🚀 go-pugleaf

Merritt Mullen wrote:

> Pierre A Plauzoles at plauzolesp@bigvalley.net wrote on 10/5/00 9:01 PM:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
> > San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
> > years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.  Has
> > the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?
>
> I think you are a bit premature.  By the time the Peninsula is electrified
> (5-10 years?), the choice of electric locomotive might look entirely
> different than it does today.  Perhaps the service will switch to EMUs and
> not require locomotives.  Of course, they probably would want to use the
> current cars and that would require locomotives.
>
> You suggested E60s.  I thought E60s were considered to be troublemakers on
> the NEC.  It seems the preferred loco is the AEM-7, used by both Amtrak and
> MARC, and both are happy with it.

These are E60c-2s.  I haven't heard how happy (or unhappy) Deseret Western
[Rangely, in northwestern Colorado to some isolated one-bar (?) town in
northeastern Utah] is with theirs, but then they and BMLP -- and TXU (Martin
Lake, Texas), the gas -and-electricity utility that serves a good sized chunk
of Texas and is headquartered in Dallas -- have picked up some of them.  Out of
the original 39 ordered, 15 have been sold, and 20 were left as of last
August.  I wonder what is left now out of those 20 and where they are.
Incidentally, depending on the color scheme and how they maintain the locos,
those Martin Lake units ought to be good targets for photographers on the lake:
the electrics probably go over the bridge (which is some 1500 feet long, if I
recall the map scale properly) southeast of the power plant.  Anyone know for
sure?

Pierre A Plauzoles wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
> San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
> years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.

Not necessarily.  Locomotive-hauled passenger trains are, by and large,
a thing of the past.  (Yes, I know, that would make them a perfect match
for the Caltrain Historical Theme Park.)

> Has the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?

No, and it would be entirely inappropriate to do so.  It should be up
to bidders, as part of putting together a package to meet _performance_-
based specifications, to decide what sort of rolling stock to provide.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way Caltrain (the people
responsible for the single-bid historical gallery car procurement fiasco,
the effectively-single-bid historical locomotive proccurement fiasco
and the non-working-overhauled-locomotives fiasco) and its consultants
are pushing really hard to just buy locomotives to haul the gallery cars
around, and pushing hard to buy something like the Adtranz (now Bombardier)
ALP-46 which is on order by (but not delivered to) NJTC.

This of course would be a huge mistake.
 
> While I realize that the E60C has its short-comings, it did do a fairly
> respectable job of getting cars and their passenger loads from Point A
> to Point B on the Northeast Corridor (as far as I know at least, we
> haven't heard of it blowing a traction motor every other month)..

It depends on what you want to accomplish.  If you want to spend a few
hundred million dollars stringing wires just so you can say "look! electric
trains!" then buying an overweight, inefficient, high-operating-cost,
obsolete, low-performance, unmaintainable, unsuccessful locomotive at close
to scrap value may be the way to go.

If you want to improve transportation on the Peninsula and operate attractive
services and care about total cost of ownership and about total return on
investment you'd probably do what every other rail system in the world
(including Amtrak, even) has done and pass on them.

> [...] Now to the nitty-gritty: Have all the Mexican E60Cs been sold (they
> were returned to the US, apparently, last year; there were 20 left
> unsold in August of last year)?

11 unused locomotives available in original collectible wrapping.

> [...] Would the idea of using some (or all) of those units for the
> time being -- while the system absorbs some of the
> electrification-related costs -- not have some advantages?

None I can see.

> On the other hand, how long would the project take?

Eighteen months if world class contractors were doing it and Caltrain
were behind it.

Officially six years at Caltrain -- though there isn't actually funding
for any of this, so it's all rather academic at this point.

In reality?  I'm not holding my breath.

> Would there be any advantage in that at all?

No.  Perhaps you'll "save" $40m (compared to buying 10 modern locomotives,
but there are ways to save even more by not buying any locomotives at all)
but the smart money (which has passed on this fabulous opportunity so far)
says the total amortized costs would be higher.

In article <39DD4E82.BFA16DFB@bigvalley.net>,
Pierre A Plauzoles  <sphinxangelorum@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Hello.

> [For electifying SF-San Jose (or Gilroy?)]
>Now to the nitty-gritty: Have a;ll the Mexican E60Cs been sold (they
>were returned to the US, apparently, last year; there were 20 left
>unsold in August of last year)?  The way I hear it, there were six
>wrecked for various reasons -- it appears (although I don't have any of
>the details) that none of the accidents were due to on-board mechanical
>problems.  Would the idea of using some (or all) of those units for the
>time being -- while the system absorbs some of the
>electrification-related costs -- not have some advantages?

   I suspect that would depend on just how well suited E60s are for
   start-stop service.  NJ Transit used them for commuter service for a
   while, but apparently had a devil of a time getting them to work
   properly in push-pull (and ended up hot-potato(e)ing them as soon as
   they could buy ALP44s), so I suspect that they aren't suited.

                  ____
    david parsons \bi/ GE seems to have completely lost the ability to
                   \/                          build passenger engines.

In article <39DD4E82.BFA16DFB@bigvalley.net>,
     sphinxangelorum@bigfoot.com wrote:
>The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
>San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
>years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.  Has
>the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?

I'm sure the JPB will buy the best that Lionel makes.

--
Aaron Priven, Oakland, California, USA
aaron@priven.com, http://www.priven.com/

Pierre A Plauzoles at plauzolesp@bigvalley.net wrote on 10/5/00 9:01 PM:

> Hello.
> 
> The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
> San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
> years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.  Has
> the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?

I think you are a bit premature.  By the time the Peninsula is electrified
(5-10 years?), the choice of electric locomotive might look entirely
different than it does today.  Perhaps the service will switch to EMUs and
not require locomotives.  Of course, they probably would want to use the
current cars and that would require locomotives.

You suggested E60s.  I thought E60s were considered to be troublemakers on
the NEC.  It seems the preferred loco is the AEM-7, used by both Amtrak and
MARC, and both are happy with it.

Merritt

I most strongly resent your inflammatory insult of Lionel
Trains.  They would never stoop to do business with
Caltrain.   ;-)

Aaron Priven wrote:

> In article <39DD4E82.BFA16DFB@bigvalley.net>,
>      sphinxangelorum@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
> >San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
> >years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.  Has
> >the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?
>
> I'm sure the JPB will buy the best that Lionel makes.
>
> --
> Aaron Priven, Oakland, California, USA
> aaron@priven.com, http://www.priven.com/

sphinxangelorum@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
> >San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
> >years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.  Has
> >the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?
>
> I'm sure the JPB will buy the best that Lionel makes.
--
> Aaron Priven, Oakland, California, USA

Yes just think if the JPB actually brought in some new Electric MU train
sets or even bring in some modern cars like the Metrolink / Stockton San
Jose cars to replace the museum pieces they currently operate. The ridership
and usage would grow so fast the service might even operate on time and
carry moor people faster because of the faster loading etc they would have a
hard time selling a BART Line to San Jose.

Alan Fishel wrote:
> 
> sphinxangelorum@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > >The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
> > >San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
> > >years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.  Has
> > >the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?
> >
> > I'm sure the JPB will buy the best that Lionel makes.
> --
> > Aaron Priven, Oakland, California, USA
> 
> Yes just think if the JPB actually brought in some new Electric MU train
> sets or even bring in some modern cars like the Metrolink / Stockton San
> Jose cars to replace the museum pieces they currently operate. The ridership
> and usage would grow so fast the service might even operate on time and
> carry moor people faster because of the faster loading etc they would have a
> hard time selling a BART Line to San Jose.

Bring back the steeple-cabs!

http://www.cityofla.org/RAP/grifmet/tt/electra.htm

david parsons <orc@pell.portland.or.us> wrote in message
news:8rlt01$9bf@pell.pell.portland.or.us...
> In article <39DD4E82.BFA16DFB@bigvalley.net>,
> Pierre A Plauzoles  <sphinxangelorum@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Hello.
>
> > [For electifying SF-San Jose (or Gilroy?)]
> >Now to the nitty-gritty: Have a;ll the Mexican E60Cs been sold (they
> >were returned to the US, apparently, last year; there were 20 left
> >unsold in August of last year)?  The way I hear it, there were six
> >wrecked for various reasons -- it appears (although I don't have any of
> >the details) that none of the accidents were due to on-board mechanical
> >problems.  Would the idea of using some (or all) of those units for the
> >time being -- while the system absorbs some of the
> >electrification-related costs -- not have some advantages?
>
>    I suspect that would depend on just how well suited E60s are for
>    start-stop service.  NJ Transit used them for commuter service for a
>    while, but apparently had a devil of a time getting them to work
>    properly in push-pull (and ended up hot-potato(e)ing them as soon as
>    they could buy ALP44s), so I suspect that they aren't suited.

At least the JPB is consistent. They continue to make the worst possible
choice whenever they can. Do you think this is planed, or are they just
plain stupid?

____
>     david parsons \bi/ GE seems to have completely lost the ability to
>                    \/                          build passenger engines.

Michael Graff wrote in message <8rvimq$cto$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>Like ACE?  Ok, it's not quite level boarding, but bikes can be easily
>lifted up one step, and simple low-tech ramps provide wheelchair access.


I prefer call it near-level-boarding.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bay Area Transit Watch
http://members.xoom.com/ntechcentral/transit/

In article <nouD5.23196$TP6.653227@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Alan Fishel <afishel@interurbans.com> wrote:
>sphinxangelorum@bigfoot.com wrote:
>> >The subject of electrification of Metrolink has come up ocasionally and
>> >San Francisco's Peninsula line will probably be electrified within a few
>> >years.  When this is done, new locomotives will have to be bought.  Has
>> >the decision been made as to what model to buy for San Francisco?
>>
>> I'm sure the JPB will buy the best that Lionel makes.
>--
>> Aaron Priven, Oakland, California, USA
>
>Yes just think if the JPB actually brought in some new Electric MU train
>sets or even bring in some modern cars like the Metrolink / Stockton San
>Jose cars to replace the museum pieces they currently operate.

    Uh, huh.   The complaints I hear about the SF-Gilroy commuter trains
    is not that the cars are old, but that the trains are too slow and
    they don't run frequently enough.   Spending money on new cars might
    be useful if you want the car builders to put pressure on the
    legislature to upgrade the line, but the additional ridership coming
    from new cars would be nothing compared to running faster and more
    frequent service (like, umm, BART.)

>The ridership
>and usage would grow so fast the service might even operate on time and
>carry moor people faster because of the faster loading etc they would have a
>hard time selling a BART Line to San Jose.

    If you're talking about the proposed extension of the Fremont line
    down to San Jose, it's not very likely new cars on the SF side of
    the bay will help for anyone who doesn't want to spend an additional
    hour crossing the bay to get to them.

                  ____
    david parsons \bi/ Of course, running BART to San Jose would stop the
                   \/  favorite argument of the pro- vs anti- BART forces,
		               so this isn't likely to happen for a while.

david parsons wrote:
> 
>     Uh, huh.   The complaints I hear about the SF-Gilroy commuter trains
>     is not that the cars are old, but that the trains are too slow and
>     they don't run frequently enough.   Spending money on new cars might
>     be useful if you want the car builders to put pressure on the
>     legislature to upgrade the line, but the additional ridership coming
>     from new cars would be nothing compared to running faster and more
>     frequent service (like, umm, BART.)
> 

Caltrain is getting there, slowly.  They've just increased weekdsy
midday service to every half hour, which is just barely tolerable for
folks used to BART.

But Caltrain has been hamstrung by archaic union rules, or at least
the perception that today's Caltrain must follow SP-era union rules.
It wasn't too long ago that the rule was that a Caltrain set must make
only two runs a day.  With 68 trains on weekdays, Caltrain is now past
that barrier and approaching 2 1/2 runs per trainset.  By contrast,
BART has a maximum of 58 trains makes 380 runs per day, or about 7
runs per trainset.

						Silas Warner

Silas Warner wrote:

[...]

> But Caltrain has been hamstrung by archaic union rules, or at least
> the perception that today's Caltrain must follow SP-era union rules.

> It wasn't too long ago that the rule was that a Caltrain set must make
> only two runs a day.  ...

Anyone want to check (and possibly demonstrate as false) these 2
assertions of Silas'?
So much of what we hear from him is pure speculation, fabulation or
fabrication.

david parsons wrote:
> 
>     Uh, huh.   The complaints I hear about the SF-Gilroy commuter trains
>     is not that the cars are old, but that the trains are too slow and
>     they don't run frequently enough.   Spending money on new cars might
>     be useful if you want the car builders to put pressure on the
>     legislature to upgrade the line, but the additional ridership coming
>     from new cars would be nothing compared to running faster and more
>     frequent service (like, umm, BART.)

One good way to speed up the service is reducing dwell-time at the
stations which have grown significantly over the last decade as
ridership has increased (and due to bicycles and wheelchairs). Most of
the 15 minute end-to-end travel time added to the Caltrain schedule
could be eliminated with more doors and level boarding (like, umm,
BART).

 - Sam.

In article <39E2DFAB.EEBC14AE@compuserve.com>,
  SGwylan@aol.com wrote:

> One good way to speed up the service is reducing dwell-time at the
> stations which have grown significantly over the last decade as
> ridership has increased (and due to bicycles and wheelchairs). Most of
> the 15 minute end-to-end travel time added to the Caltrain schedule
> could be eliminated with more doors and level boarding (like, umm,
> BART).

Like ACE?  Ok, it's not quite level boarding, but bikes can be easily
lifted up one step, and simple low-tech ramps provide wheelchair access.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Looks like we all agree...BART technology is better.

Michael Graff wrote:
> 
> In article <39E2DFAB.EEBC14AE@compuserve.com>,
>   SGwylan@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > One good way to speed up the service is reducing dwell-time at the
> > stations which have grown significantly over the last decade as
> > ridership has increased (and due to bicycles and wheelchairs). Most of
> > the 15 minute end-to-end travel time added to the Caltrain schedule
> > could be eliminated with more doors and level boarding (like, umm,
> > BART).
> 
> Like ACE?  Ok, it's not quite level boarding, but bikes can be easily
> lifted up one step, and simple low-tech ramps provide wheelchair access.

Well, I'll aim for an ideal first (not the whole BART system, mind, but
their boarding procedures work quite well), and be willing to negotiate
down from there. <s>

 - Sam

In article <a0m7usgtll3ksa1mbst2dqs1t42du688ra@4ax.com>,
Brian Mueller  <seeker78x@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Looks like we all agree...BART technology is better.

   Umm, which part of ``BART technology'' are you talking about?

   Fare-paid platforms (which date from the 1890s), High-level platforms
   (earlier than that; I'd guess they were being used in the 1850s),
   electrification (1880s), single-man crews (1920s on trolley lines),
   wide-gauge trains (1830s), frequent service (which dates from
   whenever omnibusses started to operate) or automated train control?

   The one thing that BARTification of the SP line would do is give
   single-seat service to the eastbay and Market St.   But if the 3rd
   street streetcar line isn't Seattleld, the SP line will be close
   enough to transit to make a recipe of more service, fare-paid
   platforms, and single-man crews good enough for much of the
   ridership.

                 ____
   david parsons \bi/ The big problem with single-man crews is there's
                  \/                no good way to apprentice motormen.