tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post8099432295434262993..comments2024-03-25T08:35:51.364-07:00Comments on Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: First Nail in the CBOSS CoffinClemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-26422038709299038162010-03-25T21:49:14.505-07:002010-03-25T21:49:14.505-07:00Caltrain will simply subcontract to run trains on ...<i>Caltrain will simply subcontract to run trains on the fast tracks.</i><br /><br />With an incompatible sub-fleet of expensive, overly-capable trains using a different floor height, different boarding height, different train control system, and what else? Total lack of operational flexibility, perhaps? What an idiotic idea.<br /><br />You hit the head right on the nail: what is needed is (a) one fleet, (b) cross-platform transfers, (c) track capacity that can be dynamically re-allocated based on <b>actual</b> demand patterns, not some guess a quarter-century in the future.<br /><br /><i>it will allow the entire system to work even with the current FRA rules problem.</i><br /><br />The FRA rules problem is totally blown out of proportion if there is a temporal separation (i.e. a Caltrain / HSR curfew)... I understand that post-midnight HSR arrivals in SF are causing all sorts of additional layers of FRA complexity over and above the fairly simple concept of temporal separation. I'm also led to believe that in these situations, solutions that rely on inexpensive operational tricks are not sought out.<br /><br /><i>all the freight spurs are on the east side</i><br /><br />Yeah, I wondered too. But then it was pointed out to me that all the passengers are on the west side... but the only advantage I could see to that was saving each passenger, what, 30 feet on each trip through the pedestrian underpass?<br /><br />I've stopped seeking the logic.Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-27667641921504527622010-03-25T21:10:48.700-07:002010-03-25T21:10:48.700-07:00Clem wrote:
"@anon: Of course it exists. The...Clem wrote:<br /><br />"@anon: Of course it exists. The Caltrain east / HSR west option is the first alternative that HNTB fleshed out, and they're also working on the Caltrain west / HSR east option. The latter, from all my latest understanding, is the alternative that will ultimately be carried forward."<br /><br />WHAAAT?<br /><br />But *all the freight spurs are on the east side*. It makes *absolutely no sense* to put the line with freight service on the west side. Now *that* is a clear cut example of slushing money to contractors for unnecessary flyovers!neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-84960274891614718842010-03-25T21:07:28.937-07:002010-03-25T21:07:28.937-07:00Richard Mxyzptlkx wrote:
"As I've said ov...Richard Mxyzptlkx wrote:<br />"As I've said over and over: the moment CHSRA/BART killed Altamont they"<br />... demonstrated that some people are completely obsessed with a fatally flawed alignment which can't be constructed for environmental reasons.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-78626801781796796122010-03-25T21:04:18.451-07:002010-03-25T21:04:18.451-07:00"* Developed initial 4-track configuration pl..."* Developed initial 4-track configuration plans (Caltrain-eastside/HSR-Westside) and draft 4-track cross sections (Caltrain/HSR)"<br /><br />Richard, that is actually going to work out OK.<br /><br />You know how this will work?<br /><br />- Eastside tracks will carry Caltrain locals and UP freights;<br />- Westside tracks will carry HSR *and Caltrain expresses*. That's what's going to happen -- Caltrain will simply subcontract to run trains on the fast tracks. There will be substantially more platforms built on the fast tracks than HSR needs.<br /><br />The absence of cross-platform transfer and the impossibility of semi-expresses will be very annoying, but it will allow the entire system to work even with the current FRA rules problem.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-63799590567480105722010-03-15T10:38:05.488-07:002010-03-15T10:38:05.488-07:00Unless you have any official sources verifying it,...Unless you have any official sources verifying it, it's still just a rumor.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-37432301499472753712010-03-14T21:20:31.836-07:002010-03-14T21:20:31.836-07:00Off topic ---I hope you don't object.
Just ...Off topic ---I hope you don't object. <br /><br />Just leaked out is the true story on Morshed’s sudden departure.<br /><br />Rather than the announced reason, being Morshed wanted to retire, what happened is the following:<br /><br />Pringle after being blasted by the LAO at the Jan. committee meeting over the business plan, was so upset that he want back and got the board to immediately have Morshed fired. It became a done deal right away.<br /><br />Pringle and his So. Cal. members now fully control the board. <br /><br />Barker, the deputy director, has had close ties with Pringle on many issues in the past, and as you now note, he is doing all the talking now.<br /><br />So there you have it.<br /><br />This has become pretty widely known now in Sacramento; I’m surprised that Cruickshank, with all his inside info didn’t know this, or perhaps didn’t want to disclose this over on his blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-89430987287610064732010-03-09T03:09:06.426-08:002010-03-09T03:09:06.426-08:00There's exactly the same distribution of PTC f...There's exactly the same distribution of PTC functionality between onboard on all L1/L2/L3. The train knows its position via balises and odometry, the trackside equipment (L1) or RBC (L2, L3) issues Movement Authority and the onboard unit (OBU) forces any movements to be within movement authority and in compliance with speed profile.<br /><br /><i>The train integrity devices used in North America are only suitable for lowly or moderately trafficked routes because they rely on GPS measurements and therefore need some time to detect faults.</i><br /><br />IIRC, the primary means of train integrity detection is brake pipe pressure monitoring.<br /><br />I agree it needs research and testing to put it in commercial operation. That is what I meant by pushing its development.dejvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-28010761134321227302010-03-08T19:18:13.975-08:002010-03-08T19:18:13.975-08:00@gc-driver, dejv
Unfortunately, the Banverket L3 p...@gc-driver, dejv<br />Unfortunately, the Banverket L3 project is a special case. It's a low traffic route with a fixed set of trains. Under those circumstances it is possibly cheaper to put most of the PTC functionality into the trains themselves (i.e. what L3 does). The train integrity devices used in North America are only suitable for lowly or moderately trafficked routes because they rely on GPS measurements and therefore need some time to detect faults. In a high volume traffic environment those devices have only a few seconds to alert the system. For integrated trainsets that have an eletronic data bus (e.g. high-speed trains) fast integrity detection is not a problem. But for assembled freight trains this problem is yet to be solved on a commercial level.emrknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-71981801377505814462010-03-08T01:16:45.008-08:002010-03-08T01:16:45.008-08:00"One more note to ETCS and freight RRs: ameri..."One more note to ETCS and freight RRs: american freight RRs already use key element of ETCS L3 - train integrity detection device (FRED). If they push L3 development, they could implement PTC without costly train detection systems."<br /><br />Doesn't need to be pushed that hard, it's almost there.<br />Here i a link to a brochure:<br /><br />http://banportalen.banverket.se/Banportalen/pages/7127/regional_eng_webb.pdf<br /><br />and here is a link to a small movie, subtitled in english.<br /><br />http://banportalen.banverket.se/Banportalen/pages/7127/ERTMSregionaleng_WEBB.wmvGC-drivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72801856270240450882010-03-05T03:44:04.339-08:002010-03-05T03:44:04.339-08:00Anon, the Baby Bullet runs skip-stop service, whic...Anon, the Baby Bullet runs skip-stop service, which is how it gets 4 intermediate stops. This works if you want to get from SJ or Palo Alto to SF, but if you want to take intermediate trips, you need to transfer. SSFF service would make that even worse than it is today - nowadays it's a same-platform transfer.<br /><br />So SSFF would force the Baby Bullet to have 7 intermediate stops, 5 more than all-local HSR trains and 7 more than express HSR trains. Unlike with SFFS or FSSF, there would be no way of doing this with switching back and forth between the local and express tracks. CAHSR is assuming a station penalty of 3 minutes on the Peninsula at 200 km/h, so we're talking 15-21 minutes extra time, not 6. Suddenly, this isn't just 2 HSR slots.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-32722403857950000352010-03-05T02:29:51.141-08:002010-03-05T02:29:51.141-08:00"... only plan on having trains 75% full, not..."<i>... only plan on having trains 75% full, not 100?</i>"<br /><br />PBQD-Soprano is striving for single digits.<br /><br />Ever taken the BART ghost train ride south of Daly City? Visited haunted Millbrae station, the one predicted by those some lovable rogues at PB to see 33,000 daily riders? Lots of personal space to stretch out. But watch out for tumbleweeds.Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-76999963548194002422010-03-04T16:19:02.713-08:002010-03-04T16:19:02.713-08:00But don't Deutsche Bahn and SNCF only plan on ...But don't Deutsche Bahn and SNCF only plan on having trains 75% full, not 100?Eric Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-32361631436917639392010-03-04T10:56:24.387-08:002010-03-04T10:56:24.387-08:00"You certainly don't need 2 minutes dwell..."<i>You certainly don't need 2 minutes dwell times at these intermediate stations</i>"<br /><br />If you buy into the 200kmh/125mph fairy tale for HS trains on your segregated fast tracks, and if you do the arithmetic, and if you look at real world operations today, you'll find the overall stop penalty (including dwell time) is several times this.<br /><br />And that's ignoring the 6+ minute connecting train penalty on the ignored Caltrain side ... assuming you even make the effort of thinking about "transfers" at all.<br /><br />"<i>and the acceleration curve doesn't flatten much until above 125mph.</i>"<br /><br />False. Not only that, but the capital cost curve rises rapidly above 100mph. (Look at real world procurement!)<br /><br />"<i>Simply use HSR equipment for the baby bullets, </i>"<br /><br />KA-CHING!!!<br /><br />"<i>... other HSR trains will have seats available as intercity riders exit at SJ, Palo Alto, and Millbrae.</i>"<br /><br />A brilliant and completely original observation! So, building on that world class insight, why not run the excess-capacity HSR trains on the same tracks and serve the same stations on the same timetable and accept the same tickets as the trains labelled "Caltrain"? Or, <i>equivalently</i> (per a profound Noetherian underlying symmetry of the physical universe), why not carry passengers who have tickets with destinations like "Bakersfield"on one of those trains that, despite being labelled "Caltrain" in small print somewhere, makes just a few stops in 50 miles and arrives in San Jose right across the platform from another train that's just about to start its trip to lovely Los Banos and points south?<br /><br />I think you might be on to something here!<br /><br />And ... bear with me, because this is a truly radical step ... if somehow it turns out that <i>not all seats are filled on all the 9 high speed trains per direction every hour that CHSRA claims will run to San Francisco</i> then maybe ... I know, it's hard to conceive of, and really weird and blue sky thinking ... <b>maybe</b> just some of those partially-empty trains are just clogging up the system, requiring heroic infrastructure spending, driving up operating costs, and maybe ... maybe ... somebody might imagine that some of them needn't run all the way at all. Crazy ideas, I know!Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-4627814248236232042010-03-04T10:52:02.309-08:002010-03-04T10:52:02.309-08:00I'm kind of sympathizing with Anonymous on thi...I'm kind of sympathizing with Anonymous on this one. The two real losses in FFSS are:<br /><br />(1) No cross-platform transfers.<br />(2) Reduced operational flexibility if one track is blocked.<br /><br />For sure, these are non-trivial losses. But all of this speculation about a hidden BART plot to ring the Bay seems like extreme extrapolation from the available data. It's not clear where even a fraction of the money would come from to fund such an expansion. San Francisco Co. would want no part of it, Santa Clara Co. is going to spend the next 30 years paying of BART to SJ, and San Mateo Co. isn't big enough to fund such a project on its own.<br /><br /><i>CHSRA needs to somehow justify its grossly inflated ridership and revenue estimates with the premium express commuter market</i><br /><br />Realistically, the "premium express commuter market" isn't going to amount to a lot of revenue from CHSRA's perspective. A 3 zone monthly pass is $160/mo, or about $3.60/ride. Suppose that they charge a 50% premium and collect $5.50/ride. Even at 10 million riders/yr (Caltrain's total ridership), they are only pulling in $55 million. That is serious change from Caltrain's perspective, but it's rounding error compared to carrying, say, 20 million long-distance passengers at $50/pax average ($1 billion/yr).<br /><br />Premium commuters <b>would</b> help CHSRA meet ridership forecasts (as well they should, since they are directly induced by the HSR system investment), but that's only for PR purposes. CHSRA can easily claim them in ridership numbers, even if those commuters are carried by Caltrain operated equipment that has a few CHSRA logos on it.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-72538931510093618142010-03-04T10:48:22.034-08:002010-03-04T10:48:22.034-08:00Anonymous writes:
"CAHSR's design has 2 ...Anonymous writes:<br /><br />"<i>CAHSR's design has 2 intermediate stops between SF and SJ. The baby bullets currently have 4. At 125mph 2 additional stops add 6 minutes (or less) to schedules, so basically a baby bullet would use roughly 2 HSR slots instead of 1.</i>"<br /><br />What you're doing here is (a) casting a service pattern in stone (these are the only express train stops, forever); (b) ignoring the collector-distributor pattern which characterizes both all successful transit service in the world and which also characterizes ridership on the peninsula; (c) maximizing the amount of infrastructure built at extremely high cost; and (d) minimizing the utilization of the infrastructure.<br /><br />Now in fact I argue for the contrary of (a) all the time -- matching infrastructure <i>to a service pattern</i>, just the way <i>successful</i> systems designed and operated by grown-ups do it. But saying "we're going to build a 100% independent, segregated, parallel system on the same right of way, there are the stations, and that's it" you're guaranteeing failure. First I'll bet you real money they won't be building those intermediate stations at all (not part of the Sacred CHSRA Mission); secondly because this model ignores all transportation use that doesn't involve long-distance driving to a few, massive parking lots at a few, massive stations.<br /><br />As for (b), the point of a <b>shared</b> corridor and <b>transfers</b> is that you can either (i) run trains matched to particular demand (e.g. local Transbay-Milbrae, express Palo Alto, local San Jose) or (ii) operate <b>zero penalty transfer service patterns</b> that do exactly the same thing. In contrast, in a model of stand-alone HSR stations somewhere in the vague neighbourhood of stand-alone slow-trains-only Caltrain stations, you never even have the option of doing (i) -- once the concrete is poured and the right of way filled up the wrong way, we're screwed, forever; and the penalty for (ii) becomes severe -- 3 or 4 minutes to exit express train, change levels, walk to vaguely adjacent local station (probably through two sets of ticket gates!), change levels, board. And remember that all this time the local train has to wait for its "connection", arriving 3-4 minutes before the all-important express, departing 3-4 minutes after it does in order to allow transfers.<br /><br />As for (c), with four tracks corridor long and <b>zero connection between service and infrastructure</b> we'll see massive under-use.<br />On the dedicated, segregated, independent express-only tracks at most 2 HSR per direction per hour for the first decade, perhaps maxing our at 4tph in the future, and per your optimistic claim maybe 2 regional expresses ("Baby Bullet", but even fewer stops). That's under 30% of line capacity.<br />On the locals-only BART-ready Caltrain milk-run tracks, perhaps 3-4tph of stopping service. Under 50% of line capacity.<br />All with the added bonus that if there's any service disruption on either side of the HS/local wall there's absolutely no redundancy and ability to flexibly reroute to recover.<br /><br />All told that's a lot of concrete and a huge amount of neighborhood impact and a mas$$$$$$$ive amount of money that's going to be sitting around doing nothing but depreciating most of the time.<br /><br />"<i>Twice an hour is thus no big deal that doesn't require overtakes if you do a little bit of schedule planning.</i>"<br /><br />Perfectly correct observation, applied with perfect sophistry to obscure the real point.<br /><br />Now apply your observation to a <b>shared</b> corridor with shared tracks and shared stations and with <b>limited, strategic</b> sections of multi-tracking and you might be on to something!Richard Mlynarikhttp://www.pobox.com/users/mly/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-35260660416972317502010-03-04T09:39:25.475-08:002010-03-04T09:39:25.475-08:00Riiiiight. And do groceries in the Lamborghini?
I...<i>Riiiiight. And do groceries in the Lamborghini?</i><br /><br />In Alfa Romeo. Something like tiltless Pendolino (V <= 250 km/h) or Railjet-style push-pull trainsets (V <= 230 km/h).dejvnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-73277940255504893252010-03-04T06:59:31.207-08:002010-03-04T06:59:31.207-08:00"Well, that's just it: this rigged segreg...<i>"Well, that's just it: this rigged segregated track plan will enrich CHSRA's builders and service operator while screwing Caltrain. By keeping expensively-built, segregated express tracks all to itself, CHSRA hopes to assume the premium Baby Bullet express market on the Peninsula at the expense of Caltrain, eventually reduced to all-local service."</i><br /><br />Bingo, this is all about THE MAN trying to keep you down. (Insert defiant clenched fist icon here.) Fart the power!<br /><br />(Never mind that Caltrain could supply the equipment, market the service, negotiate access fees, and collect all revenues for a baby bullet type service using the HSR tracks if they so choose...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-42120844586008602582010-03-04T06:46:14.657-08:002010-03-04T06:46:14.657-08:00"Riiiiight. And do groceries in the Lamborghi...<i>"Riiiiight. And do groceries in the Lamborghini?"</i><br /><br />Ridiculously false analogy, combined with cutting off my quote to misrepresent my position. At times some of you HSR foamers are similar to the NIMBY's in your methods and mentality. <br /><br />I said they could use an HSR shell with a modified interior that provides more seats for commuters. Completely 2x2 seating with more rows per car and no food service areas. At 400 meters you approach the capacity of Caltrain's current baby bullet trains, and with a duplex you can basically match car for car capacity. The current CAHSR plan is to use HSR equipment for basically a commute pattern to SJ and the peninsula from Gilroy, Merced, and Fresno, but they couldn't possibly do the same for Gilroy, SJ, and the peninsula to SF?<br /><br />But that is just using the extreme example of CAHSR insisting on allowing only one standard of HSR on their tracks, for uniform operating characteristics on all trains. A competent operator should be able to mix in a second type of equipment designed specifically for the commuter market, such as a 125mph max set. Done in Europe, doable here. Might add a minute or two to a few intercity schedules, the world won't collapse. Also doesn't preclude bypass tracks at a station or two for overtakes, thereby providing even more capacity. Lots of options. <br /><br />BTW, this doesn't mean I prefer separate HSR tracks to FSSF or SFFS. I'm simply noting that separation of the HSR tracks is certainly possible, would function ok, and wouldn't in any way prevent a baby bullet type service from continuing. Despite that conflicting with the artificial constructs of some posters' HSR/Caltrain worldviews. There are many ways to provide a package of desired services.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-60626223846694812662010-03-04T00:05:41.417-08:002010-03-04T00:05:41.417-08:00not sure what your point is?
That railroads don&...<em>not sure what your point is? </em><br /><br />That railroads don't operate the way Raphael thinks they do. They interchange locomotives all the time, just like they interchange cars. They will agree on one standard so they can continue to freely interchange locomotives. <br /><br /><em>one of Caltrain's arguments against ERTMS was the considerable expense of a GSM-R network.</em><br /><br />Hmm. I thought the main argument <em>for</em> GSM-R was that it was off the shelf and therefore reliable and cheap. Hmm.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-67317712102136323512010-03-03T23:11:42.308-08:002010-03-03T23:11:42.308-08:00I might add that CHSRA needs the express commute t...I might add that CHSRA needs the express commute trains to fill all the enormous amounts of excess capacity left on its own segregated HSR tracks, otherwise mostly quiet and empty except for the rather rare long-distance train.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-89707368077230522152010-03-03T22:47:13.939-08:002010-03-03T22:47:13.939-08:00Well, that's just it: this rigged segregated t...Well, that's just it: this rigged segregated track plan will enrich CHSRA's builders and service operator while screwing Caltrain. By keeping expensively-built, segregated express tracks all to itself, CHSRA hopes to assume the premium Baby Bullet express market on the Peninsula at the expense of Caltrain, eventually reduced to all-local service. The Baby Bullet is Caltrain's high-demand premium service and the source of its ridership growth. Caltrain could easily charge a premium fare for its high-demand Baby Bullet express service, but CHSRA's contract operator would rather reap those profits for itself. Caltrain is reduced to BART's all-local service pattern and placed under significant financial strain. Over time, BART boosters will claim that: "Transfers kill ridership! Since all-local Caltrain is now no faster than BART, BART should just run straight from Millbrae to Santa Clara to ring the Bay!!!" Caltrain gets replaced by BART at great cost, the riders get fleeced at every stage, and the contractors reap mega-billions in ill-gained profit from overbuilt construction and service cherry-picking.<br /><br />CHSRA needs to somehow justify its grossly inflated ridership and revenue estimates with the premium express commuter market, which is substantially bigger than the intercity passenger market.Caltrain Firstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-57988460482233540272010-03-03T22:03:00.459-08:002010-03-03T22:03:00.459-08:00Simply use HSR equipment for the baby bullets
Rii...<i>Simply use HSR equipment for the baby bullets</i><br /><br />Riiiiight. And do groceries in the Lamborghini?Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-39825458670224027762010-03-03T21:49:58.677-08:002010-03-03T21:49:58.677-08:00Goodness gracious, the usual dense suspects are ag...Goodness gracious, the usual dense suspects are again certain that any deviation from their preference surely won't work or will add 15 minutes to schedules. But who has time to think through such things when one is spamming their profound insight on every possible transportation blog?<br /><br />CAHSR's design has 2 intermediate stops between SF and SJ. The baby bullets currently have 4. At 125mph 2 additional stops add 6 minutes (or less) to schedules, so basically a baby bullet would use roughly 2 HSR slots instead of 1. Twice an hour is thus no big deal that doesn't require overtakes if you do a little bit of schedule planning. You certainly don't need 2 minutes dwell times at these intermediate stations and the acceleration curve doesn't flatten much until above 125mph. Simply use HSR equipment for the baby bullets, you can rearrange the interior into a higher capacity commuter configuration. With 400m platforms 2 per hour should be sufficient, and the other HSR trains will have seats available as intercity riders exit at SJ, Palo Alto, and Millbrae.<br /><br />Caltrain runs local service on its 2 tracks, baby bullet equivalents run on the HSR tracks in the standard HSR train shells as either CAHSR or Caltrain branded service.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-7308186805129269102010-03-03T21:15:00.438-08:002010-03-03T21:15:00.438-08:00@Adirondacker, not sure what your point is? That ...@Adirondacker, not sure what your point is? That Caltrain should end up with two displays in every cab, rather than the tiny sub-fleet of ancient freight locomotives (some still in D&RGW tiger stripes) that are captive to the peninsula?<br /><br />Another point I forgot to mention: one of Caltrain's arguments against ERTMS was the considerable expense of a GSM-R network. Well, here it is, it will get built on someone else's dime. Does that change anything at all? Anything?Clemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01374282217135682245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419444332771213285.post-6093298246826943692010-03-03T13:03:27.099-08:002010-03-03T13:03:27.099-08:00Therefore, I would not be at all surprised if each...<em>Therefore, I would not be at all surprised if each of the major US railroads ended up implementing its own PTC solution.</em><br /><br />Railroads have been designing to single standards for a very long time. Why do you think it's called "standard gauge"? How come a freight car from any North American railroad can be coupled to any other freight car from a North America railroad and be shipped cross country? <br /><br />US freight railroads are run by people who want to make money. It's very efficient to have locomotives run all over North America. YouTube is fairly lousy with videos of East Coast locomotives running on West Coast track and vice versa. The railroads aren't going to give up that efficiency. <br /><br />They are complaining vehemently that the locomotives don't need two displays, they aren't going to go for multiple sets of redundant control systems.Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.com