4 ms·

I don't think most parts and equipment are swappable anyhow. Maybe tracks themselves. But as far as the trains are concerned, you're pretty much buying all of t

I don't think most parts and equipment are swappable anyhow. Maybe tracks themselves. But as far as the trains are concerned, you're pretty much buying all of the trains bespoke from the manufacturer. If SF used standard gauge rail, it's not like they could just buy some surplus rail cars, put some seats in them, and call it a day. Subways are generally lower to the ground because it improves stability and reduces roll. They corner better. I'm not sure that any subway system uses regular old heavy rail train cars. And besides, if you're ordering thousands of cars for replacement from bombardier (or whomever), you can order spare parts while you're at it.

inferiorhuman 4y ago
I don't think most parts and equipment are swappable anyhow. Maybe tracks themselves. But as far as the trains are concerned, you're pretty much buying all of the trains bespoke from the manufacturer. No you're not. Caltrain has plenty of secondhand rolling stock. Some of the newer coaches came from MetroLink, some of the older ones came from a railway in Virginia. Locomotives came from Southern Pacific and Amtrak. Muni runs all sorts of heritage equipment from around the world on the F, but the PCCs which make up the majority of the fleet were designed as a standard car. If SF used standard gauge rail, it's not like they could just buy some surplus rail cars, put some seats in them, and call it a day. Subways are generally lower to the ground because it improves stability and reduces roll. They corner better. I'm not sure that any subway system uses regular old heavy rail train cars. After the PCC of the 50s the feds tried for a next generation. In the end only Boston and SF bought the cars. They were utter crap in large part because (much like BART) it was mostly a pork project for defense contractors. In this case Boeing's new helicopter division (Boeing-Vertol) thought that trains were basically upside down helicopters and would be easy enough to build. Muni's current trams are based on an off-the-shelf Siemens design. The problem with BART isn't just the axles, it's the entire propulsion system, it's the wacky loading gauge, etc. BART can't even get away with a modified off-the-shelf system. And besides, if you're ordering thousands of cars for replacement from bombardier (or whomever), you can order spare parts while you're at it. Aside from the obvious problems with single sourcing things, that strategy only works as long as you can get spares. BART had huge problems finding thyristors a few years back because they use a non-standard voltage.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  I imagine hiring or purchasing maintenance equipment is also much, much simpler in the USA if it's standard gauge. No-one will have a 5'6" track replacement train for hire.
- MAGZine 4y ago
  Yeah, but Caltrain isn't a subway, it's regularly old heavy rail. Which, like I said, is not generally deployed in subway systems due to size and comfort issues. As far as the spares are concerned... Yeah, I'm not really sure what to tell you. It's not a problem limited to BART. Most subway cars in the world are produced by Kawasaki, Bombardier, etc. Even still, I wonder how much other cities with standard rolling stock get to reuse parts in maintaining subways? Perhaps you know. I don't doubt there are other random parts difficult to find or source. Especially from a system that was originally built before electric train standards fully formed. The cost of innovation is maintenance.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    The cost of innovation is maintenance. Well, no. Maintenance is the cost of stagnation. Look at New York, Chicago, or Berlin to see how electric rail has evolved over the years. BART is still the only system in the world running 1 kVDC. That means no matter who they buy from there's no commonality. For the most part it doesn't matter that Rohr went under. Although per the article current manufacturers are having trouble recreating the cab windows from the original BART cars - something that didn't need to be innovated on in the first place. Muni (with a lot of effort) can run a fleet of trams that are 70–100 years old. They've modernized the propulsion where necessary and made whatever other changes were needed for compatibility. Part of the reason that's possible is that Muni runs a 600 volt system which is common worldwide (although largely supplanted by 750 volt setups). These antiques run in revenue and charter service all over the city and yet BART can't find windows for its cars that were built to its specifications. BART ordered brand new bespoke trains from Bombardier and still uses a bespoke traction system (1000 V DC). Factor in BART's one-off driverless cable car and their standard gauge diesel line. In 15 years when stuff starts wearing out, which agency do you think is going to have a more difficult time with procurement and maintenance? Caltrain is "heavy" rail, sure. Muni isn't. When they were new the PCCs were used globally (including in San Francisco) and serve as the basis for a number of modern designs. BART set out to be the sexy anti-rail and that's the problem. Fifty years on and they've doubled down on bespoke gadgetry.
rob74 4y ago
Standard gauge rail still has several advantages: first, I imagine at least for the wheelsets and the bogeys they could use standard parts; second, even if you can't use standard train cars in the subway, you can use train tracks to move your cars - the Munich subway does this often, e.g. this article is about trains being shuttled several hundred kilometers to be retrofitted with a fire extinguishing system (https://www.u-bahn-muenchen.de/blog/2022/03/b-wagen-auf-grosser-fahrt/ https://www.u-bahn-muenchen.de/blog/2022/03/b-wagen-auf-gros... - of course you can't do that with light rail vehicles, the cars have to be built to comply with railway standards).

I don't think most parts and equipment are swappable anyhow. Maybe tracks themselves. But as far as the trains are concerned, you're pretty much buying all of the trains bespoke from the manufacturer. If SF used standard gauge rail, it's not like they could just buy some surplus rail cars, put some seats in them, and call it a day. Subways are generally lower to the ground because it improves stability and reduces roll. They corner better. I'm not sure that any subway system uses regular old heavy rail train cars. And besides, if you're ordering thousands of cars for replacement from bombardier (or whomever), you can order spare parts while you're at it.

inferiorhuman 4y ago

I don't think most parts and equipment are swappable anyhow. Maybe tracks themselves. But as far as the trains are concerned, you're pretty much buying all of the trains bespoke from the manufacturer. No you're not. Caltrain has plenty of secondhand rolling stock. Some of the newer coaches came from MetroLink, some of the older ones came from a railway in Virginia. Locomotives came from Southern Pacific and Amtrak. Muni runs all sorts of heritage equipment from around the world on the F, but the PCCs which make up the majority of the fleet were designed as a standard car. If SF used standard gauge rail, it's not like they could just buy some surplus rail cars, put some seats in them, and call it a day. Subways are generally lower to the ground because it improves stability and reduces roll. They corner better. I'm not sure that any subway system uses regular old heavy rail train cars. After the PCC of the 50s the feds tried for a next generation. In the end only Boston and SF bought the cars. They were utter crap in large part because (much like BART) it was mostly a pork project for defense contractors. In this case Boeing's new helicopter division (Boeing-Vertol) thought that trains were basically upside down helicopters and would be easy enough to build. Muni's current trams are based on an off-the-shelf Siemens design. The problem with BART isn't just the axles, it's the entire propulsion system, it's the wacky loading gauge, etc. BART can't even get away with a modified off-the-shelf system. And besides, if you're ordering thousands of cars for replacement from bombardier (or whomever), you can order spare parts while you're at it. Aside from the obvious problems with single sourcing things, that strategy only works as long as you can get spares. BART had huge problems finding thyristors a few years back because they use a non-standard voltage.

Symbiote 4y ago
I imagine hiring or purchasing maintenance equipment is also much, much simpler in the USA if it's standard gauge. No-one will have a 5'6" track replacement train for hire.
MAGZine 4y ago
Yeah, but Caltrain isn't a subway, it's regularly old heavy rail. Which, like I said, is not generally deployed in subway systems due to size and comfort issues. As far as the spares are concerned... Yeah, I'm not really sure what to tell you. It's not a problem limited to BART. Most subway cars in the world are produced by Kawasaki, Bombardier, etc. Even still, I wonder how much other cities with standard rolling stock get to reuse parts in maintaining subways? Perhaps you know. I don't doubt there are other random parts difficult to find or source. Especially from a system that was originally built before electric train standards fully formed. The cost of innovation is maintenance.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  The cost of innovation is maintenance. Well, no. Maintenance is the cost of stagnation. Look at New York, Chicago, or Berlin to see how electric rail has evolved over the years. BART is still the only system in the world running 1 kVDC. That means no matter who they buy from there's no commonality. For the most part it doesn't matter that Rohr went under. Although per the article current manufacturers are having trouble recreating the cab windows from the original BART cars - something that didn't need to be innovated on in the first place. Muni (with a lot of effort) can run a fleet of trams that are 70–100 years old. They've modernized the propulsion where necessary and made whatever other changes were needed for compatibility. Part of the reason that's possible is that Muni runs a 600 volt system which is common worldwide (although largely supplanted by 750 volt setups). These antiques run in revenue and charter service all over the city and yet BART can't find windows for its cars that were built to its specifications. BART ordered brand new bespoke trains from Bombardier and still uses a bespoke traction system (1000 V DC). Factor in BART's one-off driverless cable car and their standard gauge diesel line. In 15 years when stuff starts wearing out, which agency do you think is going to have a more difficult time with procurement and maintenance? Caltrain is "heavy" rail, sure. Muni isn't. When they were new the PCCs were used globally (including in San Francisco) and serve as the basis for a number of modern designs. BART set out to be the sexy anti-rail and that's the problem. Fifty years on and they've doubled down on bespoke gadgetry.

rob74 4y ago

Standard gauge rail still has several advantages: first, I imagine at least for the wheelsets and the bogeys they could use standard parts; second, even if you can't use standard train cars in the subway, you can use train tracks to move your cars - the Munich subway does this often, e.g. this article is about trains being shuttled several hundred kilometers to be retrofitted with a fire extinguishing system (https://www.u-bahn-muenchen.de/blog/2022/03/b-wagen-auf-grosser-fahrt/ https://www.u-bahn-muenchen.de/blog/2022/03/b-wagen-auf-gros... - of course you can't do that with light rail vehicles, the cars have to be built to comply with railway standards).