|
|
| Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification (918637) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Mar 30 15:07:40 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 30 08:39:06 2010. Why do you think NJT uses Push-pulls? EMU's have much higher costs associated with them because in addition to all of the propulsion kit they are all locomotives and required to be inspected as such. Every EMU that can be eliminated from a fleet saves money.But there are costs associated with operating a mixed fleet. The economies of scale which can be brought to bear on a unified fleet, as well as the savings present in purchasing truly off the shelf equipment on the world market should more than offset the marginally higher cost of operating an EMU fleet. I'm surprised LIRR and MNRR haven't bought single-mode DC electric locomotives to get rid of some of their own MU's on express runs. The current would be a killer. The only Caltrain runs that will benefit from EMU acceleration are the off-peak locals and there isn't a big capacity issue with them. So the off peak passengers do not deserve as rapid a trip as possible?The current local trip time from 4th and King to San Jose is about 91 minutes, yet the adoption of European EMUs would reduce that by 20 minutes. Second all trains should use 3-2 seating as anything less is a waste of space. That's simply not going to happen as NJT's experience with the Multilevels and SEPTA experience with DVARP and the Silverliner Vs shows. But assuming we were to do 3+2 on at least the lower level of these bilevel EMUs, then their capacity would be that much greater than the single level EMUs. That means greater savings in smaller station platforms to build and maintain, all for a marginal increase in cost. And since we're buying OTS EMUs without having to get into an expensive one-off design there'd be savings present there as well. Finally, Europe basically runs BART style rapid transit operation. In the United States we have these things called Railroads, which, although slower, are safer, cheaper, more fault tolerant, provide more spacious accommodations and come with a cup holder. That couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. BART's totally new, proprietary infrastructure is just about the antithesis of the RER and S-bahn system's principle of operation. Fine, outwardly their operation may appear somewhat similar, but at anything more than skin deep they're radically different. It's funny how you think that will actually be built, If it isn't going to be built then what is the point of having any faith in the future of mass transit or urban development? If we're going to restrict ourselves to 150mph max, 80mph average operation then we'll be limited to linking cities within 200 miles of each other. This means maybe we'll link Chicago to St Louis, LA to San Diego, Houston to Dallas at a cost equal to a 200mph line, but ultimately none of those HSR lines will achieve the same market share a faster line would provide. but I hope the FRA will get involved and require proper rolling stock. The FRA is already involved. They're the ones who signed off on the additional federal funding for the Transbay terminal project. If they're going to step in and totally destroy any chance of the CAHSR project ever being useful by limiting its top speed to 150mph then why give them the funding to pursue this non-compatible operation? Remember when your system can tolerate crashes everything else becomes cheaper. No it doesn't. You get to dig longer tunnels and cuts, and build longer bridges because your heavier rolling stock cannot deal with grades. You get to repair the track twice as often because the 150 ton beasts you insist on operating in contravention of worldwide best practices tear apart the rigid track structure. And all this is completely in vain because at 150mph it doesn't much matter if you have a beercan or a steel bar; it's going to bend and break when you smash into a bridge abutment. This "crash tolerance" is a complete myth at any speed above about 30mph, at which point deformation can and will take place, and in all FRA compatible railcars that deformation will be violent and unpredictable. The Germans tried to go the whole no-crash route with their ICE network, but they still had one and it killed 101 people. Sure, after the bridge fell on the train. Exactly how is your "crash tolerant" approach going to protect the passengers with a few thousand tons of steel raining down on the side of their railcar? In fact by not taking steps to avert crashes in the first place you're increasing the chances of a derailment and post-derailment injuries occurring. If an Acela were to strike a bridge the death toll would likely be higher than Eschede and would more than likely only be mitigated by the smaller number of people that overweight train carries relative to an ICE 1. But while we're on the subject, why no mention of the Shinkansen or the TGV? Where are their flaming crashes with hundreds dead? Surely by your logic their lightweight, "non crash tolerant" trains should be killing people left and right, but they've been going strong for the past 30 years without a major incident. And it's not like they haven't had their share of problems, what with the bombings, WWI trenches opening under the train, or in Japan's case earthquakes and typhoons. Yet these lightweight trains somehow have an even lower injury rate than our heavyweight trains carrying a tenth the number of passengers at less than half the speed. |
|
|
|