Max Wyss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are comparing rather different things here. The
> NEC is a medium-distance operation, whereas
> Caltrain on the peninsula is short distance
> operation (more like an S-Bahn).
>
> The requirements are therefore completely
> different. Accelleration is not as important in
> medium-distance operation, where a higher
> sustained speed and some flexibilty in train
> length is of higher importance. S-Bahn-style
> operation requires good accelleration, and many
> doors for short station dwell time. And that's
> something the current application simply can not
> provide, even if you have a Vectron or a TRAXX
> every four or so cars. Note that a Vectron or
> TRAXX can haul way more cars, even at speeds of
> 200 km/h, but it takes its time to reach that
> speed, and a lot of time is left getting from 0 to
> 80 km/h…
>
> Therefore, the preference for EMU is not
> "bureaucratic", it is based on sound
> requirements.
>
> For medium to long-distance operation, there are
> fewer advantages of EMUs over loco hauled stock,
> and to some extent it is also a bit a question of
> fashion (assumed that the loco-hauled stock
> operation is actually push-pull, otherwise, it
> gets rather expensive because it requires a higher
> number of locomotives than with push-pull
> operation (actually, the number of trains needed
> for a service pattern plus 2), and it will need
> more staff at the terminals.
>
> Now, if the Caltrain cars are rather young, they
> still could be used on other services, or they
> would have a decent resale value. They most likely
> would not end up on the scrapyard.

Makes sense. When SP ran the line they ran shorter trains often with two locomotives. The Trainmasters found a niche here with there fast acceleration. SP even modified the electrical system of SDP-45's so that they accelerate faster. Back then the ridership was lower Caltrain is currently running 130 percent over capacity on most rush hour trains.