Here is a punch list that Caltrain could address to improve the passenger experience. Some of these items have been discussed before, but they are gathered here as an attractive display of low-hanging fruit.
1. Eliminate step deploy/retract delays
The timetable is the product. Why spend billions on saving time in motion only to waste a portion of that at rest? The EMU step mechanism wastes precious time during station dwells. A software update can tighten up the step sequence and save ten seconds per stop, or about three minutes per run, making the timetable 4% faster. If your product can be made 4% better at almost zero cost, why sleep on that, especially when facing a fiscal crisis?
Steps should be allowed to deploy and retract while the train is in (slow) motion, under 5 mph. This would have no impact on safety because the steps do not overhang the platform when deployed; they only go out to 63.5 inches from center line. There is no credible danger of clipping waiting passengers, even at slow speed.
2. Improve the auditory warning experience
Auditory signals are an integral part of assuring safety for riders of all abilities or states of impairment. Overdone, they become an assault on the eardrums, detracting from the passenger experience.
- Tone down the alarmingly loud door open/close beeps to the volume required by accessibility regulations. Ditch the shrill continuous beep and use a more musical chime like BART.
- Tone down the warning bell on the front of the train. It doesn't need to ding quite so loudly or insistently; unlike horns, there is no FRA-mandated minimum sound level required for bells. It's an electronic bell, so it can be reprogrammed.
3. Fix the passenger information system
First, mandate that it be correctly configured and used by all crews.
Next, get with Stadler's passenger information systems engineers to improve the information presented on the screens.
- Most importantly, improve the system's reliability. Too often, the screens show a Chrome browser error message indicating some sort of memory-related software crash. The frequency with which this happens is unacceptable.
- Display direction to the bathroom (this important passenger information is a sticker recently added next to the passenger information screen, missing the point by mere inches!) and, more importantly, indicate the bathroom's availability status, something you can't do with a sticker. This information could occupy a small portion of each screen so it is constantly in view as other information pages through.
- Display live crowding information. The EMUs have this information available in software, and it should appear on the screens so that passengers may redistribute themselves as needed throughout the train.
- Last but not least, display better connecting information. "Connect with: VTA" is useless information. "Connect with: VTA 89" is more useful. "Connect with: VTA 89, depart in :03, :23" is how it ought to be, in the year 2025.
4. Develop the new step design for level boarding
The timetable is the product. The next big timetable upgrade available to Caltrain is to reduce dwell time through level boarding. This will increase average speeds and make the product even more compelling as an alternative to traffic jams.
The most important but obscure little capital project at Caltrain right now is to develop the new step design that will enable raising platforms, a project said to cost just $3M per their level boarding roadmap. This is a first and necessary project that should be undertaken immediately.
---
This list of easy little fixes is attainable and affordable, can improve Caltrain's product in the short term, and will directly contribute to the bottom line.
Posts
1: In theory someone falling down between a moving train and the platform edge might not be hurt if steps are fully retracted, but it might end up bad if the steps are in motion while the train is also in motion.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably hard to change afterwards, but the steps should have pneumatic actuators rather than electric, and/or electric actuators should be super fast but also sensitive to problems the same way as pneumatic actuators are.
3: Lesson learned: Don't buy passenger information system from the train manufacturer. Set up a spec for the mechanical parts, I.E. mounting brackets and such, and a spec for what power should be available, and use your own system. The bay area is large enough that the transit agencies should develop their own system that would be used or at least can be used on all vehicles in the bay area.
Re signage towards the toilets: Note that on any sign that is above eye level and that you look at while facing forwards/backwards (as compared to how the train travels) are ambiguous when it comes to arrows pointing upwards/downwards. This is especially true if an arrow is on a surface that is at say 45 degree angle, like a display thingie that pokes down from the ceiling. Thus arrows has to be on the side walls, and elsewhere you have to use text, like "continue walking to get to the toilet" or "turn around to get to the toilet". The only unambitious arrow would be a U-turn arrow, kind of.
#3: Unfortunately Bay Area transit agencies don't invest enough into in-house engineering to support maintaining electronic information systems. So many electronic info systems have come and gone because the agency funded the development, but not the ongoing maintenance part.
Delete1: Do the steps need to retract at all? Can they be fixed/permanent? Fewer parts = less maintenance = less complexity = less money.
ReplyDelete4: Completely agreed re: level boarding. Question is, do they go with high platforms or low platforms?
Other note: what are the cost estimates for each? If the software fixes for 2 and 3 are under $50K or $100K, easy to ask for that. 1 & 4 are different - if 1 costs less than $2.5M then I'd say the cost-benefit is worth it right now. 4, that would be a tougher nut to crack, but phased plans at say, $5M per station isn't bad especially if you spread it out over time, closing 1/4 of the platform to slowly raise the heights, etc...
Additional suggestion for easy upgrades/improvements:
5. Experiment with super-express trains or different service patterns. E.g., have 1 train in the early morning in either direction that does just 3-5 stops between SF and San Jose. Maybe even a limited late-night service on the weekends! Try parking a couple trains at key stations at the end of the night so that trains can start right away from Redwood City or Palo Alto instead of all the way to SF/SJ... lots of possibilities for experimentation here to improve service without changing any physical infrastructure.
6. Passing tracks/Quad tracks: Hear me out. Add a line item in the budget of, say, $2M per year, to add passing tracks and sidings here and there in easy areas. Even if it's just a stretch of 1 mile of a third track, that gives Caltrain more flexibility for express, locals, additional capacity, etc. Use some of these funds to slowly buy property around some segments, too, in advance of future projects. You could feasibly set up most of the needed quad tracks and passing segments needed along the corridor pretty easily, saving you time and money to tackle the more complex segments later. It's basically the 80/20 rule - 80% of the work is easy and cheap, could be spread out over time, 20% is difficult and expensive. Do the 80% now.
7. Diesels to Levi's: I know I have been beating a dead horse on this, but double tracking to Levi's and a few tracks/sidings to park diesel trains in that area adds 2 stations to the South Bay service for pennies and gets the diesel trains out of Diridon/CEMOF. The same storage & double tracks can be used for ACE/Capitol Corridor, too, improving the utility. This sets up East Bay Caltrain (or even Capitol Corridor or ACE or whatever in the long run).
8. Purchase the ROW from Tamien - Capitol. Extend electric service to Capitol, add a turnaround or parking space at Capitol. This sets up moving CEMOF or at least train storage to Capitol, improving service to south San Jose. It's just 2 miles. Blossom Hill is another 3 miles, and could be another train parking site. If built/designed properly, you could end diesel service with a big park and ride station, lots of buses, stuff like free tickets for people who board Caltrain buses to get on at the first electric station. Hell, even extend to Bailey Avenue, build a park and ride and CEMOF there instead (more expensive, but could be done pretty easily over time given a regular annual allocation)
Building a more reliable passenger information system would honestly be a great yearlong project for a local college club (e.g. PlexTech at Berkeley); I'm sure it would be more reliable and cost less than anything Stadler would release.
ReplyDeleteYeah, development of something like this is not that hard. It is the long term lifecycle (i.e. maintenance) where the trouble comes from.
DeleteIn the CalTrans FlirtH2 on LOSSAN presentation to the NCTD Board last week, the rep stated that CalTrans target platform height across California is 24"
ReplyDeleteHow dumb. There most widespread level boarding in the US (hundreds of platforms, thousands of cars) is the 1270mm (50", or 48" depending on who you ask) of the North East Corridor. Brightline in Florida is the same, Brightline West and CAHSR plan to be. This is the only passenger platform height that should be built going forward in the US. Interoperability is key, for passenger service platform gauge should be as standardized as track gauge or loading gauge.
DeleteAlso, 24"?!?! I hope they mean 550mm/22", a common European standard. Even if you were going to go for a low level for platform for level boarding (again, don't do this, use the NEC standard) Superliners and derivatives have an 18" door height, why reinvent the wheel, again?
See pages 9-19 of NCTD’s September 18 Board Meeting agenda package for the Caltrans H2 FLIRT on LOSSAN presentation slides.
DeleteThe audio recording of the presentation begins at the 9:30 minute mark of the meeting recording. (It resumes at about the 17 minute mark after a meeting interruption.)
@Onux The reason for 24" is that it would allow them to continue to use the large number of existing bilevel coaches (mostly from Bombardier) as that is the floor height of those cars. It's also close enough to 22"/550mm that it doesn't require much modification to existing off the shelf equipment (as demonstrated by the FLIRTs running on Arrow, which also share that 24" floor height).
DeleteThe audio recoding of the Caltrans H2 FLIRT presentation has significantly more spoken details such as the planned on-vehicle door gap-fillers to allow for level boarding and the revelation that H2 fuel costs are 4x (for liquid) to as much as 16x higher (for gaseous) than Caltrans had hoped for … and that they are just assuming/hoping that by the time the four 4-car intercity H2 FLIRT sets are ready for service in 2028/9 that maybe H2 will cost closer to $3-4/kg and maybe even be green instead of gray or blue. The NCTD board member whose question prompted the H2 cost discussion was insisting and relieved to hear that Caltrans would be (at least initially) covering the outsized fuel costs.
DeleteAnother tidbit on the audio recoding is that the now older Siemens Sprinter DMUs are suffering a high rate of mechanical issues and NCTD is looking to replace them (and also double-track the line) … maybe with H2 FLIRTs, if they prove to perform well and cost-efficiently.
@Nick
DeleteThat is exactly the wrong mindset. The off the self equipment you want to be compatible is:
1) The thousands of EMUs in service every day across the east coast, so that you can get economies of scale from buying into existing larger equipment orders rather than having to custom order your own equipment at inflated cost. Compatibility with decades old bilevels or four small two-car trainsets used on a stub line should not be a concern.
2) The future highspeed trains that will have to use your network to reach their terminals and service the wider metro area, (most off the shelf HSR trains outside of France and Spain are high floor in the 1250-1300mm range). Doing this means you can avoid huge cost of providing separate tracks and platforms for services that could instead share space at a station. It also allows for regional rail trains serving areas outside the immediate metro but not as far as HSR/intercity trains to also use the same platforms/tracks/stations.
It is important to not let the tail wag the dog. Always remember that commuter rail services like Metrolink generally carry at least an order of magnitude greater daily passengers than inter-city services (i.e. LIRR ridership into Penn Station dwarfs Amtrak ridership). However, rail services demand compatibility. It’s not like a road where you can switch from asphalt to concrete paving without much difference. If there are plans for high speed rail services between LA and SF/Vegas/Phoenix, then every mainline passenger rail service in CA, AZ and NV needs to share the same rail gauge, loading gauge (train car width/height, related to tunnel/bridge dimensions), traction gauge (overhead power voltage and frequency), signal gauge, and yes platform gauge (height above rail and distance from edge to centerline). Really every service in the US should be identical, and this is one of those areas where Congress should step in and use the carrot of funding to enforce this (if you are out of gauge you cannot get federal funds). The only option for such a nationwide standard is NEC gauge, given that only the railroads from DC to Boston are generally electrified and use high platforms (and the main outliers, Denver and Brightline, meet this standard). Standards for interstate highways are the same nationwide. Every interstate, highway, road and street in the country uses the same set of signs from the MUTCD. Metrolink is out there suggesting 24” platforms for level boarding and people wonder why transit use is so low compared to cars.
@Onux I can assure you despite these economies of scale that these east coast railroads supposedly have, they are still paying record prices for their trainsets. NJT paid more than Caltrain per car for worse performing EMUs, and the MTA just paid a whopping $7.2 million per car for their new single level EMUs, a near doubling in cost over their last order single level EMUs. I'll take our inflated, but lower (sometimes significantly so), costs over theirs.
DeleteNick,
DeleteThat is an excellent point. I still feel that standardization is of benefit, however. First the cost savings can work both ways, if Caltrain is able to design and purchase cheaper equipment that provides a competitor for the NYC market if gauges are compatible. Second, as mentioned you want your HSR and your regional/commuter rail to be able to use the same tracks and stations, and HSR trainsets should benefit from national standardization/competition, even if NYC is doing something crazy with their commuter sets. I'll also note that NYC suffers from some lack of standardization themselves: LIRR and MNRR of course have incompatible 3rd rail running as well as catenary for MNRR. They seem to have vendor locked themselves into Bombardier/Alstom (I wonder why Kawasaki didn't bid on the most recent M9A order?) If there was no fiddling around with over vs under-running shoes maybe Siemens and Hyundai would have been in the mix.
I just don't necessarily buy the idea that platform interface is a major cost driver relative to more prominent issues like bad procurement practices (ex. overly restrictive specs). Train manufacturers are pretty good at building a product that works for what an individual railroad needs. Europe has a whole smorgasbord of different track/loading gauges, electrification systems, platform heights, signaling, etc. (sometimes all within the same country) and they still pay a fraction of what we do.
DeleteAnd for what it's worth, the over vs under running third rail re: shoe design was fixed a long time ago. The M8s and SC42-DMs feature shoes that can switch between either type of third rail on the fly. This is how they plan to operate M8s into Penn Station as those trains can't operate on the older 25Hz overhead power system.
Once again I cannot argue with your logic, bad procurement practices are clearly a larger issue when European train costs are so much lower, when as you note they do not have any consistent gauge across the continent except for signals once ETCS is complete.
DeleteThere is also an infrastructure component to cost savings from standardization - it prevents too-expensive things from being bought twice. Caltrain wasted a ton of money on CBOSS; even if they overspend on I-ETMS there was no need to have wasted the first bucket of money. California might spend too much on building platforms for level boarding, but if Metrolink picks a different height than CAHSR, then CAHSR will also overspending building dedicated platforms for themselves, even if places they could have shared with Metrolink's too-expensive platforms.
And finally there is the passenger experience. Europe is a generation behind the US in accessibility, even though level boarding benefits everyone (from shorter dwell in the normal and exceptional cases, to people with strollers, etc.). Setting a national standard for platform height/offset means future projects would have this advantage built in. Money talks, and if federal purse strings for transit projects were tied to meeting certain standards they would be met, even by incompetent agencies, because the one thing agencies and politicians do not want is for their budget to shrink, even if they don't care enough to plan for things like level boarding on their own.
Good information on M8s and third rail, thank you.
Modernization rolled in with fewer moving parts and a louder presence—why they wanted the new trains to produce a soundtrack more obnoxious and less refined than the old fleet is beyond me. Even the new horns seem meticulously tuned for maximum auditory assault. Must’ve been dreamed up by some Daffy Duck who equates presence with performance...
ReplyDeleteThe door closing chime on the gallery cars was the same one that I heard when traveling in Spain a few decades ago.
DeleteSNCF has the coolest jingle for their station announcements... It's so French that it would never work in the US. :)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aqq654RNL-k
While on the topic of improving the main product, the timetable, here are my ideas:
Delete1) If we can save three minutes with the steps, could we throw in another few minutes and run our 110 mph capable train at 90 mph rather than 79 mph? What's the increased delta in inspections between class 4 and class 5 track? Can same geometry cars and equipment be used for both? The analogy is if you're on a highway with a 70 mph speed limit, but why would you drive your car at 60 mph?
2) Can we include the arrival times at the stations on the internal displays? It's cool to see what stations are next, but even cooler to quickly tell what time you'll get there.
3) Let's build on the strong ridership recovery and move 20-minute headways for off-peak and weekend trains to align with BART at Millbrae. Allow for 3-minute transfer to northbound BART and 5-minute to southbound Caltrain (due to stairs).
On 1) I overheard Caltrain staff discussing that there are maintenance challenges of Class V track especially with longer required maintenance windows. These are harder with electrification because you have to turn off the power.
DeleteInteresting that turning off the power is required. You'd expect to keep it on to power the track maintenance vehicles.
DeleteThey did buy a PanVue fully automated pantograph monitoring system, so wouldn't be unheard of to buy one for the catenary monitoring as well.
Martin, Olde tyme commute railroading Caltrain's staff who are seemingly not capable to think outside of a paperbag (much like the Valley Transit Afterthought) have now blessed us with a rolling monument to mediocrity—an overfunded, underthought cacophony machine that screams. Caltrain seems to believe that louder equals better and that charm is a liability.
DeleteSo, Martin, clearly you’re wrong. That door chime you nostalgically recall from Spain? Obviously inferior to the current auditory battalion, which safely meets the modern requirements for new Caltrain....
"Let's build on the strong ridership recovery and move 20-minute headways for off-peak and weekend trains to align with BART at Millbrae. Allow for 3-minute transfer to northbound BART and 5-minute to southbound Caltrain (due to stairs)."
That decimates the joy of olde tyme commute railroading. Where’s the romance in a frantic 3-minute stair sprint to catch BART? The whole point was to linger on the platform, bask in the ambiance of the ding ding bells, and let the echo drift through the night—not to be herded like a spreadsheet cell in some regional operations matrix masquerading as transit planning...
All Caltrain main line track is built to FRA Class 5 standards, although I don't know if the alignment is maintained to that standard on an ongoing basis. So in theory at least, 90 mph is possible. However, the best way to speed up trips is always to speed up the slow bits first, and the slowest bit is the station dwells. Raising top speeds is what you do when you've tried everything else, it's never where you should start.
DeleteThey did buy the CatVue catenary monitoring system, it is fitted on trainset 337/338 which was just delivered.
I suggest running Limited Train in Weekend every 30min replacing all local train. This limited stop Millbrae, Redwood City and then local to Diridon. Traveling time to SF from north of Redwood City is 15min shorter, or less than hour of traveling time except Diridon. New SF-Redwood City local train will connect express @Redwood City. (Express may need 9AM~7PM, local only outside of this window)
ReplyDeleteThis proposal will need same amount of Crew/Equipment of 20 min Frequency SF-SJ local train.
Redwood Junction will need some track modification of exchange Mainline and Siding. Converting either NB or SB main line to sandwich one turn-around track to avoid conflict.
Recent Weekend ridership increases mostly driven by SF terminal. Faster traveling time to SF from Silicon Valley stations will attract more riders while providing seating capacity in Sam Mateo stations. We see some weekend train became standing room only after Palo Alto or so.
SF terminal is fully staffed station with Fare inspection. Express train can be operated with single conductor between Millbrae to SF if there is no middle stop.
Why all the complexity by ending it in RWC?
DeleteFrom ridership perspective, there are plenty of riders south of RWC in PA, MV, Santa Clara. In fact, on weekends, 8/10 lowest weekend ridership stations are north of RWC, so why provide extra service where's not wanted?
@Anonymous01 October, 2025 16:51: This is not extra service north of Redwood City because current local train will skip those stations. This short section local train will provide 30 min frequency local service where express skips. At this point, there is not enough demand/budget to provide 4 Trains/H all the way between SF-SJ.
Deleteweekend service like this, with 4 tph north of RWC and 2 tph southwards. Drawn here with three-minute connection at RWC. Requires just 10 trains with super cushy 20-minute turn at Redwood Junction.
Delete@Clem is it possible to run this service pattern with current infrastructure? In advance of a 4 track RWC station which unfortunately seems decades away, I wonder if deadheading the local to the redwood junction 4 track segment and turning it back there would be feasible. Unfortunately it looks like it would need some new trackwork as there seens ti be no center crossover in that segment today.
DeleteSee reference desk, California rail network schematics, page 18. You would use the crossover at CP Dumbarton to enter the East Controlled Siding, and switch ends / brake test there before heading back into Redwood City, right behind the limited.
DeleteClem, I wish you hadn't used red color for your "Caltrain Local".
DeleteI'm so used to the red color being used to show the "Baby Bullet" trains in the timetable. :)
As I've commented here before, I've wasted a fair amount of time trying to make an existing-infrastructure ("infrastructure" being charitable to the three decade zero-improvement legacy of Caltrain's World Class Planning Professionals) mid-line turnback work on Caltrain, and, well, it just doesn't pencil out. Which Clem's suggested timetable pretty much admits ...
DeleteComparing to Clem's suggestion above, I'll just point out that using the exact same 10 trains and 10 crews one could just run simpler and what I claim is considerably more attractive all-stops 20 minute headway service from SF to SJ.
Attempting to be clever with turnbacks where useful infrastructure (island platform for cross-platform transfer, central not lateral turnback track, non-distant turnback track) doesn't exist just doesn't seem to deliver anything positive in this case.
Don't overthink it!
... But on the other hand, weekend Caltrain ridership is crazily dominated by San Francisco (which on weekends in August 2025 was estimated to have seen more than 75% of its weekday boardings!!!) and weekend ridership at the stations Clem suggests, clearly with some data-driven consideration, be skipped by the limited-stops trains (Bayshore, South SF, San Bruno, Broadway, Burlingame, Hayward Park, Belmont, San Carlos) rather sad, and ridership from long-trip Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and even Lawrence(!) surprisingly comparatively strong, maybe there's more of an argument to be made for regular weekend limited-stops service than meets the creaky old static scoring Taktulator's eye...
Delete(I'm still dubious, because my personal experience is that 30 minute to 20 minute headway improvement is psychologically immense. I can mostly tolerate just missing BART which runs 20 minutes at worst, while a half hour forced wait is more likely to lead to fuming and thoughts of death. Caltrain timetable history also shows that slow same-plaform transfers to following same-direction trains weren't super attractive or super popular. But I ought to be more open minded.)
PS Caltrain's cheap youth fares have got to be driving a good base percentage of weekend ridership (yes SF sportsball is bigger).
Good job all around! I hope they recognize success and keep this! More than that, just get rid of the stupid overhead of forcing transactions and hassle overhead to issue $1 and $2 youth fares -- just let them ride free. That's fine! "Freeloaders" can in fact be fine people.
With 20 min frequency, maximum waiting time is 19min and many people will accept. Total traveling time of worst case (arrive just after train departure) from Mountain View to SF will be improved from 90 min (=61+29) to 80 min (=61+19).
DeleteKeep 30 min frequency but convert to Limited (stop only Millbrae north of Redwood City), worst case traveling time will be even shorter of 74min. (= 61-16+29).
I don’t know if it’s a hardware or software switch, but currently the trains cannot (normally, anyway) begin moving unless all 14 of the door steps retract properly.
ReplyDeleteSo if at all permissible, the easiest and most operationally reliable solution to cutting dwell times (and the occasional bigger in-service “failure-to-retract” delays) is to just leave the steps in the extended position at all times.
It is most likely a software controller. Communication and control between devices on vehicles has been trending towards a serial interface for the last couple of decades. Doing so greatly simplifies and lowers the cost of the wiring harness. That serial bus is monitored and controlled by software programmed controller(s).
DeleteI'm anon from Sep26 6:46.
DeleteThis is what I suggested above - just lock the steps in the open position! I don't think there is any need to retract them at all at this point, there aren't any clearance issues that I know of.
IIRC Utah does this for their Front Runner service.
In "August 2024 Open Thread" Clem commented: "Someone pointed out elsewhere that the deployed steps violate AAR Plate F and this precludes their deployment when not docked at a platform."
DeleteAnon from Sep26, 6:46:
DeleteIn that case about violating AAR Plate F, there are three options here, then:
1. Low-speed deployment (under 10mph, deploy steps).
2. Level boarding, delete the steps or move the steps station side with rubber bumpers. While this will take longer, no moving parts, very little maintenance, just do it!
3. Figure out a waiver for Plate F - I seriously doubt that there are any obstructions or things in that plate that deployed steps could hit. If there are, just move it, then ask for the waiver. Done!
Re LTK Engineering Services' (the consultancy Gift that Keeps on Giving) KISS step for Caltrain:
DeleteSee Caltrain-KISS-platform-gap.pdf
Yes, the extended step does lie outside Sacred Plate E/F.
But no, that needn't matter, except when the trains are being shipped to or from Utah as freight, in which case the offensively protrusive steps could simply be detached, because Caltrain can have whatever loading gauge and clearance it likes for its own equipment on its own rails.
But yes, it does matter, because Caltrain does have clearance constraints on its own infrastructure aside from whatever AREMA/AAR/FRA freight interchange business. In particular, the four tunnels in San Francisco are old and constrained and limit how much any rolling stock can "let it hang out there".
The "Caltrain-KISS-platform-gap.pdf" drawing indictes a "Caltrain SF Tunnels structure gauge" outline and, by no conoincidence whatsoever, you'll see this structure gauge is clear of every other outline vehicle static or vehicle dynamic clearance envelope (well, Shinkensen excepted.) In fact, it is exactly a four inch (101.6mm) Caltrain-arbitrary fudge factor/safety factor/something factor clear of them. (I recently updated the drawing to show this zone in in pale shading.)
The drawing shows in section the Caltrain KISS doorway with the complicated Caltrain-unique Swiss-engineered step deployed. Note the step does extend (marginally! 88.2mm ~3.5 inches laterally and ~30mm below) outside the "Plate E" static boundary. The flange below the step which seats and seals against the vehicle body when step is retracted goes even further below, and in fact ends up sticking about 1.4 inches into the 4 inch clear zone from whatever junk is in the old tunnels.
No big deal, right?
...
...
DeleteNo big deal, right?
But it's worse than that, because what's shown is the static outline of the step, ie on perfectly maintained track positioned exactly where it's supposed to be, with the suspension of the train zeroed, with no rolling or yawing or hunting as the train moves along Caltrain's marginally-maintained freight-standard tracks.
Dynamically, the step might move laterally (poor track maintenance, wheel/rail dynamics, bearing and suspension tolerances) and move vertically (bearings and suspension and worst-case suspension failure) and roll (likewise).
You might notice in the diagram that the "Caltrain EMU RFP Static" or "CAHSRA Static" envelopes are only ~30mm inside their corresponding dynamic envelopes (and hence inside the SF tunnel gauge minus 4 inches) but that's because those dynamic envelopes are (same old story always!) all based on US FREIGHT cars, with the assumption that anything much below 3 feet is wheels/bogies/trucks and is not suspended. But on passenger cars there's stuff -- such as steps! -- there can be stuff at half that height that is attached to the vehicle body, and so in addition to rail/wheel/bearing slop can roll or shift due to the comfy passenger suspension.
All this means is that even though the static outline of the extended step looks like it isn't much at all outside, say, the CHSRA static outline (only 30.8mm!) and so seems like it shouldn't be complicated to fix things so that doesn't run into the tunnels, reality is that the difference between the static perfect position and the real dynamic limit of the Caltrain vehicles is going to be considerably greater than that.
How much? I don't know! Caltrain's long long ago EMU RFP specified 3 degree maximum roll (about a pivot point ~40 inches ATOR) and I don't recall what maximum lateral movement (perhaps pathetic but typically Caltrain-is-all-about-freight 4.2 inches). I suspect less. But nowhere close to zero!
The delivered Caltrain KISS documentation — unavailable to me — will have exact limits for all of this, and will document exact worst-case vehicle dynamic envelopes, with and without the step extended. I can however guesstimate is that the extended step, with worst-case dynamics (even if say suspension roll were mechanically limited to say 2 degrees and lateral motion to 2 inches), is going to end up either marginally clearing or marginally scraping the tunnel structure gauge, eating up the full 4 inch safety/slop zone, and that Is A Problem.
In short, I believe it is likely infeasible to permanently extend the step (or to replace it with a non-moving step), not because of freight railroad clearance requirements, but because zero fucks were given about this "low-lying" matter when the San Francisco tunnels were expensively relined and notched in the upper corners during the endless electrification construction closures of the last decade.
There's also this matter, penned by America's Very Very VERY Finest Transporation Plannng Professionals, Caltrain's permanent overhead-sucking know-nothing cost-exploding syphilitic leeches of LTK Engineering Services:
DeleteCaltrain KISS EMU
Base Waiver Request Report / Safety Appliances KISS Caltrain EMU response to some Very Concerned FRA functionary in which Caltrain throws itself/ourselves under the bus promising "The sliding step is also integrated into the "green loop" preventing movement of the train until the sliding step is fully retracted and latched."
I mean, maybe not an insuperable issue given that "regulations" and "law" and "the federal government (lawless thuggery aside)" are very soon to be things of the irrecoverable past, but those are more words on a page that Caltrain will use to justify endless dwells, their hands, tragically and unavoidably, being completely tied by "safety", nothing they can never do about it.
@Richard: Ok, so then maybe rig up a fail-safe way to ensure the steps are just always retracted for the SF tunnels (and remain extended everywhere from Bayshore south)?
DeleteAre we overthinking this? A fixed step need not have the exact dimensions of the moving step currently fitted to the EMUs. For many years, a fleet of Bombardier bilevel cars operated safely and without trouble on this corridor, with a fixed step not too far from the platforms and not too close to the tunnel walls.
Delete@Clem: OK, so the question becomes is there any (good) reason why a permanent/fixed step that just meets whatever the minimum required safe clearances are wouldn’t be perfectly acceptable to shave dwell times and prevent large and unpredictable “failure to retract” in-service delays until Caltrain (finally someday) moves to implement true (unassisted) level boarding?
DeleteRe: "Are we overthinking this? A fixed step need not have the exact dimensions of the moving step currently fitted to the EMUs. For many years, a fleet of Bombardier bilevel cars operated safely and without trouble on this corridor, with a fixed step not too far from the platforms and not too close to the tunnel walls."
DeleteClem, I've no clear dimensioned drawings to sort this out, but for sure the Bombardier trailers' bi-level step is both higher and further recessed (and almost surely narrower from track centreline) than the Caltrain's KISS' deployed extending step.
If you look at the threshold of the Bombardier cars you'll see that the fixed step is effectively recessed into the car body, as are the pocket doors.
So the fixed step there appears to have quite the head start in terms of external protrusion into whatever zone of X-TREME HAZZZZARD.
The Bombardier floor height is 635mm 25inches with the fixed step at 457mm 18inches (10 inches up from an 8inch platform, then 7 inches from the step into the interior, compared to lower Caltrain KISS door threshold 565mm 22.25inches and step evenly splitting (which is nice! all else equal) the platform/entry difference at 381mm 15inches (7 and 7.25 inch tall steps.)
Could the KISS step have been fixed and higher, or narrower? Maybe. I don't know. Would it have run afoul of some Jurassic-era regulation, or some Neanderthal "accepted practice" or would it have worked fine, or is there no reason to even spend a minute speculating about any of this? Who knows. Meanwhile, "people" (loosely termed) are paid millions of dollars not to know and to do the wrong things and to get wrong answers, every single time, and I'm just tired and sad.
This is all so fucked and all so stupid and all so 30 years past when anything might have mattered.
Brightline West CA-Las Vegas HSR cost jumps 34% or $5.5b to $21.5b
ReplyDeleteThat's an easy little fix: Just add more money.
DeleteI wonder if Fiona Ma, in California state government, will push for this solution, be it in the form of private activity bonds or some other way. She has promoted the project and had her people work with the project's people to better their chances in the past. (Bloomberg, "Fortress-Backed Rail Company Brightline Gets an Ally in California’s Treasurer") Just add more money, perhaps in the form of private activity bonds.