# Caltrain & CA HSR will work on Level Boarding, Compatible Platform



## beautifulplanet (Oct 9, 2014)

Being aware that this is a news item affecting both high-speed rail and commuter rail operations, this post is in the high-speed rail forum for now. If necessary, please move. 

Just the day before yesterday, Streetsblog San Francisco published a news article about the intentions of Caltrain and the California High-Speed Rail Authority to work together and try to establish both level boarding and compatible platforms. For many, this might sound like great news, as it might seem to some that this was a lingering issue that was already known for such a long time still it seemed like the respective agencies did not seem to take any action on it (yet). For those looking for rail to offer quickest trip times and passenger comfort and access by the means of level boarding, while still wanting rail to offer high capacity and high operational flexibility and quality thanks to compatible platforms, it may sound like very good news that the agencies involved declare that they are working to bring about all this:

Caltrain and High-Speed Rail Pursue Level Boarding, Compatible Platforms

by Andrew Boone

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2014/10/07/caltrain-and-high-speed-rail-to-pursue-shared-level-platforms/

With CHSRA having issued a Request for Expressions of Interest on October 1 for single-level train cars with a floor height of 51 inches, and with Caltrans having inssued a Request for Expressions of Interest on May 22 for bi-level EMUs stating that they are "interested in how railcar manufacturers have been able to accommodate and interface with varying platform heights, gaps and ADA requirements with their vehicles, and what options exist for the JPB to provide a Level Boarding environment for both JPB and CHSR vehicles" while specifically mentioning 50 inches, in conclusion some might hope that a new 50 inch standard would be feasable. While this may require new platforms for Caltrain, Clem Tillier pointed out in his blog that Caltrain finished reconstructing 37 new platforms at 19 different stations along the corridor within the last 15 years, so it might seem to some like rebuilding platforms can be carried out as demonstrated in the recent past (even without any electrification or high-speed rail projects).

Once rolling stock and platform heights are all figured out between Caltrain and CHSRA, one last thing still to deal with might be a regulation preventing platforms being taller than 8 inches as long as tracks are used for freight, called California Public Utilities Commission's General Order 26-D. Some might hope that though freight railroads would probably oppose it, a waiver to exempt Caltrain from this requirement would be granted, clearing the way for higher platforms offering quick and accessable level boarding and platforms being compatible for both high-speed rail and commuter rail.


----------



## jis (Oct 9, 2014)

Or they could build a lot of gauntlet tracks by station platforms for freight trains to stay clear of platforms.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Paulus (Oct 9, 2014)

jis said:


> Or they could build a lot of gauntlet tracks by station platforms for freight trains to stay clear of platforms.


Expensive, maintenance heavy, and no reason to do so. Worst case scenario, Caltrain has the right in its track purchase agreement to simply kick UP off entirely.


----------



## neroden (Oct 10, 2014)

The CPUC rule is archaic and obsolete even for freight. Does anyone actually hang off the sides of freight cars any more? CPUC GO 26-D should just be revoked.


----------



## Aaron (Oct 10, 2014)

neroden said:


> The CPUC rule is archaic and obsolete even for freight. Does anyone actually hang off the sides of freight cars any more? CPUC GO 26-D should just be revoked.


What about the freight? Does it hang off? More specifically, does a high level platform impose restrictions on what kind of freight can be carried, or are there other restrictions in place that effectively keep a RR from loading something wide enough to hit the platform?


----------



## chris319 (Oct 21, 2014)

Who owns the right-of-way and tracks used by CalTrain at the present time? Does any money change hands for UP's use for freight or CalTrain's use for commute trains?


----------



## jis (Oct 21, 2014)

Paulus said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Or they could build a lot of gauntlet tracks by station platforms for freight trains to stay clear of platforms.
> ...


Highly unlikely, even though that would be a passenger enthusiast's wet dream.

Also from an overall "save the world from pollution" perspective, why would that be a good thing?


----------



## Paulus (Oct 21, 2014)

chris319 said:


> Who owns the right-of-way and tracks used by CalTrain at the present time? Does any money change hands for UP's use for freight or CalTrain's use for commute trains?


Caltrain owns from San Jose north. I'd be very surprised if UP didn't pay for its freight or Caltrain didn't pay for the Gilroy runs.



jis said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


There's not super much freight on the Caltrain line to my knowledge, and electric freight trucks could make any pollution a non-issue, and while it's highly unlikely, that's probably more to do with the amazingly bad decisions that Caltrain and the rest of the Bay Area likes to make ("CBOSS because it'll be fun!").


----------



## chris319 (Oct 21, 2014)

It makes sense that CalTrain* would own the ROW only to San Jose. When the peninsula commute operation was taken over from S.P., the commute service ended at San Jose. Southern Pacific used to run the Del Monte, Lark and Daylight trains south of San Jose. Come May 1, 1971, the del Monte ceased operations and the Daylight no longer went up the peninsula but instead went to Oakland and today is the Coast Starlight.

*The ROW isn't actually owned by CalTrain, part of the California dept. of transportation, CalTrans. It is owned by a body called the Joint Powers Board with San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties as partners. CalTrain/JPB would have had to deal with Southern/Union Pacific to expand commute service south of San Jose to Gilroy. In everything I have ever read about CalTrain, I have never seen that it derives any revenue from Union Pacific to run freight on those tracks. I don't know what the deal is.

The peninsula line started as the San Francisco & San Jose Railroad in 1860.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 27, 2014)

neroden said:


> The CPUC rule is archaic and obsolete even for freight. Does anyone actually hang off the sides of freight cars any more? CPUC GO 26-D should just be revoked.



And have high level platform WEST of Chicago, and even in Chicago its just one line plus one or two stations in Indiana.

Superliner can go.


----------



## MattW (Oct 27, 2014)

Denver will have High Level platforms when their EMU service to the airport opens up.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Oct 28, 2014)

^Forgot about that, although it looks more like rapid transit.

It wont share tracks with freight trains right?


----------



## MattW (Oct 28, 2014)

Yes, I believe it will. The car is based on SEPTA's Silverline V which most definitely shares tracks with freight.


----------

