# Caltrain: Electrify Or Die?



## WhoozOn1st (Apr 23, 2010)

Caltrain data shows path to bankruptcy without electric railroad

"Declaring an electric railroad its only chance at salvation, Caltrain officials on Thursday released the most-detailed projections yet of the rail line's bleak financial picture: $47 million in debt next year — with a gap that will grow by about $1.6 million a year.

"With electric trains, Caltrain could expand commute-time service and collect 49 percent more money while keeping expenses roughly flat, according to a new financial forecast the agency compiled at the request of the Bay Area News Group."

Includes local TV news video with operations scenes and HSR animation.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Apr 23, 2010)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Caltrain data shows path to bankruptcy without electric railroad
> "Declaring an electric railroad its only chance at salvation, Caltrain officials on Thursday released the most-detailed projections yet of the rail line's bleak financial picture: $47 million in debt next year — with a gap that will grow by about $1.6 million a year.
> 
> "With electric trains, Caltrain could expand commute-time service and collect 49 percent more money while keeping expenses roughly flat, according to a new financial forecast the agency compiled at the request of the Bay Area News Group."
> ...



Electrification has been the obsession of Caltrain management since the authority took over from the SP. Basically, there is the passenger demand to justify the $1.3 investment. More likely than not, the increasing costs are tied more to contractual increases in wages and benefits than the direct costs of diesel locomotive operations. In any case, this sort of scare tactic is no more reasonable than the other flimsy justifications for electrification.

It might make a lot of sense to get rid of Caltrain as an entity and continue operations with a subsidized, private operator. Call Caltrain's silly bluff.


----------



## Rumpled (Apr 23, 2010)

Read the whole article, and I see no explanation of how electrification will slash the deficit. They mention fuel costs (lumped in with operating) as the biggest cost. Certainly, electrification will eliminate a lot of fuel cost; with, I'd guess, a nearly equal increase in electricity costs.

I would like to see an explantion.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 24, 2010)

So wait, electrification (arguably one of Amtrak's biggest capital sink pools) is going to make Caltrain the ONLY profitable commuter rail system in the nation, nay, the world?

To put it in Brooklynese, fuhgeddiboudit.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2010)

Caltrain thinks that electrification will make them more BART like as far as speed and acceleration goes.

Caltrain's financial situation has nothing to do with electrification or lack thereof. It is a problem of the counties supporting it having financial difficulties generally so they plan to cut back their funding of Caltrain.

The county is posturing that they will make the funding zero. On their part Caltrain says if the funding stops, they will cease to operate. This will cause traffic nightmares on US101, and probably overwhelm the bus lines that more or less parallel it. There are carless people here that will have to do something other than drive, so that means bus. The routes that would see the increase in riders don't have a lot of excess capacity.

Therefore, any shutdown will probably be brief and the politicians will somehow find the money to end the chaos that a shutdown would cause.

Caltrain hopes to tie itself to the Calif. HSR for salvation and get its electrification essentially free.

Caltrain expects to be able to run equipment that does not meet FRA "crashworthiness" requirement and still keep the ability to carry the freight that SP kept back when they sold the line.

Many of the on line communities moaning about the added trains and barrier created by the HSR seem to be backing off because they realize that the commuter service is necessary, and they also are thinking that the HSR will be the salvation of the whole thing.

Many of the areas along the line look to the HSR as a source of money to bleed.


----------



## sechs (Apr 25, 2010)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> It might make a lot of sense to get rid of Caltrain as an entity and continue operations with a subsidized, private operator. Call Caltrain's silly bluff.


I'm curious as to why you're so against smart train service.
Why not complain about the millions wasted every year on paper dollar bills, rather than something that actually helps people?


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Apr 25, 2010)

Follow-up story...

Some question if Clatrain's claims valid

"With diesel, Caltrain expects its operating deficit to plunge [read: expand; poor word selection] to $47 million next year and $61 million in 2019, or half the money it needs to operate the current railroad. With electrification, that 2019 deficit will be roughly chopped in half, to about one-fourth of its budget, and will continue to improve each year.

"Here's why: Since electric trains can start and stop faster, Caltrain can run more of its popular commute-time service, get people to their destination quicker and stop at more stations. That way, it expects to eventually double its rider counts, causing revenues to jump nearly 50 percent by the end of this decade.

"Electric trains are also cheaper, so even by expanding the schedule by about two dozen trains, Caltrain expects expenses to stay roughly flat. Most notably, it anticipates saving $10 million per year by buying electricity instead of diesel fuel."


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Apr 25, 2010)

sechs said:


> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> 
> 
> > It might make a lot of sense to get rid of Caltrain as an entity and continue operations with a subsidized, private operator. Call Caltrain's silly bluff.
> ...


This has nothing to do with SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit). That is an entirely separate DMU centered commuter rail proposal.



sechs said:


> Why not complain about the millions wasted every year on paper dollar bills, rather than something that actually helps people?


Because this is a thread on CALTRAIN, and it's far from clear that the needless electrification of this line will help anyone?


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Apr 25, 2010)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Follow-up story...
> Some question if Clatrain's claims valid
> 
> "With diesel, Caltrain expects its operating deficit to plunge [read: expand; poor word selection] to $47 million next year and $61 million in 2019, or half the money it needs to operate the current railroad. With electrification, that 2019 deficit will be roughly chopped in half, to about one-fourth of its budget, and will continue to improve each year.
> ...


I have to question just about every claim made in that article. Since when does it pay to spend $1.3 billion to save $10 million per year?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 25, 2010)

you got to spend money to make money.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Apr 25, 2010)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> Since when does it pay to spend $1.3 billion to save $10 million per year?


Where have you been for the last century? :lol:


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Apr 25, 2010)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> Since when does it pay to spend $1.3 billion to save $10 million per year?


What we have here, folks, is a classic red herring: a question seizing on one facet that's intended to divert attention from the real issue, which is NOT spending $1.3 billion to save $10 million a year. It's this sort of inability to see the forest - in this case the benefits of electrification - for the trees - the high capital expenditures required for construction - that thwarts progress on so many transit projects. Since opponents usually can't buttress their arguments with facts, they resort to building straw men, then gleefully knocking them down. Nowhere have I seen any serious party suggest that the sole justification for Caltrain electrification is saving $10 million/year in diesel fuel costs. And questioning "just about every claim made in that article" is a meaningless exercise unless one is ready and willing to refute those claims with actual contrary facts.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 25, 2010)

Electrification is a beneficial concept, Whooz. I have no doubt about that. However, and its not my money since I don't live in California, I fail to see its benefit as justifying its cost over the relatively limited use it gets here. If CalTrain was a larger operator, I might understand.

Electrification makes sense only in a broad operating change. I fail to see what benefit they get from this that really justifies all of the costs that will be incurred. If Caltrain wants to speed up its train speeds, the track is where they need to be looking. Those MP36 locos can handle 110 mph operation, and so can the cars. If they want to speed things up, they need to speed the track up.

As for spending.. well, electric locos don't offer all that much accelerative advantage over diesels when it comes to engine hauled stuff. The real advantage is in EMUs. But if they think Caltrain is losing too much now, wait until they maintain catenary and EMU cars each to full locomotive specification.

The only real benefit I have ever heard them talking about is "it goes faster". But to make it go faster they will need to spend a mountain of money. Whenever I see people use red herrings to justify their motives, I think back to George Warrington and the mess he made of both Amtrak and NJ Transit with his fakely justified **** reasons for doing all kinds of things that, to anybody who really knows how to run a railroad, makes no sense.

So until CalTrain gives the real reasons that make sense why they wish to electrify this tiny railroad and spend about 3 times what they say they are going to spend (The cars will probably cost a billion alone), I will remain skeptical of the project. When you have real justifications you use them, not put up claims that make limited sense but sound good to idiots.

Until they do that, I think they just want some new toys.


----------



## gswager (Apr 25, 2010)

Caltrains did at full schedule and it has no room to add more round trips, so they need electric locomotives to speed up the schedules.


----------



## Alice (Apr 25, 2010)

This is one transit project that benefits a whole lot more than people who ride it. Specifically, every single person who drives rush-hour 101 on the peninsula at anything faster than jogging speed, benefits.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2010)

> I fail to see its benefit as justifying its cost over the relatively limited use it gets here. If CalTrain was a larger operator, I might understand.


 GML: Limited use may be the New York area perspective, but certainly not the California perspective. I do believe that speed up and increased frequency will increase ridership - significantly.

There is very little to be gained from a 110 mph speed limit, particularly for the off peak service with its frequent stops.

At this point, Caltrain owns 20 trainsets, that is 100 coaches, and operates 90 roundtrips on weekdays. Surely you do not suggest that EMU cars will cost $10 million each, and that no more round trips are possible out of the EMU's than the diesel trainsets.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 26, 2010)

gswager said:


> Caltrains did at full schedule and it has no room to add more round trips, so they need electric locomotives to speed up the schedules.


You're not following me. Locomotive hauled electric sets that would simply replace existing locomotives with electric units are not substantially faster than the types of diesels being used with sets of the small size Caltrain uses. Under that program, speeding up is a myth. Won't happen. Maybe, maybe, maybe, you can add one round trip a day, but I'd be surprised.

Swapping the MP36 and F40 diesels for electric units such as an ALP-46A WILL NOT SPEED UP THE LINE TO ANY USABLE DEGREE. The speed advantage they are talking about, under that plan, is pure bunkum. Much above the power generated by an MP36 or F40, the issue becomes traction, not horsepower. Since electrics are lighter than diesels, they don't have a tractive advantage. A locomotive hauled electric set does NOT have a useful accelerative advantage. They have a higher top speed, but they can't take advantage of that any more than the current power can.

If CalTrain wants to add more trains, they need to add tracks, not electrify. The accelerative advantage comes from EMUs with distributed power. Because they distribute their power over more wheels, they have their weight better distrbuted and can accelrate much faster. CalTrain has 110 cars. They'd have to be replaced with, to add service and account for the additional maintenance required an EMU, 150 cars, lets say. It isn't a purchase of 30 electric locomotives at $5 million each ($150 million), its 150 EMUs at $4 million each ($600 million), plus all of the cost of maintaining electric locmotives (the FRA classes EMU cars as locomotives) for each car, and maintaining all that infrastructure, and building an additional powergrid to handle it.

Electrification does not solve their problems, unless they spend several multiples of what they are advertising. And then add track capacity, which would solve the problem on its own anyway.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Apr 26, 2010)

A better move would be purely administrative: merge Caltrain and BART.

Marrying these two agencies would reduce overhead and simplify ticketing. It would cut costs by merging redundant administrative functions. It would instantly bring BART to the counties that have long resisted it. Instead of having two agencies competing for funds and grants in the same region, there would be one.

In general the U.S. could improve a lot of commuter operations by mergers. I have heard that in some countries you can buy a single ticket and use it on a trip that might include intercity rail, a local commuter rail, and also local transit on busses and trams.


----------



## Alice (Apr 26, 2010)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> I have heard that in some countries you can buy a single ticket and use it on a trip that might include intercity rail, a local commuter rail, and also local transit on busses and trams.


And that includes the SF Bay Area. Use Translink for AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit, and Muni (except cable cars). Other local transit agencies will probably sign on as they get equipment.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 26, 2010)

Alice said:


> SanJoaquinRider said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard that in some countries you can buy a single ticket and use it on a trip that might include intercity rail, a local commuter rail, and also local transit on busses and trams.
> ...


Seattle also has a unified payment system now. One can obtain the ORCA card, which is good on Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail, the South Lake Union Street Car, all buses, and all ferries.


----------



## MattW (Apr 26, 2010)

And Atlanta has the Breezecard which allows for free transfers from Xpress to CCT to GWT to C-TRANS to MARTA rail and bus. The second two agencies (Cobb Community Transit and Gwinnett County Transit) are individually county-controlled and not under direct State jurisdiction as the Xpress bus and MARTA are.


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> If CalTrain wants to add more trains, they need to add tracks, not electrify. The accelerative advantage comes from EMUs with distributed power. Because they distribute their power over more wheels, they have their weight better distrbuted and can accelrate much faster. CalTrain has 110 cars. They'd have to be replaced with, to add service and account for the additional maintenance required an EMU, 150 cars, lets say. It isn't a purchase of 30 electric locomotives at $5 million each ($150 million), its 150 EMUs at $4 million each ($600 million), plus all of the cost of maintaining electric locmotives (the FRA classes EMU cars as locomotives) for each car, and maintaining all that infrastructure, and building an additional powergrid to handle it.


Actually they could do the sort of thing that many other systems have done, which is to continue using the current cars as trailer cars mixed in with power cars, so say build four car units using two current cars and two power cars based on current cars. For those they do not want to spend all $600 million there are ways of reducing that cost. But I agree that with electrification should go acquisition of EMU capability, notwithstanding the bright geniuses at 1 Penn Plaza in Newark NJ. All that I am suggesting is such could be achieved in a more cost efficient way than just bagging all rolling stock they currently have and doing a wholesale replacement.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jun 4, 2010)

Here we go...

Caltrain will cut service in October, raise fares in January

"As for service cuts, officials said there would be some reductions in October, but the bulk would come in mid-to-late 2011, when larger budget problems are projected. That is when SamTrans, San Francisco Muni and Santa Clara VTA are expected to further slash their annual Caltrain subsidies, from a peak of $39 million currently to $11 million.

"Among the options are to eliminate weekend service, which would save $420,000 annually, and halt trains on the Gilroy extension, which would free up the most cash, $770,000.

"Also, the agency could erase from its schedule four midday trains, two in each direction, and save $200,000. Finally, it could stop the first two trains of the day, plus two more after 8 p.m., and save $170,000."


----------

