tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post6553415005497190209..comments2024-03-25T08:35:51.364-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Holiday Required ReadingClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-667319635239603812012-01-09T03:52:51.101-08:002012-01-09T03:52:51.101-08:00Anon: why stop at San Jose? If the point of BART i...Anon: why stop at San Jose? If the point of BART is to operate parking lot shuttles to the biggest city around, then I say it should build a dedicated BART-only line to LA, in addition to HSR.<br /><br />I'm only half-joking, by the way. When you understand why BART to LA is insane, you'll see why BART to SJ is.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-64206407040539584932012-01-08T22:18:49.582-08:002012-01-08T22:18:49.582-08:00Yes, I guess it does seem kind of "out of cha...Yes, I guess it does seem kind of "out of character" for BART to serve San Jose. San Jose is no "Richmond", "Pittsburg","Pleasanton" or "Fremont". You got to be a city of that sort of scale and magnitude to deserve BART service. Sorry, I know this is kind of off-topic but I remember listening to a radio interview with one of the BART officials who mentioned that BART is the largest operator of parking west of the Mississippi. In some respects BART really is just a glorified parking lot shuttle. Silly for San Jose to think they could be as important of a "city" as Fremont!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-28432049164493955542012-01-08T21:42:14.455-08:002012-01-08T21:42:14.455-08:00A transfer to BART )(for Milpitas and SJ) or to Ca...<em>A transfer to BART )(for Milpitas and SJ) or to Caltrain (for Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale) will be faster and equally convenient. </em> <br /><br />But but but everybody else says San Jose - California's third largest subur... city - it too important! Capitol of Silicon Valley, Navel of the Universe, etc. So much of a Very Important Place that BART is going to have a station at the Grand Central of West.... HSR will just have to go there!! .Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73570709275426601372012-01-08T20:38:17.075-08:002012-01-08T20:38:17.075-08:00"If the Altamont route is reconsidered and ch..."<i>If the Altamont route is reconsidered and chosen by the CHSRA over Pacheco would it not make more sense for HSR trains from San Jose headed to LA to backtrack north along the Caltrain corridor to a Redwood City junction station, reverse directions and continue south to LA via the new bay crossing?</i>"<br /><br />No, for several reasons. But it's worth having thought about!<br /><br />* That's a really bad use of very expensive HS trains. Low speed, lots of time wasted, few passengers = poor use of capital resources. You can bet that any commercial HS operator would only provide this service under contractual political strong-arming, not because it makes economic sense.<br /><br />* That's no better than doing a HS to Caltrain cross-platform transfer (or in one cunning plan of mine, up a escalator transfer.) In fact the transfer might be faster, since reversing a train is a bit of a song and dance even in the best circumstances.<br /><br />* A major problem with Los Banos HSR is that HS trains "clog up" the entire line, not just as little as possible. Unclogging requires expensive extra infrastructure, especially more quadruple passing tracks, but in Redwood City it might even require entire extra platforms so that the stopping and reversing trains doesn't block everything else.<br /><br />So in effect instead of building a pair of new tracks from SJ to Fremont, you're building then from SJ to Redwood City, which is more expensive (construction on an "active" railroad is just insanely costly) and of no practical use (Caltrain doesn't need that track, so it's HS-only, so why not build HS-only track separately on the direct route?)<br /><br />* Lastly, since PBQD has decreed on all of our behalves that its BART is to be the rail connection between Fremont and SJ (with PBQD's puppets at SJ, Santa Clara County, VTA, BARTD and MTC dutifully acting as instructed and providing the slush funds to their transit-industrial complex overlords), it's really hard to see what non-fictional benefit HS trains directly to SJ Cahill station provide: unlike BART, the station isn't central to "downtown" SJ even, so why take people nowhere and then have them transfer to BART or VTA anyway? A BART transfer station between Fremont and Warm Springs is the best that can be salvaged from this disaster.<br /><br />(I've said a million times that if anybody in SJ had the intelligence of a slime mould, SJ to Livermore HS would be under construction today as the first segment of CHSR, and Santa Clara County's taxpayers would be several billion dollars richer and able to pay for all the nice things they promised but say we can''t have because BART takes everything.)<br /><br />In short: all downside, no upside. A transfer to BART )(for Milpitas and SJ) or to Caltrain (for Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale) will be faster and equally convenient.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-60486575957979654452012-01-08T13:49:19.815-08:002012-01-08T13:49:19.815-08:00If the Altamont route is reconsidered and chosen b...If the Altamont route is reconsidered and chosen by the CHSRA over Pacheco would it not make more sense for HSR trains from San Jose headed to LA to backtrack north along the Caltrain corridor to a Redwood City junction station, reverse directions and continue south to LA via the new bay crossing? <br /><br />I know it would take longer than a direct run from San Jose to Fremont but assuming the entire Caltrain line from SF to San Jose will be upgraded to CHSRA specifications (4 tracks, grade separated and electrified) I think it should be easily manageable in 15 to 20 minutes. Maybe only about 10 minutes longer than a direct San Jose to Fremont run. <br /><br />Caltrain could also offer through train service from both SF and San Jose to what would then replace the need for a separate Dumbarton crossing. It seems to me like that would maximize the utility of the infrastructure investment. Caltrain needs those 4 tracks even without HSR. I know it doesn't quite appease the nimby's in Palo Alto bringing the Altamont alignment up solely as a ruse to keep HSR and 4 track alignments out of Palo Alto, but could be considered a concession since the HSR traffic on the line thru Palo Alto would be reduced to only those trains serving San Jose. Palo Alto could even get an HSR stop if they ever had a "change of heart" on their anti-HSR position in the future. Caltrain would still benefit from the 4-track alignment where it needs it the most towards the middle of the line between Palo Alto and Redwood city. Cross platform connections between locals and expresses could be made at a new much larger Redwood City HSR/Caltrain junction station. <br /><br />Personally I got to admit as a south bay resident I am sort of biased in favor of the Pacheco alignment fearing an Altamont route would give San Jose and the south bay substandard or no HSR service. Anyways, by pure cold logic I can still acknowledge the benefits of an Altamont route.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85299888358449031122011-12-28T22:15:38.102-08:002011-12-28T22:15:38.102-08:00Joey: further environmental work showed that there...Joey: further environmental work showed that there's no above-ground alignment that minimizes wildlife impact. I leave it up to you to determine whether,<br /><br />a) This is an honest, unforeseeable complication,<br /><br />b) They foresaw the complication in 2008 but ignored it to keep the public cost estimate down,<br /><br />c) They could have foreseen the complication in 2008 but did not, or<br /><br />d) This complication is crap and they're just trying to drive up the cost of the Tehachapis in order to study Tejon.<br /><br />For the record, I'm somewhere between a and c. The powers that be don't want Tejon; Tolmach doesn't have the pull to force an honest reconsideration, let alone a dishonest one; and if the Tehachapis were known to be impossible in 2008, they'd have chosen Tejon and strategically misrepresented that.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86126787923701741662011-12-28T19:27:14.829-08:002011-12-28T19:27:14.829-08:00Alon: Remind me why Soledad Canyon was eliminated....Alon: Remind me why Soledad Canyon was eliminated...Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69184364623104171272011-12-28T15:55:49.098-08:002011-12-28T15:55:49.098-08:00The #1 suggestion is one that I agree with. An id...The #1 suggestion is one that I agree with. An idea can be separated from the person who advanced it, and must be judged on its own merits. The idea of Altamont + Tejon has great merit. The I-5 idea may also have merit seeing as money doesn't grow on trees. So enough with the Tolmach hate.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71102008051382139682011-12-28T15:38:10.226-08:002011-12-28T15:38:10.226-08:00Well, Tejon may be cheaper than the Tehachapis. I ...Well, Tejon may be cheaper than the Tehachapis. I can't tell whether it's cheaper than the Tehachapis were thought to be before it turned out that the above-ground Soledad Canyon route was unavailable, but PB thinks it's cheaper than the Tehachapis are now.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18541585537720087512011-12-28T13:55:48.060-08:002011-12-28T13:55:48.060-08:00Tolmach discredits himself with his #1 suggestion,...Tolmach discredits himself with his #1 suggestion, which is stupid. He's also developed a record of dishonest misreading of studies, notably with his "Tejon is easy" bullshit.<br /><br />Sorry, not reading crap based on the statements of someone that unreliable. Don't discredit yourself by associating with him.<br /><br />--Nathanael.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73096194682584827222011-12-19T19:47:25.007-08:002011-12-19T19:47:25.007-08:00One reason to minimize proposed excessive and larg...One reason to minimize proposed excessive and largely redundant expenditures on Central Valley urban railway infrastructure is to have enough cash left of the soon to be available initial $6 billion in order to immediately construct a passenger rail route for a train to somewhere. We should keep in mind the mandates that nearly all the initial $6 billion must be used for a credible part of a future California High Speed System and at least half to be applied to the Central Valley. Seventy percent (70%) of the CHSR Authority’s planned 82.4 mile rail-right-of-way between Gilroy and a Chowchilla connection to the existing Amtrak route to Fresno is on the Central Valley side of Pacheco Pass. <br />The Rail distance between San Francisco and Fresno on the CHSR Authority’s Mile Post Map is 191.5 miles. Compare this prospect with Amtrak’s current San Joaquin service between Fresno and Oakland which has a 205 mile rail distance scheduled to be traversed in 4:05. A diesel powered Amtrak San Joaquin Peninsula route service should be able to travel between the 4th & King San Francisco Station and Fresno in 2:50. The foregoing running time estimate assumes a San Joaquin Valley bound express train will require one hour to run between San Francisco and San Jose that includes intermediate stops at Millbrae, Hillsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale; 30 minutes for the 29.7 miles to Gilroy, and 55 minutes by averaging 90 mph along the 82.4 mile new rail right-of-way connection between Gilroy and the current Amtrak rail route near Chowchilla.( I am assuming an 8 kw/tonne diesel train climbing 800 feet over Pacheco pass will be delayed five minutes.) The remaining 31.4 mile distance along the present Amtrak route from the Chowchilla connection to Fresno should take 25 minutes at an average speed of 75 mph.<br /> An all-day and early-evening hourly San Joaquin express train frequency to major Caltrain stations should produce dramatically improved off-peak Caltrain Route service and may lead to a sharp increase in peninsula rail use. Reliable hourly service to stations near SFO and SJC Airports may prove to be a major San Joaquin Valley rail traffic generator. A positive response would help support a CHSR and Caltrain route change in order to serve a subway station directly beneath the SJC Airline Passenger Terminal. Rerouting the First street light rail and the Silicon Valley BART extension to the same SJC Airport Station would produce two rail route connections to San Jose’s Golden Triangle Industrial District and increase ridership on all four San Jose rail services. (Note: During the July-September 2011 Quarter BART’s SFO Terminal ridership has risen to 6337 passengers per day; 13% more than a year ago in spite of imposing a $4 surcharge on all SFO BART Station users.) <br />There may be enough of the initial $6 billion left to improve the reliability and scheduled speed of Caltrain and CHSR express trains by extending Caltrain’s passing track infrastructure. A 6 mile grade separated four track segment between one mile north of Hayward Park past four stations to a point one mile south of San Carlos would improve service reliability. This center of Caltrain’s frequent local service segment would be particularly helpful in an effort to increase the scheduled time gaps between local and express trains. A local train delay would be far less likely to lengthen express train running times.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7962410228404187912011-12-19T16:45:18.188-08:002011-12-19T16:45:18.188-08:00For above 80 mph performance one can refer to Bern...For above 80 mph performance one can refer to Bernard de Fontgalland’s 1980 book “The World Railway System” which says a passenger train’s resistance to motion at 140 kph as equivalent to climbing a 0.6% slope. (Note: The reduction in wind resistance per unit weight by recent streamlining efforts could be largely canceled out by lower train weights per unit train volume and mostly irrelevant because a great proportion of wind resistance stems from bogies extending close to the track-way surface.) Deducting 0.1% for rolling resistance in order to isolate the variable with speed wind resistance deceleration factor (a) opposing train motion the net wind plus rolling resistance deceleration at 200 kph would be: <br />a = g{0.001 + sin[arc tan(0.005)(200/140)^2]} = 0.3605 feet/sec^2 <br />Sufficient wheel/rail adhesion required to sustain a 2.50 feet/sec^2 braking rate would need a surface adhesion driven thrust equal to: <br />2.50 – 0.36 = 2.14 feet/sec^2<br /> In order to sustain safe operations, control maintenance costs, and provide a high level of riding comfort the high speed transit industry has made a strong effort maintain a smooth track structure and minimize the proportion of un-sprung train weight. Long-travel train suspension systems will keep train wheels at a nearly constant force against its supporting rail in spite of the roller-coaster effect of moderate track undulations at high speed. Therefore potential net braking rates may actually rise as speed increases within the speed range now being considered. <br />But suppose track/wheel adhesion deteriorated to such an extent that dispatchers elected to reduce express train speeds. What effect would declining maximum speeds have on track headways?<br />H = T1 + T2 + T3 = [(L + so)/V] + V/2b + 2<br />The minimum headway speed can be found by taking the first derivative of H with respect to speed (V), setting the result equal to zero, and solving for V. <br />dH/dt = − (L + so)/V^2 + 1/2b = 0<br />V = Square root of 2b(L + so)<br />V = square root of 2(2.5 feet/sec^2)(1320 + 380)feet = 92 feet/sec<br />At this maximum through-put speed non-stop track headway is:<br />H = [(1320 + 380)/92 + 92/2(2.5) + 2 = 18.44 + 18.44 + 2 = 38.9 seconds.<br />Note: Following train switch delays can be avoided by scheduling as leading trains those whose first stop is beyond the following train’s first stop. Trains converging on one express track can avoid switch delays by designing converging track switches to operate like a spring frog in the unlikely event the converging points are not reset and locked before the following train arrives.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-66772362382637435282011-12-19T16:39:59.940-08:002011-12-19T16:39:59.940-08:00Clem: Is 2.5 feet/sec^2 a high braking rate? Consi...Clem: Is 2.5 feet/sec^2 a high braking rate? Considering a passenger’s tolerance for high acceleration and braking rates perspective BART’s in-service maximum acceleration and braking rate standards are 4.4 feet/sec^2. BART’s in-tunnel safety braking standard is 2 miles per hour per second which is equal to 2.93 feet/sec^2. BART’s maximum acceleration rates can be easily verified by an observer positioned at the rear of a ten car train. When not approaching a close speed limiting track section, such as the Oakland Wye, the time required to travel from start to the platform end was observed to be consistently equal to 18 seconds whether the train was heavily loaded or near empty or on up or down grades out of the station. The time required to travel 700 feet from a standing start at a constant 4.4 feet/sec^2 acceleration rate is exactly 17.84 sec. Referring to the TCRP transit industry norm Table 7.1 says: “time lost to braking jerk limitation 0.5 sec”. These consistent acceleration observations verify the way electric machinery using a low impedance power source, such as the grid, is usually controlled. Fast acting high-loop-gain but stable negative feedback control circuits can completely eliminate performance variations due to voltage source or load changes. Especially since the mid 1990’s when variable frequency three phase traction motor drives became a transit industry standard these precise performance controls are easily implemented by controlling the pulse widths of the circuits generating the variable-frequency-three-phase traction motor driver currents.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69421686502818096442011-12-18T19:10:07.656-08:002011-12-18T19:10:07.656-08:00You've assumed that these very high braking ra...You've assumed that these very high braking rates could be achieved at speeds well in excess of "transit speed". You've also assumed that no trains ever stop at a station or get diverted to a different track at an interlocking. Both cases prevent headways from reaching a theoretical limit. Speed differences are even worse. Here's the thing: theory is great, but it's... Theoretical.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-5465484590600278812011-12-18T16:37:31.165-08:002011-12-18T16:37:31.165-08:00Using a “moving block” train position detection sy...Using a “moving block” train position detection system and allowing the braking rate to equal the maximum credible braking rate under all realistic conditions of b = 2.50 feet/sec^2 even when track surfaces are subject to wet leaf contamination let’s more than double the moving block safety distance to 380 feet. The total minimum time separation, or headway (H) between 1320 foot trains moving at 200 kph = 182 feet/sec can be determined by the following calculation:<br />The time it takes the train to travel its own length plus its minimum separation safety distance: T1 = (L + So)/Vo = (1320 feet + 380 feet)/182 feet/sec = 9.33 sec.<br />The time it will take at maximum speed to travel the maximum assured braking rate distance where the maximum operating speed is Vo = 182 feet/sec:<br />T2 = [∫VdV/b(Vo)] from Vo to 0 = (Vo^2)/2b(Vo) = Vo/2b = ½(182 feet/sec)/(2.5 feet/sec^2) = 36.45 sec.<br />Referring again to the TCRP Report #13 on Rail Transit Capacity on page 77, Table 7.1 on transit industry norms the time lost due to braking jerk limitation is 0.5 sec. For exceptionally safe operation let headway (H) increase due reaction time plus delay due to smooth initiation of braking action be:<br />T3 = 2 seconds. <br />H = T1 + T2 + T3 = [(L + so)/Vo] + Vo/2b + T3<br />H = (1320 + 380)/182 + ½(182/2.5) + 2 = 47.8 sec<br />A four aspect 2215 = B foot long per block computer controlled train separation signal system with a 2.5 feet/sec^2 braking rate could support 60 second headways:<br />S2 = [(Vo)^2]/2b = [182 feet/sec)^2]/[2[2.5 feet/sec)] = 6,644 feet = 3B ≈ 6645 feet<br />T2 = 4B/Vo = 4(2215 feet)/182 feet/sec = 48.61 sec<br />H = T1 + T2 + T3 = 9.33 + 48.61 + 2.00 = 59.94 sec.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-55383432050419735362011-12-18T16:33:17.847-08:002011-12-18T16:33:17.847-08:00Alon: This response is intended to conform to the ...Alon: This response is intended to conform to the notion that train frequency per track estimates should not exceed the maximum trains per unit time possible when constrained by transit industry safety related maximum credible brake performance and minimum train separation norms. According to the Transit Cooperative Research Program, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, Report #13 on Rail Transit Capacity on page 77, Table 7.1 lists transit industry norms for system and vehicle characteristics. It lists moving block safety distance as 50 meters = 164 feet and maximum credible braking rate as 75% of 1.3 meters/sec^2 = 3.2 feet/sec^2. Common sense tells you that the maximum credible braking rate for a give railway track section should be reduced by the steepest downhill acceleration opposing braking action present anywhere along a given railway track section where a maximum assured braking rate standard is being established. Along Caltrain’s San Francisco to San Jose section the steepest downhill segment is the 3,000 foot distance between University and Embarcadero Avenues where the railway descends 15 feet. The acceleration (a) reducing maximum braking rates along this section is: a = (g)sin[arc tan(rise/run) = (32.2 feet/sec^2)sin[arc tan(−15/3,000)] = − 0.16 feet/sec^2 where “g” is the acceleration due to gravity. (While a = g(rise/run) will produce essentially the same answer as a = (g)sin[arc tan(rise/run) at low angles the simplified formula for a 6% grade will produce a 0.18% error. Note: In this context “a” must never exceed g as is always true for the formula used here.) <br />Conforming to rail transit norms maximum assured electrified Caltrain braking would appear to be 3.20 – 0.16 = 3.04 feet/sec. But a Transit Research Cooperative Research Results Digest on Improving Methods for Increasing Wheel/Rail Adhesion states that pine and cedar leaves combined with frost or drizzle will produce the worst rail braking conditions. Under these conditions attempting to achieve braking rates above 0.83 meters/sec^2 = 2.72 feet/sec^2 pose a rapidly increasing wheel slip risk. A conservative approach for setting worst case braking performance standards along Caltrain’s remarkably constant elevation profile would be to set its assured braking standard to below 2.72 – 0.16 = 2.56 feet/sec^2 or to a more convenient 2.50 feet/sec^2.<br /> (BART’s assured braking rate standard under the worst case track contamination conditions mentioned above is 2.20 feet/sec^2. BART’s out-door braking standard allows them to run down a 3.106% slope and still be within transit industry assured braking rate norms.)John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-39294173591000762152011-12-18T16:07:21.999-08:002011-12-18T16:07:21.999-08:00As Jarret Walker would tell you, branching divides...As Jarret Walker would tell you, <a href="http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html" rel="nofollow">branching divides frequency</a>. The three major cities of the bay area are San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, and this plan puts them on three separate branches, meaning no train could serve even two of the three. They'll each need their own local trains and express trains to LA, putting high capacity demands on the center of the network, reducing frequency for each of the cities, and generally making it harder to fill the trains.<br /><br />If you're going to create a new bay crossing, why put it there? Is serving Redwood City that important? Just so the trains still share more than half the Caltrain corridor? If you want to separate HSR and Caltrain, put a crossing between SF and Oakland and build an HSR corridor from Oakland to SJ, then through Pacheco. Now you need a lot fewer train service patterns and so service is more frequent and convenient and more likely to be profitable. As a bonus Caltrain could be extended to the east bay.Eric Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-53668230698321611802011-12-14T21:31:10.039-08:002011-12-14T21:31:10.039-08:00@Alon: from my recent (couple months ago) experien...@Alon: from my recent (couple months ago) experience in Germany, the 2-conductor trains were about 8 cars long, not unlike the typical NEC trains. The particular ones I was one were actually not DB stock, but rather international trains operating from Poland to the Czech Republic with Czech stock, and from Budapest to Berlin using Hungarian stock, but in both cases, the onboard employees were German. I think there was also a food cart attendant in addition to the conductors.<br />The commuter trains, which had one conductor, ranged in length from one(!) to four double-decker push-pull cars hauled by an electric locomotive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-23158005506313837942011-12-14T13:52:30.433-08:002011-12-14T13:52:30.433-08:00John, you keep saying things like "An express...John, you keep saying things like "An express track can accommodate at least one 400 meters long 200 km/hour train per minute," and they're not true. The relevant <a href="http://www.ertms-online.com/media/2449/fact-10.pdf" rel="nofollow">ETCS 2 factsheet</a> states that the minimum headway for nonstop 200 km/h track is 1:37 and the minimum for nonstop 300 km/h is 2:30.<br /><br />But that's minimum headway between two trains, not maximum frequency. Richard tells me that Switzerland's Mattstetten-Rothrist line, with a headway of 1:50 at 200 km/h, doesn't actually run 32 tph. It runs 7 trains in 4 minutes twice per hour instead. The need for short headways comes not from the need for high tph count, but from schedule integration with connecting lines.<br /><br />Likewise, we know what the maximum achievable headway is at high speed because the Tokaido Shinkansen is at it. Local stations have two stopping tracks and two express tracks, and express stations have four stopping tracks. And the maximum frequency is about 14 tph, at 270 km/h.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-87865442477169428512011-12-14T12:47:08.533-08:002011-12-14T12:47:08.533-08:00The San Joaquin Valley’s landscape is radically di...The San Joaquin Valley’s landscape is radically different than anywhere else where high speed rail now operates. The SQV’s western edge has a far more stable base needed to support HSR railway tracks and almost nobody around to object to the considerable noise 220+ mph trains will produce. Compared to the middle of the San Joaquin Valleys’ high population density there are very few people living along the SQV’s western edge. Separate San Joaquin Valley track-ways are well justified in this special case. <br />But in most cases concentrating all trains serving a corridor along one track–way has overwhelming advantages over multiple separate track-ways along a travel corridor. Even one non-stop track in each direction has such enormous capacity that the operation of more than one track in each direction except in close-together station sections is rarely practiced or justified. From an efficient use of rail technology point of view running CHSR trains along the full length of San Francisco Peninsula along a mostly four track system between San Francisco and San Jose makes sense. An express track can accommodate at least one 400 meters long 200 km/hour train per minute while simultaneously observing today’s conservative rail safety margins. Because of high express track capacity both CHSR and Caltrain services can share an express track with little mutual interference. (Safe, optimized for maximum theoretical capacity train separation control systems that accommodate the foregoing capacity description for rail transit is likely to be available at moderate cost in the foreseeable future. The current electronics improvement revolution plus the world-wide tendency to build high traffic density transit railways train control suppliers are likely to provide numerous safe competitive train control system choices at moderate cost.) Because of the possibility of using alternate paths around delayed trains when parallel local and express tracks are frequently connected to each other both train reliability and scheduled speeds for both CHSR’s and Caltrain’s trains can improve due to the reduced need for schedule padding. Also numerous cross-platform-transfer-stations will significantly increase the number of convenient travel options for both CHSR and Caltrain riders. <br />The fact that two major airports are close to the Peninsula rail right-of-way results in a strong incentive for San Joaquin Valley residents to use the CHSR in order to connect with long distance air service. Plus Silicon Valley is now the fastest growing industrial area in the United States. Their work force is relatively young, fairly well compensated, and inclined to travel often. These strong travel to the peninsula incentives plus a local population inclined to travel are further reasons for a CHSR peninsula approach to San Francisco.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-70554267984959600762011-12-14T01:18:41.082-08:002011-12-14T01:18:41.082-08:00On the NEC, there are three conductors per train. ...On the NEC, there are three conductors per train. And that's a short train, i.e. 8 cars - I'm not sure how long the 2-conductor trains are in Germany, but in Japan there's just one conductor even on a 16-car train.<br /><br />Dwell times at most intermediate stations are 1.5-2 minutes, regardless of level boarding, since the stations without level boarding are less busy. More annoyingly, there are no plans for implementing level boarding at stations that do not currently have it.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-41479921346856111772011-12-13T22:24:44.941-08:002011-12-13T22:24:44.941-08:00Note that a good number of FRA trains have level b...Note that a good number of FRA trains have level boarding whereas most mainline trains in Germany or France or Switzerland do not. Yes, there are actually some things that the US does better in railroading. Not very many, mind you, but some, and actual level boarding is one of them. In Germany, for example, it's just two steps into the ICE, and not level boarding by any means. Also, it's not like all American trains are grossly overstaffed. From what I saw in Germany, the intercity trains had two conductors, which is fairly typical of Amtrak too, and the commuter trains (S-Bahn in Dresden) had one conductor, which is certainly doable under current regulations, because Metrolink does it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-27309834427206005652011-12-13T16:23:47.163-08:002011-12-13T16:23:47.163-08:00A "shared corridor" could mean that the ...A "shared corridor" could mean that the public pays for extra passenger train track and track access within the freight RR corridor.<br /><br />Not saying this is a good idea! But this is what it might mean.<br /><br />Build a new FRA track next the to freight track for running FRA passenger trains only. (Maybe it is "only" 25 feet separated, not 100 feet or more they demand for HSR.)<br /><br />Maybe under emergency the freight RR gets to use the passenger track, and maybe in exceptional circumstances the FRA passenger train gets to detour onto the freight track, but normally they run parallel and separate with crossovers locked to normal (straight ahead) position.<br /><br />This is sort of like UPRR versus Caltrain from Santa Clara past Blossom Hill. (Not like UPRR versus Capitol Corridor, where the state pays and pays the RR and gets the very short end of the stick.)<br /><br />With more than two trains an hour unlikely, and no freight interference, even Amtrak might run a schedule on a single track with scheduled passing loops.<br /><br />The advantage of this is that everything is terrible crappy FRA, which is easier for the freight RR to get its head around. Also, some real benefit to the freight RR of emergency detour track. With separate HSR in the corridor, all the freight RR gets is a some small money up front and lots of liability. Maybe less track separation and real estate cost.<br /><br />The disadvantage is FRA.die.die.die. Too heavy, too slow, terrible fuel efficiency, over staffed, terrible operating cost, level boarding much less likely, bad operating culture (less than one day late is on time isn't it?), institutionalized sub-mediocrity, and likely Amtrak monopoly. Set "expectations" to "rock bottom".<br /><br />I think it is not a good idea. But it is an idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-9407957270513226082011-12-13T14:46:18.287-08:002011-12-13T14:46:18.287-08:00My assumption was that it would be something like ...<em>My assumption was that it would be something like the Caltrain blended plan, or the upgraded Altamont Corridor plan</em><br /><br />The Caltrain corridor is only 50 miles long. The high speed trains won't be very high speed. If there is a freight train moving at 55 every hour or so and a conventional passenger train moving at 110 every hour or so and you want to blast through at 220 between Stockton and Bakersfield there's going to 2 or 3 conventional trains to pass and 4 or 5 freight trains to pass. Unless you want to four track lot of it everything has to run with Japanese like precision all the time. Even the Japanese would tell you that it wouldn't be a good idea. <br />..and if there's a train that gets you from Stockton to Bakersfield in a little over an hour why would anyone take the more expensive train that takes 2 hours?Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-92231276283111616932011-12-13T10:30:21.773-08:002011-12-13T10:30:21.773-08:00at 110 mph, you can use existing Amtrak equipment ...<em>at 110 mph, you can use existing Amtrak equipment which is 100% compatible with freight trains</em><br /><br />Ah, you want to use FRA dinotrains and force a transfer. I guess that's doable, but I thought we were trying to build a modern passenger rail network? My assumption was that it would be something like the Caltrain blended plan, or the upgraded Altamont Corridor plan, with non-compliant electric equipment being able to move between the HSR mainline and the slower Central Valley line. That would be more attractive, but in the current regulatory environment probably not much cheaper than full fat HSR.<br /><br /><em>Of course, an I5 route is not so great for Fresno or Merced, where drive time would be more like 45 minutes.</em><br /><br /><a href="http://g.co/maps/twwde" rel="nofollow">Wow.</a> How fast do you drive?<br /><br /><em>But if the cheaper I5 route makes funds available for Sac and Stockton service, then this is still a reasonable engineering trade-off.</em><br /><br />If we're talking cost/benefit, we should start by eliminated the spending that produces no operational benefit rather than the spending that does. As Clem has repeatedly demonstrated there are several billion dollars to be saved through value engineering on the peninsula alone.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12769996235446036041noreply@blogger.com