At the last Caltrain board meeting, Caltrain staff reported results of technical investigations into the potential for rail cars allowing compatibility with High Speed Rail.  The good news is that it looks to be technically feasible, and High Speed Rail is offering to contribute funds to enable compatibility. The worrying news is that the resulting system might have less room for passengers than before electrification, and it could take ten or more years to catch up.
The main reason that transit supporters – riders, employers, and anyone concerned about congestion and the environment – want electrification is more room on the crowded train line. Â Caltrain and High Speed Rail need a better solution when electric service goes live.
Even in the best of circumstances, the new cars were going to have less room per car than today’s cars, because instead of a locomotive upfront, each self-powering EMU has mechanical gear on board.  Today a 5-car Caltrain train has about 650 seats.   Electric trains would only have 600 seats each.  (But Caltrain would run ~20% more frequently and stop at more stations, carrying overall more passengers.)  The double-door approach would remove 78-188 seats per 6-car train.
The result could be that in 2020/2021, when Caltrain starts electric service, there could be less room on the train than before (!) Â While Caltrain can compensate for the loss by more quickly moving to longer trains – and eventually make it almost all back when the extra doors are removed – Caltrain staff say that Caltrain might not be able to get the room back for well over a decade (since it would take many years to raise and extend all the platforms)
The reason for Caltrain to do the double-door compromise was that High Speed Rail claimed that it would be difficult for it to procure lower level trains that could travel at the needed speed. Â Â And High Speed Rail would advance money – somewhere between $600Million and $1Billion – to get the upgrades done, including longer platforms.
On a corridor that is starving for transit space, with a system that will need voter funding it will be a very hard sell to explain why to spend more money for improvements that won’t add more passenger space sooner.
There will be more details forthcoming at the upcoming board meetings for Caltrain, HSR, and the Transbay authority. Â Hopefully staff will provide the boards the important information needed to evaluate decisions:
* How many people will Caltrain be able to carry per peak hour when electrification goes live?
* How many passengers will fit on the train, both standing and sitting?
* How will the double-door configuration affect “dwell time”, and therefore overall corridor travel time?
* How soon will Caltrain be able to provide longer platforms to carry more passengers?
There are important questions to answer very soon, before Caltrain and HSR spend money on trainsets.
* Might the state and taxpayers be better off if High Speed Rail looked harder for compromise-height trains?
* Electric trainsets are shorter because there’s no locomotive. Could Caltrain fit a 7-car electric train set in the same space as a 6-car diesel set, immediately adding 17% more passenger space at the cost of 17% more cars (see slide 14 here)
* Could the platform upgrades happen sooner?
* Could Caltrain run more frequent service sooner, and how would communities deal with the impacts on at-grade crossings?
* Should Caltrain and HSR give up on compatibility? What would that mean for service to Transbay, which would be the most-used station in the corridor?
Less room on the trains in 2021 is the wrong answer. Â Caltrain and HSR need solutions that will give Peninsula corridor riders, employers, and tax payers more room on the trains.
Might Caltrain trains have less room after electrification? http://t.co/J18ECOUIOz
I think high-quality PDF drawings of the “lost” seating space around the doors are called for. We need to be able to see how “78-166” seating spaces are lost and why this doesn’t create an equal or greater amount of standing spaces. (Standing people take up less space than seated people, so while seated capacity might go down, total capacity might go up).
78-133 seats lost per 6-car train works out to 13-22 seats lost per car … even if true, the additional standing space created could more than make up for lost seating space. More standing space appears to be just what’s needed for peak crush loads anyway, while during off-peak times there should be plenty of seats for all with the additional train lengths possible without locomotives (which don’t really need platform space anyway at most stops).
Very well written report. I’m late to this subject. Is there an archive of material that explains the issues. As one who grew up in the east, I’m used to high level platforms that accommodate both commuter trains (California’s Caltrains) and high speed trains (now today’s Acela’s). I’d like to see the analysis that says moving the power units to each rail car is better than staying with a locomotive and unpowered cars. (I can see one advantage: if the engine dies, the train stops; if one car loses power, the train can limp along to either a siding or the terminus. And why is staff claiming it will take too long to convert existing platforms to high level? Caltrain should convert to high level platforms now and be done with it.
A 8% reduction in seats (not passengers), for a 20% increase in frequency. Sounds like a good deal.
Before anyone freaks out about this, they’d have less seats but replace it with standing room. Raising the platform height to achieve level boarding will decrease dwell time because of faster boarding (especially wheelchair boarding) in the stations and increase service. Caltrain cannot rebuild all the platforms at the same time. The dual-mode doors are temporary. Once all the platforms are rebuilt, the lower doors would be removed and seating could be placed next to where they were.
Adina raises several good points. What caught my attention, is the hypothetical “loss” of capacity during a period when we can reasonably expect increased pressure on capacity. In and of itself the “loss” due to extra doors for the low/high platform transition period seems a reasonable strategy. What’s missing is the much needed detail about its execution. For example, just creating voids and assigning them to standing passengers is all very well, but as the swaying masses at each end of a Bombardier car realize, one needs something convenient to grab onto! And what about bike and disabled spaces? Some thought needs to go into the allocation of space in each car for these purposes, too.
In other words we need stakeholder input opportunities (that’s us) that shine a light in the dark corners or platform length v’s train length v’s current .at grade crossings at either end of the platform
A good primer for newbies such as Allan MacLaren to get up to speed would be to read a few “back issues” (postings) on the excellent Caltrain-HSR Compatibility Blog.
The following posts would be a good start:
Platform height
The path to level boarding
Ka href=”http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2014/09/compatibility-done-backwards.html”>Compatibility done backwards
Level Boarding Plan B
The train that shouldn’t exist
Sorry, I goofed up one of the links … here’s the correction:
Compatibility done backwards
Once more (3rd time’s the charm?):
Compatibility done backwards
Thanks for the plug.
Actually, the most important article that I would point people towards is The Virtues of Width.
There is no harm in going to 5-abreast seating with extra wide car shells– in fact, accepting a 78 – 188 seat reduction in capacity would be an entirely self-inflicted wound. Unlike European or even East Coast commuter operations, Caltrain enjoys a very generous loading gauge constrained only by the San Francisco tunnels. We should be squeezing every inch of width out of this corridor!
Thanks for the opportunity to provide our perspective on the compatibility vs capacity question. The short answer to your question is that yes, compatibility is worth it. Whereas capacity can always be increased by adding cars or additional trains, incompatibility will forever (or at least for the foreseeable future) constrain blended operations in the Peninsula. Compatibility is essential for operational flexibility, which will result in additional overall service, more convenient schedules, easier transfers between High-Speed Rail and Caltrain, and reduced delays when there is an incident. The region and state should not constrain the long-term future of this corridor, but instead engage in an open dialogue over options and ideas to maximize its benefits.
The reduced capacity of the proposed EMU trains is the result of moving to a different trainset configuration and will happen irrespective of whether the platform heights are compatible or not. Whereas the current trains have gallery cars plus locomotives, the EMUs don’t have locomotives and must therefore make room for the operator cabin in what would otherwise be a passenger car at both ends of the train. Another reason for reduced capacity is the new ADA compliant restrooms, which take about eight seats each. But, as you point out, Caltrain, with the region and state’s help, is planning on running longer and/or more frequent trains to make up the difference. In addition, Caltrain can further reduce any deficit by making train capacity part of the selection criteria in the vehicle procurement process. This is not a compatibility issue.
As you point out, the dual doors will reduce seats, but that does not necessarily translate into reduced capacity. If Caltrain uses the dual-door approach to address platform-height compatibility, there will be some temporary loss of seated capacity at the second set of doors; however, overall capacity would not be affected since the space in front of the doors can be taken up by standees. Studies have shown that more standees can fit in the same space than seated passengers, so dual doors could actually result in a modest increase in overall capacity. Caltrain could also consider alternative seating designs to optimize seated and standing capacity, similar to what Muni and BART have undertaken to deal with the same concerns.
A larger capacity challenge — and complex subject — that cannot be ignored is the balance between passengers and bicycles on the trains. As much as we encourage and support the use of bicycles, it is an undeniable fact that they take a fair amount of space. A passenger with a standard bicycle takes up the same space as at least two passengers. That is why in Europe they either charge a fee for bringing a bicycle on board or limit them to off-peak hours. To address this issue, some passengers are opting for foldable bicycles and others may choose bikeshare as the system ramps up over time. This is an evolving demand and capacity picture that will require thoughtful study and consideration over the next few months, and on an ongoing basis.
It should be noted that a Caltrain/HSR compromise at a different height would face similar challenges, since the issue is created by having to transition over time from the current eight- inch platforms to whatever the ultimate platform height would be, whether it is 25, 30 or 48 inches. If Caltrain were to stay with its original plan of 25 inch platforms, most of the issues would still exist, albeit to a different degree.
The idea that High-Speed Rail would be doubling its budget for the blended system in the Peninsula to achieve compatibility does not take into account the savings of close to $500 million that would result from not having to build an underground station at Millbrae and similar savings from being able to build a smaller Diridon station, both directly attributable to same-height platforms. The CHSRA has made the business decision to offer to help fund the additional cars and platform modifications in part because it will save taxpayer dollars. Caltrain must prepare for a future that builds robustly on its past. In the end, the investment we make in electrification and blended Caltrain/HSR service will ensure flexibility and facilitate sustainable growth in our region and state for years to come.
I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding and misconception that platform compatibility is about the benefits with little trade offs.
We cannot assume that somehow the communities will accept high platforms. Many East Coast systems (commuter and light rail) have not converted all the platforms to high level even though high platforms have been in use for decades.
High platform does not provide better accessibility to the cyclists and disabled. Level boarding doesn’t make sense if it means level access to just any part of a rail car. Level boarding should mean level access to a part of the rail car that will be occupied by most, especially bikes and wheelchairs. No other rail systems handle as many bikes as Caltrain does.
http://blog.transitunlimited.org/2015/04/the-next-big-mistake/
Baseline criteria:
– “All trains were simulated with a full SEATED
load of 948 passengers” (Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis page 38) http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Final-Caltrain-California+HSR+Blended+Operations+Analysis.pdf
– Trains need to fit within existing 700-foot platforms
– Trains must be accessible from an 8-inch high platform
Here is what the train looks like (so far):
– 650-feet long
– 16 sets of doors
– 7 ADA toilets + room for 7 wheelchairs
– Up to 9 traction motors (7.2 MW)
– Max speed 125 MPH
– Room for 80 bikes
– Over 900 seats (including flip-ups) or over 1,000 (without bikes)
– Maximum capacity: 1,900 passengers (including standees)
Unresolved issues with different platform heights:
– Wheelchair passengers boarding at a low platform are unable to deboard at a high platform (and vice-versa)
– SIGNIFICANT impact on dwell times (up to double)
– Internal stairs for bikes instead of flat floor
@Roland, have you ever heard of an in-vehicle wheelchair lift? Like this one.
As for your unsubstantiated assertion that dwell times would double:
“Next stop, Menlo Park. The blue doors will open.”
“Next stop, Palo Alto. The yellow doors will open.”
People aren’t that dumb, and the doors will be just a few steps from each other. You could even hammer the point home with LED visual displays.
Bikes will have to use 3 interior steps conveniently fitted with wheel gutters. Hardly worse than boarding the coveted gallery bike car.
None of these issues are show stoppers.
If existing platforms are 700 feet, they can easily fit eight 85-foot cars (680 feet) already whether EMU or locomotive-hauled since locomotives don’t need to be stopped on platforms.
If so, can anyone explain why Caltrain has said they’ll need time and money to modify some platforms to accommodate the 6-car trains the used Bombardier cars they just bought will allow?
Oh, and I’m not asking about the trivial addition of new “Spot 6” signs to help the drivers know where to stop 6-car trains. I’ve already seen those being installed.
Not all the platforms are 700 feet. Some of them are shorter than 600 feet. Also many of them have pedestrian crossings at the end of the platform. A longer train may be able to stop at shorter platforms but can block crossings.
Aren’t all of the platforms being made long enough for trains with 6 passenger cars with the Metrolink cars coming online.
Will Caltrain reduce capacity after changes made for HSR?… http://t.co/bcdU2X2MWF
The station ped crossing gates don’t time-out anyway, so nothing wrong with blocking them since Caltrain’s “Transit Police” will already give ~$350 citations to people who cross while the gates are down.
Fitting a six-car train only takes 510 feet. Which stations have platforms shorter than that?
[…] Caltrain May Sacrifice Seats for High-Speed Rail Compatibility (Green Caltrain) […]
Not sure why we should be freaking out about less room on the train when there are more trains
Train crossing certainly reopens if it is behind the train, and is often reopened before the train when the warning is timed out.
I contend it’s a non-issue. Remember the locomotive “overhang” on platforms under 600 feet would always be on the south end and so could only affect crossings at the south end of platforms and only for northbound trains.
Given that, how many south end station ped crossings can you name which might even be impacted?
(Where “impact” means a northbound train’s locomotive is blocking the crossing while stopped. Big end-of-the-world stuff, eh!)
And how many station platforms can you name which are shorter than 510 feet and so would require lengthening for a 6-car train to get all doors on the platform? None that I can think of — you?
Caltrain seems behind the times. Electric is obviously the way to go, consider our climate and the price of electricity going forward. We should do track side solar and a green utility.
My LA rail friends said the railcars Caltrain bought are total junk. Can we get better leaders or culture over there?
They are already getting trains with 6 passenger cars and a loco this year, so it must be possible.
@Nicholas: yes, the cars are old Metrolink hand-me-downs which will be refurbished … but since they’re only going to be used for a few years until the new EMUs come online, Caltrain didn’t think buying nice (or new) cars made sense.
I’ll leave the “trackside solar” calculations and business case to you … post a link to it when it’s ready. Hint: it doesn’t pencil out … maybe that’s why nobody has done it yet … anywhere on this planet.
According to Caltrain Design Criteria Chapter 3 – Stations and Facilities http://www.caltrain.com/assets/_engineering/engineering-standards-2/criteria/CHAPTER3.pdf
Section 1.1.a (Platform Length): “The standard platform length shall be 700 feet to accommodate a six (6) car train consist”
Section 1.2.a (Temporary Station): “Minimum platform length is 500 feet with a minimum platform width of 12 feet. This platform length allows for a functional operations of a 5-train consist.”
@Roland … thanks, but standards don’t tell us what’s out there right now. What we can infer, however, is that the standard needlessly assumes locomotives must fit on the platform along with their trains (since 5 cars are only 425 feet). To repeat, 700-foot platforms will fit 8-cars (or 7-cars plus a locomotive if Caltrain continues to insist locos must be also fit on platforms).
@Reality check. Correct on all counts and that is how we can cram 6 EMUs plus one cab car at each end in 650 feet. The only problem is that we can’t split the train by adding 2 cab cars in the middle until we have 800-foot platforms…
@Roland: why do draw a distinction between EMUs and cab cars? I am assuming EMUs are EMUs and each car forming a set with a cab at each end is the same length. So an 8-car set with cabs on each end is the same length as a pair of separable 4-car sets with cabs on each end.
By the way, and it might be too early to know or tell, but is there a chance Caltrain would entertain an articulated (adjacent car ends rest on a single shared bogie) EMU trainset design?
@Reality Check: Look at this post for an articulated EMU: http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/11/future-emu.html.
– The 50-foot DOORLESS double-deck cars provide maximum capacity for seated and standing passengers as well as maximum protection in a 125 MPH crash.
– The 33-foot single-level cars carry 2 sets of doors on each side and can accommodate traction motors and converters, batteries, a diesel generator, an ADA toilet, and a wheelchair.
– We will be stuck with two 63-foot double-deck cab cars (room for 40 bikes in each cab car) until we increase platform lengths.
@Roland, thanks … the slick articulated Bombardier Omneo EMU concept referenced in the 2010 Caltrain-HSR Blog’s “Future EMU” posting looks promising.
I think what I was getting at was whether anyone had a crystal ball (or better!) sense of whether Caltrain’s EMU RFP would open or close the door on articulated semi-permanently coupled trainset designs.
My sense is the US transit industry is very slow to adopt — if not outright ignorant/fearful/resistant — to innovative concepts like articulation and open gangways.
Here is the final configuration (subject to technical peer review):
Length: 660 feet. Capacity: 961 seats, including tip-ups (no more sitting on the floor) + room for +/- 1,000 standees, 80 bikes, 7 wheelchairs and 7 ADA toilets.
Hybrid option for one-seat ride between Gilroy, Great America and MP Facebook.
@Roland, would you please provide a link to the source(s) of this one-seat “hybrid option” to places such as Gilroy or Facebook? Doen’t this imply Caltrain is considering dual-mode E/DMUs to serve “off-grid” stations?
@Reality Check Google “EDMU”, “roof-mounted diesel power packs” (soon to be replaced by fuel cells) or “mitrac hybrid” for Bombardier’s specific technology. Based on what I have seen so far, the SamTrans consultants are more interested in procuring vehicles full of doors and stairs than SEATED passengers, wheelchairs and bicycles, so I will ask the Caltrain Board permission to present the above OFF THE SHELF specification to the CAC (and possibly the LPMG)
@Roland, I was asking for a reference to sources with information backing your implied suggestion that Caltrain is considering a hybrid option. I hadn’t heard of that before, so wanted a source to both confirm what you’re implying and to find out more.
I’m not looking for information about equipment. There are also light rail cars now that can travel for several miles over non-electrified segments using battery storage (no fuel, exhaust or diesel engine noise or maintenance). An EMU with a feature like that could easily reach Facebook which is a flat 8-mile round trip from the electrified main line at Redwood Junction.
@Reality Check I never suggested that the fine SamTrans folks and their consultants were considering anything remotely sensible. Right now, they are looking at adding a 3rd track (MT-3) in the middle of the Los Gatos Creek and new bridges across 280, Bird Avenue and 87 to provide electrified service to Tamien after UP refused to electrify MT-1
@Roland, please forgive me … but what else was I supposed to think when you somewhat cryptically wrote: “Here is the final configuration … … hybrid option …” So please use enough words next time so readers can understand that when you write “hybrid option” under “final configuration” that you really just mean “this is what I, Roland, think is ‘remotely sensible'”.
What I love about what you wrote that Caltrain is now considering a 3rd track between Diridon and Tamien is that this is the Gardner Neighborhood who supposedly were whose not wanting HSR to share that part of the ROW was “forcing” HSR to approach Diridon from a different path … which ultimately turned out to be a zillon-dollar curving viaduct.
The MITRAC capacitor technology isn’t remotely appropriate for Caltrain’s performance requirements. The power output capacity of this system is in the hundreds of kilowatts, or more than an order of magnitude off from the required power for accelerating a high-performance 8-car EMU… closer to eight MEGAwatts sustained for far longer than a light-rail vehicle.
It’s nice for your 20 mph light rail vehicle doing stops and starts. It won’t cut it for an eight-car 110 mph EMU trying to giddy up out of the way of an approaching HST.
The key to the blended system will be very high power-to-weight ratios, which isn’t the problem being solved by the MITRAC technology.
@ Clem
1) 8MW??? Where did that come from and has anyone bothered to calculate the cost of that kind of energy consumption vs. modern tier 4 diesel hybrids???
2) http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/products/engine-program/diesel-engines-for-rail-traction/powerpack-for-railcars/
3) We don’t need high acceleration between Gilroy and San Jose, San Jose and Great America or Redwood Junction to Menlo Park Facebook and the rest of the line needs some kind of backup in case of a power failure.
4) Which color do you have in mind for the 200+ missing seats in the 4-door contraption? How about red to warn passengers who might injure themselves if they attempt to sit on them every time the rocket launches?
I know nothing about MITRAC, so I’ll have to read up on it.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Inekon/Ostrava streetcars available with a battery-based Onboard Energy Storage System (OESS) that Seattle will be running off wire for considerable distances on their First Hill Streetcar.
Yeah, I don’t know much about OESS either … and it might not scale up well to heavy rail EMUs due to things like sucky range, acceleration, speed, cost, reliability, etc.
@Roland. You’re confusing energy and power. 8 MW is a reasonable peak power for a loaded eight-car EMU consist accelerating as quickly as possible. It’s not about rocketing or anything: the high power allows you to sustain a reasonably swift acceleration rate (say 1 m/s2) for longer durations and at higher speeds. Recall that power = tractive effort * speed.
EMUs need very high power-to-weight AND level boarding for the blend to work at all. Look at the Westbahn KISS EMU for a typical example: peak output 6 MW for a 6-car consist.
All this talk about heavy and weak power options such as diesels (no matter how clean, they’re still diesels!!!) or capacitors or batteries or what have you is far more absurd and counter-productive to Caltrain’s needs than anything I have ever said about extra doors.
@Clem. I totally understand that some people find it more convenient to drive from San Carlos to NASA than having to stand on Caltrain and bike, take a shuttle or the VTA light rail for the last mile(s). Kindly reciprocate by helping the rest of us understand which part of a 50% increase in seated/standing capacity (and toilets), 300% increase in wheelchair capacity, same bike capacity, new trains in 2018 instead of 2021, single-seat rides between SF, Gilroy, Great America & Facebook it is that you do not understand.
Did I forget to mention the hundreds of millions of $$$ that could be saved and redirected to 100% fleet replacement and level boarding by eliminating the need to lengthen platforms, the nonsense between Diridon & Tamien and the electrification of 4th & King and CEMOF?
@Reality Check. MITRAC is a collection of products that includes traction motors & converters and (optionally) hybrid sources of energy and off-grid energy recovery. See link below for interaction between the various components: http://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bombardiercom/supporting-documents/BT/Bombardier-Transportation-ECO4-MITRAC_Hybrid-EN.pdf