BART/VTA LTR Station beneath the Cezar Chavez Park, and a Caltrain/CHSR/BART/VTA LTR cross-platform-transfer subway-station 30 feet below the center of the San Jose Airport Terminal.<br /> Low profile single deck trains could help reduce the current absurdly high CHSR 23.5 foot overhead clearance requirement. The extremely high cost estimate for DTX Extension tunnel sections would likely be cut in half with the help of third-rail electrification by cutting 10 feet off the present CHSR overhead-clearance requirement. The proposed Mission Bay Development short-cut would almost certainly be required to cross the UC San Francisco Mission Bay Research Campus below grade. This open-cut section should connect to a nearby large capacity 3rd & King Elevated Station featuring level pedestrian bridges to the baseball stadium seats. North of King dropping down below 3rd Street into a low overhead-clearance cut-and-cover-subway would avoid expensive hard-rock mining through Rincon Hill under Second Street.<br /><br />John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-58333037745853928302013-02-10T16:49:38.595-08:002013-02-10T16:49:38.595-08:00Moving steps like those -- aside from being failur...Moving steps like those -- aside from being failure-prone and heavy -- only work at the extreme ends of conventional two-bogie vehicles, or inbound only on single-level vehicles.<br /><br />Clustered doors at the vehicle extremities, not evenly spaced along platforms, are something that all equipment should avoid if possible, most especially for urban/suburban equipment which should be (but won't under any Caltrain "what is `dwell time' and why should anybody care?" scenario) designed for fast loading and unloading and minimized platform congestion ("what is that and why would anybody care? NY Penn Station 4eva!")<br /><br />XAN: Trap doors on TGVs? Um, no.<br />Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-17561112869980443122013-02-10T16:43:31.733-08:002013-02-10T16:43:31.733-08:00Amfleet and Northeastern commuter cars are 126 inc...Amfleet and Northeastern commuter cars are 126 inches wide somewhere around armrest level; they're 120 inches wide at floor level. Dunno about Acela-- somebody look at the platform gap sometime. Is it two inches less for them than for all the other cars?<br /><br />(The 126-inch width started... late 1960s? The traditional streamliner car was 120 inches wide, except for handholds that were always above floor level.)Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7857287817296418002013-02-10T16:35:15.939-08:002013-02-10T16:35:15.939-08:00Acela's are 124 inches at the thresholds. Amfl...Acela's are 124 inches at the thresholds. Amfleets are 126 and the commuter cars usually are too. They've been noiminally 126 inches ( 10'6" ) for a over a century. Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-31062268686809467152013-02-10T15:11:35.140-08:002013-02-10T15:11:35.140-08:00It's true, high platforms back east are usuall...It's true, high platforms back east are usually around 67 inches from the track centerline, so the gap between car and platform is about 7 inches (everybody's? cars are 120 inches wide at floor level). So are Amtrak's new cars going to be wider than today's cars, to comply with ADA?Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87412246166687605262013-02-10T13:21:44.381-08:002013-02-10T13:21:44.381-08:00Even glorious TGV have those, not mentioning billi...Even glorious TGV have those, not mentioning billion of other trains.XANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931117537443848066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-51954135058321159872013-02-10T13:20:31.509-08:002013-02-10T13:20:31.509-08:00Well, when Russians asked Simens to convert low-en...Well, when Russians asked Simens to convert low-entry Simens Desiro design for high 1000 mm platforms, Simens just did it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro#Desiro_RUSXANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931117537443848066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-27037748842379416802013-02-07T17:49:33.376-08:002013-02-07T17:49:33.376-08:00Japan's rolling stock is mostly single-level. ...Japan's rolling stock is mostly single-level. The bilevel Shinkansen are a technological dead-end, and are to be retired early. The regional trains are very rarely bilevel, and those are usually just green cars, in which seating capacity is more important than rapid boarding and disembarking.<br /><br />I also think this is the right solution for the US, for other reasons: the crowding levels are much lower, but trains disgorge riders at just a few CBD stations, so fast egress is critical. It's HSR-compatible, which the Japanese legacy network isn't - and contra what Richard says, I don't think designing around a hypothetical future bilevel HSR EMU is a good idea. It also offers the possibility of fully walk-through trains, which has advantages for perceived passenger safety and reduces the capacity advantage of bilevels in regional service. Low-floor bilevels can have a walk-through upper deck, but many of the otherwise best designs aren't.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29906175605875296422013-02-07T17:35:16.137-08:002013-02-07T17:35:16.137-08:00I think it's about what the MBTA is spending p...I think it's about what the MBTA is spending per station on new lines with high-platform stations, like the Fairmount Line upgrades.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-49029818422847321952013-02-07T06:18:37.117-08:002013-02-07T06:18:37.117-08:00Cool, thanks! That's a really neat solution.Cool, thanks! That's a really neat solution.ant6nhttp://www.cat-bus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81018805913287399282013-02-06T16:41:16.526-08:002013-02-06T16:41:16.526-08:00Well yes, my scenario assumed the CalTrain tracks ...Well yes, my scenario assumed the CalTrain tracks were on the southern end (which IIRC was the original configuration), not to mention a bunch of other design changes implemented before completion of the train box excavation. But like I said, academic.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-32363802216499013522013-02-06T16:35:27.869-08:002013-02-06T16:35:27.869-08:00Okay, you make a valid point. I meant to say HSR ...Okay, you make a valid point. I meant to say HSR <i>should</i> share a lot of track with Metrolink, particularly because a fast, frequent regional service from Santa Clarita to LA is desirable. It's worth noting though, that UP has demanded a dedicated FRA track in the SFV (I don't think they particularly care if it's shared with Metrolink or not). HSR <i>will</i> share track between LA and Anaheim, which is a significant segment on its own, and we don't know what alignment the Inland Empire route will eventually take.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81739967063185196672013-02-06T16:15:27.692-08:002013-02-06T16:15:27.692-08:00Yes, on the Nuriro medium distance express EMUs us...Yes, on the Nuriro medium distance express EMUs used by Korail. These trainsets are based on Hitachi's A-train design. The Korean railway system has many high platform stations in the Seoul metropolitan region, while other areas have low height platforms. There may be other examples elsewhere.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_PiD_GhKaYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29689760227566168102013-02-06T15:50:34.499-08:002013-02-06T15:50:34.499-08:00I have one question related to the possibility of ...I have one question related to the possibility of gradual transition to high platforms: Do automatic trap door solutions exist? If yes, that could make it possible use high floor cars with trap doors now and install automatic trap doors. Then high and low floor platforms could be serviced as they are being replaced. This would allow boarding via multiple doors at high and low platform stations, without needing conductors to operate the traps.<br /><br />ant6nhttp://www.cat-bus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-28706980956234477572013-02-06T15:34:22.050-08:002013-02-06T15:34:22.050-08:00@ Joey:
What makes you think that "HSR will ...@ Joey:<br /><br />What makes you think that "HSR will share a lot of track with Metrolink, and by extension, a large number of stations."<br /><br />HSR plans on dedicated tracks, at least between Sylmar and LAUS, and does not plan to use Metro Link tracks on that section.<br /><br />morris<br />Morris Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-4588464025178082832013-02-06T14:07:17.146-08:002013-02-06T14:07:17.146-08:00Joey, not so. The brilliant PTG/ARUP/PCJPB/PBQD/C...Joey, not so. The brilliant PTG/ARUP/PCJPB/PBQD/CHSRA Transbay configuration has the dedicated Caltrain-only non-level-boarding platform on the north end of the site, not the putative "loop" side, with <b>295m</b> and 415m long Caltrain-only tracks.<br /><br />The entirely fictional loop tracks would have to be off the the two (of four) southern-most HSR-only platform tracks, shortening those from 413m to well under 300m -- more likely 275m or shorter.<br /><br />So you'd be left with four stub tracks (north to south):<br />1 Caltrain-only-non-level-boarding of sub-HSR-standard length 295m<br />2 Caltrain-only-non-level-boarding of 413m<br />3 HSR-only 413m<br />4 HSR-only 413m<br />and then fairy-tale of-use-to-nobody Caltrain(???)-only non-level-boarding loop tracks<br />5 Caltrain-only-non-level-boarding of sub-HSR-standard length <275m<br />6 Caltrain-only-non-level-boarding of sub-HSR-standard length <275m<br /><br />"Best" case is to convert (ka-ching$$$$) the the northern platform to HSR-only height, resulting in three full-length HSR stubs, one 295m sub-standard (so truncated because the "architects" and "engineers" responsible for TTT design are sub-moronic losers with no redeeming human attributes, no other reason) and three 400+m standard; along with two short (<275m) Caltrain-only through tracks with no possible operational or economic justification "connecting" to a loop tunnel that can't and shouldn't be built.<br /><br />So even in the "academic" case and throwing billions more at unnecessary tunnelling, the fundamental civil engineering and structural element placing at the Transbay Terminal ("terminal" as in "the end of it all -- sanity, hope, intelligence, honesty, etc") creates an irreparable four billion dollar catastrophe.<br /><br />The <i>only</i> possible solution is to blow up the project and those responsible. It can't be salvaged in any way once the 6 foot diameter columns <b>every 42.5 feet</b> go in. <a href="http://mly.users.sonic.net/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/Classy-dropped-ceilings.jpg" rel="nofollow">World Class!</a><br /><br />Death really is too kind a fate.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56293245751637384092013-02-06T14:01:00.475-08:002013-02-06T14:01:00.475-08:00Well Richard, I'll take your word for it on th...Well Richard, I'll take your word for it on the TBT design history. But hey, if there is a need there is a way, right?<br /><br />I continue to believe the current 4th&Townsend location is adequate for HSR, given the central subway and various connections.<br /><br />About charging the same ticket price for same station pairs between CAHSR and Caltrain, it is people's habit that complicate things. Given the same ticket price, it is not hard to imagine most SF-SJ/Gilroy load would shift to CAHSR, filling up the train, but possibility leave the train mostly empty south of Gilroy because seats are sold-out between SF-SJ/Gilroy... This might spell the end of Caltrain unless it is fold into CAHSR operation, or this is what you are advocate for?Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234802218858306443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-46570892595872771672013-02-06T13:55:34.319-08:002013-02-06T13:55:34.319-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234802218858306443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-39433976549451751762013-02-06T13:16:06.666-08:002013-02-06T13:16:06.666-08:00The thing that makes me unsure about platform heig...The thing that makes me unsure about platform height is Metrolink compatibility. They already have a large fleet of low-entry cars, which they are in the process of replacing with new low-entry cars. Between Sylmar and Anaheim, HSR will share a lot of track with Metrolink, and by extension, a large number of stations. And many of these stations are in constrained locations (Fullerton, which may or may not be a stop but probably should, and LAUS, though it's not nearly as constrained as they would have you believe). And that's to say nothing of the possibility of cross-platform transfers.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.com