Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CCCaaallltttrrraaaiiinnn///CCCaaallliiifffooorrrnnniiiaaa HHHSSSRRR BBBllleeennndddeeeddd OOOpppeeerrraaatttiiiooonnnsss AAAnnnaaalllyyysssiiisss PPPrrreeepppaaarrreeeddd fffooorrr::: PPPeeennniiinnnsssuuulllaaa CCCooorrrrrriiidddooorrr JJJoooiiinnnttt PPPooowwweeerrrsss BBBooaaarrrddd (((JJJPPPBBB))) PPPrrreeepppaaarrreeeddd bbbyyy::: LLLTTTKKK EEEnnngggiiinnneeeeeerrriiinnnggg SSSeeerrrvvviiiccceeesss MMMaaarrrccchhh 222000111222 This page intentionally left blank. Dear Stakeholders, Caltrain needs to be modernized. We need to implement Caltrain electrification, procure electric trains and install CBOSS PTC (an advanced signal system). These efforts will allow us to operate an electric rail service that is safer, more efficient and “greener”. The vision for Caltrain is clear and has been confirmed by the Joint Powers Board and the region. However, funding for modernizing the system has been illusive and the greatest impediment to project advancement. In 2008, the voters approved Proposition 1A which authorized state funding for high speed rail in California. This was clearly a significant milestone for the state of California, but also for Caltrain. The high speed rail project, an electrified system, has been defined to use the Caltrain corridor to reach its northern terminus, downtown San Francisco. What this means is that Caltrain and high speed rail can combine local and new resources to advance electrification of the Peninsula rail corridor. Since the passage of Proposition 1A, Caltrain and high-speed rail have been defining infrastructure needs to provide enhanced local, regional and statewide high speed rail transit service. Originally envisioned was significant expansion of the existing Caltrain corridor to support a four- track system. However, such an expansion would have significant impacts on local communities that are difficult to justify for the foreseeable future. In 2011, in response to growing local concerns, US Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, State Senator Joe Simitian and State Assemblyman Rich Gordon, challenged us to rescope the project and minimize impacts. They called for a “blended system” which would have both Caltrain and high speed rail using the existing tracks (primarily a two track system) to the greatest extent possible instead of expanding to a four track system along the entire corridor. As a first step in exploring the feasibility of a blended system, Caltrain needed to understand if sharing the tracks was operationally feasible and acceptable. The attached report is an operational analysis conducted by LTK Engineering Services, prepared for Caltrain. The analysis shows that a blended system in the Caltrain corridor is operationally viable. The attached report is a “proof of concept” showing tested service scenarios supporting both Caltrain and high speed rail systems on shared tracks. It is important to know that this report does not define “the” service plan to be implemented. Separate and following this analysis, additional studies and dialogue with stakeholders need be done before specifying what the blended system will ultimately be. It is with a genuine sense of optimism that I share this report with you. The results of this study give us a reason to begin a new collaborative dialogue on how we might shape the future of our Caltrain corridor for our customers today and tomorrow. I look forward to continuing to work with you in shaping our future. Michael J. Scanlon ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2012 PROJECT STAFF Adrienne Tissier, Chair Caltrain Staff Ken Yeager, Vice Chair Michelle Bouchard Director, Rail Transportation Jose Cisneros Malia Cohen Sherry Bullock Program Manager, Caltrain Modernization Program Jerry Deal Ash Kalra Melanie Choy Planning Manager, Caltrain Modernization Program Liz Kniss Arthur L. Lloyd Stacy Cocke Senior Planner, Caltrain Modernization Program Tom Nolan Seamus Murphy Manager, Government Affairs Steve Hill Chief Engineer, Track & Structures EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Liria Larano Michael J. Scanlon Director, Engineering & Construction EXECUTIVE TEAM CONSULTANT SUPPORT Virginia Harrington Bill Lipfert Deputy CEO Practice Manager for Rail Operations Planning & Simulation Chuck Harvey LTK Engineering Services Deputy CEO Dave Elliott Rita Haskin Senior Consultant Executive Officer, Customer Service & LTK Engineering Services Marketing Marian Lee Director, Caltrain Modernization Program Martha Martinez Board Secretary Mark Simon Executive Officer, Public Affairs David Miller Joan Cassman General Council - Hanson Bridgett Table of Contents 0 Executive Summary ....................................................................... 5 1 Introduction .................................................................................... 7 2 TrainOps® Simulation Modeling Tool ........................................... 10 2.1 General Description and Capabilities .................................... 10 2.2 Software Validation ................................................................ 10 3 Assumptions and Inputs .............................................................. 14 3.1 Infrastructure ......................................................................... 14 3.1.1 Existing and Under Construction Tracks .............................................. 14 3.1.2 High Speed Rail Stations ..................................................................... 15 3.1.3 Overtake Track Options ....................................................................... 16 3.1.4 Interlockings ......................................................................................... 19 3.1.5 Track Speed ......................................................................................... 20 3.2 Train Control ........................................................................... 20 3.2.1 Base Assumptions................................................................................ 20 3.2.2 CBOSS PTC Signal System Overlay Assumptions .............................. 21 3.2.3 Response Time .................................................................................... 21 3.2.4 Determining Minimum Train Intervals ................................................... 22 3.2.5 Passing Track Signal Spacing .............................................................. 22 3.3 Rolling Stock .......................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Caltrain ................................................................................................. 28 3.3.2 High Speed Rail ................................................................................... 31 3.4 Dispatching ............................................................................. 33 3.4.1 Train Priorities ...................................................................................... 33 Caltrain / California HSR Blended Operations Analysis March 2012 Page 2 of 89 3.4.2 Station “Hold Out Rule” ........................................................................ 34 3.5 Operations .............................................................................. 34 3.5.1 Caltrain ................................................................................................. 34 3.5.2 High Speed Rail ................................................................................... 38 3.5.3 Other Rail Services .............................................................................. 39 3.5.4 Schedule Margin .................................................................................. 39 3.5.5 Simulation Duration .............................................................................. 39 3.5.6 Dwell Times and Randomization .......................................................... 39 3.5.7 Station Stop Types ............................................................................... 41 4 Operations Analysis Results ........................................................ 42 4.1 Simulation Process ................................................................. 42 4.2 Analysis by Speed - 79/79 Scenarios ..................................... 44 4.2.1 Without Overtake Tracks ...................................................................... 44 4.2.2 With Overtake Tracks ........................................................................... 44 4.3 Analysis by Speed - 79/110 Scenarios ................................... 47 4.4 Analysis by Speed - 110/110 Scenarios ................................. 48 4.4.1 Without Overtake Tracks ...................................................................... 48 4.4.2 With Full Midline Overtake Tracks ........................................................ 49 4.4.3 With Short Midline Overtake Tracks ..................................................... 49 4.4.4 Simulation Results................................................................................ 49 5 Conclusion .................................................................................... 51 6 Appendix A – Caltrain Tested Schedule Modifications ............... 52 7 Appendix B – Time-Distance String Charts ................................. 56 7.1 Morning Peak Period ............................................................... 57 Caltrain / California HSR Blended Operations Analysis March 2012 Page 3 of 89 7.2 Midday ..................................................................................... 76 8 Appendix C – Glossary ................................................................. 78 9 Appendix D – Stakeholder Outreach