Caltrain Going Broke?

[sechs]

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14802053

Caltrain is broke and will almost certainly need to wipe out half its service, leaving no trains on weekends, weeknights or midday and leaving the agency's future in doubt, officials said Thursday.
"And that's only if we're lucky," Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon told the agency's board of directors. "This is not an April fool's joke. This is real."

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

I have very little respect for Caltrain as an operation. This is the same transit authority that compromised safety by moving the horns underneath cab cars and locomotives to satisfy NIMBY concerns, putting lives at risk at every road crossing. Looking at the shockingly wasteful Transbay Terminal plans and laughable electrification planning, I can only conclude that the management at Caltrain actually makes the MTA look like a well managed transit authority.

Caltrain deserves the funding cuts. In hindsight, the old Southern Pacific commuter operation was a model of efficiency, working on a shoestring budget. In contrast, Caltrain is bloated and overreaching.

 

[sechs]

I have very little respect for Caltrain as an operation. This is the same transit authority that compromised safety by moving the horns underneath cab cars and locomotives to satisfy NIMBY concerns, putting lives at risk at every road crossing. Looking at the shockingly wasteful Transbay Terminal plans and laughable electrification planning, I can only conclude that the management at Caltrain actually makes the MTA look like a well managed transit authority.
Caltrain deserves the funding cuts. In hindsight, the old Southern Pacific commuter operation was a model of efficiency, working on a shoestring budget. In contrast, Caltrain is bloated and overreaching.

I'm glad that you have volunteered to fix the problems. When will we see you at the SamTrans offices in San Carlos?
A follow-up article for the rest of us:

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14811003

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Given the overall woes, what might become of this?

Vote to move Caltrain electrification closer

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Given the overall woes, what might become of this?
Vote to move Caltrain electrification closer

I'm inclined to say that the current Caltrain budget woes should put a permanent end to the dubious electrification scheme - but keep in mind that reason and logic have no place at Caltrain.

From its inception, electrification for the sake of electrification has been the main goal of Caltrain.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Given the overall woes, what might become of this?
Vote to move Caltrain electrification closer

I'm inclined to say that the current Caltrain budget woes should put a permanent end to the dubious electrification scheme - but keep in mind that reason and logic have no place at Caltrain.

From its inception, electrification for the sake of electrification has been the main goal of Caltrain.

Why is it dubious? Seems like every we should be moving to electrify as many rail operations are possible.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Why is it dubious? Seems like every we should be moving to electrify as many rail operations are possible.

They are electrifying one line, for which there is no real imperative for that electrification (such as the tunnels around New York City's major stations), that only operates 90 trains a day? Or, to put it more accurately, for only... uh, 40,000 riders a day? You don't need electrification for this line.

The Northeast Corridor, with its 2% grades around the North, East, and (soon, with Portal's replacement) Hackensack rivers, its hundreds of trains per day (particularly, once again, around New York), and its 10-12 car multi-level trains being hauled at 100 mph (soon to be 125) require the 7000+ hp provided by electric locomotives.

Furthermore, the only line that serves Penn Station that was NOT electrified early in its life was the CNJ Long Branch. Given the complexity of switching engines at Woodbridge, its electrification had nothing to do with Green. It had to do with saving a lot of money and time, consolidating operations.

And ALL of this electrification exists for one reason, and one reason only, and that is the underground nature of the entire railroad infrastructure around New York City.

Electrification for electrifications sake is... essentially silly. BNSF's rambling on and on about electrifying the transcon makes a lot of sense. BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which owns a LOT of coal mines. Coal is a very effective method of producing electricity with which to power... uh, BNSF trains running on the transcon. The money it would save them in both engines (electrics are more powerful), and fuel, is incalculable.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Why is it dubious? Seems like every we should be moving to electrify as many rail operations are possible.

They are electrifying one line, for which there is no real imperative for that electrification (such as the tunnels around New York City's major stations), that only operates 90 trains a day? Or, to put it more accurately, for only... uh, 40,000 riders a day? You don't need electrification for this line.

The Northeast Corridor, with its 2% grades around the North, East, and (soon, with Portal's replacement) Hackensack rivers, its hundreds of trains per day (particularly, once again, around New York), and its 10-12 car multi-level trains being hauled at 100 mph (soon to be 125) require the 7000+ hp provided by electric locomotives.

Furthermore, the only line that serves Penn Station that was NOT electrified early in its life was the CNJ Long Branch. Given the complexity of switching engines at Woodbridge, its electrification had nothing to do with Green. It had to do with saving a lot of money and time, consolidating operations.

And ALL of this electrification exists for one reason, and one reason only, and that is the underground nature of the entire railroad infrastructure around New York City.

Electrification for electrifications sake is... essentially silly. BNSF's rambling on and on about electrifying the transcon makes a lot of sense. BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which owns a LOT of coal mines. Coal is a very effective method of producing electricity with which to power... uh, BNSF trains running on the transcon. The money it would save them in both engines (electrics are more powerful), and fuel, is incalculable.

Well, in that case why not pull down the wires on both sides of NYC? Converting power from diesel/oil to electricity would lessen dependence on fuel from places that aren't our friends, improve the environment, all that green stuff. South Shore Line operates a lot less than 90 trains a day and that seems to have worked well for the past 90 years or so. Most of the rail infrastructure of Europe is above ground and they seem to use electricity efficiently.

 

[sechs]

I'm inclined to say that the current Caltrain budget woes should put a permanent end to the dubious electrification scheme - but keep in mind that reason and logic have no place at Caltrain.
From its inception, electrification for the sake of electrification has been the main goal of Caltrain.

I think your response demonstrates from how little knowledge you speak.
Capital improvements, like electrification, come from the capital budget. This is separate from the operating budget, which is what is running short for Caltrain. A large chunk of the money for capital projects come from outside sources, like state and federal grants, and special taxes, and can only be used for that purpose.

The PCJPA wants to electrify for two primary reasons. First, it's more environmentally friendly; it's more efficient and reduces air pollution (which is an issue in the Bay Area). Second, it's cheaper to run an electric train system than a diesel system; therefore, Caltrain would not need as large an operating budget to run its system. There's also the side-benefits of being able to run more trains faster.

 

[Rumpled]

I thought that I've read another benefit of electrification is faster acceleration; yielding faster trips. It doesn't quite make sense to me, since both systems have electric traction motors.

 

[gswager]

I thought that I've read another benefit of electrification is faster acceleration; yielding faster trips. It doesn't quite make sense to me, since both systems have electric traction motors.

Yes, but one thing is missing- engine. Engine is limited by its size & torque to turn the generator.

 

[Rumpled]

I basically believe it - just never really saw a good explanation.

 

[sechs]

I thought that I've read another benefit of electrification is faster acceleration; yielding faster trips. It doesn't quite make sense to me, since both systems have electric traction motors.

That would be "more trains faster."
It's amazing what happens when you don't have to carry an electric power generation plant and fuel with you....

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Well, in that case why not pull down the wires on both sides of NYC? Converting power from diesel/oil to electricity would lessen dependence on fuel from places that aren't our friends, improve the environment, all that green stuff. South Shore Line operates a lot less than 90 trains a day and that seems to have worked well for the past 90 years or so. Most of the rail infrastructure of Europe is above ground and they seem to use electricity efficiently.

Europe runs their trains at much higher speeds than we do. There is a point where diesel becomes inefficient. Diesel engines have a very small range in which they capably operate. For instance, Volvo Penta builds an engine called the TAD1650VE, which is a twin-cam (and thus, actually fairly high RPM) 4-valve-per-cylinder Inline-6 displacing 16.1 liters, producing 540 bhp (and, ahem, 1881 lb-ft of torque) at its redline speed of 1800 rpm. Its stall speed is about 480 rpm, meaning it will cease comfortable operation at that speed. So its acceptable range of operation is 480-1800 RPM, or a range of just 1320.

Contrarywise, the average gas engines stall speed is about the same (approximately 500 rpm) and the average modern twin-cam inline engine redlines somewhere between 6500 and 7500 RPM, with some (such as Honda's performance engines in their Civic Si and such) redline well above 8000 RPM. Much larger range, no?

To increase a diesel engines power above a certain point, you have to increase its weight and size. It becomes too heavy and too large for a diesel engine to fit comfortably in a locmotive body. Remember the disasters that were EMD's SD90MAC and GE's AC6000CW? Locomotive manufacturers have settled on 4500 as the generally accepted limit for per-unit power output for a reason.

Thus, when you have a system that tries to run trains at speeds of, say, 150 mph+, you need electric motors to do it. Once you have such a system, its advantages are such that you benefit from continuing to use it.

Next, the South Shore Line, like many inter-urban and trolley operations, came into being when it wasn't Diesel vs. Electric. It was STEAM vs. electric. In a populated area, you don't really want a steam engine, with its pollution and soot, operating down the streets of your town. Electrification for such an operation makes sense. And once you have it, continuing to use it makes sense.

Next, the complexity of switching engines going into and coming out of New York make it such that electrification continues to makes sense on that basis alone. And once again, sir, once the system is in place, it makes sense to keep using it. You don't just pull it down. The Milwaukee Road went out of business for good reason.

However, that doesn't mean that you spend millions of dollars electrifying the Caltrain line just so you can build a tunnel to Transbay terminal to operate trains when the current station is already quite adequately connected to 'Frisco's more than adequate transit system!

 

[sechs]

However, that doesn't mean that you spend millions of dollars electrifying the Caltrain line just so you can build a tunnel to Transbay terminal to operate trains when the current station is already quite adequately connected to 'Frisco's more than adequate transit system!

Apparently, you feel that reading is overrated.
It's not actually necessary to go electric to support a tunnel to the Transbay terminal, although it does make it easier. I've already stated the main reasons why the PCJPA wants to electrify.

I will also beg to differ that the existing station at Fourth and King is adequately connected. Unless you're going to the ball park, it's in a pretty crappy location. Transit has to come to it. If Caltrain terminated at the Transbay terminal, a large number of riders would be within walking distance of their destination; the rest would receive better transit options already serving the area around the Transbay terminal.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

if caltrain goes belly-up all those mothers who demanded caltrain slow its trains to 5MPH to deter suicides will be jumping for joy.

 

[gswager]

if caltrain goes belly-up all those mothers who demanded caltrain slow its trains to 5MPH to deter suicides will be jumping for joy.

And cursing during extremely heavy freeway traffic while driving SUV with crying kids and/or complaining teenagers.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

if caltrain goes belly-up all those mothers who demanded caltrain slow its trains to 5MPH to deter suicides will be jumping for joy.

And cursing during extremely heavy freeway traffic while driving SUV with crying kids and/or complaining teenagers.

it's their fault. they're the ones who demanded caltrain slow its trains to 5MPH to deter teen suicides.

 

[George Harris]

if caltrain goes belly-up all those mothers who demanded caltrain slow its trains to 5MPH to deter suicides will be jumping for joy.

And cursing during extremely heavy freeway traffic while driving SUV with crying kids and/or complaining teenagers.

It's their fault. they're the ones who demanded caltrain slow its trains to 5MPH to deter teen suicides.

But to understand that requires logic, which seems to be a rather scarce commodity in the SF Penninsula.