# Re-gauge BART



## DowneasterPassenger (Apr 26, 2010)

To my mind one of the silliest decisions in US commuter rail history was to choose a non-standard gauge for BART.

Would it make sense to re-gauge BART to standard gauge?

Naturally it would be an expensive one-time investment requiring the replacement of track and fleet. But I can imagine some possible benefits:

- Cheaper to extend BART system

- Ability to use standard equipment including track equipment.

- Possibility to interchange services with other railroads:

- Caltrain?

- Amtrak service to downtown San Francisco via the Transbay tube?

- Even use BART lines for freight traffic at night?

Such a massive re-gauging effort is not unprecedented. The entire U.S. south was re-gauged in one week after the end of the civil war.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2010)

I can't imagine that will ever be a realistic possibility, since connecting BART's system to the national rail network would mean that all of the cars would have to conform to FRA crashworthiness standards.


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2010)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> To my mind one of the silliest decisions in US commuter rail history was to choose a non-standard gauge for BART.
> Would it make sense to re-gauge BART to standard gauge?


If California were floating in money and didn't know what to do with stray cash then maybe, but on the whole, IMHO that would a be a fitting second silly decision to follow the first one 



> Naturally it would be an expensive one-time investment requiring the replacement of track and fleet. But I can imagine some possible benefits:


I believe none of the benefits mentioned are realistic or realizable by just changing the track gauge.



> - Cheaper to extend BART system


Why would a different gauge make it cheaper. It is not as if you could use any piece of existing track to run BART trains on anyway. You have to essentially re-lay the tracks in suitable form for BART operation.



> - Ability to use standard equipment including track equipment.


Pretty standard 1,676mm gauge equipment is available in the world market. Afterall one of the world's largest railway systems uses 1,676mm gauge.



> - Possibility to interchange services with other railroads:
> - Caltrain?
> 
> - Amtrak service to downtown San Francisco via the Transbay tube?
> ...


None of those trains would fit in the BART tunnels. So now we are talking building completely new tunnels too. And of course FRA will never allow mixed operation of BART trains with mainline trains either.



> Such a massive re-gauging effort is not unprecedented. The entire U.S. south was re-gauged in one week after the end of the civil war.


But in this case there is very little to be gained


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Apr 26, 2010)

I am often wrong about things!

I have heard that it is more expensive to expand BART than other commuter rail systems because of higher engineering costs associated with non-standard gauge. I assume they use specialized track laying equipment that is not readily available in the U.S.

The idea of importing Indian-made equipment is intriguing.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Apr 26, 2010)

> None of those trains would fit in the BART tunnels. So now we are talking building completely new tunnels too.


Would single-level Amtrak equipment fit? It doesn't have to be Superliners.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2010)

It doesn't matter - BART would have to scrap every railcar they own and buy all new FRA-compliant rolling stock before connecting to the rail network.

All new rolling stock+costs to regauge will be significantly more expense than any possible financial gains.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 26, 2010)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> I am often wrong about things!
> I have heard that it is more expensive to expand BART than other commuter rail systems because of higher engineering costs associated with non-standard gauge. I assume they use specialized track laying equipment that is not readily available in the U.S.
> 
> The idea of importing Indian-made equipment is intriguing.


Perhaps George will correct me, but somehow I can't see how it would be that much more expensive to build BART's non-standard gauge than it is to build standard gauge.

To my knowledge the reason that BART expansions cost more is because of the new cars that need to be brought. And that's not just a gauge problem. Yes, I suspect that the non-standard trucks do up the costs a bit over standard gauge trucks. However, my understanding is that the real expense comes from the fact that the cars are not the standard width used for most other heavy rail systems. BART cars are as wide as Metroliner cars are and no one is producing shells that size anymore for heavy rail ops. Because of that, BART is looking to buy new cars in the coming years at a cost of over $3M per car. Compare that to NYC's recent car buy that saw prices around $1.3M to $1.4M per car.

And changing the gauge doesn't change the width of the cars. They could run out tomorrow and buy all new trucks and mount the existing cars on them and it still wouldn't help lower the price of new cars all that much because they are using the non-standard shell.

Changing to the standard shell would lower the costs of new cars, but now you're left with huge gaps between the car and the platform that will have to be dealt with. Either you have to shift the track over a bit or put extensions on all the platforms to close the gap.


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2010)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> The idea of importing Indian-made equipment is intriguing.


The equipment is not necessarily Indian made, though today it might indeed be made by Plasser India. But then again Plasser India also makes Standard Gauge and Metre Gauge equipment too. It is the same Plasser that makes both standard and two varieties of Broad Gauge equipment. Actually some Broad Gauge track equipment used in India was delivered by Plasser USA, before license manufacturing started in India. Go figure! Globalization can lead to really strange sourcing of stuff.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 26, 2010)

Once you select a track gauge, it is usually not worthwhile to change it. I have heard various reasons for the gauge selection made by BART, none of which appear to be real.

The difference between building standard gauge track and wide gauge track, or any other gauge track on a concrete base as is standard in BART tunnels and viaducts is nil. Ballasted track is slightly more expensive because the ties are longer and there is more ballast. On the other hand, the tie spacing is fairly large. Additional width of subgrade also increases cost slightly, but not as much as you might think. Turnouts are slightly more expensive, but again, the difference should not be huge.

The size of the tunnels is based on the size of the equipment, not the track gauge.

BART tunnels will not carry freight or regular passenger or commuter trains regardless of the track gauge for several reasons: 1. FRA rules would require it to be operated outisde the passenger system operating hours or else the BART equipment be strong enough to meet FRA crashworthiness standards for operating in mixed traffic. 2. Low overhead. The BART tunnels will not clear the smallest standard freight car height, nor even single level passenger equipment, much less the bi-levels used in the California services. After seeing these two, who cares what other reasons might be found?

As to regauging the Southern railroads after the War Between the States: While most Southern lines were at a gauge of 5'-0", not all were, nor were all northern roads at 4'-8.5", but most were. Multiple gauges were used in all parts of the country. Loss of local ownership of their railroads by Southerners was one of the outcomes of the War and had a lot to do with the final selection of gauge. Even with that, regaugeing did not occur until the 1880's. The first regauging was to 4'-9", with the additional 1/2 inch removed over a period of years.

The regaugeing was also relatively simple. Rail attached to wood ties with spikes. Pull spikes, shift rail, drive spikes, job done. Turnouts were a little more complicated, but not really a lot. Far easier than dealing with rails on fasteners on concrete or rail on concrete ties.


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2010)

George Harris said:


> The regaugeing was also relatively simple. Rail attached to wood ties with spikes. Pull spikes, shift rail, drive spikes, job done. Turnouts were a little more complicated, but not really a lot. Far easier than dealing with rails on fasteners on concrete or rail on concrete ties.


One country that is in the throes of major re-gauging is India, where they have been in the process of replacing 10s of thousands of track km of Metre Gauge and many hundred km of Narrow Gauge by Broad Gauge. There are two methods used....

1. If the same RoW is to be used then first the track is relayed as dual gauge so as to be able to continue the legacy gauge service while the new gauge systems are put in place. As more and more of the new gauge infrastructure becomes available more and more trains are converted to the new gauge until finally there comes a time when there remains no old gauge trains, and then the old gauge track rail is pulled. This method has incidentally been used even in electrified tracks around Madras (Chennai).

2. Use this opportunity to get a better more suitable RoW for the new gauge track, in which case the new RoW gets just the new gauge track and when the surrounding infrastructure is gauge compatible with it service is introduced using the new RoW.

Both techniques have been used extensively, and they have become such experts at running dual gauge systems, that these days when talking about the Trans-Asian Railway, they appear to have little problem talking in terms of maintaining certain select trunk routes as dual gauge (Standard and Broad) routes thus allowing through running of international traffic in Standard Gauge while not having to convert the vast Indian system to Standard Gauge.


----------



## Eric S (Apr 26, 2010)

I assume you mean 1.676 meters or 5.5ft, not 1.676 millimeters which is less than an inch.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 26, 2010)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The regaugeing was also relatively simple. Rail attached to wood ties with spikes. Pull spikes, shift rail, drive spikes, job done. Turnouts were a little more complicated, but not really a lot. Far easier than dealing with rails on fasteners on concrete or rail on concrete ties.
> ...


Which is far from simple. You are not going down 3 inches in gauge, but *UP* 2 feet 3 inches in gauge. This process has been going on in India for quite a few years now.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Which is far from simple. You are not going down 3 inches in gauge, but UP 2 feet 3 inches in gauge. This process has been going on in India for quite a few years now.


You are absolutely right. It is not simple. Even in the dual gauge areas, they have to replace all ties first with three plate ties to accommodate the three rail of the dual gauge line, and put in complex 3 rail switches. Typically they do not do two much dual gauging in yards, and prefer to do replacement of a Meter Gauge yard by a Broad Gauge Yard as a snap cut by taking the yard out of service in the meanwhile.

Of late specially while changing gauge on minor branch lines they have simply been taking the branch out of service for the duration, which is indicative of the additional difficulties involved in using dual gauge. But when strategic lines are involved, like the Barak Valley Line in Assam, they still use the dual gauge technique since they cannot shut that line down.

Of course when a new RoW is used it is like building a new railway line altogether.

And yes, they have been at it for about 25 years now.

BTW, an uber multi gauge track has been proposed for some areas of Afghanistan to enable carriage of all three of its neighbor's gauges, which would involve 7 feet long ties supporting 5 rails and able to carry Standard Gauge, Russian Broad Gauge, Indian Broad Gauge, and if needed Meter Gauge too. I doubt that this will ever be constructed because more realistically most trunks in Afghanistan should be built using Standard Gauge, with limited dual gauge used near the borders with the Gauge of the neighbor across the border being the other gauge, to connect to transhipment stations. Inevitably I'd expect Indian Broad Gauge to be available all the way to Kabul and Kandahar, while Russian Broad Gauge will be most likely available to Mazar e Sharif and who knows perhaps even to Herat. But now 5 gauge tracks.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2010)

Eric S said:


> I assume you mean 1.676 meters or 5.5ft, not 1.676 millimeters which is less than an inch.


You're right. I meant 1,676mm which is 5'6". I made two mistakes, one is to use a '.' instead of a ','. The other is to say 1,667mm when I meant 1,676mm. Spanish Broad Gauge is 1,667 or 1,668mm which is 5' 5.67". Indian Broad gauge is 1,676mm which is 5'6".


----------



## George Harris (Apr 27, 2010)

jis said:


> BTW, an uber multi gauge track has been proposed for some areas of Afghanistan to enable carriage of all three of its neighbor's gauges, which would involve 7 feet long ties supporting 5 rails and able to carry Standard Gauge, Russian Broad Gauge, Indian Broad Gauge, and if needed Meter Gauge too. I doubt that this will ever be constructed because more realistically most trunks in Afghanistan should be built using Standard Gauge, with limited dual gauge used near the borders with the Gauge of the neighbor across the border being the other gauge, to connect to transhipment stations. Inevitably I'd expect Indian Broad Gauge to be available all the way to Kabul and Kandahar, while Russian Broad Gauge will be most likely available to Mazar e Sharif and who knows perhaps even to Herat. But now 5 gauge tracks.


Am I right in thinking that the only rialroad in Afganistan is a 5 ft gauge from Kabul or thereabouts to the Russian border and it was built by the Soviets?

By the way, officially the Russian gauge is 1520 mm, whihc is slightly less than 5'-0", as 60 inches is 1524 mm.

And, yes it would take 5 rails to accomodate all three gauges. You can do standard and 5'-6" with three rails becuase there is enough space between the raile bases to attach them both to the tie. There is not enough space between the Russian gauge and either stnadard or Indian Broad gauge to do that, so the Russian gauge would be on its own two rails.

At one point I had a picture of a three gauge track in South Australia that was done with four rails. The middle two rails made the 3'-6" gauge. One of these rails and a rail on the outside made standard gauge. The other of the 3'6" gauge rails and an outside rail on the other side made the 5'-3" gauge, which for those that don't know, is the Irish gauge. Complex enough for you?


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Am I right in thinking that the only rialroad in Afganistan is a 5 ft gauge from Kabul or thereabouts to the Russian border and it was built by the Soviets?


The only rail line in Afghanistan at present is a few miles worth from the Friendship Bridge across Amu Darya (Oxus) in the north and roughly in the direction towards Mazar-e-Sharif to a truck transhipment station. The border at that point of crossing used to be with Soviet Union but now is with Uzbekistan. There is no Russia within many hundreds of miles of Afghanistan.

Kabul is very hard to reach from the north since in the way stands the mighty Hindu Kush. The only reasonably perennial motorable road crossing of the Hindu Kush is through the Salang Tunnel, that itself is pretty high up in the mountain. The Hindu Kush also divides Afghanistan ethnically between the Uzbeks and Tadziks to the north of the Hindu Kush and the Pashtoons or Pakhtoons to the south.

The closest railheads to Kabul are two. One is at Landi Kotal on the border with Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, in the Khybar Pass, and the other is at Chaman in Pakistan, north of Quetta and a few km from the border at Spin Boldak. The latter is much closer to Kandahar than Kabul. The line through Khybar Pass actually used to run across the border to Landi Khana within Afghanistan, but was cut back to Landi Kotal many years ago.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 27, 2010)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right in thinking that the only rialroad in Afganistan is a 5 ft gauge from Kabul or thereabouts to the Russian border and it was built by the Soviets?
> ...


Thanks for the info


----------

