Comments on: Capital Costs vs. Operational Costs: the general state of misdirected anger http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/ Putting Transit On The Fast Track™ Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:42:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: David Pelfrey http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-266 David Pelfrey Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:37:00 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-266 First - thank you for providing the blog and forum Switching Modes. Second - a thank you to everyone who has posted comments demonstrating such a command of the technological aspects of how these rail transit systems work. I am not an expert on rail transit systems; however, I have always viewed the BART use of existing rail right-of-way and different rail guage as a major drawback for expansion, particularly into smaller municipalities lacking funding to join into the line. I note that the discussion so far has not really touched on the BART extension from Pittsburg/Bay Point to Antioch that utilizes LRV (I believe). How does the junction between these two different systems function? I seems at first glance that this type of expansion holds promise to exend rail transit systems into more thinly funded outer metropolitain areas. Cheers! First – thank you for providing the blog and forum Switching Modes.

Second – a thank you to everyone who has posted comments demonstrating such a command of the technological aspects of how these rail transit systems work.

I am not an expert on rail transit systems; however, I have always viewed the BART use of existing rail right-of-way and different rail guage as a major drawback for expansion, particularly into smaller municipalities lacking funding to join into the line.

I note that the discussion so far has not really touched on the BART extension from Pittsburg/Bay Point to Antioch that utilizes LRV (I believe). How does the junction between these two different systems function? I seems at first glance that this type of expansion holds promise to exend rail transit systems into more thinly funded outer metropolitain areas.

Cheers!

]]>
By: ian http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-234 ian Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:24:00 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-234 yeah that's why they build passing tracks, like the center-through tracks at lyon satolas... in a FSSF configuration, the passing trains are on the fast tracks, away from the platform (on the slow tracks). again, i think a better way to phrase it is "only light trains on the fast tracks" and "anyone on the slow tracks". caltrain EMUs (and let's dream, next-gen light amtrak equipment) could all go 125 mph on the fast tracks. i'm not following the argument about the metrolink disaster... With PTC, the train (which went through a red signal) would have been alerted as such and wouldn't have been allowed to enter the same block as the freight train. plus that was a single-track line! we're talking about 4 tracks here. oh well. we'll just have to see how they plan it. yeah that’s why they build passing tracks, like the center-through tracks at lyon satolas… in a FSSF configuration, the passing trains are on the fast tracks, away from the platform (on the slow tracks).

again, i think a better way to phrase it is “only light trains on the fast tracks” and “anyone on the slow tracks”. caltrain EMUs (and let’s dream, next-gen light amtrak equipment) could all go 125 mph on the fast tracks.

i’m not following the argument about the metrolink disaster… With PTC, the train (which went through a red signal) would have been alerted as such and wouldn’t have been allowed to enter the same block as the freight train. plus that was a single-track line! we’re talking about 4 tracks here.

oh well. we’ll just have to see how they plan it.

]]>
By: Adirondacker http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-233 Adirondacker Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:35:07 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-233 <em>we’ll be OK with platforms shared with commuter trains and HSR where a commuter train is stopped and a HSR train may be whisking across at 125MPH on the other side</em>. Ya mean like <a HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biCs3OM5-ns" rel="nofollow">this YouTube video</A>? Acela goes past at 148 with nothing more complex than a yellow stripe painted on the platform edge? we’ll be OK with platforms shared with commuter trains and HSR where a commuter train is stopped and a HSR train may be whisking across at 125MPH on the other side.

Ya mean like this YouTube video? Acela goes past at 148 with nothing more complex than a yellow stripe painted on the platform edge?

]]>
By: Anonymous http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-232 Anonymous Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:29:48 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-232 You're telling me that, in the US, we'll be OK with platforms shared with commuter trains and HSR where a commuter train is stopped and a HSR train may be whisking across at 125MPH on the other side. I'v personally seen it in Europe and its' scary. I personally know a friend who lost a friend in a tragic train accident at a station like this in the alps. It won't work here. Two. Why do it? The benefits are very small. Caltrain will continue to have areas for trains to pass. They can run their baby bullets on the HSR tracks too. So operational flexibility is kind of a mute argument when you already have sufficient operational flexibility in the design. And I don't think I'm being paranoid. Please read up on the Metro-link disaster. And switch gone aerie, any mistake, even with positive train control, and you can have an accident. HSR will be a separate track system, even at *just* 125 MPH. This is nothing like the Berlin wall approach. All I'm proposing is that, given the cost benefit ration, using all tracks for mixed flow doesn't make sense. The costs are decreased reliability, increased track maintenance and decreased safety. Any benefits are dubious - you're already increasing increasing Caltrain capacity by allowing them to put the Baby Bullet trains on HSR tracks. What else do they need or want and how would that provide any benefits (or cost savings)? If you could have normal speed trains on HSR tracks there are many downsides. Track maintenance. Risk of broken or mis-switched switches. Decreased reliability and safety concerns... WHY DO IT??? The 'Berlin Wall' has major benefit - costs. Since that is not an issue here there is no validity in your comparison. AGAIN: look up the metrolink accident. Those types of switches that caused the accident should not be used at high speeds for safety. Train control systems can help that... but not entirely. They use blocks to schedule traffic. They have detectors on switches, etc. and all that helps. BUT the best way is just not to have trains crossing in and out of HSR tracks. We have a new standards. We my not. The CHSRA is not banking on new FRA safety standards... they're building their own system and expecting wavers in a few areas. BOTTOM LINE: we can have super heavy train going on the same tracks at high speeds. Not even Europe does that. You’re telling me that, in the US, we’ll be OK with platforms shared with commuter trains and HSR where a commuter train is stopped and a HSR train may be whisking across at 125MPH on the other side. I’v personally seen it in Europe and its’ scary. I personally know a friend who lost a friend in a tragic train accident at a station like this in the alps. It won’t work here.

Two. Why do it? The benefits are very small. Caltrain will continue to have areas for trains to pass. They can run their baby bullets on the HSR tracks too. So operational flexibility is kind of a mute argument when you already have sufficient operational flexibility in the design.

And I don’t think I’m being paranoid. Please read up on the Metro-link disaster. And switch gone aerie, any mistake, even with positive train control, and you can have an accident. HSR will be a separate track system, even at *just* 125 MPH.

This is nothing like the Berlin wall approach. All I’m proposing is that, given the cost benefit ration, using all tracks for mixed flow doesn’t make sense. The costs are decreased reliability, increased track maintenance and decreased safety. Any benefits are dubious – you’re already increasing increasing Caltrain capacity by allowing them to put the Baby Bullet trains on HSR tracks. What else do they need or want and how would that provide any benefits (or cost savings)?

If you could have normal speed trains on HSR tracks there are many downsides. Track maintenance. Risk of broken or mis-switched switches. Decreased reliability and safety concerns… WHY DO IT???

The ‘Berlin Wall’ has major benefit – costs. Since that is not an issue here there is no validity in your comparison.

AGAIN: look up the metrolink accident. Those types of switches that caused the accident should not be used at high speeds for safety. Train control systems can help that… but not entirely. They use blocks to schedule traffic. They have detectors on switches, etc. and all that helps. BUT the best way is just not to have trains crossing in and out of HSR tracks.

We have a new standards. We my not. The CHSRA is not banking on new FRA safety standards… they’re building their own system and expecting wavers in a few areas. BOTTOM LINE: we can have super heavy train going on the same tracks at high speeds. Not even Europe does that.

]]>
By: ian http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-231 ian Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:34:25 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-231 I was talking about positive train control, not using separate tracks. PTC allows multiple types of traffic to share tracks. It works in every other country, so there's no reason that we *need* to separate them on different tracks here. unless you're really paranoid. Let me be clearer: they removed the Palo Alto center platform because to get off of it, you had to walk across the tracks. (that would be a safety reason.) it had nothing to do with the fact that it was in the center. any center platform on the HSR / upgraded caltrain system would be like BART, where you go up stairs/escalator/elevator to get to it. it's not that center platforms are *unsafe*, if you read that blog post i mentioned earlier, you'd know they are actually safer, and more cost-effective, and more convenient for passengers. go read that entry again to understand why center platforms are better. your wall argument sounds like the peninsula NIMBYs' berlin wall, wtf? your so-loved BART doesn't put walls in the middle of platforms! no one does! again: sharing tracks works with positive train control. a better rule is "only light trains (including lighter caltrain EMUs) on the fast tracks, anyone on the slow tracks". you can get HSR / caltrain express on the fast tracks, and coast daylight, amtrak, freight, caltrain EMUs, HSR when needed, on the slower ones. for center-platform reading: http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2008/12/slow-traffic-keep-left.html PTC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Train_Control and Europe's PTC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System hopefully that will clear things up a bit I was talking about positive train control, not using separate tracks. PTC allows multiple types of traffic to share tracks. It works in every other country, so there’s no reason that we *need* to separate them on different tracks here. unless you’re really paranoid.

Let me be clearer: they removed the Palo Alto center platform because to get off of it, you had to walk across the tracks. (that would be a safety reason.) it had nothing to do with the fact that it was in the center. any center platform on the HSR / upgraded caltrain system would be like BART, where you go up stairs/escalator/elevator to get to it. it’s not that center platforms are *unsafe*, if you read that blog post i mentioned earlier, you’d know they are actually safer, and more cost-effective, and more convenient for passengers. go read that entry again to understand why center platforms are better. your wall argument sounds like the peninsula NIMBYs’ berlin wall, wtf? your so-loved BART doesn’t put walls in the middle of platforms! no one does!

again: sharing tracks works with positive train control. a better rule is “only light trains (including lighter caltrain EMUs) on the fast tracks, anyone on the slow tracks”. you can get HSR / caltrain express on the fast tracks, and coast daylight, amtrak, freight, caltrain EMUs, HSR when needed, on the slower ones.

for center-platform reading: http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2008/12/slow-traffic-keep-left.html
PTC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Train_Control
and Europe’s PTC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System

hopefully that will clear things up a bit

]]>
By: Switching Modes http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-230 Switching Modes Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:48:21 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-230 <I>that’s how all other countries avoid crashes: not by trying to make the train strong enough to withstand one, by not having a crash in the first place.</I> Yep. But that only supports my case that the tracks won't be interchangeable. HSR will have its' own tracks to keep things simple and avoid crashes from things like broken switches or mistakes made that would cause a train to veer onto other tracks. <I>i believe they removed the center platform at palo alto because it was at track-level.</I> What does that have to do with anything? The platform was removed for safety reasons - they couldn't have two trains in the station area at any one time. Thus, even trains going in the opposite direction had to wait for any train in the station to clear the station before the next train could enter. How, given this situation, could Caltrain share a platform with HSR? Won't work - *unless* there is some kind of wall in the middle of the platform - which would take more space. At that point - what is the benefit of sharing a platform? <I>“The HSR system that works well use only HSR tracks” that’s not too true. the “lead in” tracks that you mention go a long way. i think almost every HSR system in the world uses existing, upgraded tracks when going into cities, for sure in europe. (i guess the peninsula would count as an urbanized area) there’s no way they built a set of *only* HSR tracks all the way into Paris and Lyon. the Ligne à Grande Vitesse only starts once you’re out of the city. when you get close to Lyon or Paris, you decrease speed as you travel on the older (though still upgraded) tracks going into the city. Furthermore, TGVs serve cities without HSR tracks at all. I would guess this is *one of* the reasons there is a 125 mph speed limit (there are definitely other reasons). if HSR was really getting a set of HSR tracks up the peninsula, why aren’t they traveling 220 mph express right into the city?</I> Sure, they can share tracks and RoWs, but sharing tracks doesn't work well. Freight and other heavier passenger trains contribute to more wear and tear on tracks. Even if HSR goes slower, sharing the tracks would not be good for HSR - it could reduce reliability and make maintenance and maintenance standards more complicated. Having too many agencies share the same tracks would also reduce reliability and safety. Yes, HSR *can* run on standard, upgraded tracks. But doing it for any distance (like the 70 mile Caltrain RoW) doesn't work as well as having a separate RoW for all of the above reasons. When countries use standard, upgraded tracks in other countries for any distance they do so in areas that don't have high rail traffic and thus have extra capacity. I don't think the Caltrain corridor qualifies as that. BOTTOM LINE: there are major downsides to having the tracks on the Caltrain corridor be interchangeable (safety, reliability and maintenance), AND the benefits are negligible (reliability?, Caltrain has more flexibility?). THUS, they probably won't be interchangeable and advocating that they are is counterproductive. that’s how all other countries avoid crashes: not by trying to make the train strong enough to withstand one, by not having a crash in the first place.

Yep. But that only supports my case that the tracks won’t be interchangeable. HSR will have its’ own tracks to keep things simple and avoid crashes from things like broken switches or mistakes made that would cause a train to veer onto other tracks.

i believe they removed the center platform at palo alto because it was at track-level.

What does that have to do with anything? The platform was removed for safety reasons – they couldn’t have two trains in the station area at any one time. Thus, even trains going in the opposite direction had to wait for any train in the station to clear the station before the next train could enter.

How, given this situation, could Caltrain share a platform with HSR? Won’t work – *unless* there is some kind of wall in the middle of the platform – which would take more space. At that point – what is the benefit of sharing a platform?

“The HSR system that works well use only HSR tracks”

that’s not too true. the “lead in” tracks that you mention go a long way. i think almost every HSR system in the world uses existing, upgraded tracks when going into cities, for sure in europe. (i guess the peninsula would count as an urbanized area) there’s no way they built a set of *only* HSR tracks all the way into Paris and Lyon. the Ligne à Grande Vitesse only starts once you’re out of the city. when you get close to Lyon or Paris, you decrease speed as you travel on the older (though still upgraded) tracks going into the city. Furthermore, TGVs serve cities without HSR tracks at all. I would guess this is *one of* the reasons there is a 125 mph speed limit (there are definitely other reasons). if HSR was really getting a set of HSR tracks up the peninsula, why aren’t they traveling 220 mph express right into the city?

Sure, they can share tracks and RoWs, but sharing tracks doesn’t work well. Freight and other heavier passenger trains contribute to more wear and tear on tracks. Even if HSR goes slower, sharing the tracks would not be good for HSR – it could reduce reliability and make maintenance and maintenance standards more complicated. Having too many agencies share the same tracks would also reduce reliability and safety.

Yes, HSR *can* run on standard, upgraded tracks. But doing it for any distance (like the 70 mile Caltrain RoW) doesn’t work as well as having a separate RoW for all of the above reasons.

When countries use standard, upgraded tracks in other countries for any distance they do so in areas that don’t have high rail traffic and thus have extra capacity. I don’t think the Caltrain corridor qualifies as that.

BOTTOM LINE: there are major downsides to having the tracks on the Caltrain corridor be interchangeable (safety, reliability and maintenance), AND the benefits are negligible (reliability?, Caltrain has more flexibility?).

THUS, they probably won’t be interchangeable and advocating that they are is counterproductive.

]]>
By: ian http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-229 ian Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:49:59 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-229 "It would be tough for Caltrain to share platforms with HSR." i believe they removed the center platform at palo alto because it was at track-level. i think the assumption would be that if they were sharing platforms, caltrain would have the updated EMU equipment with level boarding platforms, which may or may not happen. in any case, with HSR the center platforms will be like BART's, with underground access, so that is definitely not a safety issue... -- "The reason for two sets of rolling stock would be that there are two sets of FRA safety requirements that need to be met." i sincerely hope that by the time HSR is running, the *severely* antiquated FRA standards are updated. no HSR country has standards like ours. they're old. they don't work. PTC *will* be installed in ~5 years, which should make the FRA standards obsolete. that's how all other countries avoid crashes: not by trying to make the train strong enough to withstand one, by not having a crash in the first place. -- "The HSR system that work well use only HSR tracks" that's not too true. the "lead in" tracks that you mention go a long way. i think almost every HSR system in the world uses existing, upgraded tracks when going into cities, for sure in europe. (i guess the peninsula would count as an urbanized area) there's no way they built a set of *only* HSR tracks all the way into Paris and Lyon. the Ligne à Grande Vitesse only starts once you're out of the city. when you get close to Lyon or Paris, you decrease speed as you travel on the older (though still upgraded) tracks going into the city. Furthermore, TGVs serve cities without HSR tracks at all. I would guess this is *one of* the reasons there is a 125 mph speed limit (there are definitely other reasons). if HSR was really getting a set of HSR tracks up the peninsula, why aren't they traveling 220 mph express right into the city? “It would be tough for Caltrain to share platforms with HSR.”

i believe they removed the center platform at palo alto because it was at track-level. i think the assumption would be that if they were sharing platforms, caltrain would have the updated EMU equipment with level boarding platforms, which may or may not happen. in any case, with HSR the center platforms will be like BART’s, with underground access, so that is definitely not a safety issue…

“The reason for two sets of rolling stock would be that there are two sets of FRA safety requirements that need to be met.”

i sincerely hope that by the time HSR is running, the *severely* antiquated FRA standards are updated. no HSR country has standards like ours. they’re old. they don’t work. PTC *will* be installed in ~5 years, which should make the FRA standards obsolete. that’s how all other countries avoid crashes: not by trying to make the train strong enough to withstand one, by not having a crash in the first place.

“The HSR system that work well use only HSR tracks”

that’s not too true. the “lead in” tracks that you mention go a long way. i think almost every HSR system in the world uses existing, upgraded tracks when going into cities, for sure in europe. (i guess the peninsula would count as an urbanized area) there’s no way they built a set of *only* HSR tracks all the way into Paris and Lyon. the Ligne à Grande Vitesse only starts once you’re out of the city. when you get close to Lyon or Paris, you decrease speed as you travel on the older (though still upgraded) tracks going into the city. Furthermore, TGVs serve cities without HSR tracks at all. I would guess this is *one of* the reasons there is a 125 mph speed limit (there are definitely other reasons). if HSR was really getting a set of HSR tracks up the peninsula, why aren’t they traveling 220 mph express right into the city?

]]>
By: Switching Modes http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-226 Switching Modes Sat, 06 Jun 2009 06:32:39 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-226 It would be tough for Caltrain to share platforms with HSR. For example, Caltrain redesigned the Palo Alto station so that there would NOT be a center platform. This was in order to allow two trains to stop at one time at the station (which cannot be done for safety reasons with center platform). If platforms are shared there would probably have to be some kind of a wall between each side of the center platform... again for safety reasons. This would largely mitigate the benefits of having 'slower trains' keep to the left. -------- The reason for two sets of rolling stock would be that there are two sets of FRA safety requirements that need to be met. The HSR trains will be lighter and will not meet FRA safety requirements - so they won't be able to ravel on tracks where the FRA imposes their standard guidelines. The 'slower' track trains will have to meet FRA requirements, but because they will have to be heavier they will be a safety hazard to the lighter HSR trains. ------- CHSRA is not going up the Peninsula to benefit Caltrain. Caltrain will benefit from grade crossings. Caltrain may also get to run SOME trains on the HSR tracks. But by no means will the CHSRA be bending over backwards to accommodate Caltrain beyond this. The CHSRA is 'using' Caltrain in order to get a RoW to San Francisco. Why would the CHSRA want to help Caltrain beyond this? Would HSR trains run on Caltrain's 'slow' tracks? Could they? NO. Freight runs on those tracks and they will not be kept to the HSR regulations. 125 MPH might not seem that fast, but look at the train accident in Germany- slower speeds, but very disastrous results. (Referring to speed of accident, not cause) ------ <I>And really, it’s the same issue as using different rolling stock on BART for more urban versus suburban lines.</I> Sort of, but I DO NOT think this is that big of a deal. The problem with BART is a planning flaw - not a technical flaw. BART was designed to function as a subway AND a regional express rail system. The problem is that it does neither especially well. HSR should be designed for HSR, so that it does HSR well. NOT for Caltrain. Also, HSR uses the standard gauge rail so that it can travel, primarily into the same stations, and the same lead in tracks. Not much more. Granted, on some lines, improved track can accommodate HSR at lower speeds (like 100-150mph), but that takes a lot of upgrades. The HSR system that work well use only HSR tracks. On the main California line, it's undesirable to have Caltrain share the tracks. It's not safe. It's unreliable. It's not what it's being built for. For example, Quinten Kopp says that Caltrain "MAY" use HSR tracks. That's the extent of it. And that's OK. It would be tough for Caltrain to share platforms with HSR.

For example, Caltrain redesigned the Palo Alto station so that there would NOT be a center platform. This was in order to allow two trains to stop at one time at the station (which cannot be done for safety reasons with center platform).

If platforms are shared there would probably have to be some kind of a wall between each side of the center platform… again for safety reasons. This would largely mitigate the benefits of having ‘slower trains’ keep to the left.
——–
The reason for two sets of rolling stock would be that there are two sets of FRA safety requirements that need to be met.

The HSR trains will be lighter and will not meet FRA safety requirements – so they won’t be able to ravel on tracks where the FRA imposes their standard guidelines.

The ‘slower’ track trains will have to meet FRA requirements, but because they will have to be heavier they will be a safety hazard to the lighter HSR trains.
——-
CHSRA is not going up the Peninsula to benefit Caltrain. Caltrain will benefit from grade crossings. Caltrain may also get to run SOME trains on the HSR tracks. But by no means will the CHSRA be bending over backwards to accommodate Caltrain beyond this. The CHSRA is ‘using’ Caltrain in order to get a RoW to San Francisco.

Why would the CHSRA want to help Caltrain beyond this? Would HSR trains run on Caltrain’s ‘slow’ tracks? Could they? NO. Freight runs on those tracks and they will not be kept to the HSR regulations.

125 MPH might not seem that fast, but look at the train accident in Germany- slower speeds, but very disastrous results. (Referring to speed of accident, not cause)
——
And really, it’s the same issue as using different rolling stock on BART for more urban versus suburban lines.

Sort of, but I DO NOT think this is that big of a deal. The problem with BART is a planning flaw – not a technical flaw. BART was designed to function as a subway AND a regional express rail system. The problem is that it does neither especially well.

HSR should be designed for HSR, so that it does HSR well. NOT for Caltrain.

Also, HSR uses the standard gauge rail so that it can travel, primarily into the same stations, and the same lead in tracks. Not much more. Granted, on some lines, improved track can accommodate HSR at lower speeds (like 100-150mph), but that takes a lot of upgrades.

The HSR system that work well use only HSR tracks. On the main California line, it’s undesirable to have Caltrain share the tracks. It’s not safe. It’s unreliable. It’s not what it’s being built for.

For example, Quinten Kopp says that Caltrain “MAY” use HSR tracks. That’s the extent of it. And that’s OK.

]]>
By: anonymouse http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-224 anonymouse Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:13:34 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-224 <i>Caltrain, can will probably go with two seperate sets of rolling stock. One will be for the higher speed Baby Bullet trains and one for the slower trains that stop more frequently.</i> That's rather unlikely. Instead of one small fleet of unique-in-the-country trains, they're going to have two small fleets of different trains and have to worry about which one gets used where. And what about potential zone-expresses (all stops San Jose-Palo Alto, express to Millbrae and SF)? What do you use there? And when you want to change the mix of services? It might make sense if Caltrain were part of a much larger network or at least capable of pooling rolling stock with other commuter agencies and have decently sized fleets of standardized "fast" and "slow" trains. And really, it's the same issue as using different rolling stock on BART for more urban versus suburban lines. Caltrain, can will probably go with two seperate sets of rolling stock. One will be for the higher speed Baby Bullet trains and one for the slower trains that stop more frequently.

That’s rather unlikely. Instead of one small fleet of unique-in-the-country trains, they’re going to have two small fleets of different trains and have to worry about which one gets used where. And what about potential zone-expresses (all stops San Jose-Palo Alto, express to Millbrae and SF)? What do you use there? And when you want to change the mix of services? It might make sense if Caltrain were part of a much larger network or at least capable of pooling rolling stock with other commuter agencies and have decently sized fleets of standardized “fast” and “slow” trains. And really, it’s the same issue as using different rolling stock on BART for more urban versus suburban lines.

]]>
By: ian http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-223 ian Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:43:59 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-223 oh, i just meant the SJ to gilroy service, on caltrain, not HSR haha... there was talk of using on non-electrified caltrain metro east as well, but that's a whole different story. oh, i just meant the SJ to gilroy service, on caltrain, not HSR haha… there was talk of using on non-electrified caltrain metro east as well, but that’s a whole different story.

]]>
By: Adirondacker http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-222 Adirondacker Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:49:00 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-222 <em>benefit is that they can run high frequency local service on the “slow” tracks, and use the same platforms and the “fast” tracks for baby-bullet / commuter express service passing the slower trains on the “slow” tracks</em>. ...like every other four track railroad in the world.... <em> use the existing trains for south of SJ, non-electrified service</em>. Why would they do that? the track is going to be electrified all the way to Anaheim. The equipment they have now is near the end of it's useful life. Electric equipment is cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain and cheaper to run. benefit is that they can run high frequency local service on the “slow” tracks, and use the same platforms and the “fast” tracks for baby-bullet / commuter express service passing the slower trains on the “slow” tracks.

…like every other four track railroad in the world….

use the existing trains for south of SJ, non-electrified service.

Why would they do that? the track is going to be electrified all the way to Anaheim. The equipment they have now is near the end of it’s useful life. Electric equipment is cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain and cheaper to run.

]]>
By: ian http://switchingmodes.com/2009/05/14/capital-costs-vs-operational-costs-the-general-state-of-misdirected-anger/#comment-220 ian Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:50:35 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=895#comment-220 benefit is that they can run high frequency local service on the "slow" tracks, and use the same platforms and the "fast" tracks for baby-bullet / commuter express service passing the slower trains on the "slow" tracks. the article also covered how HSR trains could also use the same caltrain platforms, as well. it's much more than mitigation of congestion when there's a broken down trains, the four-track system is how you mix all the different types of services (caltrain local, express, coast daylight, HSR, freight.) caltrain will probably be using all EMU trains by then, so they can get high frequency, and use the existing trains for south of SJ, non-electrified service. again, i'll ask quentin kopp about the track sharing next time i see him. benefit is that they can run high frequency local service on the “slow” tracks, and use the same platforms and the “fast” tracks for baby-bullet / commuter express service passing the slower trains on the “slow” tracks.

the article also covered how HSR trains could also use the same caltrain platforms, as well. it’s much more than mitigation of congestion when there’s a broken down trains, the four-track system is how you mix all the different types of services (caltrain local, express, coast daylight, HSR, freight.) caltrain will probably be using all EMU trains by then, so they can get high frequency, and use the existing trains for south of SJ, non-electrified service.

again, i’ll ask quentin kopp about the track sharing next time i see him.

]]>