From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: (B)ART & (C)alTrain to stay on SMCo. ballot
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.094904.14023@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 
|> start ballooning. It is certainly possible to build a BART line down
|> the Peninsula with little extra cost for land -- by having the BART and
|> CalTrain rails _share_ their ties. Like this:

[Loren's ASCII picture of 4 rails on a tie deleted]

The standard way of doing dual gauge is with 3 rails on a tie.  It makes
things like switches & maintenance a lot easier.  (Have you ever seen
dual gauge done with 4 rails?  I've seen plenty of dual gauge track, but
never with 4 rails.  Of course, tri-gauge track would have 4 rails, but
that is even rarer than dual gauge!)  

I've been told--and do believe-- that BART equipment does not meet the
FRA "buffing" standards.  That is, BART is not of appropriate construction
to safely withstand a collision with standard US railroad freight or
passenger equipment.  I'm quite certain that there is a slim to none
chance of track-sharing being allowed and/or feasible in the case of BART
equipment as we know it.

Supposing a shared track scheme were to be used, the right of way would
still require complete fencing due to the lethal ground-level third rail.
All crossings would have to be grade separated immediately, whether they
really justify it or not from a traffic standpoint.  


|> But BART can go through smaller tunnels than CalTrain's rolling stock
|> can, even if it is electrified.

That is true.  CalTrain cars are about 16 feet tall compared to BART's
10 feet.  For this reason, boring/building a CalTrain-sized tunnel does
cost somewhat more per unit length.  The only tunneling issue with
CalTrain is with the proposed downtown extension alternatives.  Lower
height standard gauge passenger equipment exists and would allow for
smaller, cheaper tunnels.  There are obviously some trade offs that can
be made.  The Paris RER runs double deck, overhead wire electrified
equipment through tunnels, so it isn't unheard of.

|> |> Now if BART comes down, it will *require* complete grade separation--
|> |> whether it makes sense from a traffic standpoint or not.
|> 
|> That would be a good idea, anyway. No point playing Russian roulette.

Hey, if you're that anxious to avoid "Russian roulette", you might as well
stay home.  I'm not willing to pay what it costs to avoid *all* risk, are
you?


|> And if there are a lot of trains running, then traffic will not be able
|> to cross at all.                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bullshit.  I'd consider a train every 10 minutes lots of trains.  So for
most crossings, they'd be blocked for 30 to 45 seconds twice every ten
minutes.  Compare that to how much an ordinary busy intersection is
blocked by a red traffic light.  Gee, I guess traffic will be able to 
cross after all.

There's no doubt that some of the busier CalTrain crossings ought to be
grade separated so the auto traffic doesn't get too backed up.  Motorists
need to remember that in the time a crossing gate is down, more people
are allowed to pass by in a train than could ever pass sitting in cars.
Furthermore, those people are not on the road competing with the motorist
for lane space.


|> Adding BART rails to the existing ties would be a _very_ low-budget way
|> of getting BART tracks in.

Why do it?  There isn't a need, and although it might be low-budget, it's
still going to cost more than simply upgrading CalTrain.  Fencing, major
station mods, electrification (third rail), and full grade separation
would still be required.  As I mentioned earlier, I have serious doubts
if this would even be allowed by the FRA without major mods to BART
equipment.  (In reading the "CalSpeed" TGV study, the same issue applied
to TGV equipment sharing track with US rail equipment.  An interesting
point was that in European railroading, the emphasis is on collision
avoidance, whereas in the US, the emphasis is on collision survivability).



|> 	And think of what an upgraded CalTrain or shared-track BART
|> would do to the schedule of an LA-SF train. It would have to do 45 mph
|> when it could do 125 mph (say). 1 hour instead of 20 minutes. That
|> sounds like a big embarrassment. That's actually a good argument _for_
|> having extra tracks, since there could be BART doing local service,
|> and a superfast CalTrain or LA-SF train doing express service.

Yes, the SF-LA high-speed train study is talking about at least one
extra track down the peninsula.  The assumption/expectation is 100mph
max speed between SF and SJ.  As part of that project, all crossings
would be either eliminated or grade separated.  (Yes, some crossings
really aren't needed, and it may make more sense to eliminate them
entirely.)


|> |> When you talk about BART on the Peninsula, you'd better hold onto your
|> |> wallet!  $150 million per mile--at least--guaranteed.
|> 
|> 	That remains to be seen.

It sure does.


|> |> The Tamien CalTrain station cost about $30 million.
|> 
|> That's because it was only a parking lot, and not a big parking garage.

Hmmm, last time I was there there was a pretty nice station too.  It had
a nice long covered and well lit platform and even some ticket machines
and an escalator and elevator.  That's about as elaborate (expensive) as
I'd ever want to see a CalTrain station get, and yet it was only $30
million.  As I said, I doubt you can get a barebones, no-parking-available
BART station nowadays for that much!


|> |> On their maps, they actually show a separate, more direct line for
|> |> this [downtown SJ to Fremont] corridor.
|> 
|> 	What line is that???
|> 	Is it the route that Amtrak's Capitols now take?

No, it's literally a different yellow line on their glossy no-details
map of measure A projects.  It seemed like it was more along the SP
Milpitas or UP line.  These are the same lines that the BART to San Jose
alternatives are looking at running BART along.  The Capitols take the
SP Mulford line that runs much more westerly and through Alviso.  The
Mulford line doesn't take you anywhere near the Warm Springs/Fremont
area to connect with BART.


|> |> GM Frank Wilson said that BART ought to look at operating at other
|> |> technologies other than BART.  That makes a lot more sense to me
|> |> than replacing CalTrain.
|> 
|> 	Where did he make this comment???
|> 	And what did he have in mind???

He said it in an Oakland Tribune article that appeared on page A-5,
Friday, September 11, 1992.  The headline reads "BART ponders diesel
trains".  The relevant excerpt is:

	In an interview with the Tribune, Wilson said he believes
	BART's future should not be limited to running its own
	"silver trains" everywhere--a mindset that has guided most
	of BART's expansion plans--but by also having BART run
	standard commuter trains, light rail trains and buses.

	"It's a more logical way to go," Wilson said.  "It's a
	different way for the (BART) system to mature."




|> Much of [the Peninsula] looks very suburban, and some of which looks
|> (I repeat, _looks_) almost rural.

Ok, so you admit: it only *looks* suburban or rural.  Since BART costs
are not driven by whether something *looks* suburban or rural, why
even mention it in this context?


|> Adrian Brandt, you have pooh-poohed the difficulties of the
|> current CalTrain stations, most of which have one track accessible
|> only by crossing the other one. Yes, I know about "station occupied"
|> signals, but that would screw up the schedule rather badly -- a
|> southbound train could pull in only when the northbound train has
|> finished boarding.

It's not such a big problem with current train densities.  Converting
stations to "outside" boarding as was done in Sunnyvale recently is not
a big deal.

SP and now Amtrak have run trains on the Peninsula using the essentially
the current station configuration for over 120 years.  Sure, if train
frequencies go up dramatically, some changes might be in order, but it's
nothing to get all trembly and scared about.


|> 	Lower limits to costs? Simply consider the costs of the
|> extensions to Dublin and West Pittsburg -- $40 m/mi and $65 m/mi,
|> though they only have two stations each.

Aren't they both essentially using freeway rights of way that can
already accommodate BART extensions?  I suspect there are one or two
good reasons why these costs are lower than your average BART
extension.  Loren, perhaps you can tell us why, because I'm not
familiar with these projects.


|> But it would be just like the existing CalTrain, but with electric
|> locos.

Sure, the frequency is generally independent of locomotive choice. 


|> I suspect that 15-minute headways would only be practical with
|> rolling stock that allows for shorter trains

Gong.  A two or three car train isn't short enough for ya? 

Loren, you and George N-N are the biggest hand-wringers I've ever
encountered.  You have so little confidence in railroading technology,
yet you both seem somewhat like railfan types.  



|> 	And I don't see any sign of CalTrain's management having very
|> much vision. Their locos have an awful maintenance record (George
|> Neville-Neil is hoping to get CalTrain maintenance records to send to
|> the appropriate regulatory agencies).

Good, we need citizen watchdog types to keep the bureaucrats honest.
I certainly hope there aren't problems, but if there are, I'm glad
George is going to doing something about them.



|> And consider the crudded-up "windows" of the passenger cars -- that's
|> not what I call good advertising.  It can't be that expensive to
|> replace them all.

The problem is that CalTrans ordered the cars with lexan instead of
heavy-duty glazed railroad window glass.  They say it was because of
rock-throwing.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was because the lexan
option was cheaper.  Anyway, unlike glass, lexan will scratch and will
get etched and fog up if you put the wrong cleaning chemicals on it.
Once CalTrans figured out they were screwing up the windows with their
cleaning chemicals (and with the help of a combination of sunlight,
aging and scratching), it was too late and most of the lexan window
panes had been irreparably damaged.  The JPB has been too chintzy to
fork out the cash to replace all the panes at once.  So, they've been
replacing them at a snail's pace of something like 24 per month or so.
I've heard it costs something like $250 per pane + union labor).  A
CalTrain car has got 48 panes on it.  There are 72 cars.  That's 3,456
panes that needed replacing at about $250 a pop.  I don't know about
you, but $864,000 isn't exactly pocket change.  

I agree, the semi-opaque window problem is terrible advertising.  It
is steadily getting better as more and more windows are replaced, and
I've heard talk of accelerating the replacement rate...  Maybe if
they (CalTrain/JPB) get enough complaints they'll cough up the money
faster.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov