From: vaughnw@asia.fai.com (Vaughn Wolffe)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Slant-nosed BART & "California Cars"
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:32:25 GMT


>From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
>If Caltrain were being built NOW, in the absence of any other system,
>and you didn't have to worry about any overbridges, that would be fine.
>But what I'm suggesting is a way of converging the different systems.


It would be cheaper and could be done sooner if an electrified CalTrain
were extended around the bay first. Then convert BART. 


>NO. You are a Caltrain bigot. We can have any transit system we like so
>long as it's Caltrain. I just want good, working, useable transit system.
>I don't care what it is so long as it's INTEGRATED. And it won't be so
>so long as every individual group keeps pushing their own pet system.


Actually, what I favor is a system that is a far cry from what you or
I know of CalTrain as it is today. What I am suggesting is a system 
that is like what BART was supposed to be except that it would be
significantly cheaper, faster and have more capacity. If people would
look at the facts and realities of rail technology in use today, and
give up their unrealistic perception of the BART system as exists then
we might even get what we want and need before quality of life here
goes into the toilet.





>People don't like to make un-necessary changes. And changing from
>BART to Caltrain on a major route that should be direct is a
>dis-incentive to potential riders.



The only ones who would need to change are the ones from Walnut
Creek. Everybody else would have a direct ride into the Silicon
Valley and back. Not only that they would be able to sit down and
pay a lower fare and lower subsidies.


>But the other things: grade separation is NOT because it is BART, but
>because of the service frequency. 
>I wouldn't. Grade separation is not because of the 3rd rail electrical
>pickup either. RURAL southern England is full of 3rd rail level crossings.


Grade separations at just the road crossings could have be done cheaper
than total separations, and still had higher frequency. Once the rolling
stock design, power system and top speed were decided the support 
infrastructure and track trajectory prevented alternative(heavier, higher
capacity) vehicles or speeds. The east bay can not rationally be compared 
to rural England. The 3rd rail requires total separation in today's urban
environment. The old Sacramento Northern had 3rd rail without grade 
separations because it ran through rural Califorina.

BART's major design flaw is that it cannot be changed or enhanced in any
noticeable way. It was built as the perfect system. Any noticeable 
enhancement or extension costs hundreds of millions of dollars. 





>So, to give BART type frequency between the East bay and San Jose, you
>will need to:
>   - use double track
>   - bridge all but the most minor of minor roads.
>After that, what's the difference? 


About $75-90 million per mile.


>But would this give BART frequency without inconveniencing the home-owners
>and road users along the route? Where will it CONNECT with BART?

Since CalTrain type rolling stock and the California Car carry more than
twice as many seats as a PORKBART car the same frequency is not necessary
for the same passenger demand. But, to answer you question directly it 
could run at 3 minute headways if enough rolling stock is available.
Since the California cars are cheaper and total trainsets(cars + loco)
for the same capacity are cheaper then it would be able to match 
frequencies. I would favor half the frequency at 100+ mph instead.
They would connect at Union City, Coliseum, West Oakland and Richmond.



>And please justify your PORKBART remarks. With evidence.


Additional BART tube  $3.5 billion   
Amtrak/CalTrain tunnel $1.9 billion   MTC SCR20 cross bay study.

BART  33 miles  $2.5 billion    BART on the Move  BART/MTC pubs
Capitols 167 miles $800 million    ACR 132 Sacramento-San Jose Study
I would double the Capitol cost for additional rolling stock to provide 
more frequency.
 
TGV $10 million per mile   vs    BART  $100 million per mile
    numerous reports                    BART/SFO



>Obviously you are not a mass transit user. 


The conductors on CalTrain have no trouble seeing me in my seat almost
every day.


>on the SP line. The proposed Union City station is the other side of the
>PG&E pipeyard. 

Union City and BART were negotiating to buy the PG&E yard.


>interchange there. BUT AGAIN, WILL THE PROPOSED CALTRAIN RUN WITH THE
>SORT OF FREQUENCY WHERE THE USERS DON'T NEED TO CONSULT SCHEDULES LIKE
>MASS TRANSIT ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD?


As an infrequent user of BART I must consult a schedule everytime. As a
frequent user of CalTrain I do not need to consult a schedule.


>And the only people who will gain will be the lawyers. Who paid for all
>the early anti-BART lawsuits? BART, which means the E.Bay taxpayers and
>the passengers. 


Actually the E.Bay people did not pay. Federal and state taxes paid most.
There is a book called "Great Planning Disaster" printed by Berkeley. It
is used for some classes there. You should read and get in touch with
reality.


On it's own, BART to Warm Springs is unjustified. BUT 
>THE E.BAY VOTERS KNOW IT'S GOT TO GET EXTENDED TO SAN JOSE EVENTUALLY.
>And they're doing their bit now. Because it will be even more expensive
>later on.

Nonsense, the BART district counties can't afford to pay for operations or 
repair of the existing system. 



>would drive to Warm Springs to use BART! That's the reason San Mateo
>didn't want it: Santa Clara voted against it, so San Mateo refused it
>because they didn't want to subsidise Santa Clara residents driving to
>Menlo Park and using it.


Nonsense, San Mateo did not vote for it because the major developer in
the county and builder of Hillsdale shopping center convinced the
supervisors that everybody would go shop in San Francisco.




>Try telling that to British Rail (Southern Region). They run regular
>services from London to Bournemouth at up to 100mph. Using 750 volts DC
>outside 3rd rail. Again, have you ever been to London?



H. Ian Hayes, P.E principal engineer for Morrison-Knudsen and Ken Watkins
Amtrak electrification specialist both strongly recommend 25 k/vac 50 Hz. 

Both are English born and educated with more than 25 years each.




>Eh? All I'm saying is that they take a composite loading gauge and build
>all new stock to that. 
>Cars would be cheaper as the production run would
>be larger. 

CalTrain cars are already cheaper and carry twice as many seats. The 
future market for California Cars is significantly larger. Besides the 
rest of the modern world is going to double-deckers. Your suggestion
would restrict CalTrain to the same capacity and amenity limitations 
of the 1960 BART mistake.



Use the same cars on both BART and Caltrain (with different
>trucks as long as BART stays broard gauge). Nobody is talking about
>running existing Caltrain stock on BART of vice versa.

Without several significant changes you can't run anything but BART
cars on BART.


>
>
>>The occasional freight could still run between San Jose and SF. Obviously
>>platforms would have to be built, but this could be done cheaply. The
>>right of way would have to be fenced in. 
>
>The BART train would all have to be replaced because they would not
>pass FRA buffing standards. Which means they could not sustain a hit
>with another train or car or shopping cart.
>

>Non-sequitur. London Underground runs/ran tube stock (standard gauge cars
>that run in 12ft diameter tunnels) on the same lines that run full-size
>heavyweight EMUs and freight trains. 


This is California, not London. Don't they have window in your cell?
Maybe you have been riding CalTrain too much. This is another reason
they have to hurry up and replace those windows.


>freight trains. There's no reason why new BART-sized cars shouldn't meet
>proper buffing standards even if the old ones don't (which would surprise
>me, but then on the other hand...).


Reasons: cost, insufficient power for heavier cars, track wear.




   Vaughn Wolffe        vaughnw@hadar.fai.com



But you give yourself away evey time you use emotive words like PORKBART
and boondoggle. It makes one wonder what the real reason you are so anti
BART is, and adds nothing to the debate.

As I said before, I don't care what technology is used. I just want
usable INTEGRATED Bay-wide mass transit. I love driving, but because
I HAVE to drive at times I would rather not, I do about 25,000 miles
a year when I could do below 10,000 miles if I could use mass transit
to most of my popular destinations. (Work, theatre, concerts etc).

And yes, BART will eventually have to be converted to 4ft 8.5 inch gauge.
Making it broad gauge was crass stupidity. And the conversion will be
expensive. Britain learnt that in 1892 when the 7ft gauge was finally
converted.

But so long as everybody wants to fight for their own little system against
everybody else's, I won't hold my breath.

Chris Lee


Article 343 of ba.transportation