Caltrain christens Baby Bullet I
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> >> For instance, in parts of Switzerland, freight trains are *required*
> >> to operate at the same speeds as passenger trains.
> >
> > Lovely. I can just imagine a typical North American coal train
> > operating with 250,000 hp worth of locomotives just to be able to match
> > passenger speeds.
>
> I'm not sure where you live, but in most parts of the USA the
> coal trains run as fast as the passenger trains, and they don't
> require anywhere near that much horsepower.
Exactly the opposite is the case in most parts of the USA, or North
America, for that matter.
Loaded coal trains are typically limited to a maximum speed of 45 or 50
mph, while passenger trains can operate up to 79 mph, or in some cases,
90 mph or even higher speeds.
A 135 car coal train might have 12,000 hp pulling it, for a 0.65
power-to-weight ratio. A passenger train might have a P/W of something
like 10, or more than 15 times the horsepower per ton. This translates
into higher acceleration rates, higher top speed, and higher speeds on
gradients. The speed on grades is where the difference is most notable,
where a coal train might only be capable of 10 mph maximum on a moderate
grade, because of horsepower limitations, while a passenger train could
easily make 50 or 60 mph.
Freight trains are also restricted to lower speeds on downgrades because
there is a limit to the amount of braking energy that can be dissipated.
In some cases, the speed might be limited to as little as 10 or 15 mph.
Passenger trains can have restrictions for similar reasons, but the
allowable speed will be substantially higher.
> >So you want to sacrifice the relatively successful freight business in
> >favor of a perennially money-losing passenger business that will never
> >carry a significant amount of passengers over the national network.
> >Actually, your suggestions about adding locomotives to trains would
> >solve the freight interference problem, since there simply wouldn't be
> >any freight trains due to their high cost of operation.
>
> The Union Pacific tends to run their freight trains at very high
> speeds (at least on the traditional Union Pacific trackage; I don't
> know what shape the track on any of their deregulation conquests is
> in) and they don't seem to be having much trouble making a profit.
Yes, the operate some trains at high speeds, but they make most of their
profit by operating heavy freight trains at a maximum of 50 mph, with a
minimum number of locomotives. If they were required to provide 15
times the horsepower on each train, and operate them at 80 mph maximum
speeds, then the economics would shift substantially, and it wouldn't be
in the right direction.
They would need to increase capital investment to buy the locomotives,
to upgrade the strength of their track for the higher speeds, and to buy
new freight cars that can run that fast. Most likely, investment in
electrification would be necessary. They would also see substantially
increased ongoing expenses to buy vast amounts of additional energy, not
to mention higher track maintenance expense, and the expense of
maintaining all the additional locomotives. These costs would overwhelm
any potential savings from the higher speeds, or any small increase in
revenue they might be able to attract.
Glenn Olsen
archive and would like to know what Caltrain's Baby Bullet is.
Glenn
Merritt Mullen
swed...@hotmail.com (Glenn Olsen) wrote:
> Does anyone have the orginal post? I can't seem to find it in the
> archive and would like to know what Caltrain's Baby Bullet is.
Nothing very exciting. It is just the standard Bombardier ("GO Toronto")
commuter cars used on all the other California (and Seattle, Texas,
Florida, Virginia, etc) commuter services, running on an express (not all
stops) schedule.
Merritt
Philip Nasadowski
Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Nothing very exciting.
They sure are making enough of a flap about it.
> It is just the standard Bombardier ("GO Toronto")
> commuter cars used on all the other California (and Seattle, Texas,
> Florida, Virginia, etc) commuter services, running on an express (not all
> stops) schedule.
Whoop. A piss poor diesel pulling piss poor cars at speeds that weren't
even exciting 50 years ago.
I love how the standardds for 'high speed' rail get lower all the time.
Sooner or later, the US will have the largest 'high speed' system in the
world, although by far the slowest too. Even the big whoopie 110mph
running in Illinois (if ever implemented, though I don't know what's so
hard about ASC that it's taking years and millions of dollars to
implementwhat's been in daily use for nearly 50 years in the northeast)
will do near nothing to improve low running speeds, which are a function
of overweight, underpowered trains, obnoxious dwell times, poor host RR
operations, and poor crew performance. It would take miles of '110mph'
running (actually maintaining 110mph for a while, not 110, thendropping
to 90 something on a grade, then increasing, then slowing for an 85mph
curve, etc) to actually make a time difference. even the Acela's much
flaunted 18 miles of '150' mph track makes nearly no difference in the
running times.
Ronald Kappesser
Yeah, but the new engines are pretty cool looking (not that this
improves the service any, but they do look cool).
bras...@despammed.com
<nasadowsk-1375E...@241.in-addr.mrf.va.news.rcn.net>, Philip
Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> In article <mmullen8014-5FD2...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Nothing very exciting.
>
> They sure are making enough of a flap about it.
It's California. It seems like everything has to be a big flap. I can't
complain too much, since the poorer neighbor to up here in the north
recently announced Portland to Astoria passenger service - nice modern
(for 1956) Budd RDC cars operating the 100 miles between the two cities in
a nice speedy four hours one way schedule.
Averaging 25 mph over the line, it *might* beat a bicyclist on days the
bicyclist has a strong head wind.
BUT, you have to start somewhere, and this is all the state rail division
has money for right now.
> will do near nothing to improve low running speeds, which are a function
> of overweight, underpowered trains, obnoxious dwell times, poor host RR
> operations, and poor crew performance.
Aren't we forgetting track and other infrastructure problems?
Though, you do hit on a pet peeve of mine. It seems that certain
transportation and elected officials think that a $100,000 opening
ceremony and other useless propaganda is better than $100,000 in track
investment. On the branch lines around here at least, old ties are one of
the major speed limiting problems. $100,000 can buy an awful lot of ties.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Merritt Mullen
rr...@yahoo.com (Ronald Kappesser) wrote:
But no different than the engines on the other commuter lines. Caltrain
is just finally getting up to where the other lines have been for years.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
<nasadowsk-1375E...@241.in-addr.mrf.va.news.rcn.net>,
Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> In article <mmullen8014-5FD2...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Nothing very exciting.
>
> They sure are making enough of a flap about it.
>
> > It is just the standard Bombardier ("GO Toronto")
> > commuter cars used on all the other California (and Seattle, Texas,
> > Florida, Virginia, etc) commuter services, running on an express (not all
> > stops) schedule.
>
> Whoop. A piss poor diesel pulling piss poor cars at speeds that weren't
> even exciting 50 years ago.
>
> I love how the standardds for 'high speed' rail get lower all the time.
The so-called Caltrain "Baby Bullet" has nothing to to with high-speed
rail. It is just a plain old diesel-powered commuter train, but I
wouldn't characterize it as a piss-poor diesel pulling piss-poor cars--it
is a state of the art diesel pulling what I consider excellent commuter
cars. I don't understand how they came up with the name "Baby Bullet"
however. It is only faster because it will offer express service (fewer
stops).
Merritt
Charles Hobbs
> The so-called Caltrain "Baby Bullet" has nothing to to with high-speed
> rail. It is just a plain old diesel-powered commuter train, but I
> wouldn't characterize it as a piss-poor diesel pulling piss-poor cars--it
> is a state of the art diesel pulling what I consider excellent commuter
> cars. I don't understand how they came up with the name "Baby Bullet"
> however. It is only faster because it will offer express service (fewer
> stops).
It's not as fast as a "real" bullet train (150+) That's why it's called
"Baby" Bullet....
But if it gets you between SF and SJ in 45 minutes....I *guess* that's
pretty good. How long does it take to drive it? (with and without traffic)
And if/when the Calif HSR project ever gets on line....won't it use
the same track and stops as the "Baby Bullet" (i.e. it won't run
at "true" HSR speed until it gets out to the Central Valley) ?
Merritt Mullen
Charles Hobbs <cho...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> > The so-called Caltrain "Baby Bullet" has nothing to to with high-speed
> > rail. It is just a plain old diesel-powered commuter train, but I
> > wouldn't characterize it as a piss-poor diesel pulling piss-poor cars--it
> > is a state of the art diesel pulling what I consider excellent commuter
> > cars. I don't understand how they came up with the name "Baby Bullet"
> > however. It is only faster because it will offer express service (fewer
> > stops).
>
> It's not as fast as a "real" bullet train (150+) That's why it's called
> "Baby" Bullet....
Its not even a fast as a typical Amtrak passenger train. Maybe "Super
Slug" would be a better name (faster than the average slug).
> But if it gets you between SF and SJ in 45 minutes....I *guess* that's
> pretty good. How long does it take to drive it? (with and without traffic)
I think it is 45 miles from SF to SJ, so that is an average of 60 mph.
Not bad for a commuter run, but hardly a "bullet train", baby or otherwise.
> And if/when the Calif HSR project ever gets on line....won't it use
> the same track and stops as the "Baby Bullet" (i.e. it won't run
> at "true" HSR speed until it gets out to the Central Valley) ?
The ROW will have to be improved before the Ca HST starts using it. For
one thing, it will have to electrified. According to the HSR Plan,
segment speeds are:
SF-SFO <100 mph
SFO-San Jose-Gilroy 100-150 mph
Gilroy-Bakersfield 200+ mph
Merritt
Philip Nasadowski
Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>-it
> is a state of the art diesel pulling what I consider excellent commuter
> cars.
State of the art?
DC traction, low HP, high weight, acient prime mover design, dated truck
technology?
Maybe for 1950 it was SOA, but for today, it's called a dinosaur. Ditto
for the overweight Go cars they're using. High weight carbon steel cars
with cast trucks were obsoleted in the 50's by Budd. It's inasne anyone
buys them anymore, but Caltrans and Metra aren't exactly known for being
anywhere near cutting edge (though even in the US, 'cutting edge' seems
to trail the real world by 10 - 20 years)
James Robinson
>
> State of the art?
>
> Ditto for the overweight Go cars they're using. High weight
> carbon steel cars with cast trucks were obsoleted in the 50's by
> Budd. It's inasne anyone buys them anymore, but Caltrans and
Sorry to break up your rant, you were on quite a roll.
The GO cars are a hybrid design with a monocoque aluminum body and with
some mild steel parts underneath to better handle wear and augment sill
strength. Both the cars and trucks weren't even designed until the
1970s, and had nothing to do with Budd, since they were a completely new
design from Hawker Siddeley Canada and Dofasco.
The trucks are inboard bearing design, with a load leveling air
suspension. They are a quite light and durable design because of their
cast frame. The braking system is a hybrid system with both tread and
disk brakes for high capacity and good rail adhesion. The system has
continuous load sensing and compensation, and incorporates the latest
antislide system. It ensures that braking is at the limit of adhesion.
In short, they are an up-to-date design.
Merritt Mullen
<nasadowsk-37EDE...@241.in-addr.mrf.va.news.rcn.net>,
Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> In article <mmullen8014-DB2C...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >-it
> > is a state of the art diesel pulling what I consider excellent commuter
> > cars.
>
> State of the art?
>
> DC traction, low HP, high weight, acient prime mover design, dated truck
> technology?
And your example of a MORE "state-of-the-art" diesel-electric locomotive
used in North American commuter service and meeting California emissions
and noise requirements is....?
And I suspect you have never ridden in the Bombardier cars. Those that do
think they are great. I've never ridden in a better commuter car.
Merritt
Nathan Whitehorn
> is just finally getting up to where the other lines have been for years.
That's for sure. The real news with the baby bullet (not that the new
cars aren't an enormous improvement over the gallery cars) are the
right-of-way improvements that were deferred the last couple of
decades. From San Francisco to San Jose (49.1 miles to the terminus at
Tamien) the line is double-track, automatic block signalled, jointed
rail, wooden tie, with hand-thrown switches at the few crossovers.
Express trains were impossible except with a huge gap in service ahead
of them, as it was impossible to pass other trains in the same
direction.
Now, the line is up to 4 main tracks in places, with CTC, electric
switches, welded rail (on the new track... I'm assuming, or rather
hoping, that they'll fix the track that's already there), and concrete
ties. What justifies the big flap about the baby bullets is not that
they are running them, but that it is now possible to run them.
And, of course, 45 minutes is a decided improvement on the 1-hour
at-the-absolute-minimum trip time driving on 101 or 280, usually more,
and on the 1:30 to 1:45 trip time on Caltrain now.
-Nathan
Andrew Price
wrote:
[---]
>The braking system is a hybrid system with both tread and
>disk brakes for high capacity and good rail adhesion.
Are such hybrid systems common in the US?
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > The braking system is a hybrid system with both tread and
> > disk brakes for high capacity and good rail adhesion.
>
> Are such hybrid systems common in the US?
I wouldn't say they are common, but they do exist.
Silas Warner
At the time they were introduced to the US, not at all. And I may
be mistaken, but the hybrid brake system was actually introduced
on the second order of Metrolink cars. I do know that Metrolink
was running test trains to fine-tune the braking computers as late
as 1992: I rode on a Santa Clarita train late in 1992 whose cab car
front was occupied with testers and mearuing gear for the brakes.
Silas Warner