|
|
| Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV (1145327) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 18 20:48:23 2012, in response to Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV, posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Mar 18 18:26:47 2012. All your little dreams of a European rail fantasy camp on this side of the Atlantic are not going to happen, deal with it.Except that they're being enacted, with Prop 1A funds going to finance the conversion of Caltrain alongside the construction of the IOS. What operational savings? Come on, surely we don't have to go over such basic concepts as the amortization of installed infrastructure over a given number of trains. Yes, it costs money to maintain the catenary, but the marginal cost per train operation is reduced. If you're going to a half hourly midday express schedule alongside at least two trains per hour on the local then you're clearly utilizing the installed infrastructure to ultimately reduce the operational costs compared to diesel operations. Hell, even on the east coast commuter rail operators run diesel under wire because all things considered it turns out to be cheaper. Why do you think there has been so many mostly failed efforts into Dual Mode locomotives? Because our acquisition program holds the reduction in capital costs above the operational savings the higher purchase price may avert. That's why we've wound up with so many BRT systems even though LRT results in lower operational costs. No, they are required to run electrics because of tunnels etc and want to find a way to keep as much of their systems diesel as they can. Electrification has many advantages, but cheaper operations hasn't been one of them since the days of steam. Completely and utterly false. Even GO Transit has worked out that they would save money by electrifying the Lake Shore and Georgetown routes *without* changing the schedules. They could also just not do anything and use the 400 million to pay down the state's massive debt. When you're broke, you don't get new things. Which again means they just get to spend more money in the future. With interest rates being dirt cheap and unemployment being high there's no reason not to build the infrastructure we'll need to move our economy forward now. Four hundred million dollars will not amount to a significant savings in California's budget deficit, but it will enable savings from other areas which would have a bigger impact on their deficit (expanding the 101 and 280 for example). If you can't pass through all open cars then you can't have platforms where only some of the cars platform The ADA has already decreed that wheelchair bound passengers must be provided a level boarding position at all points along the train. Mini-highs, lifts, partial platforms, and all the rest are now out. As such your objection applies equally to any other new-build commuter system and your point is moot. not to mention it makes finding a seat harde Which is why the new EMUs will carry more people than the Gallery cars they replace. as well as staffing the cars with ticket inspectors They already do POP. With any luck they'll transition to OPTO + POP with the new rolling stock and really save some money. Europe works because of massive government subsidy and a public policy of making road transport far more expensive than it naturally would be. But the Europeans' expenditure on a per-passenger basis is less. Caltrain is on the very edge of what it can economically convey during rush hour. Expanding their current operation to keep up with demand would destroy what little margin they may have in their operational budget. They can pull hole trainsets from service they are given money to buy extras or money to do preventative maintenance. Their rights of way are tailored to match the rolling stock, highly groomed and electrified. Yes, its all great, but it sucks down money like a hoover. And Caltrain proposed to operate 4 to 6 TPH during off peak hours on their line. That's more service than most European commuter lines see during midday hours, so even if we accept your ludicrous caricature of the European infrastructure they'll be getting more use out of those tracks and again, offsetting what you erroneously claim to be higher infrastructure support costs. someone like you got to them and they're going to end up with a fleet of prima donna equipment that will change Caltrain's cost and operating structure from Railroad to Rapid Transit. Yes, to lower operational costs. Thank god Metra did things right by just sticking a pantograph on a gallery car. Yes, and their operational cost per passenger mile has climbed steadily over the past five years. They're doing the exact wrong thing if you want to reduce costs. |
|
|
|