tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post1793820252338923427..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Focus on: SF Transbay Transit CenterClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-8066318925255645492020-07-31T14:26:59.083-07:002020-07-31T14:26:59.083-07:00Is there anywhere this debate is being held curren...Is there anywhere this debate is being held currently? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16749182183808194772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69861772945732219092018-04-06T10:23:31.092-07:002018-04-06T10:23:31.092-07:00http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/E...http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Executive/Meetings/board/2018/04-Apr-10/ENC%20-%20Peer%20Review%20Final%20Report.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-83417262331983805522017-07-03T13:10:45.967-07:002017-07-03T13:10:45.967-07:00Spokker- I know that this is a belated response, b...Spokker- I know that this is a belated response, but here it is nonetheless. The Transbay Redevelopment Project is actually the more ambitious of the 2 projects, according to my sources at Caltrans. The LA Master Plan calls for an addition of 3.2 million square feet of mixed use housing, office, and retail space. This includes hotels, towers, and retail adjoining Union Station as well as expanding Union Station to just under 500,000 square feet with the addition of a lower concourse featuring 144,000 square feet of retail space, and a bus ramp above ground. At last count, the Transbay Redevelopment Program which began a few years ago is currently at 9.5 million square feet of retail, office, housing, open space, and counting. This includes Salesforce Tower, 181 Fremont St. Tower, Oceanwide Center Towers ! & 2, other highrises, Transbay Park + surrounding condominiums, and of course, the demolished and nearly re-built Transbay Transit Center. When completed, it will be more than twice the height and twice as long(1500 feet) as the old terminal. It will feature 166,000 square feet of retail and dining, of which 100,000 will be leasable. In addition to the new train platforms, a bus ramp w/wide overhead roadway featuring a mock bridge span(an ode to the area's 2 famous bridges) will whisk buses onto and off of the freeway. The most anticipated attraction of all will be the rooftop park. Spanning a quarter of a mile, it will feature gondolas that will transport visitors from the street onto the park, cascading waterfalls, trees from all over the world, a small track for running, a play area for children, 2 rooftop eateries including a 14,000 square feet restaurant, and a 300-feet long, 800-seat open air amphitheater for live concerts and performances. When completed, it will be the largest rail station west of the Mississippi at 1.5 million square feet. This monstrosity of a structure will dwarf post-renovation Union Station by over 1 million square feet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-60489070107005202982010-04-14T19:34:42.645-07:002010-04-14T19:34:42.645-07:00Well it happens to be pretty close to a lot of job...Well it happens to be pretty close to a lot of jobs (you know, those things that people commute to). It's not exactly the heart of the financial district, but it's probably about as close as you're going to get.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73254353873144188182010-04-14T16:47:16.233-07:002010-04-14T16:47:16.233-07:00As had been mentioned by other people, I think the...As had been mentioned by other people, I think the TTC is a solution in search of a problem. There is a low need for connection between HSR and CalTrain, but a high need for connection to BART, Market St Muni, and Market St shopping and offices. I just spent several days in the CalTrain 4th/King, Transbay, and Market St area, and I saw almost no one, residents or office workers, that would be served by a TTC location. I hope that CalTrain wakes up and stays out of TTC. It is a dead end in more than a physical sense. If there wasn't the piece of land at the TTC location, would anyone even be talking about a station there?Dan Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17463207128621140651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-26540129700665238632010-04-05T21:56:34.747-07:002010-04-05T21:56:34.747-07:00Why does CalTrain have a double crossover right af...Why does CalTrain have a double crossover right after the split from one track to two?Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78401392897971913072010-04-05T17:34:44.105-07:002010-04-05T17:34:44.105-07:00"It was designed in the 1910s, by J. J. Bradf..."It was designed in the 1910s, by J. J. Bradfield, best known as the designer of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, but also the visionary architect of the (only partially built) Sydney suburban rail system.<br /><br />The fact that anybody is holding up Cityrail as an example of anything (other than of some century-old historical engineering foresight)"<br />I think I was rather holding it up as an example of exactly that.<br /><br />There isn't a flying junction of that comprehensive a design anywhere else in the world. It really is the only reason they can manage the tight headways, given that the system isn't exactly operated to the highest standards.<br /><br />I think it just goes to show that the good engineers of the 1910s designed things better than the Bechtel types are designing things today. :-( This is the period which got us the four-track IRT and the Manhattan Tunnel and Terminal Project and the land development scheme at Grand Central. (To be fair, there are also examples of terrible design from the period -- the tangled mess made of the Chicago rail system is a good one.)neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47797861097800908392010-04-05T14:46:40.373-07:002010-04-05T14:46:40.373-07:00New drawings from the April CHSRA board meeting:
...<a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100402140158_Agenda%20Item%207%20%20Board%20Briefing%20ATTACHMENTS.pdf" rel="nofollow">New drawings</a> from the April CHSRA board meeting:<br /><br />Caltrain is still single tracked in the throat but there's an "emergency crossover". The trainbox extends all the way to main, underneath that large high-rise. There's no tail tracks at all. Caltrain has two 200m platform tracks.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40815461133704590582010-01-20T23:34:27.880-08:002010-01-20T23:34:27.880-08:00Re: Caltrain / HSR Tunnel Route
The real problem i...Re: Caltrain / HSR Tunnel Route<br />The real problem is that the San Francisco government was blind in the 1980's. Had they incorporated a Caltrain tunnel into the foundations of Moscone Center So. (1981) and No. (1992) there would have been an easy shot into the old TBT. The route would have been :<br />a) Up Fourth St. to Folsom;<br />b) Diagonal under Moscone to Third + Minna;<br />c) East on Minna to the TBT.<br />Also, the Planning Commission could have required the SFMOMA (1995) to put a tunnel box under its foundation in return for being allowed to block Natoma at Third St. Then a stub tunnel pointing at Natoma from under Moscone would have a simple cut+cover link up for a Caltrain expansion / HSR tunnel via Natoma.<br /><br />Yes, this would have added to the costs of the Moscone Center and the SFMOMA. But the payback would have come from perhaps accelerating the Caltrain extension to the mid-1990's, getting some use out of the old TBT's lower level, and making the new TBT easier to build.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone_Center" rel="nofollow">Moscone Center</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Museum_of_Modern_Art" rel="nofollow">SFMOMA</a><br /><a href="http://www.moscone.com/pdf/MosconeAreaMap.pdf" rel="nofollow">Moscone Center area map [PDF]</a><br /><br />P.S. Just think of the construction of the Moscone Center and SFMOMA as cut+cover writ large.<br /><br />P.P.S. The Central Subway would NOT be a problem. That slab of pork doesn't need a tunnel until it reaches the Stockton Tunnel. The T-Third would do just fine with a transit hump on Fourth St. and a transit mall on Stockton St. from Market St. to the tunnel. At that point it could tie into a Northeast Tunnel that loops around to Fort Mason. (The above is just a little thinking outside of the box.)MB94128https://www.blogger.com/profile/04494572766051396972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-23551693794919475022009-12-27T21:11:25.591-08:002009-12-27T21:11:25.591-08:00Re : R. Mlynarik's 10 Apr.'09 0151
Your li...Re : R. Mlynarik's <a href="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/03/focus-on-sf-transbay-transit-center.html?showComment=1239353460000#c4949713072909612094" rel="nofollow">10 Apr.'09 0151</a><br />Your link to page #469 has died. The current portal is :<br /><a href="http://www.tidc.nsw.gov.au/Our-Projects/Current-Projects/Rail-Clearways-Program/Kingsgrove-to-Revesby-Quadruplication/Kingsgrove-to-Revesby-Quadruplication/default.aspx" rel="nofollow"><br />Kingsgrove - Revesby Quad.</a><br /><br />The old pages are available through the web archive :<br /><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tidc.nsw.gov.au/ViewSite.aspx?PageID=469" rel="nofollow"><br />TIDC of NSW(AU) page #469</a>MB94128https://www.blogger.com/profile/04494572766051396972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-27317713603315678492009-09-15T13:34:14.114-07:002009-09-15T13:34:14.114-07:00What are the reasons for limiting a platform radiu...What are the reasons for limiting a platform radius to 1000m if the minimal turning radius of the train can be much higher? Any information on this topic would be great.threadshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01709454514217652509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-23528032508274376472009-07-28T23:54:38.476-07:002009-07-28T23:54:38.476-07:00Aside from all the design challenges, the big ques...Aside from all the design challenges, the big question is whether or not a station in the Transbay Terminal makes sense.<br /><br />The Transbay Terminal is near but not in downtown San Francisco.<br /><br />The terminal is not served by Muni or BART. It is essentially a bus terminal.<br /><br />The circuitous and tight route to the terminal will be slow.<br /><br />So it doesn't seem to make much sense to extend Caltrain to the Transbay Terminal.<br /><br />Instead what about extending Caltrain to the Civic Center Muni/BART station? Such a station would provide a direct connection to the Muni/BART tunnels. This station would also symbolically serve the San Francisco civic center. In addition the station and tunnels could be designed to support eventually extending Caltrain under Van Ness, under the Golden Gate and into Marin.bffnnnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13655373429763259297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-9278911889164539242009-04-26T14:01:00.000-07:002009-04-26T14:01:00.000-07:00Since they have been cleared on the present footpr...Since they have been cleared on the present footprint, if they want to build the train-box as part of the original foundations of the TBT, it has to be within the present footprint.<br /><br />That's why I favor Richard's train-box ... it seems to be within the footprint, it is compatible with a more effective switching network in the station throat, and even if used with the TJPA DTX design, it would allow for loosening of the curves.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30231563870256836072009-04-24T12:35:00.000-07:002009-04-24T12:35:00.000-07:00I've been looking over the TBT EIS, namely the tra...I've been looking over the TBT EIS, namely the train station project alternatives. Part of the reason they eliminated many of the alternative alignments was their inability to accomodate tail tracks. So if the tail tracks are not built as part of the TBT, would that force the TJPA to revisit their EIS, or is simply the ability to add tail tracks at some unforeseen future date sufficient? I still have a hard time believing the train station -must- be directly under the bus terminal.Herbie Markworthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14413794599568143095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-45827644228228791012009-04-17T11:34:00.000-07:002009-04-17T11:34:00.000-07:00"So if Caltrain is slamming you about in this [San..."So if Caltrain is slamming you about in this [San Mateo] curve..."<br /><br />I didn't mean to suggest the San Mateo curve is presently bad-- it may be good enough. I'm suggesting people pay attention next time they ride thru there; if it is OK, maybe we don't have be as conservative as we maybe thought.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19340686741300861462009-04-16T23:59:00.000-07:002009-04-16T23:59:00.000-07:00... will slew 2.9m in 191m linear run ...ARGH. I ...<I>... will slew 2.9m in 191m linear run ...</I>ARGH. I stupidly inserted the wrong calculation output.<br /><br />Sorry!<br /><br />Ending up parallel after spiral-circle-spiral-straight-spiral-circle-spiral requires 231m. (I'd re-used a formula for <A HREF="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/FSSF.pdf" REL="nofollow">other purposes</A> which doesn't include an end spiral and parallel straight.)<br /><br />So Caltrain would indeed appear to be cutting corners on the curve transitions. Big surprise.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-88188601682215481212009-04-16T23:46:00.000-07:002009-04-16T23:46:00.000-07:00All off-topic, should be under the Slow Traffic Ke...All off-topic, should be under the <A HREF="http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2008/12/slow-traffic-keep-left.html" REL="nofollow">Slow Traffic Keep to the Middle</A> entry, but nevertheless...<br /><br /><I>... the S-curve just north of the depot on the usually-southward track. It's a 2.94-meter throw (+/- a couple cm) in maybe 190 meters, and by the 1950s recommendations it's not good for 79 mph. (The track tags say they're 0-45 curves with half-inch cant and 50-ft spirals.)</I>Caltrain engineering: always the gold standard.<br /><br />0'45" means (outside the Retarded Zone), r=2329m. Balancing elevation for v=127kmh would be 82mm; the usual mixed-traffic design goal of 0.7 v^2 / r suggests 50mm. Caltrain's operating at a cant deficiency of 70mm (assuming your reported 1/2" cant, which I haven't verified), so passengers would experience 0.45ms^-2 lateral acceleration (~= deficiency/153) in a 2329m radius 13mm cant constant radius curve. Hardly the end of the earth, so that in itself can't the cause of a bad ride.<br /><br />On the other hand, one would expect a transition length of 4.5 v delta_cant_deficiency / 1000 = 4.5 x 128 x 2 x 70 / 1000 = 80m between the reverse curves, and a Bloss (quintic parabola) transition spiral with length 40.3m per German track standards. Compare to the 50' = 15.2m curve transition you say Caltrain has.<br /><br />If laid out with a Bloss spiral, 2930m minimum radius, an intermediate straight of 70m, and at marginal low superelevation of 13mm, a pair of reverse curves complete with four transition spirals will slew 2.9m in 191m linear run. (Note there's only 10m of constant radius in each curve -- they're nearly all spiral in and out.) A similar run vs slew geometry is possible with nicer superelevations such as 50mm.<br /><br />So if Caltrain is slamming you about in this curve -- and THANK GOD I no longer ride Caltrain enough to remember every inch of its hatefulness -- it seems like the problem has to be with Caltrain track layout or Caltrain track maintenance or with Caltrain pre-historic we-hate-our-riders gallery car "suspension", because there seems no inherent vehicle dynamics reason this should happen just to achieve such a lateral track displacement, at least on rail system designed and maintained to first world standards.<br /><br /><br />To answer an earlier question from somebody else, I picked 25000m curves through the intermediate stations (meaning zero problems with platform gaps) and 15000m to 25000m curves out of the straightaways. These are arbitrary, but so large that nobody <I>ought</I> to be able to have any legitimate quibble about slalom courses or other innumerate nonsense. They're also so large one can neglect transition spirals altogether at <A HREF="http://www.pobox.com/users/mly/caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/FSSF.pdf" REL="nofollow">this level of detail</A>.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-29715841011864974012009-04-16T10:29:00.000-07:002009-04-16T10:29:00.000-07:00Next time you're riding a southward Caltrain expre...Next time you're riding a southward Caltrain express thru San Mateo see how you like the ride thru the S-curve just north of the depot on the usually-southward track. It's a 2.94-meter throw (+/- a couple cm) in maybe 190 meters, and by the 1950s recommendations it's not good for 79 mph. (The track tags say they're 0-45 curves with half-inch cant and 50-ft spirals.)Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-51028067704000936252009-04-15T21:06:00.000-07:002009-04-15T21:06:00.000-07:00arcady said...
"Richard: since you've clearly do...arcady said... <br /><br />"Richard: since you've clearly done the background work on this, what are the curve radii you get on the express tracks at the stations? What sort of superelevation and lateral forces are we talking about here?"<br /><br />Say the lateral throw is 2 meters. According to 1950s-era US recommendations (the rules they would have followed if they had decided to run the Twentieth Century Limited at 125 mph) 300 meters of track isn't quite enough for that S-curve-- but we foamers don't know how conservative that is. My guess is your grandmother was supposed to be able to walk thru the diner without worrying about putting a hand in somebody's soup. Nowadays I'm guessing HSR designers accept higher lateral acceleration and (more importantly, if true) higher rate-of-change of lateral acceleration.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-76928627053771270272009-04-15T15:35:00.000-07:002009-04-15T15:35:00.000-07:00I have posted an article that addresses many of is...I have posted an <A HREF="http://switchingmodes.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/why-the-transbay-terminal-two-station-solution-is-flawed/" REL="nofollow">article</A> that addresses many of issues with the Transbay Terminal. I'd really appreciate anyone coming by to read. Thanks!Brian Tylerhttp://www.switchingmodes.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57352084572783285412009-04-12T07:39:00.000-07:002009-04-12T07:39:00.000-07:00Adirondacker: yes, there's going to be electrifica...Adirondacker: yes, there's going to be electrification to LA, and even a whole new line, but I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to propose letting anything but HSR trains on it. And if HSRA's predictions of demand are even remotely right, there isn't going to be room in the timetable even for modern lightweight commuter/regional trains (like the class 395s in the UK).crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-10539210779850995212009-04-11T23:44:00.000-07:002009-04-11T23:44:00.000-07:00San Jose..end of the Caltrain electrification Rumo...<EM>San Jose..end of the Caltrain electrification </EM><BR/><BR/>Rumor has it they are going to extend the electrification all the way to Los Angeles.Adirondackernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-74753703208836780482009-04-11T21:19:00.000-07:002009-04-11T21:19:00.000-07:00Richard Mlynarik said... "The fact that anybody is...Richard Mlynarik said... "<I>The fact that anybody is holding up Cityrail as an example of anything ... just shows how pathetic/foamy/English-speaking-world-limited we are here.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Recall that the structure of the argument was, "if even a decrepit system like Cityrail can accomplish X, surely X could be designed into a system designed today".BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18222261863072890022009-04-11T18:51:00.000-07:002009-04-11T18:51:00.000-07:00Adirondacker: Amtrak has said that they intend to ...Adirondacker: Amtrak has said that they intend to use stimulus funding to buy new electric motive power. Rumor has it that it will be ALP-46As, which makes sense given that NJT is already buying some, so the production line will already be there. In any case, Amtrak has and will continue to have electric locomotives, and hopefully will be able to spare a few for the Peninsula. And about the "actually have any," may I remind HSRA has no trains (or specs for any), Caltrain has no EMUs (or specs for any) or overhead wires, and Transbay Terminal is still a bus station, so everything here is really just speculation about the future.<BR/><BR/>As for why San Jose, I just assumed that that would be the end of the Caltrain electrification, and the potential extension to Gilroy seems rather unlikely at the moment, for lack of money or, really, any need. It also makes more sense as most train crews are based at San Jose, and there's a CEMOF where the electric locomotives could be stored and maintained. But if the wire is extended to Gilroy and San Jose becomes too congested to do engine changes, then perhaps the hypothetical engine changes could be moved to Gilroy. I doubt that would be the case though, since any potential intercity trains would be restricted to run outside of rush hour.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-91333914026920602352009-04-11T18:08:00.000-07:002009-04-11T18:08:00.000-07:00who said the superliners had to be diesel-hauled? ...<EM>who said the superliners had to be diesel-hauled? What's to stop Amtrak from sending a few ALP-46A's over to the West Coast and doing an engine change at San Jose?</EM><BR/><BR/>If Wikipedia is correct Amtrak doesn't have any. That might be a problem. Why would they change engines at San Jose? Why not at Gilroy?Adirondackernoreply@blogger.com