|
Post by roadtrainer on Apr 1, 2013 21:09:45 GMT -8
Hey the old 1950's/1960's MTA would borrow some train sets from other systems, (They borrowed buses too) Re: they borrowed some truck from S F Muni to run the PCC cars on the Long beach line, Just ask good ole Bob Davis, he can verify my story.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 1, 2013 21:47:05 GMT -8
Gather round, while I tell the story of LAMTA 3148 and its trip to the beach. 3148 was one of a set of 40 narrow-gauge (42") PCC cars bought by L A Transit Lines in 1948. This was a surprise, because LATL was expected to buy nothing but GMC and Mack buses after it took over LARy in 1945. A number of reasons have been suggested, but for whatever reason, 40 new cars showed up, and were assigned to the "P" line. MTA took over from LATL in 1958, acquiring the remnant of the PE system as well as the Yellow Cars. By 1960, the second-hand "Blimps" on the Long Beach line were worn out, and there was discussion about using PCC cars on the last interurban line. MTA borrowed a set of standard-gauge trucks from Muni (SFMRy 1024 was the "donor"), and on Feb. 16, 1960, it was trucked to Long Beach for the experiment. After six test runs, the car was eventually returned to the narrow gauge system, the trucks were sent back to MuniLand and nothing further was done to upgrade the Long Beach line, which closed a little over a year later. Regarding buses, in 1981, SF Muni was suffering from a shortage of diesel buses (or, more precisely, diesel buses that RAN). They wound up leasing a motley collection of "old look" GM coaches from SCRTD to fill the gaps in their fleet. As I recall, the RTD relics were mostly used on the less-hilly routes--no sense pushing their luck with these wheezy hand-me-downs.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 2, 2013 9:07:54 GMT -8
OK, so, with 12-minute headways, we need no more than 3 more trains (9 more LRVs) to extend the operations from Culver City to Downtown Santa Monica. This would bring the number of trains on the Expo Line from 6 to 9. I guess if they fix all the broken and accident-damaged trains and borrow a few more LRVs from the Green Line, it might be possible to open Phase 2 with the existing rolling stock. However, Bruce Shelbourne told me last September that they had absolutely no spares -- zero -- for the Blue and Expo Lines at that time. It was a time where there were many accidents and malfunctions though. Metro, start maintaining your trains now so that Expo can open in 2015! We will need them all!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 11, 2013 22:02:55 GMT -8
expolinefan reported from the rail yard today that there are 0 (zero) extra cars for the Blue and Expo Lines. The spares usually end up in repair.
This means we will need at least 9 Kinki Sharyo cars (3 Kinki Sharyo trains) to open Phase 2 to revenue service. So, until they get 9 Kinki Sharyo cars, Phase 2 can't open.
However, they don't need any Kinki Sharyo cars to open to Palms or perhaps even as far as Expo/Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 12, 2013 8:03:10 GMT -8
Can't they just temporarily run 2-car trains rather than 3-car trains?
Sure, the trains will be packed, but at least they'll be RUNNING.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 12, 2013 8:40:30 GMT -8
expolinefan reported from the rail yard today that there are 0 (zero) extra cars for the Blue and Expo Lines. The spares usually end up in repair. This means we will need at least 9 Kinki Sharyo cars (3 Kinki Sharyo trains) to open Phase 2 to revenue service. So, until they get 9 Kinki Sharyo cars, Phase 2 can't open. However, they don't need any Kinki Sharyo cars to open to Palms or perhaps even as far as Expo/Westwood. As I recall, the EIR does not allow for a temp. terminus at either of those locations. I think we are so far from completing work that there are other issues to worry about ahead of the cars. A lot of basic construction has yet to take place and there could be hundreds of issues that prop up that might delay construction. 2015 to me still seems like a nice goal, but probably not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 12, 2013 8:50:43 GMT -8
From yesterday's project-status update:
Major issues
Potential delays due to SCE utility relocations: ____• Overhead relocations required at Sepulveda Blvd and Bundy Drive ____• Underground relocations required along Colorado Avenue ________ SRJV has developed a workaround schedule that mitigates current projected delay ________ Working with SCE to add an additional cable crew to coincide with the completion of the duct bank installation Third-party scope growth Delay in California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval of rail crossings
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 25, 2013 16:39:22 GMT -8
The Metro Board today approved the purchase of 69 new light rail cars to replace the old Nippon Sharyo cars and 28 cars for the Crenshaw line. They will start delivery once the base order for Expo/Foothill is completed in FY 2017. Here is the news release: Two options to purchase new rail cars approved by Metro Board and other actions taken todayThe interesting thing in the article is the updated rendering of what the rail cars will look like. I don't know how I feel about the yellow on the ends, but it looks like it will be highly visible.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 26, 2013 8:55:29 GMT -8
I like the silver/yellow scheme. It would certainly be hard to not see it coming (unless you are color blind, which some people are).
It would be nice to see all the LRVs eventually painted in the same scheme. At least the not-so-old ones (P2000s and P2550s), which are not going to retire by 2020.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 26, 2013 19:18:10 GMT -8
Why not make train cars ALL yellow? Are they afraid of DART?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 26, 2013 21:50:37 GMT -8
...I always liked yellow.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Aug 6, 2013 15:10:11 GMT -8
With the FEIR out of the way, I think we're still awaiting a CPUC ruling. If I'm correct, when is that expected and can that still impact construction progress?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 6, 2013 15:30:22 GMT -8
With the FEIR out of the way, I think we're still awaiting a CPUC ruling. If I'm correct, when is that expected and can that still impact construction progress? CPUC already ruled in Expo's favor. There are no more roadblocks regarding the crossings or EIR. Just got to build it now.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 6, 2013 19:57:42 GMT -8
With the FEIR out of the way, I think we're still awaiting a CPUC ruling. If I'm correct, when is that expected and can that still impact construction progress? CPUC already ruled in Expo's favor. There are no more roadblocks regarding the crossings or EIR. Just got to build it now. Not quite. The Proposed Decision was issued last month, with comments due August 1 and reply comments due today. It's item 7 on the 8/15/13 CPUC Agenda (posted today) Consent Calendar for final adoption: 7 Decision on Rehearing of Resolution SX-100 [12244] A11-12-010 Application of Neighbors for Smart Rail for Rehearing of Resolution SX-100 and for Oral Argument. PROPOSED OUTCOME: [] Grants authority to construct 16 at grade and 11 grade separated rail crossings in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. [] Closes the proceeding. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: [] The Final Environmental Impact Report contains mitigation measures for the safety issues identified. ESTIMATED COST: [] $1.5 billion (Comr Peevey - ALJ Mason) docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALL&docid=71162699 Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment. Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 6, 2013 22:20:52 GMT -8
Wow, CPUC is moving lightning fast. I didn't expect this to go to the commission before the end of August.
This means track installation will start as early as next Friday, assuming CPUC will go smoothly. All environmental and overseeing-agency certifications are to be done at last on August 15, 2013 -- the day the Expo opposition is gone for good.
It's not under but it's over. (pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 7, 2013 6:29:40 GMT -8
Wow, CPUC is moving lightning fast. I didn't expect this to go to the commission before the end of August. Yeah, the proposed ruling was in mid-July: The CPUC Proposed Decision on the rehearing of the Phase 2 crossings was posted Friday. I'm just starting to read its 87 pages, but its Summary is very direct: They didn't wait for the California Supreme Court ruling, but do explicitly address the issue of the baseline year. Almost there!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 7, 2013 11:04:06 GMT -8
Wow, CPUC is moving lightning fast. I didn't expect this to go to the commission before the end of August. Yeah, the proposed ruling was in mid-July: The CPUC Proposed Decision on the rehearing of the Phase 2 crossings was posted Friday. I'm just starting to read its 87 pages, but its Summary is very direct: They didn't wait for the California Supreme Court ruling, but do explicitly address the issue of the baseline year. Almost there! Yep, the proposed ruling was on July 12, which means the earliest it could go to the commission was August 11 (30 days after it's mailed). Since it will be voted on August 15, they aren't losing any time at all. The next commission meeting would be late Augutst or early September. Let's hope it's not held and postponed to the next meeting at the last minute.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 7, 2013 12:12:40 GMT -8
CPUC already ruled in Expo's favor. There are no more roadblocks regarding the crossings or EIR. Just got to build it now. Not quite. The Proposed Decision was issued last month, with comments due August 1 and reply comments due today. It's item 7 on the 8/15/13 CPUC Agenda (posted today) Consent Calendar for final adoption: 7 Decision on Rehearing of Resolution SX-100 [12244] A11-12-010 Application of Neighbors for Smart Rail for Rehearing of Resolution SX-100 and for Oral Argument. PROPOSED OUTCOME: [] Grants authority to construct 16 at grade and 11 grade separated rail crossings in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. [] Closes the proceeding. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: [] The Final Environmental Impact Report contains mitigation measures for the safety issues identified. ESTIMATED COST: [] $1.5 billion (Comr Peevey - ALJ Mason) docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALL&docid=71162699 Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment. Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting. My bad. You are right. CPUC decision in July was only a proposed decision. However, from my understanding those are rarely changed, but we will have to wait until next week to make it official.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 7, 2013 12:36:26 GMT -8
CPUC proposed decisions are sometimes changed a few days before the meeting, such as additions, deletions, etc. to the proposed decision written by the administrating-law judge (ALJ). However, I don't expect any change this time. Keep an eye on the hold list to see if the item will actually make it to the August 15 meeting.
Once it makes to the meeting, it's moved from the consent agenda and discussed before it's voted on.
|
|