|
|
| Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV (1145342) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Mar 18 22:15:56 2012, in response to Re: PHOTOS: CALTRAN CALTRAIN IV, posted by WillD on Sun Mar 18 20:48:23 2012. Except that they're being enacted, with Prop 1A funds going to finance the conversion of Caltrain alongside the construction of the IOS.Unless that comes with a revenue source don't believe anything one of those voter approved "props" enact. The good citizens have been cutting taxes and approving mega projects for decades now. 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. Then why isn't every commuter railroad looking to electrify? Why is NJT buying dual modes? Why is the MBTA and MARC running diesels under wire? Perhaps the cost of MU's is a bit more than the cost of diesel push-pull trains. 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. So now Buses cost more to operate than light rail vehicles? Last I checked you can stop maintaining a road and the bus won't derail. Buses can run line of sight and don't need an electric power supply system. On wait, in Europe the state provides all of that pesky infrastructure free of charge! 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. Then why haven't they? Proof of the pudding is in the eating. If electrification was such a big money saver we would have seen much more of it in the last 50 decades. Which is why the new EMUs will carry more people than the Gallery cars they replace. Not when cars load unevenly. There are plenty of seats today, the problem is getting stuck in the part of the train where everyone else has chosen to sit. That's why passing through helps. They already do POP. With any luck they'll transition to OPTO + POP with the new rolling stock and really save some money. The FRA already nixed OPTO then Frontrunner tried to do it so nice try. Anyway the LA Metro tried to get away with low enforcement level POP and they got burned. Eventually people will learn they can just beat the system at will. Today everyone riding Caltrain gets their ticket checked for most rides which is a pretty good system. To do that you need ticket inspectors that can rome freely about the train without needing to jump between the blind ends. 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. The expenditure is less because the trains have a higher utilization, especially in the off peak times. caltrain can easily expand capacity by simply taking on new Gallery cars or buying other used rolling stock. That's the beauty of locomotive hauled services, it the marginal costs of capacity is very low. 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. If they aren't doing that now they aren't going to do it with MU's. A diesel locomotive trainset today does not have significantly different operating costs compared to MUs, and its probably cheaper if you factor in all the associated infrastructure costs. All the fiddly bits that can go wrong are contained in a single unit with diesel push pull. With MU's all the cars have parts that can go wrong and need to be maintained, not to mention the 92 day inspections etc. MU's are cheaper than steam locomotives, that's why railroads electrified in the 20's and 30's, but since then they are not cheaper than push pull services. MU's have higher performance and can support higher capacity, but it increases the costs to move those people. Caltrain's best option is to electrify and then use push-pull electric locomotives with the existing gallery car stock, plus any additional stock they happen to pick up. With the ALP-44s available they can have a whole electrified service up and running for almost no money. If NJT can move the NEC crowds using push-pulls Caltrain can do the same. 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. Um...how is that attributable to their new MU cars? And are you claiming that if they got some Eurotrash MU's (that would probably freeze solid if they got close to a real winter) their costs would somehow magically come down? |
|
|
|