|
Post by carter on Jan 13, 2012 13:23:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 16, 2012 5:04:12 GMT -8
I think electrification is a fantastic idea, but having exclusive ROW so Metrolink can run lighter trains (with more frequent service) would be huge. Continued grade separation should also be a high priority.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 16, 2012 7:42:11 GMT -8
Aren't there at least a few exclusive ROWs for Metrolink?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 16, 2012 10:46:23 GMT -8
Aren't there at least a few exclusive ROWs for Metrolink? Yes, but you can't run non FRA compliant trains unless the entire length of the line is exclusive. For a discussion on problems with FRA regulations, see e.g. here: www.ebbc.org/?q=rail/fra.html
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 16, 2012 17:06:15 GMT -8
The only Metrolink route that is even partly passenger-only is the San Bernardino Line. The former Pacific Electric route between the east bank of the LA River and El Monte is rarely (if ever) used by freight trains. The rest of the line has mostly local freights; no unit trains or doublestacks. Bear in mind that back in 1951 PE ran "Hollywood" cars and gravel trains on the same tracks with only a few minutes of time between them.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 16, 2012 18:04:48 GMT -8
^ I can't remember the last time freight trains ran on the San Bernardino Line. And i'm pretty sure I remember them doing so... even though I was little.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 17, 2012 5:12:36 GMT -8
As long as there is the theoretical possibility of a freight train running on the track, FRA rules will probably apply. Metrolink could apply for a waiver, but one would also have to look into operations in and around Union Station where there could potentially be FRA compliant and non-compliant trains on the same track. A FRA waiver on only the San Bernardino line would mean maintaining two kinds of trains, without the possibility of future through-routing, or sharing trainsets on multiple lines. Anyway, without a waiver the primary benefits of the San Bernardino line being pretty much exclusively passenger are reliability and the ability to run frequent service (in theory). If they begin phasing in electrification, they should start there.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 17, 2012 8:40:20 GMT -8
I have a question: Does the 10 freeway toll plan funded under Measure R mention possibly widening the freeway to accommodate double-tracks?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 17, 2012 8:58:40 GMT -8
I have a question: Does the 10 freeway toll plan funded under Measure R mention possibly widening the freeway to accommodate double-tracks? jd, A while back I spent some time looking through the relevant documents for the 10 toll plans. I don't recall seeing any mention of widening for the purpose of double tracking Metrolink. But, the tolls collected in the corridor have to be used for transit improvements in the corridor. So the estimated $20,000,000 or so per year in tolls could be used for something like that. Keep in mind that the project is a 1 year demonstration, after which Metro will decide what to do. You would have to imagine that after pouring all that money in, they would keep the toll lanes. Which means that there will be money going forward over time for corridor improvements. Maybe they will decide later on what to do with the $ collected. I know they have to write a report after the 1 year trial. That report might show what they plan on doing with the money. If anyone actually writes Metro requesting this information and finds out what the plan is be sure and post it here. RT
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 18, 2012 16:17:24 GMT -8
Double tracking would need to come first before electrification and this may be difficult and expensive as I am not sure there is room for double tracking without taking property and the portion in the 10 Freeway would be especially problematic.
Ultimately, electrification would be a huge win here. This is Metrolink's busiest line and it will only get more popular as the Westside Subway and Expo open up westside jobs to residents along this line. Add in more frequent and faster service with double tracking and electrification and this line could easily get 50-60k riders and maybe more.
I wish local pols would get behind this and at least study it so we know approximately how much this might cost. I think SGV leaders shun this, because they want to push the Gold Line as far East as possible and supporting this would dilute that message. This is a better coridor as it has a more transit dependent and denser population and overall better connectivity to the rest of the MetroRail system over the Gold Line.
I am heartened to see Supervisor Antonovich get behind a study of improvements to the Antelope Valley Metrolink Line. I hope he does the same here, but we are talking about someone who says the Westside Extension is too expensive, but then votes to subway the Crenshaw Line. Using a portion of the toll money for the express lanes on the 10 to underwrite this would be a great way to help fund this. If not that, then this should be in the Measure R extension.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 19, 2012 4:33:34 GMT -8
If not that, then this should be in the Measure R extension. 8 of the 13 stops on the San Bernardino line are in San Bernardino county. I believe Measure R is a Los Angeles county initiative. I have trouble imagining San Bernardino county passing a sales tax increase to support transit. The majority of people in the county live close to the line, but they also tend to be fiscal conservatives, statistically speaking. They are investing in transportation extensions elsewhere (SBX, an extension of Metrolink into downtown San Bernardino, and an eventual rail connection to Redlands), so maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps it would already make a difference to double track the LA county portion with some of the hypothetical Measure R extension funds, but I think delays tend to cascade down the line, so the expense of that double tracking really only shows the maximal benefit once the SB portion is double tracked, too. A SCAG or statewide funding source would probably be needed to coordinate improvements across the whole length of the line to ensure the best use of the money. Actually, I'm not sure if SCAG has its own funds, or if it just does studies to make recommendations to its constituant governments to try to coordinate policy. Their latest transportation studies are here: rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 20, 2012 1:18:59 GMT -8
^ I can't remember the last time freight trains ran on the San Bernardino Line. And i'm pretty sure I remember them doing so... even though I was little. According to Metrolink, the following freight activity is typically seen on weekdays on the San Bernardino Line: Los Angeles-Pomona: 4 UP freight trains Pomona-San Bernardino: up to 12 BNSF freight trains (These numbers do seem high to me.) I have a question: Does the 10 freeway toll plan funded under Measure R mention possibly widening the freeway to accommodate double-tracks? jd, A while back I spent some time looking through the relevant documents for the 10 toll plans. I don't recall seeing any mention of widening for the purpose of double tracking Metrolink. I worked on the ExpressLanes project last year and I can tell you that the Metrolink ROW in the middle of the freeway will not be widened by the project. Squeezing in the second HOV lane is a challenging task by itself. So where does that leave us? On tangent track, Metrolink requires, as an absolute minimum, 8'6" lateral clearance from track centerline to structures and 15' between track centerlines. To accommodate two tracks, we therefore need 8'6" + 15' + 8'6" = 32 feet of right-of-way width. As best as I can tell at the moment, the right-of-way in the middle of the freeway is only 19 feet wide. That leaves us 13 feet short. If ExpressLanes was not being implemented, the Metrolink right-of-way would have been relatively easy to obtain, requiring only a configuration of the HOV lanes (and not the general purpose lanes). Unfortunately, adding the second track will now be a more difficult endeavor. If not that, then this should be in the Measure R extension. 8 of the 13 stops on the San Bernardino line are in San Bernardino county. I believe Measure R is a Los Angeles county initiative. I have trouble imagining San Bernardino county passing a sales tax increase to support transit. The majority of people in the county live close to the line, but they also tend to be fiscal conservatives, statistically speaking. They are investing in transportation extensions elsewhere (SBX, an extension of Metrolink into downtown San Bernardino, and an eventual rail connection to Redlands), so maybe I'm wrong. In 1989, San Bernardino County approved Measure I, a 1/2-cent sales tax to last until 2010. In 2004, it was renewed through 2040. Unfortunately, only about 6% of the sales tax contributes to Metrolink. In its 2007 Strategic Assessment, Metrolink proposed improvements that could be made to the system through 2040. Currently, 29% of the San Bernardino Line is double-tracked. The Strategic Assessment identified projects that would result in nearly all of the line being double-tracked (88%). The price tag? $937 million (in 2005 dollars). How much of that is for double-tracking within the San Bernardino Freeway? $588 million (in 2005 dollars). See the projects here.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Feb 4, 2012 8:37:07 GMT -8
The San Bernardino County part of the line is actually not the biggest bottleneck, because there's plenty of double track there, and it would be reasonably cheap and easy to fill in most of the remaining gaps. Surprisingly, the freeway segment isn't the biggest bottleneck either, now that there's a passing siding in the middle of it. The big problem is the long single track between Pomona and Covina, which is the longest such stretch on the line, and which is largely what's responsible for the rather pathetic reverse-commute service on the line. Also, rather than widening the freeway corridor, it might make sense to double or even triple track the UP line from El Monte to Union Station instead, and use that as a bypass route for some of the trains. In the longer term, electrification is probably a good idea, and could allow for faster trip times, or more stops with the current trip times, in which case the aforementioned bypass along the UP line could gain some stations and thus add a new transit link to the San Gabriel/Alhambra area.
|
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on May 25, 2012 9:02:36 GMT -8
I think electrification is a fantastic idea, but having exclusive ROW so Metrolink can run lighter trains (with more frequent service) would be huge. Continued grade separation should also be a high priority. I'm researching the energy, environmental, and economics effects of two "regulations" on the Metrolink System: the 12-axle rule (which requires 3-car minimum trainsets) and the need for FRA-compliant railcars (heavier, but can operate with freight or with FRA-compliant passenger cars). I'm using LTK studies on Diesel Multiple Unit feasibility for LA Metro( www.metro.net/board/Items/2009/03_March/20090318P&PItem%208.pdf), Sonoma-Marin ( www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/Vehicle%20LTK%20Study%20for%20web.pdf) The preliminary findings are that the 12-axle rule has more of an economic effect (because of the number of trains required, and the need for a new maintenance facility, and the FRA compliance requirement has a greater effect on fuel efficiency (though also has a substantial economic effect because 6-axle alternate-compliance DMUs are available, versus 4-axle CO Railcar DMUs, which affects size of fleet needed to achieve 12-axle trainsets). Matt, I was wondering if you have any other info that could help the research, or if anyone on this board could chime in. I searched for threads related to DMUs but haven't found anything. background on me: My name's Juan and I work at the UCLA Institute for Transportation Studies.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 25, 2012 9:25:55 GMT -8
Matt, I was wondering if you have any other info that could help the research, or if anyone on this board could chime in. I searched for threads related to DMUs but haven't found anything. background on me: My name's Juan and I work at the UCLA Institute for Transportation Studies. Hi Juan, I'm not a technical expert on this topic, but there might be documents related to the choice of DMU for Sprinter service in North County San Diego. Try looking through the CEQA documents for that. DMUs are used commonly throughout Europe, including the UK, so there should be some English language studies available from there, though I don't have any brilliant pointers off the top of my head. I'd start with Network Rail and see where that leads me. My knowledge is pretty much limited to: - FRA regulations make trains too heavy, resulting in fuel inefficiencies and low acceleration.
- DMU is more efficient than locomotive hauled trains and is a better option if you don't have electrified track or the money to put in electrification.
- Electrified track allows for improved efficiency (don't have to move the power plant up and down the track), and better acceleration, which is highly preferred when there are frequent stops, such as with commuter rail.
That's it, I'm tapped out :-)
|
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on May 25, 2012 11:31:04 GMT -8
Thanks for the input! The current report I'm writing is related to the study we did on the life-cycle energy & emissions from the Gold & Orange lines. In that research we found that infrastructure adds substantial energy & emissions requirements to projects (in addition to $$$). This paper looks at barriers to using existing infrastructure more effectively. The voluntary 12-axle rule is a big barrier to more efficient, more frequent service on Metrolink ROW. I'll send you a copy when it gets more done.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 28, 2012 17:48:46 GMT -8
Juan, it sounds like you are focusing on the direct energy requirements of trains. But the more important effect of FRA regulations is their bad impact on the quality and competitiveness of transit service. FRA compliant trains are not only more expensive and ineffecient, they are also slower and less reliable. Slow acceleration means that trips take longer and few stops can be made, which results in lower ridership, worse frequency of service and less development around stations. All this means that more people drive cars instead of taking the trains, which has much bigger effect on total energy use and emissions, as well as other effects on public health and urban environments. For more information on the effect of regulations on trains as transportation, I recommend reading Pedestrian Observations (http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/) and Reason and Rail (http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/). For example, here is a great recent discussion of the benefits of electrification for commuter trains (and energy savings is only a minor consideration): reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-commuter-railroads-wont-run-diesels.html and reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/05/visual-demonstration-of-fra-weight.htmlThis is a review of all of the bad FRA rules: pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/fra-rules-are-not-just-buff-strength/pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/bad-fra-regulations-a-compendium/Hopefully you will consider these issues as well. FRA regulations effect on energy and emmissions from trains is only a small problem; their effect on making transit less useful and more expensive is much more important.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 31, 2012 13:14:37 GMT -8
And I can remember when Pacific Electric used to run freight trains on the same track with "Hollywood" cars (with the streetcars running on 30-minute off-peak headways) every day Monday through Friday on the Monrovia-Glendora Line. They didn't even have automatic block signal protection until they got out to the east side of Duarte.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 31, 2012 15:12:27 GMT -8
In any case, I think the time to start looking at this is now. The trend in transit funding seems to be that there are more infrastructure dollars than operating dollars. Do you think Metrolink can compete for that funding on a hypothetical electrification project on the San Bernardino Line, that is, if they can get over some regulatory hurdles?
While I really liked Fenton as CEO, he was adverse to electrification. Perhaps the new guy can be convinced to at least do some back of the envelope calculations on the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 12, 2012 13:49:02 GMT -8
Well, if High Speed Rail is going to go from Vegas to Palmdale, how would Metrolink Electrification work with that?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 13, 2012 23:52:39 GMT -8
Well, if High Speed Rail is going to go from Vegas to Palmdale, how would Metrolink Electrification work with that? This definitely adds another variable to the equation. I'm glad that they are looking at filling that gap. This map yields a lot of possibilities. www.xpresswest.com/network.htmlIt's no longer "the train to Vegas" or "DesertXpress." They are now calling it Xpress West, which I think is very smart. With the intention to fill the Palmdale-Victorville gap, the powers that be finally realize this could be part of a bigger system, and no longer some laughable Victorville terminus. If the CA HSR project doesn't pan out, XpressWest could pay to electrify Metrolink's Antelope Valley Line right-of-way and share tracks. Of course, the regulatory hurdles would need to be addressed. Metrolink express trains do LA-Palmdale in an hour and 30 minutes. XpressWest plans to do Victorville-Vegas in 80 minutes. Add in however long the Palmdale-Victorville segment will take to cover, and I think you've got a Vegas train that is competitive with driving. Last I heard, the XpressWest people were waiting to see if they would be granted a federal loan to proceed.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 14, 2012 11:57:12 GMT -8
Caltrain is taking about electrification as part of Cal HSR. They had been discussing the possibility already, but Cal HSR's current plan seems to push up the likelihood.
XpressWest's network map may be a bit ambitious, but it does seem like an eventual inevitability that Metrolink will be electrified, either as part of Cal HSR or as part of XpressWest's Palmdale to Victorville extension.
I can't wait to see the groundbreaking for phase 1 to Vegas.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Aug 24, 2012 7:22:59 GMT -8
Dudes and Dudettes -- HERE is the key to Metrolink electrification. The cutting edge: SUPERCAPACITORS. www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban-rail/single-view/view/supercapacitor-light-metro-train-unveiled.htmlThey're already experimenting with the technology in Asia in Europe. Basically supercapacitor technology allows transit vehicles to have batteries which are charged at a super-rapid rate (like 30 seconds) when trains stop at stations and allow them to travel for a certain distance between charges (right now the tech allows for 2km between charges for light rail vehicles). The result is an electric-powered rail vehicle that does NOT require a pantograph and overhead wire throughout the route. The overhead charging mechanism will be present at stations only. Energy is also collected from the braking process (a technology that already exists in all our Metro Rail vehicles). Certainly this technology can and will be refined and advanced, which would allow larger commuter rail vehicles like those on Metrolink to use the technology. The mainline freight railroads will love this, because it doesn't involve a catenary infrastructure that will get in the way of high-clearance railcars like double-stacks.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 24, 2012 9:09:12 GMT -8
Dudes and Dudettes -- HERE is the key to Metrolink electrification. The cutting edge: SUPERCAPACITORS. www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban-rail/single-view/view/supercapacitor-light-metro-train-unveiled.htmlThey're already experimenting with the technology in Asia in Europe. Basically supercapacitor technology allows transit vehicles to have batteries which are charged at a super-rapid rate (like 30 seconds) when trains stop at stations and allow them to travel for a certain distance between charges (right now the tech allows for 2km between charges for light rail vehicles). The result is an electric-powered rail vehicle that does NOT require a pantograph and overhead wire throughout the route. The overhead charging mechanism will be present at stations only. Energy is also collected from the braking process (a technology that already exists in all our Metro Rail vehicles). Certainly this technology can and will be refined and advanced, which would allow larger commuter rail vehicles like those on Metrolink to use the technology. The mainline freight railroads will love this, because it doesn't involve a catenary infrastructure that will get in the way of high-clearance railcars like double-stacks. Sounds promising, but what happens if a train gets stranded between stations with no power? Everyone would have to wait until an emergency locomotive came and hauled it away. The alternative is to make the trains "hybrid" but that adds weight and expense. It seems that an actual catenary has some benefits in terms of being straightforward and reliable. I guess it's too soon to say anything concrete about what the costs of the supercapacitor approach will be.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Aug 24, 2012 11:56:13 GMT -8
Dudes and Dudettes -- HERE is the key to Metrolink electrification. The cutting edge: SUPERCAPACITORS. www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban-rail/single-view/view/supercapacitor-light-metro-train-unveiled.htmlThey're already experimenting with the technology in Asia in Europe. Basically supercapacitor technology allows transit vehicles to have batteries which are charged at a super-rapid rate (like 30 seconds) when trains stop at stations and allow them to travel for a certain distance between charges (right now the tech allows for 2km between charges for light rail vehicles). The result is an electric-powered rail vehicle that does NOT require a pantograph and overhead wire throughout the route. The overhead charging mechanism will be present at stations only. Energy is also collected from the braking process (a technology that already exists in all our Metro Rail vehicles). Certainly this technology can and will be refined and advanced, which would allow larger commuter rail vehicles like those on Metrolink to use the technology. The mainline freight railroads will love this, because it doesn't involve a catenary infrastructure that will get in the way of high-clearance railcars like double-stacks. Sounds promising, but what happens if a train gets stranded between stations with no power? Everyone would have to wait until an emergency locomotive came and hauled it away. The alternative is to make the trains "hybrid" but that adds weight and expense. It seems that an actual catenary has some benefits in terms of being straightforward and reliable. I guess it's too soon to say anything concrete about what the costs of the supercapacitor approach will be. My friend, the same thing happens to electric-powered trains WITH catenary (As we see every so often on the Expo Line unfortunately), so your argument has no weight. Like I said, it's currently in the experimental phase, but some lines are using it ion a part-time basis, like one of Paris' suburban tram lines. And like I said again, this technology can and will be refined and advanced.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 25, 2012 0:50:08 GMT -8
My friend, the same thing happens to electric-powered trains WITH catenary (As we see every so often on the Expo Line unfortunately), so your argument has no weight. Like I said, it's currently in the experimental phase, but some lines are using it ion a part-time basis, like one of Paris' suburban tram lines. And like I said again, this technology can and will be refined and advanced. Like I said, it sounds promising, but the question remains as to how reliable it is. Trains with catenary sometimes get stranded, but the technology has been around a long time and has been pretty ironed out. When you take a new technology, it could be that it's not as reliable. I'm not saying that it will necessarily be more unreliable, but that is often the case with new technologies. I'm excited to see whether it performs well, as it could potentially be useful in many situations. Do you have a link to the information on where it's being used in Paris? Just a minor note, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't be dismissive to my posts. The forum isn't a competition.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 25, 2012 6:57:05 GMT -8
Yes, been following the super-capacitor story for a while now. A few years ago, a company called EESTOR was supposed to have found the holy grail: something with the energy density of a battery that could recharge in minutes versus hours. That would be a game changer for the auto industry. But that product never materialized, at least not yet. Other companies are certainly working on the same concept. I agree that it has the potential to completely revolutionize light rail. The best case scenario would have you eliminate all catenary, except at the station where a train would dwell for say 30 seconds before using the capacitor to run the train till the next stop, where the process would be repeated. If that isn't feasible, than an interim solution would also be available. You could have catenary for stretches between stations, and the capacitor could refill while the train was running, so the catenary is then running the train and recharging the capacitor. The capacitor then only needs to hold enough stored energy to get the train to the next stretch of overhead power. This has the advantage of letting you get rid of quite a bit of the overhead wires. You would put the wires in stretches that were relatively easy to hang, like straight sections with no cross overs. Or in places where lots of power is needed, like an uphill section. The other nice aspect of this is that if weight allows, you could retrofit existing trains with this technology. The light rail car exists as it currently does, the capacitor bank just gets bolted to the top along with the required controls to charge it and discharge it as required during operation. If this gets done, then when you need to overhaul your catenary system (think San Diego right now), you only need to replace *some* of the sections, while others can be completely removed. While there would be a one time cost associated with the removal, it would certainly be 100x cheaper than replacing the same stretches of lines, especially in complicated situations (i.e. crossovers). Matthew raises an important point about reliability. It obviously has to work all the time, and the super capacitor needs to have an extremely long lifetime, as it would be charging/discharging hundreds of times per day, 7 days a week. I'm not sure what the state of the art is with respect to whether they can do this now or not, but the fact that anyone is either close to deploying it or about to deploy it is very encouraging. I will have to search out some current research and see what the deal is. The only thing better than building lots of trains, is building lots of trains very inexpensively. And the retrofit possibilities down the road for the LA systems mean that we might even be able to take advantage of it at some point in time. RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 25, 2012 7:23:54 GMT -8
All you wanted to know right here, and more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitorShort version: Already seeing some test use in light rail systems. Can be used in conjunction with batteries to extend their useful life. Energy density approaching Lithium Ion batteries in the lab. Very good progress being made. Stay tuned... RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 25, 2012 7:28:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Aug 26, 2012 3:12:44 GMT -8
Do you have a link to the information on where it's being used in Paris? www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/supercapacitors-to-be-tested-on-paris-steem-tram.htmlLikewisel ;D Seriously, I meant that all in jest, so chill out dude! But on a serious matter, I'd like to think we should think forward, not backward. I'm not against conventional electrical rail systems as they have been designed for the past century-plus. But there are economic and logistical realities that can be addressed to make the trains run on electricity sooner, and serve more areas, than just sit on the drawing board until the funds are available. If we were having a conversation in the 1960s and I talked about this crazy new futuristic technology that enabled people to talk on phones without the use of a telephone line, you'd probably bring up how these signals can break down and people can lose calls. And you know what, history would prove you right -- because, as we all know, people get dropped calls all the time on cellphones. But in the big picture...look how many people have cellphones today. They've revolutionized communications the Third World, where having a land line is not economically or logistically feasible for most people. Even just 15 years ago most people in developing nations didn't even have a land line. I would not be as concerned about problems with supercapacitor technology. Why? Because it's already being worked on in Europe and Asia as we speak. That Paris link I just gave you was from 2009. Meaning, by the time it reaches us here in the US, it would be a lot more reliable than it is right now. Assuming Metrolink does get electrified with supercapacitors. It's not going to happen next year. If it does, *I* would have concerns about its reliability. But I think we should be talking about this and any other kinds of cutting-edge technology to electrify Metrolink. Because supercapacitors or not, the wires aren't gonna be coming up anytime soon.
|
|