Groud breaking for construction started mid 2017, Final pole just installed. Have to wonder if the persons overseeing the installation of the OCS (overhead contact system [CAT]) had any idea it would take so long to do all the potholing for the poles?
Any electrification planned in future needs to remember this is a hard limitation. Remember the New Haven - Boston electrification was also delayed for poles not installed. Then time from first electric motor to final activation of both tracks came much later.
This is a suburban operation with a lot of stops not very far apart. The Burlington Chicago-Aurora main was also limited to 79 MPH for a 38-mile suburban zone.
Have wondered about the 79 MPH as well. Route has PTC so no constaint there. Baby bullets have and probably will skip many stations so no 80+ problem there. The only testing to 79 requires some independent testing to 10% of route’s max authorized speed which would be 87 - 88 MPH. Maybe tests at Pueblo satisfied that requirement?
Brightline and Amtrak’s AX-2s were tested to 138 & 176 respectively on their own tracks. Pueblo’s tracks not capable of those speeds.
Maybe Caltrain does not want to maintain tracks to the class 5 – 90 MPH standard Now if the EMUs were tested to say 100 MPH at Pueblo then maybe 90 MPH down the road? What speeds will be on those tracks when CA HSR operates on them is another question?
I would not think maintaining to class 5 would be that big of a deal. The former Santa Fe line south of Santa Anna (or Fullerton) is 90 mph, and I understand (from Wiki) that large parts of former LA to Chicago are still maintaned for 90, even though the SW Chief is the only passenger train on the route, and its pounded by lots of freight traffic.
Of course, it may be that even for the baby bullets, the schedule difference would not be enough to be worth the trouble. It might allow flexibility to make up time from delays. Also, the faster accelleration from electric traction would make a higher speed limit more useful.
A larger question is why, more generally, with PTC installed on passenger routes, that did not result in kicking 79 limits up to 90.
Not the real concern. The CAHSR trains serving San Francisco (which is one of the only real markets for end-to-end true HSR!) all will go up this corridor. Presumably any upgrade or extra expense for higher-speed signaling would occur then… if we don’t get pathetic excuses instead.
MARC regularly operates service on the Penn Line with at least comparable station spacing to Caltrain and they routinely reach 114mph (and then sometimes actually have to slow down a smidge to cut off the alarm) and NJT a half-century ago ran Silverliners between stations with a peak over 102mph, so unless California’s consultants are more than expectedly asleep at the switch the operations are not the reason for the 79mph ‘economizing’.
I believe the trains themselves are 100mph-capable, and at the time testing begins for LA-SF through service, I expect the commuter-trains’ top speed to be raised, probably to 100mph.
According to an ICC order from around 1949 or so, cab signals or automatic train stop were required for speeds in excess of 79 MPH. The order also included speed limits for other situations.
Just to be clear, the ‘limits’ in the ICC Order of 1947 are no different from those specified in the Esch Act legislation from the early Twenties that mandated progressive implementation of automatic train control. The law specified ATC for passenger-train speed of 80mph or faster, and freight 60 or faster (which is where the “79mph” and “59mph” numbers come from – ‘speed not to exceed’).
One could argue that PTC implicitly achieves the protection specified in the Esch Act, and therefore if properly implemented would allow higher speeds if the overlay signal system is improved to permit. I personally think any signal improvement should be made directly to HSR standards (probably CBTC with in-cab indication) and I would prefer to ‘wait’ to achieve this rather than kludge the system for only moderate time reduction in the short term.
The Feb 9th construction notice had no electrification CAT installation going on. This may mean that all CAT installation is complete but have my doubts? On a very funny note this same notice had for all stations the following quote. Tree watering???
“February 10 to February 16, Caltrain will be working during the day to perform tree watering.”
San Francisco
February 10 to February 16, Caltrain will be working during the day to perform tree watering. Caltrain will be working during the night to perform bridge barrier work. Day work hours will be
Then apparently railroads ignored the 1920s limits. Lots of ABS-only RRs had passenger limits of 80 mph and more in their employee timetables before 1947. (And some after 1947, for a few years anyway.)
There is no ‘apparently’. The Esch Act specified a progressive transition to automatic train control, with the initial introduction of one division and then progressive expansion of at least one more division every 3 years. IN THOSE DIVISIONS any passenger train operating at 80mph or over, or any freight train 60mph or over, would have to be equipped with functioning automatic train control (at a minimum, automatic train stop).
The organized plan to implement ATC was ‘de-emphasized’ in 1928 (in favor of putting the investment into grade-crossing risk reduction instead). In the immediate postwar period, a number of railroads implemented very fast ‘streamliner’ operation; one southeastern railroad that shall remain nameless apparently running 127mph in places on single track signaled with semaphores. This was the world into which Ingalls Shipbuliding planned to introduce its ~87ton 140mph 2000hp passenger unit…
All the 1947 Order did was establish that the 80mph and 60mph speeds (from the early-'20s legislation) would be absolutely applied to all trackage (after 1950-51). From this we get a practical top speed of 79mph for non-ATC/ATS passenger. That number only exists because 80mph requires the automatic control.
In other words, the 1920s law only set speed limits on lines that had ATC or some such? Lines that just had ABS (or nothing) stayed unlimited until 1947?
IC main line had automatic train stop, similar to (but of course not identical to) C&NW’s Chicago-Omaha line. In the 1970s Amtrak had to be careful with locomotive assignments to match various ATC, ATS and Cab Signal installations. Detour moves (Zephyr via C&NW) made things especially difficult. Eventually the “Cab Signal from Hell” allowed any Amtrak locomotive to operate just about anywhere. Prior to its installation Amtrak either borrowed C&NW locomotives to lead detour moves or used ex-IC E9s.