Why Caltrain Still Needs High Speed Rail
Late last week, news broke that Bob Doty was leaving the Peninsula Rail Project for a job at HNTB. As part of his departure agreement, Doty will not be working on the SF-SJ segment of the high speed rail project for at least a year.
While commenters have been discussing what this means for the details of the HSR/Caltrain project on the Peninsula, there’s also a broader discussion under way about what the future looks like for the partnership between the CHSRA and Caltrain. The Almanac has a good overview of the status of that partnership:
“His departure means we will rethink the structure and the personnel to go forward with high-speed rail,” Caltrain Executive Director Mike Scanlon said in a press release. “We entered into the agreement with High Speed Rail to help save Caltrain. We still have to save Caltrain.”
Of course, as Scanlon well knows, the HSR project is still going to use the Caltrain corridor to access San Francisco. And even though Nancy Pelosi is not speaker at the moment, she still wields a lot of power, and along with Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will not allow the tracks to be blocked from reaching Transbay Terminal.
Also, as Scanlon knows, Caltrain does not have the money it needs to upgrade its tracks and electrify the system. While discussions are continuing about finding a local revenue source for Caltrain, chances are that any such funding would mostly be directed at preserving system operations. That still leaves Caltrain’s infrastructure problems to resolve, and the NIMBY anti-HSR forces will turn their fire on Caltrain the moment that the Peninsula Corridor JPB starts talking about catenary poles, faster speeds, or grade separations. Scanlon should not delude himself into thinking that the NIMBYs are simply anti-HSR, they are anti-anything that offends their bizarre aesthetic values.
That’s not just me talking. That’s the message NIMBYs are delivering to Caltrain:
Mr. Doty had the difficult job of deciding whether high-speed rail or Caltrain was the top priority, according to Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline. He suggested a continued partnership between the high-speed rail agency and Caltrain may no longer benefit local cities.
“It serves little purpose for Caltrain now, aside from potentially limiting our local transit leaders from looking at real alternatives for long-term funding,” Mayor Cline said. “Caltrain needs to officially cut the cord from the CHSRA and work with local leaders and agencies to find ongoing operational revenue without the distraction of a false windfall.”
Notice what Cline is saying here. Caltrain should focus on “operational revenue” alone – suggesting that he will fight any effort to change the infrastructure that Caltrain uses, even though Caltrain needs to be able to run trains faster and more frequently (thus requiring some kind of grade separation) in order to maximize revenue and achieve long-term stability.
Caltrain may be tempted to believe HSR is weighing them down, but that’s not the case. In fact it is the NIMBYs and their anti-rail attitudes that are weighing the entire corridor down, and Caltrain will very quickly find themselves on the wrong side of the NIMBYs the moment they propose anything that can improve operations and grow ridership.
This blog has consistently argued for seeing the Peninsula tracks as a “passenger rail corridor” to be shared by both Caltrain and HSR. HSR funding would enable Caltrain to achieve the service improvements that Peninsula residents both want and deserve, improvements that would increase property values for locals by improving access to jobs in the San Francisco and Silicon Valley areas. Bob Doty’s departure should not dissuade Caltrain from understanding the importance of that vision, and should not delude them into thinking that the NIMBYs won’t turn on them the way they turned on HSR.
Passenger rail advocates and systems need to stick together. They have the same allies, and the same enemies. Let’s hope Caltrain realizes that sooner and not later.
IMO, Caltrain is the transitional service until HSR arrives. And, at the end of the day, CAHSR should be the operator providing local and regional service for the peninsula… with HSR trains.
Such a model would provide the greatest sense of safety for the traveling public, and minimize infrastructure requirements at stations.
Just imagine, if a consistent platform height! This might also mean fewer platforms required at the Transbay Terminal, or at least, improve the operational effeciency of the station.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
^^ sorry. Evening typing equals sloppy post. What I meast was…
Imagine a consistent platform height at stations. This would likely mean… yada yada..
thatbruce Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 10:15 am
@Brandon:
Think of it this way. The CAHSRA sets the standards for equipment that can run on the CAHSR tracks (gauge, platform height, power supply, signaling etc), and ensures that said tracks are kept in good condition for operation at the highest speed practical for each section.
The CAHSRA does not operate trains themselves. CAHSRA-approved operators run the actual trains, and pay track usage fees to the CAHSRA for doing so.
I’m hoping that Caltrain sets itself up as a CAHSRA-approved operator to run HSR-compatible trains along the Peninsula, with all tracks along this corridor being HSR-enabled (any train, any track, any platform). The Peninsula-only (or rather, commuter-only) trains wouldn’t need to be able to exceed 125MPH, and can be off-the-shelf EMUs that can talk to the CAHSR signaling system.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
There are surprisingly many places in the world where they manage to have compatible platform heights without forcing every local commuter run to use trains designed for 300 km/h intercity travel.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Some of them in the US…. At least two of them have been doing it for almost a century.
Caelestor Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
If it means same platform heights and inter-compatibility without wasting money, sure.
Spokker Reply:
January 10th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Why would you use a train that can travel up to speeds of 220 MPH to operate local service on the Peninsula?
synonymouse Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 12:03 am
@ Spokker – very good point.
For me there is no sense to what is going on. Best approach is to get Prop 1A back on the ballot in June and kill this thing(CHSRA-Caltrain) off. As piss-poor as BART is, it is time to let MTC’s grotesque manifest destiny take its course and do the dumb Ring-the-Bay. As for a high speed project let the Japanese make a privately funded maglev proposal.
James Fujita Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 12:28 am
I’m glad you’re not my maintenance man. You would have me tear my apartment apart in order to fix the garbage disposal.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 7:06 am
And replace it with a super high tech garbage disposal that costs more than you can afford, waiting to find out whether finance is available until after the apartment has been torn apart.
Donk Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 12:32 am
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” – Principal in Billy Madison
Bret Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
“A simple ‘wrong answer’ would have sufficed” – Billy (nicely quoted by the way)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
For Spokker (whom I strongly suspect knows the answer, although certain other posters might not, who happen to be, um, unmentionable, and unfortunately, unforgettable–they won’t let us), the real answer is, you don’t–but that doesn’t mean some slightly slower equipment cannot operate with the faster equipment. As Adirondacker has pointed out, many other railroads have operated mixed speed services on the same line, although not always on the same tracks, certainly not on the same tracks at the same time–the classic example being the Pennsylvania Railroad in what is now the Northeast Corridor, with (depending on time period) local and through freight trains, and local, commuter, and through passenger trains, all running behind steam power; assorted freight trains behind steam engines, local commuter trains operated with MU cars, some passenger trains operated with steam engines (these would leave the electrified main line to run on non-electrified branches), heavy intercity and Pullman trains behind heavy electric locomotives, and heavy through electric freight trains; and later, with diesel trains replacing the steamers, the now-elderly MU cars on the commuter runs, heavy intercity and commuter trains behind electric locomotives, heavy freight trains behind electrics, and late in this era, threading 125-mph Metroliners through all this. Oh, the testing for the Electroliners and some other high-speed equipment was done on this same railroad on one of the four tracks during times when said track was available between other trains–in essence, running high speed tests in regular traffic.
And the Pennsy was not alone. The New York Central also had all manner of services running out of New York City on its four-track line, and in the late 1960s running a high-speed test with a jet train to 186 mph on a line in Ohio between regular trains. There was also the Milwaukee Road which ran its Hiawathas on schedules that required daily 100 mph running in the 1930s, mixed in with through and local freights and conventional passenger trains, all of this, the Hiawathas included, with steam power, and did with less track than the NYC, the Pennsy, or what the CAHSRA will have.
Finally, I have to mention the operation of the Santa Fe’s Fast Mail in the 1940s. This was the fastest train on the line, reportedly actually faster than the Super Chief, though certainly nowhere as luxurious (passenger accomodations were on the order of a rider coach with no food service, used in lieu of a caboose, because a caboose couldn’t take the speed). This train was supposed to average about 70 mph, but to do it with the speed restrictions and stops involved, including water stops for its steam engines, required regular running at over 100 mph at every opportunity, and the engine crews had and used plenty of those.
It may be mentioned that a lot of this predated the infamous automatic train stop order of the late 1940s which required this equipment for any operation in excess of 79 mph.
Back to today–do you need to knock heads together for compatable platform heights and a common signal/PTC system? Very likely, and the best way to do that might be to put everything under a common management–which also means the politicians need to leaven their board of directors to include some good solid technical people, and not just rely on friends with connections. Why, I would dare say that civil and signal engineers with a good FRA background would be most useful. . .
Now, you’ll have to excuse me while I find and don my flameproof underwear. . . :-)
BruceMcF Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 7:11 am
First, I have not yet seen the case that CHSRA should be the operator of the HSR, but what you’ve sketched out severely constraints the feasible range of business models available to the CHSRA.
Second, using high speed trains to provide local rail service seems absurd on the face of it ~ doing so to get common platform heights would be hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Severely constrain the model – no. Operating funds should come from the same sources funding Caltrain. Further, using the same train equipment improves inter-operability and likely reduces total train and car requirement. This results in a cost project cost savings.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Yet further, CAHSR could provide greater capacity than Caltrain. More cars, or added train set, would be all that is needed.
Imagine, double train sets – and/or double deckers for Express and/or long-haul locals, and single train sets for Regionals, which could be doubled if demand warranted.
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
CAHSR could provide greater capacity than Caltrain
Why? Unless you’re assuming rigidly separated tracks, then there’s no reason to say that either has more capacity. And 6-stop expresses would probably clog the express tracks (HSR=0-2 stops) just as surely as they would the local tracks (all stops). Oh, and an additional CalTrain EMU is sure to be cheaper than comparable increases in HSR passenger capacity.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Assuming same number of train in each direction, CHSRA can provide more capacity by the nature of being able to operate longer trains.
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
That’s assuming that 200m trains will be insufficient to serve regional express trips, which I find hard to believe.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Regional trains are perfectly capable of coupling to form 400-meter trains. If you’re willing to invest the extra money in lengthening every local platform to 400 meters, be my guest.
Per unit of train length, HSR has less capacity than commuter rail, because the seating is designed to have no standees and to offer spacious seating. Commuter rail is instead designed to offer fewer seats and more standing space, and to have higher seat density in the seating area.
Andy M. Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:46 am
Why push for fewer platforms. If HSR is a success, which I’m sure it will be, services will grow and that will call for more platforms, not fewer. Gare de Lyon has 23 platforms.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
The Tokaido Shinkansen has 6 platform tracks at Tokyo Station. Gare de Lyon has so many more because it was built in the 1800s and at the time it was on the outskirts of Paris so there was plenty of space. For a greenfield station box underneath a busy CBD, the goal should be to minimize footprint.
James Fujita Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
you’re underestimating the size of Tokyo station. it’s six for southbound Shinkansen, plus another 4 for northbound.
and Japan keeps its commuter trains and bullet trains separate (and its commuter trains separate from each other) so there’s another 10 tracks for commuter trains. that’s not including the subway tracks.
it’s all very well organized, although admittedly not a very efficient use of space, since none of those tracks are elevated above any others.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
San Francisco is never going to be Tokyo. It’s never going to New York either. It might struggle someday to be Philadelphia. Nah it’s never going to Philadelphia because San Jose is never going to be Newark NJ and Santa Rosa is never going to be Baltimore. And there’s never going to be New York 90 miles away.
James Fujita Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
You’re right, San Francisco is never going to be New York. It’s already much better ;)
spokker Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Which has more laws? Haha.
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Well, no Shinkansen trains continue from the south to the north, so the Shinkansen platforms of Tokyo Station really should be thought of as separate. The Tokaido Shinkansen’s capacity fits JR Central’s six tracks, and the Tohoku/Joetsu Shinkansen’s capacity fits JR East’s four tracks.
James Fujita Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
there’s still also those 10 commuter train tracks to consider (two for each type of service). and quite a few commuter train tracks follow the bullet train for several miles to the north and to the south of the station.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
True, but so what? Those are four separate lines (Tokaido, Keihin-Tohoku, Yamanote, Chuo), which do not share tracks even away from the station. Caltrain’s capacity is the equivalent of just one of them – and its projected traffic is the equivalent of just one station, like Tamachi or Yurakucho.
James Fujita Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I love the fact that the Yamanote and Keihin-Tohoku lines don’t share tracks even though they share stations. They could share tracks, but they don’t.
It’s ironic that Japan, which has limited land space found space to give all its rail lines separate tracks; whereas “wide-open spaces” America can’t seem to find the space or the money to double track Metrolink.
In a perfect world, Caltrain would have its own set of electrified tracks running alongside the bullet train. Maybe then they would have Yamanote-sized crowds.
Cal HSR could, for all we know, lead to more people riding Caltrain, just as many Shinkansen journeys begin on connecting trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Caltrain is getting its own set of electrified tracks. The only place where Caltrain and HSR will share tracks is in the station throats of San Francisco and San Jose.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
What Metrolink line has the same frequency …. as anything except maybe some obscure rural line in Japan?
James Fujita Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Alon: Glad to hear it. I hope that part of the deal doesn’t get cut out.
Adirondacker: Frequency which is hampered by both a lack of funding and a lack of passing tracks. Unless you think “Anaheim, Azusa and Cucamonga” would be best served by shuttle buses.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
The TGV only uses a few of the platforms. There are 105 TGV departures a day but you can have one departure every 2 minutes for the RER (and as many arrivals). That’s why so many platforms are needed.
The Gare du Nord has more platforms (32) probably because it has higher ridership (199 million) than Gare de Lyon (90 million).
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
The RER uses separate, underground platforms at all of the major stations. And even in the most extreme cases, there are only 6 platforms for the RER (maybe eight if you consider Magenta and Gare du Nord to be one station). The rest of the surface tracks are used for other suburban services (Transilien), regional, and intercity trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Les Halles has 7 tracks and 4 island platforms if I remember correctly. I can’t find the link to the track maps at the moment.
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
That’s correct. It’s not one of the major terminal stations though.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
It’s the busiest station in the system. Or was, I haven’t gone looking for ridership stats in a long time.
The terminals are out in the suburbs. One of the features of RER is that the trains aren’t oriented to a single downtown terminal.
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
I would hardly call those places “suburbs.” They probably were when the stations were built, but they’re quite built-up and dense places now. Though I guess it depends on how you are defining things.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
are they filled with ranch houses with three car garages, no. Not even split levels with two car garages. Or even Cape Cods with one car garages. They are in the suburbs of Paris.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
http://carto.metro.free.fr/rer/
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 6:45 am
I would hardly call those places “suburbs.” (Joey)
Administratively, they are. After WWII, while the English created “Greater London” the French created smaller Paris. The communist-voting districts (the “red belt”) were excluded, reducing Paris to its wealthy right-voting core, thus preventing the capital from ever having a communist mayor. Left-wing politicians blamed it on American pressure (which has never been proved).
This situation now creates lots of problems and is very costly. For instance: each RER has 2 driver/conductor teams, each taking over when administrative boundaries are crossed. One team is RATP (Paris) the other is from a regional transit agency. All efforts to unify the system have met strong union resistance.
Andy M. Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Yes, but those are through platforms. If trains need to terminate, you need more space. A lot more space.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Railroads all over the world manage to turn around more trains than will ever be arriving in San Francisco from the Peninsula, on less track.
Spokker Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Or the engineer could walk to the front of the train and take the train somewhere else and not sit there for two hours.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
In a crunch, when the tracks are optimized for fast turnarounds, you don’t – see the Chuo Line, or the 7 and S at Times Square. Not in a crunch, two tracks can turn 10-15 tph – see the Tokaido Line, the Saikyo Line, and most NYC subway lines that don’t have yard access.
Emma Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
It’s too bad that we can’t predict the boom in commuter and other forms of passenger rail in the future. The best option (if you ask me) would be to run platforms above each other like Berlin Central station: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j1VEp27UH4
High speed, local, and commuter rail at the 1st floor.
Light rail at ground level.
Subway at underground level.
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Why push for fewer platforms.
Because it’s a waste of your tax dollars. Railroading practiced having improved outside of Amtrakland to the point where trains don’t need to sit in their terminal for hours on end with no passengers on them (again, a waste of your tax dollars). So making a few very reasonable operating assumptions yields the conclusion that 6 platforms at Transbay will be able to handle all the trains that HSR+CalTrain could ever require, without spending hundreds of millions, if not billions more to expand the trainbox. Of course, that’s not what our friends at the PRP believe, but their solution to mandating that trains sit in the station for 40 minutes, rather than adding more platform tracks downtown, is to terminate at least half of all trains (more than half of CalTrain’s and an unknown proportion of HSR’s) at 4th and King.
Eric M Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Lets not forget about Clem’s post on future EMU’s. They would help out a lot!
Emma Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Caltrain needs CAHSR and CAHSR needs Caltrain.
Caltrain and other commuter rail will begin to boom once the HSR system is up. HSR will need commuter rail, subways and light rail so that their passengers can move freely without the need of a car.
Spokker Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Ridership may go up on Caltrain, but unless we are willing to set fares at 100% of what it costs to operate the train, the service will still need a subsidy, which we may still not be willing to provide in the future.
Caltrain is down to 86 weekday trains from 98. There are plans to cut more service in the coming years.
Spokker Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Plus HSR will result in worse service with the elimination of Baby Bullets.
synonymouse Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Forget PB’s Stilt-A-Rail. The SF Chron had it half right – the current CHSRA board and management should go for sure, but the entire plan as well should be jettisoned.
The public was sold a false bill of goods in Prop 1A: they expected something akin to a maglev not a gold-plated, juiced TEE. And this crowd cannot even plan an acceptable TEE. They insist on building a Cypress Freeway on rails.
Any Republican that supports Brown’s tax initiative as is should in all good conscience switch parties.
Spokker Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Maglev is gold-plated, though.
As far as I know, any tax increase proposal will be voted on. I support a tax increase proposal going to the ballot, and we’ll vote on it.
synonymouse Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Yes, maglev is gold-plated but at least you know it is going to be high-end from the outset. Maglev will be severely criticized if it does not live up to the performance hype precisely because it is pricey. Only fair, but Stilt-A-Rail is also going to cost a fortune, will be inferior in performance and will lose money because it is now focused on regional mass transit, which always needs subsidy.
Regular electric adhesion rail is supposed to be versatile, rugged, standardized, mundane, compatible, time-tested and so forth. But PB-Palmdale insists on a gold-plated, albeit brutalist ROW anyway. You might as well go with the much faster, lighter and quieter maglev, not to mention the sheer pr value of space-age glitzy tech.
As far as the election goes the Repubs would be morons to not demand some of their proposals be included on the ballot along with Jerry’s. For certain a re-vote on Prop 1A if you are going to claim everything is on the table and given the mounting opposition to the PB scheme.
Peter Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
*brain twitch*
Victor Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I’d rather just forget You, Now Who are You again?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Worse service assumes incompatible platform heights. Rational people don’t build new train systems with incompatible platform heights. The Caltrain corridor is essentially going to be a new system because almost all of the existing Caltrain infrastructure is going to be torn out and rebuilt.
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
which is true, but sucks because they just spent a boatload of money building brand new stations. Now that brand new stuff has to be ripped out. What a waste.
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
but isn’t there still the problem of leaving track for freight/other equipment. Can this be done with high platforms
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
They don’t seem to have problems with it in other regions of the country, let alone world. Just because the CPUC still thinks that railroad workers hang off the sides of traincars doesn’t mean it’s still true.
Peter Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Given that Caltrain electrification is now delayed for a couple of years most likely, now might be a good time for a push to get GO-26D (?) overturned.
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
so its a cpuc prob not an fra prob? cuz a cpuc prop would be easier to correct from sac.
as for cahsr providing caltrain service, I don’t know because think about how many, and how close together caltrain stops are. I think sf-sj should be lhi platform lightrail serving the intermidiate stops and feeding into the nearest hsr stop. hsr at sj-rwc-sfo-sf and light rail in between.
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Does the FRA exist in the Northeast? I have compelling evidence to suggest that it does.
As for CalTrain stop spacing, it reaches a minimum of 1.5 miles, but some stops are quite a bit farther apart than that. By contrast, LRT is optomized for stop spacing of 0.5 miles or less. My experience with suburban LRT is that it fails sorely to divert a significant number of car trips, no matter how some cities may see it as a cheap solution to all of their problems. It’s just not competitive with driving for distances in the dozens of miles. Believe me, CalTrain is much better served by commuter EMUs with high acceleration and a top speed of 80-90 MPH or upward, which can easily be reached on some of the longer and less populated stretches (contrast to LRT’s typical top speed of 55 MPH).
Caelestor Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Trust me, Light rail is not what you want along the peninsula. Commuter rail is still the best; just get rid of Hayward Park (too close to two major stations), implement the 2/4 express, 4 local train system with 4 tracks at RWC, and you’ve got yourself a functional system.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
so its a cpuc prob not an fra prob?
Yes it’s a CPUC problem. Here’s some links for the umpteenth time.
Westbury, Long Island, NY, Long Island RR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqmdsOwqOU8
Dover NJ, NJTransit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu7NtLPaGrY
Cortlandt NY, Metro North
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOrD7QUgCs
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
wow thats crazy! Ive never seen anything like that out here. A bit frightening to have freights next to those platforms. But, apparently its done outside of california. I didnt’ even know the state puc had anything to do with rail. I thought is only had to do with pg&e rates. well this should be easy to fix. the cpuc is a purely 100 precent political entity that doesn’t do anything whatsover to actually imporve safety or advocate for consumers. To my understanding they just exist to give pg&e whatever they ask for. Its another one of those agencies like the california air resources board. Where lots of people with no talent collect huge salaries to sit around and dole out useless dictates and regulations telling what we can and cant do and increasing the cost of everything for everyone.
Do you know we can’t even put a log in a fireplace anymore! Buncha dumbf+cks. ( like I need some pasty white fatass to tell me I can’t burn a log in my fireplace, what are they gonna do, show up at my door with a bucket of water?) but i digress.
If its state puc. they can be dealt with. they’ll do as their told so long as the right people tell them.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Gee, Jim, what’s so crazy about it? Granted, you don’t see this in the west, but how is it so different from passenger trains next to high platforms, or for that matter freight and passenger trains next to low platforms?
What’s scary for me (and it’s largely due to speed) is watching something like an Acela or even a regular Corridor train at 100 or better from a platform. And you ought to see people standing what looks to be awfully close to a subway train (Washington Metro in my case), even when they are behind the safety line, as the train accelerates to almost 40 mph by the time the last car clears the platform. It’s even more frightening to see them wait so close to the platform edge as the train comes in at 40 mph, both from the platform and also if you happen to be in a seat behind the motorman’s compartment in the leading car, which has a nice, big view through the front windows, almost as good as that of the motorman!
I guess a lot depends on what you’re used to seeing on a regular basis.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
There’s one legitimate reason to limit platform height on account of freight, and that’s oversize freight. But there isn’t any on the Peninsula. And even if there were, CPUC is too limiting – oversize freight lets you build platforms of nearly 2′.
Curious Minnesotan here… If Caltrain is looking to electrify, wouldn’t they eventually use EMUs? Or would they get elec locos? If EMUs, why not get ones with the same platform height as HSR?
Additionally, are there plans to four track the corridor and allow interoperability? Or will this be two parallel two track corridors? Since it’s doubtful the HSR would go 220MPH on the peninsula due to geometry, wouldn’t it make sense to have HSR be two inside tracks that Caltrain can also use for express/passing?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
They’re getting EMUs. But they want to get bilevels and design the platforms for low-level boarding. CPUC restricts the platform height to 8″, and level boarding with a commuter bilevel is about 550 mm, about half as much as for HSR.
There are plans to four-track the corridor, yes. HSR will use the inside tracks. But there are no plans to regularly allow Caltrain to use the HSR tracks for passing, and the HSR station platforms are built to be separate from the Caltrain platforms, rather than the track-platform-track-track-platform-track configuration common on express stations around the world.
In the rest of the world, commuter and HSR frequently share resources. In Germany, the government-owned corperation owns all of the tracks and stations, as well as most of the trains (though they must now lease access to 3rd parties). The high speed trains could run on normal track (at slower speeds) if needed to provide special access. The Germans built high speed track in the middle of nowhere on new alignments, but used old tracks to get into cities. That is basically what CA is doing by only building part of the HS corridor.
I think that for the Peninsula Rail Project they should do something like the Northeast Corridor – 4 tracks the 2 in the center for express and the 2 on the side for local. All of the equipment can run at the same spec (like in Germany) so the local can run on the express if needed. The line would be owned by 1 orginization who would offer equal access to both local and express trains. The trains could be run by seperate orgs however.
It makes 0 sense not to design that rail corridor to allow both – its just the silly US funding model. It’s the same problem at Penn Station – each agency just looks out for itself and does not work together.
When they redo the Peninsula Rail line they should completely redo CalTrain and bring it up to current. Anything else is a waste of $$.
Off topic, but still interesting, a television news channel (at least I think you might call it that, even if it is obviously internet only) on high-speed rail, with comments on Florida, California, the the PIRG road subsidy study:
http://trains4america.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/hsr-news-private-investment-in-passenger-rail-public-subsidy-of-roads-and-bridge/
So is this what is has come to? Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is an enemy? Anyone resorting to such rhetoric is not doing Caltrain any favors.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 11th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Drunk Engineer, I won’t say you are wrong (although I wonder what made you pick that awful user name!), but that statement is true. The same people who fight against HSR are very, very often the same ones who fight against Amtrak, light rail, and commuter rail–as in Cato, Reason, Cox, O’Toole, Poole, etc. They do so with the same arguments, (“excessive subsidy,” “no one will ride,” “train to nowhere,”) along with the same faulty logic (counting only end-point cities’ population, not counting true cost of driving, hidden subsidies, and so on).
One good thing about that crowd is that they are looking kookier by the day. Indeed, I’ll say they are kookier than me, and I’m warped–time warped, that is! :-)
thatbruce Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Sometimes, your posts are just a jump to the left.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Sometimes, just a little bit, maybe. . .but other times, as old-fashioned as can be, even more so than those so-called “conservatives!” And I’m not just talking about my steam trains!
One comment I liked from the late Paul Weyrich was along the lines of “conservatism wasn’t just a political view, it was a way of life.” A lot of those “conservatives” don’t really live that way.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
And a step to the right?
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
its astounding.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Once again, for the record, I am registered as an independent. As I like to put it, that gives me the great luxury of being able to throw rocks or roses in either direction, and sometimes rocks and roses in the same direction at the same time!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
D.P. you have to put your hands on your hips and bring you knees in tight…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ff0cOPSpVA
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
lolz. I think you have to have been born between 1962 and 1976 to have caught that.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Well, I was born in 1955, so I missed the thing, and never knew about this until now. Like I said, I think I am from a time warp; I need to find Mr. Peabody’s WABAC (“way back”) machine to get to where I belong in the steam era! :-)
Looks like I might need to do some catching up around here to get a little more current, let’s see, that movie is from 1975, so I’m only 36 years behind schedule. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Alternately, there is a certain heavily modified DeLorean roadster that I might be able to use, or I could try to contact fellow West Virginian Don Knotts about a certain television and remote unit to get me to a place called Pleasantville–I wonder what railroad runs in that area, and if it is still steam operated?
I also seem to recall a long-ago government experiment with something called a Time Tunnel. There was something that looked like that around here some years ago called the Tunnel Club, but all it turned out to be was a “nudie cutie club” or “butt hut.”
Bah! Try to find anything really useful around here anymore. . .
James Fujita Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
well, now you’re just fighting over semantics. “Caltrain and Cal HSR have the same political opponents who oppose both of their plans to modernize a rail corridor, fighting mostly from a NIMBY homeowner perspective, but also with a touch of anti-government, anti-tax and anti-spending politics and some pro-car rhetoric thrown in for good measure.”
Happy now?
spokker Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
The Peninsula NIMBYs will say, “No HSR! Save Caltrain!”
Then, if some miracle occurs and Caltrain found the Benjamins to electrify and grade separate, they’ll start shouting, “No Caltrain upgrades!”
Caltrain is a pawn in more ways than one.
spokker Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Just looking at the situation from the outside (as someone who doesn’t rely on Caltrain but keeps up with the latest developments), Caltrain doesn’t have many friends among anti-rail and rail supporters alike. HSR construction on the Peninsula will be great for high speed rail, but it’s not looking like it’s going to be great for commuter rail.
James Fujita Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
well, admittedly construction is going to suck for Caltrain at first because Cal HSR is going to be stepping on Caltrain’s toes while it builds and rebuilds tracks, stations, etc. up and down the corridor
however, it’s clearly obvious that Caltrain ought to have a separate set of tracks and a separate set of platforms all its own (and Metrolink too, if possible). if the two organizations would learn to work together, Caltrain could ultimately end up with a better situation.
good thing Cal HSR’s concentrating on the Central Valley first, huh?
spokker Reply:
January 12th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
The construction period is the least of Caltrain’s worries.
My biggest opposition to the project would be about what’s going to happen to Caltrain, and I would fight tooth and nail to make sure Caltrain comes out of this with better service options for daily commuters. Nothing is final, but it doesn’t seem to be going that way. With or without HSR, Caltrain has little support in the Bay Area.
But I still support the project no matter what happens to Caltrain. That isn’t my home and I’m not responsible for it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised more isn’t being made of what is happening to Caltrain right now. All focus seems to be on BART and Muni, both inferior agencies.