|
|
| CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification (918205) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (918205) | |
CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by ebtmikado on Mon Mar 29 13:08:09 2010 READ IT HERE Lee |
|
|
| (918211) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 13:13:57 2010, in response to CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by ebtmikado on Mon Mar 29 13:08:09 2010. Do they plan to spend the billions of dollars they don't have use the electric rolling stock they don't own?Also, why are they going with EMUs? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy electric locomotives (possibly NJT's AEM-7's) and haul the existing coaches? Why do I feel the days of the Caltrain railfan window are now numbered. |
|
|
| (918212) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by ebtmikado on Mon Mar 29 13:16:18 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 13:13:57 2010. Perhaps the Caltrain website has a Q&A section. Give it a try. Lee |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (918215) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:20:43 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 13:13:57 2010. NJT doesn't have AEM-7s. I agree that going with EMUs is dumb, especially if you have the pre-existing push-pull stock. |
|
|
| (918217) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Mar 29 13:24:57 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:20:43 2010. While I have reservations, the current Caltrain fantasy is they are shilling for an FRA waiver in order to buy euro/lightweight EMUs. The electricity savings in lower tare weight are not insignificant. As to the present tanks, they will find homes on FRA compliant routes. |
|
|
| (918218) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 13:27:46 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Mar 29 13:24:57 2010. They should just get some of those Gallery-car EMU's like Metra and NICT-D bought. Those are sweet. |
|
|
| (918220) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 29 13:32:18 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 13:13:57 2010. By the time this gets authorized and built, Caltrain's passanger cars will need replacement anyway. Given California's financial state, I doubt we'll even see that day. |
|
|
| (918221) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Mar 29 13:34:08 2010, in response to CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by ebtmikado on Mon Mar 29 13:08:09 2010. Coolio |
|
|
| (918226) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:41:06 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 13:27:46 2010. Those are currently configured for high platforms. Furthermore, the Baby Bullets (BBD cars) would start giving Caltrain pax a taste for low-floor cars, possibly . . . |
|
|
| (918227) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:42:01 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Mar 29 13:24:57 2010. Yes, that's a load of hot air. The FRA will never issue such a waiver; it's purposeless.There is nowhere for the "present tanks" to go. |
|
|
| (918228) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:42:35 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 29 13:32:18 2010. Doubtless about that. |
|
|
| (918230) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:03:32 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Mar 29 13:24:57 2010. The FRA waiver is less for power consumption and more for compatibility with the proposed CAHSR system. The CAHSR system was the primary beneficiary of the FRA's recent HSR grant program, so for the feds to tie Caltrans' hands with regulations would be foolish. The CAHSR project hinges upon their ability to prove the ERTMS system will provide sufficient train control to obviate the FRA's Tier II rules. So long as the CAHSR trains will not be complying with the FRA, then there is no reason to accept the greater wear and tear and lower acceleration the FRA compatible units will place on their system. |
|
|
| (918231) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 29 14:07:54 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:03:32 2010. CAHSR is never, EVER going to be built! |
|
|
| (918237) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Mar 29 14:21:10 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 29 14:07:54 2010. neither will the Transcontinental RR. Once the Feds make clear that DOD vendors can ripoff CAHSR the way some of them did BART, it WILL be built. |
|
|
| (918239) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:24:19 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 13:27:46 2010. Because the Sumimoto EMUs are lucky to achieve 2mph/s and a top speed of 79mph. The European EMUs, regardless of the builder, are going to do at least 2.5mph/s and top out at 125mph. That gives them an acceleration equal to the New York City Subway system but the capability to operate interspersed with the CAHSR trains in a continuation of the Baby Bullet express service. Shared operation is not an option with the Gallery Cars because at 85 tons those EMUs would have almost as detrimental an effect on the HSR tracks as a freight train. And that's 85tons before a 10 to 15 ton 25kvAC transformer is hung on the car, which could make the car weigh as much as a GG1. That is totally unacceptable for an EMU. |
|
|
| (918241) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:34:41 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Mar 29 14:07:54 2010. Keep telling yourself that, but all evidence at the moment is to the contrary. Unlike the shortsighted fools that are currently getting the press a few folks seem to have realized that now is the time to prepare for future growth. The economy will eventually recover, and when it does our need for transportation will be that much greater than it was before the Bush recession. Constructing the infrastructure to support that greater demand now allows us to get in on the lower construction prices in this depressed market and support the contractors which have been most severely impacted by the recession.As has been established the California HSR project is cheaper than making the requisite improvements to the Ontario and Palmdale airports, constructing a third Bay Area airport, connecting those airports to their nearby urban centers, and making the highway improvements to provide greater capacity in the central valley to accommodate the same traffic, almost by a factor of two. Why are you so staunchly in favor of greater governmental expenditures for transportation? Why should we double the amount we're spending just to safeguard a market the airlines cannot serve efficiently within our air traffic control system? You're using governmental expenditures to fight the market forces that dictate a dense corridor of 400 or so miles be served by high speed ground transportation with much greater capacity and reliability than the airlines can hope to achieve. |
|
|
| (918243) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:37:56 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:20:43 2010. So you're against NJT's anti-EMU policies, but for the application of those policies elsewhere? Why should Caltrain be hamstrung by the poor operating practices which have been put into practice elsewhere around the country? Why should Bay Area commuters be subjected to unnecessarily long commutes because you've capped the acceleration of their train at 1mph/s? |
|
|
| (918248) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:53:28 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:42:01 2010. There is nowhere for the "present tanks" to go.Sure there is. Metra is working their way through a torturous process to get the STAR and Southeast services up and running, as well as improve CNW-NW and CNW-W service. All of that is going to require additional rolling stock which as yet has not been ordered. At the moment it looks like they want to use DMUs for the STAR line, but the other services could easily use standard diesel push pull trains. Caltrain's newer Gallery cars and perhaps the BBD Bilevels could provide a lot of the rolling stock for those services. |
|
|
| (918252) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Mar 29 14:56:43 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:53:28 2010. Also maybe some international countries will want them. |
|
|
| (918256) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 14:59:35 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:41:06 2010. The NICT-D cars have to function for both low and high platforms. It wouldn't be hard to redesign them for low floor only. |
|
|
| (918264) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 15:22:00 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:24:19 2010. European style EMU's lack both any reasonable form of crash worthiness and any form of railfan windows. |
|
|
| (918285) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 15:54:23 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 15:22:00 2010. European style EMU's lack both any reasonable form of crash worthiness and any form of railfan windows.Not true on both counts. In my experience most current German cab cars, either intercity single level or regional bilevel cars, have a railfan view through a large, clear divider between the cab and passenger cabin such as can be seen below.  With the actual EMUs it may be more difficult to provide passenger capacity along the length of the EMU. The Siemens Desiro DD places the power electronics in the area immediately behind the cab and thus segregates the passenger cabin from the cab. The same is true of the Stadler DOSTO bilevel EMU. However, the Alstom Coradia places the power system at the rear of the one cab car, so passenger access to the rear of the cab is unfettered. Certainly a layout like the Bombardier double deckers is far and away superior in terms of a railfan view than the Bombardier Bilevels Caltrain has most recently ordered. As for the crashworthiness the study which accompanies the FRA waiver confirms that the European EN15227 standard is equal or superior to the FRA's 49CFR238 under most realistic circumstances. At anything above 10 to 20mph the FRA's crashworthiness standards becomes pure fantasy and we end up hauling around enormous amounts of weight for absolutely no benefit in a collision. |
|
|
| (918290) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 16:12:44 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:37:56 2010. Many of the express runs don't require MU acceleration rates to maintain a fast schedule. For the locals they could run off the shelf single level M-2n derived stock instead of buying euro-trash. |
|
|
| (918292) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 29 16:23:24 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 16:12:44 2010. Many of the express runs don't require MU acceleration rates to maintain a fast schedule. For the locals they could run off the shelf single level M-2n derived stock instead of buying euro-trash.First off, why purchase two different kinds of equipment? Second, by "single level M-2n derived stock", do you mean a descendant of MTA MNCR M2s? I can't imagine that any railroad would possibly want to be saddled with that design. |
|
|
| (918293) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 16:35:20 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 16:12:44 2010. Many of the express runs don't require MU acceleration rates to maintain a fast schedule.Of course, but if they can use the EMUs to cover those express runs then they gain economies of scale which can offset the greater marginal cost of the EMUs relative to a mixed fleet. It doesn't make much sense to buy 10 locomotives and the equipment to maintain them just to cover a few express runs when they can just go with a full EMU fleet and eliminate the additional costs of the locomotives and push pull cars. For the locals they could run off the shelf single level M-2n derived stock instead of buying euro-trash. What off the shelf? NOTHING made to be FRA compatible can be considered "off she shelf" by any stretch of the imagination. Even addition In addition buying FRA compatible single level M8-like crap would require longer trainsets and the adoption of 3x2 seating, decreasing passenger comfort and increasing the cost for the rolling stock changeover. An M8-like car would accelerate slower and have a lower top speed than any of the European EMU designs. The CAHSR project will require the Caltrain line to be converted for use by non-FRA compatible rolling stock. As a result it is foolish to stick with the FRA's requirements for Caltrain's rolling stock. Caltrain stands to gain real savings from acquiring actual off the shelf equipment which reduces the cost of operation all while increasing the convenience and comfort for passengers. |
|
|
| (918294) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 16:37:22 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 29 16:23:24 2010. I didn't think about the possibility Mr. Brotzman may have been referring to the MI 2N, but that'd seem to be precisely what he's railing against. |
|
|
| (918296) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 16:54:50 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 14:59:35 2010. There's an equipment locker right under the high platform center doors, so installing steps there is not an option. I'm sure Caltrain's passengers will be thrilled with lining up to use that one narrow rear door down to the platform. Oh, and we get to pay to find a way to fit a wheelchair lift to them to maintain platform height compatibility with the existing rolling stock and the new HSTs. It is hard to imagine a worse trainset Caltrain could adopt than the Metra 1200 and NICTD 300 series trains. |
|
|
| (918338) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 17:53:31 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 29 16:23:24 2010. First off, why purchase two different kinds of equipment?Quite so. Stick with the bilevel push-pulls and something like the ALP46A. There's enough UP freight activity along that line to make FRA exclusion a total pain . . . (I like this illustration, even though the electric motor is an AEM-7 and the cars aren't exactly gallery cars but appear to be based somewhat on the Pacific Surfliner bilevels.)  |
|
|
| (918348) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 18:10:18 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 29 14:59:35 2010. I take it you have extra exits in mind? The new Metra Highliners have the center door only (half of which has a trap), while the NICTD cars have a high-only center door with high-and-low end doors featuring trapdoors. Someone on Subchat (forget whom) tried to claim that these cars would not venture east of Gary. This is evidence to the contrary . . .  |
|
|
| (918350) | |
Re: COWTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 18:12:13 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by arnine on Mon Mar 29 14:56:43 2010. "International country" . . . ? Nobody outside the Americas could take them; they're about 16 feet tall above rail. |
|
|
| (918354) | |
Re: COWTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Mar 29 18:14:37 2010, in response to Re: COWTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 18:12:13 2010. Ok just an idea |
|
|
| (918362) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Mon Mar 29 18:43:02 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 18:10:18 2010. Gadzooks! Is that just a curve in the road, or is the train actually turning onto another street? Boy oh boy I can't wait to check this out (one day). |
|
|
| (918366) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 19:02:05 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Mon Mar 29 18:43:02 2010. Yup, I'm overdue for a visit to Michigan City, Indiana myself. World's tallest interurban cars, those are; certainly the longest, at 85 feet (AFAIK they're taller than the Blackpool trams). |
|
|
| (918439) | |
Re: COWTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 22:27:41 2010, in response to Re: COWTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by arnine on Mon Mar 29 18:14:37 2010. Ain't a bad idea if it were the case that the economy was going back up in earnest and there were passenger service expansions across the continent. |
|
|
| (918455) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 23:12:57 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 17:53:31 2010. Quite so. Stick with the bilevel push-pulls and something like the ALP46ADo you want to explain to the commuters why their commute is taking longer? Yes, lets trade 2.5mph/s and a 125mph top speed for ALP46s which maybe get 1mph/s and a top speed somewhere between 79 and 100mph depending how the Gallery Cars and Bilevels are set up. And instead of using the Caltrain route for the CAHSR line we can go and dig our own ROW somewhere else on the penninsula. Way to go, in your foamer effort to hold onto useless rolling stock you cost the state billions of dollars. Pennywise and poundfoolish doesn't even begin to describe this stupidity. There's enough UP freight activity along that line to make FRA exclusion a total pain. Sure, fewer than 10 freight trains per week. Lets derail an entire multibillion dollar project because its too hard to change a few rules to avoid less than 2 trains per day. I like this illustration, even though the electric motor is an AEM-7 and the cars aren't exactly gallery cars but appear to be based somewhat on the Pacific Surfliner bilevels Eh, he did much better stuff when he graduated from colored pencils to photoshoppe and better subject matter: 
|
|
|
| (918502) | |
Re: COWTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Mar 30 05:38:55 2010, in response to Re: COWTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 22:27:41 2010. True |
|
|
| (918525) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 30 07:57:48 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Mar 29 16:23:24 2010. I meant M-Evens like the M-8, M-10 or M-12 cars MNRR will be using in 2025. |
|
|
| (918526) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 30 08:12:11 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 23:12:57 2010. FRA crash rules aren't just about freight trains, they deal with the issue of grade crossings and other right of way incursions. It is FAR cheaper to add protection to the vehicles than to add protection to every grade crossing and every switch and who knows what else. A light weight European style EMU derailed into a rock cut in Australia and killed 20 people when the car was ripped apart. That's the sort of accident properly robust rolling stock can protect against.The Caltrain route will never be good for 125mph or probably even 100 because of the massive number of grade crossings and "downtown" running. There are a few separated sections that could see higher speeds, but much of the line is just one giant suburban grade crossing. The NIMBIES will never allow HSR even if California had the money to pay for it. |
|
|
| (918529) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 30 08:39:06 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 16:35:20 2010. Of course, but if they can use the EMUs to cover those express runs then they gain economies of scale which can offset the greater marginal cost of the EMUs relative to a mixed fleet. It doesn't make much sense to buy 10 locomotives and the equipment to maintain them just to cover a few express runs when they can just go with a full EMU fleet and eliminate the additional costs of the locomotives and push pull cars.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. 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. Even addition In addition buying FRA compatible single level M8-like crap would require longer trainsets and the adoption of 3x2 seating, decreasing passenger comfort and increasing the cost for the rolling stock changeover. An M8-like car would accelerate slower and have a lower top speed than any of the European EMU designs. 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. Second all trains should use 3-2 seating as anything less is a waste of space. 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. The CAHSR project will require the Caltrain line to be converted for use by non-FRA compatible rolling stock. As a result it is foolish to stick with the FRA's requirements for Caltrain's rolling stock. Caltrain stands to gain real savings from acquiring actual off the shelf equipment which reduces the cost of operation all while increasing the convenience and comfort for passengers. It's funny how you think that will actually be built, but I hope the FRA will get involved and require proper rolling stock. Remember when your system can tolerate crashes everything else becomes cheaper. The Germans tried to go the whole no-crash route with their ICE network, but they still had one and it killed 101 people. |
|
|
| (918531) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 30 08:51:02 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:53:28 2010. I'm not holding my breath that they'll have to go anywhere. Once the FRA puts the smackdown on their Euro-stock Caltrain will basically become NJT-West and I don't think that's such a bad thing. With a 6 car trainset an ALP-46 will have no problem accelerating on the mid-day local trains. Still, I don't see Caltrain having the money to open a Popsicle stand let alone electrifying and building a downtown tunnel station. |
|
|
| (918534) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 30 09:00:51 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 29 14:03:32 2010. The CAHSR project hinges upon their ability to prove the ERTMS system will provide sufficient train control to obviate the FRA's Tier II rules.Great, ERTMS, another boondoggle. Why do I get the feeling that North American rail projects are designed to relieve foreign equipment providers of their defective crap. Once again the whole point of the crash standards is to mitigate the effects of all crashes, the vast majority are not train to train. With strong rolling stock you don't have to grade separate the right of way for one, which provides a large cost savings. You also don't have to inspect the track or equipment as much because if an accident happens it's not a big deal. Now maybe current FRA regulations are too strict as they were basically lobbied for by Bombardier so that they could win the ACELA contract , but given the crash performance of European rolling stock in accidents vs American stock I'd pick American stock any day. I'd be happy to roll things back to what they were in the 1990's. |
|
|
| (918536) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Mar 30 09:02:14 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 18:10:18 2010. Ooh, I need to ride that before if I ever leave the US. |
|
|
| (918537) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 30 09:04:37 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 18:10:18 2010. I must be sick but I caught half a stock looking at that second pic.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (918540) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Tue Mar 30 09:15:33 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 29 13:42:01 2010. I can think of two somewheres: AMT and VRE. If Music City Star survives, that makes three. |
|
|
| (918606) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 30 13:21:40 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Scrabbleship on Tue Mar 30 09:15:33 2010. I can think of two somewheres: AMT and VRENeither of them are looking. Unless in the former's case, you're thinking of when they're going to replace the Comet IBs. If VRE were ever to start run-throughs onto MARC territory, they'd be looking for cars that can load/unload at high platforms too. If Music City Star survives, that makes three Presuming they want to expand post survival. |
|
|
| (918607) | |
Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 30 13:28:18 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Fred G on Tue Mar 30 09:04:37 2010. We'll schedule you for the next season of "Dr. Drew's Foamer Rehab" then . . .I was looking for a side view just to compare where the low-platform doors are for Metra's new Highliners versus NICTD's (the latter has extra doors), but the street-running shot was too much to resist, in spite of the low doors being obscured (you can see the stairwell behind the first car in the pic though). |
|
|
| (918619) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification |
|
|
Posted by ebtmikado on Tue Mar 30 14:00:36 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 30 13:21:40 2010. You're right. Neither of them is looking now, but who knows what the future might bring?Lee |
|
|
| (918623) | |
NICTD Side View |
|
|
Posted by ebtmikado on Tue Mar 30 14:12:23 2010, in response to Re: Caltrain Prepares for Electrification, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 30 13:28:18 2010. PHOTO Lee |
|
|
| (918625) | |
Re: NICTD Side View |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 30 14:25:51 2010, in response to NICTD Side View, posted by ebtmikado on Tue Mar 30 14:12:23 2010. Yes, that makes things pretty clear. |
|
|
| (918628) | |
Re: CALTRAIN Electrification |
|
|
Posted by timz2 on Tue Mar 30 14:32:31 2010, in response to Re: CALTRAIN Prepares for Electrification, posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 30 08:51:02 2010. "With a 6 car trainset an ALP-46 will have no problem accelerating on the mid-day local trains."True, rate of acceleration will exceed zero, but we all agree it won't match an EMU. Supposedly Caltrain hopes all-stop locals will run San Jose-SF in 70 minutes, which would require EMUs (EMUs that are livelier than M7/Arrows, I suspect). (Don't recall if that 70 minutes is supposed to be San Jose to Transbay Terminal-- probably not?) |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
