Passenger Trains > CalTrain Electric Train Testing Starts June 5th

Big news from Caltrain's mailing list this evening.  It doesn't specify whether testing will be with the AEM-7, EMUs, or both. 

"Starting the week of June 5th, Caltrain will begin testing the new electric trains. Testing will begin along the westernmost track between the Santa Clara and College Park stations. The train will be run at low speeds and will be tested during daytime hours. As soon as June 10th, trains will be tested on the main tracks between San Antonio Station in Mountain View and San Jose Diridon Station in San Jose. Trains will be tested up to the maximum speed of 79 mph. Testing on the main tracks will be completed at night to reduce impacts on regular Caltrain service."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/23 23:12 by nickgeorge25.

Thanks for passing along the info.

In conjunction with electrification, will Caltrain be adding the requisite safety systems required to implement speeds higher than 79?

Highspeed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In conjunction with electrification, will Caltrain
> be adding the requisite safety systems required to
> implement speeds higher than 79?

They will not go faster than 79 mph in regular service, as planned.

norm1153 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Highspeed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In conjunction with electrification, will
> Caltrain
> > be adding the requisite safety systems required
> to
> > implement speeds higher than 79?
>
> They will not go faster than 79 mph in regular
> service, as planned.

Aka a waste of money!

Posted from Android

There is little to no benefit in running at speeds higher than 79 mph in frequent-stop commuter service. As soon as you get up to speed you're slowing for the next stop. Never mind grade crossing safety in an urban environment populated by idiots operating motor vehicles. 

Jim

Erie-Lackawanna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is little to no benefit in running at speeds
> higher than 79 mph in frequent-stop commuter
> service. As soon as you get up to speed you're
> slowing for the next stop. Never mind grade
> crossing safety in an urban environment populated
> by idiots operating motor vehicles. 
>
> Jim

Baby bullet trains would.

Posted from Android

goduckies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> norm1153 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Highspeed Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > In conjunction with electrification, will
> > Caltrain
> > > be adding the requisite safety systems
> required
> > to
> > > implement speeds higher than 79?
> >
> > They will not go faster than 79 mph in regular
> > service, as planned.
>
> Aka a waste of money!

Electrification's main benefit to commute schedules is faster acceleration, which can add up on a frequent-stop type service like Caltrain.  Given that much of Caltrain's current fleet is of replacement age anyway, shifting to electric traction now makes good sense. 

Dave

Caltrain has no plans to go faster than 79mph, but if/when California HSR begins to implement their plan for the SF-San Jose segment, they plan to add the improvements necessary for HSR to operate 110mph on this corridor.  Here's the quote from the CAHSR website:

"The alignment includes high-speed rail stations in San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Jose; construction of a light maintenance facility (LMF) on the east side of the Caltrain corridor in Brisbane; and improvements for safety and speed to allow for operations at a maximum speed of 110mph."

https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/san-francisco-to-san-jose/

Last time I looked at their plans, the improvements included additional grade crossing protections/grade separations, signalling, some additional sections of four tracks, etc. 

 

goduckies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erie-Lackawanna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is little to no benefit in running at
> speeds
> > higher than 79 mph in frequent-stop commuter
> > service. As soon as you get up to speed you're
> > slowing for the next stop. Never mind grade
> > crossing safety in an urban environment
> populated
> > by idiots operating motor vehicles. 
> >
> > Jim
>
> Baby bullet trains would.
>
> Posted from Android

You're correct, except that the bullets would just catch up to the preceeding train as they do now at 79mph.

Jeff

https://caltrainridership.com/

Not sure where the cutoff is for electrification to be economical but best guess it is way above current ridership.
If ridership doesn't increase they will be eaten alive by maintaining the infrastructure?

Bob
 

an increase in the demand to visit and or work in the bay area would sure help increase caltrain's ridership...........

66

goduckies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > They will not go faster than 79 mph in regular
> > service, as planned.
>
> Aka a waste of money!
>

In commuter service, probably not, maybe not even for express trains.

It's roughly 50 miles. Let's say 45 of those miles could be track speed of 80-100. An 80 mph no stops express San Jose-San Francisco could do it in 36 minutes. A 100 mph train could do it in 27 minutes. The stopping and limited stops trains will probably never make 80 let alone 100 between stops.

How many nonstop express trains? What is the cost differential between 79 and 100? Maybe they did the homework.

I designed the future Amtrak Cascades service for 110 mph. All trains would make all stops because the ridership projection was 45% of passengers traveled to, from, or between intermediate points. There was lots of criticism  of the 110 instead of 125 that 'everybody knows' it should be. I calculated the running time at maximum 110 mph and 125 mph. The difference was three minutes. The infrastructure cost for 125 vs 110 was north of enormous.

Homework beats 'everybody knows.'

TAW

The document in the link below was produced in 2020 shortly after Caltrain extended 
the length of the trains to 7 cars from 6.  I haven't found anything more current.  The
specs show six powered axles producing 6000 kw(8000 hp) at the rail geared for a top
speed of 110 mph.

https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/kcal0220e_us.pdf

Nearly identical KISS sets for Austria's Westbahn(a private operator!) operate at 125 mph on
their Vienna to Salzburg services.  Many of the specs are identical but the power to weight
ratio is a little better with just 6 cars.  Photo from the European-based site RailColorNews.

With a 110 mph maximum across grade crossings Caltrain(and CAHSR) plan to install four
quadrant gates at all remaining crossings.  1st Ave. in San Mateo is shown in the depiction below.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/23 14:41 by milepost20.

---

---

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goduckies Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > norm1153 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Highspeed Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > In conjunction with electrification, will
> > > Caltrain
> > > > be adding the requisite safety systems
> > required
> > > to
> > > > implement speeds higher than 79?
> > >
> > > They will not go faster than 79 mph in
> regular
> > > service, as planned.
> >
> > Aka a waste of money!
>
> Electrification's main benefit to commute
> schedules is faster acceleration, which can add up
> on a frequent-stop type service like Caltrain.
>  Given that much of Caltrain's current fleet is
> of replacement age anyway, shifting to electric
> traction now makes good sense. 
>
> Dave

Sure, but at what cost.... that's the point is 1 billion dollars worth a few minutes, no... and replacing the fleet costs probably even less for diesel. Plus you don't hsve super high on going maintenance costs.

Posted from Android

With stops one to two miles apart for much of the run, do the "all stop locals" ever get above 60 MPH?

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goduckies Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > > They will not go faster than 79 mph in
> regular
> > > service, as planned.
> >
> > Aka a waste of money!
> >
>
> In commuter service, probably not, maybe not even
> for express trains.
>
> It's roughly 50 miles. Let's say 45 of those miles
> could be track speed of 80-100. An 80 mph no stops
> express San Jose-San Francisco could do it in 36
> minutes. A 100 mph train could do it in 27
> minutes. The stopping and limited stops trains
> will probably never make 80 let alone 100 between
> stops.
>
> How many nonstop express trains? What is the cost
> differential between 79 and 100? Maybe they did
> the homework.
>
> I designed the future Amtrak Cascades service for
> 110 mph. All trains would make all stops because
> the ridership projection was 45% of passengers
> traveled to, from, or between intermediate points.
> There was lots of criticism  of the 110 instead
> of 125 that 'everybody knows' it should be. I
> calculated the running time at maximum 110 mph and
> 125 mph. The difference was three minutes. The
> infrastructure cost for 125 vs 110 was north of
> enormous.
>
> Homework beats 'everybody knows.'
>
> TAW

Leave it to TAW to have the perfectly reasonable, realistic, answer!

Nathan

Posted from iPhone

CDTX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're correct, except that the bullets would just
> catch up to the preceeding train as they do now at
> 79mph.
>
> Jeff

Would be nice if another area of passing sidings (+ transfer station, like how the Japanese do it all the time) are built near the middle of the route. Jerry Hill, who exploited the San Bruno gas explosion to get elected, played the NIMBY card and opposed any such plan, but he's out of politics now, so there's hope Caltrain can have additional service enhancements.

I thought the CTX Project (Baby Bullet), finished in 2004 was pretty good.
 

All one has to do is to ride a Caltrain with a speedometer on your phone to know what the speeds the trains operate. There are over half the trains on the weekday schedule that are limited stop trains on Caltrain.  So fewer than half are locals  They can and do make 79 MPH on their runs. The baby bullet trains do require sustained 79 MPH running to make the schedule. 

Years ago shortly after the Baby Bullets were started, I was riding one and had the GPS speedometer on my phone going. We had a hot engineer pushing it. Not sure whether it was wheels that were old with less diameter, or that the speed governor was cut out, but we were really moving and you could feel it. He was going regularly up to about 84 MPH with one time up to 87 MPH. We were waiting for time at the stations. This never happened again for me. the highest I ever see them hit is maybe 81 MPH with 79 MPH sustained. 

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goduckies Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > > They will not go faster than 79 mph in
> regular
> > > service, as planned.
> >
> > Aka a waste of money!
> >
>
> In commuter service, probably not, maybe not even
> for express trains.
>
> It's roughly 50 miles. Let's say 45 of those miles
> could be track speed of 80-100. An 80 mph no stops
> express San Jose-San Francisco could do it in 36
> minutes. A 100 mph train could do it in 27
> minutes. The stopping and limited stops trains
> will probably never make 80 let alone 100 between
> stops.
>
> How many nonstop express trains? What is the cost
> differential between 79 and 100? Maybe they did
> the homework.
>
> I designed the future Amtrak Cascades service for
> 110 mph. All trains would make all stops because
> the ridership projection was 45% of passengers
> traveled to, from, or between intermediate points.
> There was lots of criticism  of the 110 instead
> of 125 that 'everybody knows' it should be. I
> calculated the running time at maximum 110 mph and
> 125 mph. The difference was three minutes. The
> infrastructure cost for 125 vs 110 was north of
> enormous.
>
> Homework beats 'everybody knows.'
>
> TAW

Diminishing returns is real. Thanks for sharing your experience.