# Can Amtrak Directly Serve San Francisco?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 30, 2017)

As opposed to the CZ to Emeryville and the CS to Emeryville/Oakland. It isn't practical for either of these routes to serve the city. I'm thinking some sort of service between San Fran and San Jose on the Caltrain route. This train would have to terminate northbound in San Fran but could go all the way south to LAX (maybe even San Diego?)

This is the old Southern Pacific's Lark train (the overnight I always wanted): http://www.american-rails.com/lark.html

The Daylight also served the same route but during the daytime http://www.american-rails.com/daylight.html

Does 3rd and Townsend Street Station still exist (under a different name?)


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 1, 2017)

The current Caltrain station (4th and King) is at the same location as the old 3rd and Townsend Street Station.


----------



## Eric S (May 1, 2017)

My understanding is that Caltrain is planning to convert to high level platforms (assuming electrification and EMU purchase happens) which somewhat complicates the idea of running intercity trains from Caltrain territory to points south.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2017)

Eric S said:


> My understanding is that Caltrain is planning to convert to high level platforms (assuming electrification and EMU purchase happens) which somewhat complicates the idea of running intercity trains from Caltrain territory to points south.


Nothing prevent single level equipment being used for the specific service that serves a high level platform area. Caltarns has already used such equipment at various places and times on the systems that it funds.


----------



## TiBike (May 1, 2017)

San Francisco to LA is one of the Coast Daylight options on the table. There doesn't seem to be any effort to move it along, though. They're just churning out studies and raising objections.

I'd be fine with it if they just terminated it in San Jose, with timed connections to Caltrain and the Capitol Corridor.


----------



## CCC1007 (May 1, 2017)

TiBike said:


> San Francisco to LA is one of the Coast Daylight options on the table. There doesn't seem to be any effort to move it along, though. They're just churning out studies and raising objections.
> 
> I'd be fine with it if they just terminated it in San Jose, with timed connections to Caltrain and the Capitol Corridor.


My understanding is that California needs more cars first...


----------



## neroden (May 1, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> As opposed to the CZ to Emeryville and the CS to Emeryville/Oakland.


If they'd built the Second Transbay Tunnel as was originally proposed for CAHSR...
I complain about this periodically. In the studies, the Second Transbay Tunnel scored best on all measurements and was then rejected for political "sticker shock" reasons.

Likewise, in NYC, Alternative G (connecting tunnels from GCT Lower to Penn Station) scored best on all measurements and was then rejected for political "real estate is expensive" reasons.

The bad sort of political interference.


----------



## TiBike (May 1, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> > San Francisco to LA is one of the Coast Daylight options on the table. There doesn't seem to be any effort to move it along, though. They're just churning out studies and raising objections.
> ...


That's a good example of the objections that keep coming up -- everyone comes to the table with problems, not solutions. It's been the same way with the Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas.


----------



## neroden (May 1, 2017)

"Need more cars" is a solution, not a problem. Quick, can you explain the solution from that description? I knew you could. ("Get more cars")


----------



## TiBike (May 1, 2017)

No, "need more cars" is a problem. And yes, "get more cars" is the solution. But when it's posed as "I need you to get me more cars" or, more generically, "I need someone else to solve my problem before anything else happens", then it's an obstacle.


----------



## west point (May 1, 2017)

Ignoring the lack of equipment problem ( how we wish it was that simple ) San Diego <> downtown San Francisco is doable.

San Diego is somewhat a problem due to lack of parking space at late night, Forgotten just what the situation is now and what it will be once LOSSAN gets all the train cars it needs for present and future planned trains. Some one who fans there give us a thumbnail,

Now San Francisco would appear to be able to overnight a train since most commuter trains are at the other ends of the route. Question is --- does CalTrain service any trains overnight and could they take on plain servicing at the present 4th St terminal. Looking down the road will there be lay over space at a completed Transbay station ?

Looking at BART rider ships and projected loads in the future another 2 tunnel bores for it and 2 bores for Capitol corridor also seems to be important and needed. For Bart another 2 track line thru Frisco seems needed as well and some way to spread out the conflicts that occur in Oakland.

EDIT Forgot the major problem of getting equipment serviced. Would suspect that best solution is terminate southbound at LAX and originate equipment there for departure from SAN.


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 1, 2017)

west point said:


> Looking down the road will there be lay over space at a completed Transbay station ?
> 
> Looking at BART rider ships and projected loads in the future another 2 tunnel bores for it and 2 bores for Capitol corridor also seems to be important and needed. For Bart another 2 track line thru Frisco seems needed as well and some way to spread out the conflicts that occur in Oakland.


One, Transbay Terminal construction is currently on hold and nobody knows when, or even if, that extension will be built. Two, even if it gets built, it will be an underground 6-track 3-island platform stub end station with no space to park trains overnight.

There is also the minor problem that Transbay Terminal will allow electric engines only like NYP and the line down the coast to LA/SD is not going to be electrified until hell freezes over. Of course they can always do dual-mode locomotives like Empire Service, but that means buying more custom stock

Getting even ONE additional tube under the Bay is a daydream, expecting TWO of them will happen- one for BART and one for conventional rail is outright laughable. Maybe they should construct a new combined tube with dual-gauge (standard and Indian broad) tracks with dual power (third rail + catenary). A few corridor trains can squeeze in between BART trains. Also, pigs will fly.


----------



## cirdan (May 2, 2017)

Texan Eagle said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > Looking down the road will there be lay over space at a completed Transbay station ?
> ...


But King Street is not going to be abolished totally, is it? Even when Transbay is complete and running.

So Amtrak could terminate any future intercity service there.


----------



## jis (May 2, 2017)

Only if the track layout permits efficient handling f terminating trains there without interfering in the operations of Caltrain and HSR. I don't know if they are planning to include such facilities there, but it won;t happen unless such is planned.


----------



## cirdan (May 2, 2017)

jis said:


> Only if the track layout permits efficient handling f terminating trains there without interfering in the operations of Caltrain and HSR. I don't know if they are planning to include such facilities there, but it won;t happen unless such is planned.


I'm guessing such a train would have to be pre-HSR. I can't imagine a conventional intercity train competing with HSR once the latter is fully built.

So quite possibly, if it can get on its feet at all, it would also be pre Transbay.


----------



## jis (May 2, 2017)

I was merely responding to:



> But King Street is not going to be abolished totally, is it? Even when Transbay is complete and running.
> 
> So Amtrak could terminate any future intercity service there.


which appears to be talking about a situation where there is already a TransBay terminal. I agree, if that is not the case then the issue is much less critical, but still there has to be some way to turn the train and stable it at 3rd and King or somewhere else (Maybe drag it back to Santa Clara to turn it and store it at San Jose/Santa Clara area, or some such.), or run it with a loco at each end with full train lining.


----------



## TiBike (May 2, 2017)

Part of the plan, as the HSR people tell it, is to expand coast route service south of Gilroy, in order to connect to the HSR there. They've been hazy on the details – go figure – but it tracks with complementary morning/afternoon, Cap Corridor/Coast Daylight service. But yeah, there won't be much reason to run up the Peninsula after that.

Of course, we're talking decades from now ^_^ .



cirdan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Only if the track layout permits efficient handling f terminating trains there without interfering in the operations of Caltrain and HSR. I don't know if they are planning to include such facilities there, but it won;t happen unless such is planned.
> ...


----------



## neroden (May 2, 2017)

Texan Eagle said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > Looking down the road will there be lay over space at a completed Transbay station ?
> ...


BART's incompatible Indian broad gauge does not need and should not get a second tube. Any second tube should be standard gauge. This was figured out a long, long time ago. BART is basically a money pit: pay 5 times as much as you would for a standard-gauge train and get less. Run electrified high-frequency Caltrain through the second tube, you get more benefits than running BART through it.

(Actually, BART should be standard-gauged, but nobody wants to shut it down long enough to do so.)


----------



## afigg (May 3, 2017)

For information on the current status, the multiple studies, and challenges in restoring the Coast Daylight (CD) service, check the meetings and agenda documents for the Coast Rail Coordinating Council. Lots of stuff in there for anyone who wants to dive in.

A skim read of the meeting documents shows that one of the challenges in starting the CD is with the formation of Joint Power Authorities for the LOSSAN and Capitol Corridors. The LOSSAN JPA has no authority to run north of San Luis Obispo, so getting the various players in the LOSSAN agencies to agree to a CD train is an problem.

In the April 7, 2017 meeting minutes, there is a copy of a letter from the council to Amtrak advocating that the northbound Coast Starlight depart LA 3 hours earlier at 7:10 AM. I think the council is oblivious to the LD train connections and local scheduling issues for the CS.

Anyway, a skim read through the last several meeting agenda and documents indicates to me that the CD is a looonng way from starting up. CalTrans reallocated $25 million that had designated for improvements to the corridor, the council has to work to keep the CD in the 2018 state rail plan, etc. That is not even getting into the availability of rolling stock issue with the apparent failure of the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level contract.


----------



## TiBike (May 3, 2017)

I think the council is more concerned with Amtrak's basic mission, which is to provide transportation service. Scheduling the CS to maximise its utility to people using it to travel from point A to point B along its route is more important to them (and me, FWIW) than maximising its convenience as a land cruise.



afigg said:


> In the April 7, 2017 meeting minutes, there is a copy of a letter from the council to Amtrak advocating that the northbound Coast Starlight depart LA 3 hours earlier at 7:10 AM. I think the council is oblivious to the LD train connections and local scheduling issues for the CS.


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 4, 2017)

neroden said:


> BART's incompatible Indian broad gauge does not need and should not get a second tube. Any second tube should be standard gauge. This was figured out a long, long time ago. BART is basically a money pit: pay 5 times as much as you would for a standard-gauge train and get less. Run electrified high-frequency Caltrain through the second tube, you get more benefits than running BART through it.
> 
> (Actually, BART should be standard-gauged, but nobody wants to shut it down long enough to do so.)


Your suggested plan is so ridiculous and impractical that I can't even think where to start. Anyway...

BART has invested in purchasing 1,081 new train cars to serve for the next 30 years. If BART is a money pit, abandoning all of that in favor of standard gauge trains is NOT a money pit?

Let's assume somehow one builds a standard gauge transbay tube and run electrified Caltrain through it, but then what? There is ZERO miles of electrified tracks in the east bay, so where does this hypothetical electrified Caltrain go after it comes out of the tube? Build an entire new network of electrified standard gauge tracks in East Bay? That will NOT be a money pit somehow?

What benefit would you even get out of it if somehow you managed to find real estate to construct new standard gauge electrified lines parallel to BART routes? If you suggest that BART itself should be made standard gauge, do you realize BART cars are single level and tunnels all over its network are built to that height? So how do you run double-deck electrified Caltrain over it without rebuilding everything? That will NOT be a money pit?

You know why does nobody want to shut down BART long enough to convert it to standard gauge? Because *four hundred and fifty thousand* commuters rely on BART every single day to get to work. What are all of them supposed to do for years while rebuilding happens?

Seriously... think a bit before coming up with ridiculous couch-expert ideas.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (May 5, 2017)

In and of itself, a main line tunnel from San Francisco under the bay isn't a bad idea, it could create a regional rail network beyond BART. In other words, electrify service to Sacramento and maybe even connect into the Marin commuter line. Obviously, $$$, but not such a crazy idea.


----------



## west point (May 5, 2017)

Any one with the cost of the original BART tunnels and an inflation multiplier ?


----------



## railbuck (May 6, 2017)

neroden said:


> BART's incompatible Indian broad gauge does not need and should not get a second tube. Any second tube should be standard gauge.


Solution: 3-rail dual gauge?


----------



## neroden (May 7, 2017)

Of course I know BART is too busy to shut down.

But it really is a money pit. I wasn't kidding when I said that everything on BART cost *FIVE TIMES* as much as it would if it were a normal standard-gauge subway; that's from actual recent projects. And the complete blithering idiot aircraft engineers who designed it originally used CYLINDRICAL WHEELS -- they literally reinvented the wheel, and they did it incompetently. They are only just fixing this ERROR, and installing conical wheels, this year.

If you're building a new tube, build it standard gauge. Hook it to Caltrain. Design it as a superexpress. Underground station stops in San Francisco, West Oakland, MacArthur, possibly Ashby, and continue straight underground to Martinez, allowing the Capitol Corridor to run through to San Francisco and speeding it up a lot. Perhaps go via Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill if it's easy enough construction.

If you can manage to do the construction, build an underground wye and hook the second branch to the UP line east of the bay (which BART parallels at enormous expense). Again, run superexpress.

Because practically any rail project is 1/5 the cost of a BART project, this would cost less than the latest BART extension plans.


----------



## GiantsFan (Aug 24, 2017)

There are 3 or 4 staging tracks at 4th and King... There is room for a couple consists to park at the end of the yard, as well as under the freeway just outside the main yard (they used to store extra baseball trains there).

I'd love to see an SF to LA Amtrak train


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 9, 2019)

Well there is talk about it, of course talk is cheap.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/BART-Amtrak-assess-building-new-shared-transbay-13592133.php


----------



## sttom (Feb 9, 2019)

neroden said:


> If you're building a new tube, build it standard gauge. Hook it to Caltrain. Design it as a superexpress. Underground station stops in San Francisco, West Oakland, MacArthur, possibly Ashby, and continue straight underground to Martinez, allowing the Capitol Corridor to run through to San Francisco and speeding it up a lot. Perhaps go via Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill if it's easy enough construction.
> 
> Because practically any rail project is 1/5 the cost of a BART project, this would cost less than the latest BART extension plans.


All I have to say to this "ya what mate?" Electrifying the rail lines in the East Bay and adding capacity for hourly service to Sacramento with EMUs would be far cheaper than boring a 20 mile tunnel from Oakland to Concord. Not to mention doing so would come off as being colossally stupid to the tax payers who's property taxes are going to go up to pay for it. The second transbay tube is already estimated to cost between $6 and $12 billion. Hell even connecting Richmond to the NWP makes more financial sense than a 20 mile tunnel! Hell electrifying 3000 miles of track in the whole state would probably cost less than boring 20+ miles of tunnel!


----------



## neroden (Feb 9, 2019)

If you're already boring a tunnel under hard rock, the cost is absolutely NOT propotional to the *length* of the tunnel: a lot of it is fixed setup / shutdown / access-portal / fit-out type stuff.  As such, a tunnel to Concord (well, Martinez) is a reasonable idea.  The real question is how many different types of soil/rock you're going through and the nature of the rock.  I don't know the geology, so I don't know whether it would be a "simple" hard rock tunnel, or a "hideously difficult" tunnel through a dozen different weak rock formations.

This would also get the Amtrak route away from the floodable coastline.


----------



## sttom (Feb 10, 2019)

The main issue BART faced when it was first built was the varying soil types. Like for instance digging through mud in San Francisco. Which would also be an issue in the East Bay near the bay. It turns into dirty eventually, but then you hit mountains and the Berkeley-Orinda tunnel was dug through rock. Not sure how far it extends, but that unknowing makes the cost prohibitively expensive. There is a reason why BART is largely above ground. Moving the existing line is going to need to happen, but a 20+ mile tunnel isn't going to get paid for. Transit bond measures require a 66.67% vote to get approved, I personally wouldn't vote for it unless there wasn't another option. The Silicon Valley extension is going to cost over $4 billion and that is the part that involves tunneling. Part of why rail could cost more in the US is that unlike highways, we don't put the force of the country behind it like China does. If you're only building 20 miles of tunnel, that is more a specialized industry than if you are building 2000 miles a year. Just like with rail electrification. If you only electrify 100 miles a decade, you are going to have more costs to internalized, which is why California should push for more electrification while CalTrain is doing theirs to hopefully lower the startup costs.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 12, 2019)

The lower level of the Oakland Bay Bridge was originally railroad until the tracks were pulled up and roads were put in. Unfortunately, taxes for rail get funded much quicker out here if its tied together with extra roads. Maybe a combo car/rail tunnel or another bridge with road and rail could probably get done much faster.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 12, 2019)

seat38a said:


> The lower level of the Oakland Bay Bridge was originally railroad until the tracks were pulled up and roads were put in. Unfortunately, taxes for rail get funded much quicker out here if its tied together with extra roads. Maybe a combo car/rail tunnel or another bridge with road and rail could probably get done much faster.


Isn't the BART bay tunnel more or less a replacement for the old Key System tracks on the lower level of the bridge. Not a one on one replacemnet obviously, but broadly doing the same thing, only doing it better seeing the Key System finished at Transbay (as far as I know) wheras BART provides one seat journeys to many places beyond. . Wan't BART already being planned when the Key system shut down?


----------



## cirdan (Feb 12, 2019)

GiantsFan said:


> There are 3 or 4 staging tracks at 4th and King... There is room for a couple consists to park at the end of the yard, as well as under the freeway just outside the main yard (they used to store extra baseball trains there).


But aren't there also plans to develop that land, once the Transbay extension is operational?

The lack of staging tracks could well turn out to  be a real barrier to any type of service expansion.


----------



## GiantsFan (Feb 12, 2019)

cirdan said:


> But aren't there also plans to develop that land, once the Transbay extension is operational?
> 
> The lack of staging tracks could well turn out to  be a real barrier to any type of service expansion.


I’m not 100% sure on that, I know there wouldn’t be any staging AT the Transbay terminal, so any staging would have to be at 4th and king where it is now (theoretically)


----------



## seat38a (Feb 12, 2019)

cirdan said:


> Isn't the BART bay tunnel more or less a replacement for the old Key System tracks on the lower level of the bridge. Not a one on one replacemnet obviously, but broadly doing the same thing, only doing it better seeing the Key System finished at Transbay (as far as I know) wheras BART provides one seat journeys to many places beyond. . Wan't BART already being planned when the Key system shut down?


Well replacing it with track only BART could use was a bad idea.


----------



## TiBike (Feb 12, 2019)

BART was partly a replacement for the Key system and used some of its right of way, but as originally designed (i.e. with Marin and San Mateo counties), and even as eventually built, it went beyond what the Key system did. The lower deck of the Bay Bridge was designed to support the Key system, which was essentially light rail. It wasn't for freight or other heavy rail uses.

In retrospect, using a different gauge was probably a mistake, but it made sense at the time. BART was envisioned to be a space age replacement for commuter trains – computer controlled (drivers would only have an emergency stop button) and with 90 second headways, which is why the original cars didn't have straps or grab bars – there would be so many trains that everyone would have a seat. At the time, making BART tracks compatible with legacy rail made as much sense as designing the cars to be able to run on highways.

BART was the Hyperloop of its day. We can only hope things turn out better for Elon.


----------



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

TiBike said:


> In retrospect, using a different gauge was probably a mistake, but it made sense at the time.


Using Indian gauge was seen as being better able to hold up to winds on the Golden Gate Bridge. Originally BART was planned to go over a to be built lower deck of the Golden Gate. The figured wide base=more stable trains. Marin county pulled out late in the design process that they kept the gauge. Not to mention subway systems don't generally directly connect with heavy or light rail anyways. The only place where this can happen in the US is one of Boston's subway lines and even it doesn't interchange with them. And from what I understand, that one line needs FRA compliant equipment which makes it more expensive to run compared to the other lines.


----------



## jis (Feb 12, 2019)

In the US they don't connect. But it is not that unusual in Japan. And of course, the District and Metropolitan lines of London Underground do share tracks with London Overground in places AFAIR.


----------



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

jis said:


> In the US they don't connect. But it is not that unusual in Japan. And of course, the District and Metropolitan lines of London Underground do share tracks with London Overground in places AFAIR.


Do they connect with each other or do they just run next to each other? I haven't been able to get a straight answer about that. Also Japan is just weird when it comes to rail.


----------



## jis (Feb 12, 2019)

They run on the same physical track one following the other alternately.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 12, 2019)

sttom said:


> Do they connect with each other or do they just run next to each other? I haven't been able to get a straight answer about that. Also Japan is just weird when it comes to rail.


They do it something like this. This is in Switzerland where many local trains are narrow guage and the rest not.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 13, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Well replacing it with track only BART could use was a bad idea.


The Key System tracks could only be used by Key System trains, so you could say they were perpetuating an old concept.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 13, 2019)

sttom said:


> Do they connect with each other or do they just run next to each other? I haven't been able to get a straight answer about that.


It's a bit complicated (the history of London Underground that is). Some of the outer bits of the London Ungerground were originally just regular rail lines. Steam engines pulled the trains in the early days (engines could be changed over at the limits of the electrified sections) and there was even a considerable amount of freight on the outer sections until circa the 1950s. By the 1920s, some such lines were jointly exploited by the main line rail companies and the Underground. For example there were a number of 1938-stock tube trains that were actually owned by LNER, and many sections of track in the outer area were shared (and still are today to a lesser extent, although some of the more rural lines have been cut back over the years). The Great Western similarly allowed the Underground to electrify the branch from Paddington to Hammersmith but chose not to get involved in the actual operations, but instead continued running a small number of their own steam trains on that line until the 1950s. It was mostly freight but also the occasional excursion train for football matches and such. South of the Thames there are sections of line, for example at Wimbledon, shared by very intensive services alternating between third rail electrified main line trains and 4th rail electrified Underground trains.  

Interestingly, although British rail stop using steam in 1968, London Underground didn't shut down its last steam engiune until 1971.

There are no longer any commercial freight trains on the Underground, but there are still considerable movements of main-line freight cars for engineering and maintenance work. Battery locomotives are used in the tunnel sections (seeing power is typically cut off for works) but on the outer sections you can sometimes see main line locomotives such as classes 66 or 20. Besides the shared track sections in regular use as described above, there are one or two other places where Underground and main line tracks connect and are used principally for transferring engineering trains, but also for delivering new trains etc.


----------



## neroden (Feb 15, 2019)

TiBike said:


> BART was partly a replacement for the Key system and used some of its right of way, but as originally designed (i.e. with Marin and San Mateo counties), and even as eventually built, it went beyond what the Key system did. The lower deck of the Bay Bridge was designed to support the Key system, which was essentially light rail. It wasn't for freight or other heavy rail uses.
> 
> In retrospect, using a different gauge was probably a mistake, but it made sense at the time. BART was envisioned to be a space age replacement for commuter trains – computer controlled (drivers would only have an emergency stop button) and with 90 second headways, which is why the original cars didn't have straps or grab bars – there would be so many trains that everyone would have a seat. At the time, making BART tracks compatible with legacy rail made as much sense as designing the cars to be able to run on highways.
> 
> BART was the Hyperloop of its day. We can only hope things turn out better for Elon.


They won't.  Reinventing the wheel is never a good idea.  BART ended up having to be redesigned to be more like traditional trains, because the aircraft engineers who designed BART were arrogant idiots.  They didn't even understand why conical wheels were necessary and idiotically used cylindrical wheels (something only being fixed today with the most recent car order).


----------



## neroden (Feb 15, 2019)

sttom said:


> Using Indian gauge was seen as being better able to hold up to winds on the Golden Gate Bridge. Originally BART was planned to go over a to be built lower deck of the Golden Gate. The figured wide base=more stable trains. Marin county pulled out late in the design process that they kept the gauge. Not to mention subway systems don't generally directly connect with heavy or light rail anyways. The only place where this can happen in the US is one of Boston's subway lines and even it doesn't interchange with them. And from what I understand, that one line needs FRA compliant equipment which makes it more expensive to run compared to the other lines.


Newark City Subway, RiverLine, PATH, and the NYC Subway all have interchanges with mainline rail.  In NYC, it's generally only used for deliveries of subway cars though.  Newark City Subway has freight activity, and RiverLine has *substantial* freight activity.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 16, 2019)

neroden said:


> They didn't even understand why conical wheels were necessary and idiotically used cylindrical wheels (something only being fixed today with the most recent car order).


Wait, does that mean BART trains rely on flanges to stay on the rails? Isn't that going to be horrifically noisy and inefficient?


----------



## sttom (Feb 16, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Wait, does that mean BART trains rely on flanges to stay on the rails? Isn't that going to be horrifically noisy and inefficient?


Yes older BART equipment is ungodly loud when the enter the Oakland Subway between MacArthur and 19th St.


----------



## neroden (Feb 17, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Wait, does that mean BART trains rely on flanges to stay on the rails? Isn't that going to be horrifically noisy and inefficient?


Ding ding ding, you are correct.


----------



## sttom (Feb 18, 2019)

neroden said:


> Newark City Subway, RiverLine, PATH, and the NYC Subway all have interchanges with mainline rail.  In NYC, it's generally only used for deliveries of subway cars though.  Newark City Subway has freight activity, and RiverLine has *substantial* freight activity.


So MARTA, Washington Metro, Chicago and various other light rail systems don't interact with heavy rail beyond delivery and maintenance? That very much takes away from the need to make sure BART can interconnect with standard trains. From what I have gathered, North America has gotten away running through trains and subways down the same tracks. Until the Antioch extension opened on BART last year, there really wasn't a place on the eastern end of the BART system for them to connect with a standard gauge train that would make any sense. The Richmond-Fremont like runs parallel to the SP mainline. The Transbay part is the only part that would make sense, but BART has its own height and none of the tracks to the east are electrified.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2019)

The most efficient way to run a subway line is to run it as a separate independent railroad with its own rolling stock and own maintenance shops. A lot of new lines are built that way these days.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 18, 2019)

jis said:


> The most efficient way to run a subway line is to run it as a separate independent railroad with its own rolling stock and own maintenance shops. A lot of new lines are built that way these days.


Interestingly, that's exactly how the NYC Subway rolls.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Interestingly, that's exactly how the NYC Subway rolls.


Actually, many of the newer systems treat each line as a separate railroad. Even the London Underground Tube Lines operate more or less that way. That is somewhat different from NYCTA.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 18, 2019)

jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, that's exactly how the NYC Subway rolls.
> ...


Oh, I see. Misread "subway line" as "subway system".

I am surprised that that is most efficient, though. Why not have a shared equipment pool for all the lines (assuming they're compatible), such that if a consist goes out of order and they need to swap it out, they don't need to find cars from that specific pool?


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I see. I misread "subway line" as "subway system". I am surprised that that is most efficient, though. Why not have a shared equipment pool for all the lines (assuming the equipment is compatible), such that if a consist goes out of order and they need to swap it out, they don't need to find cars from that specific pool?


It takes too much bureaucracy which costs too much money and creates a more interdependent and tightly coupled system of resource allocation, which is exponentially harder to manage. It is much easier to manage a large number of small to medium loosely coupled system than a giant tightly coupled system. This has been the foundational principle of the internet for example, and has considerable evidence that supports it.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 19, 2019)

jis said:


> The most efficient way to run a subway line is to run it as a separate independent railroad with its own rolling stock and own maintenance shops. A lot of new lines are built that way these days.
> 
> ﻿


In an ideal world and with unlimited cash and unlimited political support, I agree. But beggars can't always be chosers.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 19, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Oh, I see. Misread "subway line" as "subway system".
> 
> I am surprised that that is most efficient, though. Why not have a shared equipment pool for all the lines (assuming they're compatible), such that if a consist goes out of order and they need to swap it out, they don't need to find cars from that specific pool?


I think actually they do.

Maybe the passenger trains are alloctaed to a given line for a longer period just because it is easier that way, especially if every line has a separate storgae and (light) maintenance yard. Different lines may also have different demand profiles in terms of train lengths and maybe also comfort (on a long line that meaners out into the deep suburbs it may make sense to have a higher percentage of seated accomodation than on a short line handling heavy crush loads, maybe also differing top speeds). There may also be incompatibilities that have historical reasons, or changes get rolled out on a line by line basis over several decades as the rolling stock reaches its life span.

But on the other hand, things like engineering trains are typically too costly for every ine to keep its own set and these will thus be shared between lines. Or are maybe even owned by an outside contractor and brought in on demand.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 19, 2019)

cirdan said:


> I think actually they do.﻿


I don't think so. It's not rare to see the "wrong" kind of car on a route (such as an R46 on the G or an R160 on the R), which means that the equipment clearly isn't totally isolated for each line.


----------

