tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post2325197407378634123..comments2024-03-28T11:51:19.078-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: EMU BrochureClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73273099348123958042020-01-27T14:14:22.539-08:002020-01-27T14:14:22.539-08:00During the transitioning period what will people w...During the transitioning period what will people with wheelchairs and pushchairs do?Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05803082123040459758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-8000490826426633162017-02-09T23:06:18.328-08:002017-02-09T23:06:18.328-08:00Man, this blog is such a wealth of information. Is...Man, this blog is such a wealth of information. Is there a local train gurus meetup ever? I have so many questions ...<br /><br />Will any of the Stadler cars be delivered and put into service as locomotive-pulled cars before the electrification is complete? Otherwise, we are going to be stuck with the gallery cars for *years*, which is enough to make me want to move back to east bay. How can they possibly be so loud and rough? jeeeezapullinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09629586301927626986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-15235962003052414232016-11-25T21:03:03.247-08:002016-11-25T21:03:03.247-08:00I am definitely coming to this late, but...
I oft...I am definitely coming to this late, but...<br /><br />I often disagree with Richard Mlynarik, but I must commend him on being the only commenter here who discussed the handicapped and also realized they would not be bathing en route.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809606902134145161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18370106762434300102016-10-21T12:19:09.117-07:002016-10-21T12:19:09.117-07:00I see. It does make sense in that regard.
I su...I see. It does make sense in that regard. <br /><br />I suppose it's still conceivable to have built CEMOF with UP tracks going around the curve and Caltrains tracks proceeding straight, but that might have created other issues as well.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69387290994652210252016-10-20T13:02:49.099-07:002016-10-20T13:02:49.099-07:00CEMOF is located where it is because of Union Paci...CEMOF is located where it is because of Union Pacific being unwilling to have Caltrain trains cross its main line to access a maintenance facility that would have been where the Lenzen roundhouse was located ( to the east).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11779154407024588438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-81629016949563925352016-10-18T12:59:06.988-07:002016-10-18T12:59:06.988-07:00@Clem and @Michael: Besides that, it is not that S...@Clem and @Michael: Besides that, it is not that Stadler does not know how to build wider carbodies, as the Aeroexpress cars are 3.4 m wide. In fact, Stadler builds what gets ordered.Max Wysshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828566935411668866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-40227080325330361812016-10-17T21:40:19.824-07:002016-10-17T21:40:19.824-07:00@Michael D: I sure hope they review the vehicle wi...@Michael D: I sure hope they review the vehicle width upwards. The draft RFP for <a href="http://hsr.ca.gov/Programs/trainsets/index.html" rel="nofollow">HSR rolling stock</a> required vehicles at least 3.2 m wide (see section 7.2 of <a href="http://hsr.ca.gov/docs/Programs/trainsets/Sched_1PtA_Auth_TierIII_Trainsets_Spec_Rev0_013015_Industry_Working_Draft.pdf" rel="nofollow">draft tech specs</a>). The HSR trainset final RFP is due out any moment now so we'll soon know better. An extra 10 cm on each side of Caltrain's EMU means a smaller platform gap, wider interior stairs, wider aisles, more standing room, etc. There's no significant downside. Considering that Stadler is already making a custom car shell for Caltrain, it seems ill-considered not to take full advantage of the available clearance envelope!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57922566226539854702016-10-17T17:51:30.481-07:002016-10-17T17:51:30.481-07:00Thanks @Michael D for the link to the interesting ...Thanks @Michael D for the link to the interesting story:<br /><br /><i>"An increase in the number of people falling into the gap between the train and the platform on certain London Underground lines has been blamed on the introduction of new Tube trains.<br /><br />"The S-stock trains, which have walk-through carriages and are lower than older Tube trains, have been designed to allow proper wheelchair access to the Metropolitan, Circle, District and Hammersmith & City lines, but the new design means that a wider gap is created when the train is on a curved platform.<br /><br />"The data, uncovered through a Freedom of Information request by the Evening Standard, showed a total of 307 incidents were recorded across the Tube lines in 2015, an increase of a third since the new trains started to be rolled out in 2010. Before the introduction of the £1.5bn fleet the average number of gap-related accidents was between 90 and 100 a year."</i>Reality Checkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974156676436895262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-61848877980013744172016-10-17T14:24:20.106-07:002016-10-17T14:24:20.106-07:00@Clem. So should we consider the 3.0 m Stadlers ba...@Clem. So should we consider the 3.0 m Stadlers baked in now ? How colossally short-sighted. Are Caltrain determined to have curved platform faces somewhere, then? <br />Tfl are having to live with a rise in "mind-the-gap" injuries because there are a lot of curved platforms ( see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-tube-trains-blamed-for-dramatic-rise-in-people-falling-down-the-gap-on-london-underground-a7067791.html) <br /><br />With 3.0 m wide trains we can have lots of accidents WITHOUT curved platforms. #EpicfailCaltrainMichael Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13946860039616123011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-68751059058649556672016-10-14T11:09:34.793-07:002016-10-14T11:09:34.793-07:00http://i0.wp.com/bungalower.com/wp-content/uploads...http://i0.wp.com/bungalower.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SunRail-Cab-Car-Layout.png<br /><br />This is the layout of Sunrail cab car that I found online. Comparing to the proposed Caltrain KISS layout on the ADA bathroom, the one biggest difference is on the wheelchair turning space, where the Bombardier cars utilize the space near the doors and thus doesn't need to be included in the bathroom, while the Caltrain KISS ADA bathroom needs to include it in the module. Also, the version in the Bombardier BiLevel coach seems to be wider, as there is no space for seats on the other side of the bathroom, while the Caltrain KISS can still have one row of single seats.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234802218858306443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-42665731505971762582016-10-13T14:16:59.819-07:002016-10-13T14:16:59.819-07:00That's only low-speed (adhesion-limited) accel...That's only low-speed (adhesion-limited) acceleration. The Omneo has a mere 2.4 - 3.2 MW traction system, compare to 6 MW for the KISS. Giddy up!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-30195954423109410852016-10-13T10:55:51.759-07:002016-10-13T10:55:51.759-07:00@Clem, this table from the French Wikipedia shows ...@Clem, this table from the French Wikipedia shows Omneo has comparable seating capacity as more traditional arranged trainsets: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regio_2N#Motorisation_et_freinage<br />It also shows Omneo is a slow accelerating train, at 0.79 m/s^2Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234802218858306443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-9267030398296708102016-10-13T01:36:32.863-07:002016-10-13T01:36:32.863-07:00@MAX. Heh. Maybe getting articulated trains will...@MAX. Heh. Maybe getting articulated trains will force caltrain to redo CEMOF and get rid of the CEMOF curves? We can dream, right? :)Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72018212041555114702016-10-12T21:40:08.681-07:002016-10-12T21:40:08.681-07:00Hi Richard, thanks for stopping by. I'm not s...Hi Richard, thanks for stopping by. I'm not sure if there's a need to quibble with the actual product choice-- Here we are in America and we're getting essentially the same state-of-the-art train as the Zurich S-Bahn! That's something I didn't expect. As the layout diagrams reveal, the relatively low seating capacity is due primarily to the inherent configuration of the KISS (high power to weight trades away space) and not particularly the dual boarding heights. I doubt the seat count would be much higher if there were no doors on the mid-level.<br /><br />That being said, I fully agree that Caltrain and LTK are making a mistake by not making the car shell wider, whether or not they go five-abreast. Space is space, however you use it.<br /><br />What is indeed deplorable is the cost and agency overheads, but that is how our government acquisition system is rigged here in the U.S. Same exact deal in aerospace, by the way. There is not much use in tilting at that particular windmill.<br /><br />I don't share your skepticism about level boarding. The phrase used to be completely absent from Caltrain plans, and now regularly comes up as a core feature of "CalMod 2.0." Progress!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-90230794322684519102016-10-12T16:53:40.141-07:002016-10-12T16:53:40.141-07:00"meets all the constraints of the problem (te..."<i>meets all the constraints of the problem (technical as well as political) as posed</i>"<br /><br />"Immutable constraints" are such as long as it is profitable (to America's Finest rent-seeking contract-percentage-skimmers) for them to be so.<br /><br />When there's a chance the cash fire hose might sputter out, then, oh look, the regulations have just changed, what a surprise!<br /><br />California HSR routing via Tejon (and Pacheco) is another example of an utterly unchangeable technical and political constraint. As its CHSR maximum 30 minute Transbay-SJ revenue service timing. (i.e. Until ...until ... until ... it isn't.)Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-51904788341628648692016-10-12T16:46:47.119-07:002016-10-12T16:46:47.119-07:00Martin
"Compare the bathroom design of Bomba...Martin<br /><br /><i>"Compare the bathroom design of Bombardier vs KISS."</i><br /><br />I have no special insight, but Stadler aren't dummies, and I'd put this down entirely to an insanely inept client in the shape of LTK DBA Caltrain.<br /><br />The client doesn't care about seated capacity or really much about interior revenue space at all, so the sole global bidder does as little work as is needed to modify its existing designs (for cramped loading gauges) to the specifications of the clients.<br /><br />Lose a bunch of seats because the toilet on the Caltrain EMUs goes where the big toilets go on other Stadler products? Not a problem with the client, so not a problem for the bidder!<br /><br /><i>"Articulated bogies to provide more double-deck space or more space for "locomotive" parts"</i><br /><br />There's that, or some variant, in spades, but as we know LTK Engineering Service and buddies are all about "cars" and not "trains". (Fun fact: the same thing happened at BART, where not-articulated but wide-gangway, higher-capacity, passenger-friendly trains were outlawed by BART's retarded maintenance section dinosaurs. America's Finest, delivering as only they can!)<br /><br />Things that most drew my attention include that the sizes and numbers of interior traction equipment cabinets appear to be identical to those of Stadler's existing offerings. No surprise there, after all, the <i>client didn't ask</i> for lots of space for <i>passengers</i>! But one can't help but wonder whether a less stupid client might have provoked any Stadler-quality bidder to consider what extra space might be "found" in the larger (wider, taller) loading gauge, and how equipment might be redistributed to open up more nominally interior space.<br /><br />The other thing which is obvious, and that you pointed out above, is how small and un-capacious the upper levels of the Stadler Caltrain EMUs are compared to the existing Bombardier trailers. To me, again, Occam's Razor suggests "incompetent and uncaring client", not "stupid Swiss".<br /><br />But yeah, it's far from clear to me (after over 20 years of yelling "EMU EMU EMU!") that there's any sort of win here compared to buying some electric locomotives and more Bombardier trailers. Consider that <i>the only thing Caltrain will use EMU "performance" for</i> is ... making additional stops at Atherton and Broadway stations. Consider that <i>level boarding has now been kicked down the road 20+ years</i>, absolutely guaranteed. If they'd gone full-fleet Bombardier there might have been a <i>chance</i> of actual level boarding (at 575mm or thereabouts) sometime before I'm dead, but now there isn't.<br /><br />Is the ability to make more stops at Atherton and compatibility with 100%-mythical PBQD-style HSR worth the significant lss of seating and standing interior capacity? Not at all clear to me, not at all clear. A truly sad state of affairs.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72206419253481707762016-10-12T16:24:44.548-07:002016-10-12T16:24:44.548-07:00Anonymous: yes a good observation about the Siemen...Anonymous: yes a good observation about the Siemens "Desiro HC" product and the single-level cab car "locomotives".<br /><br />If you <i>think</i> about how things might possibly work after 2050 when Caltrain maybe, optimistically, gets around to "level boarding" via system-wide 1285mm platforms (and recall that "level boarding" is something that is <i>explicitly not funded</i>, something which all past and present Caltrain construction projects have <i>been outright designed against</i>, to which Caltrain has paid <i>less than zero attention</i> for nearly three decades and counting, and which simply does not matter in any way to anybody at the agency or its consultancies), then the insanity of an (15-seat-eating!) ADA toilet located <i>down a flight of stairs</i> is a total non-starter.<br /><br />Either the toilets are going to go altogether, or the bi-level toilet cars are going to be replaced by lift-free, single-level, high-floor end vehicles. At least they'll then have lots of underfloor and roof-top space for the massive number and volume of traction control cabinets that eat up so very much interior revenue space in the Stadler vehicles we'll be receiving.<br /><br />(Before you say: "solved via in-train lift", <i>think</i> about what the means in the US context: no way in hell would anybody be allowed to operate such dangerous equipment unaided, which means ... <b>conductors forever</b>. Because nothing undercuts that whole "level boarding means faster and reliable and cheaper and more innovative service" song and dance like "conductors forever". And not just to run the lift, but to supervise every attempt to "level board" the 11.5 inch platform to train door gap at every stop.)<br /><br />More likely is that this order and any follow-on options for these Stadler bi-level trains will be past end of life before "level boarding" is even funded, that the super-innovative and THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE set of future high-level doors will never be installed let alone deployed, and that somebody will come to an understanding that bi-levels aren't buying anything anyway and they should just go with single-level high-floor full-width trains to go with their way-off high-level HSR-compatible platforms ... all for the HSR which <i>isn't coming for decades and decades</i>.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-69451034996331757402016-10-12T16:07:11.118-07:002016-10-12T16:07:11.118-07:00Martin,
All your observations have been excellent...Martin,<br /><br />All your observations have been excellent.<br /><br />The seating capacity of Caltrain's single-bidder trains is indeed quite shocking, and note this is coming from about the biggest Stadler fanboy out there. (The instant I experienced what had been done with Stadtbahn Zug and the FLIRTs a decade ago I knew what the future ought to be, and that there were smart engineers out there who could deliver.)<br /><br />The issue, of course, is that in LTK Engineering Services, DBA "Caltrain", modern rail service providers have about the worst possible <i>client</i> on the entire planet, and they're going to either fail (thank God Ansaldo-Breda wasn't in the running), not bid due to insane requirements or clear danger signs of client incompetence (everybody in the world aside from Stadler), or take a deep deep breath and decide that <i>maybe</i> it's possible to break even and emerge without the corporate reputation ruined, which seems to be what Stadler Rail, alone in the world, decided.<br /><br />I think the best we can hope for is that Stadler doesn't lose too badly building the turkeys the clients wants, and is able to continue supplying innovative rail vehicles to customer-oriented clients elsewhere around the world.<br /><br />The LTK-specified narrow width of the trains is not just harmful because of the loss of 2+3 seating capacity, but just consider what Clem's far-far-far-off (around 2040 or 2050, optimistically) fantasy of "level boarding" will be like: a stupidly narrow 3000mm wide car body matching up with platform edges at an LTK-specified 1829mm from the track centreline with a maximum 39mm gap: that's a <i>minimum</i> of 291mm (11.5 inches!) of "platform filler" gap that has to be bridged (and <i>bridged</i> is the word!) at every door at every stop! Oh, and ADA requires that the bridge support 270kg super-sized American wheelchair loads. Those "gap fillers" are going to be something to behold.<br /><br />Even aside from ADA whackiness, the everyday reasonable person falling hazard into this foot-wide platform-train is going to be crazy!<br />Imagine navigating from the platform across to the train door if you're blind or visually impaired.<br />Imagine teetering across this foot-long "level boarding" bridge if not well skilled crutches, with a cane, or even in a wheelchair.<br /><br />It's a non-starter.<br /><br />But then again, there's no chance in hell actual real-world we-hate-providing-service Caltrain will be serving Clem's fantasy high platforms any time in the next several decades, so it's mini-highs, "low level" (i.e. right level!) doors only, and <b>no level boarding until after I am dead</b>.<br /><br />Hooray! Mission accomplished, LTK and PBQD!Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-56603027095102525042016-10-12T00:51:07.202-07:002016-10-12T00:51:07.202-07:00@Martin: Bi-levels are a suitable design for mediu...@Martin: Bi-levels are a suitable design for medium capacity needs, because – even with triple-wide doors – and level boarding, dwell time at the stops gets too long (that's why there are no bi-level subways). <br /><br />For longer distances, the bi-level design does work reasonably well, as the primary deck would be the upper level (as seen in the Santa Fe Hi-level cars, the Superliners, the TGV-2N and the SBB IC2000 cars. This setup is, however, not ready for fast passenger exchange, and may easily get in conflict with the ADA regulations (in the US).<br /><br />Another argument against articulated train sets has been mentioned: maintenance facilities. They have to be set up accordingly, and are potentially more expensive than for non-articulated trains (even if coupling/uncoupling of cars can only be done in the faciltiy). <br />Max Wysshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828566935411668866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-11412462266420370092016-10-11T19:49:14.248-07:002016-10-11T19:49:14.248-07:00@Clem,
We were thinking of articulated EMUs where ...@Clem,<br />We were thinking of articulated EMUs where EVERY car is double deck. With Omneo, only every other car has two decks, but I think we are starting to understand why... The motor, transformer and other "locomotive parts" are still too large to fit efficiently under floors or on roofs.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-62401664064063983902016-10-11T19:46:25.293-07:002016-10-11T19:46:25.293-07:00@Max good point about the weight. On one hand, Am...@Max good point about the weight. On one hand, American loading gauge typically is friendlier to high axle loads, but on the other hand you lose all that low operational costs associated with light weight vehicles.<br /><br />Seems like there needs to be a compromise between:<br />* Shorter cars but articulated<br />* Longer cars, but separate bogies<br /><br />I think that over a length of a train, articulation wins. You'll have less bogies for a similar train length, and remember that for each bogie, you're giving up the 2nd deck...Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-62211524567706960712016-10-11T19:11:12.192-07:002016-10-11T19:11:12.192-07:00I think you've neatly articulated the dilemma ...I think you've neatly articulated the dilemma of how to transition to level boarding, whatever the ultimate platform height may be. The logistics of a "Big Bang" height transition seem out of reach (in terms of complexity, cost and speed) of a ponderous organization like a U.S. commuter rail agency. We may be in Silicon Valley, but thrift, agility and innovation are in short supply.<br /><br />The dual height solution adopted by Caltrain meets all the constraints of the problem (technical as well as political) as posed. Those who oppose the solution fall into two general categories: those who don't understand the constraints, or those who deny that one or more particular constraints exist in the first place. I know that sounds condescending but if there was a third category, consisting of those with a better solution that meets all the constraints, we wouldn't be having all these discussions!Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-25172293187874564852016-10-11T18:55:24.378-07:002016-10-11T18:55:24.378-07:00How can anyone possibly be unaware of the Bombardi...How can anyone possibly be unaware of the Bombardier Omneo? Hardly a board meeting went by over the past year without this articulated bilevel EMU being mentioned during public comments.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-55817431622308726922016-10-11T17:17:09.203-07:002016-10-11T17:17:09.203-07:00One reason against articulated bi-levels could be ...One reason against articulated bi-levels could be weight. Unless you have very short carbodies, such as the TGV-2N types, you get pretty quickly to high axle loads. <br /><br />Just so, the only articulated bi-level design I am aware of is an old design by the DR, where two carbodies shared a Jacobs Bogie. But even these cars had shorter carbodies than regular cars.<br />Max Wysshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828566935411668866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-52652774431652009352016-10-11T16:02:50.265-07:002016-10-11T16:02:50.265-07:00@Martin, as I recall, Caltrain's EMU RFP expre...@Martin, as I recall, Caltrain's EMU RFP expressly specified non-articulated designs.<br /><br />Further, I heard the reason for this was for ease of (un)coupling because something about Caltrain's San Jose Central Equipment & Maintenance Facility (CEMOF) not being able to fit some multiple of 8-car EMUs without breaking them apart.<br /><br />Sounds a bit nutty, but plausible. Can anyone familiar confirm and/or further clarify LTK/Caltrain's rationale for rejecting articulation?Reality Checkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974156676436895262noreply@blogger.com