The day has finally come! Caltrain is about to certify the environmental clearance documents for the electrification project, achieving a key milestone on the path to "shovel readiness."Note that electrification is different and separate from HSR, although it is closely related and serves as a key enabler of HSR. The present certification has to do with Caltrain's own long-standing plans to convert from diesel power to clean, fast and quiet 25 kV overhead electric power, regardless of HSR. For those who remember, the Draft EIR was published in 2004, and the idea of electrification dates back to the 1980s.
The final EIR is posted here.
The question on everybody's mind must be, why electrify before new HSR tracks are added and grade separations are built? The 185-page volume containing responses to public comments gives the following justification, among other reasons:
over three-quarters of electrification’s projected costs are expenses that do not depend on the specific track alignment; these include vehicles, power substations, and maintenance yards. Therefore, even if the entire track alignment were relocated as part of building the ultimate four-track, grade-separated railroad, in the worst case only about one-quarter of the total electrification cost for that segment of the route may be wasted. But such waste would be minimized. Design plans or conceptual plans for the ultimate alignment would be used in the detailed planning for electrification to reduce the amount of additional electrification work needed as the ultimate alignment was completed. In addition, virtually all of the OCS equipment (with the exception of the foundations, OCS conductors and any underground duct banks) can be re-used, thereby further reducing any waste and associated costs.Congratulations for passing this important milestone.
Posts
Not that they have the funding to electrify without HSR anyway...
ReplyDeleteClem, now that Caltrain has the green light to pursue EMUs, in a perfect world, which rolling stock do you think Caltrain will go after?
ReplyDelete...except they still haven't resolved some key issues, particularly platform height
ReplyDeleteI'd hate to see Caltrain rush in and buy a bunch of shiny expensive rolling stock that can't interface with future HSR platforms.
It's just the sort of thing that would happen too
I'd hate to see Caltrain rush in and buy a bunch of shiny expensive rolling stock that can't interface with future HSR platforms.
ReplyDeleteYou don't buy rolling stock this early in the game. It would be like going to the car dealer and ordering a car today for delivery in 2017. Platform height doesn't drive where you place the electrification. Where you put the platforms does but not how high they are.
What is the timeframe these days for a UIC compliant trainset for a particular delivery date?
ReplyDeleteI need to proofread. That should be "timeframe these days for ordering UIC compliant trainsets."
ReplyDeleteI don't know anything about the railroad technical industry, but I think they should look into the Siemens ET422 trainset:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redrockrail.com/Inno/DSC_3085.jpg
It's high floor so that means platforms might be more compatible with HSR on all tracks. But then again, I don't know what the true dimensions are; it just seems like it might work.
The extra doors would help with loading and unloading too and make Caltrain more of a regional rapid transit service instead of a clumsy commuter line.
@Jarret For commuter's benefit, the solution needs to be a double-decker to maximize the number of seats and tables. In the morning's, most people are on their laptops. More doors means less seats and tables. I personally feel that 2 doors should suffice for most stops.
ReplyDeleteIt should be double decker laid out like the bombardier cars with the doors at the mid-level for high level platforms.
The traffic on the line doesn't justify double deckers. Just order a standard gauge version of one of the regional trains used in Japan. They weigh half of what the Europeans build, and they're more reliable.
ReplyDelete@ Alon Levy
ReplyDeleteAnd Caltrain would have to jump through even more hoops to get th waiver from the FRA. At some point you have to leave good enough alone, at least on this issue.
Caltrain is already in the process of getting waivers from the FRA.
ReplyDelete@Alon Levy
ReplyDeleteThey run double-deck trains now. If they improve schedules after electrification the ridership will increase. You do understand they are trying to run a commuter railroad, right? They're not going to buy single-decker cars just because they might be compatible with whatever equipment CHSRA eventually orders.
You do understand they are trying to run a commuter railroad, right?
ReplyDelete"Commuter railroad" is exactly the stereotype we should be trying to avoid. In the US there seem to be all these artificial stereotypes of what trains should look like and act like... "light rail" (slow, street running, ding ding!), "heavy rail" (frequent, level boarding), "commuter rail" (stainless steel, everyone sits, aaaall aboooard! tickets please!), etc. Each one of those stereotypes carries with it a bunch of baggage that interferes with a clear-eyed determination of what the railroad should actually look like and do.
In particular, the single-deck versus double-deck issue is not the slam dunk that you make it out to be. I'll have a post on this soon.
"Rapid transit" with both local and express service is the term Caltrain should be going for, and that precludes "BART" and all its design dysfunctions.
ReplyDelete"Commuter railroad" is exactly the stereotype we should be trying to avoid.
ReplyDeleteJust what is the stereotype?
I think about what runs through Jamaica or Secaucus and my brain starts to hurt trying to think of a single stereotype. The only one I can think of is that they are filled with Dashing Dans and Danielles.
@Clem
ReplyDeleteIn particular, the single-deck versus double-deck issue is not the slam dunk that you make it out to be.
I'm looking forward to your post about this - as you've probably put more thought into the issue than I have. I didn't mean to imply it's a slam dunk, just that it's silly to advocate single deck cars based on the vague hope that boarding height might be compatible with whatever equipment CAHSR decides on. (and what happens if they go with Talgo or TGV duplex equipment, unlikely as that may be, both of which have relatively low boarding heights?) Not to mention AFAIK they're keeping the bombardier coaches around, so whatever they use will probably have to be compatible with them.
It's telling that a huge number of commuter rail systems have gone double-deck, at least where it fits within the loading gauge. Lengthening single deck trains gets very expensive, what with the large number of stations. Look at the enormous expense of modifying London's Thameslink route to handle 12-car trains - which has to be done since no one could come up with a design for a double-deck train that fit within British loading gauge and wouldn't have made passengers feel like they were entering a hobbit hole.
I also do think that commuter railroad is a valid designation for Caltrain, sure, passenger flow is a tad more complicated than a suburb-to-downtown-and-back rush hour tidal flow, but you don't want to build another commuter railroad posing as a heavy rail rapid transit system, like BART.
Eric, single deck EMU with 5 seats abreast (Bombardier Regina for example from UIC territory) has about the same capacity as double deck EMU with 4 seats abreast. Single deck EMU with four seats abreast has around 2/3 to 3/4 capacity of EMUs mentioned earlier.
ReplyDeleteThen you can make up for decreased train capacity by increasing train throughput.
@dejv
ReplyDeleteFirst, no. Adding an extra row of seats does not equal the added capacity of an upper deck. Maybe it comes close if you're talking about the old double-deck "gallery" cars, but they're a relatively inefficient use of space and no one builds those anymore. Not to mention the added excitement of commuters stumbling over each other to reach the window seat on the 3 seat side of the train. It's no more enjoyable on a commuter train than it is on a 737.
Second, you can't just "run more trains" - this is an expensive proposition.
Third, why?? HSR equipment comes in a wide variety of boarding heights, including some with fairly low floors, it's not like if Caltrain adopts whatever random design of high floor single deck equipment, this automatically makes it compatible with HSR.
Here again, we see that East coasters may not be best judge of best-practices for Caltrain out on the West coast.
ReplyDeleteA significant percentage of Caltrain ridership bring bicycles on-board, and double-deckers trainsets are not conducive for bike traffic.
Caltrain needs to implement industry best-practices: large number of doors, large vestibule areas around the doorways, level-platform boarding, easy movement between cars. These are factors that reduce dwell time for all passenger types.
Re Electrification:
ReplyDeleteDespite what those CalTrain EIR docs say, I still think it's bad idea to invest in infrastructure that may need to be significantly modified so soon after deployment.
In any case, electrification is so long overdue. Having a completed EIR/EIS for it puts us much closer to where we want to be.
In the US there seem to be all these artificial stereotypes of what trains should look like and act like...Each one of those stereotypes carries with it a bunch of baggage
Great point. I've long felt that way as well, and think it's a big reason why BART devours all of the Bay Area's transit money, leaving CalTrain and others withering on the vine.
The perception is BART is sleek, modern, and frequent. While CalTrain is old, slow, and infrequent.
The Baby Bullet has helped a lot, but we have a long way to go in changing perceptions.
Re Double-deck EMUs:
I think CalTrain should go for double-deck EMUs (and at the same platform height as HSR). It allows CalTrain to share platforms, have high capacity (for people and bikes), without the expense of very high frequencies. CalTrain only needs 4 tph (15 mins) as an all-day baseline metro service with an additional 2 (maybe 4) more tph during commute hours.
That's a lot of trains. It's high enough to cross that perceived threshold for metro service, where people just show up and don't worry about timetables (boosting ridership). CalTrain is unlikely to need 10+ tph, nor would you really want that, as operating costs increase dramatically.
A significant percentage of Caltrain ridership bring bicycles on-board, and double-deckers trainsets are not conducive for bike traffic.
There are a lot of bikes, but I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, I think it's possibly the only way to accommodate both. How else would you get the space for both?
large number of doors, large vestibule areas around the doorways, level-platform boarding, easy movement between cars.
ReplyDeleteAll of those mean fewer seats, and in Caltrain's way of thinking they're designing for a certain peak capacity denominated in seats per hour.
But as a daily Caltrain bike commuter, I couldn't agree more!
A significant percentage of Caltrain ridership bring bicycles on-board
ReplyDeleteTeach them how to use MUNI. Bicycle restrictions on Caltrain are in effect in the morning on northbound trains and in the evening on southbound trains. That tells me that people are using their bicycles to replace MUNI.
The rather heavy use of bicycles on Caltrain is indeed to address "the first and last mile" problem of station access, but it's not just that Caltrain stops short of downtown SF at 4th and King. Almost all the Peninsula Caltrain stations have limited or non-existant transit connections, so riders tend to address the problem by riding their bikes to the station and then bringing them aboard to get to their final destination from the egress station.
ReplyDeleteThe single-decker and double-decker debate ultimately revolves around the design and needs of the system. I would like to see some double-decker cars specifically designed for bicycles on the lower level and passengers on the upper level, but they could also be coupled with normal single-decker cars that have efficient and easy boarding.
@Eric:
ReplyDeletesee the math:
- Bombardier's 7-car Spacium 3.06 achieves 405 seats in 94.3 m, yielding 4.29 seats/m. Longer 8-car set gets to 4.47 seats/m
- Doppelstockwagen from Bautzen have 108 seats in 26.8 m, yielding 4.03 seats per wagon. If I add another row of seats to upper deck to correct for american boxy clearance, I'll get to 121 seats, yielding 4.51 seats/m.
- NJT's multilevel with restrooms (to compare apples with apples) has 132 seats in 25.908 m, yielding 5.09 seats/m
So getting to the window in NJT's bilevel must really suck with such small seat pitch and plane-like seat arrangement. And don't forget about traction for those double-deckers, it either bites into space for passengers or you have to attach ~20 m loco to the train.
Minor floor/platform differences (up to some 100 mm/4 in) is no big deal, inclined ramps inside the vehicle can take care of it (this is common approach at all low-floor vehicles)
ETCS allows you 120s minimum headways. Assuming the top speed of trains is the same, trains have decent acceleration (0-100 mph in a minute) and train speed isn't limited by turnouts, you can safely go for 5 minute headways (2 min minimum + 2*1 min for acceleration/braking and 1 minute padding).
Higher number of less hungry trains is actually better energy-wise, it increases that regenerative-braking harvested energy can be used by another train (energy companies don't like, it's unpredictable and has low cos φ). It also flattens power consumption/time chart, making enegry companies even happier.
Almost all the Peninsula Caltrain stations have limited or non-existant transit connections, so riders tend to address the problem by riding their bikes
ReplyDeleteThat's one factor. Another more important factor is that the Bay Area (and areas to the south) is one of only five regions in the entire world that enjoy a Mediterranean climate. This inherently makes bicycle commuting more attractive than anywhere else in the US. Take it from me!
A lot of East Coast strap-hanger concepts simply don't apply around here, and Caltrain is to be applauded for recognizing that.
Caltrain has put up the agenda for this coming Thursday's Board Meeting. As part of the agenda, it has the draft minutes from the March meeting, which include some interesting information. Specifically, Bob Doty notes that the upcoming HSR alternatives analysis "will address very specifically the resolution of issues related to the Transbay Terminal option." Anyone heard anything about the issues that will be resolved?
ReplyDeleteA lot of East Coast strap-hanger concepts simply don't apply around here
ReplyDeleteIt's a passenger train, not a freight train, if they want to haul around their bicycle because they are too stupid or too special to use the bus, let them buy their bicycle a ticket. Or let them buy a folding bicycle that fits into the luggage spaces everybody else is using.
All of those mean fewer seats, and in Caltrain's way of thinking they're designing for a certain peak capacity denominated in seats per hour.
ReplyDeleteYep. And all those extra seats will be unoccupied during off-peak hours. As result, cycle commuters will be unable to board otherwise empty trains.
The idea of providing seats for all peak-hour traffic is inherently wasteful, not just in the case of bike access but for transit systems in general.
As result, cycle commuters will be unable to board otherwise empty trains.
ReplyDeletePeople carry bicycles get on trains run by other agencies, ones that don't have special accommodations for bicycles. They just don't allow it when the space the bicycle occupies could otherwise be filled with a fare paying passenger. Most of them allow it most of the day, just don't do it in the peak direction.
@dejv
ReplyDeletethe math we should see is that 3 seats is 50% more than 2, and reduces the aisle width.
Minor floor/platform differences (up to some 100 mm/4 in) is no big deal, inclined ramps inside the vehicle can take care of it (this is common approach at all low-floor vehicles)
In the US we have the ADA which does not allow this level of discrepancy between the platform and the train, whether or not you think is big deal.
Most of them allow it most of the day, just don't do it in the peak direction.
ReplyDeleteThat's precisely why it no longer qualifies as a bicycle commute. Rail + bike makes for an exceedingly fast, affordable, productive, healthy and green commute. I understand it's hard to get your head around it unless you've tried, so I can't blame you for scoffing.
Yep. And all those extra seats will be unoccupied during off-peak hours.
Right. Caltrain's average load factor is 40%.
I'm able to wrap my head around that a full sized bicycle being carried for free is taking up space that fare paying passengers could use. Which is why most agencies ban full sized bicycles in the peak direction.
ReplyDeleteThe East Bay has a different microclimate than the Peninsula but it's very very very similar to the climate on the Peninsula. The people in the East Bay manage to live with onerous restrictions that BART places on peak direction bicycle carriage.
I've seen the pictures of bicycles on Caltrain, most of them carrying tags for San Francisco, where there's this thing called MUNI which will carry you at very low cost to all corners of the city. Service is especially frequent during rush hours. Ya know... when the space bicycles take up could be filled with fare paying passengers. . .
People who want to nap on the train don't haul their mattress along with them nor do they expect to take up more than one seat. People who plan on working on the train don't drag their desk along with them. People who want to eat don't drag along a microwave and the kitchen table. . . A few commuter agencies still have bar service on the evening rush hour trains. The drinks aren't included in the ticket price.
. . Some of passengers bicycle to the station and are bright enough to leave the bicycle at the station. . . Considerate enough too, hauling a bicycle around in the midst of a rush hour crowd slows other passengers down, borders on rude.
People who can't figure out how to get around without hauling a full sized bike with them everywhere are cheap, stupid or very very extra special. Charge for carrying bicycles in the peak direction, the cheap ones will figure out how to do it without lugging the bike onto the train. The stupid ones might expend the effort to figure out MUNI. The special ones, well they are special and will pay the bicycle fare. Should be at least what the passenger fare would be if the passenger fare wasn't subsidized. I betcha that would discourage them from being so very extra special.
Another advantage of single-deck trains, beyond compatibility and bicycle-friendliness, is that there's a larger selection of products.
ReplyDelete"a larger selection of products."
ReplyDeleteWhat possible relevance could that have?
Caltrain employs the world's best electrification, signaling, track design, station design, civil engineering and rolling stock design professionals already. What could a bunch of train parts vendors have to contribute?
Caltrain has never ever ever had a rolling stock procurement in which more than one vendor had any chance of success, the bid documents having been specified by the world's best rolling stock design professionals to ensure that the best equipment from the best vendor would be available to provide the best service on the best tracks without any of that choice and uncertainly business.
The best railroaders don't need options. They already know exactly what's needed and they already know where to buy the best.
PS If you need any hints, look at the world's best electrification report just released by the world's best railroad designers. After a billion dollars spent on the project, the best result that they predict is that OPERATING COST will go UP, the same number of trains will be required to run the same service, the number of future trains per day has been cut back significantly (not much scope for Caltrain after express service is thrown under the bus when the world's best HSR line gets two dedicated tracks), and - get this - the trip time from San Jose to San Francisco with the best new equipment in the world (A.....m C.....a D.....x) will be TWO MINUTES FASTER than using the second-best equipment in the world (MPI MP36 + Nippon Sharyo gallery cars.)
We don't need options. We need bold decisive action. Follow the leaders!
I'm able to wrap my head around that a full sized bicycle being carried for free is taking up space that fare paying passengers could use.
ReplyDeleteThat is because you are a lurker posting from thousands of miles away have no clue about actual travel patterns.
Most bicycle overcrowding occurs in the (so-called) reverse-commute direction, southbound mornings and northbound evenings. These are on trains that are otherwise quite empty.
Caltrain ought to be able to accommodate these customers quite easily, but cannot due to archaic use of bike racks and double-deck cars.
Most bicycle overcrowding occurs in the (so-called) reverse-commute direction, southbound mornings and northbound evenings. These are on trains that are otherwise quite empty.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of "peak direction" isn't clear? You wanna carry your bicycle on a less than full train, go ahead.
If bicycle crowding is a problem in the reverse direction why does Caltrain restrict bicycle carriage northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening?
Why doesn't BART, that has similar climate, demographics and mass transit options to and from BART face the same problem?
Caltrain does not restrict bikes in either morning northbound trains nor southbound evening trains.
ReplyDelete@Eric: 5 is 25 % more than 4 and 3.2 m is enough to fit 5 seats abreast.
ReplyDeleteInclined planes inside the vehicle can be used to accomodate the difference between entrance edge (aligned to platform edge) and the rest of floor.
@adirondacker: so you'd prefer those biker to drive to the stations instead?
Ad size of selection: the generous loading gauge just asks for tailored body shells. It can be inexpensive even for low numbers cars, for example VR's 32 Flirts will be wider than the other Flirts. To keep costs down, it's important to use service proven traction equipment and bogies.
Caltrain ought to be able to accommodate these customers quite easily, but cannot due to archaic use of bike racks and double-deck cars.
ReplyDeleteAbility to handle bicycles is related to interior and door configuration, it has nothing to do with the number of floors on the car.
5 is 25 % more than 4 and 3.2 m is enough to fit 5 seats abreast.
3 seats side by side reduces accessibility, which is important in a commuter route with frequent stops. You don't seem to be able to understand this, so just bear with me. It also reduces standing room. I don't understand exactly why Caltrain would want to try to sell the idea of more crowded trains to commuters when the solution, double-deck cars, is both obvious and already in place. Not using double deck cars seems to be an important goal to you, but it isn't for the average Caltrain commuter.
Yes, the loading gauge means that the products won't be strictly off-the-shelf. So does the track gauge - there are multiple vendors in Japan that make good lightweight EMUs.
ReplyDelete3 seats side by side reduces accessibility, which is important in a commuter route with frequent stops. You don't seem to be able to understand this, so just bear with me. It also reduces standing room.
You'd think that the LIRR, Metro-North, and NJT would have folded if 2+3 seating had been so detrimental for commuters.
so you'd prefer those biker to drive to the stations instead?
ReplyDeleteLeave the bike at the station? I know it's done in California, I've seen the parked bikes in Berkeley.
"the solution, double-deck cars, is both obvious and already in place."
ReplyDeleteMaybe.
Maybe not.
The solution for running commuter railroads is also obvious and also already in place, too. Platforms 8 inches high, conductors with little blue hats who say "all board" and "highball on the green", off-peak headways of an hour or worse, peak hour headways of an hour at many stations, clanging bells, blasting horns, ... it's all so obvious.
You know is this were being happening in Can Do Capitalism Land the contract for Caltrain would be bid out and it would be up to the winning bidder to come up with the best equipment that cost the least to to buy and maintain while delivering the most attractive service (= revenue.)
But it seems like we're trapped Socialist Teabag Hell instead, where a bunch of railroaders who don't know about and don't care a damn about anything but what their grandpaws did get to dictate (nazis! commies!) how things have to be done. The solutions are obvious and already in place! Vee haff vayz uff doing thinks!
PS I anonymously personally don't have a clear opinion about the issue. I do think it should be thought about and rationally evaluated ... and I can bet you anything that thinking and evaluation are and will continue to be at near zero levels at Caltrain. No need for that high flautin' poindexter stuff when the solutions are obvious and already in place.
Leave the bike at the station? I know it's done in California, I've seen the parked bikes in Berkeley.
ReplyDeleteThese bikes address the first AND last mile problem of Caltrain trips. Bike-riders feel they need their bikes with them to get to their final destination, because local transit along the Peninsula is limited and poor. In theory, MUNI in SF could be good, but it suffers from severe mismanagement and labor dysfunction. The bicycle riders should pay to bring their bikes on Caltrain, and surveys have revealed some bike-rider willingness to pay assuming they get some decent service in return. A big issue right now is bike-riders being bumped from trains, which is obviously frustrating.
The battle to get bikes on BART was long and painful... so don't assume BART was or is bike-friendly.
The solution for running commuter railroads is also obvious and also already in place, too. Platforms 8 inches high, conductors with little blue hats who say "all board" and "highball on the green", off-peak headways of an hour or worse, peak hour headways of an hour at many stations, clanging bells, blasting horns, ... it's all so obvious.
ReplyDeleteWhoopsie! It was so important for you to be insulting and snide that you forgot to make an actual argument. Say caltrain gets rid of bi-levels and replaces them with more crowded single-level coaches. Please propose a marketing plan to convince Caltrain riders this is a good idea.
You'd think that the LIRR, Metro-North, and NJT would have folded if 2+3 seating had been so detrimental for commuters.
Ah, yes, if it works for New Yawk City, Da Greatest City in Da World, then it should work for the Bay Area. East Coast loading gauges mean certain routes can't handle double-deck coaches, so they have to solve the problem other ways. Again, say caltrain gets rid of bi-levels and replaces them with more crowded single-level coaches. Please propose a marketing plan to convince Caltrain riders this is a good idea.
Leave the bike at the station? I know it's done in California, I've seen the parked bikes in Berkeley.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley BART is a special case. The secure bike parking facility there only exists because some local bike advocates poured insane amounts of volunteer effort to keep it going. There is very little regionwide funding for secure bike parking, Caltrain/BART preferring instead to build giant automobile parking garages.
The vast majority of bike parking at stations is just simple wave racks, which are full of bike carcasses.
Ah, yes, if it works for New Yawk City, Da Greatest City in Da World, then it should work for the Bay Area. East Coast loading gauges mean certain routes can't handle double-deck coaches, so they have to solve the problem other ways.
ReplyDeleteActually, many of the lines on NJT and LIRR run bilevels. It's not a loading gauge issue; it's a capacity and comfort issue. The restricted ceiling heights of the bilevels make for a cramped passenger experience in a way 2+3 seating does not.
Again, say caltrain gets rid of bi-levels and replaces them with more crowded single-level coaches. Please propose a marketing plan to convince Caltrain riders this is a good idea.
"Our new lightweight trains ensure that for the same energy consumption and cost of the old bilevels and with less track maintenance, we can run trains twice as long. They will provide seamless integration with HSR, allowing you to step off the station and walk across the platform to a fast train to Los Angeles."
Granted, Caltrain is barely more cost-conscious than the US military, and it's probably going to go for 50-ton EMUs instead of 25-ton EMUs just because it can. But the entire point is that the "We have to run bilevels" idea is part of what busts budgets.
Actually, many of the lines on NJT and LIRR run bilevels. It's not a loading gauge issue; it's a capacity and comfort issue. The restricted ceiling heights of the bilevels make for a cramped passenger experience in a way 2+3 seating does not.
ReplyDeleteAgain, it's incomprehensible to New Yorkers that the situation in other parts of the country could be any different. LIRR and NJT bilevels are cramped because of the loading gauge. They can't run the relatively roomy Bombardier bilevels that the rest of North America uses.
Our new lightweight trains ensure that for the same energy consumption and cost of the old bilevels and with less track maintenance, we can run trains twice as long. They will provide seamless integration with HSR, allowing you to step off the station and walk across the platform to a fast train to Los Angeles.
So you're comparing lightweight European equipment with existing FRA-compliant Bombardier bilevels? Don't forget, Silicon valley has one of the best-educated workforces in the country, they're not fooled that easily. Also, "some guys on a blog speculated that it maybe would be more compatible with HSR, but there's no proof of that" isn't a great message.
@Alon
ReplyDeleteAlso, you do know that there are numerous models of bilevel lightweight European EMUs, available, right?
Also, you do know that there are numerous models of bilevel lightweight European EMUs, available, right?
ReplyDeleteLightweight by American standards, sure. They weigh about 50 tons. The single-levels weigh a little more than 40. But in Japan, few EMUs come in at more than 35, and some go down to 23. All else being equal, you'd rather want to run 6 33-ton cars than 4 50-ton cars; the capacity would be higher in any case, energy consumption would be the same, and track wear would be more than three times lower.
LIRR and NJT bilevels are cramped because of the loading gauge. They can't run the relatively roomy Bombardier bilevels that the rest of North America uses.
And neither can any of the other mature markets, which means Caltrain would have to come up with its own specs for trains.
ReplyDeleteAnd neither can any of the other mature markets, which means Caltrain would have to come up with its own specs for trains.
Really, I rode a lovely spacious bilevel train from Vien Mitte out to the airport last month, I would have thought that Austria was a mature market but WTF do I know.
But in Japan, few EMUs come in at more than 35, and some go down to 23.
That's rad - please amend your marketing message to Caltrain consumers explaining why they need to further crowd in to Japanese narrow gauge rolling stock.
But in Japan, few EMUs come in at more than 35, and some go down to 23.
ReplyDeleteYou're basically advocating replacing Caltrain with light rail. I doubt that's a winner of an idea.
Again, say caltrain gets rid of bi-levels and replaces them with more crowded single-level coaches. Please propose a marketing plan to convince Caltrain riders this is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteMarketing plan!? This is Caltrain we are talking about.
In any case, there is no reason to expect single-level trainsets to be any more crowded. Caltrain will match number of seats in the trainset to expected passenger loads. It's not as if Caltrain hasn't run single-level before.
The big problem is actually the huge surplus of seats we can expect on the Peninsula, given the type of service CHSRA is proposing.
Really, I rode a lovely spacious bilevel train from Vien Mitte out to the airport last month, I would have thought that Austria was a mature market but WTF do I know.
ReplyDeleteAustria's loading gauge is more restricted than the Northeastern US loading gauge.
You're basically advocating replacing Caltrain with light rail. I doubt that's a winner of an idea.
No, I'm advocating replacing Caltrain with lightweight commuter rail. Those Japanese EMUs are rapid transit, traveling on mainline rail. Only in FRA La-La Land is their light weight a reason not to buy them.
Before you trot out gauge issues, you should know that the private railroads in Japan aren't all on the same gauge, and some use standard gauge. The rolling stock is still very light. And, again, there are a lot more models and manufacturers than if you want to do everything the North American way.
The restricted ceiling heights of the bilevels make for a cramped passenger experience in a way 2+3 seating does not.
ReplyDeleteWhether they are cramped or not depends on what you think is cramped. Is the ceiling low, yep it is. Is the package shelf smaller, yes but it really shouldn't be a problem unless you live in Bound Brook and bought a canoe during lunch so you can paddle from the station to dry land. Are the seats wider, yes they are because it's 2x2 seating instead of 2x3. The aisles are wider so exchanging places with a standee is a bit more spacious. The vestibules are airplane hangars compared to the single levels.
I'll trade some headroom for more seats, wider seats, wider aisles and 2x2 seating thanks.
LIRR and NJT bilevels are cramped because of the loading gauge.
If the information on Wikipedia is correct - it's not on Bombardier's website - the cramped multilevels are 14'6" high and the spacious bilevels 15'11" a whole 17 inches taller! I'm sure that 8 and quarter inches of headroom on each level makes all the difference...
Well, when I went to Bound Brook I was carrying multiple pieces of luggage rather than a canoe, but we still needed to hog extra seats because of the lack of overhead space. I'm sure the bicyclists commuting to Silicon Valley would really appreciate using multiple seats, too.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for anyone who can answer, if Caltrain decides to go with a Siemens EMU would trains be assembled in Siemens's Sacramento Facility? In short would we benefit from Caltrain buying EMU's from Siemens and creating jobs for Californians? I say that because I beleive Siemens has a shot.
ReplyDeleteI think Siemens is in fact looking at expanding their facility in Sacramento for just such a purpose. Maybe not for Caltrain alone, but to serve other systems as well, including potentially supplying the trainsets for CAHSR as well.
ReplyDeleteWell, when I went to Bound Brook I was carrying multiple pieces of luggage rather than a canoe, but we still needed to hog extra seats because of the lack of overhead space.
ReplyDeleteHow well did they fit in the spacious overhead compartments on the IRT? Perhaps you used the 9th Ave. bus, with it's commodious baggage amenities....
dejv said, "Minor floor/platform differences (up to some 100 mm/4 in) is no big deal, inclined ramps inside the vehicle can take care of it (this is common approach at all low-floor vehicles)"
ReplyDeleteEric responded, "In the US we have the ADA which does not allow this level of discrepancy between the platform and the train, whether or not you think is big deal."
I'm no ADA expert, but I think dejv is correct on this point. The train door and platform are flush allowing level boarding, but slight inclines inside the train are acceptable under ADA. This also would allow different trainset types that would otherwise have slightly different platform height requirements, but not require modifying platforms.
3 seats side by side reduces accessibility, which is important in a commuter route with frequent stops.
Also I recall reading somewhere that 2+2 seating is likely the maximum acceptable seating now. ADA requirements supposedly need aisle widths that can accommodate wheelchairs. Older trainsets with narrower aisles (i.e. 2+3 seating) are probably grandfathered in due to the financial hardship, but new ones are unlikely to get waivers.
dejv said, "you can make up for decreased train capacity by increasing train throughput...Higher number of less hungry trains is actually better energy-wise."
I'm no expert on this, but I everything I've read about rail operations, and business in general, tells me:
Running more trains is more expensive. And labor is almost always the biggest operating expense by far. Electricity is very cheap by comparison. Paying more for electricity for running bigger and longer trains, but less of them, will cost less overall than large numbers of cheaper trains.
Ability to handle bicycles is related to interior and door configuration, it has nothing to do with the number of floors on the car.
This is on the money.
I'm kind of surprised by the resistance to bilevel trainsets on this blog. CalTrain is fortunate enough to have a large loading gauge (many aren't so lucky), why shouldn't they take full advantage of it, especially when it provides more capacity and a better cost per rider?
Here's my ideal of what CalTrain should look like:
Bilevel EMUs with metro-style seating (less seats and against walls, more standing room) on the first level, dedicated bike cars with bike racks on the first floor of a couple cars (maybe near front and rear of train), and 2+2 seating on second level.
Operationally, ~4 tph (15 minute headways, clockface scheduling) all day with up to a few more tph during commute hours, with a good mix of local and limited stop patterns and timed transfers. No need for 10+ tph craziness. And since we're going to rebuild every station, every station should have 1/4 mile long platforms. As ridership grows (expected to at least double in 20 years), CalTrain can just increase trainset length without having to run more trains.
I think that adequately serves CalTrain's current and future needs in a very cost effective manner. Anything wrong with my thought process on that?
if Caltrain decides to go with a Siemens EMU would trains be assembled in Siemens's Sacramento Facility? In short would we benefit from Caltrain buying EMU's from Siemens and creating jobs for Californians? I say that because I beleive Siemens has a shot.
ReplyDeleteSiemens is a potential vendor, but we should make purchasing decisions based solely on merits and costs. Not "Buy American," "Local Jobs," non-sense.
That contributes to American transit being so fubar'd, and actually increases costs while delivering less benefits.
3 seats side by side reduces accessibility, which is important in a commuter route with frequent stops. You don't seem to be able to understand this, so just bear with me.
ReplyDeleteOK. And how does fit getting through flight of stairs (or two) and half of car length into that? In last 20 years, frequently stopping single level trains tend to have doors in 1/4 and 3/4 of car length so there are less passengers in one aisle that can be in turn narrower, permitting either wider seats or more seat rows.
I don't understand exactly why Caltrain would want to try to sell the idea of more crowded trains to commuters when the solution, double-deck cars, is both obvious and already in place.
I don't understand what you don't understand about the passengers per length train concept. I'm trying to point out that staircases are bulky, especially in low-platform variants when their upper flight forces placing door towards the car center and you need to make space for wheelchair at middle level of high-platform cars so the effect of second deck isn't that big if you have room for another row of seats.
But all of this is pure theory because of Drunk Engineer's point:
Most bicycle overcrowding occurs in the (so-called) reverse-commute direction, southbound mornings and northbound evenings. These are on trains that are otherwise quite empty.
So Caltrain needs fleet that can accomodate both kinds of traffic. The easiest way to do it are folding seats and excentric aisle, for example 3 + 1 arrangement with generous seat pitch at three rows (to accomodate 3 bikes in one "compartment") and smaller seat pitch at the single row. Or three rows of fixed seats and wall-mounted folding seats on the other side of car. And so on.
How well did they fit in the spacious overhead compartments on the IRT? Perhaps you used the 9th Ave. bus, with it's commodious baggage amenities....
ReplyDeleteThey fit in the IRT aisles. The three-seat ride from our apartment to Penn Station was significantly more pleasant than the Newark Penn transfer.
Older trainsets with narrower aisles (i.e. 2+3 seating) are probably grandfathered in due to the financial hardship, but new ones are unlikely to get waivers.
I'm almost certain the new Metro-North/LIRR trainsets use 3+2 seating, too.
CalTrain is fortunate enough to have a large loading gauge (many aren't so lucky), why shouldn't they take full advantage of it, especially when it provides more capacity and a better cost per rider?
We've already gone through the reasons:
1. It restricts the availability of products, increasing costs.
2. It increases axle loads, increasing maintenance costs.
3. It's assholish to cyclists and people with luggage.
4. It makes it easier to be HSR-incompatible. HSR-compatible bilevels would waste most of the extra capacity on staircases and vestibules.
5. It lets the DTX tunnel and road overpasses in grade separations get away with smaller clearances, again reducing costs.
Like the Anon who talks like Richard, I don't think bilevels are inherently bad, or unsuitable to Caltrain. I do think that right now single-levels seem more cost-effective, but the point is that the "We have to run bilevels" mantra is just an excuse for more cost escalations.
(1) Bike use on Caltrain IS limited: to the space available on one, sometimes two cars.
ReplyDelete(2) I have been on trains that have had every seat taken, but only when returning from baseball games, so cyclists aren't costing many people seats.
(3) From 4th and King to my office takes: (a) under 10 minutes on a bike; (b) about 25 minutes on MUNI (when it's running on time); (c) about 30 minutes walking. In other words, MUNI is not a viable alternative to the bike.
(4) BART is a total nightmare with a bike, even during the lowest use times. However, BART from the East Bay has much higher ridership during commute hours than Caltrain (at least anecdotally that's been my experience with several years using both).
In short, I'm not sure what the heart burn with cyclists on Caltrain is. Yes, we take up a little extra space, but I haven't seen the evidence that it's costing other commuters seats... unless the complaint is about the northernmost car.
I'm almost certain the new Metro-North/LIRR trainsets use 3+2 seating, too.
ReplyDeleteI don't know NYC-area transit as well as you do, so I'll take your word for it.
But I'm just repeating what I've heard about the ADA, that it requires aisles wide enough for wheelchair access (which sounds like a typical ADA requirement), and that likely prevents 2+3 seating on new trains.
We've already gone through the reasons:
1. It restricts the availability of products, increasing costs.
Granted, there is an unusual dearth of high platform, bilevel, EMU models compared to single levels. It's probably due to lack of demand more than anything else.
Even with a somewhat higher cost, the equipment purchase is a one-time expense and will be used for ~20 years. If it contains operating costs, while enabling ridership (and revenue) to grow, it's probably worth it.
Also special matching capital funds are available from the state and feds for rolling stock purchases, whereas operating costs are largely borne locally. We should make the best use of capital dollars, and try to lower operating costs in the process.
2. It increases axle loads, increasing maintenance costs.
This seems like a red herring to me.
The heavy, FRA-compliant equipment is the problem. The difference between lightweight, bilevel EMUs and lightweight, single level EMUs is small with regard to axel loads and track maintenance.
3. It's assholish to cyclists and people with luggage.
We just talked about this above. This has nothing to with the number of floors on the train, and everything to do with door and interior configuration.
Metro-style seating on first floor, a couple of dedicated bike cars, and 2+2 seating on the second level, can accommodate all of the different types of riders in an effective manner. I'm sure there are other ways too.
5. It lets the DTX tunnel and road overpasses in grade separations get away with smaller clearances, again reducing costs.
This is also a red herring.
Bilevels can be accommodated within AAR Plate F (~17'), like they are now. I think roads need at least 15' clearance anyway, so we're not talking about saving much even if you went out your way to compromise the loading gauge.
We're not talking about AAR Plate H (double-stack freight) in the DTX. And the push for that further south on the SF Peninsula is from freight interests (i.e. Port of SF and UP), it's not being driven by passenger rail needs.
And the DTX's insane costs have nothing to with clearances for bilevels, and everything to do with the 3 tracks (which don't increase capacity) instead of a conventional 2 track tunnel dug by a TBM. Said bore would have enough clearance for bilevels anyway, there's little to nothing to be saved by using a tiny diameter TBM and compromising the loading gauge.
4. It makes it easier to be HSR-incompatible. HSR-compatible bilevels would waste most of the extra capacity on staircases and vestibules.
All bilevel vehicles lose some space to staircases and whatnot, but it doesn't take away the case for bilevels (more riders per operator).
I agree it is easier to have HSR compatibility with single level trains, but it can be done with bilevels too.
At the end of the day, an integrated, functional Peninsula rail system is the most important thing. I'm not for bilevels at the expense of that, nor for single level EMUs on an artificially crippled loading gauge and limited ability to upgrade to bilevels.
Samsonian, the way some new trains deal with ADA access issues is by having vestibules with metro-style seating. Anyway, the only big whopper in your comment is,
ReplyDeleteThe difference between lightweight, bilevel EMUs and lightweight, single level EMUs is small with regard to axel loads and track maintenance.
This is wrong. Bilevel EMUs weigh as much as Nippon Sharyo's FRA-compliant gallery cars and the Bombardier BiLevels, about 50 tons. I can find a grand total of one model weighing less, a Japanese train that comes in at 41. Meanwhile, multiple Japanese and German single-level EMUs weigh in the 23-33 range, cutting track wear by a factor of 5-20.
Meanwhile, multiple Japanese and German single-level EMUs weigh in the 23-33 range, cutting track wear by a factor of 5-20.
ReplyDeleteHow much do they weigh per passenger? My automobile is much lighter than a train but my car only carries 6 people and those 6 people would have to be very friendly with each other.
"I've heard about the ADA, that it requires aisles wide enough for wheelchair access (which sounds like a typical ADA requirement), and that likely prevents 2+3 seating on new trains."
ReplyDeleteEven on the seating levels that are reached by steps up/down from door level?
How much do they weigh per passenger?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the seating arrangement. If you want to approximate it by weight per unit of train length, most of those trains weigh 1.3-1.7 tons per meter.
There are many models that don't weigh much more per meter, but very few are bilevel, and many use Jacobs bogies, which end up increasing axle load.
I don't understand what you don't understand about the passengers per length train concept.
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't actually care about quoting random seat numbers for various rolling stock, which is just a function of interior layout. The bulk of the connecting staircase doesn't overshadow the space increase of a double deck - that's the only math that matters.
Meanwhile, multiple Japanese and German single-level EMUs weigh in the 23-33 range, cutting track wear by a factor of 5-20.
Dude, if you could make track last 20 times longer by cutting weight in half, it would have been done. I take it you've never ridden on one of those wee Japanese lightweight EMUs? They're like glorified buses. They're not a functional replacement for caltrain.
Metro-style seating on first floor, a couple of dedicated bike cars, and 2+2 seating on the second level, can accommodate all of the different types of riders in an effective manner.
ReplyDeleteYour proposed solution is circa 1980s.
The dedicated bike car concept is completely obsolete concept. Caltrain is one of the few operators which still clings to this. Even BART, which has much more crowding, did away with its "bikes in last car" rule more than a decade ago.
Problems with dedicated bike cars include:
1. Bike riders don't know where on the platform to position themselves
2. Not safe for cyclists to do "mad dash" along crowded platform if they happened line up at wrong end of the train.
3. Cyclists can't board otherwise empty trains, just because dedicated bike car is full
Current best-practice is to have multiuse space in every car, which can be used by some combination of: strollers, bikes, wheelchairs, luggage, or standees - depending on load factors at the time.
While not a hard requirement, it really helps if passengers with cargo can spread out along the train, in case a particular car gets unexpectedly crowded. Obviously, that becomes difficult when you have to climb a set of stairs just to move between cars. Much better to make it as easy as possible.
Dude, if you could make track last 20 times longer by cutting weight in half, it would have been done.
ReplyDeleteSure, and if you could make trains safer and more fuel-efficient, you'd think the FRA would have rewritten its regulations already...
And personally, I think the cramped, graffiti-ridden POS trains that SNCF foists on the provinces are way more similar to the American inner-city bus experience than modern lightweight trains.
"I take it you've never ridden on one of those wee Japanese lightweight EMUs? They're like glorified buses. They're not a functional replacement for caltrain."
ReplyDeleteWell, I have ridden them (literally thousands of km), and they are certainly not "glorified buses" as you call them. They are far superior in comfort, ride quality, and energy efficiency to anything running on US rails today, to say nothing of reliability. Also, they are not cramped- the loading gauge is not so different from the Europe's, and the interior space is roughly the same. If they were introduced to Caltrain, service levels would be far superior to the fat pigs that pass for rolling stock on that line today.
@Eric:
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't actually care about quoting random seat numbers for various rolling stock, which is just a function of interior layout.
OK, let's do some estimates:
The end to first seat distance of Multilevel takes about twice the car width (lame pic). This means around (25.908 - 2*2*3.048)/16 = 0.86 m of seat pitch.
Spacium's 13.24 cars are made from 7 equally sized modules, so seat pitch is 13.24 / (2*7) = 0.94 m.
So if you make legroom in Multilevel equally generous to Spacium, you'll get to 5.09 * 0.86 / 0.94 = 4.66 seats/m. That sounds like really big boost compared to 4.47 seats/m of Spacium.
Spacium is pretty significant example of 3+2 single-deck train preferred by company that is restricted by UIC loading gauge and has actual experience with the largest capacity double deck trains in the world (AFAIK).
@Alon:
train weight does depend on regulations more than origin of manufacturer. Make Japanese codes a base for new Caltrain and trains offered by Siemens et al will be of comparable weight to those by Kawasaki et al.
//typo fix
At the CalTrain meeting today (4/01/2010) in a very surprising move, the PCJPB put on hold action to certify the electrification EIR.
ReplyDeleteA very strong letter from Gary Patton, pointing out legal problems in trying to certify this old (2004) EIR was apparently the reason CalTrain staff recommended the board not go ahead with certification.
Exactly what they now do, seems uncertain.
What was at least equally important, was the very very dismal financial outlook for CalTrain in upcoming months, being precipitated by lower ridership and more importantly huge drastic cuts coming from the VTA, SamTrans and MTC. Thos agencies have been contributing about $40 million each year towards operating the line, and are expect to drop that total about 70% to a number of around $12 million.
This is going to cause drastic cuts in service --- may even cause failure of the whole rail line.
All of this from fallout of the way Sacramento is taking revenues that had been coming to these agencies from the gas tax.
As Scanlon clearly put it, "our present business plan is not doable" --- drastic action will have to be taken.
Presumably, better reporting than mine, will shortly appear in the media.
This article from the SJ Mercury better describes CalTrain's problems.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14802053?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1