Some good news: Caltrain is working on a level boarding plan, as documents requested under the Public Records Act attest. Their "Level Boarding Roadmap: Technical Task Force Platform Report" dated April 2024 is a reasonably well-written document that discusses how the system might be converted to level boarding using the European 550 mm platform standard. After reading it, three questions arise:
- Why are 48" level boarding platforms never discussed? The roadmap takes for granted that Caltrain's solution is 550 mm (22") platforms. It mentions "Caltrain EMUs have doors (...) at the mid-level (currently these doors are plugged)" and never again mentions how these doors got there, what else might be done with them, or why it shouldn't. While every solution has pros and cons, how is such a fundamental decision of system architecture presented with no context as a done deal, without the slightest technical rationale or public discussion?
- Why is the preferred solution allowed to violate HSR specifications? 22" platforms are discussed with two lateral offset alternatives: 64" (preserving today's platform offsets) and 68". The safety argument presented in favor of a 64" offset does not contemplate that such platforms would encroach into the high-speed rail vehicle body dynamic envelope, and that wide-body HSR cars would extend over the platform. These issues are shown in the precisely scaled graphic at right, using dimensions from the HSR vehicle RFP. Neither of these conditions seems safe and neither is addressed in the hazard analysis, unless an unstated assumption is being made that the high-speed rail project should fix Caltrain platform design errors at the public's expense.
- Why was this work not done ten years ago, before EMU procurement? There is no value added by testing platform mockups with a real EMU as done in the report, versus testing with a plywood vehicle mockup. Everything discussed in Caltrain's report was known ten years ago and the Stadler EMU fleet could have been delivered with a platform interface solution for level boarding at 22" had Caltrain specified one. Now, we're stuck with a retrofit situation, but better late than never.
The next steps discussed in Caltrain's report are good ones, and should be expedited. Specifically, developing a technical solution for an automatic step arrangement compatible with both 8" and 22" platforms is of the highest urgency. ("Funding a prototype for an estimated $3M lowers technical risk and also shortens the timeframe to begin fleet implementation should funding become available.") This small investment is among the most important and valuable projects that Caltrain should undertake immediately.
A bit over a month of electric service has made it abundantly clear that dwell times are long and on-time performance is systematically poor due to the rosy performance assumptions baked into Caltrain's timetable. The trains are fast, but much of their performance is wasted on long dwells. Level boarding can't come soon enough.
Posts
I heard the reason why they can't go 48" platform is because FRA banned Caltrain from using onboard lifts while the train is in motion, and Caltrain is concerned about on-time performance under this rule, like what would happen when someone on the wheelchair catching a train in last minute.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure they pursued this formally, as a record of the waiver process would exist on a regulations.gov docket.
DeleteIn any case, there are viable alternatives that do not require internal lifts for 48” platforms.
Do the ADA requirements specify anything about how long wait is ok for getting to the bathroom?
DeleteLike it would for sure be bad and also look bad if wheelchair users are stuck at the entrance waiting to use the lift until the train stops at the next station, but still.
Also, I get why the FRA might not be keen on using lifts while the train is in motion, but a solution to the safety risks would be to have barriers that block a wheel chair from falling off the lift while the lift is in use. The hard part would kind of be to somehow stop the barriers from being in the way when the lift is rather used as a step.
Thank you! Now I understand why we have these janky screaming drop steps on the EMUs: as we raise the station platforms over time, stations with 22" platforms won't need the janky screaming step. The doors will open and shut quicker. Life will keep getting better!
ReplyDeleteBut yeah better figure out the correct offset to allow HSR to run through stations! -danny
To be clear, there was no pressing requirement for a drop step; it could have been engineered as a fixed step with the same dimensions as the Bombardier cars, which have a 25” floor.
DeleteNote that 22” platforms will still require a gap filler to deploy as noted in the Caltrain document.
@Howard: they might be janky seeming … but “screaming”?? Are they noisy? … or what do you mean by twice writing “screaming” (and not seeming)?
Delete"To be clear, there was no pressing requirement for a drop step; it could have been engineered as a fixed step with the same dimensions as the Bombardier cars, which have a 25” floor."
DeleteIt could have, and it fucking blindingly obviously SHOULD have been. Everything about Caltrain's (by which re really mean LTK Engineering Services' -- the toxic Buy American clown show of utter incompetence and unprofessionalism that turns everything it touches to shit) EMU procurement was bonkers.
The "idea" to deploy (well-engineered, Swiss, but still mechanical, still complicated, and maintained by under-skilled non-Swiss) retractable steps 30k times/day, every day, until the heat death of the universe, awaiting the takeover of the corridor by our future undisputed overlords of California High Speed Rail (which is never coming, and was explicitly designed never to provide service to the public) with its SEPTA-compatible high platforms, was and is just insane.
One crosses that bridge when one comes to it .... which is never. Not in my lifetime. Not in any of yours', either! The KISSes will be end-of-life long before then. The rising seas will be rising. Will there even be a regional or even local electrical power grid?
Passive provision of mechanical space for a far-future retractable step, for the entirely science-fictional counter-factual far-far-far-far future in which Caltrian station platforms, used by actual real-world Caltrain riders here on actual and doomed Planet Earth, incrementally and temporarily transition to made-up California High Speed Rail high floor "standards", ought to have been as far as any of this nonsense went.
Actually installing retractable steps, decades before they could possibly have any functional need to actually do any actual retraction for any reason at all, is just pure cost-bloating shithousery by the US transit consultant mafiosi.
Is there a perverse rule where if you build a fixed step, you get dinged for ADA noncompliance, but if you build some utter jank, you are allowed to chant "temporary! interim!" and that banishes this issue for you?
DeleteSeparately: something should really have the (b)ac(k)ronym CALTROP, because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop
I was convinced by the old article Clem wrote advocating for 48” platforms (HSR compatibility, etc), but as an Architect I’m realizing the advantages of 22 inches are huge to the point that it makes the transformation much more likely to happen.
ReplyDelete22“ (+14”) would be much less than ½ the space and cost. At 48” (+40”) ramps require landings (lots more space) Many cases would likely need Mechanical platform lifts (cost, space time and maintenance)
Phasing is much easier with the equipment on the trains able to open to either 8 or 22. As soon as one station has 48” platforms, every station on the line would require some provision to unload at 48” (Annoying and costly till project 100% done.) With 22" they can update stations as $ is found.
14" rise = 14 feet long
Delete40" rise = 43 feet long (3x)
@Randy: agree; raising platforms 14” is going to be way easier, cheaper, faster, and result in less impacts on station/platform access & interfaces. And so instead of procuring a fleet (1 for every 7-car tri-level set) of new single-level high (48”) floor cars and having to lengthen for 8-cars trains & raise all platforms by 3 and a third feet Stadler needs to figure out how to retrofit or replace the retractable step mechanism at all 4 low doors per car to work at both old 8” and new 22” platforms as described in Caltrain’s level boarding roadmap.
DeleteRemember that for decades of higher ridership than today, gallery cars with higher seated capacity worked with only 1 door per car.
So maybe if engineering a dual-height step mechanism proves too difficult or impractical, maybe only just have one door per car equipped for old 8” platforms and the other door for new 22” platforms during the transition period?
Conductors (or something) would still have to ensure the right set of doors open during the transition … and it would be a little confusing and so potentially extend dwell times somewhat — but only during the transition period.
Once all platforms were raised to 22”, then replace all the 8” retractable step mechanisms with 22” retractable bridges to return to 2-door-per-side boarding. Voila … level boarding transition complete!
Which stations would actually require a lift? I.E. where wouldn't it be possible to have a 43' long ramp, even if the ramp is zig-zag:ed (for a lack of a better way to describe it)?
DeleteAlso: I don't the details about the ADA requirements, but I would think that it's allowed to have some ADA compliant connections between platforms and street level, and also have some that aren't (at least if it's not too much of a detour to use the ADA compliant accesses).
Re: planning for 22” platforms, surely the quiet part that they don’t want to say out loud is that Caltrain staff no longer believe that HSR is ever coming to the peninsula, right?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can read this. CA HSR plans are for separate platforms at all stations. They only place they were considering shared 48" platforms was Transbay but that was dropped in the most recent plans.
DeleteBut it’s not just the platform sharing, it’s also the dynamic envelope as Clem described. It definitely sounds like Caltrain staff is planning as though HSR is never coming to the peninsula.
Delete@Bryan if you read the report you will see that they are considering 68" as an option as that is what CAHSR has indicated to them in meetings as a minimum. Caltrain would prefer 64" in the event HSR rolling stock could be compatible with that. The actual rolling stock CAHSR acquire may have a specified dynamic envelope that ends up being smaller than the maximum shown in the RFP.
DeleteOf course, as @Richard has pointed out, there is 0% chance of the HSR rolling stock currently being acquired for the central valley IOS ever making it to the Caltrain corridor as it will be end of life by then, so it makes little sense to constrain level boarding based on dimensions in the current RFP unless HSR insists on it.
Regardless of when HSR’s IOS trains are EOLed/retired, why wouldn’t any replacement/additional trains have essentially the same width (loading gauge) and door height for compatibility with existing station platforms?
DeleteA possibly good outcome of the dynamic envelope and whatnot is that the Caltrain route might "accidentally" have to be quad tracked for HSR, and also HSR might "accidentally" have to stop at some intermediate stations where Caltrain fast / skip-stop trains also stops.
Delete@MiaM, if the Peninsula corridor is quad tracked because the CAHSR loading gauge is incompatible with Caltrain, then you can forget about HSR “accidentally” stopping at express Caltrain stops. At the point where you have segregated the infrastructure due to gauge differences then CAHSR will not spend the time or money to build a station on “their” tracks anywhere but the bare minimum.
DeleteToo many stops on an HSR line is a bad thing, but if you see value in future ability to add an all-stop Kodama-style HSR service at say Palo Alto to complement an express that goes SF to SJ direct, then the way to do it is with full gauge compatibility between Caltrain and CAHSR (loading, traction, signal, etc.) and a design that allows for shared use of infrastructure (FSSF, quad track overtakes, etc. - basically everything Clem identifies in his excellent blog).
@Onux:
DeleteI was thinking about the rare case where the HSR trains static loading gauge fits, but the dynamic envelope won't fit, i.e. they have to run slow through platform tracks.
I agree that HSR trains shouldn't stop at too many places, but in larger cities near/at the end of the line the amount of people benefiting from few stops decreases as a function of how close the train is to the terminus/start, and also having more stops decreases dwell times at the stops with many passengers, as some of those would be able to use a less crowded stop.
I'm thinking about a scenario where "Caltrain express" only stops at say 1-3 stations between SF and SJ Diridon.
(And of course, compatible trains would be the best solution, but if we don't get that then at least lets have the slight incompatibility as an excuse for full quad tracking and a better mix of express and all-stopper trains).
Reading this report it is pretty clear that the only reason Caltrain is even spending any time on level boarding right now is that it is required for the Portal/DTX new stations at 4th/Townsend and Transbay. Since these stations do not serve freight they must by law be ADA compatible with level boarding from day 1. The stations are in final design (even though funding is still uncertain), so Caltrain is being pushed to specify their platform interface.
ReplyDeleteBased on this, it's pretty clear that we should not expect Caltrain to implement level boarding at any stations until DTX opens which is 2034 at the earliest.
The latest Portal Schedule & Funding Update presented to the TJPA Board at their meeting yesterday.
DeleteOf course, the incoming SF-, California-, HSR-, rail-, and transit-hating kakistocracy greatly imperils the odds of receiving any hoped-for federal funding grants for the next 4 years or so.
The ugly work-around would be to ask UP to run some freight trains through/to that station. :D
DeleteFFCA RR in Lima, Peru to receive Caltrain’s 19 retired (and still operable) F40s & 90 gallery cars for the low, low price of only $6m.
ReplyDeleteCaltrain trumpets substantial year-over-year and electrification-related ridership increase.
ReplyDeleteRemind me again
ReplyDeleteA: Why the trains aren't about as large as the required loading gauge / free space for areas where freight operate?
B: Why did they buy double decker trains when it was obvious that they would need steps between the intermediate/end level of the cars and the lower level seating area?
Especially if the trains would had been built to the freight requirement free room space, they would as single deckers likely had had about the same capacity as the current trains.
“ Why the trains aren't about as large as the required loading gauge / free space for areas where freight operate?”
DeleteDing, ding, ding! We have a winner!
As I have pointed out many times before, AAR plates B, C, E and F all exist, with the same width, and not just as abstractions but as a continent wide standard in use not only by freight but by hundreds of thousands of people daily boarding cars of that width at level platforms 48” high with space for those passenger cars and equal width freight cars to pass. There is no reason in the US to do it differently and so many reasons to do it the same. Caltrain specifying the new EMUs at the same width as the legacy bombardier cars was foolish in the extreme.
"As I have pointed out many times before, AAR plates B, C, E and F all exist, with the same width, and not just as abstractions but as a continent wide standard in use not only by freight but by hundreds of thousands of people daily boarding cars of that width at level platforms 48” high with space for those passenger cars and equal width freight cars to pass."
DeleteAnd guess what? The entire Caltrain corridor is clear for better-than-plate-E, and clear for better-than-plate-F everywhere outside the tunnels in San Francisco.
And guess what? There is no level boarding on Caltrain, not at 8 inches, not at 22 inches, not at 48 inches.
You have some sort of point to make?
"There is no reason in the US to do it differently and so many reasons to do it the same"
There's zero reason to be compatible with Acela Liberty and SEPTA Silverliners, which is where it's clear you're going with this. There is, in fact, every reason in the world to run as far away from this catastrophic obsolete shit as possible.
"Caltrain specifying the new EMUs at the same width as the legacy bombardier cars was foolish in the extreme."
Agreed, but only because you don't have any idea what you're talking about, and for the exact opposite reasons you're imagining.
Caltrain's KISS EMUs in fact fit well within your precious Plate E laterally all the way up from the rails, and only exceed it by 195mm vertically at retracted pantograph roof level.
Plate E is 3251.2mm wide above 1016mm ATOR (including at 48 inches); Caltrain KISS are 3000mm.
Plate E is 3105mm wide at 550mm ATOR. Caltrain KISS are 2719mm. Narrower all the way.
Rather, Caltrain ought to have ordered wider trains, given the generous non-North East Corridor clearances of the existing infrastructure and given the one-time now-never-happening dream of non-NEC non-shit HSR running along (parts of) the Caltrain corridor. There's no reason not to have. 3+2 seating. Single-level widebody high capacity.
In fact, Caltrain's EMU RFP explicitly allowed wider (exactly as wide as Plate E above 1016mm ATOR, between one and 2 potentially-useful inches wider than Plate E/F below, all well within the one-time-proposed CHSR static envelope up to 3400mm wide) trains, but, for reasons we will never learn, and which are certain to be the worst possible reasons made by some of the stupidest people on the planet, Caltrain's EMUs are not as wide as Plate E (which would have immensely simplified level boarding at any elevation); nor are they are not as wide as the allowed for in Caltrain's EMU RFP; nor are they are not as wide as one-time-proposed CHSR trains (for which poposed envelope clearance already exists, today, on all the Caltrain corridor); nor are they as wide as any other KISS Stadler has ever manufactured (2800m for UIC Euro-land, 3400mm for Azerbaijan/Georgia/Russia, 2970mm for Spain.)
They're as wide as the Caltrain Bombardier cars. Because. Reasons.
Which makes one think that idiots with absolutely no knowledge of anything at all in the world and zero intention of providing level boarding, ever, at any platform height, ever, were involved in telling Stadler what to do, and in charge of what's rapidly zooming towards a cool billion dollars of train procurement and sweet, sweet consultant and staff "overhead".
I mean, what are the odds of that?
Richard, is that available clearance an opportunity? Permanent 4 1/2" bridge plates, fixed to the high platform doors, with extension mechanisms built in to reach high platforms at 73" from center of track? And then in 30 years, with the regional rail tube near completion and Caltrain increasing to metro frequencies, order full-width single-level EMUs (2x2 with wide aisle) with the bridge plate mechanisms built in. Could even benefit from downsizing the tube bore to accommodate only single-level trains. Know you don't favor the tube, but it's in the state rail plan.
DeleteIf ADA access to the second car bathroom is the main issue preventing 48” platforms, couldn’t ramps be built down to the 22” level for the lower doors to the bathroom car, akin to current mini-high platforms? Why does this issue require lifts within the car or procurement of special single-level accessible cars?
ReplyDeleteA 2nd WC doesn’t (yet) exist.
Delete48” platforms would require Caltrain to provide an internal means for wheelchairs to move between the relatively small ~48” mid-level floor to the larger low ~22” floor the sole WC lives on.
The originally-considered internal lift is slow and janky … requires a crew member to operate … and we are told may only be used while the train is stationary.
And an internal ADA-compliant self-service ramp, if even feasible, would require a significant, costly, and space-inefficient retrofit.
Sorry, I should have been more clear in my question. I am referring to the current bathroom in the second car of the current seven-car consist, and an external ramp at a proposed 48" platform that dips to meet the lower doors of this car at the 22" height. This seems to be similar to the current procedure of loading passengers into the second car of the consist using mini-high platforms, just in reverse, and it can be made level with the lower doors so a gap-filler can be used instead of a manually deployed ramp.
DeleteSo there are ramps up, then ramps down? Remember a 2'-2" vertical rise takes about a 27-foot ramp at 8% grade (plus a landing or two). Outside the EMU this would take a fair amount of station space. Inside an EMU this would take a good portion of the corridor, a third the length of the car. (But no pesky electric-operated lifts). Multiple multiple doors! Door 1 at 22 inches, door 2 at 35 inches, door 3 at 48 inches.
DeleteI am assuming the entire platform would be raised to 48", so there would be ramps up outside the platform as needed, and on the platform a ramp down to an accessible 22" entrance for the bathroom car, just as there are currently ramps up to the 8" platform at many stations, and another ramp up to the 22" mini-high.
DeleteThe current mini-highs are already 47' long with two 15.5' ramps and a 16' landing. A "mini-low" with two 27' ramps and a 16' landing would total 70', larger than the current mini-highs but still only a small area on the over 500' long stations. This 70' space would still be useable and would not be an impediment to passengers traversing the platform, as there are ramps on both sides.
Fleshing out this idea a bit more, I would think these ramps would be designed in the following way, although I can think of some potential other ways a “mini-low” ramp could be built:
To prevent any fencing near the edge of the platform to avoid any clearance requirement, the ramp could be flush all the way to the edge of the platform, only requiring one line of fencing on the opposite side of the ramp. As the current mini-highs extend to 110" from the platform edge, the "mini-low" ramps could be 110" wide so that there could be adequate space to traverse the ramp away from the platform edge. Most island platforms would likely be ramped for the entire width of the platform.
The only downside I can see with this proposal with ramps flush to the edge of the platform is that some adjacent high-doors could potentially be inaccessible, namely the high-door at the back of the cab car 36' from the low door at the front of the bathroom car. However, with open gangways, plugging this door and allowing passengers to load at other doors does not seem to impede service.
@Nash:
DeleteIn that case it would probably be better to have one end of the platform at 22" and the rest at 48", so the first two cars use the existing 22" doors, and the rest of the train (possibly one of the doors on the second car too?) uses 48" doors.
@Reality Check:
Re the slow lift that would require staff - is this an issue with faster user-operated lifts not being a thing in general in USA? I remember many years ago reading about the ADA compliant lifts on some of the New Orleans street cars and thought it seemed extremely weird to have cumbersome lifts that staff have to operate, taking ages to use and whatnot, when they could just had opted for modern trams with a low floor section but (like they did) style them like the vintage trams. Sure, wouldn't look as "genuine" with a low floor section, but would be way better for almost everyone involved.
Side track: I wonder if there is a difference in how accessibility is viewed from the point of view both from those needing accessibility and also the general public, depending on if the majority of those needing accessibility needed that since they were kids, or if it's due to something happening during their adult life (war veteran, workplace accidents and whatnot). My impression is that most of those who need accessibility here in Europe either had the need since they were kids or it's due to age related issues.
Well, the Paris Metro's RATP has probably the best opinion on ADA access to the subway:
Delete"Wheelchair users can take the bus."
Martin: Even ten years ago that was not true at all:
Deletehttps://parisbytrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/paris-wheelchair-accessible-metro-rer-tram-train-stations.pdf
Martin, strongly disagree. WMATA/DC Metro is 100% ADA accessible and is superior to the bus. It's not hard to design an ADA accessible system if you're a competent transit agency...
DeleteLink-21 chooses standard-gauge as preferred option.
ReplyDeletehttps://bart.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7024337&GUID=634FECEB-C758-47B5-B3CE-DE1F20D67C7E&Options=&Search=
30 years too late, but I'll celebrate the decision to stop building wide gauge in the Bay Area when the final vote is tallied tomorrow!
DeleteDid anyone else notice HSRA Boardmember Ernest Camacho toward the end of the CEO’s report at this month’s (Nov. 7) board meeting asking about “moving from a wide-body [train] car to something completely different”? Legal counsel immediately shuts him down explaining that “we’re in active procurement” and that “it’s very confidential.” After also clarifying they cannot discuss it in closed session either. Chair Richards says that the CEO can meet with board members one-on-one to discuss any such questions they may have.
ReplyDeleteSo … anyone know what’s up with that? It sure sounds like there may be some sort of late board desire or interest in revisiting train widths.
Avelia Horizon / TGV M with either a 2.9m or 3.2m width and a now Caltrain preferred 550mm boarding height boarding height enters the chat...
DeleteFucking Pennsylvania Railroad (which is all our unspeakably retarded Buy American consultant scum have ever know or ever will know) has taken over the chat.
DeleteIf you want a picture of the future, imagine Acela and Amtrak and UPRR stamping on a human face — for ever.
There is an "agreement" with Brightline and the Feds to adopt a global platform height and offset standard. Funny how neither Metrolink nor Caltrain were part of that agreement.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/yEBGzySoJPY?t=4045
They were included. From the "notice to designers" about the new high platform standard adopted for California HSR, we learn this:
Delete"The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) convened a working group to align on a future platform-train interface (PTI) standard composed of all agencies involved in public rail transport in California. Currently in California, there are a multitude of platform and train boarding heights that affect accessibility and ADA compliance, customer acceptance and convenience, and reliable dwell times and operational performance. In addition, the difference in heights impact future ridership growth, network interoperability, and planning certainty for capital investments.
The PTI working group concluded that a two-standard solution was required for California – one at the low-level platform height and one at the high-level platform height. Consensus through the working group, which includes CHSRA, Brightline West, and High-Desert Corridor, has been reached on the high-level platform heights. Furthermore, in the June 12, 2023 letter to Caltrans, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) indicated that the proposed solution for high-platform level boarding, to accommodate passenger rail equipment with different high-level floor heights, will meet the requirements codified in 49 CFR 37.42, with the equipment-borne gap filler meeting the intent of 49 CFR 38.175."
What's ironic is that Caltrain's EMU could work with a 48" x 73" platform interface.
Asked Alon Levy on stream about 550mm HSR. They said Avelia Horizon (and TGV) are the only ones available, and have worse performance than high floor. Recommended against vendor-locking into Avelia.
ReplyDeleteThe merest hint that California High Speed Rail, a fully-owned subsidary of rent-seeking, bid-rigging, competition-excluding, globally unemployable, technical and fiscally incompetent, Buy American scamming, best-practice-ignorant, best-practive-hostile consultant mafiosi, would do anything but laugh (all the way to the bank!) about "vendor-locking" is utterly risible. I mean, CHSHA itself is the very definition of vendor lock-in (to PB aka PBQD aka WSP and successors.)
DeleteI mean, for just one semi-trivial but utterly typical example, these are the fucking clowns who designed their own bespoke, globally-unique high sped rail turnouts, based on nothing but their self-importance and hallucinations any sort of expertise. Guaranteed insane over-cost, guaranteed single bidder.
If CHSRA is in favour of something, it can only be because somebody is on the take. It's been that way, without exception, since I first became aware of the utterly deranged way the "public" agency was operating in the early 1990s. Stupidly at the time I imagined, as with Caltrain, that it was just lack of information that lead to poor outcomes, and that with better knowledge better decisions would be made.
How's that working out?
Speaking of which, Caltrain's CEO has been at the agency, in decision-making positions, for the entire 20 past years in which level boarding has been brushed-off, denigrated, and actively designed against (entire system-wide station platform reconstructions, the castastrophically stupid EMU procurement.) This sort of this hasn't happened because of a lack of information or because of "vendor-locking" or because of accident. It's active and relentless seeking of the most expensise and worst outcomes.
Obviously that "Anonymous" above is I.
DeleteThe point remains that 95+ percent of high speed rolling stock worldwide is high-floor.
Delete100% of global HSR trainsets will have long been sold for scrap by time HSR comes to the Peninsula. Going forward, everything will be TSI-compliant -- so if the concern is vendor lock-in then California should be complying with the latest standards.
Deleteany trainset with less than 48" boarding height simply trades external ramps/steps for internal ramps/steps, unless non-standard, smaller diameter wheels are used or no solid axles, both would lead to other design complications and trade-offs.
DeletePutting all the machineries at the under floor also improves stability, which is especially important at high speed.
Earth to William:
Delete48" boarding height requires internal wheelchair lifts in the Caltrain duplex cars. The reason for going low-floor is precisely to eliminate the need for wheelchair users to deal with internal ramps/stairs/lifts. And BTW, the world's fastest HSR train (TGV) is low-floor. It is quite stable, even at 574kph.
@Drunk Engineer, you're assuming high-speed rail will reach the Peninsula someday. The reality is, maybe, or maybe not, with the odds currently being very strongly against it, as the odds are strongly against completion. Don't overlook that "real" HSR with this state project also means Los Angeles Union Station is the southern terminus, for example. It's sufficient at this time to be skeptical of any northern mountain crossing enabling high-speed trains (traveling ordinary speeds in the Bay Area as well as nearby developed areas) to reach the Peninsula or go from there to points elsewhere along the line.
Deleteto Anonymous @ 26 November, 2024 16:11
DeleteTGV-duplex still uses standard sized wheels, so there is still sections of ~48" "barriers" at the bogies and cannot pass to other cars on the first floor, thus would need internal lifts for ADA compliance as not all amenities are concentrated in one car.
TGV-duplex, as currently designed, is not ADA compliant. All other newer built HSR with dedicate infrastructures all have trains with internal floor height ~48". CAHSR chose rightly in this case.
William: let's not making mountains out of molehillts.
Delete(yes not a TGV, but the point remains.)
to Anonymous27 November, 2024 10:19
Deletethe picture proves my point: floor height less than 48" ramp/steps are needed, whether it is internal or external to the train. Only ~48" boarding height leads to flat, no steps, floor inside the train car
Lifts are needed for the Caltrain riders in the Stadler Duplex. That's the issue which you seem to be deliberately ignoring.
Deleteto Anonymous27 November, 2024 12:39
DeleteLike Clem said, there are other solutions to ADA access to the bathrooms, no internal lifts needed
@Drunk Engineer:
DeleteWill they have been scrapped by then?
I would think that at least some of them would be handed down across countries, either to poorer countries or to budget operators in relatively rich countries.
Either a specific type of rail vehicle is crap even after attempts at fixing design mistakes and whatnot, and ends up scrapped early on, or it's a great design and is worth keeping in shape for ages.
@Anonymous27 November, 2024 09:09:
the very surprising alternate reality would be that Cali HSR gets stuck at crossing from the valley to the bay area, but somehow Capitol Corridor gets electrified and improved, and Link21 gets built, and the HSR the Caltrain route will see would be Capitol Corridor HSR. Not very likely, but also not fully impossible.
Something at least not unthinkable is having diesels pulling HSR trains from Merced (or rather Stockton) via the ACE route to San José, and then running under their own power to SF. For this to make sense there has to be a way to run them, at decent speed under their own power, to LA, as even with diesel on the ACE route it would still be faster than the slow coastal route.
A question here is what the cost of ownership per time unit and per mileage is for HSR train sets as compared to regular loco hauled passenger cars? I assume that the HSR trains would be more expensive, but the question is how much more expensive would they be?
"Like Clem said, there are other solutions to ADA access to the bathrooms, no internal lifts needed"
DeleteClem's solution is to have wheelchair users board one special car, which goes against letter and spirit of ADA. Or else confine persons with mobility issues to a really cramped vestibule area, which is also problematic for obvious reasons. Commentators on this blog seem to have developed a terminal case of "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome when it comes to accessibility issues that others have already solved.
“ Clem's solution is to have wheelchair users board one special car, which goes against letter and spirit of ADA.”
DeleteNot at all. ADA requires reasonable accommodation, not everything exactly equal all of the time. It is perfectly acceptable to have a handicap accessible entrance at one end of a building but not at the other, to have a wheelchair path to a playground that starts at the bottom of a park not the top, to have an accessible single bathroom next to normal bathrooms without large stalls. Having a special accessible car seems to be the norm in much Europe, with a large handicap symbol on the outside (just as the pet car has a large symbol of a dog on the outside, the car with the playroom has a stroller symbol, etc.)
“confine . . . to a really cramped vestibule area”
Again, this is totally normal. People with mobility issues (specifically wheelchairs but also some others) obviously can’t use normal seats. It is very standard to put spaces for wheelchairs and associated restraints in car vestibules where there is room for the wheelchairs to maneuver and get set, along with some nearby seats for companions/caregivers (that also function for people whose mobility makes it difficult to get into a normal seat row from an aisle). This is so standard I’m surprised you would even question it.
Cardinal rule of ADA: don't require persons with mobility issues to travel any farther than they have to. That is why disabled parking is near the front entrance of buildings, etc. By requiring a special car, a passenger possibly have to travel a long ways down a platform to reach the special loading location. Or have to find that location if they are vision impaired...
DeleteADA also requires maximum feasible accommodation; confining people to vestibule violates that requirement since there are better options available.
And then there is the whole issue of people with luggage/strollers/bikes having to drag those things up and down the stairs, which can be avoided entirely just by boarding directly to the lower level.
The malicious compliance solution to not have longer walking distance for disability access than other access is to close all station entrances that are far away from wherever the second car usually stops at. That way it's a far walk for everyone.
DeleteThe combination of malicious compliance and also not being terrible to the general public would be to technically close those entrances, but only do that by removing entrance signs and replace a bit of each path with compacted dirt.
"Clem's solution is to have wheelchair users board one special car, which goes against letter and spirit of ADA."
DeleteHow is this any different than the current EMU configuration as converted for 550 mm platforms? There is one special car with the toilet, inaccessible from the others. I sense a subtle double standard being applied. My 48" concept requires no lifts at all after platform raising is completed. As for "not invented here" there are plenty of examples of high-floor bi-level stock-- the latest Paris RER stock or Madrid Cercanias are recent examples. Elevating German/Swiss practice above all is just another kind of myopia.
Clem, my reading of 49.A.38.107 would require restrooms in both cars to be accessible: "If a restroom is provided for the general public, it shall be designed so as to allow a person using a wheelchair or mobility aid to enter and use such restroom." Your scheme (if I understand) provides 2 cars with restrooms, one of which is not accessible.
Delete@Drunk: unless regulators hold trains to a higher standard, aren’t there many non-train examples around us where only one (or some) of many restrooms (or toilet stalls or porta-potties) is accessible?
DeleteThe malicious compliance solution would be to close one of the restrooms.
DeleteQ: What actually counts as "one restroom"? I.E. not that it's a place to take a dump at, but rather what counts as one restroom with multiple stalls v.s. several individual restrooms?
Since Caltrain afaik don't serve food or whatnot, they could class all of the train (or a few cars in the middle) as "one restroom" and each actual restroom could be classed as "a stall".
The question is what distance between ADA-compliant restsrooms/stalls and non-ADA-compliant ones are acceptable.
Cardinal rule of ADA: don't require persons with mobility issues to travel any farther than they have to.”
Delete“ADA also requires maximum feasible accommodation”
These are not correct. The standard for ADA is either accessibility requirements (doors must be 36” wide, maximum slope of ramps, etc.) or reasonable accommodation. Look at this diagram from the official ADA website, it shows a door where people can walk directly up the steps but have to go off to the side to use the wheelchair ramp - making people go farther for the accessible entrance is clearly legal.
https://www.access-board.gov/images/ada-aba/guides/chapter4/4edg4.JPG
And of course you could study station layout and place the ADA/toilet car where it is closest to the main entrance of most stations/escalators to platforms, thus giving disabled users preferential access, just like disabled parking.
“confining people to vestibule violates that requirement since there are better options available.”
Except boarding at the lower level isn’t automatically better. Most space on any train is useless to wheelchair users since normal rows/seats are useless. What they need are certain amounts of clear area to maneuver, a spot with restraints to park their wheelchair safely, and an adjacent seat for a caregiver/companion. Providing 10m2 of accessible seating on the lower level gives no more freedom than 10m2 of accessible seating in a vestibule since that is all the disabled can use.
“And then there is the whole issue of people with luggage/strollers/bikes having to drag those things up and down the stairs”
This is an entirely different issue. I am a proponent of single level trains for exactly this reason, both for the convenience factor and the impact on dwell times at stations from boarding/deboarding, combined with the fact that space for stairs and equipment that is otherwise under floor limits how much extra seating bi-levels gain you.
“@Drunk: unless regulators hold trains to a higher standard, aren’t there many non-train examples around us where only one (or some) of many restrooms (or toilet stalls or porta-potties) is accessible?”
Delete@Reality, you are exactly right, as well as instances of only some entrances being accessible with a sign pointing the way to an accessible entrance somewhere else. Drunk’s interpretation of ADA is stricter than reality.
The vestibule-with-no-wheelchair-space is a reasonable concern, but once you add the eighth car, there is only one place in the entire trainset (between the north cab and the original bathroom car) where this issue arises. Everywhere else than these two doors, you can roll through to the next car where two wheelchair spaces can straightforwardly be made available, on the mid-level. I don't think this is a show-stopper for 48".
DeleteOnux: in terms of non-train examples we can look at the building code. When there is a group (cluster) of restrooms at different floors/levels, code requires that each cluster must have at least one accessible restroom.
Delete@Onux:
Delete"a spot with restraints to park their wheelchair safely"
Why? I get that that is needed on for example a bus, but as trains don't have seat belts, and generally aren't jerky in their movements (and have a very low likelihood of crashing in a way that hurts the passengers), it seems like wheel chairs can just park anywhere.
I have not seen wheelchair restraints on BART, MUNI LRVs, Caltrain, and do not remember seeing any on SMART, Capitol Corridor/San Joaquin trains, or VTA LRVs. Yes, they are on buses, but motorized users on MUNI don't use them, nor do most non-motorized. AC Transit buses are more picky, but they also wait until all fares are paid to leave each stop. But I do not believe from local daily experience that the ADA requires them on rail vehicles.
DeleteA 2023 FRA report says "there are currently no requirements for [wheelchair] users to be restrained or their devices to be secured while riding on passenger railcars."
Deletehttps://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-04/Improved%20Collision%20Protection%20for%20Wheelchairs.pdf
Hi Clem, we took your suggestion of making a video about boarding EMUs with a wheelchair using the mini-highs. Here it is: https://youtu.be/XfCk3GrJJgo
ReplyDeleteVery cool, thanks-- obviously a much better experience than the gallery cars! Here is a link to your video.
DeleteI am surprised by how small the overlap of the folding bridge plate on the mini-high appears in the video. It looks like there isn’t much overlap on the car floor side either … so it’s just barely long enough and appears that it could fall if not carefully positioned correctly, or if it shifts only small amount while in use.
DeleteThere is a lip at each end of the underside of the bridge plate that prevents it from sliding longitudinally.
DeleteOff topic: I was distracted today reading about the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn, the Shonan suspended monorail, and the Chiba suspended monorail and imagining a line from Beale St. to Davis St. Embarcadero, Bay St., Cervantes, Marina, Mason, Long, Marine, across the bridge and through the headlands to the Waldo, along 101 ending at SMART Larkspur. Parts of the line would pass over electric bus cables.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain the practical meaning, effect, or rationale behind this Stadler announcement?
ReplyDelete“In order to promote this successful business development and to secure an even stronger presence in the American market, the US site will be separated from the Swiss division as of 1 January and will operate as a new US division.”
I read the article and assume that it's an accounting/tax issue.
Delete“Level boarding” appears thusly in the “Amended and Restated Interim Agreement – Caltrain and TJPA”” up for approval at tomorrow’s Caltrain board meeting. (see Exhibit B-1 on PDF page 56)
ReplyDeleteExhibit B: Joint Workplan to be completed by both Parties from November 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025 (Includes 4th & King Yard Preparation)
Workstream 4. MCA or/and 4KY interim agreements development/negotiation
c. Reach interim agreements supporting progress toward a comprehensive MCA (Master Cooperative Agreement), including:
Rolling stock: i. Level boarding implementation and funding plan
Caltrain HQ will decamp from San Carlos to continue cohabitating with SamTrans in their spiffy new HQ building steps away from the Millbrae BART/Caltrain (and maybe someday HSR) station.
ReplyDeleteFun fact I earlier failed to note is that the new building SamTrans is leasing to own at the Millbrae BART station is on BART-owned land. Since it has significantly more space than SamTrans needs for its HQ, they were always planning to sub-lease to other retail and office tenants. And so now after evaluating several other sites ranging from downtown SF (MTC’s building at 375 Beale) to downtown SJ, Caltrain is now going to be one of those tenants in a building on BART-owned land.
DeleteIt's yet another reminder of, in addition to other things, the ridiculous new Trans-Bay Terminal that has had other things wrong with it already, including functionally. As has been said elsewhere, rather than the silly park atop a lower-height station, the station could have had high-rise construction atop it not only providing some housing but office spaces and of course making this downtown site the new headquarters of all manner of Bay Area transportation organizations. Where are the headquarters for MTC and Caltrain and BART, in addition to S.F. Muni? They all should be atop the mass transportation station that defines "downtown San Francisco." Other government offices could be there, plus retail, etc., doing a better job than in Miami with the private real estate developers running a new passenger railroad. But no. Where mixed-use including (actual) transportation in addition to stationary uses could work well, it's absent, by design. Miami's example provides the concept and downtown San Francisco's version EASILY could have outclassed Miami Central and other transit-adjacent development (accurate term).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.som.com/projects/brightline/
On the other hand, it's easier for so many to drive to and from Millbrae. That's despite the usual blurbs about being in a transit-rich location, etc. (It's great if one can do it; few can. If in downtown San Francisco, people would work extra hard to do it.)
Don't know if anyone noticed, but FRA officially adopted its security-theater two-man crew requirement: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/09/2024-06625/train-crew-size-safety-requirements
ReplyDeleteIn theory, Caltrain could still do one-man operation under this new rule -- but it would require total time segregation with freight.
I wonder if it would be possible to stretch the interpretation of those rules by having the conductor be on the freight train rather than on the passenger train? Would likely save Caltrain a lot if they only have to send someone doing nothing on the few freight trains that run during normal operating hours, rather than having someone doing nothing on every passenger train.
DeleteHow much freight is running on the Caltrain route (north of the fork with the railway to/from the east bay)? Would it in theory be possible to hire a bunch of unemployed people take the freight as carry-on on a passenger train, to technically "not run freight" on the Caltrain route? :)
"A bit over a month of electric service has made it abundantly clear that dwell times are long and on-time performance is systematically poor due to the rosy performance assumptions baked into Caltrain's timetable."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.caltrain.com/media/34347/download
From this document, you can see that even before the original post, Caltrain's on-time performance was trending upwards towards 95% after its rocky launch in September. Now, given another month of hindsight, doesn't this statement seem unfair?
Regardless, I do hope that level-boarding comes sooner rather than later. Crowding at the door of the bike-car is, at the very least, a massive annoyance. I am curious if there are small improvements that could have even bigger impacts -- perhaps dictating one door as inflow and another as outflow, or having the conductors "direct traffic". These marginal improvements could have outsized positive impacts on dwell times at almost no cost. Given that any major change will take a long time to implement, I would appreciate them experimenting with various small changes while we wait.
Let’s not revisit the inefficiencies and impracticalities of dedicating bike car doors to entry and exit only — an idea which even if you could get everyone with a bike to consistently abide by, means that one or the other’s door capacity goes to waste anytime there is a significant imbalance in the number of bikes boarding and alighting, thereby needlessly increasing station stop dwell times.
DeleteApart from level boarding, the best you can do is to strictly prevent (bully, even, if necessary) bikeless riders to alight and board last (i.e. only after all riders with bikes) so that they will naturally want to “redistribute” themselves to other (non-bike) car doors that are standing empty in the future.
Also: People tend to move to another door if there is a long queue at the door they try to enter and no queue at the other doors.
DeleteIt's important that train staff never closes/locks "clear doors" while there still is a queue at any doors, as that will otherwise teach users to continue queue at the door that has the longest queue, as if they leave the queue they might end up at a locked door, and not have enough time to go back to the queue they left, and this is obviously immediately bad for the user and after it has happened once to an individual user it ends up being bad for the railway. (This is unintentionally my contest to this days longest sentence, lol)
I did not know that this idea had been discussed before, I apologize. I completely agree otherwise regarding distributing bikeless riders to other cars. It might also be worth trying to encourage people who are at the station to make room for people to de-board before rushing in.
DeleteIn any case, posted signage would help, especially for first time riders. Even playing it over the speakers would be nicer than hearing “The San Mateo Elevator is out of service” for the 100th time.
@Dave - the DC metro does something similar with markers/stickers on the platform floor for six car trains, and stickers directing people to their transfers. They could do the same - bikes only at this area of the platform, passengers at other areas of the platform?
DeleteHDC is by far the most pointless rail project in California (which is really saying a lot). Just unbelievable that anyone seriously proposes that a HSR out to Apple Valley(!!) takes priority over doing any of the major metro areas.
ReplyDeleteIIRC the advantage of this is that it provides a high speed bypass of LA for LV trains, while also serving these desert communities. It provides a backdoor option to LA and the inland empire, meaning that once Pacheco is done, we can see connections from SF to LV
DeleteWhere are people getting anything about new or changed priorities with this HDC announcement?
DeleteOn another topic, after a bumpy first try resulting surprise emergency braking applications, Caltrain has announced (finally!) the re-enablement of their Wabtec wireless crossing optimization system. Unfortunately it seems there have concurrently also been numerous rider reports of delays with trains seemingly being run slower than usual since Monday, possibly around crossings.
SF-LV HSR travel time is well over 5hrs, so really uncompetitive against air travel (the ridership study doesn't even include it). Also, the proposed track layout at Palmdale does not allow for one-seat SF-LV ride, unless trains reverse out of the station due to the track configuration.
DeleteRight! No one-seat rides to/from Vegas because double-ended HSR trainsets never reverse direction mid-run when they serve stub-end stations mid-run, all over the world, every day. 🤦🏻
DeleteFRA requires a bunch of time-consuming safety checks when the train is reversed. If you are thinking it would be like a Japan or Swiss operation, that's not possible without major rule changes.
DeleteInstead of getting one's crayons in a knot, look at the money. HDC is a 54 mile project that already has $170m from LA County. The DB's early operator plan stated that getting to Palmdale would allow connections on to the LA Basin on either Metrolink or on much-shorter bus shuttles, vastly improving the connection between north and south via rail. Now if the CHSRA Authority flips to concentrate on building south, it's got a system that's all of a sudden 54 miles across open land to Brightline. Without doing the arithmetic to be exact, that's all of a sudden 400 miles of HSR. And remember, Vegas will be a draw from the Central Valley. Don't just think SF-LA as the pot of gold. As for lack of a full wye in Palmdale, you really think it's beyond the scope of this project to build a N-E chord to make the thing work without throwing one's self prostrate at the base of the FRA to allow modern HSR transits to reverse direction in Palmdale Station? Again, this is a cheap solution to raft three projects into one. Also leverages Brightline's PR expertise in PR and promotion that will only grow as construction and operations begin.
DeleteOk, let's look at money. Building Palmdale + HDC has the same time/cost as building the Pacheco tunnel. One provides access to SF, the other to Rancho Cucamonga. So I'm not following the logic here.
DeleteWell not quite. With Brightline building Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas, building [Bakersfield to] Palmdale fills the biggest rail gap in the state (whether you have to switch trains at Palmdale to reach LA, like they plan to do in Merced, or HSR trains run through to LA Union Station); and HDC links two HSR networks (whether as Metrolink, Brightline West, or HSR sorta in line with Anonymous below). It probably won't see much through HSR service (Victorville to LA) until the next phase to Burbank is built (assuming capacity and speed issues on the Antelope Valley line) but I'd rather see the big rail gap fixed in one or two swoops, and several trains a day, than be able to get to SF to Bakersfield much quicker and still have to transfer to a bus for another 10-20 years. It would actually give the appearance of a toehold of improved service. So, you zip up the Tehachapis, you slither slowly down the San Gabriels, it's still better than the bus.
DeleteIf Santa Clara County was putting a dime or two into even planning grade separations, right of way protection, or anything else besides a new station for San Jose, I might think Pacheco could mean decent service into the Bay Area. But from what I've seen, better service will come far sooner for San Franciscans, Concordians, Oaklanders, and most others via a transfer in Merced to whatever ACE/San Joaquins are up to. I was R/T on the Starlight in the last week to Salinas and was very disappointed by all the new construction getting right up on the UP through Morgan Hill and Gilroy. With a finished CHSRA EIR for the corridor, right-of-way for grade seps/etc could be getting purchased, but that's not the case.
DeleteEver ride a late Eurostar from the Channel Tunnel into Waterloo that missed its slot and followed a local all the way into London? That's what future generations will be getting with Pacheco to Gilroy to Caltrain into SF.
Apologies... I was ranting about grade separations south of Diridon Station. And beyond Sunnyvale, Mountain View's plan for Castro is by far the most reasonable project for a grade separation ever. But with the density of service on Caltrain, they should have all be done long ago. Again, is Santa Clara County doing anything to protect HSR up from Gilroy? Sure doesn't look like it at all. That's my concern.
DeleteThe Skyway Drive, Branham Lane, and Chynoweth Avenue mentioned in the Lofgren press release are all south of Diridon.
DeleteTBH The HDC route should really be built as quad track or at least triple track, to allow for a bunch of local stations along the route with a high frequency metro style service to LA and preferably also Rancho Cucamonga (have BLW build Victorville - Rancho Cucamonga at least as double track), and also allow a few HSR/express trains on the route.
DeleteThe point of HDC is that it's prime land for development. It's relatively flat and in the future there will be rail connections at both ends into the main "joined" LA metro area, and as a bonus when the HSR tunnels are built Palmdale-LA rail will be much faster than driving even outside rush hour traffic.
Re FRA mandated procedures for reversing trains:
Rules are in place for a reason, and if Cali HSR in conjunction with BLW can make a good case for the rules not being necessary for the train types they run, it is at least in theory possible to change the regulations.
But also, rules that are dumb are meant to be bent. In particular, how about technically stating that the driver is actually at the same end all the time, and during half of the SF-Palmdale-LV route there is a "lookout" in the cab at the other end of the train? It's not unheard of having trains where the driver is at the rear end, although I think it usually only happens with slow freight trains.
But also: I assume that FRA only mandates that specific things has to happen during a direction change, and then it's up to the railways and to some extent other regulations to make those things happen fast or slow.
The important thing is that whatever has to happen don't take much longer time than what exchanging passengers take, and also changing staff (I would think that 5h is a bit too long for staff to work without a break, and changing staff at Palmdale in particular has the benefit that the SF-Palmdale leg can be operated by staff not trained on the Palmdale-LV leg, and vice versa).
But also: Phase 2 of Cali HSR runs LA Union Station - San Bernadino - San Diego. With HDC it's possible to run through trains SF/Sacramento-San Diego that skips LA Union Station and thus reduces travel time to/from San Diego (and for that sake most of the eastern part of the LA metro area).
I think that it would be great if advocacy groups and whatnot lobby for at least double tracking Victorville - Rancho Cucamonga, and also ensure that there is space for a triangle junction at Victorville and also enough room at Rancho Cucamonga to expand the site to have enough room for BLW, Cali HSR phase 2, metro style frequency double track Metrolink trains and a few trains running Palmdale-Rancho Cocamonga-San Diego.
I agree that grade separation should be a priority, especially since the route north of Gilroy will anyway see a lot of works (double track HSR route).
DeleteBut if it's grade separated, why only aim at 125mph and not whatever the max speed the Cali HSR train sets could reach along that route?
@Michael:
Eurostar trains share a lot of track with other trains in France (and Belgium and the Netherlands), while the Cali HSR trains will "only" share routes for shorter sections in the LA area and then have their own dedicated infrastructure all the way to Gilroy. In other words it's probably way less likely that they are late than that a Eurostar train is late towards London.
But also the plan seems to be to run Cali HSR trains so frequent that a late train could just take the next trains slot (and unless some super slow FRA mandated procedures have to be followed, it could couple with the following train so only one slot is needed).
Quad tracking at least a lot of San Jose - SF should be a priority though.
But also: I've said this over and over again, but I repeat it again:
Re "whatever ACE/San Joaquins are up to" - for the routes into the bay area I don't have a really strong opinion, but for the route to Sacramento it feels like a waste to invest money but not make it HSR while at it.
MiaM, if you drive the Hwy 18/High Desert Corridor (in Google Street View or in person) you won't find many populated places that have water to support a larger population than they already do (without robbing their neighbors' groundwater). Antelope Center, Lake Los Angeles [no lake], Littlerock, Four Points... collectively might eventualy justify 1-2 local stops or equity inclusion Folks in suburban East Victorville should drive or get a local bus (?) to the big train station in Victorville unless something really changes. Lots of hopeful grid streets, lots of creosote bush or rabbitbrush, a gas station or two. It's not all uninhabited, but it's sparse. (Granted, a lot more populous than Hwy 58 from Tehachapi to Mohave via Edwards and Boron). Yes, the HDC should reserve enough of a right of way to build out passing tracks (for local trains and freight traffic) and there should be bus-to-rail connections at a couple key points... (some folks live out there because they can afford a house there, far from where they work, so yeah, there's a bit of ridership potential, but you'd lose money stopping for what passengers you get). Now, HSR in the Central Valley ought to have sidings and pullouts for local travelers, more than it does (since it will probably kill off the 10X a day San Joaquin service. Years ago I noticed the San Joaquin carries a fair number of released prison inmates heading back home in un-hemmed prison-issue khakis (the cafe car populace radically changes character south of Corcoran, and I'm not saying that's bad). We have a prison-industrial complex and we gotta re-integrate folks who've done their time, hundreds of miles from home...it's good transit. Some trips it seems like every 3rd bus on the highway is a prison bus taking folks from here to there.
Delete@MiaM:
DeleteThe route to Sacramento is of value because Sacramento and the surrounding northern San Joaquin Valley are the other part of the core settled area of Northern California, in addition to the Bay Area. There is more there than in the Monterey Bay area south of the San Francisco Bay area. The Monterey Bay area could and would otherwise have become another national-class metro area like the (San Francisco) Bay area. The San Joaquin Valley and nearest parts of the otherwise unknown Sacramento Valley to many, notably the more recent "Californians," has been the extended commuter shed and place to find affordable housing for Bay Area people since the 1970s, and the Sacramento area has enough on its own to have been included from the start in the high-speed rail project planning.
Extending the HSR tracks north also provides capability someday for more extensive Central Valley train services in addition to future connections among many cities continuing to house more commuters with Bay Area jobs, and the Bay Area. Once the route were to reach the Manteca wye location, where direction of travel changes along with the orientation of the state's main axis, it's a reminder how stupid Pacheco Pass was as a political instead of transportation decision, in place of Altamont Pass with Manteca the one-in-a-thousand places where a transfer station actually makes sense, because transfers can make sense from Altamont Pass services of various kinds, any kind, forming the third leg of a wye.
@MiaM: Whether along the leg San Francisco-Gilroy on the planned route using Pacheco Pass beyond Gilroy, or along the leg San Francisco-Manteca on a better-planned HSR project, it will all eventually pass though plenty of areas that are developed, with likely 125 mph speed limitations for sound control if for no other reason, as well as for any fitting-in with existing lower-speed rail traffic, for the same distance, approximately eighty miles. (130 km or so) San Jose-Gilroy has been changed as of 2018 from a dedicated high-speed route to being combined ("blended") with Caltrain and residual freight service, meaning fitting into lower-speed traffic, even if faster then (if it ever happens) than passenger trains now.
DeleteI would also not presume the optimistic or starry-eyed level of higher train speeds between Palmdale and Burbank. In fact, what's needed there really needs to be support for Metro Rail as well as HSR on an improved route, just as any new Altamont Pass crossing between the Bay Area and the northern San Joaquin Valley should be with regional (Bay Area and northern San Joaq
... San Joaquin Valley, including Sacramento metro) in mind, also supporting high-speed trains mixed with regionals.
Delete@Ben in SF, Cal HSR will have a station in Hanford ("Kings-Tulare"), actually too small to justify the cost of high-speed service but perhaps someday can see service there nevertheless, as with the rest of any part of the project that gets completed. Shuttle vans between the station and visiting and pick-ups at Corcoran can be arranged to and from there. It makes sense to switch train service from San Joaquins to the new infrastructure once any infrastructure is completed with the new station replacing the old. Each station between the principal termini should have four tracks through it with pull-out side tracks to service the stations. (SFFS variation, in Caltrain-HSR-speak)
DeleteBe wary that while some in state government say it won't happen, of course it's likely the existing San Joaquin service including Corcoran service will end where it overlaps HSR. Conventional service tends to wither or be terminated and be replaced, not complemented or augmented, by HSR where and when HSR is introduced. It's never a surprise when it is ended, including more recently in China, has been the case elsewhere, can be expected in the Central Valley as well. It's not the same as more intensive commuter services or where land use is more intensive with greater population density. The best evolutionary course to anticipate is shifting of the San Joaquins to the HSR infrastructure with faster Diesel first (125 mph Chargers, not 79 mph as Cal HSR originally intended with running conventional trains) with gradual speed-up with successively higher speed approvals with the new HSR rolling stock, with intermediate switching to electrified trains being a question mark still.
@Ben in SF: Oh, I didn't think about water.
DeleteBut, the distance isn't that far from other parts of the LA metro area, so a conclusion of sorts is that if there isn't enough water for the high desert, there isn't enough water to expand the greater LA area at all, and there needs to be a population limit.
I don't know what the land value and whatnot is in the LA area, but worst case desalination of sea water could be a thing.
If we think about a newly built area, there could be two separate water lines, one with desalinated sea water and one with regular water at a way higher prices, with both waters piped in to the kitchen and perhaps the bathroom sink, while only desalinated water used for showers, washing machines, flushing toilets and whatnot.
I thought HDC was primarily for Metro (Palmdale to Victorville extension) with the hope that someday Brightline would run trains into Union Station. A run from LV to the Central Valley would only be an added bonus. I got to think Fresno and Bakersfield folk might be interested in at least a couple of runs a day.
ReplyDeleteYes, the High Desert Corridor was a Metro Rail extension from Palmdale to the Victor Valley.
DeleteThe route between L.A. Union Station and Las Vegas goes through the eastern L.A. Basin, not a dogleg through Palmdale, and making the High Desert Corridor HSR speed-capable doesn't change that. Yes, high-speed rail as planned so poorly in the state due to politics involves notorious doglegs, but it doesn't make another one make any more sense than the none with the examples already being developed. There are some hard-core hobbyist types that envision taking a train between the Bay Area or Sacramento and Las Vegas, but that's not how almost all people will continue to travel, by air and the rest in their own vehicles normally.
The High Desert Corridor is properly envisioned also as a new highway route that's the southern bypass of the L.A. Basin, an improvement of highway 138, a bypass of the Basin south of highway 58 between Mojave and Barstow, which better connects Palmdale and the Victor Valley.
As things are going with Brightline (with actual, tangible progress needed by many of us), the western Rancho Cucamonga-Ontario interception point on the western "leg" that is closer to L.A. is being favored over the distant eastern San Bernardino interception point and "leg," either of which locally can be continued to the south to extend better rail service eventually to San Diego, connecting Temecula and Escondido.
The High Desert Corridor also enables housing development, though really doing so if it is a highway so much more than as a rail line. A rail line does serve commuters, though improved service between Palmdale and the San Fernando Valley is desirable and ought to be what the San Gabriel mountain crossing between Burbank and Palmdale is with HSR currently. It shouldn't be limited to the HSR inter-city (long-distance end-running) trains, nor need it be limited to two tracks necessarily. The same is true with Altamont Pass, with S.F. and the East Bay core one travel locus but also obviously the South Bay, on the Bay Area side of the mountains there.
DeleteA knowledgeable sounding person (with the same name as a veteran locomotive engineer on LinkedIn) over on the Friends of Caltrain FB group has some bad news about the new delayed-train phenomenon of trains slowly crawling into stations with far-side Xings due to the new 99% motorist-benefitting wireless Xing optimization system being re-enabled:
ReplyDelete“It will not change. Operators will always have to crawl into designated protected stations.”
“… the PTC system places a stop fence on any series 2 protected crossing. It gives you a countdown timer to apply brakes and slow to a stop by a designated position. This can only be maintained by a slow and steady approach because any variation or even slight increase in wheel speed will trigger PTC to trigger a penalty or emergency brake application depending on severity of speed and/or braking change. With EMUs, wheel slip and traction control/ABS inconsistency is always a factor in ANY kind of moisture on these new units (you've felt the bumps and tugs on departure and approach to stations now out of summer and into the fall/winter). So, in order to counter weather conditions, equipment operating conditions, and PTC-initiated penalties you have to slowly approach. [Caltrain] has an almost ZERO tolerance for any type of operating infraction and a lot of engineers run with their career, reputation and family in mind. That is the simplest way I can relay the new Crossing Optimization now currently in effect.”
Another clarifying comment by an anonymous knowledgeable-sounding person: “The PTC warning and stopping distance calculation is hyper-conservative based on low adhesion assumptions and is sensitive to changes in master controller position. Reducing brake application at the last minute to smooth out a stop can make PTC think that it needs to make an enforcement to stop short of the [virtual protection] “fence” at the crossing.”
DeleteI hope that Wabtec has some obligation to make this perform as advertised, but they're probably tight-lipped about any operator tricks to influencing the predicted stopping distance (can't have any tidbits related to their trade secret formulas floating around). The PTC dynamics model understandably has to be set up to work in the poorest real world conditions to be trustworthy.
DeleteOnly 5 crossings are within less than a train car-length of a station platform … so one easy fix is to go back to prioritizing train performance (and therefore riders) over driver convenience by going back to the old regime of just having the gates at just those crossings continue going down as a precaution and then releasing them once the train has safely stopped without overshoot. This eliminates the new operator-feared PTC “fence” for station stops at that handful of Xings and still preserves the full benefit of the optimization system for all the others. Seems an excellent compromise, no?
DeleteShort term, why not. Long term, grade separate for crying out loud! The more grade separations they can get done now, the better, especially for speeds and reliability along the corridor. It's also far simpler operationally to eliminate all of the grade crossings and not have to worry about quad crossings or PTC fencing or any of this optimization.
DeleteIIRC if they grade separate large portions of the corridor and do curve straightening, they can do 110mph to 125mph for most of the corridor, including SJ - Gilroy. There's this post I saw on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1f94ncx/california_should_also_focus_on_san_jose_gilroy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) where there's a ~20 mile stretch from just after Diridon to just before Morgan Hill that would cost under $200M if not under $100M to grade separate 5 crossings, giving us a 125mph segment ready to go. There's also only 5 crossings between San Jose and Menlo Park, meaning that you could have a 125mph segment from Menlo Park to Morgan Hill pretty quickly for 9-10 more separations. Then, 4 more grade separation gets us to the cluster of grade crossings around Millbrae and Burlingame. That means that we could have a continuous San Mateo - Morgan Hill 125mph segment for the price of just 14 grade separations. (Note: this does not count the current planned separations or projects, e.g., Diridon integrated plan, only the separations without plans).
I'd love to see a phased strategy for grade separations and quad tracking along the corridor at some point to get us to 110mph and/or 125mph ASAP. We see ridership jumps after electrification, and I think once most grade seps are done and the tracks are sped up (e.g., curve straightening), then we can seriously lower the times between SF and SJ to something like 40 to 45 minutes, which would be transformative
With the vast difference in the amount of at-grade crossings in different counties, I think it's reasonable to maybe allow this thing that prioritizes road traffic over train traffic in the counties that only have a few at grade crossings, while in those with many crossings just have Caltrain prioritize train traffic over road traffic, since those counties seems to not be that interested in grade separations.
DeleteAnonymous, 09 January: SF-SJ should have been fully grade-separated generations ago. Too bad now, as with so much. Now there's going to be a building need to grade-separate San Jose-Gilroy, as people in Morgan Hill already are saying, while at least one person in the Cal HSR project's Nor-Cal "leadership" justifies not grade-separating because (by holding up the road traffic, including fire engines and ambulances -- seriously?) it reduces vehicle-miles traveled. (Pathological activism)
DeleteWill there be enough adjacent sections ready when this section is done, to continue working on, or will the work have to stop and later on restart, and/or will they have to move the track laying machines by road or maybe some cumbersome freight railway route to non-adjacent sections?
ReplyDelete@MiaM, SF-SJ and just south of San Jose a short distance constitute a different environment than farther south to Gilroy. However, if there will be more trains, it's time to start worrying about San Jose to Gilroy as well with grade separating the crossings with serious planning in place of poor planning in addition to the politics of high-speed trains through San Jose and under Pacheco Pass (instead of minimizing tunneling and controlling costs in that way).
ReplyDeleteWith the high-speed project I wish all efforts would now be directed at connecting Bakersfield to L.A. Union Station somehow. Postponing Pacheco Pass and that ephemeral remaining opportunity to correct the error and work on Altamont Pass remains in that case, too, though it almost certainly won't change anything for the better from the long tunnel under Pacheco Pass.
You are really really keen on HSR having to split routes from an Altamont pass, with some trains going to SF, some to Oakland and some to San Jose, giving all those places a worse service than via the Pacheco pass (Link21 will extend HSR to Oakland)
Delete"You are really really keen on HSR having to split routes from an Altamont pass, with some trains going to SF, some to Oakland and some to San Jose, giving all those places a worse service than via the Pacheco pass (Link21 will extend HSR to Oakland)"
DeleteDude, give it a break. You Do Not Have To Comment.
You especially don't have to comment on things you clearly know less than nothing about.
There's 30+ years of regional political history (ie bribery and fraud) around this issue.
Are you even 25 years old? I doubt it.
You're also completely unaware of San Francisco Bay regional geography and demographics.
You're completely unaware of the thousands of similar blog (or pre-blog era, or post-blog era, whatever) comments on the subject that have been made by informed people, uninformed people, stupid people, and stupid trolls over the last 30 years. You're saying nothing new. You're saying nothing original. You're saying nothing factually correct.
Just take some time off. If in the future do you see something you do know something about, and where your comment could inform or educate, feel free to contribute your meaningful and informed opinion.
Agreed! Logorrhea is a communication disorder that causes excessive talking and wordiness that can be incoherent.
DeleteAnonymous, you are a sad man. Is that tone really necessary?
DeleteHardly anyone but a hobbyist will ride a train or worse, trains between the Bay Area or Sacramento areas and Las Vegas.
ReplyDeleteThere is potential for Central Valley cities well south of Sacramento to have people taking trains instead of small city air.
@Anonymous-S - I'm not sure that Clem's previous excellent curves and grade separation analyses need any updating as very little has changed since then. Neither of these has a major impact on Caltrain speed which is mostly limited by stopping at stations. If HSR ever arrives they have plans to address the worst of the curves to save a few minutes on their SF-SJ time but those times will be limited more by the need to overtake Caltrain at very specific locations. See the SF-SJ EIR for details.
ReplyDeleteRegarding relocating CEMOF. That is being considered as part of the Diridon Station plan. To elevate the station they think that CEMOF must be moved and a location near Capitol has been mentioned. They are currently trying to decide between an elevated or at-grade station plan so there may be some more discussion of this at the upcoming Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board meetings.
@Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWell, sitting in a decently comfortable train seat, watching TV/videos on your laptop, isn't much worse than doing that on your TV at home.
Also you can eat food and whatnot on board a train, either take away food you carry with you or food you buy on board the train. (Don't know what regulations or whatnot are used in general in USA, but over in Sweden I've eaten both pizza and hamburgers as take-away food on board regional trains)
Thanks for the reply, jpk122s! You're right on the lack of a need for updates on the analysis that Clem has, I'm just thinking bigger picture - what are the problem segments that would be the biggest impact ones with the best bang for its buck? And -this is the biggest question I have: what about the SJ - Gilroy segment? I would like to see some discussion about that because to me, once the UP negotiations are figured out, it's very low hanging fruit that would not only speed up times but also give us a really good bang for our buck (which would be helped/validated by that analysis).
ReplyDeleteAs for CEMOF - is that relocation discussed in any of the documents? I'd love to see a joint facility for Caltrain, CAHSR, and Capitol Corridor at Capitol and the electrified track extended there. The whole site is ideal for not just a maintenance facility but also for development if the station has better service.
As far as CEMOF relocation, that is mentioned in reports presented to the VTA Diridon Joint Policy Advisory Board, but no details were provided. The idea of a maintenance facility at Lick Quarry goes all the way back to the early 1990s. See the 1993-94 State Rail Plan (page 250) for example.
ReplyDeleteRealistically this cannot happen until there are 3 tracks (2 electrified) from Diridon to CP Lick, which depends on HSR money and will likely need grade separation at Auzerais as well.
I agree that extending EMU service to Capitol would be really great. It makes much more sense as a park-and-ride end of line station than Diridon or Tamien, especially if all the planned development around Diridon ever happens. Connection to the VTA 568 on Monterey Rd provides a frequent express bus connection all the way to Gilroy which would probably be more useful than the existing infrequent diesel train service. There is also development potential at the Drive-In site and recently approved Capitol Caltrain Urban Village across Monterey.
Unfortunately, two things that may be preventing this from being proposed are the currently under construction phase 3/4 of the KB Home Communications Hill residential development and the approved EIR for the modernization of the GraniteRock site that would likely be needed for a large train storage facility. Both of these companies are likely against any Caltrain facility here and they have a lot of influence on local politicians and city staff.
@jpk122s, thanks for the link! Bummer they didn't go in this direction, it really would have helped speed up trains and improve the line significantly. Hopefully the political winds shift soon to allow a Caltrain facility at the Lick site - I think they will once we see CAHSR arrive or be close to arriving to the Bay Area. We'll see!
ReplyDeleteFair enough on the 3 tracks thing needed. I've read some potential comments on here about how California is negotiating with UP, with one option on the table being an outright purchase of the Coast Subdivision. If this is the case, that changes the calculus significantly. However, for what it is worth, most of the right of way is wide enough for a third track without too much messing around.
As for Auzeriais, I thought that was included in the Diridon Station Area Plan? I also find that this intersection is a pretty easy one to grade separate - there is plenty of room, and the businesses next to the tracks can easily be bought out - there's only a tire shop and janitorial company.
While you're right in the short/medium term that it's probably better to do a bus lane down 101 to replace Caltrain, I think long term, there's a lot of potential for this corridor south of Tamien. Upgrading the tracks even just a bit before CAHSR arrives gives us a huge cost savings and statewide benefit; the planned Capitol Corridor extensions connect us to not just Salinas but also to Monterey Bay (Monterey/Pacific Grove; Santa Cruz); long distance Amtrak uses this route; and future extensions connect us to San Luis Obispo via King City, Paso Robles, etc that to connect to the Surfliner. There's also Hollister which I think would be a good future extension of Caltrain. With that in context, I think that SJ - Gilroy segment, while on it's own isn't THAT useful, is still very useful for statewide connectivity. This is why in my earlier comments, I think speeding up and grade separating the SJ-Gilroy segment with at least 3 tracks is worth the investment, even today.
Before committing to the Merced-Bakersfied IOS, CAHSR did an investigation of early investment instead in SJ-Gilroy. The results of that study were not too encouraging for potential ridership on this segment, especially given the costs involved with acquiring and electrifying. It really only makes sense as part of a statewide system. Limiting the extension to a new station/yard north of Capitol without needing UP ROW is a lot lower cost and might make more sense as an interim step.
DeleteThe Auzerais grade separation is actually quite difficult. If the tracks are kept at grade then an underpass is needed which needs to be quite steep due to proximity to Los Gatos Creek. Maintaining access to the nearby properties involves quite a few residential and commercial property takes. If the tracks are elevated the alternative is a much nicer elevated rail viaduct but that requires Diridon to be elevated too which is very expensive.
Forgot to thread, sorry. Can you link the study or tell me where to find that study? I'd love to read that. I do concur - you have a valid point that full electrification isn't worth the cost unless it's part of a broader system.
DeleteBack to your earlier point about a park and ride station - if I remember correctly, one commenter on here proposed a Caltrain station and potentially a maintenance facility around Bailey Avenue off of 101, near the Metcalf site. If electrification was extended there, that'd give us electric service to Capitol and Blossom Hill which would support infill density in that area, and help eliminate that curve at CEMOF. What do you think of that? Better solution?
Auzerais: maybe, but when looking at the distances / elevations, starting at Dupont street to Auzerais is about 750 feet. At a 2% grade, that's about 15 feet of height. Depressing the road slightly by 2 to 3 feet and raising the tracks 15 feet gets us 17 to 18 feet, a typical grade separation. I'd personally prefer they just close Auzerais entirely. Access is still possible via Bird and via Lincoln for N/S access, and for an E/W crossing, just leg over to San Carlos. Granted, this would change if the station is elevated, but that means the crossings would essentially switch - Dupont street would become San Carlos at grade, tracks on a viaduct, and the issues with Auzerais wouldn't matter at all. I also don't understand why they don't close that grade crossing at West Virginia / Drake entirely, though.
The study was called the "Side-by-Side Peer Review Report" and is available here
DeleteRegarding Bailey avenue, that makes some sense as a maintenance yard location, but it is a long way from Diridon. That area of San Jose - Coyote Valley - is considered a greenbelt conservation area and new development is not allowed there. It would be politically difficult to build anything, and there would probably not be any development allowed around any potential station.
For Auzerais, I went to the City of San Jose's recent community meeting about the grade separation planning there so I have heard quite a lot about it. They are looking at a road underpass which will need to go down around 20ft making it quite steep or a rail viaduct with the road at grade. There is no hybrid option. This road is very busy and needed for access to all the new apartments around Del Monte park. It is also a major bike/ped route as the alternative San Carlos St. overpass is very steep with narrow sidewalks and no bike lanes. As you say, the rail viaduct option is much better for access as the horrible San Carlos overpass would be replaced by an at-grade street crossing.
If tracks remain at grade, then W,. Virginia will be closed to cars, but there may be a bike/ped underpass. There is a safety concern closing this access for emergency vehicles as it leaves only one access point to this neighborhood The city thinks they would at least need to install a traffic light at Bird/Fuller which is complicated by the grade to the bird avenue train underpass limiting sightlines. Also, any impacts to this neighborhood are very sensitive politically as it is a lower income area that has born the brunt of the impacts from previous transportation projects, especially the freeway.
Sorry, that link was to a peer review of the original DB report which can be found here
Delete