tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post8779038706250764654..comments2024-03-25T08:35:51.364-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Alternatives Analysis Analysis, Part 2Clemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-31053093483919113832010-05-08T14:55:40.105-07:002010-05-08T14:55:40.105-07:00And it prevents you from running empty trains...And it prevents you from running empty trains...Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-59846335816921898042010-05-08T08:17:25.580-07:002010-05-08T08:17:25.580-07:00If anything, having people commute in both directi...If anything, having people commute in both directions is advantageous. Like others have said, it prevents the trains from piling up at one end of the line during midday hours, and consequently, needing a place to store them.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-54943380127889288492010-05-07T16:10:06.722-07:002010-05-07T16:10:06.722-07:00"there's too much frequency of reverse pe..."<i>there's too much frequency of reverse peak.</i>"<br /><br />Commuter railroading at its finest!<br /><br />All you need is a 30 platform station in the CBD to store all the trains that make one trip inbound, pile up there in the morning, sit around doing nothing all day, and then drain back out to the provinces at night. Plus, a big clubhouse (pool tables, bunk beds, cigar rooms, big screen TVs, etc) for the Amtrak guys and girls to while away the midday langeurs. Done and done.<br /><br />So simple. So elegant. Why don't the backwards peoples unworthy enough to have been born overseas understand the beauty of the timetables of The Founding Fathers? What's wrong with them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36430889160440153892010-05-07T13:29:24.630-07:002010-05-07T13:29:24.630-07:00"the latter [reverse peak service?] is partic..."the latter [reverse peak service?] is particularly detrimental towards Caltrain's reliability."<br /><br />Why?Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-50123933081036764942010-05-07T04:44:29.448-07:002010-05-07T04:44:29.448-07:00Slower travel times are bad enough, but
what reall...Slower travel times are bad enough, but<br />what really gets me in the proposed Caltrain schedule<br />is that most trains stop short of the TBT.<br /><br />Ack!<br /><br />I don't think there's demand for 10 tph if<br />the new trains don't stop at the TBT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15505988207787763582010-05-06T22:35:41.733-07:002010-05-06T22:35:41.733-07:00Caltrain's demand may not be symmetrical, but ...Caltrain's demand may not be symmetrical, but there's a lot more reverse-peak demand than in most other "commuter" systems. And with the way the normal and reverse peaks line up, with the reverse peak being a bit later, inbound peak trains get turned to become outbound reverse peak trains. The main reverse peak trains don't have any huge effect on reliability, because after they finish their runs they're parked for the afternoon or evening. It's really the regular peak that has the big reliability impact on the reverse peak. And the key point of the "86%" number is that demand is distributed approximately evenly at the south end of the line, with San Jose having a level of demand similar to other stations, rather than being the huge destination that SF is. As for talk of the NEC and Jersey Avenue: there's a simple reason for things being that way. New Brunswick is the end of the contiguous suburbanized zone, and from there it's over 10 miles to the next station at Princeton Junction. It's a logical place to have that break in service. The Peninsula really is somewhat atypical in that there's some 60 miles of unbroken urbanization along the line.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-41580098600777040512010-05-06T16:00:15.348-07:002010-05-06T16:00:15.348-07:00Sorry, I guess clearly skewed was a poor choice of...Sorry, I guess clearly skewed was a poor choice of words.<br /><br />What I meant is there's too much frequency of reverse peak. I personally believe those are the trains that Caltrain should have cut, not the midday ones. While the former would have maintained reasonable reverse peak service, the latter is particularly detrimental towards Caltrain's reliability.Caelestorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13679020456289856342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-82745671543737194162010-05-06T10:41:09.387-07:002010-05-06T10:41:09.387-07:00Anon, the reverse peak trains don't require a ...Anon, the reverse peak trains don't require a lot of extra capacity. They free up terminal track space in SF, and Caltrain would have to pay the train operator no matter what. In contrast, peak trains require more equipment, more salaries to pay, and more track capacity on the line and at the terminal.<br /><br />The problem with Caltrain's peak service isn't frequency. It's speed, which is inversely related to frequency, and transit connections in SF.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-9726460997796384322010-05-05T21:53:23.611-07:002010-05-05T21:53:23.611-07:00I agree with this point: there is way too much rev...I agree with this point: there is way too much reverse peak service currently.<br /><br />I suggest Caltrain to re-allocate some of reverse peak service into traditional peak service. Very few reverse peak train can fill the capacity. They can only filled with bicycle space. Lot of bicycle means longer dwell time. <br />On the other hand, Major destination of "Traditional peak" is downtown SF, bicycle is not a requirement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-89292833048824081902010-05-05T14:46:17.913-07:002010-05-05T14:46:17.913-07:00The market is clearly skewed one way, and there is...<i>The market is clearly skewed one way, and there is way too much reverse peak service currently.</i><br /><br />The market is nearly symmetric. The Peninsula is not the NEC: San Francisco is not as core-dominated as Manhattan and does not have as good a connection between the train and the job centers, and Silicon Valley is a far larger job center than Middlesex and Mercer Counties.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18857278369653293752010-05-05T11:43:06.059-07:002010-05-05T11:43:06.059-07:00I agree that Caltrain should adopt an NEC-style li...I agree that Caltrain should adopt an NEC-style line with Sunnyvale taking the role of Jersey Avenue. The market is clearly skewed one way, and there is way too much reverse peak service currently.<br /><br />At this rate though, it may be better for CAHSR to take over the entire row/commuter services and abolish Caltrain. Incompatible heights is one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. Then again it's really hard to trust public agencies nowadays. All the competent people are probably in the private sector for good reason.<br /><br />In the end though, I just want BART off the Peninsula at all costs.Caelestorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13679020456289856342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45859125784859884752010-05-04T05:45:54.539-07:002010-05-04T05:45:54.539-07:00From here: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010...From here: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/29/san-diego-plans-extension-to-its-trolley-network-mostly-skipping-over-inner-city/#comment-42693<br /><br /><i>Based on the conversations I’ve had with people at FRA, the agency is more likely to consider such track sharing in the context of PTC than you might think. This administration recognizes the problems with the existing rules.</i>djasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12048881502455652892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35458096450414755052010-05-03T19:06:23.480-07:002010-05-03T19:06:23.480-07:00But we're supposed to learn from past mistakes...But we're supposed to learn from past mistakes, not repeat them ad nauseum...Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-36168000880076785732010-05-03T17:02:18.236-07:002010-05-03T17:02:18.236-07:00Hey, just remember that worse and stupider design ...Hey, just remember that worse and stupider design errors have been made in railways back in the 19th century (Parliament's choice of the initial London-Dover routing comes to mind, as do the 'gauge wars'), and things survived. <br /><br />Heck, for an extreme example look at the decision to use private railways with disconnected and competing stations, instead of a national public railway system.<br /><br />Not that they shouldn't fix the design problems, but it does look like it will be an improvement over the current state *despite* the design problems.<br /><br />"What is Caltrain doing wrong if it projects maintenance needs to be so high?"<br />Is that just vehicle maintenance, or does it include track & catenary maintenance?neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-42337954053921244812010-05-03T10:36:13.991-07:002010-05-03T10:36:13.991-07:00Caltrain is adding some signals in between current...Caltrain is adding some signals in between current signals. Theolically, Caltrain can add more trains, since signal spacing are narrower. <br />For trainset for such additional trains, Caltrain already have two set of extra trains which are idling both SF and SJ termical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91421059192706945382010-05-02T20:55:04.880-07:002010-05-02T20:55:04.880-07:00If they go with electric trains it will. Going wit...<i>If they go with electric trains it will. Going with electric trains doesn't depend on grade separations though.</i><br /><br />I see we are once again in violent agreement.<br /><br />The San Bruno grade separation can only be justified on tenuous grounds of safety, but at the going rate it would make more sense to spend that quarter billion dollars elsewhere (to save many more lives), unless the project had a realistic chance of saving 30 to 40 lives in the foreseeable future. Then it might make fiscal sense.<br /><br />I am singling out San Bruno as an example of Caltrain's misguided and haphazard capital investment 'strategery'. A better strategy than whatever they've got would be to establish a clear set of published, quantitative service metrics against which all capital projects would be judged, in order to direct scarce capital dollars where they are most needed.<br /><br />I'll have more to say on service metrics in an upcoming post.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-23004196370825637132010-05-02T19:42:24.693-07:002010-05-02T19:42:24.693-07:00San Bruno grade separation that adds ZERO value fo...<em>San Bruno grade separation that adds ZERO value for the train riding public. It won't reduce trip times, </em><br /><br />It certainly will reduce trip times... once Caltrain get level boarding. <br /><br /><br /><em>won't increase train frequencies,</em> <br /><br />Frequencies are a political/economic decision and rarely depend on the infrastructure until the infrastructure is at capacity. <br /><br /><em>won't reduce operating costs, </em><br /><br />If they go with electric trains it will. Going with electric trains doesn't depend on grade separations though. <br /><br /><em>won't increase ridership or revenue.</em><br /><br />Again that's more a political and economic decision. <br /><br /><br /><em> Worse, it will sabotage design options for HSR.</em><br /><br />The drawings in the Community Presentation look like a standard local station on a four track railroad, two side platforms serving the local tracks on the outside. It implies SFFS which a system used all over the world by most operators. Horrible isn't it?Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85499318065884797522010-05-02T16:20:51.695-07:002010-05-02T16:20:51.695-07:00What particularly bothers me is that if electrific...<i>What particularly bothers me is that if electrification is supposed to be the only way to save Caltrain, why aren't they putting all their capital funding in that direction?</i><br /><br />You're not the only one bothered by this.<br /><br />Caltrain claims to be on its deathbed, and is plowing a <b>quarter of a billion dollars</b> into a San Bruno grade separation that adds ZERO value for the train riding public. It won't reduce trip times, won't increase train frequencies, won't reduce operating costs, won't increase ridership or revenue. Worse, it will sabotage design options for HSR.<br /><br />This almost makes the Oakland Airport Connector look good!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-44166832268022432372010-05-02T16:04:01.608-07:002010-05-02T16:04:01.608-07:00I doubt electrification would "save" Cal...I doubt electrification would "save" Caltrain. I think the only thing that would save it is maintaining the proper level of funding for the system. Caltrain should instead be coming out and saying, "If the Bay Area doesn't want to pay for the system, then there will be no system."<br /><br />Either we as a society value good public transportation or we don't. It's that simple.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-53314281778311576012010-05-02T15:10:43.626-07:002010-05-02T15:10:43.626-07:00Again, would they be able to do it without demolis...<em>Again, would they be able to do it without demolishing everything they just built? </em><br /><br />Sometimes it's cheaper to demolish everything and rebuild than it is to try to save things. The fast side could be used unaltered, The slow side would have major changes. Building it SFFS in 2012 and ripping it all out in 2014 would be really really stupid.Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85250736065645344192010-05-02T14:54:25.989-07:002010-05-02T14:54:25.989-07:00Again, would they be able to do it without demolis...Again, would they be able to do it without demolishing everything they just built?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34084243165382609202010-05-02T14:50:02.486-07:002010-05-02T14:50:02.486-07:00But would they be able to do so?
Spend enough mo...<em>But would they be able to do so? </em><br /><br />Spend enough money they could do anything......Adirondacker12800https://www.blogger.com/profile/17108712932656586797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-39563432821477666662010-05-02T14:30:28.737-07:002010-05-02T14:30:28.737-07:00As in, I don't think FFSS would be a good idea...As in, I don't think FFSS would be a good idea, but even dumber would be to have to demolish the entire station to rearrange things for FFSS.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73278704707915094032010-05-02T14:30:15.036-07:002010-05-02T14:30:15.036-07:00What particularly bothers me is that if electrific...What particularly bothers me is that if electrification is supposed to be the only way to save Caltrain, why aren't they putting all their capital funding in that direction? Even if they're counting on HSRA to step in with more funding, it still makes sense to get the project going as quickly as possible, and finish as much of it as possible with the money that they do have. Even electrification as far as Redwood City could be useful and would allow Caltrain to get by with a much smaller diesel fleet (probably half its current size, or less) if they restructured their service. And a Caltrain that has full service to Redwood City and only commuter hour express service beyond that is still preferable to a totally commuter-only or entirely bankrupt operation, which are the apparent alternatives.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30091436476287488492010-05-02T14:24:26.077-07:002010-05-02T14:24:26.077-07:00Well, yes, I don't see why they would want to....Well, yes, I don't see why they would want to. But would they be able to do so?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326948451529910432noreply@blogger.com