tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post8576435869579503787..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: The Tao of TimetablesClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-79100667060702134042013-02-06T07:13:33.479-08:002013-02-06T07:13:33.479-08:00I wouldn't say that 180 km/h (110 mph) for a f...I wouldn't say that 180 km/h (110 mph) for a fast regional service or 200 km/h for a high-speed service in a suburban area are unreasonable. 160 km/h (~100 mph) is probably a bit more standard as a top speed for German RE-type trains, however. 200 km/h for high speed trains in the suburbs is definitely reasonable. Check out this <a href="http://carto.metro.free.fr/documents/CartoRerIdf.v2.3.pdf" rel="nofollow">Paris Region track map</a> (a pretty amaing resource generally). There are stretches of 200 km/h running through the urban area on the inner ends of TGV lines, but I agree that 160 km/h is a bit more common.Jonathanhttp://transitfutures.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57957028476514209892010-01-26T02:18:01.109-08:002010-01-26T02:18:01.109-08:00I know the FRA is sabotaging any good commuter rai...I know the FRA is sabotaging any good commuter rail attempt. What I'm complaining about is that Metrolink isn't trying to get waivers the way Caltrain is.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44827136391177585502010-01-25T13:29:33.548-08:002010-01-25T13:29:33.548-08:00"Blogger Alon Levy said...
SSFF is the ..."Blogger Alon Levy said...<br /><br /> SSFF is the only proposal on the table in the LA Basin, where there's no plan to bring Metrolink into the 21st century as there is for Caltrain."<br /><br />I think this is because most of the Metrolink lines are *major* freight lines, and the usual FRA types cannot conceive of a vehicle which could operate both on freight tracks and on high-speed tracks. :-P<br /><br />The Antelope Valley line might be converted to all-lightweight operation, as it is probably feasible to kick all freight off it (or replace it with specialized night-only freight trains or something), which would give four shared tracks in that area. It might also be possible to remove FRA-compliant freight from off the San Bernadino line, which is also lightly used. It's not feasible for the others, though, as they include the UP and BNSF mainlines and the only set of freight-usable tracks to San Diego.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-33386565972333887572010-01-25T13:22:42.275-08:002010-01-25T13:22:42.275-08:00Mr Mlynarik says "BART's top speed of 80m...Mr Mlynarik says "BART's top speed of 80mph in the exurbs ...isn't anything to sneeze at either"<br /><br /> Adirondacker12800 responds "It's something to go "meh" over. We'd have to find an New York Central or LIRR foamer to tell us when the first MUs topped 100. The first M1s were delivered in 1968. The M1/M2/M3s are rated at 100. Metro North's track in NY is 90 MPH track. I assume the expresses go 90 in NY."<br /><br />Blogger timz said...<br /><br />" MetroNorth NY to Croton-Harmon 32.2 mi 19 stops 68 min"<br /><br />There are very comfortable dwell times, so that's about 19 minutes in dwell. Yes, the trains are hitting 90 mph.<br /><br /> "The express schedules don't pin you in your seat either:<br />NY to Croton-Harmon 32.2 mi one-stop 43 min start-to-start"<br /><br />And there we go. The trains have to go reasonably slowly in the Park Avenue tunnels from Grand Central to 125th Street, and very very slowly across the Harlem River and along its curves (track straightening would be impossible at the bottom of a cliff next to the river), and don't start hitting high speeds until north of Yonkers, so yes, a 45mph average reflects 90 mph running.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-53467327236598639892010-01-25T13:09:25.897-08:002010-01-25T13:09:25.897-08:00" Alon Levy said...
Okay, so Spain is qu..." Alon Levy said...<br /><br /> Okay, so Spain is quadrupling the tracks. Good for Spain."<br /><br />Actually, they're *sextupling* them. But this one set of three tunnels is planned to carry every high-speed service in the entire *country* plus all the "conventional" intercity trains going through Madrid plus the majority of the Madrid commuter network -- and Spain has *two different track gauges*, which makes the problem a lot more difficult.<br /><br />Anonymous wrote:<br />"I want to go back to the assumption that Caltrain will be on low platform. If they actually were compatible with HSR, which problems would go away?"<br /><br />1 -- bottlenecks approaching the Transbay Terminal. This could be managed with three platforms and two tracks on the approach. This would not solve the curve radius problem.<br /><br />2 -- ability to practically run semi-expresses with more stops than the HSR super-express trains and fewer than the Caltrain locals. This becomes very difficult, and causes track obstructions and bottlenecks, if the express and local platforms are entirely separate heights. This is really very valuable.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-42527837399703694452010-01-25T12:56:08.051-08:002010-01-25T12:56:08.051-08:00Spokker:
"For example, LA will have a lot o...Spokker: <br /><br />"For example, LA will have a lot of connecting transit to HSR, but it'll be slow and meandering crappy light rail."<br /><br />It'll give you better trip times than the network of super-meandering undersized tube trains and half-hourly-or-worse surface rail in London.<br /><br />LA's been doing quite well with its rail design really, and will end up with an excellent network. Much better than most of the US -- look to San Francisco for real incompetence. Or Boston. Or Chicago.<br /><br />That said, until the California state government is fixed to eliminate the 2/3 rule and make government *possible*, California is really in trouble. And until the god-damned US Senate is fixed (eliminating the filibuster is a bare minimum), the US as a whole is in serious trouble.<br /><br />LA City government? Doing fine, really.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57771393976113150792010-01-25T12:50:41.212-08:002010-01-25T12:50:41.212-08:00Richard Mlynarik said...
"In civilized pa...Richard Mlynarik said... <br />"In civilized parts of the world 200kmh isn't rammed through the middle of suburbs."<br /><br />Wrong. Unless you consider the United Kingdom uncivilized.<br /><br />It's practically impossible to build a railway line anywhere in England without going through the middle of suburbs, and the trains do hit 125 mph *in* London suburbs on what are essentially 19th century alignments.<br /><br />Of course they didn't have to widen the ROWs because they were very wide to start with. <br /><br />But also, they were sometimes rammed right through housing originally in the 19th century. Though perhaps they weren't civilized back then either?neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38479527664956164312010-01-18T21:38:59.018-08:002010-01-18T21:38:59.018-08:00The four-quadrant gate rule is there to protect dr...<em>The four-quadrant gate rule is there to protect drivers, not trains.</em><br /><br />Yes, even "lightweight" trains will win any argument they have with an automobile. The main difference between a collision at 30 MPH and one at 60 or 90 or 125 is how long the debris trail along the tracks is going to be. Even trolley cars.... <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYcAdirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19309661589781415372010-01-18T20:25:07.937-08:002010-01-18T20:25:07.937-08:00DE:
I don't know what the FRA rules for nonco...DE:<br /><br />I don't know what the FRA rules for noncompliant trains are. I believe compliance is only required for lines sharing tracks with freight, though. Non-compliant light rail lines do have many grade crossings, so the rules may be the same.<br /><br />The compliant EMUs of the LIRR and Metro-North have some grade-crossings as well. They're third rail-powered so the speed is inherently limited, but I don't think there's a special rule for EMUs, again.<br /><br />The four-quadrant gate rule is there to protect drivers, not trains. If the train is supposed to withstand an impact with a freight train, it should withstand an impact with a car.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91008876104017689982010-01-18T17:30:36.843-08:002010-01-18T17:30:36.843-08:00Thanks for that link, which got clipped
http://ti...Thanks for that link, which got clipped<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/ybfsor4<br /><br />Indeed it does propose to schedule trains making five stops between San Jose and SF in 57 minutes-- which isn't ridiculous, but allows for almost no delay. Far as we know they never actually tried to run that schedule?Timznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6975534382887272442010-01-18T12:53:14.442-08:002010-01-18T12:53:14.442-08:00"When Caltrain planed additional baby bullet ..."When Caltrain planed additional baby bullet in 2005, thier first proposal was 57 minutes, 6 stops. (SF, Milbrae, San Mateo, RWC, PA and Sunnyvale). <br /><br />Please see here.<br />http://web.archive.org/web/20060218063231/www.caltrain.com/pdf/Planning_for_the_Future/weekday_timetable_7_1_05.pdf<br /><br />This was so called "Super 88" schedule. However, this proposal had been modified to 96 train when most of station saw reduced service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-64464985188719255402010-01-18T12:29:19.442-08:002010-01-18T12:29:19.442-08:00"When Caltrain planed additional baby bullet ..."When Caltrain planed additional baby bullet in 2005, thier first proposal was 57 minutes, 6 stops. (SF, Milbrae, San Mateo, RWC, PA and Sunnyvale). This proposed time no longer can be found from web site but was listed in new archive."<br /><br />A few months (?) before the expresses started in 2004, Caltrain published their "Draft Proposed Service Levels", showing five expresses each way, all stopping at Millbrae-Hillsdale-PA-MV, and some stopping at 22nd St as well. The four-stop schedule was 57 min, the five-stop was 59, same as now.Timznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-20475965246400621482010-01-17T17:02:50.552-08:002010-01-17T17:02:50.552-08:00Caltrain is operated by Amtrak staff, so I never s...Caltrain is operated by Amtrak staff, so I never said they were an efficient outfit.<br /><br />One example.<br /><br />Train 368 (Baby Bullet) arrived Tamien 5:39. This trainset depart to San Francisco as Train 285, from Tamien 6:24. Engine, Bombardia coach and crews stays at the empty station for 45 minutes without generating any revenue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-23426710446626974902010-01-17T11:08:36.450-08:002010-01-17T11:08:36.450-08:00Grade crossings are compatible with speeds of up t...<i>Grade crossings are compatible with speeds of up to 125 mph according to US law, as long as they're protected by an impenetrable barrier. Up to 110 mph, four-quadrant gates are enough.</i><br /><br />US law mainly deals with FRA-compliant tanks. What about light-weight EMU, which is what Caltrain would like to run? <br /><br />Most likely FRA would require heavy and useless locomotive plonked at both ends of the train. Actually, they may even require this for far lower speeds too...Drunk Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818695817782985523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-13143908266100686932010-01-17T10:58:49.818-08:002010-01-17T10:58:49.818-08:00Don't forget about service frequencies.
They ...<i>Don't forget about service frequencies.</i><br /><br />They are not required for higher service frequencies.<br /><br />(Let the road users pay for the grade-separation if too impatient to wait at crossing gates.)Drunk Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818695817782985523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-26023931539191581062010-01-16T23:53:07.630-08:002010-01-16T23:53:07.630-08:00Grade crossings are compatible with speeds of up t...Grade crossings are compatible with speeds of up to 125 mph according to US law, as long as they're protected by an impenetrable barrier. Up to 110 mph, four-quadrant gates are enough.<br /><br />While HSR lines never have grade crossings, HSR trains running on legacy track at lower speed do have grade crossings, occasionally. Rail operators try to eliminate them as much as possible, but they don't always consider grade crossing elimination to be essential to service. On busy lines they just keep the road closed off to cars for much of rush hour. The Chuo Line still has grade crossings in Tokyo, though JR East is currently implementing grade separations.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-90846702675939852742010-01-16T22:24:06.791-08:002010-01-16T22:24:06.791-08:00Don't forget about service frequencies.Don't forget about service frequencies.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91468313000608129762010-01-16T22:17:20.480-08:002010-01-16T22:17:20.480-08:00Grade crossings suck anyway. With horns, accidents...<i>Grade crossings suck anyway. With horns, accidents, suicides, and long closures which will only get worse as traffic volumes increase, you might as well remove them when you can find a funding source to do so.</i><br /><br />Let's be careful and not overstate the benefits of grade separation. The only technical problem solved by grade-separation is to permit train speeds greater than 90mph. <br /><br />Grade crossings do not prevent suicides. They are not needed to eliminate horn blowing. They are not cost-effective for reducing accidents.Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38959632933142961892010-01-16T20:40:12.354-08:002010-01-16T20:40:12.354-08:00Grade crossings suck anyway. With horns, accident...Grade crossings suck anyway. With horns, accidents, suicides, and long closures which will only get worse as traffic volumes increase, you might as well remove them when you can find a funding source to do so. Regardless of how the 4 track shared corridor works out, CalTrain will still reap the benefits of grade separations, electrification, and the DTX tunnel, all paid for by HSR.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30269379089074423662010-01-16T16:05:46.804-08:002010-01-16T16:05:46.804-08:00Schedule and service featherbedding form Amtrak st...Schedule and service featherbedding form Amtrak staff??? Cozy railroad union inefficiencies??? Never! Simply unheard of... ;-)<br /><br /><i>"The dirty little secret is that the improvements necessary to achieve fast rail service (both Caltrain and HSR) on the Peninsula don't actually require that much investment, can be efficiently achieved in a timely manner, and won't tear up the whole community in the process."<br /><br />Happy news! I can see why it's a secret-- GM and the oil barons are suppressing it-- but why is it a dirty secret?</i><br /><br />It's a dirty secret because the contractor-led CHSRA doesn't want the public to know that fast train service can be implemented quite affordably and quickly on the Peninsula without deeply disruptive, decade-long construction scars along the entire corridor. The contractors stand to make many hundreds of $millions in profit by building elaborate four-track grade separations and other overbuilt structures at total public expense. This is why CHSRA seeks to keep the inflated pre-2009 business plan ridership and traffic numbers for the Peninsula EIR: the hypothetical but highly unrealistic prospect of super-frequent trains will require total grade separation of the corridor. The far more realistic scenario -- yet still very optimistic, however -- is that the Peninsula will never have the travel demand for more than 4 HSR tph and 8 Caltrain tph in each direction at the absolute maximum peak hour (not daily average, just the daily peak), and with a more manageable traffic load, grade separations are really only a luxury and can be implemented gradually as necessary. Terminal stations don't need to be so big. Off-peak traffic will be considerably less too, and 2 HSR tph and 4 Caltrain tph will be the typical peak until at least 2030. It will take many decades of growth for traffic volumes on the Peninsula to reach 4 HSR tph and 8 Caltrain tph at the peak hour, but the public is intentionally kept in the dark on this. Improved grade crossings will be quite adequate for traffic levels over the next several decades, as strategic grade separations can be gradually implemented as actual traffic levels justify. Shutting down a minor street crossing for a peak hour rail commute really shouldn't be hard either, but this doesn't translate into profit for CHSRA's for-profit contractors, who are running the show with the help of some sleazy politicians. <br /><br />It would be happy news indeed if a brave politician or political movement actually stood up to CHSRA's incompetence and lack of contractor oversight and demanded an efficient, cost-effective project that met the realistic future travel demands on the corridor.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-4251858207220532222010-01-16T15:58:51.433-08:002010-01-16T15:58:51.433-08:00Timz, the bullets have longer dwell times because ...Timz, the bullets have longer dwell times because so many people are entering and exiting at the stations along with the cyclists and occasional wheelchair user. Since Caltrain doesn't have level boarding, this adds to the dwell time, and if a bullet is stuck with the older, high-floor, single door gallery cars the station stops are even longer.Jarrett Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459396868012776121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-80648815273681105332010-01-16T14:41:29.683-08:002010-01-16T14:41:29.683-08:00SSFF is the only proposal on the table in the LA B...SSFF is the only proposal on the table in the LA Basin, where there's no plan to bring Metrolink into the 21st century as there is for Caltrain.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36345529671423552082010-01-16T14:23:37.225-08:002010-01-16T14:23:37.225-08:00Bureaucrats shouldn't be making technical deci...Bureaucrats shouldn't be making technical decisions. Come to think of it, they probably shouldn't be making financial decisions either. Actually, maybe they shouldn't be making any decisions at all...Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71764766514093047042010-01-16T14:00:15.954-08:002010-01-16T14:00:15.954-08:00FFSS or SSFF makes perfect sense. You just need to...FFSS or SSFF makes perfect sense. You just need to think about it from standpoint of a bureaucrat.<br /><br />Draw a line in the ballast, Caltrain has responsibility for everything to the left, CHSRA for everything to the right. Give them separate terminals, ticketing, platforms, and voila! World-class shared <i>inter-modal</i> infrastructure -- with no doubts about who is responsible for what.<br /><br />Just imagine, how much simpler this make life for the bureaucrat. No finger pointing, no complexity with keeping to a designated train slot, no worries over how to share revenues. Life couldn't be simpler (well, not for the users...).Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85192146679144327052010-01-16T13:58:55.286-08:002010-01-16T13:58:55.286-08:00"50 minutes [SF-SJ with five stops]is very mu..."50 minutes [SF-SJ with five stops]is very much possible and has been achieved during smooth running."<br /><br />I'm not a regular rider, but my guess is the five-stop expresses are not better than even money to complete their runs in the scheduled 59 minutes. (I mistakenly said 57 minutes, above; that's the four-stop schedule.)<br /><br />It's puzzling-- why does Caltrain insist on running "inefficiently", when they could make the run in a smooth 50 minutes? Probably the conductor holds the train while he strolls over to the donut shop, and the engineer ignores the highball while he finishes his crossword, and the dispatcher's dozing so the signals are red...<br /><br />"The dirty little secret is that the improvements necessary to achieve fast rail service (both Caltrain and HSR) on the Peninsula don't actually require that much investment, can be efficiently achieved in a timely manner, and won't tear up the whole community in the process."<br /><br />Happy news! I can see why it's a secret-- GM and the oil barons are suppressing it-- but why is it a dirty secret?Timznoreply@blogger.com