tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post5239724607143334385..comments2024-03-17T12:42:36.234-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: The Virtues of WidthClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-75265250462219496342014-05-07T05:24:58.763-07:002014-05-07T05:24:58.763-07:002+3 alignment means that 3 persons travelling alon...2+3 alignment means that 3 persons travelling alone can sit without anyone on the adjacent seat, if the train is occupied by upt to 60%. With 2+2, only 2 persons, i.e. a 50% gain for the 2+3 setup. When considering that some people travel in pairs or larger groups anyway, the advantage is even better.<br />The same advantage could also be achieved by 1+3 alignment, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47552670994027170372013-04-27T11:53:30.155-07:002013-04-27T11:53:30.155-07:00It's ironical that Russian KISS don't util...It's ironical that Russian KISS don't utilise the entire width for passenger trains - 3,75 m (loading gauge T - http://cert.obninsk.ru/gost/726/009.jpg ), but use reduced loading gauge 3,4 m (1T - http://cert.obninsk.ru/gost/726/012.jpg) that is providing compatibility to industrial railways and some backwater diesel lines...XANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931117537443848066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38562347504876402122013-03-22T08:02:49.367-07:002013-03-22T08:02:49.367-07:00Some history about the BART bike policy:
Original...Some history about the BART bike policy:<br /><br />Originally bikes were only permitted in the rear car. That was quite bad for dwell time, and not good for cyclists either who wanted access to all cars. <br /><br />So the policy was revised and was going to allow bikes in all cars -- except that some in the disabled community complained. They wanted at least one car where they knew there would not be bikes. The first car was chosen, as it was nearest to the train operator. In practice, one finds wheelchairs all over the train, so the first-car rule is rather pointless. Drunk Engineerhttp://systemicfailure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73800122851901149542013-03-21T17:03:28.298-07:002013-03-21T17:03:28.298-07:00My experience has been that the end cars of a BART...My experience has been that the end cars of a BART train are the ends. Makes sense given the relative locations of station access.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65366757750511292272013-03-21T13:10:01.948-07:002013-03-21T13:10:01.948-07:00Most likely it's because on different systems,...Most likely it's because on different systems, the most crowded and least crowded parts of the train are different.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38232113956014969792013-03-21T11:08:00.116-07:002013-03-21T11:08:00.116-07:00I've seen many cases in Germany where temporar...I've seen many cases in Germany where temporary higher-level platforms are light scaffolding bases supporting wooden decks pained with no-skid textures paint OR perforated metal decking. Relocatable, reusable, self-leveling, and could probably be assembled in one day (or overnight) on a site that was clear and graded. Consider the speed that scaffolding goes up on buildings.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7149043172550849902013-03-20T22:04:10.125-07:002013-03-20T22:04:10.125-07:00Yeah, those aren't happening with a bike...Yeah, those aren't happening with a bike...Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-88261224054116278602013-03-20T18:47:07.582-07:002013-03-20T18:47:07.582-07:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E4_stairs.jpg
h...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E4_stairs.jpg<br /><br />http://www.fta.dot.gov/images/photos/TRO2_NJ_TRANSIT_Multilevel_4.JPGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-38405942701166372762013-03-20T18:31:23.581-07:002013-03-20T18:31:23.581-07:00I don't think a ramp would be a problem, espec...I don't think a ramp would be a problem, especially on an extra-wide train. You can use those cool dutch channel ramps to provide tons of bike storage on the lower level.<br /><br />On those 80-bike trains today, the entrance is 51 inches above the rail in a small vestibule... same difference?Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-66927171775748654682013-03-20T15:02:07.623-07:002013-03-20T15:02:07.623-07:00Well, the LIRR solution says:
Weekdays: 4 bicycles...Well, the LIRR solution says:<br />Weekdays: 4 bicycles per train - 2 in the first car and 2 two in the last car, unless otherwise directed by the train crew<br /><br />Ironic that LIRR wants bikes in the first car, but BART wants them anywhere BUT first car. Wonder how these guys reached such opposite conclusions.<br /><br />Either way, going from 80 bikes/train to 4 bikes per train is just not going to fly in bay area.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-18144378023675571562013-03-15T12:55:39.310-07:002013-03-15T12:55:39.310-07:00The LIRR and Metro North don't have bike racks...The LIRR and Metro North don't have bike racks. <br /><br />http://www.mta.info/lirr/about/Bicycles/<br /><br />They carry them. They are under FRA regulation. <br /><br />So does NJTrasit<br /><br />http://www.njtransit.com/rg/rg_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=BikeProgramTo<br /><br />I'm not going to bother to go look up SEPTA, the MBTA, MARC and Metra. Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-86186946316082483242013-03-15T10:44:57.603-07:002013-03-15T10:44:57.603-07:00Current bike restriction (dedicated bike racks) co...Current bike restriction (dedicated bike racks) comes from FRA regulation. Is this regulation still applicable after elctrification? I did not see such restricion in BART except blackout train. BART is not under FRA regulation.<br />Given ridership increase, bike capacity will be conflict with standing capacity anytime soon, but happens mostly in traditional commute direction. <br />I suggest install folding seat in the new rolling stock. Such seat can be converted into bike space when passenger volume is low. <br />Reverse commute volume may not be large as traditional direction. So, uilize excess capacity for bike space is makes sense.<br />Caltrain need to prepare roadmap for thier bike program. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78018508004619344312013-03-09T14:17:24.791-08:002013-03-09T14:17:24.791-08:00One potential for drama with high-level boarding w...One potential for drama with high-level boarding will be bikers. They provide significant ridership and are very vocal. With high platforms, the entrance doors will be above the wheels in a small vestibule. There won't be much room for bike storage there, plus bikes will be in the way of passengers, handicapped, and possibly bathrooms.<br /><br />Already, the new comfortable Bombardier cars have been dumped on the low volume runs due to lack of bike capacity. How will bike capacity be addressed in high-level entrances. I mean, entrance will be easy, but then what? Walk the bike down the narrow staircase to the bottom level? <br /><br />One idea might be to allow 2 racks (4 bikes each) in each vestibule/door excluding cab cars. On a 6 car consist, that's 12 doors (-2 for cabs), so 10 * 8 = 80 bike capacity. Bikers will have one hell of a time distributing themselves along the platform, but that's best I can think of.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-55167618089210020852013-03-07T18:07:54.317-08:002013-03-07T18:07:54.317-08:00I have a totally opinion of gallery vs bombardier....I have a totally opinion of gallery vs bombardier. Toilets smell worse on gallery than bombardier according to my nose. :)<br /><br />Also, while some people find 2x2 seating awkward, I don't and prefer such arrangement actually. (Plus, suspension is 10x better on the new cars) I didn't realize suspension makes that much difference. Anyway, back to the topic. <br /><br />I personally prefer the 2x2 seating because it gives me more room to open the laptop (especially if table is present. On gallery cars, the seat spacing is just too tight to fully open it. I don't see it getting much larger in the future.Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-60700571146640423132013-03-07T10:10:30.590-08:002013-03-07T10:10:30.590-08:00One could anticipate an eventual FSSF track-way co...One could anticipate an eventual FSSF track-way configuration by changing to center high platform stations which could be most economically constructed if built at the same time as an 8 inch to high platform conversion effort. Any project requiring temporary platform construction and removal in order to maintain railway passenger service while simultaneously raising station platform height and position surely costs less when Caltrain is still operating from 8 inch platforms. Temporary eight inch high platforms can be supported by low berms constructed by standard road graders and paved with asphalt which can later be sold to road builders for recycling.John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-47763767566465794682013-03-07T10:06:25.124-08:002013-03-07T10:06:25.124-08:00Clem: From your March 1, 2013 comment: “Once you c...Clem: From your March 1, 2013 comment: “Once you come around to this point of view, as I have, the only reasonable way forward is to convert Caltrain to high platforms over the long term. The only way to achieve this without huge up-front conversion costs or a drawn-out shutdown (neither of which would do Caltrain any good) is to procure rolling stock with two sets of doors, one compatible with the old 8-inch platforms, and the other compatible with the new high platform standard--whatever it may be. Yes, these are Frankenstein trains, but I don't have a better idea.<br />Perhaps you do?”<br /> When purchasing inherently expensive systems with few qualified suppliers, such as EMUs, a rational cost conscious buyer will avoid unnecessarily reducing the already short list of potential suppliers by adding a requirement some potential bidders may no-longer be regularly supplying. Is there a way to avoid the need to buy duel-platform-height compatible “Frankenstein trains”? Taking advantage of Caltrain’s continuous right-of-way sufficiently wide enough to accommodate any longitudinal extension of any station platform can all Caltrain station platform sets become economically reconfigured so they will simultaneously have the ability to connect with either 8 inch or high platform compatible trains? <br /> In addition to the 12 parallel track 4th & King and 9 track Diridon Terminals all other station boarding tracks between SF and SJ must accommodate either set of one-boarding-level-capable trains along each station platform track during a two-or-more-year transition period. One approach is to initially build high level platforms only long enough to provide for one EMU car boarding at the south end of the current 8 inch high platforms. (An exception should be made at California Avenue and Hillsdale Stations where short length temporary high level platforms 500 feet north of the current platforms appear to be a lower cost temporary platform construction effort instead of temporary 8 inch platforms over road underpass construction south of these stations.) Introduction to some electrified service immediately after the first EMU deliveries, initially late evening runs, made possible by short length high level station platforms would likely expose serious design and/or production mistakes more easily corrected if addressed before a large proportion of the new cars have been produced and Caltrain’s commitment to sustaining diesel service has seriously declined. After a sufficient number EMUs have arrived to become cab cars for all Caltrain diesel hauled trains and 8 inch platforms south of the new high-level platforms have been sufficiently extended in order to accommodate present diesel hauled rolling stock diesel service could continue without the schedule padding or extra conductor previously required to sustain wheel-chair-service. At this conversion state the high level platforms could be extended northward without boarding or alighting passenger interference. <br /> When a few more EMUs have been delivered short consist local electric train 7/20 service could begin. This limited seating capacity EMU service would become practical if it is combined with diesel expresses scheduled to run just ahead of local electric train runs at heavy boarding traffic stations but rarely stopping on the way to distant popular stations down the line. During this early conversion stage, given the average 24 mile travel distance for riders most would be offered a faster smoother trip aboard a diesel express when available. Careful scheduling may be enough to encourage a sufficient number of riders to continue riding diesel expresses rather than jamming aboard the latest but still scarce local service EMUs. <br />John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-34216917136394498462013-03-06T21:42:13.142-08:002013-03-06T21:42:13.142-08:00So that would mean a Caltrain width of 11 ft 4.5in...So that would mean a Caltrain width of 11 ft 4.5in? The stated width, plus 8in?<br /><br />As I understand it, Caltrain's waiver applies to buff-strength; Caltrain EMUs will still require hand-rails, and grab-irons, and an "F" painted on the "Front" of each loco (or powered EMU).<br />kiwi.jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215458981556481196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-46936545840136940882013-03-06T00:42:51.863-08:002013-03-06T00:42:51.863-08:00without increasing the car width I think the "...without increasing the car width I think the "perceived capacity" of the cars can be increased by minimizing the number of facing seat pairs on each level. It's more a matter of human behavior than actual seating capacity. <br /><br />Except for groups of friends traveling together on weekends I get the feeling most commuters would prefer not having to share leg space with complete strangers. It's fine for 2 people staggered on opposite seats but once those 4 seats are filled with a 3rd or 4th person it feels cramped and awkward. When waiting for one of the busier trains I always dread it when I see a Bombardier consist approach. I prefer the gallery cars, even if it means standing in the aisles. Also, this may be more of a maintenance than design issue but I hate the way toilet smells always permeate those Bombardier cars. The lower levels in particular smell like mobile latrines.<br /><br />I would actually like to see Caltrain continue with the basic gallery car principles except with 2 pairs of platform level doors at each end of the car and change to an articulated design with the traction motors below (in the hypothetical configuration as follows). Each fixed unit would consist of 4 cars with blunt end cabs having walk-thru vestibules at each end. The units could operate independently as a single unit 4 car train or paired together as an 8-car train. <br /><br />The lower level floor would be level throughout. There would be 4 sets of stairs to the upper level as currently except instead of converging at the center of the car they would be at the vestibule ends so you can walk up one stair and down the other when looking for a seat. No need to backtrack and create a bottleneck. With the articulated bogie design the ends of the cars could be opened up to serve as standing space or fit an ADA restroom module in to be shared with the other part of the car. <br /><br />And of course these gallery cars could have sleek and modern aluminum car bodies but avoid stylized "aerodynamic" fronts that restrict modular operation and would be unnecessary for the speeds Caltrain would operate at. No need to visualize them as Franken-versions of the existing stainless steel cars either. I am thinking of something stylistically along the lines of the new BART cars designed by the BMW design group but imagine a double level version of that. It might seem brutalist but is still very elegant and functional. I know people like to complain about the old gallery cars but I feel the thing they got going for them is their spaciousness and you don't feel crammed in. I think they should take the good aspects of that and build upon it with a modern design. And finally I think Caltrain should make it easier to accommodate standing passengers for "standing room only" situations or when people just prefer to stand for their trip.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-65776437520416684862013-03-05T13:15:28.532-08:002013-03-05T13:15:28.532-08:00Actually 1T is fine for long-haul 3+2 as is - http...Actually 1T is fine for long-haul 3+2 as is - http://vi.ill.in.ua/m/640x0/377674.jpg (Ukrainian-built 1T gauge train)XANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931117537443848066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-14605227081723377532013-03-05T11:13:57.179-08:002013-03-05T11:13:57.179-08:00For any blended CHSR/Caltrain scheme 20 kw/tonne C...For any blended CHSR/Caltrain scheme 20 kw/tonne Caltrain EMUs would be useful for minimizing the average speed difference between HSR trains and Caltrain’s EMUs. Priority in this context means avoiding CHSR express train delay by holding local trains at passing points until the higher average speed CHSR train has passed. Following a coordinated schedule both services can run maximum performance operations without mutual interference. But when, not if, CHSR trains fall behind schedule (The CHSRA intends to use a one percent schedule pad for rarely stopping LA to SF runs competing with airplanes.) a Caltrain local will be held for a period up to the run-time difference between the local and express train while traversing from one passing track segment to another. The running time difference between a 110 mph peak speed 20 kw/tonne local caltrain run and the same peak speed CHSR with one stop at Millbrae is 8 minutes between the Lawrence and Redwood City passing tracks and 11 minutes between the Redwood City and Bayshore passing tracks. <br /> For comparison BART EMUs are listed as 600 hp for 60,000 pound empty AC traction motor car which is equal to 16.4 kw/tonne. BART’s initial 1972 service along the 28 mile distance between MacArthur and Fremont with 25 second dwells would need 18.75 kw/tonne maximum power in order to maintain their 34 minute scheduled running time with a 3.3% schedule pad. (BART’s current CPUC attenuated schedules call for a 42 minute running time between the same two stations.) <br /> The METRA Chicago to Aurora line runs 8 morning up to eleven car trains making only two intermediate stops, Route 59 and Naperville where most of their 1,760 passengers for some trains board. Their average speed is the same as the 1972 BART run example, 50 mph, along their final 28.5 mile non-stop run to Union Station at the foot of the 110 floor Sears Tower. These trains’ are pushed by one 4,400 hp engine providing 3.3 kw/tonne traction power for the 11 car consists. These ‘zone express’ schedules requiring modest power/weight ratios is a peak-demand commuter service character that dominates suburban Chicago, New York, and the 1957 Southern Pacific SF Peninsula 1957 rush-hour service patterns. <br /> Today Caltrain’s maximum-demand-periods are spread out over 2½ hours with a high and increasing reverse commute proportion enabling multiple useful peak demand runs for every peak demand period train. In addition the current 24 mile average trip length by discretionary riders are, according to the TCRP report 95 on Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, transit users especially responsive to transit speed and frequency improvements. SF Peninsula regional service trains capable of rapid progress across multiple stops are especially useful for meeting the SF Peninsula’s highly variable regional demand pattern combined with a need for meshing with CHSR trains along a limited passing track right-of-way are all factors suggesting an exceptionally high power/weight ratio for new Caltrain EMUs to be the optimum solution.<br /> It is important to reflect on the vastly different energy supply consumption patterns between traction motor and gasoline engines. Larger peak capacity traction motors have lower current carrying resistance and lower current magnitudes required in order to meet a given power requirement. On the other hand chopper control becomes moderately less efficient during low power requirement periods. Complete power shut-down while coasting or cutting-out some traction motors in a train consist during low power demand periods can reduce power supply losses during low power demand conditions. On the other hand doubling gasoline engine displacement will nearly double fuel consumption rates under low power conditions for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.<br />John Baconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487111497340132298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-79517505014362039812013-03-04T18:13:06.938-08:002013-03-04T18:13:06.938-08:00so 12, 13 tonnes per axle? If WIkipedia is to be b...so 12, 13 tonnes per axle? If WIkipedia is to be believed M8s, which are heavy come in at 16.5 per axle. Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-77321338018697359322013-03-04T01:22:01.502-08:002013-03-04T01:22:01.502-08:00Some computations:
An empty single-level E231 Ser...Some computations:<br /><br />An empty single-level E231 Series weighs 25 t if it's a trailer and 29 t if it's a motor, and is 2.95 m wide. A bilevel trailer weighs 36 t. If the motor equipment can still fit in the bogie area, this means a bilevel motor would be about 40 t. Call it 50 t for a US-length car; we're also increasing width, but longer cars are lighter per unit of length because fewer bogies. If power scales with length this is 475 kW per motor, for a power to weight ratio of 9.5 before passengers are added. That's for the same weight to length ratio of the KISS.<br /><br />The more powerful E233 Series, again assuming all cars are motors, has 700 kW per US car length. Assuming it can still be just 50 t it's 14 kW/t, which is better.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-85300394035451902152013-03-03T19:48:01.530-08:002013-03-03T19:48:01.530-08:00grab irons and door lights crash into the side of ...grab irons and door lights crash into the side of the tunnel just easily as car bodyAdirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71329985457037416402013-03-03T19:38:22.976-08:002013-03-03T19:38:22.976-08:00ACE's previous 4th round trip was 2-car train ...ACE's previous 4th round trip was 2-car train and was discontinue 2009. 2 or 3-Car train is not problem but, their management is not motivated because of 2 conductor requirement. <br />In addition, I am curious to see response from Bike advocate as 2-car train may have only 1 bike car. <br />Can Labor union accept one conductor with 2-car train?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-19983034258366198832013-03-03T19:31:52.691-08:002013-03-03T19:31:52.691-08:0010' 6" includes hand rails and grab irons...10' 6" includes hand rails and grab irons, and those dorky little door status lights that we like to put on stuff. The body width is more like 10' 0".Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.com