Locomotive hauled and pushed, nearly all are push-pull with cab cars.
i believe there qare some double-deck MUs, though.
blue streak 1 Electrification appears to be required for some good reasons. The inability of Caltrain to run longer trains such as we see on the NEC has much to do with the need. Short ( 6 car ) trains are the limit in the foreseeable future due to too many stations having grade crossings at both ends of the platforms. Train density therefore needs closer spacing than can be done with diesels during rush hours. In reference to above acceleration curves with EMUs will help train density and allows for another car instead of a locomotive. Multi level EMUs will help somewhat. Car specifications have not been issued yet stating total EMU height but some products in Europe are some what taller than Superliners.
Electrification appears to be required for some good reasons.
The inability of Caltrain to run longer trains such as we see on the NEC has much to do with the need.
Short ( 6 car ) trains are the limit in the foreseeable future due to too many stations having grade crossings at both ends of the platforms.
Train density therefore needs closer spacing than can be done with diesels during rush hours.
In reference to above acceleration curves with EMUs will help train density and allows for another car instead of a locomotive.
Multi level EMUs will help somewhat. Car specifications have not been issued yet stating total EMU height but some products in Europe are some what taller than Superliners.
Agreed, streak.
Longer commuter trains in Chicago suburbs block crossings, but only 2-3 minutes.
Electrification increases the capacity for passengers in rush hours and reduces total time of the run, endpoint to endpoint.
Environmental benefits are real, but not the primary reason. The other poster's objections are not grounded empirically.
Not sure about double deck commuter trains in Europe as a whole; most in Germany seem similar in height to Bombardier Cal cars and are lok-hauled, not EMUs.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1Guess the California GOP delegation got its wish ?
Not just the GOP. CalTrain electrification is not justifiable for its own projected future service increases, but mainly for the addition / co-residency of the grossly mismanaged HSR project that is to use the same corridor.
Of course, the eco-wackos will come out of the woodwork saying that electrification will clean the air and save the planet. Hogwash.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
Due to the gridlock in any FTA funding grants Caltrain announces a delay in start of electrification construction. Guess the California GOP delegation got its wish ?
http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Electrification_Grant_Deferred.html
I doubt that T-1's were used for very long Pittsburgh - Greensburg (one or two runs each way went as far east as Latrobe, the next station east of Greensburg in 1949). I never saw them there when I rode PRR thought the area. But I do stand corrected, and anything about those locomotives is of intrest to me, so thank you.
On one of the first Cincinnati Railroad Club's fan trips that I took, in 1954, we went to Columbus OH and toured the PRR shops and roundhouse. Outside was a "Dead Line" of about 20 T1's awaiting the torch. I had seen them pull the Ohio State Limited through Winton Place the previous year, and they looked so stately all lined up. So sad to have such a short life. Not designed for commuter duty. I bet the engineers thought the brass had lost their mind using them in that role.
I was waiting to see if anyone would bite!
In the original Pennsy Power, p.218, Staufer notes "Finally, several ended up on Pittsburgh-Greensburg locals, of all places". He would be unlikely to say this without some objective proof, and I suspect Susan Yosten or one of the other people with extensive PRR operating documents can find further confirmation. I do not think this is either putting an obsolescent piece of power into service when a G5s or whatever suddenly failed, or an excuse for breaking in a new poppet valve or other component in a relatively 'safe' service.
You will notice I did not say 'commonly used'. That would indeed be ridiculous, as there were few engines less suited for ordinary commuter service than a T1... unless there was substantial distance between the stations. Even then, you'd start to lose in brakeshoe and coal smoke what you gained with higher achieved peak speed and acceleration above 35mph; much better to get the early acceleration 'surefootedly' and then maintain steady speed to make the necessary time. Greensburg is on the main line about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh so I suspect there was some value in making the locals brisker than usual, perhaps mre 'politically' than effectively.
T1s could run east of Harrisburg, although there was very little point in doing so (the locomotive for which the T1 was designed as a self-powered counterpart, the GG1, would easily take any train a T1 could bring into Harrisburg further east where the electrification ran, and I'd think it relatively unlikely that a T would be used down the Northern Central or the other lines out of that city. We do know they went to fairs in Reading and Atlantic City, so rather pointedly the curve up to the Delair Bridge was likely something they could negotiate although obviously not something you'd want them to have to pull a heavy train over...
There is no doubt the engines did best running out of Crestline as opposed to 'east of Pittsburgh' although I suspect they were much better suited to running on the Middle and Pittsburgh Divisions after 1947 (by which time it really no longer mattered as much). Naturally the 'first best use' of the diesels was on the heavier grades, whereas there was no real question where the T's attributes were most useful and its likely drawbacks -- except for vacuum smoke effects and very-high-speed slipping with near-capacity load -- most minimized. Staufer does take pains to note, however: "A fairly common sight was doubleheading T1s with diesels, especially over the Pittsburgh Division. The duplex was usually first, and what a thrilling sight to see what appeared to be the T1 pulling diesel and train." He was there, too.
What evidence do you have that T-1's were ever used in commuter service? I recall riding commuter trains into Pittsburgh in Spring 1949, riding New York and Long Branch in 1951 - 1954. I rode PRR long distance trains, often behind T-1's but more usually behind K-4's and paired K-4's, 1950 - end of steam. T-1's were exclusively on long-distance trains, including seconday ones and all head trains, except possibly in emergency situations, and then probably only on the Chicago - Valpariso service where they could be found to be available. (Sure, once in a huge great while, a GG-1 and coaches replaced an MP-54 set in Philly suburban service. But very very seldom.) I saw or rode behind T-1's on the Trailblazer, Spirit of Saint Louis, Red Arrow, and Cincinnati Limited, plus othe long distance trains whose names I have forgotten..
You can check on this thru locomotive assignments. You probably won't find a single T-1 assigned to run east of Harrisburg. Crestline was their home base. There were plenty of G-5's and K-4's around, and they handled the steam commuter trains, not T-1's. An E-6 Atlantic made far more frequent apperances in commuter service than a T-1.
daveklepperBut still, PRR never used M-1s in commuter service ... Similarly, no Niagaras on NYC commuter trains ...
But sure as hell there were T1s on commuter trains, and those possessed of short stroke and high drivers with known slipping issues at both low speed and high...
Note that what PRR actually 'wanted' for its commuter service in New Jersey in the late '50s was six-motor 2400hp Alcos, among the earliest second-generation examples of high horsepower in a single unit with plenty of motors to split the load and overheating among.
Commuter service is funny in that, to do it right, both high acceleration and reasonably high maximum speed are important. A great deal of 'advanced' modern power was not good at optimizing both those things simultaneously while maintaining good efficiency and staying in good running order with minimal attention ... all for the cause of 'minimizing unavoidable losses' rather than serving as a moneymaking asset for the key properties on the railroad.
This formula was evident in my beloved U34CHs, high-horsepower engines on lightweight consists. It was the next best thing to steam to watch and hear one of these out of River Edge on a cold winter evening when the sounds would carry clearly for miles.
(And, just for the record, the new generation of NJT PL-42ACs with the Polish 710s are not too far off that standard, musically...)
Good points. But still, PRR never used M-1s in commuter service, the last steam in commuter service were K-4's on the NY&LB and G-5's (G-6's?) elsewere. Ditto, of course, LIRR, both types, but onloy a few K-4's. Similary, no Niagras on NYC commut\er trains, occasional Hudsons, yes. Never a Q O-4 on commuter trains, etc., Milwaukee, Northwestern. And the SF lines isn't any hillier.
Train Masters also served as suburban power on CNJ and possibly on RDG and DL&W because of their quick acceleration. I believe that this was due to the properties of the load regulator.
SP's Mountains and Northerns weren't common on the "Commute" trains until they got bumped by diesels in the mid 1950s. That said, SP had some very powerful pacifics that worked the pool from the 1920s on.
SP had the last large group of FM Train Masters in service until about 1973 because there was nothing else to replace them with enough acceleration. The 10 SDP45s that had been on Amtrak lease since 1971 were the answer, but even they required changes to alternator excitation and upgraded traction motor blowers. SP also purchased three GP40P-2s in 1974 or 1975 to fill out the Commute fleet. The rest of the pool were the eleven dual-control boiler GP9Es and a pair of SD9Es that were mainly used outside of rush hour. Caltrain's purchase of new equipment allowed their release to freight pools or retirement.
SP had its East Bay electrification for comparison, with Pacific Electric and the Oregon electrifications if East Bay wasn't enough. The use of oil-fired steam was (relatively) clean for the day, and station density was low compared to the East Bay lines. SP also tended to overpower trains in the interest of acceleration, which is why for years the Trainmasters dominated the rush hour trains with the GP9s (and whatever else) used mainly for non-peak trains. It took the SDP45s coming off Amtrak lease to finally retire the TMs. Many SP execs rode the trains regularly so the service was kept to a high standard. Even the ancient Harriman cars were kept clean and maintained.
CMStPnP Always wondereed why that segment was never electrified to begin with.
Always wondereed why that segment was never electrified to begin with.
The affluent NIMBYs of Atherton, CA are at it again:
http://www.almanacnews.com/print/story/2016/06/22/atherton-caltrain-squabble-over-train-horns
The idiot reporter calls the federal 'horn blowing' regulations a loophole.
If they want to reduce the remaining horn noise, perhaps they could step up local law enforcement efforts to cite trespassers or pay for more pedestrian crossing gates. Maybe join OLS and 'police' the crossings with informational pickets. Vote in a parcel tax to let the city absorb all liability when someone insists on death-by-train.
Still at the end of the day, You Can't Fix Stupid - iZombies, self-entitled crossing sprinters or clueless drivers. Hopefully Caltrain will win this round.
Be certain that remaining grade crossings will have foiur quadrent gatew, cameras, etc. The limitation on train length because of length of platforms will insure that service is very frequent during rush hous.
Caltrain is suffering from a nice problem which is too many passengers by too much growth.
1. Traffic now is 2-1/2 + times what it was in SP days.
2. The route suffers from some stations that have too short platforms ( some as short as 5 ? cars ) These platforms are constrained by active roads crossing at both ends. Some road crossings will be closed but that is a longer range project.
3. The baby bullets have become very popular without taking passengers from all stations trains. Who knows what faster trains will mean ? *( shorter travel times ). Note the longer bullets do not stop at shorter platforms.
4. The electrification is going to provide for faster acceleration trains and PTC may increase speeds above 79 MPH as well.
5. Because of the short platforms EMUs are planned to be full double deck cars with more capacity per car.. As to whether they will be taller than Superliners may not have been determined.
6. The EMUs will be subject to idiots pulling in front of trains on a route that is not sealed. Thinking of the Metrolink problem with its cab cars.
Unlike some other urban transit districts in the state, Caltrain and BART are bursting at the seams with patronage. The modernization project has been underway for some time, mainly to replace older bridges and make the ROW compatible with electrification.
At the north end, the Transbay Transit Center under construction includes a 'train box' underground for use by Caltrain and HSR. Supposedly the connecting tunnel from 4th and Townsend will be started in the next phase, around late 2017-ish.
Electrification of the commuter zone looks like a good idea for more reasons than clean air. Passenger volumes are increasing so it can also be justified to handle more frequent schedules with shorter headways.
Electrification
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.