Thursday, March 26, 2009

My idea for Heavy Rail in the East End Part 7

OK, I swear that this is really the last one. There are some important parts and issues relating to the actual operation of the service that need to be addressed.

Dispatching

As with all railroads, this plan would require the lines to be dispatched. Basically, a dispatcher is someone who prioritizes, and coordinates the movement of trains and the use of track by maintenance crews. The entire Greensburg Line is dispatched by Norfolk Southern, and a small portion of the New Ken to Hazelwood Line (From the Strip District to Hazelwood) is dispatched by CSX. The remaining portion of the New Ken to Hazelwood Line is owned by Carload Express (AVR) and is very lightly used and does not currently require the use of a dispatcher. Given the current situation there are several options for dispatching.

1. Use dispatching services of host railroads: This option would not require the Port Authority (or whatever regulatory body would govern the commuter service) to hire dispatchers or maintain the infrastructure that goes along with it. However, in this case, the devil's in the details. Both CSX and NS use their own separate rule book to govern their operations. That means that any time a train would move from the tracks of one railroad to the other, they would be required to change the rules that governed their movement on the fly. This can be done, but is cumbersome. Additionally, this means that our system would be subject to multiple rules (as I said, each Railroad has their own set of rules) Another concern is who would take over the responsibility of dispatching the line to New Kensington. I doubt that a railroad would take on that responsibility for free. As it stands now, NS dispatches most of the territory, and the additional territory could be assigned to them.

2. Create a separate dispatching system: For my two cents this is the better option. As I said, the system would have to purchase the infrastructure to dispatch and pay people to do it, however, from an operations perspective this is much more efficient. This way, there would be no transition "between rulebooks", and one unified rulebook of choice could be chosen (i.e. a train going from New Ken to Hazelwood would not have to transition to an entirely set of operating rules part way through the trip). Additionally, for the case of the current NS owned parts, freight trains that would operate on the line during off-peak hours could be dispatched by Port Authority dispatchers, and operate under their (Port Authority's) rules. Additionally, the sparse freight traffic on the AVR portions of the system, again could be dispatched by Port Authority dispatchers.

Signaling

Signals are used (not unlike traffic lights) to govern movement of trains (when to go, when to stop, when to slow down and prepare to stop). They are, an EXTREMELY expensive infrastructure cost, both in initial investment, and in maintenance. Many lightly trafficked lines do not use signaling, however, for an operation such as the one I have been proposing, signaling of the route is a must.

The good news is, part of the job is done. All of the NS controlled track is already signaled, and a small portion of the CSX (from Hazelwood to the Strip) is signaled. However, the entire line to New Kensington is not. Signaling would have to be installed along this track. Luckily for us, we don't have to look any further than the Pittsburgh Technology Center. Union Switch and Signal (a division of Ansaldo) is located there and their bread and butter is building signaling systems for railroads. What better than to get a more or less local company to provide the signaling for the project?

Vehicles

This is where things get a little sketchy. Vehicles would be the biggest question mark for the project. Thus far, the plan has called for the use of DMU's (Diesel Multiple Units), basically single, self propelled rail vehicles, that can operate singly in tandem. These are a less expensive option to a regular "train" consisting of a locomotive and cars.

The problem with DMU's was that they have, for the most part, been unable to meet FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) crash worthiness. As a result, most current operations, like New Jersey's Riverline, and San Diego's Sprinter, have extreme restrictions and cannot operate anywhere close to freight trains, because the vehicles they use are considered to be "Light Rail" vehicles (Think The "T").

A company called Colorado Railcar Company built a demonstration DMU that toured the U.S. in 2004 (including a stop in Oakmont). This was the first DMU to be FRA compliant, meaning it could operate inter-mixed with freight train traffic. That was the good news. The bad news came in the end of 2008 when the economy and delays on orders caused Colorado Railcar to go out of business, and with it went the primary vehicle option for heavy rail commuter service in the East End. Like I said, there are options, the Port Authority could purchase rail vehicles that are considered to be "Light Rail". Siemens Transportation and Bombardier both make such vehicles, but that would preclude any freight trains from operating anywhere near these things, and that would make NS in particular, a lot less likely to go along with this plan.

In my mind, the best option is to wait and see. There are a number of fledgling commuter systems in the U.S. that had pinned their hopes on Colorado Railcar, meaning the demand is there. If the demand is there, someone will be there, sooner or later to answer that demand, whether it be a start up company or one of the international players. Another potential answer is after market modifications to current designs. One of the most promising is a heavy rail vehicle currently in use in Australia, and built by Bombardier, called the VLocity. Being the Mechanical Eng, I mean History Major that I am, I was unable to find out how this vehicle stands up to FRA crash regulations. Of the types of vehicles I was searching, however, it is certainly the heaviest and most robust.

This post is certainly looking ahead, we have not moved beyond the study to find out if we want to study this option study. In a way that could be good, because there are many obstacles, and many operational questions that need answered. I just hope this project isn't too young to miss the pro-transit/anti-car wave that is slowly gripping the nation.

My Idea for Heavy Rail in the East End Part 6

I wanted this to be the last post, but I have more unfinished business. There are some important operational issues to discuss that will take another post. For now, I've completed the Schedule for the Black Line or Greensburg Line.

This line operates on the same principal as the Blue and Gold Lines. There are no trains operating opposite of the peak direction, i.e. all morning trains are inbound trains and all evening trains are outbound trains.

There are eight trains per rush hour with two trains per hour, departing 15 minutes apart. I staggered starting locations for each train. Four trains will depart and/or terminate in Greensburg, and four trains will depart and/or terminate in Pitcairn due to infrastructure reasons. West of Pitcairn, under the operational plan I proposed, this service would have nearly exclusive use of both tracks. East of Pitcairn, however, the proposed service would be sharing right of way with Norfolk Southern. Additionally, I don't know how much demand for service would come from east of Pitcairn. If adding Greensburg as a stop for the other four trains was feasible and worth while, it could be done pretty easily.

Black Line Outbound Schedule (Part 6)

Station

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

Greensburg

500P

--

600P

--

Irwin

447P

502P

547P

602P

Pitcairn

436P

451P

536P

551P

Braddock

425P

440P

525P

540P

Wilkinsburg

416P

431P

516P

531P

East Liberty

410P

425P

510P

525P

Downtown

400P

415P

500P

515P


Station

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

Greensburg

700P

--

800P

--

Irwin

647P

702P

747P

802P

Pitcairn

636P

651P

736P

751P

Braddock

625P

640P

725P

740P

Wilkinsburg

616P

631P

716P

731P

East Liberty

610P

625P

710P

725P

Downtown

600P

615P

700P

715P

Black Line Inbound Schedule (Part 6)

Station

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

Greensburg

0530A

--

0630A

--

Irwin

0544A

0600A

0644A

0700A

Pitcairn

0555A

0611A

0655A

0711A

Braddock

0606A

0622A

0706A

0722A

Wilkinsburg

0615A

0631A

0715A

0731A

East Liberty

0621A

0637A

0721A

0737A

Downtown

0630A

0646A

0730A

0746A


Station

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

Greensburg

0730A

--

0830A

--

Irwin

0744A

0800A

0844A

0900A

Pitcairn

0755A

0811A

0855A

0911A

Braddock

0806A

0822A

0906A

0922A

Wilkinsburg

0815A

0831A

0915A

0931A

East Liberty

0821A

0837A

0921A

0937A

Downtown

0830A

0846A

0930A

0946A

Greensburg Line Schedule Reasoning (Part 6)

60MPH – 5280 Feet per minute

45 MPH- 3960 Feet per minute

35 MPH – 3080 Feet per minute

30 MPH – 2640 Feet per minute

Greensburg to Irwin

8.87 Miles or 46833.6 Feet

@ 5280 Feet per minute, it will take 8.8 minutes to get from Greensburg to Irwin. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 2 minutes to slow down and it will take 12.8 minutes to get from Greensburg to Irwin

1 Minute Irwin Station Stop

Irwin to Pitcairn

5.9 Miles or 31,152 Feet

@ 5280 Feet per minute, it will take 5.9 minutes to get from Irwin to Pitcairn. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 2 minutes to slow down, and it will take 9.9 minutes to get from Irwin to Pitcairn.

1 Minute Pitcairn Station Stop

Pitcairn to Braddock

5.76 Miles or 30,412.8 Feet

@5280 Feet per minute it will 5.76 minutes to get from Pitcairn to Braddock. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 2 minutes to slow down, and you have 9.76 minutes to get from Pitcairn to Braddock.

1 Minute Braddock Station Stop.

Braddock to Wilkinsburg

3.78 Miles or 19958.4 Feet

@3960 Feet per minute, it will take 5 Minutes to get from Braddock to Wilkinsburg Add two minutes to get up to track speed and 1 minute to slow down, and you have 8 minutes to get from Braddock to Wilkinsburg.

1 Minute Wilkinsburg Station Stop.



Wilkinsburg to E. Liberty

1.63 Miles or 8612.4 Feet

@ 3960 Feet per minute, it will take 2 minutes to get from Wilkinsburg to E. Liberty. Add two minutes to get up to track speed and one minute to slow down, and you have 5 minutes to get from Wilkinsburg to E. Liberty.

East Liberty to Grant St. Multi-Modal Terminal

4.11 Miles or 21,701 Feet

@ 3960 Feet per minute, it will take 5.48 minutes to get from East Liberty to Grant Street Multi-Modal Terminal. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 1 minute to slow down, and it will take 8.48 minutes to get from East Liberty to Grant Street Multi-modal terminal.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The Maglev again??? Are you freakin' kidding me!!???

I was perusing the land of transit-hate known as The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and found a very interesting, and I have to say disturbing article about the Pittsburgh Maglev project. This project that somehow seems to cling to life is ready to receive another shot in the arm.

Before I bash this project (and I will), I will tell you that I am not against MAGLEV technology. It's potential to move people between cities cleanly and VERY quickly (in excess of 200MPH) is very attractive. I also think that the fact that the main proponent company named MAGLEV Inc. is local company in McKeepsort is great as well.

The only problem is, the Maglev is a TERRIBLE idea for a local rapid transit. It's incredibly expensive, and I think would be a better application over a long distance route (from Pittsburgh to Philly.)

According to an article in the Pittsburgh Business times from '07, the last cost estimate done for the project was done in 2003, and at that point it was over $3 Billion for the 54 mile proposed line. If we all know anything about transit cost estimates, is that they tend to run over, just a little bit. They run over even more during times when material costs are high. Just look at the NSC (North Shore Connector), three years ago it was supposed to cost $435 Million, barely 3 years later, the cost is now $552 million.

Imagine the inflation on $3 Billion over 6 years. That's assuming that they start tomorrow. Who knows the actual date that construction would begin. By that point, more years could elapse and more inflation could occur.

Price alone should not necessarily kill the project, but look at what you are getting for the cost. You are getting a single route from Greensburg to the airport, with stops in Monroeville, Downtown, and the airport. Just how many people would really need to take the trip to the airport these days? Flights are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy down. The only real potential would be as a service to daily commuters from Greensburg, and perhaps from the airport (but I can't say how much of a market there really is for that) It could certainly attract riders in that capacity, but I don't know if that would outweigh the costs. The way the route is set up, I don't really see an additional value to it. Additionally, if it is only operating in this capacity, how much money is wasted by not operating during off-peak or off rush hour time periods?

There is enough transit half-assery in Pittsburgh already. You've got a number of incomplete and non-integrated( The T, and Busways that don't interconnect in any way) modes of transit already in place in Pittsburgh. We don't need a $3 Billion + addition to that list. Additionally, we've already spent a half a BILLION dollars to get across the Allegheny River. Do we really want to call that good enough? In my mind, and like I said in my post yesterday, one of the few silver linings about the NSC is at least it could be a spring board for expanding the T into the North Hills, or in the general direction of the airport. There is a limited chance that would take place if the NSC were the only major project, but there is a ZERO chance if the NSC was competing with a multi-billion dollar project in the Maglev.

I like the Maglev, its a great concept for intercity travel, but it's the wrong form of transportation at the wrong time in Pittsburgh.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Pile on the North Shore Connector

The Post Gazette has jumped on the Trib's "We hate the tunnels under the river" bandwagon and published it's own article here about how things went so terribly wrong with the North Shore Connector. Additionally, there is a pretty good timeline here for dates associated with the Spine Line (which ultimately morphed into the North Shore Connector).

Once again, let me state for the record, I'm not happy with the final product, vs. the original idea. However, to stop now, would be even more foolish. Considering the $$$$ already dumped beneath the river, and the ridiculousness of the costs, to have two $200 million dollar tunnels completely empty and unused beneath the river would be utter insanity. If nothing else, the connector could be a foothold for future expansion in the direction of the airport and North Hills. Are those chances far fetched? Perhaps, but with a new transit friendly administration in the White House, the prospects are better than they would have been just two years ago.

Having said that, I have to ask this question. What are we as a city/county/region gaining by continuing to beat up the North Shore Connector? The word's out, the project is a bust and alot of people are pretty angry about it. In my mind, if people continue to beat this thing up, they will get exactly what they want, nothing. The problem is, that is nothing is something in this case. It is nothing with several years and a couple of hundred million dollars wasted and no gain at all in service. Which sounds worse to you; overpaying but gaining benefit in some way or overpaying and gaining two hollow, empty, and unused tunnels under the river?

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Gold and Blue Lines Outbound Schedule (Part 5)

Station

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

New Kensington

450P

511P

550P

611P

Oakmont

437P

458P

537P

558P

Washington BLVD

427P

448P

527P

548P

Lawrenceville

417P

--

517P

--

Oakland

407P

--

507P

--

Hazelwood

400P

--

500P

--

East Liberty

--

440P

--

540P

Downtown

--

430P

--

530P


Station

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

Outbound

New Kensington

650P

711P

750P

811P

Oakmont

637P

658P

737P

758P

Washington BLVD

627P

648P

727P

748P

Lawrenceville

617P

--

717P

--

Oakland

607P

--

707P

--

Hazelwood

600P

--

700P

--

East Liberty

--

640P

--

740P

Downtown

--

630P

--

730P

Gold and Blue Lines Inbound Schedule (Part 5)

Station

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

New Kensington

0530A

0600A

0630A

0700A

Oakmont

0544A

0614A

0644A

0714A

Washington BLVD

0554A

0624A

0654A

0724A

Lawrenceville

--

0634A

--

0734A

Oakland

--

0644A

--

0744A

Hazelwood

--

0651A

--

0751A

East Liberty

0602A

--

0702A

--

Downtown

0611A

--

0711A

--


Station

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

Inbound

New Kensington

0730A

0800A

0830A

0900A

Oakmont

0744A

0814A

0844A

0914A

Washington BLVD

0754A

0824A

0854A

0924A

Lawrenceville

--

0834A

--

0934A

Oakland

--

0844A

--

0944A

Hazelwood

--

0851A

--

0951A

East Liberty

0802A

--

0902A

Downtown

0811A

--

0911A

Arnold/New Kensington Schedule Reasoning (Part 5)

45 MPH- 3960 Feet per minute

35 MPH – 3080 Feet per minute

30 MPH – 2640 Feet per minute

Blue Line
New Kensington to Oakmont

7.2 Miles or 38,016 Feet

@ 3960 Feet per minute, it will take 9.6 minutes to get from New Ken to Oakmont. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and one minute to slow down and it will take 12.6 minutes to get from New Ken to Oakmont.

1 Minute Oakmont Station Stop

Oakmont to Washington BLVD

4.45 Miles or 23,496 Feet

@ 3960 Feet per minute, it will take 5.93 minutes to get from Oakmont to Washington BLVD. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 1 minute to slow down, and it will take 8.93 minutes to get from New Ken to Oakmont.

1 Minute Washington BLVD Station Stop

Washington BLVD to Lawrenceville

4.93 Miles, or 26,030.4 Feet

@3960 Feet per minute it will take 6.57 minutes to get from Washington BLVD to Lawrenceville. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 1 minute to slow down, and you have 9.57 minutes to get from Washington BLVD to Lawrenceville.

1 Minute Lawrenceville Station Stop.

Lawrenceville to Oakland

3.18 Miles or 16,790.4 Feet

@2640 Feet per minute, it will take 6.36 Minutes to get from Lawrenceville to Oakland Add two minutes to get up to track speed and 1 minute to slow down, and you have 8.36 minutes to get from Lawrenceville to Oakland.

1 Minute Oakland Station Stop.

Oakland to Hazelwood

2.33 Miles or 12,302.4

@ 3080 Feet per minute, it will take 4 minutes to get from Oakland to Hazelwood. Add two minutes to get up to track speed and one minute to slow down, and you have 7 minutes to get from Oakland to Hazelwood.

Gold Line

New Kensington to Oakmont

7.2 Miles or 38,016 Feet

@ 3960 Feet per minute, it will take 9.6 minutes to get from New Ken to Oakmont. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and one minute to slow down and it will take 12.6 minutes to get from New Ken to Oakmont.

1 Minute Oakmont Station Stop

Oakmont to Washington BLVD

4.45 Miles or 23,496 Feet

@ 3960 Feet per minute, it will take 5.93 minutes to get from Oakmont to Washington BLVD. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 1 minute to slow down, and it will take 8.93 minutes to get from New Ken to Oakmont.

1 Minute Washington BLVD Station Stop

Washington BLVD to East Liberty

3.05 Miles or 16,104 Feet

@3960 Feet per minute, it will take 4.06 minutes to get from Washington BLVD to East Liberty. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 1 minute to slow down, and it will take 7.06 minutes to get from Washington BLVD to East Liberty.

1 Minute East Liberty Station Stop.

East Liberty to Grant St. Multi-Modal Terminal

4.11 Miles or 21,701 Feet

@ 3960 Feet per minute, it will take 5.48 minutes to get from East Liberty to Grant Street Multi-Modal Terminal. Add two minutes to get up to track speed, and 1 minute to slow down, and it will take 8.48 minutes to get from East Liberty to Grant Street Multi-modal terminal.