Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Richard Mlyrnik says on the Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog:
Start with "pretty much any ICE or EC stopping at Leipzig Hauptbahnhof."
There are thousands of other examples.
eg ICE 692: ... -- Stuttgart 08:47 08:51 -- Frankfurt(Main) 10:08 10:13 -- ...

Is there any way to find the turn-around times for HSR trains at Leipzig Hauptbahnof?

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 11:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does "turn-around" refer to the train changing direction, or to emptying the train, cleaning it, and starting a new route. If the former, HSR can be turned very quickly indeed. I suspect the 30+ minutes refer to the latter, and you'll have a hard time finding these figures by simply studying the schedules.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Apr 16th, 2009 at 04:44:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... CHSRA is saying 40 minutes, they are talking about route terminus operations.

The most important route terminus operations for building ridership, of course, are the infrequent ones ... the operations to prevent a train swap from creating a service delay, and to prevent one service delay from cascading to multiple service delays.

But if they are through services through a terminal, with the route terminus located somewhere else, then that time buffer is also located somewhere else.

The restock, full clean, high frequency safety checks, etc., that are scheduled as the normal terminus operations are an efficient way to use the time, but for corridor trains that are not operating around the clock, many of them do not have to be done when they are, but are more spreading the work around and not letting the time buffers built into the system go to waste.

More on this in Part 3.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Apr 16th, 2009 at 01:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As gk said. Frankfurt Hbf is another terminal station where almost all long-distance trains (be them ICE or loco-pulled IC/EC) change direction, but don't end their run, and thus the time is short. Also true for most trains in Stuttgart Hbf, andmany in Munich Hbf.

To complicate matters, in Germany, many long-distance trains run in circuitous routes -- e.g. a train may run a big half-circle from Berlin through Dortmund Frankfurt, Stuttgart to Munich, then go North through Nuremburg to Hamburg; or alternatively through Leipzig back to Berlin... and in such a case, the "terminal station" is a matter of choice.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 at 11:26:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Uhh, and sorry for a very belated reply, didn't catch it.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 at 11:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was the discussion on the Caltrain HSR compatibility blog ... if the TBT is used as a through-service terminal rather than as a route terminus, at least when trains are turning around, its not the platforms that are a bottleneck, but rather the requirement to offer 5 minute headways to the HSR.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 at 07:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But, NOT using it as a terminal station is pretty stupid, aint' it.

On one hand, from the passengers' point of view, it will be a terminal station -- meaning that all passengers of the arriving train will get off, and all passengers on the departing train will board there. You can't use the 6 minute turns in Frankfurt as example for that -- 10-15 minutes in Vienna Westbahnhof is more like it.

Then, you'd have to service trains in LA after a full turn (that would be up to 7 hours 20 minutes without servicing, with runs in 213-minute train pattern #3 both ways), or devise an operation plan in which runs from LA to SF are always followed by a run from SF to Merced, where there would be time for servicing.

All in all, I have a very bad feeling about this TBT project. The seeds of several future problems will be planted, even with the improvements you sketch in the second and third diaries.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Apr 18th, 2009 at 04:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... four platforms and 15 minute turns permits 12tph with a 5 minute time buffer for each turn.

The TBT project will, of course, be studied in future years as an vestige of the Kamikaze Century, when the location of bus ramps onto a road bridge could determine the location of what was supposed to be the main rail hub of a city like San Francisco ... because the rail hub part of it was tacked on as something that sounded good, with the plan of getting trains in and out left for later.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 18th, 2009 at 07:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... capacity is much less of an issue at the Southern end, because as the system builds out, it becomes a "Y", with an Anaheim terminus and a San Diego terminus (well, its an "X" including Sacramento, but with the bulk of northbound routes heading to the San Jose / San Francisco side). Anaheim platforms are at grade, and they are building the platforms to the CHSRA request, while if the San Diego terminus is at the Airport, that will be able to act as a through platform when needed to avoid getting bottlenecked.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 18th, 2009 at 01:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series