daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 26th, 2016, 08:18 PM   #2301
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,595
Likes (Received): 5955

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSMEX View Post
IMO, if/when HSR goes to Anaheim is the best shot for Metrolink to start electrification. As an aside, does Metrolink own any of the track it operates on? The only way Caltrain can electrify its main corridor is because it actually owns the ROW.
I have asked the same before. Who is owning those tracks?
But even if Metrolink doesn't own them. If there were a will, there'd be a way. After all, why would freight rail mind if a track is electrified or not? It doesn't impede diesel freight trains in any way.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 26th, 2016, 09:30 PM   #2302
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

CSX has issues with SEPTA. The overhead wires create clearance problems, especially around bridges. The live wires are also something that work crews have to deal with and represent an extra system that everybody has to keep an eye on.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016, 01:19 AM   #2303
etooley1985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 317

Metrolink owns 125 miles of track, although the line has to be 100% free of freight traffic to convert to electric. Here is a discussion board on that topic:
http://transittalk.proboards.com/thr...lectrification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
I have asked the same before. Who is owning those tracks?
But even if Metrolink doesn't own them. If there were a will, there'd be a way. After all, why would freight rail mind if a track is electrified or not? It doesn't impede diesel freight trains in any way.
etooley1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016, 02:05 AM   #2304
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,595
Likes (Received): 5955

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
CSX has issues with SEPTA. The overhead wires create clearance problems, especially around bridges. The live wires are also something that work crews have to deal with and represent an extra system that everybody has to keep an eye on.
This sounds very bewildering to me. Don't you have clearance profiles in the US? How can wiring be a problem to any trains if there are proper common standards or are there no generally used common standards?
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Swede liked this post
Slartibartfas está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016, 02:43 AM   #2305
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Naturally there are a series of clearance profiles.

The particular issue in the case of CSX and SEPTA is that the lines in question were originally electrified in the 1930s. The arrival of double-stack trains requires a greater height clearance. While the trains do fit, they impinge on the safety envelopes. This is combined with a desire to have separate tracks for the two entities as much as possible in order to avoid the hassle of coordinating dispatchers.

The double-stack system of containers has made American railroads much more capable of surviving. However, the height of these cars is greater than what was common before, especially on the older lines in the East. Millions of dollars are currently being spent to improve clearances to allow double-stack operation. In some cases this includes daylighting tunnels and turning them into cuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Avenue_Tunnel
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016, 04:30 AM   #2306
mrsmartman
Registered User
 
mrsmartman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,378
Likes (Received): 1452

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In the early 1990s, Conrail (with money from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) enlarged the Allegheny and New Portage Tunnels to accommodate double-stack container on flatcar (COFC) trains. The New Portage Tunnel was opened for eastbound COFC traffic in 1993. The Allegheny Tunnel was enlarged from its original 1854 cross-section to contain two tracks for that could be used for double-stack traffic in either direction. The work was completed in September 1995, and the Gallitzin Tunnel (which was not enlarged) was taken out of service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallitzin_Tunnel
mrsmartman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016, 04:43 PM   #2307
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
CSX has issues with SEPTA. The overhead wires create clearance problems, especially around bridges. The live wires are also something that work crews have to deal with and represent an extra system that everybody has to keep an eye on.
The only wires that cause issue are the Trolley wires that are low...the West Trenton wires are high enough that they can fit double stacks without issue..
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section

Slartibartfas liked this post
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016, 05:13 PM   #2308
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,595
Likes (Received): 5955

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
Naturally there are a series of clearance profiles.

The particular issue in the case of CSX and SEPTA is that the lines in question were originally electrified in the 1930s. The arrival of double-stack trains requires a greater height clearance. While the trains do fit, they impinge on the safety envelopes. This is combined with a desire to have separate tracks for the two entities as much as possible in order to avoid the hassle of coordinating dispatchers.
That is an incompatibility issue of a pre-existing electrified track on the other side of the country. In how far is it an issue for Los Angeles at a future electrification plan, where these things would certainly be addressed right from the start?

But I agree that sepearting freight from urban passanger rail would be advisable where possible.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2016, 10:23 PM   #2309
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
The only wires that cause issue are the Trolley wires that are low...the West Trenton wires are high enough that they can fit double stacks without issue..
Yes, the trains fit, but CSX has made complaints about the wires. They don't think that there is enough of a margin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
That is an incompatibility issue of a pre-existing electrified track on the other side of the country. In how far is it an issue for Los Angeles at a future electrification plan, where these things would certainly be addressed right from the start?

But I agree that sepearting freight from urban passanger rail would be advisable where possible.
The freight railroads seem to be opposed to overhead wires on principle at this point. To have a "proper" overhead wire route, you would need a LOT of clearance. And a fair number of bridges would probably need work.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2016, 01:04 PM   #2310
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,595
Likes (Received): 5955

"On principle" is a pretty bad argument, bridge clearance is already a bit better. But no harm could be done if someone had a closer look what it would take to install overhead wires and what it could achieve. Of course, such a change would have to be paid for by passanger rail agencies, as freight rail certainl has limited interest in partial overhead wires and there is obviously no way they'd gof for electric rail themselves
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2016, 03:40 PM   #2311
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
"On principle" is a pretty bad argument, bridge clearance is already a bit better.
Maybe I wasn't quite clear. Its the bridge clearance issue that is the source of principle. That and the disruption of construction means that they don't want to deal with the hassle.

Quote:
But no harm could be done if someone had a closer look what it would take to install overhead wires and what it could achieve. Of course, such a change would have to be paid for by passanger rail agencies, as freight rail certainl has limited interest in partial overhead wires and there is obviously no way they'd gof for electric rail themselves
People certainly are looking at things:

http://www.solutionaryrail.org/
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2016, 09:24 PM   #2312
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,595
Likes (Received): 5955

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
Maybe I wasn't quite clear. Its the bridge clearance issue that is the source of principle. That and the disruption of construction means that they don't want to deal with the hassle.
None of these things sound uncircumventable but they do add to the costs of course. If electrification of existing tracks is not any option, one should think about new tracks, possibly largely or entirely along existing corridors. The current MetroLink is a pure commuter rail to date. It could really make a huge difference if it were not merely that but a full blown regional or urban rail with continuous service at least every 30-60 min. Sure, electrified tracks are no precondition for that, but at such a frequency tracks on its own might be necessary anyway.

I think one should be just as serious about this as about Metro projects.

Good initiative, but it doesn't have much to do with California, at least for now, does it?
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Last edited by Slartibartfas; August 28th, 2016 at 09:38 PM.
Slartibartfas está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2016, 01:42 AM   #2313
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
None of these things sound uncircumventable but they do add to the costs of course. If electrification of existing tracks is not any option, one should think about new tracks, possibly largely or entirely along existing corridors. The current MetroLink is a pure commuter rail to date. It could really make a huge difference if it were not merely that but a full blown regional or urban rail with continuous service at least every 30-60 min. Sure, electrified tracks are no precondition for that, but at such a frequency tracks on its own might be necessary anyway.

I think one should be just as serious about this as about Metro projects.
Some of the lines have as many as four tracks, and could probably run at least 30 minute schedules all day.

Quote:
Good initiative, but it doesn't have much to do with California, at least for now, does it?
LA is in phase 2. (SW Transcon)
__________________

Slartibartfas, mrsmartman liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016, 08:00 AM   #2314
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,307

If measure "M" passes this November.

__________________
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016, 01:12 PM   #2315
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17034

Ive never heard of the "P" line , when did they add that?
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016, 04:58 PM   #2316
Tower Dude
Registered User
 
Tower Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 76th Street Station
Posts: 1,044
Likes (Received): 593

Long term I think that will be the Vermont avenue subway
__________________

"Make no small plans they lack the magic to stir men's blood!" - Daniel Burnham

"The scale is Roman and will have to be sustained."
- Charles Follen McKim (In a letter to a friend concerning the design of Penn Station)

Kenni liked this post
Tower Dude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016, 05:58 PM   #2317
sdery
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 127
Likes (Received): 54

Is the Red Line extension to Burbank Airport not part of Measure M? No Purple Line extension from the VA Hospital to downtown Santa Monica?
sdery no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016, 05:58 PM   #2318
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,349
Likes (Received): 3597

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower Dude View Post
Long term I think that will be the Vermont avenue subway
It's currently planned as a BRT line, but the language of Measure M preserves the possibility of converting it to rail if ridership outgrows bus capacity (same with the Lincoln BRT and Orange Line + extension).

Personally, whether the Vermont project is Rail or BRT, I think running the northern section along the existing Vermont Red Line is redundant. I'd prefer it to veer up Alvarado through Pico-Union, Westlake (where you can make the same transfer to the Red and Purple lines as you would at Vermont/Wilshire), Echo Park ... and if we're really dreaming, through Silverlake, Atwater and on to Glendale.

If they're considering adding HRT capacity anywhere on the Red Line, why not use that to create a Sunset Line that interlines through Hollywood? Doing that, extending it through West Hollywood and merging with the Purple Line seems like what a proper metro system should do. But since they studied and recommended against HRT through the WeHo corridor some years ago, I'm just beating a dead horse. The meandering LRT Crenshaw extension will have to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdery View Post
Is the Red Line extension to Burbank Airport not part of Measure M? No Purple Line extension from the VA Hospital to downtown Santa Monica?
Neither, sadly. More evidence that the system is broken when the Gold Line extension to Claremont is prioritized over those two projects. The fact that Metro's plan has to satisfy the entire county (the nation's largest!) instead of focusing on the urban core drives me absolutely bonkers.
__________________

LosAngelesSportsFan, aquaticko liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016, 10:32 PM   #2319
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,307

How do you think the San Fernando Valley feels? Which by the way holds the bulk of the City of Los Angeles (territory).


mapLACountyLarge
by Dennis Sosa-Julé, on Flickr
__________________

MarshallKnight, dimlys1994, Swede liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2016, 10:40 PM   #2320
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,349
Likes (Received): 3597

Yeah the Valley has gotten pretty screwed historically (although Valley voters were complicit in that rail ban that only just got lifted). Look no further than the alignment of the Orange Line BRT, when ultra-busy Ventura Blvd is barely a mile to the south. But at least Measure M includes a number of critical, if long-overdue improvements to Valley transit.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium