5 ms·

Very cool to see these trains lasted 50+ years if I understand correctly (?). I wonder if there’s an opportunity for BART to switch to standard gauge in the fut

Very cool to see these trains lasted 50+ years if I understand correctly (?). I wonder if there’s an opportunity for BART to switch to standard gauge in the future or as part of retiring trains, or if that’s even a good idea for cost savings? Could they build a narrow rail inside the wider rail? Or is this idea not worth it?

Gigachad 3y ago
It is a thing that's done sometimes, usually for trains between cities which are on different gauges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge
danans 3y ago
> I wonder if there’s an opportunity for BART to switch to standard gauge in the future or as part of retiring trains, or if that’s even a good idea for cost savings? I'm guessing it would be massively expensive, and it's not clear to what end they would change it. It's not like they could then buy cheaper off-the-shelf trains, since the trains still have to be designed and built for the particular system in other ways, i.e. controls, propulsion, and custom interiors. Also, BART doesn't share tracks with any other system, so there's no reason to do it for compatiblity's sake either.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  It's not like they could then buy cheaper off-the-shelf trains, since the trains still have to be designed and built for the particular system in other ways, i.e. controls, propulsion, and custom interiors. They could but they've doubled down on American exceptionalism (or NIH if you prefer). For instance, Muni's Siemens trains (and the Boeing/Vertols and PCCs before them) are far closer to a standard train than BART's stuff. The real advantage is in cheaper propulsion and maintenance kit. BART runs a non-standard voltage and had a ton of trouble sourcing thyristors for their old fleet. Track maintenance vehicles also need to be custom built. BART doesn't share tracks with any other system, so there's no reason to do it for compatiblity's sake either. BART doesn't share tracks because they can't. As a result they run three separate fleets of wholly incompatible vehicles for no good reason. eBART is a standard gauge diesel multiple unit system – because even with BART's typically inflated ridership estimates they couldn't make the expensive mainline kit work. That would've been a perfect opportunity to start the excruciatingly slow process of converting the mainline to more current standards.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    > BART doesn't share tracks because they can't If Bart hadn't picked a goofy gauge, it would probably be using the Caltrain corridor by now.
    - gumby 3y ago
      BTW the Caltrain corridor is SP's corridor (Standard and Pacific was Leland Stanford's gold mine) which SP maintains to run the occasional freight train and also gets paid to run caltrain on it. I haven't been following the whole electrification effort (except seeing it happen): will S&P still run diesel freight on those tracks?
      - Lammy 3y ago
        UP absorbed SP in 1996: https://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/decision.pdf https://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/decision.pdf Here are some videos from when SP ran the “Peninsula Commute” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Commute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Commute> service before the formation of Caltrain: — Fairbanks-Morse Train Masters on the SP Peninsula Commute in 1972 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XElWHtywY6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XElWHtywY6I — SP Peninsula Commute (February 26, 1985) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqORVlDs4lQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqORVlDs4lQ — 1970s Southern Pacific Commuter Parade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-BgistV-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-BgistV-w Before 1975 it ran to the old 3rd & Townsend depot instead of 4th & King like today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_and_Townsend_Depot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_and_Townsend_Depot
      - ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
        Yes they'll unfortunately continue to run freight trains on those tracks. Also the corridor down to Gilroy from Tamien won't be electrified.
        gumby 3y ago
        What’s unfortunate about them running those freight trains? It’s a greener way to transport freight than a bunch of trucks. (I used to live not far from a crossing in Palo Alto and they had to toot their horn as they went past at 2 am but I can hardly call it burdensome)
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > the trains still have to be designed and built for the particular system in other ways Aren't Caltrain's new electric trains essentially off-the-shelf? A few years ago when they needed more capacity, they bought more bi-level Bombardier cars from another agency. They went into service without being repainted. Fixing the gauge mistake will probably never pay for itself (NYC can't even settle on a car width), but it'll be a never-ending headache and tax for the agency.
  - andbberger 3y ago
    they were off the shelf into caltrain got their grubby hands into the procurement process! they are about twice as powerful as standard KISSs. also stadler had to install an extra powerful air compressor so they can ding their fucking bell
  - danans 3y ago
    Caltrain shares track with freight rail, and doesn't run trains nearly as closely or frequently as BART. No other type of train makes sense to run on BART's tracks.
  - bryananderson 3y ago
    The Caltrain KISSes are not really off the shelf, in many ways, good and bad and ugly. The (arguably) good: 1) they have a boxier profile than the standard KISS, which some have complained about, but the reason the European version is less boxy is because Europe has a more restrictive loading gauge (the allowable cross-section of the vehicle), resulting in a more cramped upper level. Caltrain doesn’t have this issue, and so the upper level will not be cramped. 2) The Caltrain KISS is more powerful than the standard, which would allow for a faster top speed… if the corridor was upgraded to make use of it, which it is not. Maybe someday. The bad/silly: two sets of doors… a higher set since HSR might allegedly someday come to this corridor and require changing the platform height, and a lower set because that ain’t happening for a long time, if ever. I think there are some other bad/silly things which I’ve willfully forgotten about (I think they fucked up the ADA lifts somehow?), which I’m sure are documented somewhere on Clem Tillier’s excellent blog.[0] The ugly: “buy America” requirements forced Stadler to build an entire factory in the US, raising the cost by over 50% compared to the standard KISS. This is the bad kind of industrial policy which raises costs without actually building up US industrial capacity in this field (if Stadler closed the plant tomorrow, the US wouldn’t retain any expertise or capacity to build trains). [0] https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com
- mrWiz 3y ago
  > Also, BART doesn't share tracks with any other system, so there's no reason to do it for compatiblity's sake either. Isn't that a chicken/egg issue? How could BART share tracks with systems using incompatible rails?
bronson 3y ago
The rails themselves have enough room. The issues start with the nonstandard loading platforms, track profile and switches, and power, and continue for quite a while. Once you get everything working again, any cost savings are gone.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  any cost savings are gone. Until you want to expand to low (by BART's low standards) ridership areas like Contra Costa. Or once the area transit agencies are consolidated and then tasked with expanding e.g. SMART. Yeah it would've been best to standardize 30-40 years ago. There are still tangible benefits today especially as expanding rail service in the Bay Area becomes more popular. Besides, BART is struggling mightily with their proprietary power kit (e.g. mystery power spikes along the orange line).
froh 3y ago
you got me curious. "wind stability" is the given reason: https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2022/news20220708-2 https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2022/news20220708-2 and it is a standard gauge, "Indian gauge", just not the standard gauge. which keeps it free from freight trains and other mixed traffic, which helps with punctuality. also if they wanted to change that they could introduce a dual gauge track, like the Stuttgart area did for their mixed tram/underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_Stadtbahn#/media/File%3AStuttgart_dt8.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_Stadtbahn#/media/Fil...
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Wind stability was a given reason back when it was planned to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, but that never happened BART’s planning is basically a comedy of errors by aerospace engineers who specifically did not want to learn anything from other rail systems, hence the nonstandard car layout, the nonstandard electrification, the nonstandard wheels that make too much noise, etc. BART themselves clearly do not believe much of it anymore given that they operate a standard gauge line.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    I recently visited SFO for the first time and loved the transit system - although the noise level of BART seemed… excessive. Really stood out in the trip from the airport it was significantly louder than my flight. I was worried I was losing my mind, thanks for confirming that it’s real.
    - mh- 3y ago
      I used to ride BART 4-5 days a week, through the Transbay tunnel. I frequently got the "sustained loud noise" warning from my watch, notifying me that the combined duration and intensity of the ambient sound was enough to damage one's hearing.
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  I'm curious if they could have solved the crosswind stability issue with fences along the track to block the wind. Although fences cost money, and it would ruin the view.
wasmitnetzen 3y ago
Doesn't seem to be a problem, the Alstom Movia which is running for BART is an off-the-shelf platform for light rail[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Movia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Movia
- sofixa 3y ago
  Metro, not light rail. Light rail is an ambiguous anglophone North American term (because anglophone North America kind of sucks in transit) that can mean anything between a tram and a mini metro, but it's wholly inappropriate for BART and for the Movia trainsets. Also, it's kind of by luck - BART uses the so-called Indian gauge, and Movia trains have been acquired by Indian cities for their metro systems, so Bombardier/Alstom already had everything in place.
bryananderson 3y ago
The weird gauge is indeed weird, but is generally overstated as a problem for BART. There’s not much to be gained by changing it system-wide, and it would be at great cost. It’s sometimes claimed to be a driver of costlier rolling-stock acquisition, but this is dubious. There are many track gauges around the world, and not a lot of evidence that nonstandard ones cost dramatically different amounts. And even if bespoke gauges did cost more for economies-of-scale reasons, BART’s gauge is hardly unique: it’s the same gauge used in India, and just a couple mm from the one used in Iberia and much of Latin America (in practice they are demonstrably interchangeable). So there is a huge amount of rolling stock being manufactured for this gauge. It doesn’t require reinventing the entire production process or something. The other claimed benefit to standardizing BART’s gauge that I sometimes hear is interoperability with other systems, but this is very difficult for several larger reasons, and also not necessary or desirable. For one thing, BART also has a nonstandard wheel profile and corresponding rail profile, so you wouldn’t just need to move the rails closer together, you’d actually have to replace them all. Beyond that, mainline rail systems have tougher crash standards than fully-separated metro systems (even after recent reforms), so you couldn’t run BART trains onto mainline tracks unless you bought heavier (and more expensive) rolling stock than what BART and other metro systems normally buy. Another issue is that mainline rail systems use different signaling and electrification (if they even have electrification) systems, which would require either an incredibly expensive overhaul or the use of multi-current/multi-signaling trains, which again increases the cost. Also, mainline rail is generally not grade-separated like BART, which would need to be changed at great expense, or BART would have to accept reduced reliability due to grade-crossing conflicts (this matters less for infrequent regional rail, but is huge for BART which must timetable dozens of trains per peak hour through the Y-junction in Oakland). Stations would also need to be harmonized to the same platform height (BART’s is different from any other system in the area) and length (stations would need to match BART’s extremely long trains). Interoperability also doesn’t offer much benefit. Usually I hear about this in the context of Caltrain: instead of having these fragmented systems, wouldn’t it be nice if BART served the peninsula? I agree! We can do this by merging the agencies and putting new logos on the trains, without worrying about replacing rails and redoing the electrification that Caltrain is just finishing up with. I’m only slightly oversimplifying. We should continue iteratively upgrading Caltrain into true rapid transit with things like BART-style level boarding, all-day high frequencies and regular intervals, and grade separation. And we should extend what is currently known as Caltrain downtown and then across to the East Bay[0], providing good transfer opportunities with current BART. If this is done well, it should all feel like one regional rapid-transit system to the rider[1], much like New York subway and Berlin U-bahn riders usually don't even realize that they’re actually using multiple incompatible systems. At the end of the day, good integration and high service quality are what matter to the rider, not the underlying technology. I think eBART contributed a lot to the idea that BART’s gauge is a big problem, since this weird DMU thing was sold under the premise that “normal BART” was too expensive. Really the things that were (allegedly) too expensive for this low-ridership exurban tail were electrification and the huge stations necessitated by BART’s extremely long trains. Those factors would've still been there even if the rails matched up. So was it pointless and dumb for BART to use a nonstandard track gauge? Yeah. It was part of the marketing for a “space age” system that wanted to be seen as different from ye olde train. But is it really a huge problem that’s worth correcting? Nah. It’s only worth changing part of it if you wanted to convert a segment of track from mainline to BART or vice versa—and the cost of the track stuff would pale in comparison to other factors (electrification, signaling, stations, grade separation). [0] https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dtx.html https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dt... [1] https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-false-choice-of-link21.html https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-false-choice-o...

Gigachad 3y ago

It is a thing that's done sometimes, usually for trains between cities which are on different gauges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge

danans 3y ago

> I wonder if there’s an opportunity for BART to switch to standard gauge in the future or as part of retiring trains, or if that’s even a good idea for cost savings? I'm guessing it would be massively expensive, and it's not clear to what end they would change it. It's not like they could then buy cheaper off-the-shelf trains, since the trains still have to be designed and built for the particular system in other ways, i.e. controls, propulsion, and custom interiors. Also, BART doesn't share tracks with any other system, so there's no reason to do it for compatiblity's sake either.

inferiorhuman 3y ago
It's not like they could then buy cheaper off-the-shelf trains, since the trains still have to be designed and built for the particular system in other ways, i.e. controls, propulsion, and custom interiors. They could but they've doubled down on American exceptionalism (or NIH if you prefer). For instance, Muni's Siemens trains (and the Boeing/Vertols and PCCs before them) are far closer to a standard train than BART's stuff. The real advantage is in cheaper propulsion and maintenance kit. BART runs a non-standard voltage and had a ton of trouble sourcing thyristors for their old fleet. Track maintenance vehicles also need to be custom built. BART doesn't share tracks with any other system, so there's no reason to do it for compatiblity's sake either. BART doesn't share tracks because they can't. As a result they run three separate fleets of wholly incompatible vehicles for no good reason. eBART is a standard gauge diesel multiple unit system – because even with BART's typically inflated ridership estimates they couldn't make the expensive mainline kit work. That would've been a perfect opportunity to start the excruciatingly slow process of converting the mainline to more current standards.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > BART doesn't share tracks because they can't If Bart hadn't picked a goofy gauge, it would probably be using the Caltrain corridor by now.
  - gumby 3y ago
    BTW the Caltrain corridor is SP's corridor (Standard and Pacific was Leland Stanford's gold mine) which SP maintains to run the occasional freight train and also gets paid to run caltrain on it. I haven't been following the whole electrification effort (except seeing it happen): will S&P still run diesel freight on those tracks?
    - Lammy 3y ago
      UP absorbed SP in 1996: https://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/decision.pdf https://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/decision.pdf Here are some videos from when SP ran the “Peninsula Commute” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Commute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Commute> service before the formation of Caltrain: — Fairbanks-Morse Train Masters on the SP Peninsula Commute in 1972 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XElWHtywY6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XElWHtywY6I — SP Peninsula Commute (February 26, 1985) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqORVlDs4lQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqORVlDs4lQ — 1970s Southern Pacific Commuter Parade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-BgistV-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-BgistV-w Before 1975 it ran to the old 3rd & Townsend depot instead of 4th & King like today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_and_Townsend_Depot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_and_Townsend_Depot
    - ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
      Yes they'll unfortunately continue to run freight trains on those tracks. Also the corridor down to Gilroy from Tamien won't be electrified.
      - gumby 3y ago
        What’s unfortunate about them running those freight trains? It’s a greener way to transport freight than a bunch of trucks. (I used to live not far from a crossing in Palo Alto and they had to toot their horn as they went past at 2 am but I can hardly call it burdensome)
dehrmann 3y ago
> the trains still have to be designed and built for the particular system in other ways Aren't Caltrain's new electric trains essentially off-the-shelf? A few years ago when they needed more capacity, they bought more bi-level Bombardier cars from another agency. They went into service without being repainted. Fixing the gauge mistake will probably never pay for itself (NYC can't even settle on a car width), but it'll be a never-ending headache and tax for the agency.
- andbberger 3y ago
  they were off the shelf into caltrain got their grubby hands into the procurement process! they are about twice as powerful as standard KISSs. also stadler had to install an extra powerful air compressor so they can ding their fucking bell
- danans 3y ago
  Caltrain shares track with freight rail, and doesn't run trains nearly as closely or frequently as BART. No other type of train makes sense to run on BART's tracks.
- bryananderson 3y ago
  The Caltrain KISSes are not really off the shelf, in many ways, good and bad and ugly. The (arguably) good: 1) they have a boxier profile than the standard KISS, which some have complained about, but the reason the European version is less boxy is because Europe has a more restrictive loading gauge (the allowable cross-section of the vehicle), resulting in a more cramped upper level. Caltrain doesn’t have this issue, and so the upper level will not be cramped. 2) The Caltrain KISS is more powerful than the standard, which would allow for a faster top speed… if the corridor was upgraded to make use of it, which it is not. Maybe someday. The bad/silly: two sets of doors… a higher set since HSR might allegedly someday come to this corridor and require changing the platform height, and a lower set because that ain’t happening for a long time, if ever. I think there are some other bad/silly things which I’ve willfully forgotten about (I think they fucked up the ADA lifts somehow?), which I’m sure are documented somewhere on Clem Tillier’s excellent blog.[0] The ugly: “buy America” requirements forced Stadler to build an entire factory in the US, raising the cost by over 50% compared to the standard KISS. This is the bad kind of industrial policy which raises costs without actually building up US industrial capacity in this field (if Stadler closed the plant tomorrow, the US wouldn’t retain any expertise or capacity to build trains). [0] https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com
mrWiz 3y ago
> Also, BART doesn't share tracks with any other system, so there's no reason to do it for compatiblity's sake either. Isn't that a chicken/egg issue? How could BART share tracks with systems using incompatible rails?

bronson 3y ago

The rails themselves have enough room. The issues start with the nonstandard loading platforms, track profile and switches, and power, and continue for quite a while. Once you get everything working again, any cost savings are gone.

inferiorhuman 3y ago
any cost savings are gone. Until you want to expand to low (by BART's low standards) ridership areas like Contra Costa. Or once the area transit agencies are consolidated and then tasked with expanding e.g. SMART. Yeah it would've been best to standardize 30-40 years ago. There are still tangible benefits today especially as expanding rail service in the Bay Area becomes more popular. Besides, BART is struggling mightily with their proprietary power kit (e.g. mystery power spikes along the orange line).

froh 3y ago

you got me curious. "wind stability" is the given reason: https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2022/news20220708-2 https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2022/news20220708-2 and it is a standard gauge, "Indian gauge", just not the standard gauge. which keeps it free from freight trains and other mixed traffic, which helps with punctuality. also if they wanted to change that they could introduce a dual gauge track, like the Stuttgart area did for their mixed tram/underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_Stadtbahn#/media/File%3AStuttgart_dt8.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_Stadtbahn#/media/Fil...

bobthepanda 3y ago
Wind stability was a given reason back when it was planned to cross the Golden Gate Bridge, but that never happened BART’s planning is basically a comedy of errors by aerospace engineers who specifically did not want to learn anything from other rail systems, hence the nonstandard car layout, the nonstandard electrification, the nonstandard wheels that make too much noise, etc. BART themselves clearly do not believe much of it anymore given that they operate a standard gauge line.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  I recently visited SFO for the first time and loved the transit system - although the noise level of BART seemed… excessive. Really stood out in the trip from the airport it was significantly louder than my flight. I was worried I was losing my mind, thanks for confirming that it’s real.
  - mh- 3y ago
    I used to ride BART 4-5 days a week, through the Transbay tunnel. I frequently got the "sustained loud noise" warning from my watch, notifying me that the combined duration and intensity of the ambient sound was enough to damage one's hearing.
adrianmonk 3y ago
I'm curious if they could have solved the crosswind stability issue with fences along the track to block the wind. Although fences cost money, and it would ruin the view.

wasmitnetzen 3y ago

Doesn't seem to be a problem, the Alstom Movia which is running for BART is an off-the-shelf platform for light rail[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Movia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Movia

sofixa 3y ago
Metro, not light rail. Light rail is an ambiguous anglophone North American term (because anglophone North America kind of sucks in transit) that can mean anything between a tram and a mini metro, but it's wholly inappropriate for BART and for the Movia trainsets. Also, it's kind of by luck - BART uses the so-called Indian gauge, and Movia trains have been acquired by Indian cities for their metro systems, so Bombardier/Alstom already had everything in place.

bryananderson 3y ago

The weird gauge is indeed weird, but is generally overstated as a problem for BART. There’s not much to be gained by changing it system-wide, and it would be at great cost. It’s sometimes claimed to be a driver of costlier rolling-stock acquisition, but this is dubious. There are many track gauges around the world, and not a lot of evidence that nonstandard ones cost dramatically different amounts. And even if bespoke gauges did cost more for economies-of-scale reasons, BART’s gauge is hardly unique: it’s the same gauge used in India, and just a couple mm from the one used in Iberia and much of Latin America (in practice they are demonstrably interchangeable). So there is a huge amount of rolling stock being manufactured for this gauge. It doesn’t require reinventing the entire production process or something. The other claimed benefit to standardizing BART’s gauge that I sometimes hear is interoperability with other systems, but this is very difficult for several larger reasons, and also not necessary or desirable. For one thing, BART also has a nonstandard wheel profile and corresponding rail profile, so you wouldn’t just need to move the rails closer together, you’d actually have to replace them all. Beyond that, mainline rail systems have tougher crash standards than fully-separated metro systems (even after recent reforms), so you couldn’t run BART trains onto mainline tracks unless you bought heavier (and more expensive) rolling stock than what BART and other metro systems normally buy. Another issue is that mainline rail systems use different signaling and electrification (if they even have electrification) systems, which would require either an incredibly expensive overhaul or the use of multi-current/multi-signaling trains, which again increases the cost. Also, mainline rail is generally not grade-separated like BART, which would need to be changed at great expense, or BART would have to accept reduced reliability due to grade-crossing conflicts (this matters less for infrequent regional rail, but is huge for BART which must timetable dozens of trains per peak hour through the Y-junction in Oakland). Stations would also need to be harmonized to the same platform height (BART’s is different from any other system in the area) and length (stations would need to match BART’s extremely long trains). Interoperability also doesn’t offer much benefit. Usually I hear about this in the context of Caltrain: instead of having these fragmented systems, wouldn’t it be nice if BART served the peninsula? I agree! We can do this by merging the agencies and putting new logos on the trains, without worrying about replacing rails and redoing the electrification that Caltrain is just finishing up with. I’m only slightly oversimplifying. We should continue iteratively upgrading Caltrain into true rapid transit with things like BART-style level boarding, all-day high frequencies and regular intervals, and grade separation. And we should extend what is currently known as Caltrain downtown and then across to the East Bay[0], providing good transfer opportunities with current BART. If this is done well, it should all feel like one regional rapid-transit system to the rider[1], much like New York subway and Berlin U-bahn riders usually don't even realize that they’re actually using multiple incompatible systems. At the end of the day, good integration and high service quality are what matter to the rider, not the underlying technology. I think eBART contributed a lot to the idea that BART’s gauge is a big problem, since this weird DMU thing was sold under the premise that “normal BART” was too expensive. Really the things that were (allegedly) too expensive for this low-ridership exurban tail were electrification and the huge stations necessitated by BART’s extremely long trains. Those factors would've still been there even if the rails matched up. So was it pointless and dumb for BART to use a nonstandard track gauge? Yeah. It was part of the marketing for a “space age” system that wanted to be seen as different from ye olde train. But is it really a huge problem that’s worth correcting? Nah. It’s only worth changing part of it if you wanted to convert a segment of track from mainline to BART or vice versa—and the cost of the track stuff would pale in comparison to other factors (electrification, signaling, stations, grade separation). [0] https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dtx.html https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/09/down-tubes-with-dt... [1] https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-false-choice-of-link21.html https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-false-choice-o...