From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: CalTrain scheduling musings
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:56:17 GMT

In article <1510@dosbears>, mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie) writes:
|> I would guess that 18 trains could easily meet the need:
|> 	12	15 minute frequency SF-SJ
|> 	 2	Gilroy service
|> 	 2	yard work
|> 	 2	backup

Yeah, I did some calculations with similar results recently.  (The
most recent 9-Year CalTrain Plan had some statements about needing
two more locomotives to go to 66-trains per day that really pissed
me off because a quick analysis can easily show that to be false.
The plan also said that CTC-signalling would be needed in order to
go more than something like 72 trains per day.  That's also pure
B.S.  CalTrain can easily run at 5 to 10 minute headways using today's
simple ABS-signalling equipment.)


|> I don't know how many trains CalTrain has but I counted 12 (engines 
|> and cars) at San Francisco last Monday (when I was killing a half
|> hour waiting for the noon train).  Add the two that were in transit
|> at the time and, if there were 4 at SJ (good chance), then they 
|> already have all the necessary hardware.

CalTrain has got 20 locomotives and 72 coaches (some of which--at least
20--are "cab-cars").  They have 2 or 3 more locomotives on order and
are scheduled to getting at least 24 of the new "California Cars" over
the next 2 or 3 years.

|> OK.  So they could do it tomorrow, right?  Well, not quite.

Yes, more or less.


|> They would need additional engineers.  A lot more.  And, until
|> they replace the conductors with ticket machines (a la BART),
|> they will need a lot more conductors.  And, since the trains 
|> would be used a lot more, they would need additional repair
|> and cleaning people.  People are expensive.

Right.  The ticket-machines program is about 6-months late now.
Tamien was supposed to have them operating on July 1st.  They're
there, but are still not operational due to "software problems".
Once they come on line, they should be quite nice as they'll
ultimately accept all forms of coin and cash up to $20 bills and
also credit and debit cars are planned too.


|> They would need to convince "the powers that be" that (a) the
|> service is needed and (b) that it would be used, so that the
|> scheduling would be approved.

The "they" you're talking about *are* "the powers that be".  That's
part of the problem.  The JPB is largely made up of "the powers that
be"...  There will be some changes starting in January, though.  The
other "powers that be" is the SamTrans planning department.  They
have a lousy reputation and are widely said to lack any kind of vision
or belief in the "product".  They are responsible for both SamTrans
and CalTrain planning.  Amtrak is just the contractor providing and
operating the service.  Amtrak is willing to do all kinds of terrific
stuff and has the know-how to do it.  The problem is that Amtrak only
does what it is told and funded to do by the JPB and SamTrans.


|> Scheduling with that frequency greatly increases the pressure
|> for separated grade crossings and stations that do not require 
|> that passengers cross the tracks.

There are a handfull of crossings that would really need grade-
separations from an auto-traffic point of view.  What's lousy
is that grade-separations are more often than not funded out of
"rail" funding pots, but really don't provide much real benefit
for rail service.  So you have officials saying "See, look how
much we're spending on rail projects!", but the rail-riding
passenger doesn't really notice or appreciate a grade-separation
very much.  Grade separations primarily benefit motor vehicle
traffic so let them be funded out of road and/or highway money
pots.

--

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation