 |
Re: @ mook and Peter --- Thank you! -- and some questions -- TIA for all kind replies
Author: Peter
Date: 03-15-2015 - 10:36
@ Margaret (SP fan)
Electrifying Caltrain actually provides Caltrain with a number of benefits.
First, it can maximize passenger capacity per train length by using EMUs (instead of having "dead" space taken up by the locomotive).
Second, it allows Caltrain to run more trains per hour (better acceleration and braking plus higher top speed) WITHOUT increasing the fleet size or having to increase its workforce. Given that payroll is one of the largest expenses for any operation, this is a HUGE benefit.
Third, it allows Caltrain to shed a large portion of its aging fleet (get rid of the Gallery Cars as well as the F40s) and lower its maintenance budget. Personally, I think they should dump the entire current fleet for all operations between Tamien and SF, and IIRC, they may be considering just that now.
Fourth, it does away with smelly and noisy diesels. That's not a benefit to Caltrain, but to everyone living nearby.
There is of course a strong argument to be made that the electrification project is disturbingly overpriced, as is CBOSS, but that doesn't change the rationale for electrification itself.
Again, as for the impact of Caltrain electrification on the grid overall, the effect will be miniscule. A large housing development likely uses more electricity per day. Also, remember that electric trains can recover a good portion of their kinetic energy via regenerative braking, which lowers their impact even more. HSR at full build-out will most definitely use a lot more than Caltrain (more energy needed to maintain high speeds), but still a very small percentage (IIRC much less than one percent) of the state's overall electricity consumption.
The rolling blackout fee is not going to go away if Caltrain is not electrified or HSR is not built. Neither Caltrain nor HSR are going to cause rolling blackouts.
Also, no one is looking at expanding hydro power in California. Expansion of renewables in California will mainly come via solar and wind power (of course, both of those cause their own environmental impacts, but that is a different story altogether).
Electrifying Caltrain actually provides Caltrain with a number of benefits.
First, it can maximize passenger capacity per train length by using EMUs (instead of having "dead" space taken up by the locomotive).
Second, it allows Caltrain to run more trains per hour (better acceleration and braking plus higher top speed) WITHOUT increasing the fleet size or having to increase its workforce. Given that payroll is one of the largest expenses for any operation, this is a HUGE benefit.
Third, it allows Caltrain to shed a large portion of its aging fleet (get rid of the Gallery Cars as well as the F40s) and lower its maintenance budget. Personally, I think they should dump the entire current fleet for all operations between Tamien and SF, and IIRC, they may be considering just that now.
Fourth, it does away with smelly and noisy diesels. That's not a benefit to Caltrain, but to everyone living nearby.
There is of course a strong argument to be made that the electrification project is disturbingly overpriced, as is CBOSS, but that doesn't change the rationale for electrification itself.
Again, as for the impact of Caltrain electrification on the grid overall, the effect will be miniscule. A large housing development likely uses more electricity per day. Also, remember that electric trains can recover a good portion of their kinetic energy via regenerative braking, which lowers their impact even more. HSR at full build-out will most definitely use a lot more than Caltrain (more energy needed to maintain high speeds), but still a very small percentage (IIRC much less than one percent) of the state's overall electricity consumption.
The rolling blackout fee is not going to go away if Caltrain is not electrified or HSR is not built. Neither Caltrain nor HSR are going to cause rolling blackouts.
Also, no one is looking at expanding hydro power in California. Expansion of renewables in California will mainly come via solar and wind power (of course, both of those cause their own environmental impacts, but that is a different story altogether).
