4 ms·

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

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)
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - BobaFloutist 3y ago
        It would be nice if they had separate tracks.
        gumby 3y ago
        Why? Though in the US I believe freight typically has RoW priority over passenger fleets, in practice on that route I've only seen (/heard) freight at night. I have seen rail deliveries during the day in Redwood city to the port but I don't think that spur connects to that line...? It is shocking that the rail runs right down residential streets with NO separation to keep kids from being run over.
        inferiorhuman 3y ago
        I believe freight typically has RoW priority over passenger fleets That's a big part of it. The other part is that UP is making electrification difficult and more expensive. UP wants to run double stack cars but the overhead wire would eat into the vertical clearance. I believe there were issues raised with horizontal clearance too.
- musicale 3y ago
  The SF bay area rail and transit system seems to be a good argument for an eventual unified transit authority that will combine BART, Caltrain, etc. – undoubtedly adopting the worst features of each system in the process.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    You don’t need a unified authority to run integrated transit. Most German cities are covered by an association of various cities. One major benefit vs a shared authority is if someone wants to pay less into it and someone else wants to pay more, it is hard to get the two sides to work well.
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      Unfortunately the Bay Area is far too provincial to create a coherent system out of the twenty-odd systems out here, each with their own fare structure.
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        It’s complicated and expensive. MTA in NYC created a big mess when it swept up private bus companies. I think they have 4-5 bargaining units for busses alone.
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        no fancy words needed -- when the switch to electronic common fare (Clipper) was initiated, agencies including BART dragged their feet. After a few months (quarters?) of this, a BART finance officer said bluntly on the record "the cash flow we control at BART is part of our planning and stability" and flatly refused to switch completely to Clipper.
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        That wouldn’t magically improve if they came under one corporate umbrella, though. Look at New York MTA where the LIRR and Metro-North have had the same owner as the subway since 1968 and yet there is no combined way to pay or integrated fare.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Bart picked India broad gauge. While it isn't common in the US, it is common in the world (mostly India as you can tell by the name) and so there are plenty of off the shelf train components available in the world market (though the US often has goofy Buy American rules that get in the way). Even at that the only difference is the axles which are easy for any manufacture to substitute on an otherwise off the shelf train. Don't get me wrong, I think BART should have just gone with standard gauge. However the gauge isn't goofy and is not a source of big problems.
jjfoooo4 3y ago
Can you elaborate on what you by them running three incompatible fleets?
- javawizard 3y ago
  I think they're referring to: - The standard BART fleet - eBART: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART - The Oakland Connector: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Airport_Connector https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Airport_Connector All of which use completely different and mutually incompatible rolling stock.

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)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      It would be nice if they had separate tracks.
      - gumby 3y ago
        Why? Though in the US I believe freight typically has RoW priority over passenger fleets, in practice on that route I've only seen (/heard) freight at night. I have seen rail deliveries during the day in Redwood city to the port but I don't think that spur connects to that line...? It is shocking that the rail runs right down residential streets with NO separation to keep kids from being run over.
        inferiorhuman 3y ago
        I believe freight typically has RoW priority over passenger fleets That's a big part of it. The other part is that UP is making electrification difficult and more expensive. UP wants to run double stack cars but the overhead wire would eat into the vertical clearance. I believe there were issues raised with horizontal clearance too.
musicale 3y ago
The SF bay area rail and transit system seems to be a good argument for an eventual unified transit authority that will combine BART, Caltrain, etc. – undoubtedly adopting the worst features of each system in the process.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  You don’t need a unified authority to run integrated transit. Most German cities are covered by an association of various cities. One major benefit vs a shared authority is if someone wants to pay less into it and someone else wants to pay more, it is hard to get the two sides to work well.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Unfortunately the Bay Area is far too provincial to create a coherent system out of the twenty-odd systems out here, each with their own fare structure.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      It’s complicated and expensive. MTA in NYC created a big mess when it swept up private bus companies. I think they have 4-5 bargaining units for busses alone.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      no fancy words needed -- when the switch to electronic common fare (Clipper) was initiated, agencies including BART dragged their feet. After a few months (quarters?) of this, a BART finance officer said bluntly on the record "the cash flow we control at BART is part of our planning and stability" and flatly refused to switch completely to Clipper.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        That wouldn’t magically improve if they came under one corporate umbrella, though. Look at New York MTA where the LIRR and Metro-North have had the same owner as the subway since 1968 and yet there is no combined way to pay or integrated fare.
bluGill 3y ago
Bart picked India broad gauge. While it isn't common in the US, it is common in the world (mostly India as you can tell by the name) and so there are plenty of off the shelf train components available in the world market (though the US often has goofy Buy American rules that get in the way). Even at that the only difference is the axles which are easy for any manufacture to substitute on an otherwise off the shelf train. Don't get me wrong, I think BART should have just gone with standard gauge. However the gauge isn't goofy and is not a source of big problems.

jjfoooo4 3y ago

Can you elaborate on what you by them running three incompatible fleets?

javawizard 3y ago
I think they're referring to: - The standard BART fleet - eBART: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART - The Oakland Connector: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Airport_Connector https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Airport_Connector All of which use completely different and mutually incompatible rolling stock.