From: mikel@dosbears.UUCP (Mike Lipsie)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: CalTrain scheduling musings
Date: 11 Dec 92 06:25:14 GMT
Reply-To: dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: DOS Bears

Some recent discussions in this group made me wonder about the
requirements for more frequent scheduling on the CalTrain line.

Assumptions:
	- 15 minute frequency between SF and Cahill
	- locals only (no express trains)
	- no change in hardware (tracks, locomotives, ...)
	- it takes exactly 1:30 from SF to SJ
	- turnaround is instanteous (or, 1:30 includes turnaround)

Justifications:
	- I ignored Tamien because (a) not all trains currently
	  serve Tamien and (b) it screws up assumption 4
	- my musings can be extended/juggled to accomadate expresses

It requires 10 trains running constantly to provide 15 minute frequency.
Throw in two more and you can take care of the zero turnaround time,
the exactly 1:30 trip, and maybe include Tamien.  Service to Gilroy
would require, maybe, two additional trains to meet the current service
level.  It would require about 20 trains to serve SF to Gilroy every
15 minutes.

Additionally, engines are probably required at the "yard" which I 
think translates to SF and the SJ-Santa Clara area.  And, engines
and cars are required as backups for when one breaks down or is
having maintenance.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Scheduling with that frequency greatly increases the pressure
for separated grade crossings and stations that do not require 
that passengers cross the tracks.  Currently, almost all of
San Francisco crossings are OK (two streets near the depot and
one driveway near Bayshore are at grade) and most of Santa Clara
is OK (Stockton St. near College Park and Alma near Palo Alto)
but San Mateo is hopeless.  Many major streets are at grade
crossings.  

Currently there are four "stations" with proper separation of
passengers and track - SJ, Lawrence, Palo Alto, and SF.  (I'm
ignoring south of SJ because I don't know that area and it is 
new to the system.)



--
Mike Lipsie                            584 Castro #614, San Francisco, CA 94114
dosbears!mikel@pyramid.com
mikel%dosbears.uucp@ingres.com    Running rn (for DOS) with UUPC/Extended 1.11k
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2824 ca.environment:1075 sci.environment:13531