Feds Support Use of Light Weight Trains!
Merritt Mullen
this is really big news. Although the headline implies the news is about
electrification, the important issue is changing the FRA rules that
prohibit the use of world-class standard lightweight trains.
Merritt
//
Tuesday Jul 10
Feds backing Caltrain plans
Officials support proposal to switch to electric trains
By Shaun Bishop / San Mateo Daily News Staff Writer
Caltrain's efforts to become a model for modernized passenger rail service
in the United States have been progressing faster than the agency
anticipated.
Bob Doty, manager of rail operations for Caltrain, told the Redwood City
City Council Monday that federal regulators have been supportive in early
discussions about Caltrain's desire to pioneer the future of the U.S.
passenger rail system.
Caltrain would like to use lightweight electric trains instead of the
heavy diesel-based locomotives it runs now, but federal regulations
require that cars be encased in tons of steel in case they collide. They
also prohibit the modern lightweight cars from operating on the same
tracks as the aging locomotives.
The agency had discussions in March and again about three weeks ago with
top officials in the Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit
Administration about changing those rules, Doty said.
He said the administrators were quickly supportive of Caltrain's goals and
suggested the agency is headed in the right direction. Caltrain officials
had thought it might have taken longer for regulators to come around, Doty
said.
"We were hoping to get there in 18 months and we got there in 10 minutes,"
Doty said. "It's looking positive so far."
The benefits of the modern cars are many, Doty said: quicker travel times,
more flexible train configurations, less track maintenance, lower fuel
costs.
But, "It is a very daunting task," said Council Member Jim Hartnett, a
member of Caltrain's Joint Powers Board.
Doty said Caltrain is confident it can get the required regulatory
approvals by the end of 2008 and be on track to introduce the system by
2014.
Mayor Barbara Pierce asked if Caltrain could serve more stops with the
newer systems.
Doty said that because the electric trains can start and stop more quickly
than the old locomotives, they can be run much closer together, which
could allow trains to be scheduled as frequently as every five minutes at
stations along the Peninsula.
The agency still has a way to go, but Doty was glowing with optimism from
the early signs of acceptance of the idea.
"It's a pretty exciting time and it's real. It's not a pipe dream. It's
real," Doty said.
For more information, visit:
william welner
What you are saying, Cartrains is proposing to replace its diesel powered
trains with electric powered lightweight trains similar to those used for
BART and other subway systems.
My comment is why not just electrify the current railroad by adding a 3rd
rail and(or) overhead wires similar to the electric powered AMTRAK passenger
trains and Commuter trains that operate over the AMTRAK NEC route and other
electrified rail lines that can operate with freight traffic under current
FRA rules?
Bill
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-8129...@netnews.asp.att.net...
Stephen Sprunk
news:zdLli.6633$rR...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> What you are saying, Cartrains is proposing to replace its diesel powered
> trains with electric powered lightweight trains similar to those used for
> BART and other subway systems.
I doubt they'll go that far. Doesn't CalTrain have grade crossings? HRT
equipment wouldn't fare well in an at-grade collision.
> My comment is why not just electrify the current railroad by adding a 3rd
> rail and(or) overhead wires similar to the electric powered AMTRAK
> passenger trains and Commuter trains that operate over the AMTRAK
> NEC route and other electrified rail lines that can operate with freight
> traffic under current FRA rules?
Because FRA cars are heavy, expensive, and slow. CalTrain is, I think,
talking about using UIC-compatible cars with 25kV/60Hz catenary. That would
allow for significantly faster service at lower cost, and would also mean
their line would be compatible with the future CA HSR system if/when it gets
built.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Merritt Mullen
"william welner" <wwel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Merritt
>
> What you are saying, Cartrains is proposing to replace its diesel powered
> trains with electric powered lightweight trains similar to those used for
> BART and other subway systems.
First of all, I am not "saying" anything, I am just passing on a new
article.
Secondly, no, Caltrain is NOT proposing to use subway type vehicles. BART
already parallels Caltrain over much of its route and will probably be
extended to San Jose someday. HRT (heavy rail transit, i.e., subway type
vehicles), is not the same as commuter rail, i.e., standard rail cars
usable on the national rail network.
What Caltrain is operates is commuter rail, standard passenger rail cars
that are compatible with the national neetwork of railroads.
> My comment is why not just electrify the current railroad by adding a 3rd
> rail and(or) overhead wires similar to the electric powered AMTRAK passenger
> trains and Commuter trains that operate over the AMTRAK NEC route and other
> electrified rail lines that can operate with freight traffic under current
> FRA rules?
That is exactly the plan (overhead, not third rail), but that part is not
anything new and does not require the FRA to change their regulations.
What is new is the FRA agreeing that the current rules that prevent the
use of LIGHTWEIGHT passenger trains, such as are used in Europe and Asia
for commuter, regional and high-speed intercity service, need to be
revised. Until the rules are revised, US passenger rail can not operate
as efficiently as it does in the rest of the world, nor can the US use the
standard vehicle designs used in the rest of the world.
Merritt
rotten
I'll agree with you on this point, the FRA is a fucking useless
regulatory agency.
Adam H. Kerman
>"william welner" <wwel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>What you are saying, Cartrains is proposing to replace its diesel powered
>>trains with electric powered lightweight trains similar to those used for
>>BART and other subway systems.
>First of all, I am not "saying" anything, I am just passing on a new
>article.
>Secondly, no, Caltrain is NOT proposing to use subway type vehicles. BART
>already parallels Caltrain over much of its route and will probably be
>extended to San Jose someday.
In the Bay Area, the politics of BART versus Caltrain are vicious, unlike
anything seen elsewhere in the country. Can't be explained as a city versus
suburban war, since BART is mostly a suburban agency, not that San Francisco
is your typical central city and not that Oakland and Berkeley San Jose are
suburbs. I have no doubt that BART's ultimate goal is to reach Sacramento
if not Los Angeles and Seattle (ultimately Chicago) and wipe all public
transportation that competes for the same transit grants off the face of
the planet.
>HRT (heavy rail transit, i.e., subway type vehicles), is not the same as
>commuter rail, i.e., standard rail cars usable on the national rail network.
>What Caltrain is operates is commuter rail, standard passenger rail cars
>that are compatible with the national neetwork of railroads.
In FRA's view, any noncompliant equipment is subway stock.
>>My comment is why not just electrify the current railroad by adding a
>>3rd rail and(or) overhead wires similar to the electric powered AMTRAK
>>passenger trains and Commuter trains that operate over the AMTRAK NEC
>>route and other electrified rail lines that can operate with freight
>>traffic under current FRA rules?
>That is exactly the plan (overhead, not third rail), but that part is not
>anything new and does not require the FRA to change their regulations.
Is it? I'd assume they'd choose an AC electrification that's incompatible
with the Corridor so they'd need substations only every 15 miles or so.
>What is new is the FRA agreeing that the current rules that prevent the
>use of LIGHTWEIGHT passenger trains, such as are used in Europe and Asia
>for commuter, regional and high-speed intercity service, need to be
>revised. Until the rules are revised, US passenger rail can not operate
>as efficiently as it does in the rest of the world, nor can the US use the
>standard vehicle designs used in the rest of the world.
Damn, you're optimistic. In FRA's world, maybe you get a waiver, but the
next agency that uses the grant of waiver in support of its application
for very similar circumstances will be denied. Everybody is afraid of
getting the same treatment that New Jersey got for Camden-Trenton line.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >Secondly, no, Caltrain is NOT proposing to use subway type vehicles. BART
> >already parallels Caltrain over much of its route and will probably be
> >extended to San Jose someday.
>
> In the Bay Area, the politics of BART versus Caltrain are vicious, unlike
> anything seen elsewhere in the country. Can't be explained as a city versus
> suburban war, since BART is mostly a suburban agency, not that San Francisco
> is your typical central city and not that Oakland and Berkeley San Jose are
> suburbs. I have no doubt that BART's ultimate goal is to reach Sacramento
> if not Los Angeles and Seattle (ultimately Chicago) and wipe all public
> transportation that competes for the same transit grants off the face of
> the planet.
You are probably right about that!
The Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), who runs the Capitol
Corridor trains between Sacramento and San Jose is managed by BART. So,
in a sense, BART already runs to Sacramento (and a bit beyond). BART is
making noises about operating other types of services as well (like EMU,
DMU, light rail).
Caltrain is operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB),
which, as far as I know, has no connection with BART. Caltrain's
advantage is it can get someone to downtown San Francisco a hell of a lot
faster than BART.
<snip>
> >That is exactly the plan (overhead, not third rail), but that part is not
> >anything new and does not require the FRA to change their regulations.
>
> Is it? I'd assume they'd choose an AC electrification that's incompatible
> with the Corridor so they'd need substations only every 15 miles or so.
They plan to use 25 kV AC with 3 substations. Incompatible with what
corridor, the NEC? Does it matter? Hopefully, it will be compatible with
the CA HSR system which will share the ROW, if it is ever built.
> Damn, you're optimistic. In FRA's world, maybe you get a waiver, but the
> next agency that uses the grant of waiver in support of its application
> for very similar circumstances will be denied. Everybody is afraid of
> getting the same treatment that New Jersey got for Camden-Trenton line.
Here is the part of the article regarding the use of non-compliant
light-weight equipment that makes me optimistic:
"The agency [Caltrain] had discussions in March and again about three
weeks ago with top officials in the Federal Railroad Administration and
Federal Transit Administration about changing those rules, Doty said.
He said the administrators were quickly supportive of Caltrain's goals
and suggested the agency is headed in the right direction. Caltrain
officials had thought it might have taken longer for regulators to come
around, Doty said.
"We were hoping to get there in 18 months and we got there in 10
minutes," Doty said. "It's looking positive so far."
//
Yes, I realize those are only words, and that is a long way from actually
changing the FRA regs, but you have to admit it sounds good.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>Secondly, no, Caltrain is NOT proposing to use subway type vehicles. BART
>>>already parallels Caltrain over much of its route and will probably be
>>>extended to San Jose someday.
>>In the Bay Area, the politics of BART versus Caltrain are vicious, unlike
>>anything seen elsewhere in the country. Can't be explained as a city versus
>>suburban war, since BART is mostly a suburban agency, not that San Francisco
>>is your typical central city and not that Oakland and Berkeley San Jose are
>>suburbs. I have no doubt that BART's ultimate goal is to reach Sacramento
>>if not Los Angeles and Seattle (ultimately Chicago) and wipe all public
>>transportation that competes for the same transit grants off the face of
>>the planet.
>You are probably right about that!
>The Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), who runs the Capitol
>Corridor trains between Sacramento and San Jose is managed by BART.
I don't know how that came about 10 years ago. Didn't Amtrak bid? Or did
BART make an offer that couldn't be refused?
>Caltrain is operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB),
>which, as far as I know, has no connection with BART.
The enemy. BART extended to the airport so Caltrain couldn't.
>Caltrain's advantage is it can get someone to downtown San Francisco a
>hell of a lot faster than BART.
And let's not forget which agency has generally cheaper capital costs.
>>>That is exactly the plan (overhead, not third rail), but that part is not
>>>anything new and does not require the FRA to change their regulations.
>>Is it? I'd assume they'd choose an AC electrification that's incompatible
>>with the Corridor so they'd need substations only every 15 miles or so.
>They plan to use 25 kV AC with 3 substations. Incompatible with what
>corridor, the NEC? Does it matter?
We won't even mention how many different incompatibilities there are in
the electrified northeast.
>Hopefully, it will be compatible with the CA HSR system which will share
>the ROW, if it is ever built.
I didn't know that they'd expressed a preference for propulsion.
>>Damn, you're optimistic. In FRA's world, maybe you get a waiver, but the
>>next agency that uses the grant of waiver in support of its application
>>for very similar circumstances will be denied. Everybody is afraid of
>>getting the same treatment that New Jersey got for Camden-Trenton line.
>Here is the part of the article regarding the use of non-compliant
>light-weight equipment that makes me optimistic . . .
>Yes, I realize those are only words, and that is a long way from actually
>changing the FRA regs, but you have to admit it sounds good.
Sure does, but we've all heard the same empty promises from FRA to apply
common sense before.
Philip Nasadowski
Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> They plan to use 25 kV AC with 3 substations.
They consulted with NJT, who told them to go even higher (27kv or more).
NJT's successfully run their Hoboken division at 27.6 for years now, the
only real difference is the insulation class goes up a bit and the
insulators are noticeably larger as a result.
The Hoboken electrification, for all the criticism it gets, works very
nicely, and is remarkably flexible, to the point where NJT can patch
around almost any type of issue. Pricey, yes, but it's remarkably
robust.
> Incompatible with what corridor, the NEC?
The 25hz portion, and MN (though that could be a tap change). Big deal.
It's incompatible with the BM&LP's 50kv system, too. nobody cares about
THAT, though...
> Does it matter?
No. Theoretically, the wire/pan standards should be, but that assumes a
nationwide electrification, which isn't going to happen anyway. you
might see cali do something in that direction, but unless the Class Is
change their attitude, you won't see it elsewhere.
> Hopefully, it will be compatible with
> the CA HSR system which will share the ROW, if it is ever built.
God, they were talking about that thing when I was in High School, as if
it was just around the corner...
> Here is the part of the article regarding the use of non-compliant
> light-weight equipment that makes me optimistic:
>
> "The agency [Caltrain] had discussions in March and again about three
> weeks ago with top officials in the Federal Railroad Administration and
> Federal Transit Administration about changing those rules, Doty said.
>
> He said the administrators were quickly supportive of Caltrain's goals
> and suggested the agency is headed in the right direction. Caltrain
> officials had thought it might have taken longer for regulators to come
> around, Doty said.
My guess is they either came to their senses, or time seperation waivers
are as easy as Cracker Jack prizes to get, these days. Neither's bad,
they'll both force the rule changes in the end.
> "We were hoping to get there in 18 months and we got there in 10
> minutes," Doty said. "It's looking positive so far."
I suspect Caltrain's ownership of the line was their ace in the hole -
if the FRA didn't cave in, they just boot UP from the line.
> Yes, I realize those are only words, and that is a long way from actually
> changing the FRA regs, but you have to admit it sounds good.
Frankly, if the FRA moves to allow UIC equipment if a line has a
positive stop type signaling system (LZB, Indusi, etc), and ALL TRAINS
use it (which is northeast practice for years now), that's enough to
open things up. Though, IMHO, any passenger line, FRA compliant or not,
in the US, should have such a system anyway. The bigger question is
does the industry pick a standard, reinvent the wheel yet again, or what.
Oh yeah: watch Austin. They're going to be using GTW 2/8s (4/8?) in
service pretty soon. Those trains are pretty freaking remarkable units.
I wouldn't mind seeing the FLIRT hit north America, either...
(Did Stadler like, buy Budd's soul or something?)
Miles Bader
> Caltrain is operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB),
> which, as far as I know, has no connection with BART. Caltrain's
> advantage is it can get someone to downtown San Francisco a hell of a lot
> faster than BART.
How often/late do BART trains run?
When I stayed in SV before (without a car), I was rather dismayed by the
caltrain service: it ran quite rarely and stopped too early in offpeak
times; in general the service really didn't seem acceptable for a
general transporation system.
Of course as far as I know it's not trying to be that -- rather it seems
to be a commuter system for 9-to-5 workers in SF -- but for that reason,
I'm thinking that having a BART line as well would be quite welcome.
-Miles
--
Saa, shall we dance? (from a dance-class advertisement)
Adam H. Kerman
>>They plan to use 25 kV AC with 3 substations.
>They consulted with NJT, who told them to go even higher (27kv or more).
>NJT's successfully run their Hoboken division at 27.6 for years now, the
>only real difference is the insulation class goes up a bit and the
>insulators are noticeably larger as a result.
>The Hoboken electrification, for all the criticism it gets, works very
>nicely, and is remarkably flexible, to the point where NJT can patch
>around almost any type of issue. Pricey, yes, but it's remarkably
>robust.
Can you clarify a bit? What were they criticized for? What's the
advantage of that particular voltage?
>>Incompatible with what corridor, the NEC?
>The 25hz portion, and MN (though that could be a tap change). Big deal.
>It's incompatible with the BM&LP's 50kv system, too. nobody cares about
>THAT, though...
Wouldn't a 50 kV system be better?
>>Hopefully, it will be compatible with the CA HSR system which will share
>>the ROW, if it is ever built.
>God, they were talking about that thing when I was in High School, as if
>it was just around the corner...
Poor Merritt, probably wasted his high school years in school, rather
than roaming the country chasing trains before it was all gone...
>>Here is the part of the article regarding the use of non-compliant
>>light-weight equipment that makes me optimistic:
>> "The agency [Caltrain] had discussions in March and again about three
>>weeks ago with top officials in the Federal Railroad Administration and
>>Federal Transit Administration about changing those rules, Doty said.
>> He said the administrators were quickly supportive of Caltrain's goals
>>and suggested the agency is headed in the right direction. Caltrain
>>officials had thought it might have taken longer for regulators to come
>>around, Doty said.
>My guess is they either came to their senses, or time seperation waivers
>are as easy as Cracker Jack prizes to get, these days. Neither's bad,
>they'll both force the rule changes in the end.
What date did you select in the "When Hell freezes over" pool?
>> "We were hoping to get there in 18 months and we got there in 10
>>minutes," Doty said. "It's looking positive so far."
>I suspect Caltrain's ownership of the line was their ace in the hole -
>if the FRA didn't cave in, they just boot UP from the line.
Of course that's not legal.
>>Yes, I realize those are only words, and that is a long way from actually
>>changing the FRA regs, but you have to admit it sounds good.
>Frankly, if the FRA moves to allow UIC equipment if a line has a
>positive stop type signaling system (LZB, Indusi, etc), and ALL TRAINS
>use it (which is northeast practice for years now), that's enough to
>open things up. Though, IMHO, any passenger line, FRA compliant or not,
>in the US, should have such a system anyway. The bigger question is
>does the industry pick a standard, reinvent the wheel yet again, or what.
You missed the irony in that comment.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Caltrain is operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB),
>>which, as far as I know, has no connection with BART. Caltrain's
>>advantage is it can get someone to downtown San Francisco a hell of a lot
>>faster than BART.
>How often/late do BART trains run?
http://bart.gov/stations/schedules/lineSchedules.asp
BART runs on 20 minute headways, 20 hours a day; originally, it was 15
minute headways. BART's two main routes are Daly City - Pittsburg/Bay
Point and Richmond - Fremont. These are supplemented by Millbrae/SFO -
Dublin/Pleasanton (20-minute headways, 20 hours a day) overlapping all
of the Daly City branch and part of the Fremont branch. Also, Daly City -
Fremont and Daly City - Richmond (20 minute headways, 13 hours a day). During
much of the day, the effective headway on the Daly City branch resembles
respectable rapid transit headways. Oakland is the major transfer station,
but since headways are designed for the limitations of operating in the
Trans Bay Tubes, always anticipate a 20-minute wait when making a connection.
>When I stayed in SV before (without a car), I was rather dismayed by the
>caltrain service: it ran quite rarely and stopped too early in offpeak
>times; in general the service really didn't seem acceptable for a
>general transporation system.
>Of course as far as I know it's not trying to be that -- rather it seems
>to be a commuter system for 9-to-5 workers in SF -- but for that reason,
>I'm thinking that having a BART line as well would be quite welcome.
Caltrains should have much closer headways than it does. Now, I don't
think electrification is necessary in order for them to achieve this,
but they do. Conversely, unless they can get funding (over BART's dead
body) for much closer headways, there is no justification for
electrification.
What BART's map leaves off is the Bay Area's difficult geography, which
would help one to understand why extending BART beyond Daly City was
such a horrid project. Also from the map, you'd notice that Caltrains
serves a highly populated area and was just a stone's through from SFO
and on the correct side of all that incredibly difficult geography,
which no one but a federally funded railroad would have built across.
Whoops! No, according to THAT map, Caltrains does not exist.
As infrequently as Caltrains runs compared to BART, it used to be a lot
worse.
How many times have I run into this same argument. No one can conceive
of respectable headways for commuter rail because commuter rail today
doesn't run at respectable headways. Rapid transit offers the headways
we want, so we favor extending the rapid transit route even though
extending the commuter rail route would be significantly cheaper.
Commuter rail has hourly headways, but it's not due to a technological
impediment.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Commuter rail has hourly headways, but it's not due to a technological
> impediment.
On weekdays, Caltrain runs 48 trains a day, in each direction (96 total
daily trains). During off-peak hours, a train departs (in each direction)
every half hour. During rush hour there is a 5-minute headway between
trains going in the same direction. I an not sure why anyone would think
that was too infrequent.
Weekends has hourly service in each direction from 7 am until midnight.
The big advantage of electrification in not to reduce headway, but to
increase average speed because of the better acceleration of electric
trains. This equates to better equipment utilization, as well as happier
customers who get to their destination faster.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Poor Merritt, probably wasted his high school years in school, rather
> than roaming the country chasing trains before it was all gone...
Yeah, poor me, when I was in HS, I was forced to ride behind Long Island
RR steam engines (at least as far as Jamaica, it was electric from there).
On the NEC, I had to ride behind GG-1s. I guess when I was riding the New
Haven between Boston and NY (1952-1956) it was diesel from Boston to New
Haven, and electric from there into NY (Penn or Central, depending on the
train).
Some time in the mid-50s, my buddy and I took a tour (by automobile)
around the Northeast to photograph steam engines. We drove from Long
Island up through NH/VT, visited the St Johnsbury and Lamoille County (as
well as CV and B&M), then into Canada for the CN and CP, over to Niagara
Falls and into Ohio, where the B&O was running heavy steam, then down to
WV and VA for the VGN and N&W (which was 100% steam, including the Jawn
Henry steam turbine).
I have posted most of the shots from that trip on a.b.p.r.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>On weekdays, Caltrain runs 48 trains a day, in each direction (96 total
>daily trains). During off-peak hours, a train departs (in each direction)
>every half hour.
That's a tremendous improvement. What did SP used to run, five pair of
trains off peak, with no weekend service at all?
>The big advantage of electrification in not to reduce headway,
Not my argument at all. Actually, unless the schedule were improved a
bit more, I don't see how electrification is justified.
>but to increase average speed because of the better acceleration of
>electric trains.
Under a scenario in which Caltrain could purchase off-the-shelf European
consists with minor alterations, then the argument is moot. They'd have
a selection of DMUs to choose from in which acceleration and, more
importantly, deceleration, is improved over today's passenger engines
hauling trailers. They aren't proposing to electrify to use American MUs
in revenue service.
Stephen Sprunk
news:46984972$0$97259$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Caltrains should have much closer headways than it does. Now, I don't
> think electrification is necessary in order for them to achieve this,
> but they do. Conversely, unless they can get funding (over BART's
> dead body) for much closer headways, there is no justification for
> electrification.
> How many times have I run into this same argument. No one can
> conceive of respectable headways for commuter rail because commuter
> rail today doesn't run at respectable headways. Rapid transit offers the
> headways we want, so we favor extending the rapid transit route even
> though extending the commuter rail route would be significantly cheaper.
>
> Commuter rail has hourly headways, but it's not due to a technological
> impediment.
CalTrain already runs respectable headways: 30min off-peak and 5min to 15min
peak. That's comparable to many "rapid transit" systems, such as BART, and
what makes it possible is double (or more) track, not electrification.
The point of electrification and lighter cars is better acceleration, which
provides the higher average speeds necessary to attract more riders. Higher
average speeds may have the side effect of allowing more runs (i.e. lower
headways) with the same amount of equipment, but that's secondary.
Another problem with CalTrain is that it's a single line, not a network of
lines, and is only half-heartedly connected in with the other area transit
systems. There should be more connections to and cross-fares with Muni,
BART, SCVTA, ACE, etc. And, of course, those systems _should_ have all used
compatible technology so that various routes could be interlined, providing
more one-seat ride options. Yes, part of that is/was FRA, but CalTrain and
ACE (and Amtrak) could be mixed, and Muni/BART/SCVTA should have been mixed
as well, and none of that is/was blocked by the FRA or technology but rather
by local politics.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Secondly, no, Caltrain is NOT proposing to use subway type vehicles. BART
> >>>already parallels Caltrain over much of its route and will probably be
> >>>extended to San Jose someday.
>
> >>In the Bay Area, the politics of BART versus Caltrain are vicious, unlike
> >>anything seen elsewhere in the country. Can't be explained as a city versus
> >>suburban war, since BART is mostly a suburban agency, not that San Francisco
> >>is your typical central city and not that Oakland and Berkeley San Jose are
> >>suburbs. I have no doubt that BART's ultimate goal is to reach Sacramento
> >>if not Los Angeles and Seattle (ultimately Chicago) and wipe all public
> >>transportation that competes for the same transit grants off the face of
> >>the planet.
>
> >You are probably right about that!
>
> >The Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), who runs the Capitol
> >Corridor trains between Sacramento and San Jose is managed by BART.
>
> I don't know how that came about 10 years ago. Didn't Amtrak bid? Or did
> BART make an offer that couldn't be refused?
Before that happened, Caltrans (CA DoT) and Amtrak ran the San Joaquins,
Capitol Corridor, and San Diegan trains as "Amtrak California", a
"partnership between Amtrak and Caltrans." As the regional service grew
in ridership and popularity, the Republican governor at the time was
looking for a way to get the state out of the passenger train business and
return Caltrans to a highway department. He came up with the idea of
requiring each of the three regional services to form a Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) of the local counties in which the services operated.
Implicit in that was that the counties would have to assume financial
responsibility for the cost of operating the trains. This was during a
period when the state was forcing all county revenues (property taxes,
etc.) to be sent to the state for the state to get first cut, so it was
clear that the counties had no money to operate passenger trains. It was
really a scheme to shut down the regional services and return to a pure
freeway form of the transportation.
As it turned out only BART took the bait. Always looking for a way to
expand their empire, the jumped at the chance to add the Capitol Corridor
to their operations. With regard to the San Joaquins and San Diegans (now
the Pacific Surfliners), the counties involved had no intention of falling
into that trap, so JPAs for those two services were never formed, and to
this day they are operated by Caltrans (in partnership with Amtrak).
If I remember correctly, California pays Amtrak about $60 million a year
(may be higher now) to operate the regional services in California (6 of
the 22 Pacific Surfliners are part of Amtrak's original network, so Amtrak
pays for those). Caltrans and the CCJPA also pay UP and BNSF for track
improvements to support the regional train service.
Merritt
Stephen Sprunk
news:46983f87$0$97269$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>Incompatible with what corridor, the NEC?
>
>>The 25hz portion, and MN (though that could be a tap change). Big deal.
>>It's incompatible with the BM&LP's 50kv system, too. nobody cares about
>>THAT, though...
>
> Wouldn't a 50 kV system be better?
TGV and ICE trains use 25kV/50Hz (among other things) and Shinkansen uses
25kV/60Hz. Amtrak uses 25kV/60Hz (among other things). 25kV is as close as
there is to a worldwide standard, and if it's sufficient for HSR, it's more
than sufficient for commuter rail. Even if one can justify something
different for technical reasons, the financial benefits of picking a
reasonable standard will almost always win.
50kV would, in theory, be better since it allows for lower currents and thus
lower losses. However, it would also require twice the clearance, larger
insulators, and (I think) larger on-board transformers. The real
competitors to 25kV are the various overhead DC options, but those aren't
likely to be compatible with the future HSR system, and it doesn't seem that
anyone, anywhere is installing new DC for freight-compatible lines. The
only reason to go the DC route would be for interlining with SCVTA and/or
Muni, which doesn't seem to be under consideration.
>>> "We were hoping to get there in 18 months and we got there in 10
>>>minutes," Doty said. "It's looking positive so far."
>
>>I suspect Caltrain's ownership of the line was their ace in the hole -
>>if the FRA didn't cave in, they just boot UP from the line.
>
> Of course that's not legal.
Why not? They own it. There's probably some loophole that allows them to
drop UP's trackage rights if they need to. Or, worst case, they could have
gone for time separation and given UP a window of a few hours overnight (a
la the River Line); it's not like it's a particularly long or
heavily-freight-trafficked line.
For all we know, what CalTrain and the FRA were discussing _was_ time
separation. The FRA has a track record of granting waivers for that, and it
wouldn't be surprising if their experience to date has made them much more
willing to grant (or even encourage) new instances than they were in the
past. It's no longer a "new" concept. What would be "new" is granting
waivers for mixing FRA freight and UIC passenger equipment, and there's no
indication in Merritt's article quote that that's what's under
consideration.
Adam H. Kerman
Did BART's governance expand to another county, or did the Capitol
Corridors Counties form the authority because BART lobbied its home
counties to kick in the necessary subsidy?
So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
never contracted for the operation of that service.
Adam H. Kerman
>The point of electrification and lighter cars is better acceleration, which
>provides the higher average speeds necessary to attract more riders. Higher
>average speeds may have the side effect of allowing more runs (i.e. lower
>headways) with the same amount of equipment, but that's secondary.
I'm making a different argument that electrification probably isn't
justified without more train service. But the big deal is the option to
use European train sets off the shelf with improved acceleration and
decelleration versus today's passenger locomotives. It doesn't
necessarily have to be European MUs under catenary.
>Another problem with CalTrain is that it's a single line, not a network of
>lines, and is only half-heartedly connected in with the other area transit
>systems.
It was my opinion that they should have built a network of rail starting
with what was there (at least in the '30's) in lieu of killing all of it but
the SP service and building BART which is designed to be incompatible with
everything else. Oh, we had a long discussion a few months back about how
my opinion of the capacity of Trans Bay Terminal was wrong and how we are
better off with the tubes rather than the ability to ride a train across
a spectacular set of bridges.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>>>I suspect Caltrain's ownership of the line was their ace in the hole -
>>>if the FRA didn't cave in, they just boot UP from the line.
>>Of course that's not legal.
>Why not? They own it. There's probably some loophole that allows them to
>drop UP's trackage rights if they need to.
I doubt that very much.
>Or, worst case, they could have gone for time separation and given UP a
>window of a few hours overnight (a la the River Line); it's not like it's
>a particularly long or heavily-freight-trafficked line.
Because the windows make for horrid rail operations, since everything on
the railroad must cease operations, and all incompatible passenger
equipment must be off the line before turning it back into a real
railroad. A six-hour "real railroad" window may be required. Time
separation is the Worst Idea Ever, and I don't want to see any more
these imposed.
The point is that even if UP no longer desires to operate the line, the
freight customers retain their rights to be served so a short line
operation would be found to serve them. Funny how in another thread,
someone is poo-poohing the idea of an intermodal terminal on Lawn
Guyland requiring freight to be routed over passenger, yet here, no one
but me ever defends the idea of retain freight on this line.
I don't get the people in this newsgroup much of the time.
>For all we know, what CalTrain and the FRA were discussing _was_ time
>separation. The FRA has a track record of granting waivers for that, and it
>wouldn't be surprising if their experience to date has made them much more
>willing to grant (or even encourage) new instances than they were in the
>past. It's no longer a "new" concept. What would be "new" is granting
>waivers for mixing FRA freight and UIC passenger equipment, and there's no
>indication in Merritt's article quote that that's what's under
>consideration.
That's possible. I don't share Merritt's optimism.
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
>> As it turned out only BART took the bait. Always looking for a way to
>> expand their empire, the jumped at the chance to add the Capitol Corridor
>> to their operations.
>
> Did BART's governance expand to another county, or did the Capitol
> Corridors Counties form the authority because BART lobbied its home
> counties to kick in the necessary subsidy?
The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority contracts with the Bay
Area Rapid Transit District for management services.
The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority contracts with the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation for operating services.
> So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
> never contracted for the operation of that service.
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (formed in 1987)
contracts with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for
operating services.
Before 1980 the Southern Pacific Railroad owned operated service in
the corridor. Between 1980 and 1992 the California Department of
Transportation managed service. Since then the PCJPB has had 100%
responsibility.
Richard Mlynarik
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I suspect Caltrain's ownership of the line was their ace in the hole -
>>>> if the FRA didn't cave in, they just boot UP from the line.
>
>>> Of course that's not legal.
>
>> Why not? They own it. There's probably some loophole that allows them to
>> drop UP's trackage rights if they need to.
>
> I doubt that very much.
Well, you're wrong.
Even if there weren't such an out -- which there is (involving "change
of rail technology", or similar words) --, operating small amounts of
short-line freight in such a corridor is not something that fits
with UPRR's operating practices and business model (well, except that
very successful part of their business which involves "pay us to go
away".)
>> Or, worst case, they could have gone for time separation and given UP a
>> window of a few hours overnight (a la the River Line); it's not like it's
>> a particularly long or heavily-freight-trafficked line.
>
> Because the windows make for horrid rail operations, since everything on
> the railroad must cease operations, and all incompatible passenger
> equipment must be off the line before turning it back into a real
> railroad. A six-hour "real railroad" window may be required. Time
> separation is the Worst Idea Ever, and I don't want to see any more
> these imposed.
There is basically no freight in the corridor -- zero to four trains
(ie 0 to 2 round-trips) per day. Even if time separation weren't
nonsensical, there's so little traffic that (a) time separation _could_
be made to work, maybe; and (b) that losing the freight trains
altogether is an acceptable compromise in terms of maximizing public
good.
We've been over this here several times already, of course.
[...]
>> [...] What would be "new" is granting
>> waivers for mixing FRA freight and UIC passenger equipment, and there's no
>> indication in Merritt's article quote that that's what's under
>> consideration.
>
> That's possible. I don't share Merritt's optimism.
That's (mixed operation via PTC/ATS) is what we're aiming for.
Philip Nasadowski
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Can you clarify a bit? What were they criticized for? What's the
> advantage of that particular voltage?
Cost, not being compatible with the NEC's system. The advantage of
going slightly higher than 25kv? Bit lower current. GE was pushing
25kv on the NEC, but the actual voltage they wanted was 23.5kv.
The Gibbs & Hill study on the Hoboken division identified 3 choices:
* Dual system (3kv / 11kv, or 3kv / 750v dc third rail) EMUs. The
existing 3kv system was basically worn out at that time, and getting
cranky (the substation rectifiers all had different operating points and
behaviors). Questions about the viability of the equipment, popped up.
This was circa 1972. Today, it'd be a non issue, especially with 3kv
inverters getting pretty common.
* High KV (12.5k or 25k) at 60hz. They studied also doing the two
existing Hoboken lines without wires. There were performance concerns
with 12.5kv 60hz.
* Dual mode diesels. This got nowhere.
I'm not sure who or why they bumped the voltage on the high side, but
NJT's always had a group advocating going high. The Gladstone branch
runs over 28kv at the wire. 28.2kv I think.
> Wouldn't a 50 kV system be better?
Yes/no. Lower currents, greater clearances. It's a trade off, as usual.
> What date did you select in the "When Hell freezes over" pool?
About 5 - 10 years from now, when it becomes blindingly obvious to
everyone that the FRA's regulations are a big part of what's holding up
practical passenger rail in the US.
> Of course that's not legal.
Why not? They own the line, they're the state, and they can do it.
Worse case, widen the rails out a few inches. UP can either buy gauge
changing equipment, or go take a hike. Or, just stop maintaining the
connection between the line and the rest of the world. After a few
derailments and the speed dropping to 5mph, UP will get the message.
Heck, haven't a few RRs tried that tick with Amtrak?
william welner
Area for several years, that Californians would be better by combining all
transit under one umbrella agency such as NYS does in its MTA which includes
the NYC subways, the S.I. Railroad, the Metro North Railroad, the LIRR and
bus operations in the Metropolitan Area so that all transit can operated
under one Board to avoid the rivalries mentioned.
Under the MTA, the various systems are ran separately with planning and
capital construction done only by the central MTA Board.
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-99DD...@netnews.asp.att.net...
Merritt Mullen
"william welner" <wwel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It would seem to me, as a native New Yorker who only lived in the SF Bay
> Area for several years, that Californians would be better by combining all
> transit under one umbrella agency such as NYS does in its MTA which includes
> the NYC subways, the S.I. Railroad, the Metro North Railroad, the LIRR and
> bus operations in the Metropolitan Area so that all transit can operated
> under one Board to avoid the rivalries mentioned.
>
> Under the MTA, the various systems are ran separately with planning and
> capital construction done only by the central MTA Board.
And that board is in Albany, isn't it? I don't understand why NY city
transit is run by the state. I am not necessarily objecting to unifying
the systems, just that it is run from a city that is not part of system.
Merritt
Michael Finfer
> In article <mmullen8014-99DD...@netnews.asp.att.net>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> The 25hz portion, and MN (though that could be a tap change). Big deal.
> It's incompatible with the BM&LP's 50kv system, too. nobody cares about
> THAT, though...
>
>> Does it matter?
>
It doesn't. The Arrow III's cannot make the transition at Kearney Jct.,
but the Arrow IV's will presumably be able to, and that problem goes away.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Merritt Mullen
Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> Why not? They own the line, they're the state, and they can do it.
> Worse case, widen the rails out a few inches. UP can either buy gauge
> changing equipment, or go take a hike. Or, just stop maintaining the
> connection between the line and the rest of the world. After a few
> derailments and the speed dropping to 5mph, UP will get the message.
> Heck, haven't a few RRs tried that tick with Amtrak?
One thing that is being overlooked here is that Caltrain runs on the UP
south of San Jose, and plans to extend even further south over the UP.
Currently Caltrain runs as far south as Gilroy, but someday they will
probably extend to Salinas and Monterey. Obviously, if they kicked UP of
the San Jose-San Francisco line, UP would kick Caltrain off of their lines.
In any case, the state of California and UP have a pretty good working
relationship, allowing a lot "Amtrak California" trains to run on UP. It
would not be smart to mess that up.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>As it turned out only BART took the bait. Always looking for a way to
>>>expand their empire, the jumped at the chance to add the Capitol Corridor
>>>to their operations.
>>Did BART's governance expand to another county, or did the Capitol
>>Corridors Counties form the authority because BART lobbied its home
>>counties to kick in the necessary subsidy?
>The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority contracts with the Bay
>Area Rapid Transit District for management services.
>The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority contracts with the
>National Railroad Passenger Corporation for operating services.
I understand who contracts with whom. I don't understand why both a
management and operating contract are necessary, nor do I understand the
politics. One or two counties are outside BART. How did BART's lobbying
result in the establishment of the JPA? My only guess is that BART's
support came with cash from its home counties.
>>So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
>>never contracted for the operation of that service.
>The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (formed in 1987)
>contracts with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for
>operating services.
>Before 1980 the Southern Pacific Railroad owned operated service in
>the corridor. Between 1980 and 1992 the California Department of
>Transportation managed service. Since then the PCJPB has had 100%
>responsibility.
You haven't given me enough information. When did the route become
publicly owned? Was it owned by the state, then turned over to the JPA?
Didn't SP continue to operate it under subsidy before Amtrak took over?
Merritt Mullen
BART's governance does not extend to Sacramento, but the new Capitol
Corridor JPA of course does. What BART did was bid to take over
management of the CCJPA. I don't know the details.
> So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
> never contracted for the operation of that service.
None of the four commuter services in California (Coaster, Metrolink, ACE,
and Caltrain) are operated by Caltrans. They all are operated
independently by different JPA (or an equivalent). For example, Metrolink
is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).
That is why they have different contract operators running and maintaining
the trains. CalTrain happens to be run by Amtrak.
As the first (and then only) commuter rail line in California, Caltrain
has a unique history. When SP petitioned to discontinue commuter service
in 1977, Caltrans (not CalTRAIN), in 1980, initially contracted with SP to
subsidize the service. Caltrans bought new equipment and upgraded the
stations and in 1987, PCJPB was formed by the local counties to manage the
line, instead of Caltrans. By 1991, PCJPB purchased the line and the next
year took over operations, with Amtrak as the contract operator.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>>>>>I suspect Caltrain's ownership of the line was their ace in the hole -
>>>>>if the FRA didn't cave in, they just boot UP from the line.
>>>>Of course that's not legal.
>>>Why not? They own it. There's probably some loophole that allows them to
>>>drop UP's trackage rights if they need to.
>>I doubt that very much.
>Well, you're wrong.
>Even if there weren't such an out -- which there is (involving "change
>of rail technology", or similar words) --, operating small amounts of
>short-line freight in such a corridor is not something that fits
>with UPRR's operating practices and business model (well, except that
>very successful part of their business which involves "pay us to go
>away".)
You are ignoring the rights of the remaining freight customers.
>>>Or, worst case, they could have gone for time separation and given UP a
>>>window of a few hours overnight (a la the River Line); it's not like it's
>>>a particularly long or heavily-freight-trafficked line.
>>Because the windows make for horrid rail operations, since everything on
>>the railroad must cease operations, and all incompatible passenger
>>equipment must be off the line before turning it back into a real
>>railroad. A six-hour "real railroad" window may be required. Time
>>separation is the Worst Idea Ever, and I don't want to see any more
>>these imposed.
>There is basically no freight in the corridor -- zero to four trains
>(ie 0 to 2 round-trips) per day. Even if time separation weren't
>nonsensical, there's so little traffic that (a) time separation _could_
>be made to work, maybe; and (b) that losing the freight trains
>altogether is an acceptable compromise in terms of maximizing public
>good.
>We've been over this here several times already, of course.
And this is different that the proposal for the Long Island situation,
how? Does an improvement in this railroad have the potential for
reducing truck traffic?
There's a conflict between defining "public good" solely in terms of the
benefits a passenger-only railroad may bring. We have lots of those here
in Chicago, coincidentally all parallel to clogged expressways. But
these railroads run no where near capacity.
>>>. . . What would be "new" is granting waivers for mixing FRA freight and
>>>UIC passenger equipment, and there's no indication in Merritt's article
>>>quote that that's what's under consideration.
>>That's possible. I don't share Merritt's optimism.
>That's (mixed operation via PTC/ATS) is what we're aiming for.
Yes, I think we're all assuming that it would be done with signals, if
the regulation is changed.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >On weekdays, Caltrain runs 48 trains a day, in each direction (96 total
> >daily trains). During off-peak hours, a train departs (in each direction)
> >every half hour.
>
> That's a tremendous improvement. What did SP used to run, five pair of
> trains off peak, with no weekend service at all?
>
> >The big advantage of electrification in not to reduce headway,
>
> Not my argument at all. Actually, unless the schedule were improved a
> bit more, I don't see how electrification is justified.
Caltrain's argument is that it will save money. Electric locos are
cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
diesel-electric locos. And the schedule would be improved because of
faster acceleration. And, of course, there is the environmental
consideration.
> >but to increase average speed because of the better acceleration of
> >electric trains.
>
> Under a scenario in which Caltrain could purchase off-the-shelf European
> consists with minor alterations, then the argument is moot. They'd have
> a selection of DMUs to choose from in which acceleration and, more
> importantly, deceleration, is improved over today's passenger engines
> hauling trailers. They aren't proposing to electrify to use American MUs
> in revenue service.
I don't think DMUs can approach the acceleration of EMUs, but maybe
someone with the technical data can comment. European DMUs will be used
on the new Sprinter service between Oceanside and Escondido that will
start this December, and I don't think they have very high performance
compared to EMUs.
Adam H. Kerman
Aren't there two explanations? Pennsy dumped the Long Island on the
state, not the city, so that pretty much set the pattern. The
legislature could have established a special district to receive the
railroad, but didn't.
What doesn't make any sense is having two transit agencies, Metro North
and Long Island, to operate rail within the same state. Chicago's transit
governance is rather fractious, but we don't do this. We're still in the
same situation historically as New York, in that various parts of the rail
system became publicly owned at different times. However, subsidies were
in place, first. And we had nothing resembling the bitter rivalry
between Central and Pennsy continuing after merger.
Adam H. Kerman
>>So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
>>never contracted for the operation of that service.
>None of the four commuter services in California (Coaster, Metrolink, ACE,
>and Caltrain) are operated by Caltrans. They all are operated
>independently by different JPA (or an equivalent). For example, Metrolink
>is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).
>That is why they have different contract operators running and maintaining
>the trains. CalTrain happens to be run by Amtrak.
I don't understand why Metrolink's governance is under different
legislation either.
>As the first (and then only) commuter rail line in California, Caltrain
>has a unique history. When SP petitioned to discontinue commuter service
>in 1977, Caltrans (not CalTRAIN), in 1980, initially contracted with SP to
>subsidize the service. Caltrans bought new equipment and upgraded the
>stations and in 1987, PCJPB was formed by the local counties to manage the
>line, instead of Caltrans. By 1991, PCJPB purchased the line and the next
>year took over operations, with Amtrak as the contract operator.
Thanks; didn't know the dates.
But the service mark Caltrain was thunk up by the state, right? I had a
vague recollection that it was already in place long before governance
changed. And didn't the service mark at one time apply to services
elsewhere in the state?
Jaap van Dorp
service area's of MTA, assigned by county administrators, mayor of New York
and a few by Governor of State.
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-D74B...@netnews.asp.att.net...
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>On weekdays, Caltrain runs 48 trains a day, in each direction (96 total
>>>daily trains). During off-peak hours, a train departs (in each direction)
>>>every half hour.
>>That's a tremendous improvement. What did SP used to run, five pair of
>>trains off peak, with no weekend service at all?
>>>The big advantage of electrification in not to reduce headway,
>>Not my argument at all. Actually, unless the schedule were improved a
>>bit more, I don't see how electrification is justified.
>Caltrain's argument is that it will save money. Electric locos are
>cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
>diesel-electric locos.
This is news to me. Are we still talking about locomotive-hauled, or MU?
Under the FRA inspection regime, locomotive inspection rules apply to
MUs. Anything with motors is a locomotive. The inspection rules also
apply to cab-equipped trailers. European fleet or not, FRA won't waive
these rules.
Metra Electric, for instance, has no trailers. The Highliners had
replaced a fleet 35 years ago that were about 1/2 trailers, although
most were cab-eqipped. Essentially, it's an all-locomotive fleet and it
raises operating costs compared to the diesel-electric fleet.
It's long been said that Metra's operating costs might be reduced if the
former IC service weren't electrified. It hasn't really had rapid transit
levels of service for 50 years, although it's still designed like that. But
there's one major reason why it can't be locomotive hauled.
>And the schedule would be improved because of faster acceleration. And,
>of course, there is the environmental consideration.
Electrification is a trade-off of benefits and costs. Put transportation
between points A and B, while polluting at Point C; not really fair to
Point C. Of course, hydro has negatives for the environment, too.
>>>but to increase average speed because of the better acceleration of
>>>electric trains.
>>Under a scenario in which Caltrain could purchase off-the-shelf European
>>consists with minor alterations, then the argument is moot. They'd have
>>a selection of DMUs to choose from in which acceleration and, more
>>importantly, deceleration, is improved over today's passenger engines
>>hauling trailers. They aren't proposing to electrify to use American MUs
>>in revenue service.
>I don't think DMUs can approach the acceleration of EMUs, but maybe
>someone with the technical data can comment. European DMUs will be used
>on the new Sprinter service between Oceanside and Escondido that will
>start this December, and I don't think they have very high performance
>compared to EMUs.
But that's the fair comparison, since new regulations are assumed in
this scenario. One isn't going to be that much better than the other.
Unless something like the Nippon-Sharyo design for the fleet that will
replace the Highliners is under consideration and I've misunderstood
what is being considered with no regulation change? The Highliners don't
have dynamic braking and don't have powerful enough traction motors for
quick acceleration, so their performance was very poor compared to the
original Pullman fleet they replaced. The N-S cars have more powerful
motors and dynamic braking.
dpel...@my-deja.com
> In article <46983f87$0$97269$892e7...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
> > Of course that's not legal.
>
> Why not? They own the line, they're the state, and they can do it.
> Worse case, widen the rails out a few inches. UP can either buy gauge
> changing equipment, or go take a hike. Or, just stop maintaining the
> connection between the line and the rest of the world. After a few
> derailments and the speed dropping to 5mph, UP will get the message.
If UP has the right to serve freight customers on the line, then they
can't be kicked off without the approval of the STB. Period. Even if
UP _wants_ to pack up and go home, they can't do so without the
approval of the STB. It's the same as any other abandonment.
Dan
Stephen Sprunk
news:4698faf0$0$97227$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>Caltrain's argument is that it will save money. Electric locos are
>>cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
>>diesel-electric locos.
>
> This is news to me. Are we still talking about locomotive-hauled, or MU?
>
> Under the FRA inspection regime, locomotive inspection rules apply to
> MUs. Anything with motors is a locomotive. The inspection rules also
> apply to cab-equipped trailers. European fleet or not, FRA won't waive
> these rules.
Do those FRA inspection rules apply to non-FRA equipment operated under a
time-separation waiver? I thought the River Line and SD Trolley were exempt
from jumping through those hoops just like they were from all of the other
FRA stupidity...
> Metra Electric, for instance, has no trailers. The Highliners had
> replaced a fleet 35 years ago that were about 1/2 trailers, although
> most were cab-eqipped. Essentially, it's an all-locomotive fleet and it
> raises operating costs compared to the diesel-electric fleet.
What you're saying isn't a problem with electrification per se, but rather
the problem with trying to run MU sets under FRA regulations. Electric
push-pull would still be cheaper to maintain than diesel push-pull, like EMU
would be cheaper than DMU. I don't have the stats to say whether EMU is
cheaper or more expensive than diesel push-pull.
> It's long been said that Metra's operating costs might be reduced if the
> former IC service weren't electrified. It hasn't really had rapid transit
> levels of service for 50 years, although it's still designed like that.
> But
> there's one major reason why it can't be locomotive hauled.
What's stopping them from doing electric push-pull, if that's cheaper than
EMU?
>>And the schedule would be improved because of faster acceleration. And,
>>of course, there is the environmental consideration.
>
> Electrification is a trade-off of benefits and costs. Put transportation
> between points A and B, while polluting at Point C; not really fair to
> Point C. Of course, hydro has negatives for the environment, too.
Burning diesel in the middle of a congested city that already has pollution
problems is bad. Using nuclear, wind, hydro or, worst case, burning fossil
fuels in some other location, where the pollution is easier to control due
to a fixed plant, is a net benefit.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Caltrain's argument is that it will save money. Electric locos are
>>>cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
>>>diesel-electric locos.
>>This is news to me. Are we still talking about locomotive-hauled, or MU?
>>Under the FRA inspection regime, locomotive inspection rules apply to
>>MUs. Anything with motors is a locomotive. The inspection rules also
>>apply to cab-equipped trailers. European fleet or not, FRA won't waive
>>these rules.
>Do those FRA inspection rules apply to non-FRA equipment operated under a
>time-separation waiver?
I don't know. Good question.
>I thought the River Line and SD Trolley were exempt from jumping through
>those hoops just like they were from all of the other FRA stupidity...
This rule isn't stupidity.
>>Metra Electric, for instance, has no trailers. The Highliners had
>>replaced a fleet 35 years ago that were about 1/2 trailers, although
>>most were cab-eqipped. Essentially, it's an all-locomotive fleet and it
>>raises operating costs compared to the diesel-electric fleet.
>What you're saying isn't a problem with electrification per se, but rather
>the problem with trying to run MU sets under FRA regulations.
Quite. Same would apply to diesel MU consists. Unless they are trailers
with no cabs, inspection rules apply.
Politically, I think it would be absurd for Caltrain to seek a waiver
from complying with the inspection regime. The important thing is
getting FRA to repeal rules that disallow the equipment.
>Electric push-pull would still be cheaper to maintain than diesel push-pull,
>like EMU would be cheaper than DMU. I don't have the stats to say whether
>EMU is cheaper or more expensive than diesel push-pull.
Guys, I just don't understand why you conclude this.
>>It's long been said that Metra's operating costs might be reduced if the
>>former IC service weren't electrified. It hasn't really had rapid transit
>>levels of service for 50 years, although it's still designed like that.
>>But there's one major reason why it can't be locomotive hauled.
>What's stopping them from doing electric push-pull, if that's cheaper than
>EMU?
Tiny terminal, restricted by office buildings and the station throat the
switches of which really cannot be relocated.
>>>And the schedule would be improved because of faster acceleration. And,
>>>of course, there is the environmental consideration.
>>Electrification is a trade-off of benefits and costs. Put transportation
>>between points A and B, while polluting at Point C; not really fair to
>>Point C. Of course, hydro has negatives for the environment, too.
>Burning diesel in the middle of a congested city that already has pollution
>problems is bad. Using nuclear, wind, hydro or, worst case, burning fossil
>fuels in some other location, where the pollution is easier to control due
>to a fixed plant, is a net benefit.
Do you recall, they tried putting massive coal plants in the desert in
the early '70's, but they were all closed due to air quality even though
the direct impact was only on a few people. Relocating pollution isn't
fair. Nuclear is clean; waste disposal isn't. Wind turbines affect
birds. There are no easy answers, only tradeoffs to consider.
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
> management and operating contract are necessary, nor do I understand the
> politics. One or two counties are outside BART. How did BART's lobbying
> result in the establishment of the JPA? My only guess is that BART's
> support came with cash from its home counties.
The CCJPA is independent of the BARTD. As far as I know, BARTD had
nothing to do with the establishment of the former. As far as I know,
the BARTD counties which are not part of the CCJPA do not support
(ie subsidize staff, salaries and overhead associated with) the CCJPA.
>>> So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
>>> never contracted for the operation of that service.
>
>> The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (formed in 1987)
>> contracts with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for
>> operating services.
>
>> Before 1980 the Southern Pacific Railroad owned operated service in
>> the corridor. Between 1980 and 1992 the California Department of
>> Transportation managed service. Since then the PCJPB has had 100%
>> responsibility.
>
> You haven't given me enough information. When did the route become
> publicly owned? Was it owned by the state, then turned over to the JPA?
> Didn't SP continue to operate it under subsidy before Amtrak took over?
Google.
1991. No. Yes.
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
>> cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
>> diesel-electric locos.
>
> This is news to me. Are we still talking about locomotive-hauled, or MU?
>
> Under the FRA inspection regime, locomotive inspection rules apply to
> MUs. Anything with motors is a locomotive. The inspection rules also
> apply to cab-equipped trailers. European fleet or not, FRA won't waive
> these rules.
Wrong. (Well, probably wrong. Who knows what the future will bring?
I know: generally, nothing good.)
Richard Mlynarik
> It would seem to me, as a native New Yorker who only lived in the SF Bay
> Area for several years, that Californians would be better by combining all
> transit under one umbrella agency such as NYS does in its MTA which includes
> the NYC subways, the S.I. Railroad, the Metro North Railroad, the LIRR and
> bus operations in the Metropolitan Area so that all transit can operated
> under one Board to avoid the rivalries mentioned.
>
> Under the MTA, the various systems are ran separately with planning and
> capital construction done only by the central MTA Board.
That's the way it's done in the SF Bay Area also.
Planning is done by Bechtel and Parsons Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade &
Douglas, using wholly own subsidiaries Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and the various county Congestion Management Agencies as
intermediaries.
The system works very well.
Stephen Sprunk
news:46992644$0$97246$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>Do those FRA inspection rules apply to non-FRA equipment operated under a
>>time-separation waiver?
>
> I don't know. Good question.
>
>>I thought the River Line and SD Trolley were exempt from jumping through
>>those hoops just like they were from all of the other FRA stupidity...
>
> This rule isn't stupidity.
Yes, it is. Non-FRA light and heavy rail systems don't have to comply, so
why should light rail -- using identical equipment -- have to do so solely
because it's operating on FRA tracks?
The mechanical soundness of an MU's engine or a cab coach's controls has
nothing to do with what kind of track the car happens to be sitting on.
Either the equipment is reliable/safe or it isn't. If the FRA is willing to
let non-FRA cars onto mainline tracks (either via time separation or ATP),
they should let the operating agency maintain them however they see fit.
They do just fine maintaining heavy and other light railcars without the
FRA's "help".
> Politically, I think it would be absurd for Caltrain to seek a waiver
> from complying with the inspection regime.
Why? Why should CalTrain have to deal with an FRA "inspection regime" when
BART and SCVTA, using equipment not very different, don't have to? They do
whatever maintenance and inspections are necessary to keep the equipment
running safely and efficiently; CalTrain should be able to do the same.
> The important thing is getting FRA to repeal rules that disallow the
> equipment.
Yes, that's the most important thing. However, the goal of doing this is
providing faster, more cost-effective service. The FRA has shackled
passenger trains under its jurisdiction with oppressive "safety", crewing,
and maintenance regulations intended for mainline freights. You can't make
much gain if you only take away one part; of course that's better than
nothing, and it's a good first step, but don't fool yourself that it's
anywhere near sufficient.
>>Electric push-pull would still be cheaper to maintain than diesel
>>push-pull,
>>like EMU would be cheaper than DMU. I don't have the stats to say whether
>>EMU is cheaper or more expensive than diesel push-pull.
>
> Guys, I just don't understand why you conclude this.
There are more things to inspect in a diesel-electric loco or DMU engine
than there are in a pure electric loco or EMU, respectively. Electrics have
fewer moving parts, less complexity, and are significantly more reliable
(unless the equipment was crap to begin with, but we're talking quality
off-the-shelf UIC stuff).
>>>It's long been said that Metra's operating costs might be reduced if the
>>>former IC service weren't electrified. It hasn't really had rapid transit
>>>levels of service for 50 years, although it's still designed like that.
>>>But there's one major reason why it can't be locomotive hauled.
>
>>What's stopping them from doing electric push-pull, if that's cheaper than
>>EMU?
>
> Tiny terminal, restricted by office buildings and the station throat the
> switches of which really cannot be relocated.
Granted I'm not familiar with the operation, but that sounds like a limit on
the length of a consist, not the type of traction.
>>Burning diesel in the middle of a congested city that already has
>>pollution
>>problems is bad. Using nuclear, wind, hydro or, worst case, burning
>>fossil
>>fuels in some other location, where the pollution is easier to control due
>>to a fixed plant, is a net benefit.
>
> Do you recall, they tried putting massive coal plants in the desert in
> the early '70's, but they were all closed due to air quality even though
> the direct impact was only on a few people. Relocating pollution isn't
> fair. Nuclear is clean; waste disposal isn't. Wind turbines affect
> birds. There are no easy answers, only tradeoffs to consider.
Right. You have to trade the environmental cost of burning diesel
inefficiently in a moving plant within an already-congested city vs. the
environmental cost of some other source of energy that can be more efficient
and more easily cleaned somewhere unpopulated. As I said, you have to look
at the _net_ benefit to the whole environment. Looking at point problems
doesn't help.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On weekdays, Caltrain runs 48 trains a day, in each direction (96 total
> >>>daily trains). During off-peak hours, a train departs (in each direction)
> >>>every half hour.
>
> >>That's a tremendous improvement. What did SP used to run, five pair of
> >>trains off peak, with no weekend service at all?
Don't know.
> >>>The big advantage of electrification in not to reduce headway,
>
> >>Not my argument at all. Actually, unless the schedule were improved a
> >>bit more, I don't see how electrification is justified.
Caltrain estimates a savings of 5 minutes between San Jose and San
Francisco, but with longer trains and greater capacity per train.
> >Caltrain's argument is that it will save money. Electric locos are
> >cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
> >diesel-electric locos.
>
> This is news to me. Are we still talking about locomotive-hauled, or MU?
Well, I had thought that the plan was initially to acquire FRA-compliant
electric locos to use with the current rolling stock, with EMUs being
further in the future. I just rechecked the most recent data and it looks
like, with the go-ahead from the FRA, the planning is now to replace all
the existing rolling stock with FRA non-compliant EMUs.
This is my understanding based on reports, etc., that are available on
line. Don't take it as gospel.
> Under the FRA inspection regime, locomotive inspection rules apply to
> MUs. Anything with motors is a locomotive. The inspection rules also
> apply to cab-equipped trailers. European fleet or not, FRA won't waive
> these rules.
Yes, I know about that, but I think they plan to operate by FTA, not FRA
rules (for example, the imminent Sprinter DMU service and the existing San
Diego Trolley service operate to FTA rules, with FRA waiver). I notice
Caltrain has taken to calling the proposed EMU vehicles "rapid transit
vehicles."
Caltrain seems to think that EMUs are still the better economic choice and
will be cheaper to operate and maintain than the current diesel-hauled
fleet.
> Metra Electric, for instance, has no trailers. The Highliners had
> replaced a fleet 35 years ago that were about 1/2 trailers, although
> most were cab-eqipped. Essentially, it's an all-locomotive fleet and it
> raises operating costs compared to the diesel-electric fleet.
If you can operate longer trains with higher rider capacity with EMUs,
that reduces operating costs. If en route time is reduced, that reduces
operating costs. In Caltrain's case, they think fuel savings will be a
big factor. Obviously, a lot of factors have to be weighed before coming
to an economic conclusion..
> >And the schedule would be improved because of faster acceleration. And,
> >of course, there is the environmental consideration.
>
> Electrification is a trade-off of benefits and costs. Put transportation
> between points A and B, while polluting at Point C; not really fair to
> Point C. Of course, hydro has negatives for the environment, too.
Except the pollution at point C can be much less, because it is more
easily controlled. All of California's electricity that is produced
in-state (except for emergency plants) is either hydro, nuclear, solar,
wind, or geo-thermal. Of course, California imports a lot of power, and
that comes from fossil-burning plants.
I don't agree that hydro has negatives for the environment (any more than
any human activity has, that is). It changes the environment, which could
be for the better or worse, but is not a source of continuous polluting
emissions, like a fuel burning plant.
<snip>
> But that's the fair comparison, since new regulations are assumed in
> this scenario. One isn't going to be that much better than the other.
Comparing the performance of Sprinter DMU with what Caltrain plans is not
a fair comparison. Even with old fashioned electrical commuter services
(say the LIRR), when you have frequent stops, electric wins out over
diesel because of improved acceleration. Of course, you can screw that up
with poor design.
> Unless something like the Nippon-Sharyo design for the fleet that will
> replace the Highliners is under consideration and I've misunderstood
> what is being considered with no regulation change? The Highliners don't
> have dynamic braking and don't have powerful enough traction motors for
> quick acceleration, so their performance was very poor compared to the
> original Pullman fleet they replaced. The N-S cars have more powerful
> motors and dynamic braking.
Caltrain is a long way from choosing a particular vendor or a particular
model EMU. What Caltrain wants it the ability to choose from the best of
European and Asian EMU designs. They definitely are planning on higher
capacity trains with improved acceleration. They make the point that this
technology is not available in the U.S. and cannot be compliant with FRA
regulations.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
> news:4698faf0$0$97227$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> > Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>Caltrain's argument is that it will save money. Electric locos are
> >>cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
> >>diesel-electric locos.
> >
> > This is news to me. Are we still talking about locomotive-hauled, or MU?
> >
> > Under the FRA inspection regime, locomotive inspection rules apply to
> > MUs. Anything with motors is a locomotive. The inspection rules also
> > apply to cab-equipped trailers. European fleet or not, FRA won't waive
> > these rules.
>
> Do those FRA inspection rules apply to non-FRA equipment operated under a
> time-separation waiver? I thought the River Line and SD Trolley were exempt
> from jumping through those hoops just like they were from all of the other
> FRA stupidity...
I believe you are correct, and that it applies the Oceanside-Escondido DMU
service as well.
Merritt
John Mara
> Do you recall, they tried putting massive coal plants in the desert in
> the early '70's, but they were all closed due to air quality even though
> the direct impact was only on a few people. Relocating pollution isn't
> fair. Nuclear is clean; waste disposal isn't. Wind turbines affect
> birds. There are no easy answers, only tradeoffs to consider.
Put wind turbines in cities. Most cities could do with a few less pigeons.
John Mara
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
> >>never contracted for the operation of that service.
>
> >None of the four commuter services in California (Coaster, Metrolink, ACE,
> >and Caltrain) are operated by Caltrans. They all are operated
> >independently by different JPA (or an equivalent). For example, Metrolink
> >is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).
> >That is why they have different contract operators running and maintaining
> >the trains. CalTrain happens to be run by Amtrak.
>
> I don't understand why Metrolink's governance is under different
> legislation either.
Everybody is under the same legislation. I guess I don't understand your
comment. If you mean a JPA vs. a JPB, I think that is a distinction
without a difference.
In San Diego, since the Coaster commuter service is all within one county,
the service is operated by the North County Transit Distict (they also
operate buses and will operate Sprinter as well).
The management and control of each system is tailored to fit local needs.
What I don't understand is why a city like New York has its transit system
run by the state up in Albany. Metro-North does not even reach Albany.
<snip>
> But the service mark Caltrain was thunk up by the state, right?
> I had a
> vague recollection that it was already in place long before governance
> changed.
Yes. Once Caltrans started subsidizing the SP service, and providing new
rolling stock, it named the service "CalTrain" (with a capital "T"). I
think when PCJPB took over, they changed it to "Caltrain" (lower-case "t").
> And didn't the service mark at one time apply to services
> elsewhere in the state?
Not as far as I know. Except for a short, abortive service between Orange
County and L.A., run with streamliner equipment, there were no other
commuter services in the state until Metrolink started operation in 1992.
I think Metrolink borrowed some Caltrain cars for a while, however.
The regional services managed by Caltrans were always called "Amtrak
California" and never "Caltrain."
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Richard Mlynarik <M...@POBox.COM> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> >>>As it turned out only BART took the bait. Always looking for a way to
> >>>expand their empire, the jumped at the chance to add the Capitol Corridor
> >>>to their operations.
>
> >>Did BART's governance expand to another county, or did the Capitol
> >>Corridors Counties form the authority because BART lobbied its home
> >>counties to kick in the necessary subsidy?
>
> >The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority contracts with the Bay
> >Area Rapid Transit District for management services.
>
> >The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority contracts with the
> >National Railroad Passenger Corporation for operating services.
>
> I understand who contracts with whom. I don't understand why both a
> management and operating contract are necessary, nor do I understand the
> politics. One or two counties are outside BART. How did BART's lobbying
> result in the establishment of the JPA? My only guess is that BART's
> support came with cash from its home counties.
BART has nothing to do (overtly, at least) with the establishment of a
JPA. That was an edict from the state. Once the affected counties
(actually six local transit agencies in eight counties) established the
CCJPA, then they contracted with BART to manage the CCJPA. You are right,
that was unnecessary, the CCJPA normally would have been its own
management, but perhaps all along BART was in the background pulling
strings.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"Jaap van Dorp" <GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:
> The MTA board is not in Albany , its in New York and consist of people from
> service area's of MTA, assigned by county administrators, mayor of New York
> and a few by Governor of State.
Thanks, that makes more sense. As I understand it, it is still a state
board, correct, and the state has some say over operations/management? Or
is the state just the referee between the local authorities.
How about other transit districts in the state, say Buffalo. Does the
state sit on that board as well?
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Aren't there two explanations? Pennsy dumped the Long Island on the
> state, not the city, so that pretty much set the pattern. The
> legislature could have established a special district to receive the
> railroad, but didn't.
As I understand it, in 1965, the NY state legislature established the
Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority (MCTA) to operate commuter
services in the NY city area, including the LIRR and what is now
Metro-North. In 1966, the MCTA bought the LIRR from the PRR. In 1968,
MCTA took over the NY City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and changed its name
from MCTA to MTA.
> What doesn't make any sense is having two transit agencies, Metro North
> and Long Island, to operate rail within the same state.
True, but that does not mean it necessarily makes sense for the same
agency to run the NYC buses and subways (and bridges, I believe). Nor
does it mean the state should be on the board.
Merritt
Philip Nasadowski
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> This is news to me. Are we still talking about locomotive-hauled, or MU?
Either. If Caltrain's smart, They'll set a performance standard (X
acceleration, Y braking, Z passengers, etc), a safety spec (i.e. UIC),
and let the vendors figure out how to meet it.
I'm sure there's some UIC push/pull trains that can blow the doors off
American ones, and there's plenty of fast UIC EMUs.
Realize that the MK study determined a 5 minute time savings using the
M-6 car as a basis. The M-6's performance is an absolute joke (The
Arrow IIIs will blow them off the rails in terms of 0-80), but it was
still enough more than a diesel hauled train to make a noticeable
difference. Versus Arrow III level equipment, the difference is
greater, and compared to a FLIRT or such, even larger.
IIRC, the MK study also concluded that in local service, Caltrain's
diesels couldn't even reach track speed between stations, but even an
AEM-7 hauled train, COULD. The AEM-7/ALP-44 really isn't suited for
commuter service, either.
> Under the FRA inspection regime, locomotive inspection rules apply to
> MUs. Anything with motors is a locomotive. The inspection rules also
> apply to cab-equipped trailers. European fleet or not, FRA won't waive
> these rules.
What's the big deal about inspections anyway? Cab/locomotive/whatever,
the train ought to be shopped every few 90 or so days anyway. In any
case, not every car has to be a motor, not every car has to be a cab.
IIRC, in Europe, most EMUs are more like motor trailer sets anyway.
>
> Metra Electric, for instance, has no trailers. The Highliners had
> replaced a fleet 35 years ago that were about 1/2 trailers, although
> most were cab-eqipped. Essentially, it's an all-locomotive fleet and it
> raises operating costs compared to the diesel-electric fleet.
So, Metra doesn't know how to run a RR. This is news?
> It's long been said that Metra's operating costs might be reduced if the
> former IC service weren't electrified. It hasn't really had rapid transit
> levels of service for 50 years, although it's still designed like that. But
> there's one major reason why it can't be locomotive hauled.
Yeah, their woefully inadequate 1.5Kv system. They should have gone to
3kv with the new cars. Oh well...
The highliners are the wrong equipment for an R/T service, but Metra
buys them because they're stuck in the rut of those god awful galley
cars, which nobody outside of Illinois will tolerate (VRE had to make
excuses for their purchase of them 2nd hand after they went into
service).
> Electrification is a trade-off of benefits and costs.
Duh. What isn't?
> Put transportation
> between points A and B, while polluting at Point C; not really fair to
> Point C. Of course, hydro has negatives for the environment, too.
Caltrain's EIS determined the pollution in Pt C would be something like
1/10th diesels, which isn't a surprise, given that US diesel locomotives
are about as dirty as you can get and still meet EPA regulations (though
that's finally changing, the EPA's pretty much gone on record as saying
the next round of cuts for rail diesels WILL require the aftertreatment
virtually every other diesel out there's had for years now).
> Unless something like the Nippon-Sharyo design for the fleet that will
> replace the Highliners is under consideration and I've misunderstood
> what is being considered with no regulation change?
No. Nobody with 1/2 a brain buys junk like that for a real service.
> The Highliners don't have dynamic braking and don't have powerful enough
> traction motors for quick acceleration, so their performance was very poor
> compared to the original Pullman fleet they replaced.
Their performance isa a joke, almost as bad as the castrated M-1s the
LIRR ran (intentionaly limited to the P2 rate (370 amps, about
1.2mph/s), to reduce demand charges from the electric co).
> The N-S cars have more powerful motors and dynamic braking.
Big whoop. They're likely more obnoxiously overweight than the
highliners. In any case, can they do 0 - 80mph in under a minute? Two?
Three?
randee
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
>
> Do you recall, they tried putting massive coal plants in the desert in
> the early '70's, but they were all closed due to air quality even though
> the direct impact was only on a few people. Relocating pollution isn't
> fair. Nuclear is clean; waste disposal isn't. Wind turbines affect
> birds. There are no easy answers, only tradeoffs to consider.
Actually, the big Four Corners coal plant out in Fruitland NM still
provides some of my electricity. This 2000 Megawatt plant is still one
of the largest in the US. Other large coal plants in the desert are the
Navajo, near Page, Arizona and the Cholla near Holbrook. However most
of the other, more recent, large power plants in the southwestern
deserts are natural gas fueled (thus providing competition for gas for
home heating).
Judging from the view out the window the last time I rode it, the IC
(Metra) Electric line must no longer handle any freight trains as it
appears all the customers that used to be on the west side of the
passenger tracks have disappeared. With no freight trains needing to
cross the electric line (the freight tracks are east of the passenger
tracks), I would assume Metra could use UIC equipment if they desired as
it appears to me now to be essentially an isolated electric line. Even
when there were freight customers they were all, or at least mostly,
served in the off hours for commuter operation.
--
wf.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
>>>>never contracted for the operation of that service.
>>>None of the four commuter services in California (Coaster, Metrolink, ACE,
>>>and Caltrain) are operated by Caltrans. They all are operated
>>>independently by different JPA (or an equivalent). For example, Metrolink
>>>is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).
>>>That is why they have different contract operators running and maintaining
>>>the trains. CalTrain happens to be run by Amtrak.
>>I don't understand why Metrolink's governance is under different
>>legislation either.
>Everybody is under the same legislation. I guess I don't understand your
>comment. If you mean a JPA vs. a JPB, I think that is a distinction
>without a difference.
I wasn't asking that. I assume each JPA has a JPB. But you said
Metrolink is operated by a Regional Rail Authority, not a JPA.
>In San Diego, since the Coaster commuter service is all within one county,
>the service is operated by the North County Transit Distict (they also
>operate buses and will operate Sprinter as well).
Are you implying that the boards of transit districts are appointed by
counties? Are they coterminous with counties?
Thanks for the information.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>It's long been said that Metra's operating costs might be reduced if the
>>>>former IC service weren't electrified. It hasn't really had rapid transit
>>>>levels of service for 50 years, although it's still designed like that.
>>>>But there's one major reason why it can't be locomotive hauled.
>>>What's stopping them from doing electric push-pull, if that's cheaper than
>>>EMU?
>>Tiny terminal, restricted by office buildings and the station throat the
>>switches of which really cannot be relocated.
>Granted I'm not familiar with the operation, but that sounds like a limit on
>the length of a consist, not the type of traction.
Same thing. Given the confined area, locomotive-hauled would require losing
a passenger car in each consist. And there's no ventilation down there
for diesels, so that would have to be corrected too. There are merely five
gates. They run six-car MU trains on the main line to the south suburbs and
four-car trains on the two branches. 8 cars can berth at one gate, so they
typically have two four-car consists stopping there. The other gates berth
six car consists. There's one seven-car consist run to the south suburbs;
a few of the platforms are barely long enough. They have to clear the 8-car
gate of any consists to berth this train.
Some of the diesel-hauled lines run 11-car consists on certain trains.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Metra Electric, for instance, has no trailers. The Highliners had
>>replaced a fleet 35 years ago that were about 1/2 trailers, although
>>most were cab-eqipped. Essentially, it's an all-locomotive fleet and it
>>raises operating costs compared to the diesel-electric fleet.
>So, Metra doesn't know how to run a RR. This is news?
Not sure what your complaint is. Metra didn't exist when the Highliners
were chosen. The south suburbs organized a mass transit district to
receive the federal grant for equipment purchase and the railroad came
up with the local match. The railroad chose the equipment design.
What's your prejudice against MU?
>>It's long been said that Metra's operating costs might be reduced if the
>>former IC service weren't electrified. It hasn't really had rapid transit
>>levels of service for 50 years, although it's still designed like that. But
>>there's one major reason why it can't be locomotive hauled.
>Yeah, their woefully inadequate 1.5Kv system. They should have gone to
>3kv with the new cars. Oh well...
And what would the South Shore have done?
>The highliners are the wrong equipment for an R/T service,
I've explained why they aren't rapid transit equipment. It's not for the
reasons that you think. The Pullman fleet they replaced were essentially
rapid transit cars, but only about half were motor cars.
>but Metra buys them
No, Metra did not buy them. Metra inherited them.
>because they're stuck in the rut of those god awful galley cars,
Hm. I wish we had galley cars. That would find a new market!
>which nobody outside of Illinois will tolerate (VRE had to make excuses
>for their purchase of them 2nd hand after they went into service).
We need the capacity. The cars still carry more people than lozenge
cars.
>>Electrification is a trade-off of benefits and costs.
>Duh. What isn't?
I was objecting to "electric power doesn't pollute". It just pollutes
elsewhere.
>>Unless something like the Nippon-Sharyo design for the fleet that will
>>replace the Highliners is under consideration and I've misunderstood
>>what is being considered with no regulation change?
>No. Nobody with 1/2 a brain buys junk like that for a real service.
>>The Highliners don't have dynamic braking and don't have powerful enough
>>traction motors for quick acceleration, so their performance was very poor
>>compared to the original Pullman fleet they replaced.
>Their performance isa a joke, almost as bad as the castrated M-1s the
>LIRR ran (intentionaly limited to the P2 rate (370 amps, about
>1.2mph/s), to reduce demand charges from the electric co).
>>The N-S cars have more powerful motors and dynamic braking.
>Big whoop. They're likely more obnoxiously overweight than the
>highliners. In any case, can they do 0 - 80mph in under a minute? Two?
>Three?
If you don't know the specs, why are you objecting?
Adam H. Kerman
>>Aren't there two explanations? Pennsy dumped the Long Island on the
>>state, not the city, so that pretty much set the pattern. The
>>legislature could have established a special district to receive the
>>railroad, but didn't.
>As I understand it, in 1965, the NY state legislature established the
>Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority (MCTA) to operate commuter
>services in the NY city area, including the LIRR and what is now
>Metro-North. In 1966, the MCTA bought the LIRR from the PRR. In 1968,
>MCTA took over the NY City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and changed its name
>from MCTA to MTA.
I'm not going to look it up, but it sounds right. I stand corrected.
>>What doesn't make any sense is having two transit agencies, Metro North
>>and Long Island, to operate rail within the same state.
>True, but that does not mean it necessarily makes sense for the same
>agency to run the NYC buses and subways (and bridges, I believe). Nor
>does it mean the state should be on the board.
Why shouldn't the state get appointments? If the entire subsidy were
raised locally, then all local appointments would make sense. But that's
not what happens.
I still think you were right the first time when you said MTA was in
Albany. They're not, but I believe that their budget is set through the
state budget process. Even if they aren't literally part of state
government (a point that rather confuses me), for budget purposes, they
might as well be.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Aren't there two explanations? Pennsy dumped the Long Island on the
> >>state, not the city, so that pretty much set the pattern. The
> >>legislature could have established a special district to receive the
> >>railroad, but didn't.
>
> >As I understand it, in 1965, the NY state legislature established the
> >Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority (MCTA) to operate commuter
> >services in the NY city area, including the LIRR and what is now
> >Metro-North. In 1966, the MCTA bought the LIRR from the PRR. In 1968,
> >MCTA took over the NY City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and changed its name
> >from MCTA to MTA.
>
> I'm not going to look it up, but it sounds right. I stand corrected.
I got it from Wikipedia, so take it for what it is worth.
>
> >>What doesn't make any sense is having two transit agencies, Metro North
> >>and Long Island, to operate rail within the same state.
>
> >True, but that does not mean it necessarily makes sense for the same
> >agency to run the NYC buses and subways (and bridges, I believe). Nor
> >does it mean the state should be on the board.
>
> Why shouldn't the state get appointments? If the entire subsidy were
> raised locally, then all local appointments would make sense. But that's
> not what happens.
Since the state gets its money from the feds, should they be on every
local transit agency board as well?
> I still think you were right the first time when you said MTA was in
> Albany. They're not, but I believe that their budget is set through the
> state budget process. Even if they aren't literally part of state
> government (a point that rather confuses me), for budget purposes, they
> might as well be.
Yes. The thing that bugs me, is New York City is bigger in many ways that
the rest of New York state, and supplies most of the revenue to the state.
the Mayor of NYC is a more important figure than the governor of NYS. I
don't think the state should be involved in telling New York City how to
run its subways and buses. When I lived on Long Island, even through I
lived in Suffolk County, 50 miles from the city, we felt very influenced
by New York City. As to the rest of the state ("upstate"), it was like
some place out in the midwest somewhere.
Probably just a personal bias.
Merritt
dpel...@my-deja.com
> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
> Judging from the view out the window the last time I rode it, the IC
> (Metra) Electric line must no longer handle any freight trains as it
> appears all the customers that used to be on the west side of the
> passenger tracks have disappeared. With no freight trains needing to
> cross the electric line (the freight tracks are east of the passenger
> tracks), I would assume Metra could use UIC equipment if they desired as
> it appears to me now to be essentially an isolated electric line. Even
It's not isolated from the South Shore line, which does handle a
significant amount of freight. I don't know whether anyone has ever
talked to the FRA about getting a waiver for non-compliant cars freely
sharing the tracks with compliant passenger cars, but it might not be
an easy sell.
Are there any places where the Metra Electric crosses a freight line
at grade? Those would need a waiver as well, which could possibly be
obtained with interlocked derails.
Dan
Adam H. Kerman
Once, the South Chicago branch crossed B&O Brookdale subdivision, and
Blue Island Branch crossed the Panhandle. Those are both gone. New since
Metra obtained the Rock Island and IC suburban lines, there is a
connection to Burr Oak Yard in Blue Island.
The Main Line is entirely isolated from other railroads, except at
Kensington where the South Shore joins and crosses the freight mains to
get to the suburban mains. Michigan Central no longer connects at
Kensington. The Main Line has no public highway grade crossings until
just south of the end of suburban territory.
Maybe if they'd sought a waiver, they'd could have gotten one. But Metra
is in no position to replace the entire fleet overnight, so the waiver
would be required not for the period when the entire fleet might be
changed but during a very long transition period. And who says that the
South Shore's fleet would be entirely re-equipped at the same time? They
are running much newer equipment than the Highliners. Lots of freight on
the South Shore.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>So how did Caltrains end up with a JPA? I understood that the state
> >>>>never contracted for the operation of that service.
>
> >>>None of the four commuter services in California (Coaster, Metrolink, ACE,
> >>>and Caltrain) are operated by Caltrans. They all are operated
> >>>independently by different JPA (or an equivalent). For example, Metrolink
> >>>is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).
> >>>That is why they have different contract operators running and maintaining
> >>>the trains. CalTrain happens to be run by Amtrak.
>
> >>I don't understand why Metrolink's governance is under different
> >>legislation either.
>
> >Everybody is under the same legislation. I guess I don't understand your
> >comment. If you mean a JPA vs. a JPB, I think that is a distinction
> >without a difference.
>
> I wasn't asking that. I assume each JPA has a JPB. But you said
> Metrolink is operated by a Regional Rail Authority, not a JPA.
It still amounts to the same thing, it IS a "joint powers authority" made
up of the several counties. I admit I know nothing of the legal niceties,
however.
> >In San Diego, since the Coaster commuter service is all within one county,
> >the service is operated by the North County Transit Distict (they also
> >operate buses and will operate Sprinter as well).
>
> Are you implying that the boards of transit districts are appointed by
> counties? Are they coterminous with counties?
In the case of the North County Transit District, it is totally with San
Diego County (from Del Mar north). The Board is made up of one
representative from each incorporated city in the district (usually a city
councilman) plus a County Supervisor to cover the unincorporated areas as
well as the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos.
In the case of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(Metrolink), it covers the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, San
Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange. There are eleven board members who
represent the transportation agencies (authorities or commissions, the
counties us various names: VCTC, RCTC, LACMTA, OCTA), except San
Bernardino, which is represented by two members from the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG). There seem to be two members from each
county except L.A. which gets 3 members.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>Since the state gets its money from the feds, should they be on every
>local transit agency board as well?
Wouldn't bother me in the least.
>>I still think you were right the first time when you said MTA was in
>>Albany. They're not, but I believe that their budget is set through the
>>state budget process. Even if they aren't literally part of state
>>government (a point that rather confuses me), for budget purposes, they
>>might as well be.
>Yes. The thing that bugs me, is New York City is bigger in many ways that
>the rest of New York state, and supplies most of the revenue to the state.
>the Mayor of NYC is a more important figure than the governor of NYS. I
>don't think the state should be involved in telling New York City how to
>run its subways and buses. . . .
It is unfortunate, then, that when the Long Island became publicly
owned, the law that created the TA wasn't changed to give it the
necessary taking authority so it could receive the railroad's assets and
operate its trains.
We did the same thing in Chicago with CTA, not expanding its territory
and jurisdiction to include commuter rail. And boy are we suffering
today from annoying political infighting among the various agencies.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Not my argument at all. Actually, unless the schedule were improved a
> > bit more, I don't see how electrification is justified.
>
> Caltrain's argument is that it will save money. Electric locos are
> cheaper to own, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain the
> diesel-electric locos. And the schedule would be improved because of
> faster acceleration. And, of course, there is the environmental
> consideration.
Please keep in mind that we are talking about California.
California is filled with local air quality boards which can create a real
nightmare for anyone using anything that burns any fuel of any kind.
I was recently involved in a project for an industrial customer whose
ultimate project was located on federal property. The project involved a
backup diesel generator that would run on a *very* occasional basis.
The diesel generator sets met all current California and federal air
quality standards.
However, it took some considerable number of months and considerable
modifications to get this approved by the local air quality board, which
is in a very rural area of California.
All of this nonsense goes away if one is running off of electric power.
Thus, there may be considerable money savings just in not having to deal
with the nonsense every time someone wants to change a route.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
randee
dpel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 7:30 pm, randee <ran...@zianet.com> wrote:
> > "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
> > Judging from the view out the window the last time I rode it, the IC
> > (Metra) Electric line must no longer handle any freight trains as it
> > appears all the customers that used to be on the west side of the
> > passenger tracks have disappeared. With no freight trains needing to
> > cross the electric line (the freight tracks are east of the passenger
> > tracks), I would assume Metra could use UIC equipment if they desired as
> > it appears to me now to be essentially an isolated electric line. Even
>
> It's not isolated from the South Shore line, which does handle a
> significant amount of freight. I don't know whether anyone has ever
> talked to the FRA about getting a waiver for non-compliant cars freely
> sharing the tracks with compliant passenger cars, but it might not be
> an easy sell.
The freight operation of the South Shore is isolated. The South Shore
interchanges freight with the IC at Kensington Yard, located east of the
IC 9 track main line at about 115th St. The South Shore Electric trains
are normally routed on the 'outside' tracks and the IC uses the 'inside'
tracks (the 'special' and 'express' tracks as they used to be called) to
avoid conflicts, since the South Shore trains make fewer stops and run
faster. Within Chicago the South Shore trains regularly stop only at
Roosevelt Rd and Van Buren (they terminate at Randolph), although some
of them do stop at 57th St. and Kensington (115th St.).
>
> Are there any places where the Metra Electric crosses a freight line
> at grade? Those would need a waiver as well, which could possibly be
> obtained with interlocked derails.
The IC (Metra) Electric is on a raised grade separated roadbed. The
initial grade separation was completed to 57th back in 1893. Both
freight and passenger were grade separated. The commuter portion (to
Matteson) of their main line was electrified in 1927 to meet proposed
Chicago smoke abatement ordinances. The depression hit before the other
railroads into Chicago could do the same and they pleaded lack of funds
to electrify. There are no freight lines crossing at the IC grade
level. Major lines like the Grand Trunk pass under the IC while others
pass over.
>
> Dan
--
wf.
Adam H. Kerman
>dpel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>On Jul 14, 7:30 pm, randee wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>Judging from the view out the window the last time I rode it, the IC
>>>(Metra) Electric line must no longer handle any freight trains as it
>>>appears all the customers that used to be on the west side of the
>>>passenger tracks have disappeared. With no freight trains needing to
>>>cross the electric line (the freight tracks are east of the passenger
>>>tracks), I would assume Metra could use UIC equipment if they desired as
>>>it appears to me now to be essentially an isolated electric line. Even
>>It's not isolated from the South Shore line, which does handle a
>>significant amount of freight. I don't know whether anyone has ever
>>talked to the FRA about getting a waiver for non-compliant cars freely
>>sharing the tracks with compliant passenger cars, but it might not be
>>an easy sell.
>The freight operation of the South Shore is isolated.
There's no freight on the suburban mains of the IC, true. The point is
that the suburban mains are not isolated from the railroad network and
that even if Metra re-equipped the IC with non-compliant train sets,
compliant South Shore train sets would continue to share suburban mains.
>The South Shore interchanges freight with the IC at Kensington Yard,
>located east of the IC 9 track main line at about 115th St. The South
>Shore Electric trains are normally routed on the 'outside' tracks and the
>IC uses the 'inside' tracks (the 'special' and 'express' tracks as they
>used to be called) to avoid conflicts, since the South Shore trains make
>fewer stops and run faster.
The operation isn't quite so isolated as you suggest. Expresses from the
south suburbs would typically use the outside tracks too.
>Within Chicago the South Shore trains regularly stop only at Roosevelt Rd
>and Van Buren (they terminate at Randolph), although some of them do stop
>at 57th St. and Kensington (115th St.).
And 63rd.
>>Are there any places where the Metra Electric crosses a freight line
>>at grade? Those would need a waiver as well, which could possibly be
>>obtained with interlocked derails.
>The IC (Metra) Electric is on a raised grade separated roadbed. . . .
It's below grade along the lakefront!
Philip Nasadowski
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Please keep in mind that we are talking about California.
Land of fruits and nuts!
> California is filled with local air quality boards which can create a real
> nightmare for anyone using anything that burns any fuel of any kind.
Oh, fun. Over here, we just get to deal with state DEPs. Which are
just as bad. I know a town in NJ that passed on desalinisation for
their water supply because the removed salt would have to be, by DEP/EPA
rules, treated and disposed of as toxic waste, bubble suit guys and all.
NJ's DEP once threatened to shut down a roadside fruit stand because it
did'nt have a discharge permit for the water from washing fruit off.
> I was recently involved in a project for an industrial customer whose
> ultimate project was located on federal property. The project involved a
> backup diesel generator that would run on a *very* occasional basis.
Oh forget it. It's virtually impossible to site a backup diesel genset
ANYWHERE today. NJT's HBLRT Bergenline ave station had to get an
woefully inadequate CNG one, because the local community wouldn't shut
up about the 'pollution' that would come from running the thing for 1
hour every month to test it + and power outages lasting more than X
minutes. (which happen less frequently).
> The diesel generator sets met all current California and federal air
> quality standards.
Doesn't matter. Even more fun is when you've got a manufacturing
process that uses something remotely toxic, the EPA says it's ok to
discharge the waste, then changes their mind 10 years late and makes you
clean it up... IIRC, a good % of the PCBs GE dumped into the Hudson
were done so legally, but now they're saddled with the cleanup bill
anyway. Between this, the unions, and OHSHIT, is it any wonder why
manufacturing's scrambling to go to Mexico, China, etc?
> However, it took some considerable number of months and considerable
> modifications to get this approved by the local air quality board, which
> is in a very rural area of California.
Everyone's been bitching about lack of oil refineries in the US, but
they fail to realize that the lead time, when you account for the
engineering and regulatory stuff, is something on the order of a decade.
It's not just nuke plants that deal with this stuff anymore - ANY
reasonable sized industrial facility gets it.
> All of this nonsense goes away if one is running off of electric power.
Don't bet on it. I'm sure one day CARB will decide to make electric
users 'responsible' for the pollution from power plants.
> Thus, there may be considerable money savings just in not having to deal
> with the nonsense every time someone wants to change a route.
The trouble is, catenary then brings out the EMF and "it's ugly" and the
"Its dangerous! Think of the children!" crowd crowd. But the last group
basically pops out no matter what these days I guess...
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >Since the state gets its money from the feds, should they be on every
> >local transit agency board as well?
>
> Wouldn't bother me in the least.
>
> >>I still think you were right the first time when you said MTA was in
> >>Albany. They're not, but I believe that their budget is set through the
> >>state budget process. Even if they aren't literally part of state
> >>government (a point that rather confuses me), for budget purposes, they
> >>might as well be.
>
> >Yes. The thing that bugs me, is New York City is bigger in many ways that
> >the rest of New York state, and supplies most of the revenue to the state.
> >the Mayor of NYC is a more important figure than the governor of NYS. I
> >don't think the state should be involved in telling New York City how to
> >run its subways and buses. . . .
>
> It is unfortunate, then, that when the Long Island became publicly
> owned, the law that created the TA wasn't changed to give it the
> necessary taking authority so it could receive the railroad's assets and
> operate its trains.
Commuter trains are a different issue than the "taking" of the NYC transit
system by the state. I can appreciate why the state set up a commuter
agency to acquire and run the LIRR and MN services, which run over a large
number of jurisdictions. What I don't understand is why the state
expanded the authority (and changed its name, dropping "commuter") to
include buses and subways running in NYC.
> We did the same thing in Chicago with CTA, not expanding its territory
> and jurisdiction to include commuter rail. And boy are we suffering
> today from annoying political infighting among the various agencies.
That would not have been the case of the NYC transit system which operates
within one jurisdiction (New York City).
Anyway, it's a done deal, and I am sure there were a lot of reasons for it
that I am not aware of.
Merritt
william welner
The fact is that city although the its transit system is operated under a
state board has a large involvement with the operation of the transit
system.
The MTA Board is located in NYC, as its members are appointed by State,
Suburban County, and NYC officials included within the MTA Sales Tax Revenue
District.
As I stated the subways are operated as a separate division of the MTA which
includes most of the buses operated in NYC.
The decision to place the MTA under a State Authority was made by former
Republican NYC Mayor John Lindsey back over 30 years ago when the city had
severe Fiscal problems, at that time the state asked the state to take over
commuter rail roads because of the Penn Central bankruptcy which formed the
MTA. In the deal the state included the operation of the all the toll
bridges and tunnels within NYC called the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel
Authority, with surplus toll revenue from these bridges and tunnels used to
support the public transportation divisions of the MTA.
Mayor Lindsey was the first NYC mayor who was very out spoken in his
commitment to public transit with the opinion that it should be managed on a
regional basis.
The subways and city operated buses were moved as a self contained unit out
of NYC to under the MTA but it still operated as a department under NYC
government, as the mayor still negotiates union contracts for city subway
and bus workers and its employees are hired as NYC employees, as the city is
expected to fund any salary increases that the mayor negotiates with the
transit unions out of city revenue. Now I believe that the state must
support all of the wage incresases that it negotiates with the employees of
the LIRR and Metro North divisions which are considered Railroad Workers and
not state workers.
The MTA structure avoids rivalries between the separate divisions in placing
all Major Capital Construction and Planning under one board's supervision.
Bill
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-D74B...@netnews.asp.att.net...
> In article <cP4mi.7926$zA4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "william welner" <wwel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> It would seem to me, as a native New Yorker who only lived in the SF Bay
>> Area for several years, that Californians would be better by combining
>> all
>> transit under one umbrella agency such as NYS does in its MTA which
>> includes
>> the NYC subways, the S.I. Railroad, the Metro North Railroad, the LIRR
>> and
>> bus operations in the Metropolitan Area so that all transit can operated
>> under one Board to avoid the rivalries mentioned.
>>
>> Under the MTA, the various systems are ran separately with planning and
>> capital construction done only by the central MTA Board.
>
> And that board is in Albany, isn't it? I don't understand why NY city
> transit is run by the state. I am not necessarily objecting to unifying
> the systems, just that it is run from a city that is not part of system.
>
> Merritt
dpel...@my-deja.com
> In article <gl4316-1407072148430...@69-30-8-153.pxd.easystreet.com>,
>
> gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > Please keep in mind that we are talking about California.
>
> Land of fruits and nuts!
>
> > California is filled with local air quality boards which can create a real
> > nightmare for anyone using anything that burns any fuel of any kind.
>
> Oh, fun. Over here, we just get to deal with state DEPs. Which are
> just as bad. I know a town in NJ that passed on desalinisation for
> their water supply because the removed salt would have to be, by DEP/EPA
> rules, treated and disposed of as toxic waste, bubble suit guys and all.
Well, of course a desalinization plant would have to dispose of its
waste in a safe manner, just like any other industry. Salt in large
enough quantities is toxic enough to all known forms of terrestrial
and aquatic life, so why wouldn't it be toxic waste?
But I don't believe for one second that they would have needed "bubble
suit guys and all" just for handling salt. Do you have a cite?
Dan
Adam H. Kerman
>Well, of course a desalinization plant would have to dispose of its
>waste in a safe manner, just like any other industry. Salt in large
>enough quantities is toxic enough to all known forms of terrestrial
>and aquatic life, so why wouldn't it be toxic waste?
Can't it simply be returned to the ocean?
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>I still think you were right the first time when you said MTA was in
>>>>Albany. They're not, but I believe that their budget is set through the
>>>>state budget process. Even if they aren't literally part of state
>>>>government (a point that rather confuses me), for budget purposes, they
>>>>might as well be.
>>>Yes. The thing that bugs me, is New York City is bigger in many ways that
>>>the rest of New York state, and supplies most of the revenue to the state.
>>>the Mayor of NYC is a more important figure than the governor of NYS. I
>>>don't think the state should be involved in telling New York City how to
>>>run its subways and buses. . . .
>>It is unfortunate, then, that when the Long Island became publicly
>>owned, the law that created the TA wasn't changed to give it the
>>necessary taking authority so it could receive the railroad's assets and
>>operate its trains.
>Commuter trains are a different issue than the "taking" of the NYC transit
>system by the state.
From a governance or finance perspective? From a perspective of finance,
no major American city had mismanaged its finances worse than New York.
Building the IND was a major part of that. They were more than willing
to dump the problems they themselves created with the subways and
bridges on another entity.
Governance? You just don't appreciate how miserable it makes passengers when
transit agencies that serve the same area compete instead of cooperate. The
Long Island has plenty of service within Queens and should be treated as
if part of the subway system.
I suppose no one has worse transit governance than Philadelphia, whose
transit agency thinks of itself as suburban only, reluctant to serve
city passengers.
>I can appreciate why the state set up a commuter agency to acquire and run
>the LIRR and MN services, which run over a large number of jurisdictions.
>What I don't understand is why the state expanded the authority (and changed
>its name, dropping "commuter") to include buses and subways running in NYC.
The state should have forced downstate to acquire the railroad; really
wasn't a state-wide responsibility.
>>We did the same thing in Chicago with CTA, not expanding its territory
>>and jurisdiction to include commuter rail. And boy are we suffering
>>today from annoying political infighting among the various agencies.
>That would not have been the case of the NYC transit system which operates
>within one jurisdiction (New York City).
In Chicago, several of the "L" lines were built into the suburbs. CTA
was created assuming that at some point it would take over various
suburban bus companies that ringed the city. It didn't happen. At the
beginning, CTA made itself less of a suburban agency by closing two
all-suburban branches of the "L" and cutting back a portion of the
suburban running of a third "L" route. There was an all-suburban street
car system whose acquisition was not included in the original
acquisition of the city streetcar systems (it had a related corporate
history) which was entirely replaced with bus shortly after CTA began.
But for all intents and purposes, CTA was modeled on the TA. Despite
including suburban territory, politically and administratively, it
functions as a municipal department. Really, the situations are
comparable except that Chicago was never as big of a mess as NYC.
dpel...@my-deja.com
That depends on whether you ever took it out of the ocean in the first
place. Membrane filter processes may just remove pure water, leaving
behind higher concentrations of salt. "Waste disposal" in this case
means allowing those excess concentrations to diffuse back throughout
the ocean, rather than building up to unacceptable levels.
For flash (distillation) processes, returning the salt to the ocean is
fine, but again you have to do so in a way that doesn't result in
excessively high salt concentrations. As with sewage, that may require
an expensive offshore piping system. Perhaps a better option would be
to sell the waste for road salt.
At any rate, certainly you can see that you need to be careful how you
dispose of a large amount of salt if you're to avoid killing off all
the plant & animal life in the surrounding waters. Think about how the
Dead Sea got its name.
Dan
Stephen Sprunk
news:1184471460.3...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> It's not isolated from the South Shore line, which does handle a
> significant amount of freight. I don't know whether anyone has
> ever talked to the FRA about getting a waiver for non-compliant
> cars freely sharing the tracks with compliant passenger cars,
> but it might not be an easy sell.
I'd imagine it's a lot easier than getting a waiver to mix with freight cars
;)
> Are there any places where the Metra Electric crosses a
> freight line at grade? Those would need a waiver as well,
> which could possibly be obtained with interlocked derails.
DART has two at-grade crossings with UPRR, and there's no derails to be
seen. They do have interlocked signals, though I've never found someone who
can say which side controls them. I have no clue if a waiver was required;
it's conceivable one wasn't since there's no way to get from one system to
the other.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Philip Nasadowski
dpel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Well, of course a desalinization plant would have to dispose of its
> waste in a safe manner, just like any other industry. Salt in large
> enough quantities is toxic enough to all known forms of terrestrial
> and aquatic life, so why wouldn't it be toxic waste?
But why ca'nt salt be just dumped back in there, since it's where it
came from? I mean, we're talking about pulling water from the ocean.
Dumping the salt back into there might have a local effect, though
slight, but ultimately, it'll disperse out. Big deal. Dump it back in
in a few spread out areas.,
> But I don't believe for one second that they would have needed "bubble
> suit guys and all" just for handling salt. Do you have a cite?
I got that from the engineer who was involved with the study, and had a
long background of dealing with the DEP. Not that water systems DON'T
use bubble suit guys, in fact, they're quite common, for handling the
various fun chemicals that get injected into your water. In any case,
the removed salt would no doubt be mixed in with the rest of the stuff
removed from the water (or at least a chunk of it), thus you'd have 'the
ever popular 'unknown' stuff in there.
One water company in southern NJ has had a few wells that have pulled
(naturally occurring) radiological stuff out. Now, they're all wearing
film badges and have the ever popular gieger counters with them.
Radiation warning signs on the filters (carbon/resin) to strip this
stuff out. A while ago, I borrowed a counter and decided to run around
in the 'hot zone' with it. Boy that was boring as heck - the meter
didn't register beyond background levels. Went to Wawa, got a milk and
candy bar to snack on. The bar was more radioactive than a raw water
sample...
I checked with their engineers back at the office. Apparently, the
level of radiation in the water is so low, that you'd litterally have to
swim in the stuff for 70 years before there'd be a measureable effect.
But, it's just a hair above the state's (but, IIRC, not the fed's)
maximum allowed, so up go the warning signs, in go the filters, on go
the badges, and now there's another round of daily/weekly/monthly
samples to do, plus the inevitable public meetings. People in there
area of one well are freaking out because a 'radioactive filter' is
planned there. The reality, they're getting far more radiation from
flying to/from Florida every year...
Dealing with the DEP, etc is bad enough. The whole public meeting thing
is 10 times WORSE
Adam H. Kerman
>DART has two at-grade crossings with UPRR, and there's no derails to be
>seen. They do have interlocked signals, though I've never found someone who
>can say which side controls them. I have no clue if a waiver was required;
>it's conceivable one wasn't since there's no way to get from one system to
>the other.
Why would derails be necessary? Doesn't DART have automatic train stop?
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Well, of course a desalinization plant would have to dispose of its
>>>waste in a safe manner, just like any other industry. Salt in large
>>>enough quantities is toxic enough to all known forms of terrestrial
>>>and aquatic life, so why wouldn't it be toxic waste?
>>Can't it simply be returned to the ocean?
>That depends on whether you ever took it out of the ocean in the first
>place. Membrane filter processes may just remove pure water, leaving
>behind higher concentrations of salt. "Waste disposal" in this case
>means allowing those excess concentrations to diffuse back throughout
>the ocean, rather than building up to unacceptable levels.
>For flash (distillation) processes, returning the salt to the ocean is
>fine, but again you have to do so in a way that doesn't result in
>excessively high salt concentrations.
Heh. You'd have to put it back well away from the area in which you are
extracting ocean water, otherwise you are sucking up the very same salt.
>Perhaps a better option would be to sell the waste for road salt.
Road salt is quite capable of raising salinity to high levels well away
from the road it was sprayed on.
Philip Nasadowski
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Heh. You'd have to put it back well away from the area in which you are
> extracting ocean water, otherwise you are sucking up the very same salt.
Oh yeah, that's another thing :)
> Road salt is quite capable of raising salinity to high levels well away
> from the road it was sprayed on.
Yes, especially on the undersides of cars :(
There are a few 'reduced salt' areas around here, though.
Of course, the idea that extracted salt is 'waste' is interesting, since
I'd imagine it could be taken and refined and used as salt. Oh well.
Oh whatever, the feds have been weird about salt for years, I remember
those ads' in the early 80's telling you not to use salt on your food...
Adam H. Kerman
Completely off topic, but what Americans didn't realize is that the high
level of salt in the diet came from pre-prepared food, especially in
cans. Adding a bit of salt to food at the table was minor.
Stephen Sprunk
news:469a81f0$0$97247$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Dan's the one that suggested it. I can see the logic, but apparently even
the FRA isn't that paranoid.
> Doesn't DART have automatic train stop?
Yup, similar to NYCT's system except DART's is electronic instead of
mechanical. There's a little device between the rails just past each
signal, and if the signal is red it causes a passing train to dump the
(service and track) brakes. Unlike NYCT, it almost never happens here,
since TOs are extremely paranoid about it. DART's policy is that any TO
that runs a red signal is demoted back to buses for a while; twice and the
demotion is permanent.
However, this style of system is intended solely to prevent one train from
rear-ending another. If one's going fast enough before passing the stop
signal protecting an interlocking or crossing, it's still possible to have a
collision with a conflicting movement because the errant train won't stop in
time. There's also no speed enforcement. This is well short of what real
ATP would provide, but it's a lot cheaper and solves the most likely
problems.
It's apparently good enough, since we've had zero passenger fatalities to
date, even with headways so low that rush-hour trains are often "riding the
yellows" (at up to 65mph) for most of their run.
Merritt Mullen
"william welner" <wwel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Merritt
>
> The MTA structure avoids rivalries between the separate divisions in placing
> all Major Capital Construction and Planning under one board's supervision.
Bill,
Thanks for the enlightenment, but I still think it is weird that the state
is involved in the operation of NYC's buses and subways. I can better
understand the situation regarding the commuter lines (MN and LIRR), which
are regional in nature. I guess part of it is a legacy of that period
when NYC was on shaky financial grounds. I remember the headline:
"Washington to NYC: Drop Dead!" (or something to that effect).
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Governance? You just don't appreciate how miserable it makes passengers when
> transit agencies that serve the same area compete instead of cooperate. The
> Long Island has plenty of service within Queens and should be treated as
> if part of the subway system.
Maybe it is just me, but I don't see the subway and the LIRR (or MN) as
competing for the same business. Very little of the full extent of the
LIRR and MN overlap the NYC subway system, and where they do, they are
used differently, because they operate differently (frequency, station
spacing, hours of operation, fare collection, etc).
I guess I am just used to Los Angeles, where commuter rail (Metrolink) is
operated by a regional board, but city transit (buses, Metro Rail) is
operated by Los Angeles County MTA. Even there many of the smaller cities
within the Los Angeles area (Santa Monica, Culver City, etc.) have their
own transit systems whose routes extend beyond their city limits and
overlap those of the LACMTA. It seems to work pretty well for us.
Since I don't expect to ever again live in NY, I guess I should just shut
up.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:
> > In article <gl4316-1407072148430...@69-30-8-153.pxd.easystreet.com>,
> >
> > gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > > Please keep in mind that we are talking about California.
> >
> > Land of fruits and nuts!
> >
> > > California is filled with local air quality boards which can create a real
> > > nightmare for anyone using anything that burns any fuel of any kind.
> >
> > Oh, fun. Over here, we just get to deal with state DEPs. Which are
> > just as bad. I know a town in NJ that passed on desalinisation for
> > their water supply because the removed salt would have to be, by DEP/EPA
> > rules, treated and disposed of as toxic waste, bubble suit guys and all.
>
> Well, of course a desalinization plant would have to dispose of its
> waste in a safe manner, just like any other industry. Salt in large
> enough quantities is toxic enough to all known forms of terrestrial
> and aquatic life, so why wouldn't it be toxic waste?
Don't forget, the "salt" that remains after desalinization is not just the
sodium chloride that we are all familiar with. There are probably all
sorts of salts in the mix, some of which may not be very benign.
But I agree, it should not be such a big deal to dispose of it in a safe
and environmentally acceptable manner. One just has to be sure the
procedures and processes are in place. Piling up the salt in the outdoors
is not acceptable.
Note that there are a lot of places that do this very thing, except the
intended product IS the salt. The desalinated water is the waste
byproduct. Don't plants at the southern end of San Francisco Bay extract
salt from the sea water in evaporation ponds?
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>>>DART has two at-grade crossings with UPRR, and there's no derails
>>>to be seen. They do have interlocked signals, though I've never found
>>>someone who can say which side controls them. I have no clue if a
>>>waiver was required; it's conceivable one wasn't since there's no way
>>>to get from one system to the other.
>>Why would derails be necessary?
>Dan's the one that suggested it. I can see the logic, but apparently even
>the FRA isn't that paranoid.
>>Doesn't DART have automatic train stop?
>Yup, similar to NYCT's system except DART's is electronic instead of
>mechanical. There's a little device between the rails just past each
>signal, and if the signal is red it causes a passing train to dump the
>(service and track) brakes. Unlike NYCT, it almost never happens here,
>since TOs are extremely paranoid about it.
As they should be.
>DART's policy is that any TO that runs a red signal is demoted back to
>buses for a while; twice and the demotion is permanent.
They should be fired, first offense. That's traditional on a railroad.
No rules violation is more serious than disobeying a signal. Speaking as
a bus passenger, I sure as hell do not want to be driven by someone
incapable of obeying a stop signal.
>However, this style of system is intended solely to prevent one train from
>rear-ending another. If one's going fast enough before passing the stop
>signal protecting an interlocking or crossing, it's still possible to have a
>collision with a conflicting movement because the errant train won't stop in
>time. There's also no speed enforcement. This is well short of what real
>ATP would provide, but it's a lot cheaper and solves the most likely
>problems.
Hm. I can't believe that the inadequate signals on CTA are more
sophisticated than anyone else's. At control points, automatic train
stop is enforced with an arm that trips the brakes if the interlocking
is violated.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Governance? You just don't appreciate how miserable it makes passengers when
>>transit agencies that serve the same area compete instead of cooperate. The
>>Long Island has plenty of service within Queens and should be treated as
>>if part of the subway system.
>Maybe it is just me, but I don't see the subway and the LIRR (or MN) as
>competing for the same business. Very little of the full extent of the
>LIRR and MN overlap the NYC subway system, and where they do, they are
>used differently, because they operate differently (frequency, station
>spacing, hours of operation, fare collection, etc).
All right, so they operate differently, but no commuter railroad has
more trains than LIRR in this country. If you live near Jamaica, there's
always a train in sight.
Why shouldn't you be able to use your bus transfer (even if a surcharge
is necessary)?
>I guess I am just used to Los Angeles, where commuter rail (Metrolink) is
>operated by a regional board, but city transit (buses, Metro Rail) is
>operated by Los Angeles County MTA. Even there many of the smaller cities
>within the Los Angeles area (Santa Monica, Culver City, etc.) have their
>own transit systems whose routes extend beyond their city limits and
>overlap those of the LACMTA. It seems to work pretty well for us.
Not being able to transfer or pay a single fare?
In my lifetime. LA has had, what, four major changes in transit
governance and they still haven't gotten it right.
dpel...@my-deja.com
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in messagenews:469a81f0$0$97247$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> >> DART has two at-grade crossings with UPRR, and there's no derails
> >> to be seen. They do have interlocked signals, though I've never found
> >> someone who can say which side controls them. I have no clue if a
> >> waiver was required; it's conceivable one wasn't since there's no way
> >> to get from one system to the other.
>
> > Why would derails be necessary?
>
> Dan's the one that suggested it. I can see the logic, but apparently even
> the FRA isn't that paranoid.
Is DART subject to FRA jurisdiction?
If not, then I don't see the relevance. They never had to ask the FRA
for a waiver from the passenger car regulations. Sort of like a
highway doesn't have to get an FRA waiver to cross a railroad at
grade.
Apparently the FRA doesn't feel that signals offer sufficient
protection to grant a waiver from their passenger car standards, so
why would they grant a waiver that included a diamond crossing
protected only with signals? I'm not claiming any first-hand knowledge
of this, I'm just following the logic (such as it is) of the
regulations
Dan
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> All right, so they operate differently, but no commuter railroad has
> more trains than LIRR in this country. If you live near Jamaica, there's
> always a train in sight.
Yes, I have been many times on the platforms at Jamaica, changing trains.
> Why shouldn't you be able to use your bus transfer (even if a surcharge
> is necessary)?
You can use a bus transfer to ride the LIRR?
> >I guess I am just used to Los Angeles, where commuter rail (Metrolink) is
> >operated by a regional board, but city transit (buses, Metro Rail) is
> >operated by Los Angeles County MTA. Even there many of the smaller cities
> >within the Los Angeles area (Santa Monica, Culver City, etc.) have their
> >own transit systems whose routes extend beyond their city limits and
> >overlap those of the LACMTA. It seems to work pretty well for us.
>
> Not being able to transfer or pay a single fare?
The bus fares are different in the different municipalities, but you can
transfer between systems, sometimes with a surcharge, I believe (I have
ridden the buses very seldom).
If you arrive in L.A. by Metrolink, your Metrolink ticket (or pass) is
good for riding on the LACMTA buses or trains (with geographical limits),
without charge. Also, your Metrolink monthly pass is good on Amtrak
trains running being the limits of your pass.
L.A. is slowly working its way to a universal fare system, probably with
some sort of RFID card.
Merritt
Stephen Sprunk
news:1184549663.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> > Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> >> DART has two at-grade crossings with UPRR, and there's
>> >> no derails to be seen. They do have interlocked signals,
>> >> though I've never found someone who can say which side
>> >> controls them. I have no clue if a waiver was required; it's
>> >> conceivable one wasn't since there's no way to get from
>> >> one system to the other.
> Is DART subject to FRA jurisdiction?
No, but UPRR is. The FRA let them have at-grade crossings with a non-FRA
rail line protected solely by (unenforced, on the UPRR side) signals.
And, of course, those crossings are under FRA jurisdiction since there are
FRA rails in them, even if some of the rails are not.
> If not, then I don't see the relevance. They never had to ask
> the FRA for a waiver from the passenger car regulations. Sort
> of like a highway doesn't have to get an FRA waiver to cross
> a railroad at grade.
True, but a highway has crossing lights/gates and the train has clear right
of way. And it's a highway.
We're talking about two rail lines, one using FRA equipment and the other
not. I doubt the situation would have been any different if DART were
subject to FRA jurisdiction and were operating their non-FRA cars under some
sort of waiver.
> Apparently the FRA doesn't feel that signals offer sufficient
> protection to grant a waiver from their passenger car
> standards, so why would they grant a waiver that included a
> diamond crossing protected only with signals?
Either they did grant one, or they felt one was unnecessary.
> I'm not claiming any first-hand knowledge of this, I'm just
> following the logic (such as it is) of the regulations
As I said, I can see the logic, but apparently the FRA decided that
(interlocked) signals were sufficient in that particular scenario.
Adam H. Kerman
>>All right, so they operate differently, but no commuter railroad has
>>more trains than LIRR in this country. If you live near Jamaica, there's
>>always a train in sight.
>Yes, I have been many times on the platforms at Jamaica, changing trains.
>> Why shouldn't you be able to use your bus transfer (even if a surcharge
>> is necessary)?
>You can use a bus transfer to ride the LIRR?
No. Statement: A passenger should be able to transfer between bus and
rail on one fare, even if a surcharge is necessary to make up the
difference when transferring to the mode with higher fares.
>>>I guess I am just used to Los Angeles, where commuter rail (Metrolink) is
>>>operated by a regional board, but city transit (buses, Metro Rail) is
>>>operated by Los Angeles County MTA. Even there many of the smaller cities
>>>within the Los Angeles area (Santa Monica, Culver City, etc.) have their
>>>own transit systems whose routes extend beyond their city limits and
>>>overlap those of the LACMTA. It seems to work pretty well for us.
>>Not being able to transfer or pay a single fare?
>The bus fares are different in the different municipalities, but you can
>transfer between systems, sometimes with a surcharge, I believe (I have
>ridden the buses very seldom).
Well, that's good.
>If you arrive in L.A. by Metrolink, your Metrolink ticket (or pass) is
>good for riding on the LACMTA buses or trains (with geographical limits),
>without charge. Also, your Metrolink monthly pass is good on Amtrak
>trains running being the limits of your pass.
But you cannot originate on the bus and pay an up-surcharge to complete
your journey on the train?
>L.A. is slowly working its way to a universal fare system, probably with
>some sort of RFID card.
Sounds like they are ahead of some places on fare coordination.
Stephen Sprunk
news:469ac8fd$0$97261$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>DART's policy is that any TO that runs a red signal is demoted back to
>>buses for a while; twice and the demotion is permanent.
>
> They should be fired, first offense. That's traditional on a railroad.
> No rules violation is more serious than disobeying a signal.
There's plenty of things more serious than that, e.g. approaching an
at-grade station (where pedestrians will be crossing the tracks) too fast.
In any case, accidents happen. If it was intentional, that's another matter
entirely.
All it takes is one look at a trip-arm in the NYC subway and you'll see it's
a frequent occurrence there. I don't know what their rules are, but they
got blasted by the NTSB for being so lax about TOs that pass signals at
danger and particularly for the "key by" system that encourages them to do
it.
> Speaking as a bus passenger, I sure as hell do not want to be driven
> by someone incapable of obeying a stop signal.
Every TO here wants to run trains, so the only ones driving buses are the
ones that don't have the safety record or seniority necessary to get the
promotion. They're watched pretty tightly as well, but there's going to be
accidents since they're at risk from idiot car drivers, and sometimes it's
hard to tell how much, if any, the bus driver contributed. There's union
rules that cover all that, though, and the same rules cover LRT operation
since it's the same union. If the rail side had been started independently,
it might look more like a "real" railroad.
>>However, this style of system is intended solely to prevent one train from
>>rear-ending another. If one's going fast enough before passing the stop
>>signal protecting an interlocking or crossing, it's still possible to have
>>a
>>collision with a conflicting movement because the errant train won't stop
>>in
>>time. There's also no speed enforcement. This is well short of what real
>>ATP would provide, but it's a lot cheaper and solves the most likely
>>problems.
>
> Hm. I can't believe that the inadequate signals on CTA are more
> sophisticated than anyone else's. At control points, automatic train
> stop is enforced with an arm that trips the brakes if the interlocking
> is violated.
That's what NYCT has, and DART has an electronic version of the same.
However, it's going to take it a while to stop the train, and the signals
aren't far enough back from the interlocking to prevent a collision if the
train is going fast enough when the brakes are tripped. Of course, a train
_should_ never be going fast enough towards a stop signal to cause that
situation, but it's entirely possible if you don't have true ATP.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>All right, so they operate differently, but no commuter railroad has
> >>more trains than LIRR in this country. If you live near Jamaica, there's
> >>always a train in sight.
>
> >Yes, I have been many times on the platforms at Jamaica, changing trains.
>
> >> Why shouldn't you be able to use your bus transfer (even if a surcharge
> >> is necessary)?
>
> >You can use a bus transfer to ride the LIRR?
>
> No. Statement: A passenger should be able to transfer between bus and
> rail on one fare, even if a surcharge is necessary to make up the
> difference when transferring to the mode with higher fares.
In LA, the fares are the same for bus and rail, and you can transfer
between the two. But "rail" means the subway or light rail, not
Metrolink, which has an entirely different fare structure, based on zones
and time of day. Your Metrolink ticket will allow you to use the bus or
rail lines, but your bus/rail ticket is no good on Metrolink.
> But you cannot originate on the bus and pay an up-surcharge to complete
> your journey on the train?
That is correct, you can not use your bus/rail ticket to get a discount on
Metrolink.
> >L.A. is slowly working its way to a universal fare system, probably with
> >some sort of RFID card.
>
> Sounds like they are ahead of some places on fare coordination.
Yes, the ability to use your Metrolink pass on Amtrak without a surcharge
was a big step forward. And having your Metrolink ticket or pass cover
your local bus/rail fare is a big plus. Generally that works on both
ends--if I board Metrolink in Orange County and get off in L.A., I can
ride the L.A. transit for free. Likewise, when I return to Orange County
on Metrolink, I can ride Orange County transit for free.
Merritt
randee
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
>
>
> >The freight operation of the South Shore is isolated.
>
> There's no freight on the suburban mains of the IC, true. The point is
> that the suburban mains are not isolated from the railroad network and
> that even if Metra re-equipped the IC with non-compliant train sets,
> compliant South Shore train sets would continue to share suburban mains.
I suspect it would not be that hard to put catenary over one of the
passenger mains and use that for the South Shore exclusively, the half
dozen or so Amtrak trains a day (if that many nowadays) certainly do not
need two passenger mains.
>
> >The South Shore interchanges freight with the IC at Kensington Yard,
> >located east of the IC 9 track main line at about 115th St. The South
> >Shore Electric trains are normally routed on the 'outside' tracks and the
> >IC uses the 'inside' tracks (the 'special' and 'express' tracks as they
> >used to be called) to avoid conflicts, since the South Shore trains make
> >fewer stops and run faster.
>
> The operation isn't quite so isolated as you suggest. Expresses from the
> south suburbs would typically use the outside tracks too.
Yes they do, but so far there has not been a problem with interference
with South Shore trains.........
>
> >Within Chicago the South Shore trains regularly stop only at Roosevelt Rd
> >and Van Buren (they terminate at Randolph), although some of them do stop
> >at 57th St. and Kensington (115th St.).
>
> And 63rd.
I did not think the South Shore bothered with 63rd St. (Woodlawn) any
more, but a quick check of my schedule shows one westbound and,
curiously, two eastbound trains still stopping there. At one time they
also stopped at 75th St. (Grand Crossing) and 43rd St.
>
> >>Are there any places where the Metra Electric crosses a freight line
> >>at grade? Those would need a waiver as well, which could possibly be
> >>obtained with interlocked derails.
>
> >The IC (Metra) Electric is on a raised grade separated roadbed. . . .
>
> It's below grade along the lakefront!
In that short stretch I think it is actually at grade (on lake fill
actually) and in the loop area it is the streets that are above grade
now.
--
wf.
dpel...@my-deja.com
> <dpelt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184549663.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> >> DART has two at-grade crossings with UPRR, and there's
> >> >> no derails to be seen. They do have interlocked signals,
> >> >> though I've never found someone who can say which side
> >> >> controls them. I have no clue if a waiver was required; it's
> >> >> conceivable one wasn't since there's no way to get from
> >> >> one system to the other.
> ...
> > Is DART subject to FRA jurisdiction?
>
> No, but UPRR is. The FRA let them have at-grade crossings with a non-FRA
> rail line protected solely by (unenforced, on the UPRR side) signals.
>
But they didn't let them have a waiver from the passenger car safety
standards. So it proves nothing.
> > If not, then I don't see the relevance. They never had to ask
> > the FRA for a waiver from the passenger car regulations. Sort
> > of like a highway doesn't have to get an FRA waiver to cross
> > a railroad at grade.
>
> True, but a highway has crossing lights/gates and the train has clear right
> of way. And it's a highway.
The FRA doesn't ever require lights or gates at road crossings, as far
as I know.
I think my point is clear enough: allowing DART to cross at grade is
just like allowing a highway to cross at grade. In neither case does
FRA attempt to dictate crash-worthiness standards for the vehicles
that are crossing the railroad, because they don't have authority over
non-"railroad" equipment. The same is not true when two
"railroads" (in the regulatory sense) cross each other at grade.
Dan
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>The freight operation of the South Shore is isolated.
>>There's no freight on the suburban mains of the IC, true. The point is
>>that the suburban mains are not isolated from the railroad network and
>>that even if Metra re-equipped the IC with non-compliant train sets,
>>compliant South Shore train sets would continue to share suburban mains.
>I suspect it would not be that hard to put catenary over one of the
>passenger mains and use that for the South Shore exclusively, the half
>dozen or so Amtrak trains a day (if that many nowadays) certainly do not
>need two passenger mains.
The once exclusive pair of passenger mains (separate and distinct from the
electrified suburban mains) have shared been shared with freight traffic
on the lakefront freight route and Saint Charles Air Line, which connects
Markham Yard to IC-Joliet and IC-Iowa. Before CSX-Altenheim was mothballed
(due to bridges long in need of replacement) east of the Belt to Ogden
Junction, loads that aren't high-and-wide (if Global 1 wasn't clobbering
the main) for the WC also went that way. CSX won't replace the bridges
as it doesn't use that subdivision, but it's always refused to sell it
to SOO, WC, and CN. If WC had bought it, it would have replaced the
bridges.
The freight mains were yanked a very long time ago, I suppose shortly
after the closing of Central Station, during a period when IC was
dramatically pairing down its physical plant.
>>>The South Shore interchanges freight with the IC at Kensington Yard,
>>>located east of the IC 9 track main line at about 115th St. The South
>>>Shore Electric trains are normally routed on the 'outside' tracks and the
>>>IC uses the 'inside' tracks (the 'special' and 'express' tracks as they
>>>used to be called) to avoid conflicts, since the South Shore trains make
>>>fewer stops and run faster.
>>The operation isn't quite so isolated as you suggest. Expresses from the
>>south suburbs would typically use the outside tracks too.
>Yes they do, but so far there has not been a problem with interference
>with South Shore trains.........
Then it's still a railroad. It has nothing to do with sharing with
freight, but compliant and non-compliant passenger equipment on the same
tracks.
>>>Within Chicago the South Shore trains regularly stop only at Roosevelt Rd
>>>and Van Buren (they terminate at Randolph), although some of them do stop
>>>at 57th St. and Kensington (115th St.).
>>And 63rd.
>I did not think the South Shore bothered with 63rd St. (Woodlawn) any
>more, but a quick check of my schedule shows one westbound and,
>curiously, two eastbound trains still stopping there.
It's for Gary and Hammond kids attending a parochial high school.
>>>>Are there any places where the Metra Electric crosses a freight line
>>>>at grade? Those would need a waiver as well, which could possibly be
>>>>obtained with interlocked derails.
>>>The IC (Metra) Electric is on a raised grade separated roadbed. . . .
>>It's below grade along the lakefront!
>In that short stretch I think it is actually at grade (on lake fill
>actually) and in the loop area it is the streets that are above grade
>now.
Your information is over 100 years out of date. Yes, originally the IC
was partly built on lake fill since much of the lakefront route they were
forced to use was lake bottom. In a deal they negotiated with the city in the
mid-1890's which allowed them to add even more mains (with long industrial
spurs, there were a dozen tracks in some places, although 10 above Hyde Park
and 8 the rest of the way was more typical), they put the lakefront route in
a cut. The railroad gave up the riparian rights it never wanted. The city,
through one of the park districts, then did even more extensive landfilling to
the east of the railroad to create the footprint for Burnham Park, although
the park wouldn't be completed for quite a while. Certain local streets
bridged over the railroad to get to the isolated lakefront park, although
I don't know if the city, park district, or railroad paid for the bridges.
To prepare for the eventual electrification, the suburban mains,
originally on the east side, were moved to the west side of the
right-of-way. Also, intercity passenger and suburban expresses, which
once shared mains, now had separate mains. And there was a special pair
of suburban mains that went only to 51st Street. The IC was wealthy
enough to build this fabulous railroad, but some of the segregation of
traffic seemed unnecessary. My guess is that passenger and suburban were
segregated just to avoid long station stops of a few intercity trains
with lots of baggage (although you'd think suburban trains could have
been switched around them). As far as the special pair of mains to 51st,
my only guess about those is that the railroad avoided tying up other
mains when turning trains back. There was never enough patronage north
of there to warrant extra mains.
The Illinois Central originally called at Great Central Station on South
Water Street (which ran to Randolph). This was destroyed in the Great
Fire and its remains were used until Central Station was built. Great
Central had more tenants than Central did: Michigan Central, of course,
which had participated in construction of the lakefront route. But
Chicago Burlington and Quincy and B&O were also tenants, as well as a
few others. The Q and B&O never returned to Great Central after the
fire. IC's long delay in replacing it was the last straw. The Q aligned
with Pennsy in Chicago Union Passenger Terminal well west of the Loop,
later replaced with Chicago Union Station. It saved the Q crossing
several other railroads on the way to the lakefront. B&O would later
acquire Wisconsin Central Station (known throughout its history as Grand
Central Station) when it came on the market following the collapse of
the Northern Pacific. B&O also acquired the associated terminal
railroad, despite the awkwardness of an eastern railroad using terminal
facilities built for a western railroad.
The IC tried to force a bill through the legislature that would give it
title to the lakebottom it was forced to use to reach the peninsula
between Randolph and the river where its main freight yard and passenger
terminal was, but this was lambasted as the Lakefront Steel and ruled
unconstitutional. IC then decided to build its new passenger terminal at
11th Place, as far north as the right-of-way it owned went.
In the 1920's, IC then had the great idea of getting rid of its downtown
freight yard, building double-deck street so it wouldn't waste land building
alleys, in the mid-'20's. Not knowing what to do with the suburban terminal,
it remained in a temporary facility for over 30 years. It was assumed
that the permanent suburban terminal would be incorporated into the
basement of a new office building. But the Depression hit, and IC built
a permanent passenger facility for the south end of the terminal at
Randolph Street in 1930, leaving the north end of the terminal and
platforms on temporary structures. When Pru was built in the 1950's,
part of the platforms were replaced with permanent platforms under the
building, but the northern end remained temporary until the early 1980's
when Boulevard Towers was built.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>DART's policy is that any TO that runs a red signal is demoted back to
>>>buses for a while; twice and the demotion is permanent.
>>They should be fired, first offense. That's traditional on a railroad.
>>No rules violation is more serious than disobeying a signal.
>There's plenty of things more serious than that, e.g. approaching an
>at-grade station (where pedestrians will be crossing the tracks) too fast.
Hardly. Running a signal is likely to kill more people.
>In any case, accidents happen. If it was intentional, that's another matter
>entirely.
What's more intentional than failure to look out the front window?
>>>However, this style of system is intended solely to prevent one train
>>>from rear-ending another. If one's going fast enough before passing the
>>>stop signal protecting an interlocking or crossing, it's still possible
>>>to have a collision with a conflicting movement because the errant train
>>>won't stop in time. There's also no speed enforcement. This is well
>>>short of what real ATP would provide, but it's a lot cheaper and solves
>>>the most likely problems.
>>Hm. I can't believe that the inadequate signals on CTA are more
>>sophisticated than anyone else's. At control points, automatic train
>>stop is enforced with an arm that trips the brakes if the interlocking
>>is violated.
>That's what NYCT has, and DART has an electronic version of the same.
No, you don't. Trip arms are fail-safe. In case of signal failure, they
halt trains. If electronic signals fail, there's no backup. CTA's cab
signal system (similar to what Cleveland had in the 1960's) can initiate
an emergency brake application, too.
>However, it's going to take it a while to stop the train, and the signals
>aren't far enough back from the interlocking to prevent a collision if the
>train is going fast enough when the brakes are tripped.
Ok, that seems like an absurd design. Why aren't the emergency brakes
activated in time to prevent the train from fouling the diamonds?
>Of course, a train _should_ never be going fast enough towards a stop
>signal to cause that situation, but it's entirely possible if you don't
>have true ATP.
Those operating practices are ridiculous.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> Everybody is afraid of
> getting the same treatment that New Jersey got for Camden-Trenton line.
? -v ?
h.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> You are ignoring the rights of the remaining freight customers.
Caltrain could buy an UIC-standard diesel loco for 1.5 million, and run
several short freights per day with it. Much cheaper than time
separation.
Hans-Joachim
Jaap van Dorp
so a UIC locomotive won't mean diddly.
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf9mmka.jue...@Odysseus.Zierke.com...
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Philip Nasadowski schrieb:
> Oh yeah: watch Austin. They're going to be using GTW 2/8s (4/8?)
2/6. It's the swiss way to put it: 6 axles, 2 of them powered.
http://www.stadlerrail.ch/file/pdf/CapMetro%20e.pdf
> in
> service pretty soon. Those trains are pretty freaking remarkable units.
Same as NJT River Line, plus technical improvements that you might
expect after having produced several dozen more for various customers.
Unlike NJT, Austin will use the standard cab.
> I wouldn't mind seeing the FLIRT hit north America, either...
Stadler has meanwhile sold 333 of them, which is roughly the same as
1000 normal rail cars. Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland,
Algiers.
> (Did Stadler like, buy Budd's soul or something?)
Used to be one of Europes smallest manufacturers, doing special order
jobs: narrow gauge, cog railroads, somesuch. Meanwhile, they grow at 30%
per year - their own growth, not bought growth.
Hans-Joachim
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> What date did you select in the "When Hell freezes over" pool?
I select "mainstream America realizes, that the Chinese transportation
system is outperforming them in a major way, with quite an economical
advantage".
Translates to 10 - 15 years.
Hans-Joachim
william welner
I think that reasoning for Mayor Lindsey to propose placing the city's
transit under the state MTA board is the fact that Triboro Bridge and Tunnel
Authority was also placed under the MTA basically allowing the bridge and
tunnel toll revenue to fund capital improvements for the subways. From the
end of World War II through the 1960's the subways deteriated from
neglect,as most people thought that the automobile would be the wave of the
future for transportation. Although Lindsey supported building roads when
running for office, he faced a transit strike on Jan. 1 when he was sworn
into office which lasted several weeks, as I remember the terrible traffic
jams during the strike and my difficulty in getting from Brooklyn to CCNY in
upper Manhattan for college classes. As I remember there was real problems
with food getting delivered to super markets and since the Postal Workers
could not get to work, as many retirees did not get their Jan 3rd Social
Security Checks in the mail. Lindsey discovered how important transit is to
the city on his first day as mayor.
The rolling stock through the 1960's on the original IRT and BMT divisions
is the original equipment obtained in the early 1900's with those wicker
seats that would tear your clothes,as there was no funding source to
purchase new rolling stock. To see those old train cars one now has to visit
the transit museum in Brooklyn or the State Museum in Albany. Today all the
subways have A/C and there is now a recurring passenger replacement train
car program in effect for both the subways and commuter rail lines.
Lindsey as a former Congressman knew that new highways were funded 90% by
the feds, but not one cent of federal money was to the subways at the time.
Only recently under pressure from some Northeastern Senators including
former Senator Pat Monahan and other senators from the west coast that
federal money is going into transit improvements including the new 2nd
Avenue subway and other projects including the new Penn Station to be named
after Pat Monahan and those throughout the nation.
New York City is unique in other ways in its relationship with the state as
all the interstates, parkways, state and federal highways are not owned and
maintained by the state but by the city, but all capital construction is
done by the NYS DOT. The state police or troopers also does not patrol NYC
Highways. The city also gets the entire portion of the state gas tax for
gas sold in the city to maintain these roads.
Bill
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-54AB...@netnews.asp.att.net...
Adam H. Kerman
The freight cars being hauled will continue to be compliant, so that
won't help in any way.