Getting Caltrain and HSR Right
Today’s Altamont revival announcement is part of a growing effort to split the Caltrain and HSR projects from each other, driven by a perception that if HSR can be moved off the Peninsula rail corridor – or thrown off the Peninsula entirely – that Caltrain will be better off.
This flies in the face of some important financial realities, and contains some inherent contradictions. Caltrain needs to electrify to survive, but cannot afford the infrastructural costs alone, and needs HSR to help pay for the grade separations that electrification will require. That leads to the inherent contradictions – people who oppose HSR because it might lead to an above-grade implementation will not be disposed to support the same structures for Caltrain.
The fact is that the route should be seen as a “Peninsula rail corridor” and that the goal ought to be to improve all kinds of passenger rail service on that corridor, instead of creating a false dichotomy. But the false dichotomy seems to be the preferred solution. Witness a recent Mike Rosenberg article that suggests HSR would “slow” the Caltrain commute by “eliminating” the Baby Bullet:
Electric Caltrains — the sleek high-speed rail companion that would zip passengers between Silicon Valley and San Francisco — may actually slow many riders’ commutes because Caltrain plans to eliminate the popular baby bullet trains.
I actually disagree with this lede – as the article indicates, many riders’ commutes will be made faster, some significantly faster, especially those riding to a possible Palo Alto HSR station.
A new Caltrain schedule shows the quickest Caltrain trip from San Jose to San Francisco will be one hour and five minutes with electric trains, which the agency expects to start running between 2015 and 2020. Currently the fastest diesel-powered baby bullet trip takes 57 minutes.
A high-speed rail trip from San Jose to Transbay Terminal will be 32 minutes with no stops, 35 minutes with one stop.
That’s a HUGE improvement over existing service, about 50% faster than current operations allow. That in turn allows more trains to be used and more riders to board the trains between those two key endpoint destinations.
Baby bullet service would be eliminated because under the proposed track configuration, baby bullets aren’t allowed to use high speed rail’s tracks to bypass slower-moving Caltrain service.
That’s the real issue here – not that HSR is part of some grand conspiracy to destroy Caltrain, but that the track configuration needs to be changed to allow Caltrain to use HSR tracks for bypassing slower-moving trains. Either way, what would be happening is that HSR would be taking over baby bullet service from Caltrain – which is a form of “elimination” in the way the horse-drawn carriage industry was “eliminated” by the automobile. That should be seen as an improvement in service, not an elimination in service.
Despite eliminating baby bullets — which stop at only nine of 24 stations — Caltrain plans to increase service to the route overall, allowing passengers to board a new “express” commute train, which would serve 14 stations.
“What we’re trying to do is provide service that is on par with baby bullet service for everybody,” said Mark Simon, Caltrain’s executive officer of public affairs. “We realize that speed of service is a valuable commodity to people, but it doesn’t make a difference when people can’t get on the train.”
I have to say, even though Mike Rosenberg is one of the best reporters covering HSR in this state, I don’t really understand his choice of headline and lede given the details in the article. It’s clear that Caltrain’s overall service will dramatically improve as a result of HSR, and that the baby bullet concept will change and evolve, not be “eliminated.” The baby bullets are themselves a new innovation, dating only to 2004. There’s no reason why the current concept has to be stuck in stone. If there’s a better way to move people around the Peninsula more quickly, it should be explored. Changing the existing baby bullet plan is by no means “eliminating” or “slowing” anyone’s commute.
Not every current baby bullet station will be an HSR station, of course, but those stations would still see increased service with more frequent headways that take people to their destinations more quickly.
Further, it’s worth noting that what is discussed here is merely a scenario developed for further planning and assessment purposes, not a final product that cannot be changed. The right move is to continue to advocate for full integration of HSR and Caltrain on a shared-use corridor, instead of weakening both systems by splitting them up as Palo Alto mayor Pat Burt wants to do:
“I think we’ve got to take a step back and hit the reset button on trying to determine whether the marriage between Caltrain and high-speed rail is really in the interest of the entities that support Caltrain and the ridership of Caltrain,” said Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt, chairman of the Peninsula Cities Consortium, a five-city group of high-speed rail critics.
There’s really no need for any such “step back.” It is obvious that the HSR critics and opponents want to leverage Caltrain against HSR, which is both unnecessary and self-defeating, since Caltrain needs HSR’s money to electrify and therefore survive. If people like Burt would think of the tracks as a passenger rail corridor, and put aside his vehement anti-HSR bias, then he might be able to exert enough influence to help produce a better Caltrain/HSR plan where trains are fully interoperable and with more effective track-sharing plan than the one currently under discussion.
Once again we see certain Peninsula elected officials choosing division over compromise. It’s really unfortunate and is going to wind up undermining Caltrain’s future viability as well as cost Peninsula residents, and potentially Californians as a whole, more money. There’s plenty of opportunity here for everyone to come together and craft a plan that integrates Caltrain and HSR effectively. I would hope that Pat Burt would want to be a part of that process.
It’s worth noting that typically, the reporters don’t write the ledes on their own stories. It’s usually the editors, who have different things (like money, controversy) in mind.
The elimination of the Baby Bullet is a valid argument – though it wouldn’t be the end of the world. However, Altamont HSR would not rescue the Baby Bullet. If the Acronym Du Jour Agency thinks SSFF is the only option with Pacheco, it’ll also think SSFF is the only option with Altamont. At best, the Baby Bullet would be restricted to making express stops south of Redwood City, on the section with the lowest ridership.
Minor nitpick:
“…the grade separations that electrification will require” is factually incorrect for Caltrain, since its electrification will use overhead catenaries high above rather than third rail infrastructure close to grade level. Both measures are highly desirable for Caltrain service and linked in terms of funding via the HSR project, but technologically they address distinct aspects of safety, air quality and line capacity.
The bigger issue here is that Caltrain and CHSRA have cooked up a plan under which they will each end up with two dedicated rails in the right of way. This is less inefficient than sharing track, but there are several reasons for the decision:
a) bureaucratic agencies trying to stay out of each others’ hair on operations and maintenance
b) consultants with no incentive to maximize operations value for taxpayer money
c) incompatible signaling system targets (Caltrain homegrown CBOSS vs. CHSRA’s off-the-shelf ETCS)
d) retaining access to freight spurs without falling foul of FRA mixed traffic rules or the 1991 contract between PCJPB and Southern Pacific, which has since been acquired by UPRR
e) California Public Utility Commission General Order 26-D on platform heights for tracks used by freight trains, a rule from frickin’ 1948 that prevents Caltrain from operating rolling with high level entry doors
For all the gory details, check out the Caltrain-HSR compatibility blog. IMHO, none of the reasons hold water but unless someone – i.e. the governor and/or the state legislature – force CHSRA to knuckle down and overcome these obstacles, the agency will seek the path of least operational and regulatory resistance.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
That last part is precisely my point. Instead of trying to divorce Caltrain and HSR, why doesn’t Pat Burt join us to fix those problems we all agree are there and are mostly stupid?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Another point: Caltrain has brought much of these problems on themselves. It’s not HSR that’s screwing all this up. Peninsula cities like Palo Alto could play a huge role in resolving these problems.
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Right. It’s hard for Caltrain to declare bankruptcy just as they are about to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on a project in San Bruno that won’t add a dime to their bottom line. How about aligning capital investment with only those projects that will actually increase ridership and revenue, or reduce costs?
Nadia Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Here’s Burt’s comments at the last JPB meeting: see page 8
http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/BOD_Agenda_Reports/050610_JPB_Agenda_Packet.pdf
rafael Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
less inefficient –> less efficient. Sorry about that.
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Minor nitpick? There’s a huge difference between electrification and grade separation. The costs are about an order of magnitude different… $700M for electrification, and probably $50 to 75M for each of 45 crossings, or easily north of $3 billion. Some even say $5 billion.
rafael Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 3:47 am
My nitpick referred narrowly to Robert’s statement that OCS-based Caltrain electrification requires grade separation, implying an electrical safety constraint that does not exist. This is in marked contrast to BART.
For Caltrain, the two issues are linked via the hope/expectation that the HSR project, which does require full grade separation, will plug the funding hole created by Santa Clara county’s refusal to pony up its share of the commuter railroad’s long-planned electrification project, which in and of itself does not.
dejv Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 6:46 am
Note that Britain does have some level crossings with third-rail electrification.
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 6:50 am
I’ve seen at least one on Long Island…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:12 am
They exist in Chicago too. No one is going to allow a NEW one to be built.
rafael Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Not in California, at any rate.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
They used to exist on the NYC subway and the SIR, but were eliminated by the 1960s.
Look, I know Caltrain is important to “a lot” of people. But seriously, the damn system currently ferries 40,000-some riders per day; in a region of the Bay Area that’s home to 3-4 million. This isn’t 300,000+ riders per day BART we’re talking about here. Will HSR and electrification improve the current system? You bet! But this argument that we need to “save Caltrain from HSR!” is ridiculous to the core. In the past I’ve thrown out the “eliminate Caltrain for HSR” scenario; what about reducing the current Caltrain system from 24 stations to 10 or 14? This could allow certain segments of the corridor from SF to SJ to be two-track (especially contentious area’s) and four-track in others. All stations would have through tracks for express HSR and (drums please) the sacred BABY BULLET! Albeit a more modern version of the BB.
Perhaps we do need to “step back” and hit the “reset” button for Caltrain/HSR, just not for the reasons PA Mayor Pat Burt wants.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
The irony is, it would be very easy for me to say “fine, screw the Peninsula, we’ll move it to 101 or the East Bay.”
But that would be wrong. It’s better for California and better for the Peninsula for the HSR route to work with Caltrain to use the existing corridor. Sometimes we’ve got to advocate things to people for their own good.
Tom Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Thanks, Robert. Glad to have Big Brother working for me making sure you know what’s good for me.
Come on. What do you know about what’s better for the Peninsula? You don’t live here. All you want is to get HSR done.
You don’t care about the cost to the state, you don’t care about the impacts of construction, you
don’t care about how communities are affected, you don’t care about the mismanagement of the project, you don’t care that the so-called jobs created will largely benefit foreign countries and companies. All you want is your dream of a European style fast rail system.
Bianca Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Well, I live on the Peninsula, and I also believe that it would be better for California for HSR to follow the rail corridor on the Peninsula.
If you are concerned about construction impacts on the Peninsula, what is your opinion of Caltrain electrification and grade separation? Caltrain has long had plans to implement both, and those projects would bring similar construction impacts to what HSR will bring. So I would be interested to know if you would oppose electrification and grade separations for Caltrain. And when you are thinking about construction impacts you have to balance that against the long-term benefits of quieter trains, silent horns, and cleaner air.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:52 am
And the long term drop in property values – it’s all about property values – when in 20 years the Peninsula is grid locked and the new managers at Cisco and Google etc decide that it would be much easier to move to the East Bay or Fresno where they can actually drive places when they need to because the varied infrastructure of the East Bay( Or Fresno ) keeps traffic off the highways. . . .every one forgets that when HP opened decades ago the Peninsula was covered in orchards. No reason why 30 years from now it’s becoming lower middle class and 50-60 years from now it’s the Bay Area’s poor neighborhoods. I can easily envision El Camino Real lined with dollar stores in 2100.
joe romo Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 8:02 am
“FUD is much more effective if you don’t exagerate.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:04 am
I’ve watched it happen to places with lousy transportation options. You don’t really want a 10,000 word essay on inner ring suburbs, which most of the Peninsula is, do you? Without good transportation the rich people vote with their feet. In a few decades it’s East Oakland.
joe romo Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Are you being paid for this? Or is it pro bono?
Bianca Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Not clear who you are asking, but no, I’m not getting paid for this. I spend a good deal of time volunteering for Californians For High Speed Rail because I believe it’s the best thing we can do for the future of California, *and* the Peninsula.
joe romo Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Just another lawyer with nothing else to do but “give back” to the community.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I don’t even know what to respond to that, that’s about as arrogant a statement as I’ve read on this blog in a while.
joe romo Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Then don’t respond. But I don’t think you’re looking very hard for arrogance. Does “FUCK THE LA RIVER SHITHEADS….” comment make your list? How about the almost daily rants from someone characterizing Peninsula HSR opponents as rich, old, conservative, tea partying, out of touch, greedy, and having nothing better to do than go to public meetings to be sticks in the mud and not know what’s best for their own community? Do those count?
According to Bianca’s public linkedin profile she’s an attorney and apparently a full time board member of an HSR advocacy group. It’s arrogant to point that out? I think you’re reading way too much into it.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Ok, I’ll admit those types of statements are arrogant.
But what does her being an attorney have anything to do with her being on the board of an HSR advocacy group? The two have nothing to do with each other. She could be a checker in a supermarket and be on the board of the advocacy group.
Bianca Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Look, there has been plenty of name-calling in both directions. People feel strongly about this issue, so that is sort of understandable. I have not ever called anyone a “shithead” or similar, and I’ve engaged with joe romo with a respectful tone.
But this whole thing started when joe romo asked if I was being paid for my work. And that very question carries with it an implication that for someone on the Peninsula to speak up on behalf of high speed rail that person necessarily would have to be paid. Why else ask the question? I’ve never asked local opponents of high speed rail if they are in the pocket of the highway lobby. No one has paid me a thin dime for my work on high speed rail (believe me, my husband certainly wishes someone would.) Sorry to disappoint, I’m not a hired gun.
It bears repeating that Prop 1A passed in San Mateo county with 61% of the vote. That is not a close result- the voters have spoken. It is unfortunate that eighty years ago the town fathers of a handful of Peninsula towns chose to allow residences to be build adjacent to an existing railroad. We can’t unscramble that egg. But the reason it’s always Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Burlingame and Belmont making noise about this is because of poor zoning decisions made decades ago. And yes, the folks who bought houses near the rail corridor are going to experience construction impacts. Every infrastructure project has construction impacts. But the overwhelming majority of residents of San Mateo county are going to benefit from High Speed Rail, and we’d like to get on with it already.
joe romo Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:57 am
“But what does her being an attorney have anything to do with her being on the board of an HSR advocacy group?”
I don’t know. It’s on her bio on the ca4hsr.org page so apparently they think it’s important.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
What exactly in the above description is incorrect? Do people representing a $100,000/year median income community not count as rich?
Spokker Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Civility on the Internet is way overrated. The ones most often pleading for civility on the Internet are often engaging in snide attacks as well, but are simply too hypocritical to admit it.
I love how Romo is playing the victim, so outraged at others being attacked, when he himself accused Bianca of being a paid shill. Yeah, we’ve got the term “deniers,” but HSR opponents often call us deluded, illogical, fiscally irresponsible and foamers. I love labels and so do opponents. The only difference is that I’m honest about it.
So fuck your home, fuck your value system and fuck you. Tee-hee.
Bianca Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Wow, so you plugged my name in to Google hoping to find…what, exactly?
Show me some board of directors biographies that don’t state what a director’s professional background is, and I’ll show you a bio that is incomplete. Sheesh.
I’d still like to now why you asked whether I was getting paid for this.
And at least I use my real name.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Come on, Bianca, you know that all lawyers are gun-for-hire sharks with no interest in society.
anonomouse Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 12:26 am
They aren’t all sharks, some of them are piranhas. :-)
joe romo Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Amen.
joe romo Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Oops. Amen to what Tom said (and more coffee).
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:58 am
“What do you know about what’s better for the Peninsula? You don’t live here. All you want is to get HSR done.”
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’m a poor, working class college student who works in the Peninsula, and *I* think HSR (as well as electrifying Caltrain) is absolutely essential for the future of the entire Frakking state, not to mention locally.
Are my views less important than yours because I’m poor, don’t make a ton of money, or live in PA, MP or Atherton (or insert other posh Peninsula city). You try relying on public transportation exclusively. I know that many of the HSR NIMBY crowd would also love to get rid of Caltrain as well, so I would ask you to try getting home after midnight taking the VTA’s 22 bus and walking 45 minutes.
If only we had a European style high speed rail system, we wouldn’t be the laughing stock of the first world. I realize that comparing things to Europe is straight out of the right wing FUD playbook, but really, you are just highlighting how backwards the US is.
But hey, you got yours, and if you have your way, I (and my kids) will never have theirs.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Someday they’ll die. Their grandchildren will be living someplace with a modern transportation system and they’ll sell off the estate’s real property…..
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Stagnation is never good for anyone.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Yes. One dollar, one vote. Anything else would be un-American.
Anthony Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I have used HSR in Germany, Britain, France and Sweden? Yes Sweden…Their trains tilt…
You can compare, we have an economy comparable to many of the EU member countries and most of them have high speed rail or connect their slower rail to either German’s, Swiss, France or Italy’s system. In the time it takes to get our rail system planned, Switzerland is building the Gotthard Base Tunnel network, which is 95.8% done and projected to be finished by 2017 because its progressing faster than an expected.
I think Germany’s uses 4 rails and they had to absorb 30% ridership increase because of the ash cloud, besides people having to stand, they got everybody where they wanted to go without delay.
I’m totally for letting the Germans, Japanese, Chinese or French helping us design our system, we are not experts nor do we have time to become experts, plus if we take China’s proposal, we don’t even need Federal dollars.
LA’s light rail project will likely get “Green Lighted” by Washington because it wants to use that plan as a model for other cities and if Obama gets two terms, it will almost be done if not finished by the time he leaves office.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Who or what are you replying toL
Victor Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Cause sometimes People don’t really know what they want or need.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Really no need for Caltrain baby bullets once the real thing is up and running..modern yield managment software will be able to sell any seat not sold leaving SF and open to SJ as a local with maby a rev split with caltrain..some of the non superexpress trains could have quite of bit of seats for sale between SF-SJ..or even have a few rush hour SF-SJ only trains at a peak price…tho all this is 10 years off and the anti-hsr crowd using this .. is once again grabing for any stupid little nonsense to blow up 10 times bigger
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Or buy trains that have performance good enough for the express tracks between San Jose and San Francisco paint them blue and gold so no one thinks they’ll spread Caltrain cooties to the HSR trains and use those.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Many would like the real thing..32min is enough time for a Beer in the bar car!! and there will be one..not on Caltrain tho!!!
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
It’s not about performance or color or even cooties. It’s about harmonizing platform heights and train control systems and mixing traffic as required to optimally meet demand, as even the good folks who run the northeast corridor had figured out decades ago.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:20 am
Century ago. The platforms at Grand Central are the same height and loading gauge as the platforms in Penn. Station. Same height as the ones in New Haven. Three different competing railroads were able to agree on it. Never been able to find an reference on how they managed that. I suspect the Pullman Company said “Play nice or we stop running our cars on your railroads”
Gonna be interesting to see what Florida picks. Someday there will be trains from the Northeast and Midwest headed to Disney World and Miami.
By the way, just read Clem’s blog and some of the “Pro-Caltrain, anti-HSR, San Jose amounts to nothing” commentary…WOW! LOL! That’s all I’m going to say about that.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I guess none of those people live in San Jose. Or have to ever travel there..
Clem Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Yeah that was over the top, wasn’t it?
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Meh, it’s an improvement over comparing downtown Fresno to Notre Dame…
“the track configuration needs to be changed to allow Caltrain to use HSR tracks for bypassing slower-moving trains.”
The only places where the local trains move more slowly than express trains is at those stations that don’t serve express trains. Everywhere else, the trains all move at the same speed. So all Caltrain needs to do is add an extra pair of tracks at those stations. There’s no need for Caltrain to use HSR tracks.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
So, you’re advocating for six tracks at each overtake station? Where in some places we only have room for four?
Derek Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Why would we need six? Only four are needed, two in each direction, where one track is for loading and unloading passengers and the other allows express trains to bypass the station.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
But you’d need an extra pair of tracks for HSR at those stations.
Derek Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I see what you’re saying. Four Caltrain tracks plus two HSR tracks.
But the fact remains that passing only needs to happen at the stations, unless you deliberately slow one train to let another pass, in which case all you need is a passing loop, and you can put those in anywhere between stations that you can find room.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Yes, you would only need those at stations. But what stations have enough ROW for six tracks?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Maybe on the Tokaido corridor. The Peninsula will never have the enough traffic to need 6 tracks. Very very few places in the world have 6 tracks… this ain’t Flatbush Ave.. .
Alon Levy Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
A few do. You need about 140′ if I’m not mistaken, and Clem’s corridor maps show such widths available at places, with minor takings.
Remember that you don’t actually need four tracks at every station. You only need to four-track one or maybe two stations in the middle. That’s the standard practice for running express trains on two-track lines in Japan.
thatbruce Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
You also don’t need to have the north-bound overtakes be at the same spots as the south-bound overtakes.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
No, but you need to have cross-platform transfers. Industry best practice is to have four-track overtake sections on commuter tracks, not three-track sections.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Six tracks on the Peninsula? They are talking about 20 trains per hour in each direction at peak in reasonable scenarios the ones where cars are still legal. Ten car trains would be 20,000 passengers per hour in seats. Could probably bump that up to 25 an hour – 10 on the express tracks and and 15 on the local without much of a problem. … 25,000 an hour. Double deck and that’s 25,000, 26,000 an hour with 20 trains per. They aren’t going to need 6 tracks.
Reality Check Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
The current view informed observers seem to have is that Caltrain/Doty are looking to have separate (non-shared) tracks for HSR and Caltrain. If that’s so, then Caltrain would not be able do reliable train passing without an additional set of Caltrain overtake tracks — such as exist today in SSF, RWC and Sunnyvale. This makes for 6 tracks total (4 Caltrain, 2 HSR).
The right thing to do is to allow Caltrain/HSR track-sharing for overtakes and other as-needed situations (“normal track” is temporarily blocked or out of service for some reason, etc.).
Victor Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:58 am
I think what Derek is talking about is a Passing Track for the Express Trains, Which could possibly be gained by making a platform a bit narrower, If that’s possible of course.
Joey Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
The thing to do is to time overtakes strategically so that you don’t need passing tracks at every station. Or rather, to integrate the CalTrain express schedule with the HSR schedule so that they can share the express tracks effectively.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Can’t intergrate schedules. Just because everybody else except for the Japanese who have two different gauges to deal with, does it doesn’t mean that it could be done on the Peninsula.
jimsf Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 12:38 am
correct me if im wrong but can’t you have overtakes with only two tracks? You dont need an extra track you just need a lot of crossovers… a northbound express can overtake a northbound local by crossing to the southbound track via crossover and back, in between southbound trains and vice versa. Of course it would require good coordination but it can be done.
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Running trains in opposite directions on the same track is a sure way to kill capacity. It’s acceptable for lower-volume rail lines, but in this case it probably makes no sense.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Jim, in rational parts of the world, where they have three or four track railroads they run the express train on the express tracks. It doesn’t have to crossover anything because it’s on a different set of tracks. So it does overtake the local but it doesn’t matter where or when that takes place. In practice, during peak, there are crossovers. The Caltrain express to San Francisco leaves San Jose at the same time as the HSR train to San Francisco. It uses the local tracks to make all stops until Mountianview. Just before Mountainview the next HSR train blows past on the express tracks. The Caltrain express then moves onto the express tracks, exchanges passengers with a local or baby bullet at Mountainview and then moves at the same speed as HSR trains on the express tracks. YMMV depending on the schedule and demand.
jimsf Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Seems to me then that a. all four tracks need to be interchangeable and available for all traffic and b. the corridor between san joe and san francisco needs a single dispatch/control tower to manage alll trains entering that track space. Neither jpb or hsr would be in charge of that, but instead a corridor traffic management system to handle it all as needed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:08 am
one dispatcher to control the tracks is the way it has worked since the second locomotive arrived on the tracks 175 years ago.
jimsf Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:22 am
good. then why isnt it being done like this here? Do caltrain and hsr WANT to be separate from each other in terms of track, dispatch, schedules? It doesn’t make sense. Any fool on the street can see the best way to do the peninsula would be to do as described above.
Do they even know what they want? Are they just wandering around the office bumping into walls? I don’t get it.
Peter Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:35 am
My guess is that they would LIKE to do things that way, but are afraid to pursue that track because they don’t know whether the CPUC and FRA would play ball.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:11 am
What has happened is that Caltrain has plans from years ago. HSR has plans that are moderately current. People looks at them, set their hair on fire and run around screaming that Caltrain and HSR are going to use different systems. No one has turned up a document from either saying “We are going to use different signaling systems just to fuck things up” Even if they were stupid enough to to do that, there are technological solutions to the problem. Expensive ones but solutions.
Clem Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
You don’t seem to appreciate the level of dysfunction we have in Bay Area rail transit planning.
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Clem: I think you have to live in the Bay Area to truly appreciate that.
dejv Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Remotely controlled switches and centralized traffic control are a bit youger, since the advent of track circuits, relay-based interlocking machines and powerful enough telecommunication to connect all those elements.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:17 am
All that stuff makes the system more reliable and cheaper. It still has one dispatcher. Even lowly token systems have one dispatcher, the token.
Andre Peretti Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 5:59 am
This is quite common in France and has never caused any incident. The SNCF calls it “voie banalisée”, meaning two-way track.
Trains in France used to run on the left (like in England), but it’s now quite common to see trains running indifferently on either track. This system has allowed to increase both speed and capacity. Modern switches no longer oblige trains to slow down, and going “over the points”, as the English call it, is unnoticeable for the passengers.
Of course, two-way tracks are unthinkable without integrated signalling.
The interesting thing is that Appendix K has been out for nearly a month and only now is it being “scrutinized” as it relates to Caltrain/HSR operations. Furthermore, nothing is set in stone so there is no need right now to jump to conclusions that (1) Caltrain will travel slower than it currently does since the hypothetical schedule is for planning purposes only as stated in the transmittal letter from Caltrain to Parson Brinkerhoff. (2) the conceptual timetable is for limited/local trains, unless Caltrain says the Baby Bullet is done, then too many people are jumping to assumptions. (3) Caltrain has the right/ability to adjust their operations within the shared corridor. It seems that once again, until there is more concrete information from Caltrain and the Authority about track/corridor sharing, platform height, rolling stock selection, etc. then speculation and mis-information will rule the day.
Only here in California would people paint the synergies between two rail lines as a “problem”.
I have a proposal: why can’t we upgrade the current 2 tracks to 125 mph and construct certain stations with 4 tracks to allow bypasses? The current row can easily support 15 tph if timed properly. This seems like a logical way to satisfy NIMBYs. Note: I’m assuming that we can upgrade Caltrain trains to travel 125 mph, but I don’t know how much that would cost.
Alexei Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
I think part of the problem is that Union Pacific still wants to run freight trains on the line, but the tracks for light, high speed trains would be damaged by heavy freight. Also, scheduling and redundancy.
synonymouse Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Pat Burt is doing what politicians are there for – representing the wishes of his constituents. The consensus is against the hsr-Caltrain scheme. It is not his fault or PA’s fault or the fault of all the the nimbys in Nimbyland. It is Bechtel’s fault – it is up to them to force the hsr and Caltrain to be utterly compatible in every respect. In other words either can use all 4 tracks with impunity or go with Altamont. If there is resistance to sharing tracks and the usual not invented here bs. fire some people.
I wonder how long before BART moves into the fray. People fed up with the berm crap and the 2 segregated systems crap are ready to jump on BART Ring-the-Bay. I am sure the so-called “Big Dogs” are aware of this.
Tolmach is right on pretty much all his points.
Peter Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Well, at least he’s representing the wishes of the loudest of his constituents…
Joey Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
What you’re talking about is essentially what the Baby Bullet system is today, but expanded greatly. Richard Mylnarik actually has a timetable/trackmap to prove that it could conceivably work. The downside is that as service levels increase, you approach having zero extra capacity and no redundancy whatsoever, as well as being severely limited as to what types of service you can allow. Or, look at it the other way: as service levels increase, the four track sections must become longer and more common, until eventually you’ve got all but a continuous four track rail line.
jimsf Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 12:32 am
all this fuss about the baby bullets when caltrain is going bankrupt because ridership is falling.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Two tracks will cost more than half of what four tracks will cost and four tracks will cost less than twice as much as two tracks. Probably much less.
http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/High-Speed-Rail-Advocates-Unveil-New-Route/6966416 Media misinformation continues
Caltrain still run express service even with 2 tracks. Just build 2~3 cross platform transfer location (2 platfrom-4line) in non-HSR but major station. Mt View, Hilsdale can be the candidates.
How it works? Local train arrive the station 1 minutes before arrive the express. Express train arrive another side of platform. Then. there will be cross platform transfer between local and express. About 1 minutes after depart the express train, local train depart.
This is very common plactice in Japanese commuter rail line, which have no space to add additional tracks for express train. This provide faster service for non-express station user. Many of commuter train in Tokyo or Osaka handles more than 24 train/h, which is same as BART transbay tube. In most of case, more than half of 24 trains are express while running minimum level (every 7~10 minutes) of local train. Local train have to wait express train every 3~4 station, where cross platform transfer is available.
Anthony Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
German’s ICE is every 15 min, I think IC trains are every 20 mins.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:29 am
The lines that run 30 tph run the same stop pattern, instead of mixing local and express trains on the same tracks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Which they will be able to do on the Peninsula because there will be local and express tracks.
.then it requires the SFWater district to give up half its row hehe. uh huh.
BTW, if you look here you can see that for most of the ROW, there is actually room for extra tracks, 5 and in most cases 6 tracks are possible in more of the row than not.
Joseph E Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:46 am
But is there 6 tracks plus platforms for a station at all the places where they would want to havelocal stations? Perhaps not.
We really need to get the FRA rules and Caltrain’s incompatible platforms changed so HSR and Caltrain can share Express tracks the whole way. High Speed Trains stopping at San Jose and Mid-Penninsula before SF will be very useful for long-distance Bay Area commuters, but most people doing short trips in area would be better served by increased Limited-stop and Express Caltrain service made possible by sharing all 4 tracks, as well as the greater reliability that will allow.
thatbruce Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
The rules, as rafael pointed out earlier, are that access to freight spurs is retained, and that the tracks used by the freight trains along that corridor comply with 26-D. Prop 1A / CAHSR have the additional (implied) condition of one HSR station along Caltrain’s corridor between San Francisco and San Jose.
However, I don’t think Prop 1A excludes the possibility of extra HSR-compatible stations along the Caltrain corridor, as long as they aren’t built with Prop 1A funds (ref max 24 stations) and do not interfere with the mandated nonstop time of 30 minutes between San Francisco and San Jose for HSR trains operating under Prop 1A conditions. Thus, it would be possible for Caltrain to be a local/express operation between San Francisco and Gilroy using HSR-compatible equipment on Prop 1A-funded tracks stopping at both Caltrain-funded and Prop 1A-funded HSR-compatible stations. Has the idea of running a HSR-compatible fleet been formally suggested to Caltrain?
Back to the freight spurs and platform restrictions. For the service patterns desired along the San Francisco to San Jose corridor, the 4 tracks expected by most people gives the freights 2 tracks (normally the express tracks) along which the platform restraints of 26-D are met, which can be used to get the freights to the closest crossover to the local tracks and the freight spurs (assuming SFFS). Naturally, temporal restrictions apply when the freights are on the line, similar to the San Deigo Sprinter and Trolley implementations (along with the occasional retractable platform when all else fails).
Build the line to HSR standards (including grades) with sufficient local/express crossovers to assure service reliability, allow the remaining freights (with extra engine) to access the normally-express tracks in the wee hours and cross over to the freight spurs, and get the Caltrain brand to run under the same FRA waivers that CAHSR will be using. A case or two of scotch for the smoke-filled backrooms that people keep referring to should solve this impasse ;)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Where exactly can I find the marble tablets upon which these rules are engraved?
Failing that, can you point me to the quantified cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates that the costs of accommodating FRA regulated freight are greater than the costs of not doing so?
They must exist, right? I mean, nobody even remotely competent or professional would even dream of undertaking a $6 billion lard-fest construction orgy without some rudimentary preliminary economic and technical investigation and analysis, right?
Why would anybody even consider doing something so transparently stupid?
Here’s another solution: move a little sign next to the tracks 50 miles south from San Francisco to San Jose. Problem solved.
You could even pay PB’s world class Tony Daniels the going CHSRA billable rate of a several hundred dollars an hour to do this job for you and you’ll still come out several hundred million dollars (your tax dollars) ahead. But what fun would that be?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 12:48 am
I dunno why they are allowed to ride on the side of cars or locomotives outside of the yard anyway. It’s not done other places in the world and most places are banning it even in the yard.
thatbruce Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Mmmm, I love the smell of faint sarcasm early in the afternoon ;). Anyway Richard, the closest I can find to engraved marble tables seems to be on Peninsula Rail Program page on the Caltrain site ( http://caltrain.com/peninsularailprogram.html ) . In particular, the October 2009 MOU amendment #1 quotes: ‘Until an operator for CAHSR has been identified, PCJPB will provide engineering standards developed by and for the Peninsula corridor, which must be compatible with Caltrain and HSR.’ The same document also provides a reminder that freight will be provided for along the corridor in a FRA/non-FRA mixed environment.
Since I don’t work for Caltrain (or any interested parties other than myself), I can only presume that the PCJPB aka Caltrain cannot get out of the 1991 purchase agreement between PC(S)JB and Southern Pacific ne Union Pacific which provides for freight trackage rights along the corridor. Hence the requirement for allowing access to FRA vehicles, at which point 26-D concerning platform height restrictions comes into play for those segments of track along which friehgt trains will operate.
Clem Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
General Order 26-D is not an FRA rule. It is a California Public Utilities Commission rule.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:19 am
but they don’t need 6 tracks. you need Toyko or Brooklyn like traffic levels before you need 6 tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Comparing Brooklyn to Tokyo is like comparing the Altamont Commuter Express to the LIRR.
anonomouse Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
The few blocks where the IRT and the BMT or where there’s 6 tracks of BMT running under Flatbush Ave are very busy. One of the few places in the world where 6 tracks of railroad make sense. The Peninsula is never going to be Flatbush Ave. Carnarsie maybe in their wildest dreams.
http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-flatbush.png
and
http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-atlpac.png
Alon Levy Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:34 am
We’re not talking about the subway here. We’re talking about the commuter terminal – at least, that’s my understanding here…
However, my comment about Brooklyn still stands. Atlantic-Pacific gets 27,500 boardings per day (and not weekday). Shinjuku gets 1,750,000.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
They aren’t talking about terminals. They are fantasizing about have local, express and super express bypass tracks running through Atherton.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Like at DeKalb?
Six-track sections are bad because of the low expected passenger traffic on the line, but are not inherently stupid. There are sometimes valid reasons to run SSFF or six-track certain sections; both JR East and the LIRR do that and it works okay. It just so happens that none of those reasons applies to the Peninsula.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Yes like at DeKalb. For the amount of traffic that will be on the Peninsula. Point out that 20 trains an hour on four track railroad happens all over the world and they still insist that 6 tracks are needed.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Nobody’s insisting 6 tracks are needed. We’re speculating that if agency turf battles lock Caltrain out of 2 tracks, it may need a 4-track bypass section.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 9:55 am
From this post:
Derek Reply:
May 4th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I see what you’re saying. Four Caltrain tracks plus two HSR tracks.
jimsf
May 5th, 2010 at 09:36
BTW, if you look here you can see that for most of the ROW, there is actually room for extra tracks, 5 and in most cases 6 tracks are possible in more of the row than not.
Joseph E Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:46 am
But is there 6 tracks plus platforms …..
They want to build the Tokaido by the Bay for 20, 25 trains an hour in each direction. Comes up whenever someone starts to discuss locals and expresses. It might be good to plan for a few places where someday far far in the future there’s bypass tracks here and there but they don’t need 6 tracks anywhere for the next few decades if ever. It’s never going to be the Tokaido, it’s never going to Jamaica and it’s never going to Rahway or Stamford.
What kind of schedule will they be running where bypass tracks are needed? How many trains an hour make that neccessary? My guesstimate would be something well past 40 an hour in each direction, Probably 50. Quadruple Caltrain’s ridership and you are talking about a small fraction of the amount of passengers on the Lexington Ave subway.. they don’t need 6 tracks anywhere except maybe at terminals and then only at the platforms.
How about freight tracks bypassing the stations? Then we are free to have a common platform height without fouling the FRA clearance.
Crazy idea to minimize the right of way but allow freight to pass a high platform:
Have a set or rails half a gauge over from the main line only to be used by freight trains. This would ensure that the freight train clears the platform. When a freight train approaches a station it would switch to the rails which are positioned about 23 inches over from the main line set of rails.
Either the main-line rails are next to the platform or the main-line rails are half-gauge away from the platform. Then either the passenger train stopping at the platform moves over a half-gauge or the freight moves over. If the former, then an express bypass would go by fast but be 23 inches away from the platform.
James Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
The offset tracks could be more than half gauge. Maybe up to 48 or 50 inches. The offset switch would only need points, not a frog. This is a crazy idea, but if it allows Caltrain to mix with HSR and we get all the benefits of sharing four tracks it may be worth it in all but the most space constrained stations. FSSF with cross-platform transfers. Lets GO!
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
So basically gauntlet tracks?
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Err, gauntlet tracks?
James Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Yes. Similar to mixed gauge tracks but in this case standard gauge moved over enough to solve the clearance problems that is complicating our lives.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
There is ZERO problem building platforms at any height — 550mm, 650mm, 960mm, 1000mm, 1250mm, you name it — “without fouling the FRA clearance”.
The secret? Building the platforms outside the dynamic envelope of the rolling stock.
Amazing, no?
Whatever will they think of next?
(I know, I know: shipping aircraft fuselages or hydrocarbon cracking towers by rail. Got to preserve the ability to do those vital out of gauge moves to the heavy industrial heartland of the San Francisco Peninsula. The highly skilled professionals at Caltrain see this as a top priority, right up there with limiting grades to 1% which, after all, is the most any freight train could ever climb under any circumstance.)
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
The issue I believe is that the freight cars might be considerably wider than the passenger cars (which would create a problem since the platforms need to be within three inches of the passenger cars. Plate F is 10’8″ wide, and I believe UIC loading gauges are narrower – which would be a problem if we were using UIC loading gauges. However, CHSRA seems to have landed on a carbody width of 11 feet in its planning documents (don’t ask me why), which should pose no problem for freight trains passing the platform.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Shinkansen are 11 feet wide give or take. Freight passes level boarding platforms all over the Northeast, I don’t understand what the problem is …. unless it has something to do with palm trees and the chakras of railroad tracks in California.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:28 am
The Northeast has much, much less freight traffic than California.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The LIRR sees more freight than the Peninsula. I’d have to check NORAC rules but I have a feeling that they ban hanging off the sides of anything that is moving except under extraordinary circumstances.
James Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Re: California freight traffic, Alon Levy may be reffering to areas such as the Alameda Corridor, Port of Oakland, Barstow, Truckee, Shasta, and El Centro. Mostly port traffic heading across the continent and agricultural products. As has been discussed at length, industry in the SF peninsula is a small fraction of what it was. We get one or two freight trains a night that vary from a few, up to 70 cars with 20 or 30 cars more the average. Not like the 70 car trains 37 times a day on the Alameda corridor.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Forget the Peninsula – as James said, California has a lot of heavy freight traffic, and many lines have little or no passenger traffic. This means that state regulations are friendlier to freight rail. Unfortunately, those regulations include passenger-dominated lines like the Peninsula or much of Metrolink. This isn’t a specifically Californian or even American pathology. Amtrak mothballs its service on passenger-dominated lines like the NEC; Switzerland restricts the length of freight trains because the signaling system is optimized for shorter passenger trains.
dejv Reply:
May 6th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Signalling has nothing to do with length of european freight trains, the hardest limit is station track length. Double-length trains throug base tunnels will work exactly like the name suggests: two trains will arrive to nearest freight yard to tunnel portal, they’ll be merged to take only one train path instead of two in the tunnel, on the other side of Alps the trains will be split again and continue on their own.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 1:14 am
One of the limits has been that Swiss signaling limits trains to 64 axles due to an integer overflow. It maybe gone due to ETCS, though – I’m not sure.
dejv Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 2:24 am
This sounds like ancient axle counters. That doesn’t have to do with anything of the rest of signalling system, because train detection systems have only single bit interface with interlocking machines (1 – free, 0 – occupied).
Clem Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Track release can be accomplished by track circuit OR by axle counters. For axle counters, N = free, anything less than N = occupied. There’s nothing ancient about it, it’s just a different way of doing it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 9:45 am
If I remember correctly the problem with 64 axles is a hardware problem, they would have to replace the axle counters or the circuitry in them to fix the problem. Also if I remember correctly ints a problem in one of the many flavors of ERTMS.
dejv Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 10:39 am
@Clem: Axle counters limited to 64 axles do sound ancient for me. That would limit train to loco + 15 4-axle wagons or 30 2-axle ones. That would be really short train even in european context.
@adi: what flavours? AFAIK, train detection systems only feed information to interlocking machines that in turn feed LEUs (L1) or RBC (L2).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 11:07 am
ERTMS is held out as the be all end all of train signaling solutions everywhere all the time for everything. It not. It like snowflakes, everywhere everything has something slightly different and it might be a stable release someday. Whatever it was I seem to remember it’s something hard coded into the intergrated circuits they used on the axle counters. So they can’t just upgrade the software, a technician with tools in his hands has to visit every last one of them and at the very least do major surgery on the circuit boards. Ooops.
Nitpicking about whether or not the axle counters interact with the system at the interlocking or at the control center or the slot machines in a Ferengi bar someplace still doesn’t make the system cope with trains that have more than 64 of whatever it is counting.
dejv Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 11:47 am
You seem to include those axle counters as integral part of ERTMS, while i consider them separate devices that only interface with the it. No doubt that train detection devices are expensive, but they don’t undermine value of ERTMS/ETCS. Weaknesses of ETCS are elsewhere.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
The axle counters are an integral part of the system that uses axle counters. If they count 22 acles and they are expecting 27 the trains stop. If they report they are malfunctioning and cannot reliably count axles the trains stop. If they disappear the trains stop.
dejv Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
No, it’s not that simple. If the entry counter counts 27 axles and exit counter 22 axles, computer thinks that the track is occupied and feeds this information:
- either to automatic block machine that keeps signals at stop instead of changing to clear
- or to interlocking machine, that won’t allow dispatcher to run another train to this track
All of this is totally independent of ATP/ATC system that railway actually uses. In addition, there are ways for railway to work in degraded mode in case of some failure. For example, if axle counter misses 5 axles and station master makes sure the train has arrived whole and safe, he/she resets the counter and the first train will go through track in on-sight mode to make sure the track are all right. If the line is equipped with ETCS, the MA will be changed from FS to OS mode at the entry to such section.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 7th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
No, it’s not that simple. If the entry counter counts 27 axles and exit counter 22 axles, computer thinks that the track is occupied and feeds this information:
- either to automatic block machine that keeps signals at stop instead of changing to clear
- or to interlocking machine, that won’t allow dispatcher to run another train to this track
Or in other words the trains stop. There’s a lot of moderately sophisticated technology being used but the trains stop. All sorts of conversations between railroad employees, mostly about why the trains are stopped. There’s lots of paperwork filled out that documents why the trains stopped.
For example, if axle counter misses 5 axles and station master makes sure the train has arrived whole and safe, he/she resets the counter and the first train will go through track in on-sight mode to make sure the track are all right.
And until somebody does that, and fills out the paperwork documenting why the counters were reset the trains stop.
If the line is equipped with ETCS, the MA will be changed from FS to OS mode at the entry to such section.
Whatever that means. Does it mean the trains stop until somebody checks the problem and fills out paperwork?
In addition, there are ways for railway to work in degraded mode in case of some failure.
And until somebody fills out paperwork explaining why they are running in degraded modes at reduced speeds the trains stop.
dejv Reply:
May 8th, 2010 at 1:02 am
No. It means that Movement Authority is changed from Full Supervision when ETCS forces compliance with static and dynamic speed profile, to On Sight.
To the original point. Possibility of using outdated components on ETCS-equipped line doesn’t make ETCS bad system.
James Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
If I mistakenly referred to FRA clearance then what regulation is causing the 8 inch above rail Caltrain platform height? The CPUC order which Clem mentioned in various blog posts?
Joey Reply:
May 5th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Yeah … there’s that too. It’s so outdated though … if it doesn’t change soon some heads may have to roll.
a bit OT but interesting development:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/new-high-speed-rail-chief-likely-to-be-named-today-.html
I welcome the taking on of someone with real-world experience with HSR, but wonder about possible conflict of interest.
Has anyone checked out the new “shallow” tunnel option for San Jose?
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100506124716_FINAL%20Exhibit%20Boards_SJ%20Shallow%20Tunnel_May%202010_for%20web.pdf
Starts on page 20 of the pdf.