A complication in Caltrain's coming transition to level boarding is found in the train's bathroom, an amenity that requires equal access for passengers with reduced mobility under ADA regulations. During the procurement and design phase of the EMUs, the original plan was to fit in-vehicle wheelchair lifts to enable passengers with reduced mobility to move between the lower level and mid-level, for level boarding compatibility with future high-speed rail platforms (48" above rail, 73" from track center) and to enable bathroom access regardless of boarding level.
This plan fell apart because of practical considerations of cost and vehicle packaging: the bulky 800-pound capacity lifts would have impeded passenger flows in the lower-level vestibules, without providing any value until some distant future where Caltrain would need to dock at high-level platforms in stations shared with high-speed rail. Even then, the lifts would have been required indefinitely, to provide equal access to the bathroom on the lower level. The idea was so unappetizing that it was scrapped, and Caltrain has since focused its nebulous level-boarding strategy around European-like 550 mm platforms.
The EMUs are nevertheless designed for future conversion to high platforms. A different solution is available that would facilitate a transition to 48" platforms: a new single-level, high-floor bathroom car that would take the eighth slot in the consist. The EMUs were always planned to be eight cars long, as their numbering attests by skipping from 1, 2, 3 to 5, 6. Missing car number 4 could have this configuration, as modified from a Stadler drawing:
The new high-floor bathroom car would triple bathroom capacity of the trainset from one to three bathrooms, provide 60 seats with up to six wheelchair spaces, and enable a gradual transition to 48" level boarding using car-borne wheelchair lifts (such as the FRA and ADA compliant PowerLift by Rincon) to board passengers with reduced mobility from legacy 8" platforms, without the need for precise positioning of train doors relative to mini-high platforms. Once the transition to level boarding is completed, these lifts could be removed.
With the bridge plates already engineered for the EMUs (shown in photo at right but not fitted to the fleet as delivered) passengers with reduced mobility could board step-free without any crew assistance, greatly improving the predictability of dwell times and thereby increasing train speeds and corridor capacity.
The transition to high platforms would then entail the following steps:
- Extend all platforms and yards to support eight-car trains
- Incorporate new single-level bathroom cars to all trains
- Commission high level doors and install bridge plates
- Build new 48" platforms!
High platforms have the advantage of compatibility with high-speed rail, enabling any train to dock at any platform as needed and making optimal use of future corridor and station capacity. They allow high-speed trains to make stops at important places like Redwood City or Palo Alto with zero additional infrastructure. They allow Caltrain to operate like BART, with brief and predictable station dwell times, something that remains out of reach today even as our swift and modern EMUs must wait for extended periods at low platforms, in the manner of a Ferrari driven on a rutted dirt road.
The transition to high platforms bullet points fail to include when to add the new high-door/floor 2-bathroom cars to trains and how boarding for both types of riders (wheelchair-using & not) at those cars works in each step of the construction transition time from today’s all-low, to some-high, and finally to all-high station platforms.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible you missed the 2nd bullet point. At 8 inch platforms, the doors open only when a crew member helps to board or alight a passenger with reduced mobility, using the vehicle-borne lift. At 48 inch platforms, the doors always open.
DeleteDidn‘t miss 2nd bullet, but was wondering how the ambulatory riders board & alight from the high-floor/door-only car at not-yet-raised platforms during conversion.
DeleteOK, I was just wondering if your answer for those waiting on the platform (or aboard) was any better than the one I thought of: “please move to another car!” (ideally before the train stops to keep dwell time down and/or missing your train/station).
Just as subways, trams, etc. include "the doors will open on the right/left" with the automated next-station announcement, at Caltrain the platform level would be included. Meanwhile, the people waiting on the platform will see for themselves how high it is. (But then it doesn't much matter for them. If Caltrain stopped very accurately, more or less such that you could in theory install platform screen doors, you could just paint "the opening door will be here" on the platform. Given that Caltrain doesn't stop so accurately, the passengers will have to "chase the door" even if they would have wanted to queue up at the right spot.)
Delete--Hedgehog
Due to in-station ped & station-adjacent street crossing gates remaining down at some stations due to the longer 7-car trains stopping atop island circuits, Caltrain has started adding “spot EMU” signs/markers showing operators precisely where to consistently spot trains on platforms. (Staff said that in some cases crossing track circuits will also require adjustment.)
DeleteThe mini-high platform repositionings (or installations) for the EMUs should soon be complete at all stations.
For stations that are complete, bike car and other boarding door positions could be stenciled on platforms for the many years until an 8th car (if ever) is added.
This should help reduce reports of increased dwells due to bicyclists not knowing where on the platform they should expect to board bike cars (which are again filling to capacity on some peak period trains).
Let's say Caltrain adds high-floor bathroom cars, and converts one station to high-platform level boarding. Wheelchair passengers boarding into the high-floor car would still need to alight at low-platform stations. This would require one of:
ReplyDelete1. in-train wheelchair lifts
2. conductors board wheelchair passengers with time-consuming manual lift
3. build mini-48"-high-platforms at every station first before converting the first station to full level boarding
I suppose #3 seems the least problematic. Certainly no more so than adding a new car to every train or extending platforms.
Sharp-eyed readers will have spotted the paragraph about the standard-issue car-borne lifts, which are also shown on the diagram. These are an existing model that could easily be adapted to this purpose. Two per side are provided (four total) for redundancy.
DeleteI should add that the lift is precisely the same model as fitted to Siemens Venture cars used by Amtrak nationwide, in the same scenario of a high-floor car boarding passengers from 8-inch platforms. Shown in this video, its use is clunky but it has the distinct advantage of existing and complying with all regulations.
DeleteIt seems more costly to install mini high platforms than just converting half of the platform in one go. With minis you need two "interfaces" between low and high level, while if you do half of a platform in one go you only need one of those "interfaces". And also since it's obvious to anyone that it's work in progress, you can make those "interfaces" more shitty, i.e. just leave some sand or gravel or whatnot between the old and newly rebuilt platform parts.
DeleteTripling the number of WCs aboard the trains will also be welcomed by staff & riders alike. Already there are complaints of riders not knowing which direction to walk the train to find the one WC … and staff says due to heavy use (and/or not being emptied frequently enough) it sometimes automatically takes itself out of service en route when its retention tank reaches 70% full. Not good for riders expecting & needing it to be available. Staff has already begun thinking about adding more WCs … but not until Stadler’s warranty runs out.
ReplyDeleteOn the Stadler products that I regularly ride, on both sides of every door there is a minimalist schematic layout of the train, marking which direction the toilet is.
Delete-- Hedgehog
Yes, it has been suggested to staff to add interior “bathroom-this -way arrow” signage so riders know which way to walk.
DeletePlease spare us the signage. This information seems like the most trivial page to add to the already-existing information display screens in each car. You could even add a visual indication of real-time restroom occupancy status, just like in airplanes.
DeleteWould probably be a good idea to have electronic displays on board indicate that the toilet will close soon.
DeleteI would prefer regular signs rather than electronic displays. A toilet symbol and an arrow (and for the proposed versions of the trains in this blog post, ADA and non-ADA symbols when the ADA toilets are in one direction and the non-ADA toilets are in the other direction) is super simple to have.
I agree that there is a point in not having too much signage. I would say that TfL in London, and perhaps anything related to transit in the UK, is an example of over-signage.
This is a great solution that would be much, much more affordable and practical in terms of easing the transition to all-level boarding. I think this is a much easier way to implement level boarding - just add a higher platform for that segment of all stations initially then raise the rest of the platforms gradually, easy enough to do! The center level boarding segment shouldn't cost very much - $300M or so through the whole system is my high estimate, unless someone else has a better guess than I do! Assuming about $10M per station = $310M at the high end.
ReplyDeleteSpecific to this car - since there's no second floor, could that extra space be used for additional equipment, batteries, etc? I'm wondering if this extra space will allow Stadler to be more creative with car design and equipment. I'd love to see a ton more windows almost like an observation car if there's space, too, which would be fun.
One suggestion, though - I'm not so sure that you need 3 bathrooms per train. I would cut back and have just one large ADA bathroom for this eighth car instead of 2, and/or delete the bathrooms completely and have roomier, nicer bathrooms at all stations. That'd be cheaper and easier, plus free up a ton of capacity. I'd also push for Caltrain to stop doing conductor checks and do it BART style with fare gates for a sealed system. This way, the bathrooms can be nicer since it's only for paying customers, and conductors could be cut back or pared down significantly to lower costs. If the union raises a stink, station the conductors at stations instead of on the trains, which would make stations much nicer if there were workers around most of the time to keep an eye on things. This probably could be it's own post, but I think if Caltrain works to make the system a sealed one much like BART and cut back on conductors and ticket checkers on trains, there's significant opportunity to improve the station experience (good bathrooms, some amenities like a small coffee shop/bagel shop, small convenience store with snacks, toiletries, ibuprofen, etc)...
BART style with fare gates is a completely nonsense argument and resource for Caltrain to focus on.
DeleteWhy add more cost to seal stations? It only works at 4th and king since it is sealed.
Note there would be no need for east-coast style high platform blocks. At a low-platform station, the doors on this car would not open at all, unless by exception for a crew-assisted operation of the lift to board or alight a passenger needing such assistance. Passengers who do not need such assistance would simply board or alight at the next car.
DeleteCertainly, another approach is to delete bathrooms from the trains completely, but if you have even one bathroom, then it must be accessible to all. This sets off a domino cascade of ADA consequences that inevitably include wheelchair lifts.
@ Anonymous at 12:05 - Why is it nonsense? This is what a lot of places do, and can cut back on conductor costs significantly, plus make the system more like a 21st century one!
DeleteRebuilding stations to funnel riders through faregates is insane. It’d cost a fortune and would add substantial new O&M costs. Unless reconfigured, trains would still require conductors … and as seen on BART, unless stations & faregates are “hardened”, you *still* have plenty of fare evaders making into the system unless there are also costly cops and/or fare inspectors watching faregates and/or checking PoP on platforms and trains. The European open access barrier-free proof-of-payment (PoP) fare-collection model is the right & best (most cost-efficient, user-friendly) way to continue for Caltrain, its riders, and the communities to continue having accessible, permeable stations that can most optimally blend into the surrounding area. The main problem with PoP in North America is that agencies don’t seem to understand or want to copy best practices & policies for how to implement and enforce PoP.
DeletePutting in faregates with the assumption that conductor will be obsolete is insane and 10 steps forward in Caltrain’s case.
DeleteCaltrain is under FRA and not FTA unlike BART. Adding faregates requires the maintenance and puts the assumption that fare evasion is a big issue (which is not for Caltrain).
In case you miss out, other countries that have fare gates also has conductor checking ticket on their trains for regional/ intercity level.
So adding fare gates doesn’t help anything
Thanks for the clarification, all. My point was really about how having less crew members on trains are better (financially), as that's a high fixed cost requiring 2-3 workers per train - I was thinking of BART or WMATA where there aren't really crew on trains other than the occasional police patrol. You all did bring up fair points about how fare gates would be complex and also expensive, especially station-side as stations are all wildly different. There's also challenges about if/how other services would intersect (e.g., Capitol Corridor).
DeleteAs for the other comment, my thinking is that some things are best brought to the station side, like bathrooms so there can be more room for things like ramps, bikes, more seating, etc. I do think they should keep 1 to 2 bathrooms at most per train, and do a better job station-side with bathrooms, amenities, coffee shops, TOD, etc which would make the stations themselves a pleasant place to visit and wait for trains. Trains should be cheap and easy to run, and run frequently, with the complex stuff brought to the station-side, IMO.
One problematic argument with this is the dwell times for bicycles alighting and getting off will be a little bit longer.
ReplyDeleteThis solution works really well, if Caltrain has the guts to tell off UPPR and go slow at stations to avoid rocking.
The new California high platform standard (agreed to by FRA, the California HSR authority and Brightline West) has platform edges 73 inches from track center, which is six inches further out than in the Northeast. This clears freight trains without any issues at all.
DeleteLimiting freight train speeds is important for a different reason: at any faster than 45 mph, the vertical curve radius required for grade separations becomes a design driver for the size of such structures. This is because the vertical acceleration limit on freight trains is six times lower than for passenger trains. Accounting for this acceleration varying with the square of speed, then for a given vertical curve radius the maximum freight speed is 1/sqrt(6) times the maximum passenger speed. Therefore, if you want to design grade separations for 110 mph passenger trains, then freight cannot go any faster than 45 mph or that starts driving the design by setting the dimensions of grade separations. But I digress, more here.
Dedicate half of this single level car to bike space (like the old gallery cars) and only a single bathroom, and stick two of these cars on each train. Now you've got three bathrooms per train but better distributed, and the bike riders don't have to haul their bikes up and down the mezzanine stairs on the bi-level cars at high-boarding stations.
Delete(hell, now i'm imagining these cars as gallery cars, like the Metra Highliners...)
I think it would be more confusing in the longer term since now you have a car that is a bike car and ADA wheelchair compliant car combined. At high volume stations, this would only slow things down.
Delete@adam:
DeleteAnd sign that a number of seats in that car are prioritized for people traveling with a bicycle, so they can sit in the same car as their bicycle. Don't know how to do that exactly, perhaps have integrated locks in the train, that you lock/unlock with your RFID ticket, and also an RFID reader at each seat that indicates that you are riding with a bicycle, and anyone with a bicycle would have priority over other riders (except those that need ADA compliance, or whatnot).
Note that an RFID reader that just asks your ticket if you have a specific type of ticket, but doesn't change the content of the RFID ticket card or whatnot, can be really simple and cheap, as it doesn't have to handle anything related to safety in the form of electronic fare evasion. So in other words, it's reasonable to have such readers at each seat. "Re-arm" each time the seat has been vacant for more than a few seconds (i.e. more than a leg stretcher).
It's great to witness this detailed analysis of how to make level boarding a reality. As a power wheelchair rider who regularly rides Caltrain, the lack of level boarding is an extreme pain point for me.
ReplyDeleteMy partner Peter follows this blog and suggested sharing the channel we are starting together. We made our first full video about riding in a gallery car on the last day of diesel service. The lift broke. I often say: Ramps beat lifts. Lifts are slow, breakage-prone, and LOUD! https://youtu.be/vk0mfcd-YzI
Anything separate-but-equal is a problem. All bathrooms should be accessible, not just the 1 in 3 that becomes dirty or unavailable. All doors should be accessible, not just the ones on a certain car or the ones near a designated “Boarding Assistance Area” at the opposite end of the undriveably bumpy stamped-concrete platform.
As much as I wish it weren’t true, I know change doesn’t happen overnight. But when Caltrain has a year to test their EMUs, and a month after official launch I’m still boarding via manual lift because some mini-highs are chained up and conductors aren’t spotting trains to align with the others, I have difficulty believing change is happening as fast as it could.
Staff says the mini-high platform relocations, modifications & installations for EMUs were supposed to be done before the new all-EMU service started. While that didn’t get done due to “problems with the contractor(s), it shouldn’t take too much longer to finish now.
DeleteMany years ago, I was told one factor in the aborted effort to develop a new bi-level “California Car” for Amtrak California corridor trains to use had to do with the thorny and never satisfactorily solved design hurdles of including built-in elevators to afford wheelchair users equal access to the upper-level amenities (e.g. cafe/snack bar).
Must bi-level jets like 747s & A380s also have wheelchair elevators?
Hi Aubrie, thank you very much for the first person view, it's very valuable and enlightening. I urge everyone to watch your video, and we can all be glad the gallery cars are gone. I hope you make another video like this with the mini-highs and the EMUs.
DeleteThe solution I propose here does still use lifts (acknowledging their limitations) but only for the period of the transition from the existing 8-inch high platforms to high platforms system-wide. At that point, the lifts can be removed as all cars and all doors will be accessible step-free and gap-free. I did think to include two lifts on each side, acknowledging that these mechanisms are failure-prone and that having two provides some measure of redundancy.
I have a question for you: how much of an imposition is it for you to have to board a specific car in order to have access to a bathroom? Even if you could board at any door or car in the train, to what degree is it an obstacle that you can't move throughout the train due to its bi-level design? I admit that I don't fully understand the ADA regulations in this regard; I've seen it claimed that true equal access means that every car must have two lifts to facilitate movement throughout the train, while others interpret the regulation such that only one car being so fitted is sufficient.
Thanks again for your outlook on these issues. This goes far beyond equal access, and touches the efficiency and throughput capacity of the entire corridor for all users.
Hi Clem, thanks so much for your support, and for your question.
DeleteThe short answer is, having to board at a specific car is quite difficult.
If I have to know to get on a certain numbered car, counting cars to know which one is the right one is difficult, and even if I could count them in time, I might not be close enough. Some platforms are especially difficult to traverse: I'm thinking of Mountain View and San Antonio, which have stamped concrete so bumpy that I resort to driving on the yellow line.
About whether I would board a specific car to access a bathroom—more likely, I would board whichever car was the most convenient by all other factors (e.g., closest to whatever direction I was coming from), and I would just hope that it would have a bathroom if I needed it. I tend to avoid using the Caltrain bathrooms, but they have saved me on occasion. Having bathrooms distributed throughout the train might help my chances of being a car with a bathroom.
The cars' bi-level (tri-level with the middle section) design is horrific. Since they have very little room at the middle section, I doubt I could stay at that level once I board. So when Caltrain finally does have level boarding, I'll have to use an internal lift twice. Should I add not just level boarding, but "level riding" to my list of things to fight for?? At that point, level boarding would be a façade, and I'd be wishing for the good old days of non-level boarding with the bridge plate on the mini-highs. Maybe once the paint wears off the new EMUs, Caltrain can get single-level cars with fewer seats and run them more frequently.
I'm not sure what the ADA regulation says, but I hope it does mean all the cars need to be accessible, even via lift. The worst-case scenario I can currently imagine is, I'm forced to board at one designated car, then use lifts inside it. BART is my least favorite train in the Bay Area, but if I have to use lifts even with level boarding, then Caltrain is on track to surpass it.
@Aubrie, if BART with its level boarding is your “least favorite” Bay Area train, which is your most favorite and why? 🤔 I think SMART is the only other level boarding Bay Area train.
Delete@Aubrie:
DeleteThe European solution to finding the right car for accessibility is to have a diverging color on the doors that are accessible.
In the case of Caltrain, with every train being identical (afaik there is no way a train can end up being turned around the "wrong" way, and there is also no need to turn the trains on purpose as the line seems rather straight (as a comparison circle line trains has to be turned every now and then to level out wear and tear on the wheels and whatnot)), it would be possible to put markers on the platforms telling approximately where the accessible doors would be when the train stops.
The question is how the Cali HSR trains will be when it comes to accessibility. I hope they go for level boarding at all doors, and thus there wouldn't be a need to keep track of where on the platform to wait, and thus there is no need for different markings for HSR and Caltrain trains.
@Curious, what a wonderful question. My favorite is VTA lightrail, because it's above-ground (so, quieter, and fewer elevators required to use) and it has big, unobscured windows in the "chairea" (wheelchair area). I will say BART's chaireas have more space, which is very nice, but the screeching and the awful elevator experiences outweigh that upside.
Delete@MiaM, I agree—best would be no need to differentiate.
I like this. It's certainly the sort of creative thinking that Caltrain should be bringing to their level boarding study.
ReplyDeleteAs an approximation, converting the platforms at ~20 stations to 48 inches instead of 22 inches will have a cost premium, and make access marginally more difficult - longer ramps and four more steps in the stairs. (Counter cases: At stations like Townsend and 22nd St, access would become easier because they're below street level. At stations like Millbrae, where tracks are vertically unconstrained either side of the station so could perhaps be lowered, maintaining the current platform elevation. At stations like Redwood City and San Bruno, which will be rebuilt anyway by grade separation work or by CAHSR, the premium is much less.)
Costs that could conceivably be attributed to going with a 48" platform rather than 22":
- 48" vs 22" platform premium
- Reinstall the high-level doors
- Purchase 8th cars
If one were able to eliminate the third/fourth track at the future Townsend station, and make High Speed Rail give up their separate platform at Millbrae, then the platform premium would certainly be paid for. Eliminating the Townsend track with a commitment to figure out 48" Caltrain boarding by the time the station opens might even be enough to get DTX going.
The 8th car cost, as you argue, could be considered moot, as planned passenger benefit. However, it will probably be years until adding passenger capacity becomes fiscally attractive.
A further advantage of high-floor boarding is that it would provide for better, Regio 2N-style EMUs in the eventual fleet replacement, with power equipment above and below the single-level vestibules, creating more room for passengers. (https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/11/future-emu.html)
I don't know if the level boarding height should be 22" or 48", but Caltrain should be thinking on this level. I worry that when we see their level boarding study next year, it will not make an effort to challenge assumptions and constraints, and will instead merely present an entrenchment of an inadequate future, that, the argument will go, cannot be reexamined because it would mean another year+ of study.
Caltrain's stated goal has been level boarding at 22 inches (550 mm), but the technical details of how the transition would be accomplished, short of a total corridor shutdown and train retrofit during platform reconstruction, have not been fleshed out or shared with the public. From a technical standpoint this is a far more difficult technical and regulatory puzzle than it initially appears, and many people (past Caltrain staff, numerous train nerds) have greatly underestimated it. I don't know how it would work, short of having Bode Schaltbau (the supplier of the step mechanism) engineer a new design that can serve both 8-inch and 22-inch platforms. This is not a trivial engineering problem, as I pointed out before.
DeleteMy beliefs are that (a) it's easier to do the transition to 48 inches and (b) it's important to have Caltrain and HSR be compatible at all shared stations, for operational flexibility and recovery from delays.
Can their stated goal of 22" change to 48"? Seems like Amtrak is moving towards 48" with their new venture cars, so it only makes sense to design it for 48" to be the standard instead of 22" for intercity and regional rail in California.
DeleteSome of the people would say "Stadler makes 22" low floor FLIRT". But what they fail to include is they also only have 2 powered bogies at both ends of cab car. Its only easier to make it 48" floor height and store all the equipment at the bottom of the single level cars. We've seen Caltrain's obsession with powered bogies so it only makes sense to assume it'll be the same for other operators.
We have the issues between bi-level and single level vehicles. In the restricted loading gauge in Europe, bi-levels require doors on the lower level, and that leads to 550 mm, in order to get sufficient internal height. This is implemented in the standard KISS, but also the TGV-2N types, and many other MUs. Single-level allows simpler designs if high floor, in the 1100 mm range. There is one single-level high speed train: Stadler SMILE (aka Giruno), which is set to 760 mm (a platform height, unfortunately often found in Germany); however, the "accessible" section (1st Class, Restaurant, 2nd Class also has doors at 550 mm and internal ramps; the Restaurant has no doors, and is all high floor).
DeleteT
ReplyDeleteS
I
Compliant!
https://ibb.co/0DpS73q
I get the love of TSIs but California is not in Europe, and the accessibility regulations (and physical access of trains with high floors) is dreadful in Europe. If your meme implies that HSR should use 550 mm platforms or that HSR doesn't need to be compatible with Caltrain, then please describe.
DeleteUnder U.S. ADA regulations and subject to the fact that HSR will use 48" platforms and further subject to the constraint that Caltrain and HSR should be interoperable (any train, any track, any platform) the European TSIs are clearly lacking.
What do you suggest?
Yes, 550mm platforms. Large parts of Europe use that height, and has a mandate that all trains comply with level-boarding regulations going forward, including HSR. Even ICE will be TSI-compliant starting in 2030. California doesn't have to invent anything here, such as the dual door trains, lifts, etc. and just follow what everyone else is already doing. Having ridden their latest TSI-compliant trains with disabled companions, the accessibility was fantastic -- it is incorrect to suggest they present some ADA issue (what exactly?).
DeleteIn any case, this argument is purely academic. The CHSRA seems to have little to no interest in platform compatibility; i.e. look how many billions will be spent at Diridon and Millbrae to build separate HSR platforms. Even TBT, I have doubts they are actually serious. And then there is the issue that HSR service on the Peninsula is many, many decades away (if ever). Whereas Caltrain service is the here-and-now, and your proposals for a special 8th car has some huge and obvious drawbacks, with the only upside being some hypothetical HSR compatibility 100 years from now?
I dunno if I'm as pessimistic about HSR as you seem to be. I think Brightline West is going to make some waves in this area by taking a more thrifty approach to punch through difficult topography.
DeleteYour solution (550 mm) raises an interesting engineering puzzle. What do you think about this step arrangement? Its feasibility seems dodgy to me as the engineering to make a step that can handle both 8-inch and 550 mm might be complicated. Could it make sense to have one 8-inch door and one 550 mm door per car, for the year or two (minimum) that it would take to raise all platforms? What's your path to get to the end state of TSI nirvana?
“Yes, 550mm platforms. Large parts of Europe use that height,“
DeleteThat would be very relevant information if Caltrain was in Europe. Basically the only parts of the US that have level boarding use 48” platforms (not just the NEC, also Denver, Birghtline). In the US context, going to 550mm platforms is the proverbial “reinventing the wheel” and condemning the Peninsula to interoperability issues. Amtrak has a standard for platform height that hundreds of thousands of people use to board trains daily (both on Amtrak and on MNR, LIRR, etc.) Just copy that.
If Caltrain cannot figure out level-boarding heights other than 48", then may as well pack it in and give up now. Even Utah (Utah!!) is able to do level-boarding into the lower level of their Bombardier bi-levels.
Delete@Drunk Engineer:
DeleteEurope isn't great. For example the bi level wagons common in Germany, are available with the doors either on the lower floor level, or at the intermediate level at the ends of the wagons, to fit two different platform heights. However there aren't any such wagons with both doors, and there are a bunch of lines in Germany where different stations have different platform heights. And to make things even worse, regulations stipulate that new platforms have to be built using one of these two standards, even if all trains and most stations along a route uses the other standard. Thus they even build new stations / renovate stations resulting in the trains not being accessible at those stations :(
Another amazing solution is on Belgian bi level trains, where some cars have doors at both heights, but passengers aren't trusted opening the low level doors themself, so you have to climb a few steps from the low level floor to the intermediate level, and then climb a few steps down again to reach the platform. Also there aren't any signs that clearly states that the low level doors won't open at stations, so you might end up in a real hurry going to the doors that actually open.
Re separate HSR platforms:
My impression is that was/is partially due to the decision makers not really "understanding trains" after all. I.E. they still have the North American mind set where any train ride outside daily commuting and/or outside the NEC (sort of) has to be a complicated "adventure", comparable with flying. And similar to airports having separate staff within the airport building for different air lines, and maybe also different parts of the terminal dedicated to different airlines, they believe that stations have to have different platforms and whatnot for different types of trains.
The actual problem is that the intermediate floor level on the new Caltrain EMUs are not the same as the platform level Cali HSR has decided on. I don't know how for Cali HSR is in it's process, probably too far to change things, but it would be great if Cali HSR changes it's train floor and platform height to be the same as the Caltrain EMUs.
By 2032, Belgium expects to rebuild the vast majority of its rail network comply with TSI requirements for level-boarding. They are currently new rolling-stock based on the standardized platform height.
DeleteUtah is not a good example: (1) they can build platforms much closer to the train because there is no high speed express service and (2) it’s not even ADA gap compliant level boarding and a crew-emplaced bridge plate is still required to board or alight passengers with reduced mobility.
DeleteAgain, lots of hand waving about how easy and simple this is. It’s not!
Re: UTA’s now-complete gap-filler project. Staff explains in the video of this May 22 board meeting’s agenda item 8c (order #24-004) that they’ve installed 16,000 feet of gap-filler at 16 stations, tested it at “high speed” for possible interference, and that Amtrak & BNSF are now interested in checking it out.
DeleteLooks pretty damn good and cheap to me!
Wow, that’s a really neat solution. No software or moving parts.
DeleteAgreed, that rules. How does Utah's gap size compare with Caltrain's, at 48"? Would Caltrain be able to use those fixed extensions at the doorways?
DeleteLooks like this is the product: https://skpbrand.com/platform-gap-filler/
Here's a competitor: https://delkorrail.com/platform-gap-filler/
Here's an installation in Sydney: https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/10e2p09/new_gap_fillers_at_winyard_its_great_they_are/
DeleteAnd more competitors: https://www.trackelast.com/product/platform-gap-filler-tunnel
https://www.alpharail.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Alpha-Rail-Gap-Filler-Brochure-1.pdf
https://www.zyxrubber.com/collections/anti-tread-rubber-product
https://www.mackayrubber.com.au/railproducts
So I’m guessing the tall saw-tooth gap-filller “fingers” that can be up to 20.99 mm long/deep are vertically stiff to “endure” 200kg/cm^2 … but horizontally flexible to give way in case part of the train should slightly make contact?
DeleteThat's the idea, yes. For Caltrain 550 mm platforms, this solution would not work because of the tapered profile of the Stadler cars. The cross section drawings in this post are to scale and show the horizontal gap would be close to a foot wide, too far to bridge with a piece of rubber. This would require a new step mechanism, and once you're using a mechanism then there's no need for the rubber piece.
DeleteDitto for 48" platforms, since the HSR cars will be extra wide (11 feet). The narrower 10 foot wide Caltrain cars would still need a wide step to bridge the platform gap, exactly as depicted in the photo of this post. While this solution may be less elegant than Front Runner's rubber blocks, it isn't made of unobtainium.
@Drunk Engineer, it isn't that Caltrain "can't" figure out level boarding at 550mm, it is that they "shouldn't" because the de facto US standard is 48". Allowing for trains that go from Northern to Southern California to use the same platforms as Caltrain at one end and Metrolink at the other is a good thing. Caltrain adopting 550mm and then Metrolink adopting 760mm ("it's used in Germany and Germany has better rail service than us!") would be foolish and counterproductive. Anywhere in California adopting anything other than 48" when there will probably always be more rail cars operating on a single branch of the LIRR or MNRR than there will be in all of California is also foolish.
DeleteRe: Utah/Frontrunner, it looks like their "gap filler" is really just an add on to the platform to make the platform wider so there is less gap. But they use UTA owned track exclusively since service to Pleasant View was suspended in 2018 so they have no freight traffic, thus they can bring the platforms close enough to the narrow Bombardier Bi-Levels.
The solution, as I've said several times, is to make AAR Plate loading gauge width (10' 8") the standard for passenger service in the US, just as 48" platforms should be standard. Then you can have platforms giving the ADA compliant boarding while allowing freight access (and having level boarding with any type of train without requiring mechanical gap fillers). I know that CASHR settled on 73" platform offset instead of NEC standard 67". I presume this is to allow more of a gap for when trains pass the platform at high speed. Something I have looked for but not been able to find is whether the extra space is really needed or if a 3" ADA gap is sufficient.
@Reality Check: Yes, the add on appears to be hard rubber with cuts like a featherboard so that if a train rubs it the fingers bend and there is no damage. This seems like a useful feature for any platform edge, although pretty much every metro system manages without it.
@Clem: if the Caltrain cars and the HSR cars are the same width, then there is no need to buy, install, and maintain an extra piece of machinery for each door, and you can in fact use the rubber blocks. The "technical specification for interoperability" on North American Railroads predates the ADA or any EU TSI program. AAR plates are well defined and if you make your passenger cars the same loading gauge as your freight cars you can have level boarding without ever having to deal with gauntlet track, gap fillers, etc. East Coast commuter railroads buy railcars at that 10'-8" width by the thousands, not Caltrain's a-little-over-150-cars order, and those same railroads stop those trains at platforms with level boarding at 48" thousands of times a day.
DeleteWhy is anyone even discussing building any sort of passenger railroad in the US that uses anything other than Amtrak standards for track gauge (4'8-1/2", duh), loading gauge (AAR Plate B, 10'-8" wide) structure gauge (48" ATOR platform, 67" from centerline) and traction gauge (25kV 60Hz)?
@Clem:
DeleteWhy wouldn't the tapered profile work? Couldn't the filler have the same taper?
Btw I'm slightly questioning how necessary this is?
Compare with metro systems that have level boarding, they rarely have problems with gaps even without having any mechanism that fills gaps. The only well known cases of gaps are with curved stations. "Mind the gap"...
Is this a matter of the suspension allowing more flex on many mainline trains than on many metro trains, and thus requiring a larger gap than typical metro trains? Or is it me who don't remember gaps that actually exist on most metro systems?
I don't know what the ADA requirements are, but for wheel chairs and most mobility devices the wheels aren't tiny, and thus I would say that the gap is more of a problem for people using a cane or for that sake shoes with (small) heels.
@Onux: I can't remember what actual specs Cali HSR has chosen, but if those differs from the Amtrak/NEC standard then Caltrain has to aim for the Cali HSR standard (and thus Brightline West and Metrolink in LA also has to aim for that).
I agree though that it would be great if the standards are the same in California as for the NEC. Even though it would likely take ages until there are any through running trains with level boarding between the NEC and California, it would be a good thing to aim for eventually reaching. (What platform height is used for example in Chicago?)
@Onux: HSR cars will be about 11 feet wide, similar to Japanese Shinkansen stock, while Caltrain cars are 3 meters wide (9' 10").
Delete@Miam: car suspensions can sway laterally at speed. Metro and people mover platforms don't need to worry about this issue because the speed at the platform is low-to-zero. When you need to run at 110 mph past a platform, the gap will necessarily be larger than the ADA-required 3" (with rule-making underway to be tightened to 2")
Caltrain already did aim for the California HSR standard (against their will, as a condition for CHSRA funding contribution of more than $700M for the electrification project) by procuring cars that are capable of interfacing with a 48" tall x 73" offset platform. The selected solution is shown in the photograph at the top of this article.
The difference in width can be solved with fixed boards outside the doors on the Caltrain trains, if a solution not needing moving parts can be found for the HSR trains.
DeleteA solution for trains swaying at speed would be to quad track everything. Maybe we should try to convince the decision makes that this is the only way, and see where that takes us? I get that it's probably not realistic to quad track everything, but it's a good thing if more of the line gets quad tracked. Also if we pretend that trains must stop or go slow past any platforms, we might force the HSR trains to have the same stopping patterns as "fast" Caltrain trains. This would IMHO be the ideal traffic pattern.
Quad tracking was the plan in 2009. The richest areas of the richest state of the richest nation on the planet did not like it, feel free to dig through the archives.
Delete“@Onux: HSR cars will be about 11 feet wide, similar to Japanese Shinkansen stock, while Caltrain cars are 3 meters wide (9' 10").”
DeleteAnd that is the problem. This is the Caltrain HSR *COMPATIBILITY* Blog. Compatibility means standardization across many gauges: traction (same voltage and frequency), structure (platform height and offset), and yes loading (car width). You seem to be accepting that Caltrain ordered brand-new vehicles the same width as the bi-levels even though their ROW can take wider cars (which you have claimed is advantageous) and even though HSR would be wider or that CAHSR is ordering train’s wider than what can run in the NEC even though Bos-Wash is and always will be a larger market for train travel and rolling stock purchases. You don’t accept any of Caltrain’s other shenanigans (CBOSS, lack of level boarding, etc.) why are you taking these items as fair accompli instead of making the case for what should be?
What is the platform offset of the French and Japanese stations where you can find videos of TGV and Shinkansen passing at speed? I’m not saying CAHSR is wrong in requiring a 73” offset for platforms (because I don’t know for otherwise) but neither am I accepting their claim without evidence when there are in service examples around the world that can provide the answer - just like any reader of this blog would know not to.
I wonder if the Utah solution above would help here. How much to trains really sway at 110mph, especially since the height in question is only a foot or so above where the train body sits in the bogies (sway at the top of the car obviously being more for the same angle). I’m not suggesting hitting anything at 110mph is acceptable or normal practice, but if the occasional outlier jolt results in a black streak from rubbing against rubber instead of torn metal from hitting steel/concrete it’s something to think about.
@Onyx:
DeleteWorth considering is if "at speed" refers to max HSR speed, or whichever speed would be possible along the Caltrain route.
(fixed boards outside the doors look a bit cheap, like a contraption someone made in their garage, but they do work. For example Saltsjöbanan in Sweden has used boards on the current trains since they were introduced in the mid 1970's (originally ordered as Metro trains, adapted with widening boards to fit mainline loading gauge. At the time some freight trains and whatnot ran on that line, now the only real reason to keep them is to not have to change things and to be able to run the single museum from the initial 1910's electrification). Also East Berlin ran narrow loading gauge trains (kleinprofil, back then line A/B, now U1-4) on their wide loading gauge U-Bahn line (back then line E, now U5) for a while).
What’s interesting about the Saltsjöbanan “boards” are the tapered train width extenders affixed to the entire length of the trains between doors … presumably to prevent riders from stepping into the gap that would otherwise be there.
Delete"why are you taking these items as fait accompli"
DeleteBecause they literally are fait accompli. The Caltrain EMUs are already delivered and cannot be made wider. A lesser known fact is that the California HSR trainset RFP is already out and an order will occur quite soon. Exhibit B section 7.2.1 requirements are for a train with "width shall be not be less than 3300 mm (10.826 feet) and shall be no greater than 3378.40 mm (11.084 feet)" with the aforementioned 73" platform side offset at 48" above top of rail.
The insane things about CHSRA "high speed train" procurement is that tacking on a KISS option order to Caltrain's would have been pretty much perfect. KISSes do 200kmh in industrialized first world democracies, there's no reason they shouldn't do ~200 running between nowhere and nowhere far from any population in the dying inland of a western state of a fascist country. Or just a couple FLIRTs. Stadler knocks those off in its sleep. It's no like anybody who cares about travel time or speed is going to be using their stranded Central Valley "high speed demonstration test track", ever.
DeleteJust a reminder that any "high speed" trains that the limitlessly corrupt clownshow that is CHSRA procures will be end-of-life LONG before, possibly decades before, possible forever before, there is any justification for running trains at more much more than 160kmh anywhere in California.
That never-coming time in when the CBDs of both San Francisco and Los Angeles are connected to the nowhere-to-nowhere decades-late, tens-of-billions-incinerated scam in the Central Valley by well-engineered high-quality direct rail links. Nobody remotely rational burns cash and energy to run stunt trains a few minutes faster when there are hours of low-speed transfers on both ends. Anybody with a kindergarten-level understanding of arithmetic knows you raise averages by speeding up the slowest parts.
But California High Speed Rail has never been about rationality, or about time savings, or about transportation. It's always been about incinerating cash, and the literally insane idea of buying nose bleed expensive high speed trains to do nothing but depreciate and rust fits perfectly with everything the assholes who control that clown show have done for the last three decades.
@Anonymous: Yeah, the width difference is quite big. IIRC the trains actual width is 2.8m and the loading gauge is 3.3m or something similar. Back in the days it was possible to type "saltsjöbanan lastprofil sjgods" in google and get a picture with the loading gauge A, B and C for the general rail network in Sweden together with the gauge for Saltsjöbanan, but it seems like Google forgot how to find that information :(
DeleteFun fact while I'm at it: The narrow gauge "Roslagsbanan" has about the same train width as metro trains, and if you use third rail to mix narrow and standard track gauge you end up with "Roslagsbanan" trains protrouding from the nearest track approximately the same amount as a mainline trains. So with four rails those narrow gauge trains could share platforms with metro trains, while with three rails they could share platforms with mainline trains (except for that some idiots seems to be even more keen on low platforms than Caltrain :O ).
@Richard: I usually agree with you, but in this case I would say that it would be utterly wasteful to buy 200km/h (125mph) trains for a railway that will be built for higher speeds and where there wouldn't be any noticeable cost savings if it had been built for slower speeds.
Also a bit of a reality check: The "nowhere to nowhere" argument only works if you foresee a future where nothing else changes except that the HSR gets built and starts operating on it's initial operating segment. I strongly doubt that local transit within Bakersfield, Fresno and whatnot won't get any improvements when there is actually a railway that goes somewhere to have local buses feed onto.
Also re "nowhere-to-nowhere": In hindsight it would likely had been a good idea to continue from Merced to Stockton, as that would create connections with both forks of the current San Joaquin (without them needing a shared section) and ACE, and I think it wouldn't be totally out of the question to somehow extend the "eBart" to Stockton (even though that likely would require FRA compliant trains).
@Richard: after the inmates take over the asylum, and start hunting the sane, the sane (rational) thing to do is to pretend to be insane. You know it better that I do what the political coalitionbuilding for CAHSR was. Because it had to be so wide, one couldn't anymore assume the presence of kindergarten-level mathematical intuition among the audience, thus the project had to be sold on a mixture of "pure" drama (connotations potentially floating free of any material reality) and of the "curb appeal" of whiz-bang-wow speed. And thus now any politician faces a bigger loss of political capital if they outright cancel the project, or "compromise" it by buying not-blazing-fast FLIRTs, than if they shovel yet another billion into the monster's maw -- Alon Levy at pedestrianobservations calls this "early commitment". Of course there will be companies that feast on this opportunity, but I think that blaming them is like blaming the worms that are eating the zombie.
DeleteIncidentally, by the rules of this improv theater (or LARP), just as swinging a foam prop counts as cutting, a pointy-nosed train rusted to the rails *does* count as being faaast.
@MiaM: as an amendment to what I wrote above: politicians *can* drag out the project almost arbitrarily, just as long as it officially stays alive. And given that -- largely as a result of "their" (can refer to other, now retired politicians') bad judgment -- constructions costs have quite run away from them, they are likely to do exactly that. (Of course, postponing expenditure in this way actually has a direct contribution to increasing total expenditure, but in four years, it will have become somebody else's problem.) Without a massive and relatively "lump sum" funding appearing, and an apparent inability (unwillingness?) to control costs on a project that already got around to pouring concrete (even if only on stage one), the steady trickle that is the project's budget would, straightforwardly extrapolating, lead to a date of establishing any interesting connection decades into the future.
-- Hedgehog
@Hedgehog:
DeleteThe question is, given an almost flat and straight right of way in the valley, at what max speed and/or at what max acceleration does it start to become more expensive to increase max speed/acceleration?
I'm referring to the kindergarten math thin that a shorter round trip enables movement of more passengers per day, and with a given number of passenger or a given number of trans per day the required amount of vehicles and staff is reduced as travel time increases.
My point is that it might not even be cheaper (over only a few years) to buy the Caltrain style Flirt trains for the initial operating segment on the HSR, even if they are way cheaper than whatever trains they actually end up.
Actually at some point it would be more expensive to chose the slower option even if HSR were given the slower option for free. I.E. let's say in a hypothetical scenario that the bay area floods, the trains were rescued but there is no future where the Caltrain route may ever operate again, i.e. the trains just exists. In that very hypothetical case it might be cheaper to scrap the trains than use them on the HSR route. (In practice the trains would be sold or used elsewhere rather than scrapped, but still).
====================
Re politicians dragging out things:
I just read that funding was approved for improving the existing non-HSR route from Sacramento southwards, to improve the existing San Joaquin service. IIRC the initial goal seems to be Sacramento-Stockton but the goal is to eventually meet up with HSR at Merced.
This kind of seems like a combination of both getting things done and also dragging things out.
As I understand it, the goal here is to double track sections of the BNSF route that currently is single track. That's a good thing, but since HSR has been able to build on the BNSF right-of-way for the initial operating segment, it begs to ask if it's really a good idea to just double track the existing service? Either way, I didn't read anything about electrification and I think it would be a mistake to not electrify it.
If the capacity of the route is greatly improved it seems reasonable to run the HSR trains on it all the way to Sacramento. Without electrification the HSR trains would have to be speced with the option of running them on some sort of diesel generator wagon or whatnot that would be attached/detached at Merced. That could work but wouldn't be great.
(Please, no hydrogen experiments, and also please no battery electric experiments).
Weirdly the article I read said that San Joaquin runs 5 trains per day to Sacramento and 1 to Oakland, while last I had a look at the time table it was 3 trains per day on each route (and in each direction).
Yes, SJRRC/SJJPA have a plan to more than double service in the Merced - Sacramento - Bay Area region. Though with headways measured in trains per day rather than trains per hour it's hard to call it ambitious. Here's a map of the service plan:
Deletehttps://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fvoq0zdkt8ema1.png
There's no way BNSF/UP would be amenable to electrifying their ROWs to enable HSR trains to continue to Sacramento/Oakland. It's likelier that the HSR initial operating segment is served by existing San Joaquins venture cars rather than HSR trains.
You can’t serve the CAHSR RoW with a currently in service train in California. The axel loads from the locomotives are too heavy
DeleteThis is false: you could safely run unit coal trains on the civil infrastructure that California has (over-)built for HSR. The idea that HSR is any sort of "light" rail is a figment of the American imagination, due to never having seen it.
Delete@AG:
DeleteAre BNSF and UP against electification in general, or only against electrification that impedes the existing loading gauge?
I don't know what bridges and tunnels are present on the Merced-Sacramento route, but I think that it would be great to install overhead electrification where the wires is tall enough that double stack container freight trains can run on that line. Would require slightly more complicated pantographs on the trains that would run both on that line and on regular electrified rail, but still.
I might misremember the details but I'm fairly sure that India has a line with that overhead wire height, and maybe there is one in the Netherlands too (connecting the Rotterdam area with Germany - but that might just had been that it was built to handle that but the wires were then installed at standard height as there are no connecting lines that could handle double stack containers). So even though it's obvious that this would work, there are actual examples of this existing for anyone doubting the obvious.
@Anonymous and @Clem:
I'd say that you are both partially right and partially wrong. While HSR lines can handle heavy trains, the tolerances for the track quality is narrower for running trains at higher speeds. Thus it would be possible to build the HSR line, run freight trains on it for a while as a diversion while rebuilding existing parallel lines, and finally refurbish the track on the then somewhat worn-down HSR line, and then actually run HSR services. This is a reasonable option for places with publicly owned rail infrastructure where there is a large maintenance debt and also a need to increase capacity and whatnot. Seems like it's not a good fit for Cali HSR though.
Everything I have ever read about the Class I railroads' opinion on electrification suggests that they do not want lines above their tracks regardless of loading gauge. Possible logical reasons for this could be more maintenance downtime, more burdensome maintenance bureaucracy (need to turn off the power before doing most work), and disruptions if the catenary ever falls onto the tracks.
DeleteBack in 2015 when the rulemaking process was underway for 25 kV OCS in California, the concerns from the freight railroads boiled down to: (1) grade crossing warning systems, (2) vertical clearances, and (3) freight personnel safety and training for operating freight trains in electrified territory.
DeleteAnother complete waste of money & staff time, thanks to SMCo. Supervisor and single Caltrain Boardmember Ray Mueller’s public call for an AI suicide prevention system following a recent suicide in his home city of Menlo park.
ReplyDeleteGood approach, however, I would see this car with general purpose space instead of fixed seats.
ReplyDeleteA way to avoid the need of temporary lifts during the transition, is to first add the new single level cars, then raise half of every platform. Select if this should be done with the southern or northern half, and go with that half on every station.
ReplyDeleteNote that this can also be done in additional steps, starting with either each east-facing platform, or each west facing platform, to split it up into smaller chunks.
When this starts, clearly sign that for ADA compliance, users must enter/exit via the low platform / low floor, with staff assistance, even if there happens to be level access at the high platform level, as they otherwise might get stuck not being able to exit at their destination. (Make sure that the end stations for every scheduled train are done first, so anyone stuck at least don't have to sit inside an almost empty train while it waits for departure in the opposite direction).
When all "half of" station platforms are converted, change the signage to indicate that ADA compliance is on the high level parts of the platforms, and then convert the other half of each platform to also become high level. In this case, do every terminating platform last, also to ensure that anyone entering the wrong section will be able to exit at the end stations.
==========================
Question: Some bi level trains with an intermediate entry level have ramps rather than steps between the intermediate and low level. Would this be possible to make the Caltrain trains ADA compliant?
==========================
The hottest of all hot takes:
How about if the politicians overseeing Caltrain just decides that they are done with the Caltrain board and all consultants and whatnot, and decide to fire everyone and sell the new trains, and buy new trains again, but this time single level trains with no steps/stairs anywhere, and with the floor at the same level as the Cali HSR platforms.
The luke warm take of this is to sell half of the new trains, and replace them with single level cars. And by that I don't mean half of the amount of trains, but rather half of each train.
I think that it would actually be great for transit/railways to have a big scandal, as that would act as a wake-up call to the industry, clearly telling everyone that if they to a shit job heads will roll.
Sometimes you have to inflict some pain on yourself just to inflict even more pain on someone else who really deserves that pain, to ensure that fewer people will put themselves in the position of deserving pain.
Like you in USA seem to like harsh punishments for crimes - why not have harsh punishments for incompetence among the Caltrain leadership too? (I think I'm starting to sound like Richard :D ).
Staff will present how the new EMU service is going so far to the Caltrain Board’s 1:30 pm TOPS (Technology, Operations, Planning, and Safety) Committee meeting today.
ReplyDeleteNote the complete lack of concern about long dwell times, and the immediate capitulation to this, as evidenced by the stated plan to add minutes back into the timetable.
DeleteA year before electric service started, I predicted 86 minutes for all-stops local service including the Broadway Burlingame stop, or 84 minutes if you remove that stop.
Caltrain started with their ridiculously optimistic estimate of 75 minutes, followed by relaxing to 77 minutes in their current timetable. They need to add back at least 5 minutes to the local to account for the lack of level boarding.
Also: the lack of spares is partly self-inflicted. Trainset 311/312 would have been a useful second spare had they not wrecked it at CEMOF.
Also: fixing the door control software would save everybody three minutes. This is not mentioned, demonstrating that nobody cares about long dwell times at Caltrain.
DeleteLoading all the conductors onto a rocket and firing it into the sun would also solve the "door control software problem."
DeleteEverywhere else on the planet where modern, non-knee-capped, non-fucked-over, Stadler trains run, the train driver, using a push button located on the train driver's control console, assisted by video feeds from along the length of the train that are directly displayed on the train driver's control console, safely closes the doors when it is safe to depart. No stupid fucking dancing of a dead-weight wage-sucker "conductor" in and out of the "closed" doors, no stupid fucking bleating double-repeated shrill alarm that A TOTALLY NORMAL THING THAT HAPPENS EVERY THREE MINUTES IS, YES, HAPPENING AGAIN, YES, THE "TRAIN" MIGHT BE ABOUT TO "MOVE".
JFC.
They simply do not give One Single Fuck.
It's all a make-work insider lifetime employment scam for insiders.
All things being equal, it seems like level boarding at 550mm would provide a better level boarding solution for the existing KISS EMUs. Disabled passengers would board the car with the existing low-level bathroom. No lifts needed, even during transition as the mini-highs are aligned with these cars AFAIK. Bikes would be loaded and unloaded without having to navigate an internal stairs. 14ft ramps from 8" to 22" is a lot shorter than 40ft from 8" to 48"
ReplyDeleteMy understanding that Clem's preference for 48" level boarding is based on:
1) Uncertain transition plan from 8" to 22" platforms. Is there an engineering solution for the steps to support both at once? It seems like Caltrain could get an answer on this fairly easily, and might even have one already. A cost estimate of retrofitting EMUs for 22" level boarding is included in the current DTX project cost estimate so there must exist a basis for this estimate. Maybe a FOIA request is needed here.
2) A desire for shared platforms with CAHSR at shared stations.
(a) The plans for 4th/Townsend and Millbrae currently call for only 2 tracks with separate center/outboard platforms for Caltrain/CAHSR which seems pretty workable if a bit ugly.
(b) The latest 2021 Phasing study for DTX/Portal says that 8 Caltrain + 4 HSR can be supported with dedicated platforms and there is limited benefit to shared platforms:
" ... in normal operations, shared platforms provided little or no benefit
because all platforms were occupied nearly 90% of the time, leaving little flexibility to shift trains around. The analysis also showed that in the occasional case of minor day-to-day delays, a late train could occupy a platform other than its assigned platform, but this simply transferred the delay to a later train because of the high platform occupancy rates. A more significant problem with shared platforms is that passengers needing assistance (including those with mobility devices, trolleys, or strollers) to board a Caltrain service would require the use of internal lifts inside Caltrain’s vehicles. Operating these lifts results in extended dwell times (estimated at around 6 minutes), and this would severely affect the on-time performance levels to well below the operators’ requirements."
Of course, Clem's proposal for the new bathroom car would seem to address this concern about the lifts.
(c) Diridon is a whole other discussion but the CAHSR EIR shows that there is plenty of space for 2 dedicated (narrow) CAHSR platforms in the existing Diridon footprint.
(d) Other stations - only Redwood city is likely to make any sense and even then only in the event CAHSR shifts to Altamont. For Pacheco alignment Palo Alto needs to be an overtake point so its the last place you want a stop for HSR.
It turns out Caltrain has a plan for a 22" solution, I will have a post on this soon with some documents obtained through a public records request.
DeleteRe shared platforms:
ReplyDeleteNo matter what stopping pattern is actually planned, the sensible is to have Caltrain and HSR share the fast lines on quad track sections, while all-stopping Caltrain trains use the other two tracks. This creates a need for either having shared platforms, or having six track stations where Caltrain and HSR intend to stop. That might be warranted at San Jose Diridon and whatnot, but certainly not at the smallest station where HRS plans to stop.
Re delays: As the actual railway is shared, delays gets worse if one category of trains gets a worse delay. Also with shared platforms the margins can be shared.
Even more important is that the rush hour is at a different time of day for long distance and local travel, at least in one direction (IIRC the morning peak is earlier for local travel than long distance travel, but I might misremember which it is). If the platforms can't be shared, there has to be capacity for peak hour capacity separately for HSR and Caltrain, and that seems wasteful. Add that it seems like the plan for Salesforce is to only handle 16TPH total for both systems, even with the relatively large amount of tracks, and thus it seems extremely important to not waste capacity
If we end up with platforms that can't be shared there might even be a weird case for using HSR trains for regional operatin within the Caltrain area during the time that is peak for Caltrain but not HSR. That would create confusion as there would be a few HSR trains where Caltrain tickets are valid and that only runs within the Caltrain area. You would kind of need to put large displays for example on the doors, that can display a Caltrain logo when this happens. Seems way worse than being able to share platforms.
Also if Link21 ever gets built, it seems like an even worse idea to have a break in platform height for different categories of trains, as Link21 would connect to the current Capitol Corridor which would be suitable to run approximately as is northeast of Oakland but run with Caltrain stopping patterns on the peninsula, rather than a HSR stopping pattern, but it would also be desirable for it to share platforms with HSR trains, and maybe even use the same type of trains (in a distant future where it's electrified and partially or fully runs on it's own HSR line).
But also: It's super weird that the platforms weren't 22" since ages.
The "mini highs" seems to be a great contestant to be awarded the most stupid things on railways in North America. It's main competition is airport style security theater and boarding on long distance trains in Canada. :)
@MiaM, as a native of the Bay Area and California, in particular, it's frustrating to so much overdue transportation facilities lacking, plus when Caltrain effectively may be extended (or more precisely, connected, at least) to the East Bay, it's the 2020s and not only are current projects being flubbed, but we don't have a consistent, single platform height for trains not only already, but with future plans necessarily. So much in decline!
DeleteNo editing -- [sigh] -- it's frustrating to encounter so much failure, a good deal of which is intentional one way or another.
DeleteAAR lawsuit says a politicized FRA is prioritizing union labor (jobs!) concerns over safety in failing to rule on safety waivers that would cut labor costs.
ReplyDeleteThe FRA’s proposed rulemaking on safety waivers, introduced last week, seems to confirm this approach. In order to pass FRA muster, a waiver request must be deemed in the public interest and consistent with rail safety. The proposed rule aims to define those terms for the first time. “To show that a proposal is ‘in the public interest,’ FRA proposes that a petitioner could provide evidence that the regulatory relief requested would not eliminate jobs or eliminate required visual inspections, but would add additional positions, or improve the existing positions,” the rulemaking says.
Oh wow, those hi-rail vehicles looks like a blast from the past when used for inspections.
DeleteSorry for being Captain Obvious, but:
Elsewhere we use converted passenger cars (or the special cars that were used to carry passengers luggage, or for that sake other cars used in passenger trains) that has special measurement equipment added, and haul those with regular locos (I think at full track speed). Different cars measure different things, like some take measurements on the overhead electrification while others measure the actual track and whatnot.
This also makes me think that it's kind of questionable that there are separate federal administration things for different modes of transport. Sure, if all were combined there is a risk of favoring certain modes of transport over others, but on the other hand I think that having the same safety overview of all modes of transport would be a sobering experience, where specific modes of transport don't have to have higher standards than others.
Also TBH Amtrak should be part of the same federal agency that is responsible for the interstate system and whatnot, and the NEC infrastructure should be separated from Amtrak.
@MiaM: Imagine hi-rail excursions in recreational vehicles. Aside from being private and smaller than a railcar, it's cheaper than moving RVs on flatcars or in auto-rack cars, with or without hook-ups. (In a more interesting world, that could be from the Lower 48 to Alaska, with hook-ups.)
DeleteMore here and now, in looking at Amtrak you're also seeing the real challenge with rail versus other modes of transportation, as they're not the same. Consistency or "parity" would feature public railroad tracks and other infrastructure, and public dispatching (public rail traffic control authorities), with private rolling stock operating companies operating the trains.