Why Stopping HSR in San Jose is Bad for the Peninsula
The idea of stopping high-speed rail (HSR) in San Jose and having HSR passengers transfer to Caltrain continues to be proposed by some along the Peninsula. Unfortunately, these people are not thinking through the implications for the Peninsula of this scenario. Aside from making it much more inconvenient for thousands of people HSR riders to reach HSR stations on the Peninsula and in San Francisco, the impact to the Peninsula traffic patterns and pedestrian safety would be significant.
Stopping HSR in San Jose is obviously predicated on the assumption of avoiding the impacts of building HSR infrastructure (i.e. new tracks, grade separations, etc.) along the Peninsula. This assumption, however, is incongruent with moving huge numbers of new San Francisco- and Peninsula-bound HSR passengers and the growing number of daily Caltrain commuters. Without massive upgrades to the rail infrastructure along the Peninsula, the idea of stopping HSR trains in San Jose begins to break down due to a lack of capacity.
For Caltrain to accommodate all the HSR passengers and the projected additional Caltrain passengers, they will have to run significantly more trains, obviously. In fact, they would need to have trains meet each and every HSR train that would terminate in San Jose, as a large portion of riders will be proceeding northward. This is in addition to their existing commute trains. Without adding tracks and grade separations, the current problems of traffic backing up behind rail cross guards and pedestrian safety will be significantly exacerbated.
As for the traffic, the increased number of trains will lead to cross guards being down much more frequently and potentially longer per cycle than they are now. In fact, the problem of cross guards being down a very long time is a common problem along the Peninsula, especially during peak hours. For example, where Palo Alto Ave/Alma Street crosses the tracks, the cross guards come down, not only for one train, but often stay down as another trains is approaching from the other direction, making the wait time for cars exceedingly long. This intersection, like numerous others up and down the Peninsula, will see traffic condition greatly worsen. This situation will happen much more frequently when the number of trains is increased.
In addition to traffic, the issue of pedestrian safety has been a major issue for the last few years. Recent deaths on the tracks (including children) have been a major concern of a large number of people on the Peninsula. By blocking upgrades now, this problem will not be resolved, and in fact, worsened. More trains on today’s infrastructure will likely lead to even a higher rate of deaths in the future.
Unless folks along the Peninsula want to increase their suffering in respect to worsening traffic congestion and dangerous pedestrian conditions, they are going to have to admit at some point that upgrading the Caltrain corridor significantly is an absolute necessity, with or without HSR on the Peninsula. Such an upgrade to Caltrain will entail many of the same impacts that HSR would have. To increase capacity for Caltrain to accommodate both increasing numbers of commuters and HSR riders, it is wishful thinking to assume we can just leave things as is or only do minor upgrades to the Caltrain corridor. Further, the HSR project is the only possible source of money to accomplish these needed upgrades in the foreseeable future.
It should also be noted that Caltrain has already been making plans to increase the capacity of the corridor to four tracks on an incremental basis with the support many of cities along the line. For example, both Menlo Park<http://www.menlopark.org/departments/trn/gradesep_pres.pdf> and Redwood City<http://www.redwoodcity.org/phed/planning/precise/final_plan.html> commissioned have created plans that included proposals for aerial grade separations of Caltrain in 2004 and 2007 respectively. The question needs to be asked, that if these were reasonable solutions then, why are these cities so against similar solutions now?
To conclude, the critics and opponents on the Peninsula of the HSR project seem to be forgetting that the HSR project will improve traffic and pedestrian conditions on the Peninsula immensely. It is seems reasonable to assume that many Peninsula residents will perceive a direct benefit in the daily experience due to the reduction of traffic congestions the upgrades HSR will bring, not to mention the elimination of train horns and diesel pollution. The idea of stopping HSR trains in San Jose is pure folly, is illegal per Proposition 1A, and is not in the best interest of the vast majority of Peninsula residents. If Peninsula critics and opponents are successful in killing HSR on the Peninsula, the fate of the Peninsula will be sealed for the next 20 years – a traffic morass and more pedestrian deaths (including children).
Robert wrote above:
“It should also be noted that Caltrain has already been making plans to increase the capacity of the corridor to four tracks on an incremental basis with the support many of cities along the line. For example, both Menlo Park and Redwood City commissioned have created plans that included proposals for aerial grade separations of Caltrain in 2004 and 2007 respectively. The question needs to be asked, that if these were reasonable solutions then, why are these cities so against similar solutions now? ”
If he really knew anything about the local situation in Menlo Park, he wouldn’t be writing such baloney.
The studies were done and rejected. Nobody in Menlo Park was in favor of 4 tracks. The studies were done, essentially because the City was being pushed by CalTrain and others, and “free funding” was available, I think from measure A funds. The net result was some more consultants being paid and nothing useful being returned. BTW, CalTrain does not have eminent domain authority; they simply have to present plans that are agreeable to the Cities, otherwise the Cities shut them out.
This last study was part of looking at more than just tracks, but more on the downtown area. Nice political theater, but certainly nothing useful.
Yesterday, Roberts talked about how Yoriko, lost the primary for Assembly, because she was the most anti-hsr candidate.
Nonsense! She was and always has been pro-hsr; in fact the most pro-hsr council member on the Palo Alto City council. She turned defensive, but never anti-hsr, when it became apparent just what destruction was going to be happening in Palo Alto, and the other council members turned also. Even at the PA/ Menlo Park “teach in” she recognized Robert but she certainly didn’t recognize DERAIL.
The PA council, before the election was simply un-informed and didn’t begin to get up to speed, until Rod Diridon came to told them, that the train would come through PA in the manner the CHSRA prescribed. There would be no negotiations. Diridon essentially told the PA council, as one member described it to me, “go pound sand”
So readers of this blog can accept all Robert continues to mouth, or they can recognize what actually has taken place.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
when it became apparent just what destruction was going to be happening in Palo Alto
Specifically what “destruction”? The ROW is wide enough for four tracks. Electric trains are quieter, cleaner and faster than diesels. It’s going to be good for Palo Alto.
Arthur Dent Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Not true. Compare the AA widths of the proposed alignments and the actual, current ROW widths. There are sections of Palo Alto where no considered option is narrow enough to fit.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I just slogged through the maps on the Caltrain HSR blog. Narrowest point I can find is 65 feet, next to a park. Taking a few feet of parkland isn’t “destruction” There’s another narrow point at Chruchill. Might have to shave the backyards of a few houses. I’m sure that going to attracts swarms of locusts and plagues of toads. I’m sure all the places they use to stage the construction, in parking lots that abut the tracks, is going to be just awful. Where specifically? And what’s going to be destroyed?
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Just keep repeating to yourself the mantra “Elderly rich white people in PAMPA are always right” and the world will start to make more sense.
Its better than rage.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I’m mildly annoyed. Morris and Arthur have asserted that building a four track railroad on a ROW that is four tracks wide will rain death and destruction on their town. I want specifics as to wher all this destruction is going to go on. So that we can have civil discussions about the historical and cultural significance of the parking lots that will be affected, most of the areas affected are parking lot and that will only be during construction.
Arthur Dent Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:36 am
I’ve never asserted such a thing! I merely suggested that you check your facts. I’m annoyed, too, that you’d read so much drama into a request for being factual.
StevieB Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
I too looked at the Caltrain ROW Map for the section south of Churchill Ave. The section at the back of Peers Park is the longest section with a 60′ ROW. Many of the houses along Mariposa Ave. south of Churchill abut a ROW just over 75′ so with an elevated structure requiring 79′ some back yards would lose a bit of space. The only house that is built close enough to the ROW to require removal that I can see is at the corner of Churchill and Mariposa.
I think that the benefits of grade separation along with electrification that Caltrain says is needed for its survival balance the costs of ROW aquisition and an elevated structure.
Bianca Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Nobody in Menlo Park was in favor of 4 tracks. The studies were done, essentially because the City was being pushed by CalTrain and others, and “free funding” was available, I think from measure A funds.
Morris, you don’t speak for the entire city of Menlo Park. I find the idea that Menlo Park would cheerfully waste money from Measure A Funds to study something that nobody was in favor of is a pretty remarkable allegation, and I’d be interested to see what proof you have to support such a charge.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Looking at the Menlo Park website about about great separation the images are quite nice looking what is wrong with these plans?
Paul Dyson Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
All cities waste money on studies of projects that will go nowhere. It provides work and fills calenders for staff, it’s “free money”, and it looks as if they are doing something.
PD
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Morris, you have not addressed any of the problems (i.e. traffic and pedestrian safety) referenced in the article that I wrote, Daniel Krause, that will continue to fester along the Peninsula if major upgrades are not undertaken. Do you have any solutions to the problems exist and will certainly get much worse in the future?
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:00 am
In your post, you contrasted full grade separation for four tracks and the status quo (i.e. partially grade separated dual tracks). You’re quite right to point out that any substantial increase in rail traffic – regardless of the logo on the side of the trains – would snarl up motor vehicle traffic at any remaining grade crossings. Full grade separation is needed for both safety and cross traffic capacity.
However, you did not consider the option of fully grade separated dual tracks with quad track sections only where they are really needed to provide sufficient capacity for both HSR and Caltrain.
With proper signaling and timetable integration and constraints on HSR express service during Caltrain’s peak periods, I reckon around 60% of the total distance between SF and SJ could remain at just two tracks (see post on Caltrain Firebird for details). Note that I think this is worth considering on cost grounds alone. I don’t have a fundamental problem with the judicious exercise of (partial) eminent domain as long as property owners actually receive fair compensation. Btw, this was reportedly not the case for TJPA’s Transbay Terminal project, especially wrt small businesses.
StevieB Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Dual track on 60% of the peninsula would constrain speed to that the slowest commuter train or greatly constrain capacity. How do you plan for future capacity increase? Will dual tracks be adaquate in 20 years or would quad tracks be needed at increadible expense?
Clem Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 3:28 pm
CalTrain does not have eminent domain authority
But the SMCTA most assuredly does. They will do the JPB’s bidding, as evidenced in San Bruno, where several forced transactions recently went through for the grade separation project. What makes Menlo Park different from San Bruno?
wu ming Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:59 pm
robert didn’t write this, morris. he’s on vacation. this was written by daniel krause, as you would know if you had read the byline and not just snapped into your usual spam mode.
Peter Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Did you mean “spam” or “spasm”? Both apply, I believe.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:35 am
Yep. And in case there’s any question about it, I fully stand by what Daniel wrote here.
I’d only add that the idea that SF’s powerful political leaders – especially its DC delegation (US Senators included) would allow for HSR to terminate in San José, especially after the high profile groundbreaking at the Transbay Terminal, is absurd, and SF’s next mayor, David Chiu (assuming Gavin Newsom gets elected Lt Gov) said as much at the most recent CHSRA board meeting.
dave Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Morris, Daniel Krause posted this not Robert! Get it together sir!
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:45 am
@ Morris Brown -
please pay attention to the bylines on our posts. This particular one was written by Daniel Krause, not Robert Cruickshank.
Wrt public funding, it’s never “free”. Politicians and bureaucrats sometimes perceive it that way because the political cost of securing the funds has already been paid. In financial terms, taxpayers chose to live with higher sales tax rates for 30 years.
Wrt eminent domain, it is true that Caltrain (the operating entity) does not have it. However, the transportation authorities (SF Muni, SMCTA and VTA, respectively) of the counties participating in the PCJPB do. In strictly legal terms, individual cities on the peninsula do not, nor do they have formal powers to overrule the PCJPB. In practical political terms, PCJPB would think twice before asking any of the TAs to exercise ED in their jurisdiction against the express wishes of the local community. That does not mean they wouldn’t do it, in fact they have done so in the past.
If anyone thinks HSR is not coming to SanFrancsico then they need to siff a huge cup of coffee..Nimby spin any idea to justify stopping HSR along those tracks..that we the citizens of SanFranciso also own …This is one of the more assine ideas .
In the (increasingly likely) event that CHSRA does not get full-funding from the Feds (not to mention the private funding), then a San Jose “transfer” makes a lot of sense.
I put “Transfer” in quotes — the preferred scheme is that the high-speed trains simply continue on to from SJ to SF, on conventional tracks at conventional speeds. The time-penalty is not prohibitive, but the cost savings are gigantic.
This is also how most high-speed rail projects were done in Europe. For example, the entire UK segment of Eurostar was conventional track — it was only much later that money was available to build the new ROW.
Such an approach is also more political viable. Consider the outcry when CHSRA blows the entire $10+ billion downpayment, and all they have to show for it is a dis-used SF downtown terminal, and a few miles of track between LA and Anaheim.
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Under a scenario where HSR would be added to the existing track infrastructure along the Peninsula along with existing Caltrain service, the problems described in this post in relation to the Peninsula would be severely exacerbated. Further, trains speeds would be slower as you mentioned, not only because of lack of track infrastructure, but train congestion, especially during peak hours.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Actually I would think the new CEO having experience doing European high-speed rail would be all for that design option if there’s no other way to get the trains up to San Francisco
Alon Levy Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 6:11 pm
You’re right that running at low speed north of San Jose is viable, but you’re overestimating the cost saving. The entire SF-SJ segment is $4 billion, which is about 10% of the Phase I cost. To make a big dent in the CAHSR budget, you’d have to cut out one of the mountain crossings, which means trains will have to stop short of LA or short of the Bay Area.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 7:19 pm
At least $2b can be cut just by deleting the last 1 mile of the project at the SF end.
And let’s pretend for the moment that you are correct and that the next 50 miles is only $4 billion (if you really believe that, then I’ve got a tunnel to sell you). We can go through a similar cost-cutting exercise at the LA end. $2 billion here, $4 billion there, and pretty soon we are talking real money.
It is called value engineering. if you have just $12 billion to spend for Phase I, is it better to build one or two inutile stubs in the insanely expensive urban areas, or to build as much track miles as possible — even if the Phase I deliverable is limited to sublight speeds in the last few miles?
rafael Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:21 am
Note that AB3034(2008) explicitly defines the starter line as “San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles and Anaheim”. The $9 billion reserved for HSR by the passage of prop 1A(2008) can only be spent on other parts of the network if that doesn’t delay the completion of the starter line. In practice, that will mean LA-SD and Merced-Sac will have to wait until after the DTX tunnel in SF has been constructed.
I completely agree with you on the need for value engineering for the network as a whole. In SF, I believe the DTX should have been a single-track loop tunnel with the outbound track under 3rd not 2nd. In the peninsula, some sections incl. 4th&King-San Bruno, Lawrence-Tamien and Atherton would not need to be quad tracked IMHO if both CHSRA and Caltrain were prepared to accept some operational constraints and integrate their timetables. It may be feasible to make do with just two tracks in the LA-Anaheim segment.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:48 am
Which of course is why digging tunnels under Millbrae is the first priority of the world class transportation professionals of the Peninsula Rail Program.
How about taking a microsecond out from your pathetic PB cheerleading and actually looking at what our Caltrain/CHSRA good ol buddy boys are actually up to, rather than what you fantasize might be happening in some alternate universe?
mike Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Where is he cheerleading PB? He’s actually criticizing the proposed overengineered DTX, albeit the alternative he suggests is not the one most of us would choose.
Missiondweller Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 am
“Value engineering” has no value if it materially changes the project.
4th & King was not designated the end of the line when voters approved $10B.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
According to the Attorney General, CHSRA can designate whatever SF terminal it wants.
Bianca Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Yes, but if Nancy Pelosi wants the SF terminal at the new Transbay Terminal, and CHSRA needs more federal funding for the project, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what the CHSRA is going to do.
Caelestor Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:09 pm
How about a temporary terminal at 4th and King until the TBT mess gets sorted out?
Missiondweller Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I don’t think you know which way the wind blows politically speaking.
Like it or not the TBT is the end of the line.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
The LA-Anaheim section is prime for cutting, yes. But LA-Sylmar isn’t, at least not without a Caltrain-style modernization plan involving electrification and noncompliant trains. Given that Metrolink thinks modern operations are best kept to modern countries, CAHSR has to build its own tracks to LAUS.
If you only have $12 billion for phase 1, then there’s no money for crossing both the Tehachapis and either Pacheco or Altamont Pass and connecting them to something useful. In that case, the HSRA should pick one and run service on it. I’d propose cutting out the Bay Area and running trains from LA as far north in the Central Valley as there is money for, since,
a) LA is much bigger than SF,
b) This option allows a last-ditch chance to switch to Altamont,
c) Pacheco is utter crap at connecting the Bay Area to its Central Valley exurbs, and
d) LA is much bigger than SF.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:52 am
Crossing Altamont is a trivial undertaking. There aren’t even any tunnels!
LA-Livermore (connecting with a short BART extension) would make a fine, realistic, value engineered first phase, whose success as a demonstration project would lead readily to the more heroic engineering of Livermore-Fremont-San Jose and Fremont-Redwood City-San Francisco.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Crossing Altamont is a trivial undertaking. There aren’t even any tunnels!
Last time you made that claim, when asked to how to do it without tunnels, you came up with open cuts hundreds of feet deep. They ain’t gonna be cheap.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
OMG! I forgot to adjust reality to “adirondacker12800″ setting. So sorry.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Well how do you get from Fresno to San Francisco on an HSR train without building tunnels somewhere? Or open cuts hundreds of feet deep?
wu ming Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:43 pm
a whole bunch of very expensive bridges, roughly following the capitol corridor route. also includes massive eminent domain headaches, no peninsula or south bay service, and longer SF-LS run time.
hey, you didn;t specify it had to be a good solution. and it would be very nice for the sac region.
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:13 pm
I’m skeptical that HSR could be built on the Capital Corridor route (or something near it) without tunnels.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Sure they could, they could just keep running down the middle of the street in Oakland. Voila, no tunnels.
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Only extending to Livermore would skip (most of?) those cuts, IIRC. It would still be shitty, though, leaving riders about an hour from SF.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:30 pm
OK. You’ve convinced me! Achieving something useful in stages is for suckers. The proper course is
1. Choose the very most expensive possible system, by having those who will profit directly and outrageously from the project “evaluate” it.
2. Start construction at the far ends of the system. Don’t want to make something “shitty” which is “an hour from SF.” Millbrae is 15 minutes form SF, and hence obviously the finest place to commence tunnelling in the state of California. Hooray!
3. ???
4. Profit!
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
5. Eat shit and drink smugness and “I’m the greatest”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:59 pm
They are building it stages. Just not the stages you prefer.
jimsf Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:36 pm
It makes sense to get the expensive end point done as they are in the area that are most dense and the cost will go up much more and much faster then will the outlying areas over time. Development could make it impossible later on.
Caelestor Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Actually, the more we build with limited funds (basically upgrade the CV and connect the Tehachapis), the harder it gets for others to stop the project. Also, the endpoints already have basic rail options already built.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Development could make it impossible later on.
You do realize that as part of the plan for the Bayshore Cutoff – the current Caltrain alignment, the Southern Pacific has plans to put their new terminal at the foot of Market Street across the Embarcadero from the Ferry Building…. When they look around for a place to put the trains that will be in the 3 and 4th tube of the second transbay tunnel, where are they going to put them?
jimsf Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:11 pm
southern pacific? huh?
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Yes, apparently SP once had a plan to move extend from their mission bay depot to the Ferry Building.
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Erm, needless to say, the plan didn’t work out.
jimsf Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
oh “had” plans. I was wondering if SP had risen from the dead recently. AS for the future 4 track tube I guess it would have to come in at the Foot of howard if its to go into tbt. Or Mission to run parallel to tbt Or from ALameda which is likely, it might come in at townsend to 4th and skip tbt.
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:30 pm
There’s no way to get into the TBT from the east. It’s simply geometrically impossible without knocking down (or alternately, attempting to tunnel under) some large buildings.
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Not that there is capacity for any additional trains, even if it were possible.
jimsf Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Acually via howard there is. If you come ashore at the foot of Howard and continue up howard, to where the tail tracks were orig. planned. There is currently no development there. Of course one day there will be. Thus the point about getting the stuff in the cores done while you can.
jimsf Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:52 pm
you could do this
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Have you considered the incredibly sharp curve radii which would be associated with that (even moreso than the existing trainbox). Maybe it could work for the southernmost two platform tracks (which of course would be much less than 400m long – probably more like 200m. The other tracks would either require tunneling under buildings or curves which only light rail trains would be able to use (not that there is any reason for there to be any LRVs in there). At which point you’re trying to run CalTrain, Capital Corridor, and probably a host of other commuter services off of two tracks. Some trains could be through-routed to improve capacity, but not all of them.
jimsf Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:11 pm
It doesn’t look any tighter to me than the left turn from townsend on to second. In acy case they wouldn’t be going thru at 40mph, more like 10. I don’t know what bart plans to do exactly. I have heard of one option to come off the existing tube at pier one and jog over to mission to run parallel to tbt and the market line. The could also come in around howard and have the two bart tracks veer to mission while the two standard gauge tracks take howard to the the two southernmost tbt tracks – which as it turns out are the standard commuter tracks in the tbt as well. I mean in 2050 who knows what kinds of engineering and construction materials will be around. I figure by that time bart will have it sights set on the new downtown mars metro system.
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
It doesn’t look any tighter to me than the left turn from townsend on to second.
It isn’t, assuming you’re only through-routing the southernmost two tracks. You still have major capacity issues to deal with though, and you’re limited to 200m, presumably low entry height trains for everything you run from the East Bay.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
No, full through-routing is perfectly feasible. And there’s no point in running any diesel trains beyond a transfer point at SJ or the East Bay.
However, it requires PTC-equipped electrified corridors on the other side to connect to. Also, a station throat that doesn’t single-track Caltrain…
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
It’s feasible, it just might not make sense for all services. And most of the East Bay rail lines are owned by UPRR, which means no lightweight-noncompliant-emus for you.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 9:35 am
In an alternate universe. Here on planet earth the opportunity was closed off, forever, by the highly skilled transportation professionals of Caltrain and the TJPA in 2003.
http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/2009/10/LPA_Rev3-21-03.pdf
Stop wasting everybody’s time. It’s dead dead dead dead.
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/06/court-tosses-peninsula-anti-hsr-suit/#comment-79769
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/08/the-first-high-speed-rail-station-breaks-ground/#comment-83612
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/06/michael-lind-tilts-at-windmills-and-bullet-trains/#comment-78544
Fun fact to know: the TJPA chief engineer told me in confidence that the LPA was “a disaster” and “I wish we’d listened to you.” That was in October 2005, a couple years after the point of return, and was of no value whatsoever to anybody. Four billion down the crapper!
Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Oh, I know that it’s impossible to have a second tube connect to Transbay right now. I’m just saying, if a second tube existed, it wouldn’t be a problem to make a rule that no (or almost no) Caltrain service terminates at Transbay.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
That’s preferable to the alternative: leaving riders 5.5 hours from Los Angeles.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
The problem with crossing Altamont on a $12 billion budget is not that it requires a tunnel; it’s that it requires several hundred km of HSR construction, which would leave CAHSR with not enough money to tunnel from Bakersfield to LA. After all the SoCal tunneling, CAHSR would probably only have enough left over to connect LA to Bakersfield or Fresno.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Great. So since nothing at all even marginally acceptable can be done, the only correct solution is to sign the $12 billion over to me.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Or, better yet, pressure the Feds to match the entire Prop 1A funds. $18 billion may be enough to do LA-Livermore, especially if the money is spent quickly (=less time for cost inflation).
Joey Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Altamont would require tunnels, especially if you want to have shallow enough grades and wide enough curves to maintain a decent speed. But the limited number of tunnels which would be required for Altamont would probably be pretty easy to construct. Most would probably be under 1 km, meaning that both tracks could be constructed with a single bore tunnel (the USA’s fire safety regulations are a bit extreme but what are you going to do). The real expense in the Altamont crossing would probably be from Fremont to Pleasanton, but that could be saved for a later phase (keep in mind that I’m not saying that this would make it more expensive than Pacheco; even the Authority’s numbers indicate that they would be about the same in price).
Elizabeth Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Where did you get the $4 billion number for the cost?
Train box = $400mm, phase 1a (all aerial/ at grade) = $3.3 bn , phase 1b ( aerial/ at grade) = $1.4 bn , phase 2 (connection to SJ, PA- RWC, transbay tunnel, transbay box build out, brisbane yard>= $4 bn.
Call it $9 billion.
Peter Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Well, Elizabeth, you figure yourself such a master of numbers, why don’t you work through the cost estimates for SF-SJ and tell us what it is. I’d do it, but I’ve gotta run.
Peter Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Ok, I added up Option A (without trenches through PAMPA). It came out to $7.946 billion. Someone else can price out the trench option.
Elizabeth Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
You can’t just use the document you linked to. It explictly refuses to quantify ROW acquisition costs beyond “low, medium, high”, it specifically excludes costs of brisbane, construction ROW, 4th and King station, peninsula station.
The numbers I just gave are based on all the available data sources: the document you just referenced, transbay budget numbers and the revised ARRA applications, which use a different methodology despite being contemporaneous with the AA production.
So, my best guess is $9 billion for version “A”, excluding costs for Diridon station.
Elizabeth Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
So take $7.946, add money for ROW acquisition (both permanent and temporary), a 4th and King station, brisbane train yard and a peninsula station and you are at $9 billion (+/-).
Peter Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Yeah, I noticed the land acquisition costs weren’t included, but land acquisition, despite what PAMPA NIMBYs may proclaim, is not going to be a major cost factor. That might increase the cost by a couple hundred million at the most, as the ROW is wide enough already for nearly everything, to the greatest extent.
I agree that the cost of building the stations may jack up the cost, but it will likely be a matter of “How much do you, City of [Insert Name], want to pay for your station?” Anything more than a barebones station should be paid for by whatever city it’s located in.
Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
If we’re still talking about running HSR trains up the peninsula at lower speeds, then there is no reason to include the Transbay Trainbox, DTX tunnel, Brisbane yard, or any other HSR station in the estimated cost savings. You still need a place to store the trains, the existence/lack thereof of the DTX project does not depend on how fast the trains are traveling 30 miles south of SF, and you still need stations to stop the trains at.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
You need to subtract from this the cost of things that Caltrain has to do anyway to allow HSR to run through, which include electrification and signaling. You should also subtract DTX, Transbay, and the iconic bridge in SJ, all of which can be cut while maintaining a four-track grade-separated Caltrain line.
Peter Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Iconic bridge also isn’t part of SF-SJ segment anyway.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Okay. Then just subtract DTX and Transbay.
Paul Dyson Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Conventional speed on conventional track is a sound interim option from San Jose north and Sylmar south. Put a locomotive on each end of Metrolink and Caltrain consists to give them some legs, use longer and/or double deck HSR trains to reduce the frequency and you can save about $10 – $15 billion compared to the current proposals. We don’t live in a perfect world and we can’t always get everything we want all at once.
PD
Peter Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I’m curious, have you ever been on a high speed train that was pulled in TGV-Vendee mode to its final destination? I have, and it’s a VERY inefficient method of doing so. No matter what you do, the delay for switching to/from a conventional locomotive is significant.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
The hitching up locomotives part is stupid.
The running through at less than 200mph (as an interim measure, or permanently to some extent or another) isn’t: that’s just basic sound engineering and economics.
Similarly, an interim (or permanent, for some subset of destinations) transfer from one vehicle to another need not be stupid, but may represent a good (interim, or permanent) compromise.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Paul, the cost of electrifying Caltrain is measured in the hundred millions. I’m not sure about the cost of constructing the Sylmar-LA segment, but it should not be much higher.
Hitching up locomotives at either end is a solution looking for a problem.
I would agree you on running the high-speed trains on the current Caltrain ROW with electrification and great separation would not be the end of the world for any of the parties involved.. BUT what the nimbys mean by stopping in San Jose is you get off that high-speed train and get on board a CalTrain commuter baby bullet or local and that’s how you finish your journey to San Francisco.. nowhere in the world this is done on high-speed rail to the major endpoint city and the blue and Gold high-speed transit are coming to San Francisco TransBay Terminal ..PEROID… Now increasingly it seems we will end up doing just as in Los Angeles with shared 2 track sections in some of the ROW in making do with four were possible.
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:12 pm
If this type of piecemeal upgrade occurs, the cities that are willing to find away to upgrade their section of the corridor will also reap the benefits, while the cities that just fight will end up with the traffic morass and poor pedestrian safety referenced in the post. I hope cities in full fight mode realize that they may be the unfortunate segments of the SF-SJ section that are not upgraded for a long long time and will suffer the consequences of heavy rail traffic at at-grade crossing for years to come.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Sorry this dictation software needs alot of work still
Peter Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Dragon never works well. Even the attorneys at my work who use it constantly (and have spent a lot of time “training” it) still hate it and it spouts out random crap.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 3:01 pm
sure does and sometimes really off the wall!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Somthing to consider–four tracks where you need them, three where you can’t put four. It’s my understanding (and watch Alon prove me wrong!) that this arrangement, with one of the tracks operated bidirectionally under some form of Centralized Traffic Control (which will be needed anyway, and is probably in use now) can handle all but the very heaviest of rail traffic. Of course, this will not placate the NIMBYs (nothing will), but it may get the system to fit in the right-of-way, and eliminate that source of the problem while saving a bit of money.
YesonHSR Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 2:59 pm
In the Los Angeles and Anaheim alternative analysis there was mention of Quad gate crossings through Anaheim. This may have to be done in some of these towns that really refuse any change that doesn’t involve an underground tunnle with park on the top to replace of course that railroad has been there forever. Quad gates I have read can only be done with two tracks or less hear in Cali.. I know some have posted here that the gates be down many times durning the day .. well that’s what these towns what.. they don’t want their roads it down or elevate so to let them sit at the gates and really it’s not that busy UP mainline it will be fast passenger transit will go by and in about 10 seconds and that’s shorter than the average traffic signal.. so they will survive
Daniel Krause Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
The difference between the Anaheim situation and the Caltrain corridor is much heavier rail traffic, current and future. Caltrain is much more frequent than Metrolink, especially at peak hour and all HSR trains will have to proceed to SF, whereas I suspect many HSR trains will terminate at LAUS, while some will proceed to Anaheim. Not saying it is physically impossible, but the impacts on local traffic/pedestrian patterns will be much greater along the Caltrain corridor.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 4:04 pm
How many peak-hour HSR trains are you assuming? CHSRA says at least 10 tph. During initial start-up phase, I say 2 tph, and no more than 4 tph max.
And to make your argument easier: at which specific intersection(s) do you believe the world will come to an end due to few extra trains coming through? If worse comes to worse, some minimal grade-crossing work can always be done.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 4:05 pm
How many peak-hour HSR trains are you assuming? CHSRA says at least 10 tph. During initial start-up phase, I say 4 tph.
And to make your argument easier: at which specific intersection(s) do you believe the world will come to an end due to few extra trains coming through? If worse comes to worse, some minimal grade-crossing work can always be done.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I say 1tph HSR to/from SF at startup, max 2tph for the first 5 years, max 4tph for the first 12+ years.
Get real!!!!! And look at the real world, for God’s sake.
As for Caltrain, 0tph seems far more likely than the Peninsula Rail Program world class transprotation planning professionals’ “estimate” of 10tph. Remember, these are the same people who approved an EIR that shows operating cost increasing with electrification and run time savings of only 2 minutes, and then come out and say that only electrification will “save” the system from a death spiral of operating deficit! Either Caltrain staff are utterly incompetent, or they’re pathological liars. (Take your pick: Caltrain’s Bob Doty also claims that 124′ is narrower than 104′, that 1312′ is really 3400′ long, and that commuter trains are incapable of sharing platforms with high speed trains.)
So with something between 1tph and 7tph for most of the first decade of operation … the only thing to do, naturally, is to dig tunnels under Millbrae, dig unnecessary parallel tunnels in San Francisco, erect viaducts above existing berms, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Note that building the most expensive and most useless stuff at the far ends of the system is the way the world class rent seeking professionals at PBQD-Bechtel-Soprano always do things. That way there’s no fall-back position, and no initial operating segment: the only choice offered to the public is to throw shitloads more cash down the bottomless pit in order to build the middle part of the line after the entire budget is blown out “unexpectedly” at the extremities. Works every time!
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:18 pm
1 express and 1 local per hour (at the peak) in both directions. That equals (at most) 4 additional lowered gates per hour.
Or at least, that was what I meant to say in the post. This blog software sucks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 9:46 pm
ither Caltrain staff are utterly incompetent, or they’re pathological liars.
They could be both. There are examples of both littered across the country. Usually happens when the small government types actually have to govern.
jim Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:22 am
Note that at startup (and until the San Diego leg is built, which may be never) all HSR trains through the Peninsula will be running between Anaheim and SF. So four tph is the absolute maximum. Caltrain runs five tph at their peak, so during the overlapping peaks, no more than 9tph. Which is not hard.
But you can’t run 9tph over a two track railroad with four or five stopping patterns. Quad track at the local stations and you can certainly do two stopping patterns, maybe three. Quad track at all stations and you can do three stopping patterns, possibly a fourth. Caltrain would have to confine itself to baby bullets and locals; HSR to baby bullets and maybe a non-stop between San Jose and SF. (Safer to confine the non-stop LA-SF train to off-peak hours.)
Transferring from HSR to Caltrain at San Jose is off the table. Who electrifies the Caltrain RoW if HSR doesn’t run trains along it? Having HSR “pick up the baby bullets” is a non-starter. Different operators, different fare structures, different tickets, no cross-billing arrangement.
If the Caltrain RoW is to be upgraded to support 110 mph operation, which will be needed to come even close to the required 2’38″, then some, at least, of the existing at-grade crossings will have to be closed. Some will have to be grade separated, so that there are emergency vehicle routes available. The remainder will have to be quad-gated, and probably equipped with lane barriers, too, given the expected traffic volume.
There’s some savings, but less than you’d like.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 am
1. Neither FRA nor PUC requires grade-separation for 110 mph operation
2. Five stopping patterns???
3. Under the craptastic CHSRA plan, Caltrain almost certainly loses its Baby Bullet service anyway.
4. Cost for quad-gate: .25-1.0 million, cost to grade-separate: $50 million (more if trenched or tunnel)
jim Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:27 am
1. FRA requires analysis of all at-grade crossings, with a view to reducing them, prior to authorizing operation at 110 mph. The proposals I’ve seen either close or grade-separate about half the existing crossings.
2. Caltrain today runs three stopping patterns: local, “limited stop” and baby bullet. HSR on the Peninsula will have some equivalent of baby bullet (but not perhaps the same stations! Mountain View?), San Jose-SF non-stop and LA-SF non-stop. That’s five or six.
3. Caltrain dropping baby bullet would be a mistake.
4. Grade separation costs money. And if there are backups expected at at-grade crossings, so that emergency vehicles will be hindered getting from one side of the city to the other, some grade separation will have to occur.
Caelestor Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:06 pm
There should optimally be only 4 stopping patterns on the peninsula: Caltrain local, Caltrain express (stops: Mtn View/Palo Alto/RWC/Hillsdale/Millbrae), HSR non-stop, and HSR local (stop at Millbrae and mid-peninsula). Not stopping at SJ misses a large ridership market for saving only 2 minutes, and Caltrain limited should be phased out to simplify operations.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:15 pm
It doesn’t really matter what the assumptions are on ridership, because SF-SJ is still going to get both more commuter rail traffic and more HSR traffic than LA-Anaheim. If the ridership estimates for LA-SF are fraudulent, then so are the estimates for Anaheim-SF. In fact, it’s much likelier that the projected ridership in Anaheim is overinflated than the projected ridership in SF is. SF is, despite everything, a large, dense city with a reasonably transit-oriented downtown; Anaheim isn’t.
But another difference between LA-Anaheim and SF-SJ is that LA-Anaheim has a much narrower ROW, which increases the cost of grade-separated, HSR-only tracks.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Richard, yes, let’s say the assumptions are a fraud. Why are they a bigger fraud in the Bay Area than in the rest of the state? What is so damn special about SF and SJ that makes statewide consultants inflate ridership there more than in LA?
So if you make the reasonable assumption that the ridership is inflated on all sections by about the same amount, then you come away with the conclusion that it’s perfectly normal to have two shared tracks with grade crossings on LA-Anaheim and four shared tracks without grade crossings on SF-SJ.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I don’t come to that conclusion.
My conclusion is that vast amounts of public cash will sink without trace, paying to “design” and build outrageous and unnecessary infrastructure that will not possibly be needed for decades, if ever.
(I suspect that there is a massive amount of value engineering possible LA-Anaheim, particularly in the area of optimized and for-read shared HSR/post-Metrolink, but as I’ve said a couple times I don’t have enough good information to express a useful opinion.)
Meanwhile, the goal of a California High Speed Rail system recedes further and further: decades later all we’ll have to show are white elephant over-built stubs of grandiosely expensive concrete at either extent, traversed by perhaps one or two slow trains an hour, with nothing in the middle. This is a recipe for political failure if — IF!! — your goal is actually to construct something of wide social and economic value, not just to maximize public-private wealth transfer.
How I’d do this, as I’ve said numerous times now, is to build as far as possible from LA Union (single level station) beyond Palmdale and as far as possible from Livermore (including, gasp!, a satanic BART extension!) beyond Modesto and Fresno. That’s because I want HSR and modern efficient rail transportation in California … even though neither of these first stages would be of any use to me personally. I think that such construction offers a best-effort demonstration of what the system might be and might provide while maximizing the geographic scale of what can be done with limited startup funding. Blowing billions digging an stupid underground station in Millbrae for HSR trains only not Caltrain that can’t even be used for a decade under the most optimistic assumptions isn’t the way to build voter goodwill; nor, I suspect, is starting with a gold plated LAUS-Anaheim stub based around crazy “commuter rail” non-service and FRA-sharing craziness.
(If you want to do what’s of use to me personally, then do San Mateo-Hillsdale-Redwood City grade separation and track quadruplication/triplication on the SF Peninsula. But I don’t count in the larger scheme of things.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
even though neither of these first stages would be of any use to me personally.
That depends on the utility you are seeking. If you want to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles without an hour long BART ride it’s not terribly useful. If you want to keep HSR out of your little piece of Santa Clara County it’s a lot more useful.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Reading comprehension just isn’t your strong suit, is it?
I guess we all should be pleased if you can find Santa Clara County on a map, and you should be pleased that I choose not to express or even have specific opinions on transportation economics on the planet Adirondack. (That’s a small town in France, right?)
Paul Dyson Reply:
August 25th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Why will “all trains have to proceed to SF”? I’d send some to Oakland or Sac with a diesel loco on the front.
PD
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 3:39 pm
it will be fast passenger transit will go by and in about 10 seconds and that’s shorter than the average traffic signal.. so they will survive
The gates have to be fully down 20 seconds before the train arrives. It takes time for them to come down. The lights and the bells start clanging before the gates start to come down. Unless it’s unsafe for me to stop, when the lights come on I stop. My car will lose any argument it has with a train. Once the train passes it takes time for the gates to come up. Ideal conditions it as long as long traffic signal. It’s really really really long when a train passes in one direction just as train passing in the other direction is 20 seconds away from the crossing.
Bianca Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
…and peak hours for trains are also peak hours for car traffic, so the line of cars backed up waiting for the gates to open can easily run 15 or 20 cars deep, and you have to add in driver response time for each of the cars in front of you. Speaking from experience here.
Joe Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Mountain view Castro south bound backs ups for a long while – worse part of the commute home.
Trains heading north trigger the gate twice, once when arriving and then when leaving the station. When triggered, the lights reset. The lights cycle is long enough that so with express trains, south and north bound trains, the wait can be four gate closures – several minutes.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Two-way tracks (“voie banalisée” in SNCF jargon) are widely used in France. French trains normally run on the left but may be switched to the right track if need be. For instance, a TGV running on a legacy line will be switched to the right track to overtake a slower regional train.
Of course, this demands one single control center for trains of different companies.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
They are actually fairly common in America, too, on lines with CTC (Centralized Traffic Control). In fact, it would probably be likely that the whole corridor would be reverse-signalled for all four tracks; the question would be whether three tracks in places would provide the needed capacity.
Of course, overlaying the HSR service on the regular commuter service would mean a lot of shuffling around of schedules and such. It may well be worth considering some sort of joint operational and scheduling bureau, if not an outright merger, of Caltrans and the HSR operation to get all hands on the same page. That’s basically how the old-time service evolved on the Pennsylvania in what is now the NEC back then. Of course, the Pennsy also was known for being somewhat hidebound in later years, and this could be a problem with the other railroads that ran through services on its corridor line, in particular the roads that had the joint service to Florida (Atlantic Coast Line, Seaboard Air Line, Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac, and Florida East Coast).
http://www.amazon.com/Streamliner-Ny-Fl-York-Florida/dp/094411914X
http://www.internethobbies.com/bystreamnewy.html
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:07 pm
CTC is not enough for high-speed operations. It allows trains to hit other trains if the operator isn’t too careful. High-speed rail requires a more capital-intensive ATC system, such as ETCS (=the emerging European standard), CTC (=the Chinese version of ETCS), or DS-ATC (=the system used in Japan).
Not all high-speed networks are signaled for reverse operations. The Shinkansen isn’t; its overtakes are all same-direction. Even Caltrain doesn’t have reverse overtakes, for capacity reasons. Standard Japanese practice at least is to four-track select stations and time overtakes there; on the Shinkansen those include all local stations, but on some commuter lines those include just a few express stations, where the overtakes feature a timed cross-platform transfer. Done right, it can involve minimal loss of capacity.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Oh yes, you’re right, and in North American practice we would allow for continuous cab signals or automatic train stop as an overlay over whatever would be in use for a signal system. I think only the continuous induction system with its combination of repeater signals in the cab and an automatic stop feature is still in use on Amtrak’s NEC, and I also think CSX still uses it on the former RF&P in Virginia (I do know that they do or did have to use only certain locomotives with the necessary equipment in the lead position on the former RF&P for this reason). The alternate system was an intermitent type, using electromagnets at key locations alongside the track to activate relays in a receiver on the locomotive, and the gear for this can be seen on Southern Railway 1401, the big green passenger locomotive preserved in the Smithsonian in Washington, DC. Amazingly, both of these technologies go back to the 1920s or so.
The link below is to a Pennsylvania Railroad public relation film from 1952; the cab signal segment starts at about 5:00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfBIT7yi3dk
The main problem, as you can guess, is that this equipment cost a lot extra, and with the stacked game that railroads have been engaged in for decades, it was not considered worthwhile to keep this gear in service.
Reverse direction operation is also possible under regular block signal and even under timetable and train order operating rules with no signals at all, but the big difference between this and CTC is that the dispatcher can see things in “real time,” instead of having to confer with block operators to make sure a track is clear and will remain clear for a reverse movement, and then taking the time to issue the orders for this movement, which includes spelling out all names and numbers, and then having the operators repeat the orders, including the spelling of names and numbers, for confirmation. I’ve had the chance to listen in on just such an operation; we had some of the last manual, mechanical interlocking towers in operation near my town until just about 7 or eight years ago, and the very last one, on the Union Pacific, was only retired this year.
I got to listen not only to the transmission and confirmation of train orders and watch the delivery of orders with hoops to train crews in a couple of these towers, but got to see and hear and work the levers myself on a Saxby & Farmer type mechanical interlocker in one of them. In the tower I got to visit, each switch required the use of at least a toggle and two levers, and usually more. Assuming you didn’t have to lock out a conflicting route first, you first set the signals to “stop” (a small electric toggle in this tower) unlocked the switch with a lever, threw the switch itself with another lever, locked the switch again with the first lever, and then cleared the signal with the toggle. When this tower was all mechanical, the signals had their own levers, and locking levers, too, so back then you were using a minimum of four levers on one switch. Some of those switches and their locks were up to a quarter of a mile away from the tower, and when you threw either a lock or the switch itself, you were not only moving that part, but up to a quarter mile of half-inch steel pipe riding on a bunch of rollers along the track that used for rodding to connect your levers to whatever you were moving at the other end. It was no wonder the thing was called an “Armstrong” plant, you needed strong arms to work it!
Darn, it’s no wonder I feel like a dinosaur!
I have to admit your telling us that the Shinkansen is not reverse signalled is a bit of a surprise. I can certainly understand how, with the heavy traffic it operates under, that all overtakes would normally be in the same direction (and operationally, I understand the Shinkansen, with its standard trainsets and standard station layouts, is more like a modern transit line than a traditional railroad), but it would also seem that there are times when you would have to allow for some sort of reverse running, say for some sort of track work or something, even allowing for the lengthy nightly maintenance window that is used to keep the track in good condition.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
A little bit to add to the glossary; trains “pass” when one overtakes another in the same direction; in opposite directions, they “meet.” Dispatchers and operators speak in terms of “passes” and “meets,” and this applies to any set of operating rules, from timetable and train order to CTC; such speech is primarily concerned with operation on single track lines, of course.
Clem Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Caltrain doesn’t have reverse overtakes, for capacity reasons
Caltrain routinely does “reverse overtakes” when a train is disabled for whatever reason. Of course capacity is slim to none in those situations, but the signaling is there to support it.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Well, it doesn’t do it in regular service, for obvious reasons.
I have no idea if THSR has wrong-way overtakes, or if it’s just signaled to allow them in the future – the article I read about the difference between the Shinkansen and THSR was fuzzy on that.
Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
My guess is that the ability to perform wrong-way overtakes is just a contingency for a disabled train or damaged track, and would not be used in normal operations.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:20 pm
This is one of the great advantages of CTC, that bidirectional running on any track can be a routine matter. I’ve been observing a great deal of such reverse running at different times in my area since those manual towers and the single-direction block signalling system on a double tracked line were changed out in favor of the current bidirectional CTC setup.
I also got to witness how effective CTC can be in moving traffic from a passenger excursion pulled by a steam locomotive in 1977. On a triple-tracked section of the former Chesapeake & Ohio Railway between Huntington and Charleston, W.Va., our eastbound excursion first met a freight train running in the opposite direction, had the speed drop from about 60 to maybe 35 to cross over to the center track, then rapid acceleration to pass another freight on the track we just left, followed by crossing over back to the track we originally on, and very shortly meeting yet another freight running in the opposite direction on the center track. All those other trains were moving when I saw them, and the last one didn’t seem to be running too slowly. In fact, the diesel locomotives on that last one came past the open windows of the excursion in an explosion of sound and a blur of blue and yellow paint that was quite startling for its suddeness.
Below is a “foamer” account, based on a mixture of reporting in an issue of Trains magazine from about 1954 or 1955, and my own experiences around steam locomotives in excursion service and other passenger train rides, that also illustrates the use of wrong-direction running on a regular basis. (My only change is that I backdated the account from 1955 or so to some time prior to 1952, which was before the C&O would purchase any passenger diesels for use on the “George Washgington.”)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
If you will, a bit of foam. . .
The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, while dominated by heavy coal traffic, was not monopolized by it, and used to run a number of fast freight trains that had to be threaded about the coal drags and the limited passenger service it had as well. One of these trains, numbered in the 90-series on this road, and following some car pick-ups and drop-offs at Russell, Ky., would leave just ahead of No. 1, the westbound all-Pullman George Washington (premier passenger train on the line). The engineer in his steam locomotive would just loaf along on the normal right-hand track, waiting for “the George” to overtake on the left track. There would be a call from the fireman, “Here she comes,” and a blazing headlight and a shouting locomotive with hot and oily breath and pulling glowing Pullmans would race past just inches away from his window.
Now the engineer would open up, and the freight would accelerate to passenger train speed. This was part of the routine; let “the George” overtake the fast freight, and then the freight would follow right behind the passenger train. In so doing, another part of the routine was that the freight would bang over some high-speed crossovers, following No. 1 on the left track. The reason for this was that there was also a local passenger train on the right track, and both No. 1 and the fast freight would overtake this local as it was making a station stop.
It must have been quite a show, very early in predawn darkness, to have been on that station platform and watched a local train making its stop and, while in the station, to be overtaken by the best passenger train on the line and a freight train running right behind it, both at maximum authorized track speed, a magnificent exhibition of late steam power and what would now be considered early CTC. . .
I was born in the wrong time.
Of course any sensible thought would be to grade seperate the rail traffic from the roads..at 300 miilion per mile for a YUP park the can sit and wait for the train..
Just look at what the Alameda Corridor did for Los Angeles. Reconstructing and grade separating the Caltrain line will have a similar effect.
EJ Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
And they did it for less than a half-billion dollars. Including a ten-mile triple track trench.
This is baloney. End of story. The train will not end in San Jose. It’s more than 70 miles up to San Francisco. People in SF won’t consider High-Speed rail when it is that far away. We would lose hundreds of thousands of potential high-speed rail customers. There should also be no debate about railroad crossings. High-speed rail should never cross any street. Especially not in the US where too many drivers believe they can cross despite the signal. Could you imagine the delay in case of an accident? NO! That’s why Amtrak has failed while JR with its Shinkansen (no level crossings) is 97% on time.
Reality Check Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@Emma: It’s not quite 50 miles from SJ Diridon to SF Transbay Terminal, nevertheless, I agree HSR needs to reach downtown SF.
dave Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
That’s also considering they count on time and late by just seconds, thats pretty amazing.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Trains on the Peninsula won’t be going “high-speed”. For conventional speeds, grade-crossings are not unacceptable — at least that’s the case for the TGV.
And as far as stupid American drivers…believe me, they are no worse than French drivers.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“And as far as stupid American drivers…believe me, they are no worse than French drivers.”
As a Frenchman I unfortunately have to agree. If there are no radars or police around, some French drivers will do anything to gain a few seconds, including using the emergency lane to beat the rest of the traffic. If at-grade crossings on frequented roads hadn’t been phased out, we would have a real carnage. The ramaining ones still kill about 50 people every year.
When young drivers get caught by a radar and risk losing their license, they often ask grandma or grandpa to declare they were driving the car. That’s why in the south of France, where family links are strong, statistics show a surprising number of elderly people doing all sorts of reckless things with their grandchildren’s cars…
Clem Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 pm
I think you got the wrong picture. Try this, this, this, this, or this.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Whew, is this damage from automobiles, or something bigger, like a truck?
If it is from autos, I think we may want to either reconsider lightweight (non-FRA compliant) construction or whether we can live without full grade seperation.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 pm
FRA-compliant construction doesn’t matter too much in those cases. Compliance doesn’t do anything for grade crossing accidents; it’s supposed to provide safety in collisions with 10,000-ton freight trains. The FRA permit noncompliant trains to have level crossings, as long as they are strictly time-separated from freight trains.
Joey Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Level crossings have nothing to do with time-separation.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:45 pm
I’m well aware. Let me rephrase: the FRA permits noncompliant trains to run on mainline track as long as they’re time-separated. It permits them to cross roads at grade with the same horn-blaring rules as compliant trains.
Andre Peretti Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
All the serious accidents were collisions with heavy trucks. In one of these accidents a truck with a 100-ton load tried to save a few miles by using a narrow country road explicitly forbidden to heavy vehicles. The truck got stuck in the middle of the crossing and the collision was inevitable.
All serious accidents are due to truck drivers deliberately ignoring road signs.
TomW Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:04 am
Clem you’re right – there have been several nasty TGV crashes involving collisions with something on the line. However NO ONE DIED. See http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/wrecks.html . (European stock have crumple zones at the front, so even a low-speed can produce a large of amount visible damage.) The whole “European lightweight stock is not as a safe as FRA stock” is frankly rubbish.
If you want to avoid passenger deaths in a rail crash there are three things which dramatically reduce the risk:
1) The train remains upright and coupled together;
2) The body shell remains intact, not deformed (which nowadayas means monocoque bodies).
3) The windows don’t break (laminated glass is the best option here).
(1) reduces how much passnegers get thrown about, (2) means that they don’t get squoshed inside the train, and (3) means they remain inside the train, and don’t get thrown out at high speed (possibly into something immovable and solid, and probably ending up with teh crashed train on top of them).
Off-hand, I can’t think of a rail crash in which a passenger died where at least oen of those of three things didn’t happen (can anyone prove me wrong?)
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Grade separations offer mild safety advantages over level grade crossings, but at what cost? Nationally, 40,000 people die on the roads each year, and hardly any rail passengers die in collisions. Even with the nastiest of rail collisions, most of the passengers survive. Most grade crossing accidents are entirely preventable, since many are due to car/truck drivers electing to drive around flimsy barriers. Secure quad-gates would eliminate the option altogether, improving safety at a tiny fraction of the cost of a grade separation. The problem for this project is that the construction interests represented by PB/HNTB very much want to design and build these expensive grade separations. Indeed, it’s their main objective. The serious construction money should be dedicated to the mountain passes and places where new grades are absolutely necessary.
On the Peninsula, most of the main road crossings are already grade separated, and it’s the more minor roads that are left at-grade. No reason why some of the minor roads can’t be closed or require that anything heavier than a UPS truck has to use the existing grade separated roadways…
Grade separations don’t eliminate risks of car-train collisions either, as the Selby/Great Heck accident demonstrates. A 125-mph passenger train derailing from colliding with a Land Rover that has fallen into the grade-separated rail trench, then hits a 60-mph coal train heading in the other direction. The accident involved the release of some of the highest kinetic energy on record, yet only ten people died.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1194448.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selby_rail_crash
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
“Grade separations offer mild safety advantages over level grade crossings, but at what cost?”
Chance of car-train accidents drops virtually to zero, with freak accidents being the only exceptions. See below.
“A 125-mph passenger train derailing from colliding with a Land Rover that has fallen into the grade-separated rail trench, then hits a 60-mph coal train heading in the other direction.”
Yet another reason to not dig trenches.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Don’t forget opportunity costs, too.
$4+ billion spent on grade separations is $4+ billion that can’t be spent expanding the HSR network (i.e. Phase 2, Phase 3, Sacramento, San Diego, take your pick…). That means all those potential passengers in Sacramento, San Diego, etc. resort to taking the automobile — a mode of transport orders-of-magnitude more deadly. So whatever (theoretical) train passenger lives are saved with the grade-separation is more than compensated by the additional automobile fatalities that are going to happen because “Phase 2″ cities don’t have train as a travel choice.
Joe Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Uhh
We’ll save lives and build a modern transportation system. Grade seperations save lives and save money.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Grade separations offer mild safety advantages over level grade crossings, but at what cost?
Dead people.
Has a nice side effect of making train service faster and more reliable which attracts people out of their cars. Where as you liked to point out 40,000 people a year die.
hardly any rail passengers die in collisions. Even with the nastiest of rail collisions, most of the passengers survive.
Passengers aren’t the only people on board the train. The driver and passengers in the vehicle blocking the path of the train tend to end up dead too. It’s not very pretty when you accelerate abruptly to 80 or 90 miles an hour.
Heavy trucks, and farm equipment. The crumple zone makes accident severity appear worse. The TGV has far, far better safety record in grade crossing accidents than FRA-compliant Amtrak.
To my knowledge, there has been just a single passenger fatality due to TGV grade crossing collision:
Here’s an extreme example of why electric cars alone aren’t the answer: China Traffic Jam Enters 9th Day, Spans Over 60 Miles
Ultimately, the only options are driving fewer miles and/or transporting more people per vehicle and/or reducing the land footprint per vehicle (i.e. stick with bicycle/scooter). Fully grade separated electric trains are really, really good at transporting a lot of people per vehicle. China knows this and is investing heavily in HSR, subways, LRT – you name it. It’s just that car ownerships rates there are rising even faster than the government can construct commute alternatives.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Fully grade separated electric trains are really, really good at transporting a lot of people per vehicle.
Um, with the exception of street-running trolleys, non-grade separated electric trains are exactly as good at transporting a lot of people per vehicle… but at much less construction cost and less profit to PB/HNTB. When was the last time you saw a train stop for a car at a grade crossing???
Also, you won’t have too much electric train service when entire project budgets are swallowed by a few porky grade separation projects…
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
True, non-grade separated electric trains are exactly as good at transporting a lot of people per vehicle. Grade-separated trains are just safer and better for traffic circulation.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
When was the last time you saw a train stop for a car at a grade crossing???
Whenever someone bets they can beat the train and loses. Though the train doesn’t stop in the crossing it usually stops quite a bit down the tracks after scattering car parts along the way.
Spokker Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
It has been our most successful eugenics program to date!
Peter Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
But it’s inefficient. It delays people who are trying to ride Caltrain. Maybe we should simply install grade crossing arms at a dead end overlooking the edge of a tall cliff. Then we could get rid of them without having the massive delays.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 12:51 am
I appreciate the dark humor here as much as anybody, especially after actually witnessing witless drivers attempt to beat trains (this was on a very slow secondary line, so no fatalities), but this is also a serious subject, and so you might be interested in the following; be sure to check out its statistics page (for the US, 248 grade crossing fatalities in 2009, though final numbers are not yet in).
http://www.oli.org/
http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/
Opinion: against 30,000 to 40,000 overall highway deaths, not a whole lot, but let’s face it, we are held to a higher standard; it’s not fair at all, but it may be something we have to live with.
Some video links to grade crossing incidents; viewer discretion advised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x79_ZM5y9u8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUNZO1Xti1E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Dw3KiauKA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRqXsB_H5Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgCBEIsUjsU&NR=1
Light rail lines have problems, too. This is from a city in Texas known for horrible drivers, with 600 traffic fatalities per year. The light rail line gained some notoriety for having the worst safety record in the country, but this was on a stretch of street trackage that averaged 7 accidents per day even before the line went into service!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc&feature=fvsr
Staged collision for Operation Lifesaver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poomuKzSGZA&feature=related
No staging in this one–cab footage of a real collision, in which five people died, including a fourteen-year-old girl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOPtw5ZLX_c&feature=related
Same incident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBfBAY6lub8&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcgBu0IUIPc&feature=related
Another real wreck in Indiana, an unusual double hit that would be funny if it had been staged by Buster Keaton, but as it was, two were kids killed instantly, their mom died four days later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMvtDNATP04
Leave it to the Land of Monty Python to make a spoof of grade crossing safety:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpD06P7kiI&NR=1&feature=fvwp
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 24th, 2010 at 7:01 am
Improper school bus operation in the east:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBnsSiTUuFw&feature=related
Texas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7-_wqTY14g&NR=1
More detailed view of the Surfliner-truck collision at Oxnard (shorter edition posted earlier):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjeUrfjB8dE&NR=1
This one’s weird, a fire truck parked on the track for an emergency call becomes smashed by an Amtrak train:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iuks_zIBkE&NR=1
More and more it looks like auto drivers are dumber and dumber, even the so-called professional drivers; I’ll be glad for the end of the auto age.
Here’s another ignorant pile of crap
Wow! So suprised to see so many comments on this topic. Over 100!
At the end of the day, trains are not terminating in San Jose… to think otherwise is… well… it is for the il-informed.