|
|
Post by 11ball on May 6, 2011 10:38:28 GMT -8
I got home last night (Thursday) from LAUS on the 8:30 Amtrak southbound. We boarded on track #12. Looking pass the train, it appears that the land is being graded where tracks #14-16 will be and there is also some grading equipment there. I'm hoping this is the prelude for the run-through tracks.
Also, It was nice to see a lot of passengers (~2 dozen) disembark from the Laguna Niguel Metrolink station. Usually I only see an average of 3 - 6 passengers. Maybe more people are realizing there is limited Amtrak service at LN.
DS
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 6, 2011 11:31:34 GMT -8
I got home last night (Thursday) from LAUS on the 8:30 Amtrak southbound. We boarded on track #12. Looking pass the train, it appears that the land is being graded where tracks #14-16 will be and there is also some grading equipment there. I'm hoping this is the prelude for the run-through tracks. Metrolink is indeed restoring tracks at Union Station. They are restoring platform 7 and tracks 13, 14, 15. While it is necessary for this project to be completed before work on the run-through tracks can begin, as far as I know, the run-through tracks are still unfunded. In the mean time, these tracks will improve capacity and reliability on their own. Scope of project (click for full image):  More info here. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 9, 2011 9:54:23 GMT -8
Justin, Here is part of an image from August of 2010 in the California HSR thread showing how the LAUS run through tracks might be configured:  Note that the image doesn't even contain platform 7, or tracks 14 and 15. Track 13 is the leftmost one shown. The interesting thing to note is that the work being done as part of this Metrolink upgrade might very well need to be torn down should LAUS implement the "LAUS - Shared Track Same Level" plan that is shown as the second diagram from the top above. Is that right? If so, makes me wonder why they wouldn't just do steps 1 and 2 of the construction sequence. Since the end result would be 3 new tracks, and 2 new platforms. The only difference that I can see is that you would also lose current tracks 11 and 12. The other thing is that, on the Metrolink site, they talk about canopy repairs on the remaining platforms. Most definitely, all the canopies would need to be replaced if this entire LAUS platform reconfiguration takes place. Short question would be, why not just do steps 1 and 2 of the construction sequence if that is what the eventual final config would be? It would save a bunch of money and rework, unless either the cost would be prohibitive with the currently available funds, or the loss of the 2 tracks I mentioned would be too much for the medium term. RT |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 12, 2011 20:52:40 GMT -8
The real solution is for HSR to figure out a way to put in their run-thru tracks using the existing platform level, instead of elevating the whole station by a few feet for no clear reason.
There is no reason that Union Station needs more than 10 platform edges for Metrolink plus HSR. Each platform edge can handle at least 24 trains per hour. We will every need more than 240 trains per hour (one every 15 seconds) at Union Station, even at rush hour? Thats 100 to 200 thousand people per hour.
I would love Metrolink and HSR to have that problem, but even Tokyo doesn't have that busy of a train station.
(What's really happening is that HSR and Metrolink both think they need to store trains at a track for 15 or 30 minutes before turning around, for cleaning, etc. But it's silly to use valuable land in the city center for this. Instead, if trains run through and only stop for 1 or 2 minutes at the station for passenger loading, there will be no shortage of space on the existing platforms even before #13 and #14 are built)
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 13, 2011 14:44:26 GMT -8
I hope this isn't a dumb question, but:
How does Amtrak fit into all of these calculations? High speed rail won't replace the long distance trains (they will replace the Bakersfield buses), and they need the longer turn around times. Even the Pacific Surfliners need time.
I'd keep the Surfliners around even if HSR reaches San Diego because of the different, inland route planned.
And several of Tokyo's trains run on subway-like schedules (Yamanote, Chuo and Sobu especially). I'm not sure how many trains that adds up to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 13, 2011 18:39:57 GMT -8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokohama_StationYokohama station serves 2 million trips per day, more the total ridership of Metro plus Metrolink plus Amtrak in California. It has 17 platforms; 10 intercity and regional train platforms and 7 platforms for subway trains. In comparison, Union Station is about to have 14 platforms for intercity and regional trains, and 4 platforms for subway and light rail trains. Metrolink and Amtrak use a huge number of platforms because they have to turn around almost every train, since there are no run-thru tracks. We need more run-thru tracks, not more platforms. The HSR proposal (6 run-thru tracks and platforms for HSR, 4 for Metrolink/Amtrak) gets that right, but it is overkill. 4 run-thru tracks for HSR should be enough for the near future... Heck, even 2 run-thru tracks would be fine for HSR at first, since every HSR train will have to stop at Union Station, and there will only be 2 tracks in each direction to the north and south (later we could use 4 platforms).
|
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on May 14, 2011 14:28:01 GMT -8
The key factor in how many platforms are needed is dwell time, and the limiting factor in dwell time is ultimately how many people are getting on and off the train, and how long it takes them to get through the door. In Metrolink's case, it's "everyone", and they have to fit through two doors per bilevel car, which just inherently takes a while. And from there, there's also a bit of a bottleneck to get down the ramps and through the cross-passage to get to the station building. But regardless of how many platforms Union Station has, there's also a bottleneck in the station throat, which is mostly five tracks, but with only four parallel moves possible all the way through. Since Metrolink's service is so peak-oriented, they would have problems with conflicts between trains running to/from their destations and trains running from/to the yard to lay over. So what they do is store a bunch of trains in Union Station, using all the track space they can get, so that they don't have to use scarce schedule slots in the throat at the height of the peak. It works out well because Union Station has plenty of room. Run-through tracks would improve matters partly just by providing more tracks into Union Station and partly by untangling a bunch of conflicts, if the Antelope Valley and Ventura County lines are through-routed with the OC and 91 lines.
As far as HSR goes, they're legally required to design for a train every 6 minutes in each direction. Using this ridiculous level of service and reasonable assumptions about dwell time and platform reoccupation time, 4 tracks is a bare minimum, and 6 tracks would be ideal for operational flexibility. Using more reasonable assumptions about levels of HSR and Metrolink service, sharing two of the four run-through tracks with Surfliners would be just fine, leaving the other two for Metrolink's OC/91/AV/VC lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 14, 2011 16:45:52 GMT -8
As far as HSR goes, they're legally required to design for a train every 6 minutes in each direction. Using this ridiculous level of service and reasonable assumptions about dwell time and platform reoccupation time, 4 tracks is a bare minimum, and 6 tracks would be ideal for operational flexibility. Using more reasonable assumptions about levels of HSR and Metrolink service, sharing two of the four run-through tracks with Surfliners would be just fine, leaving the other two for Metrolink's OC/91/AV/VC lines. On the northern end, the HSR authority is talking about designing a shared system (mainly 2 track with some short 4-track sections) with Caltrain, so service can get started before the whole system is built out. I hope we can do something similar between Palmdale and Los Angeles (and between LA and Anaheim), so Metrolink and the Surfliners can use upgraded tracks along with the limited initial HSR service. Once the whole HSR system is built out to Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento and the East Bay, there may in fact be need for a couple of trains to be 5 minutes apart at peak hours, if people start using HSR for commuting. But we can probably wait to build for that level of service, and just do the 4 planned run-thru tracks for now. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Dec 8, 2012 8:33:46 GMT -8
From last month, platform 7 has been rebuilt and the thee restored tracks have been opened to service.
Opening ceremonies:
|
|
|
|
Post by 11ball on Dec 9, 2012 15:16:38 GMT -8
Alexis,
You are 2/3 correct. Platform 7/Tracks 13 + 14 is up and runnung. Track 15 is built but not operational yet. The passenger tunnel from track 15 to downstairs isn't finished yet and I haven't heard when it'll be finished.
11ball
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 9, 2012 16:31:34 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2012 16:49:23 GMT -8
Nice shots. I haven't been to LAUnion since......1959?
I think that switch tower is the same one.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Dec 11, 2012 21:24:23 GMT -8
When I was at LAUPT no work was being done for a tunnel entrance up to track 15. Have heard that no plans to put back track 16 or build a tunnel entrance. From above pictures 15 platform is not finished like 13/14. 15 is a storage track only. Would be nice to see 16 put back in also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Feb 12, 2015 8:10:08 GMT -8
Rubbertoe, would you be willing to release these pictures into the public domain for use in Wikipedia? A couple people had no idea this had happened and they are great historical shots. it would be nice to include. Message me and I can tell you how if you're interested. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 12, 2015 15:43:39 GMT -8
Rubbertoe, would you be willing to release these pictures into the public domain for use in Wikipedia? A couple people had no idea this had happened and they are great historical shots. it would be nice to include. Message me and I can tell you how if you're interested. Yes, I would be happy to do this. I'll check at home tonight and see whether I have the original larger sized ones. Very good chance that I do. I'll let you all know. RT P.S. I was looking at the recent posts, and I thought, gosh those Union Station shots sure look familiar  |
|
